Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Paul S. on October 28, 2010, 10:11:50 PM
-
I don't seem to have any luck with finding the Inwald catalogues anywhere - I don't see them on Pamela's Master Books??
This looks as though it should be from the 'Lord/Jacobean' range - perhaps a Celery - so grateful if someone can confirm.
Flat ground/polished outer rim to the foot, so I'm guessing pre 1940 - but little wear. 7.25"/172mm tall, and unmarked. There isn't a beans worth of water staining, so I'm thinking never used as a vase. thanks for looking. :)
-
Look in the CD with Marcus' book and you'll find the pre-1958 Rudolfova Hut' catalogue which shows many of the Lord items. (RH was formerly Inwald.)
-
Paul, Mark Hill has a picture of this footed vase on page 9 of Hi Sklo Lo Sklo. There is also a picture of it in Marcus Newhall's book on page 56. It's a Rudolf Schrotter design (Lord range) for Rudolfova/Inwald. Newhall says 1921, Hill says 1922.
Edit: The pattern number from the catalogue is 7604 (190mm diameter) c. 1921
-
oh, gosh, very many thanks to both of you, it was late at night and the brain had obviously gone to bed before me. :-[ And knowing that RH was formerly Inwald I have overlooked - very useful to know this for future possible Inwald pieces. Kept wondering why I couldn't find Inwald catalogues anywhere. I do of course have both books AND the CD, so tonight I will be able to see the details of which you speak.
Anik do you really mean 190MM DIAMETER - might that be the height? thanks again :)
-
I'm also confused about the 'size' -- the catalogue says 190mm, but Marcus has 190mm DIAMETER in his database search thing. Mark Hill writes that his example is 7.5in. :)
-
Size should be 190mm high, if it's a diameter it's shown in the catalogue with the Ø mark alongside the dimension (normally!) If the database says diameter it's a mis-transcription. 190mm = 7½inches as Mark says.
-
190mm = 7½inches as Mark says.
Thank you, Anne. But I must say, though I more often than not give the impression that I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, I'm not THAT thick. :spls:
-
Did I say something wrong Anik?
-
oops... I think I'm just being a little grumpy. :[ Forgive me.
-
Nothing to forgive Anik :kissy: I was just worried I'd offended you in some way.
The business of mm = inches is one which always seems to raise questions cos a lot of us struggle with one of the other (as do I, being older then decimalisation, without my trusty tape measure beside me! :24:)
-
I was just wondering why Paul's vase is shorter than the catalogue size... is it Inwald, pattern number 7604?
-
Paul has a mis-match in his sizes... he says his is " 7.25"/172mm tall " but according to Google's converter, 172 millimetres = 6.77165354 inches (or near enough 6¾") not 7.25" (more properly 7¼"). 7¼" is a smidgen over 184mm, so, methinks we need Paul to confirm what size his vase actually is. :)
-
Anne - my sincere apologies for the conversion error :-[.........I have a very high tech. method of going from metric to imperial (or vice versa)..........I stick my thumb nail on the steel ruler at the metric point, and then simply turn the ruler over to read off the imperial, and usually works reliably. However, obviously I have made a mistake with this one. I am at work presently, but will re-measure this evening, and let you know the result.
P.S. I would not say that Anik gives the impression 'more often than not' that she is a blunt pencil - quite the opposite, I sense an intelligent and enquiring mind i.e. perhaps a 4H. ;)
-
I have re-measured the height of my example and the result (using calipers) is - 184mm/7.25". :)
-
Paul, thank you for re-measuring.
So is 6mm an acceptable or 'normal' difference from the catalogue size? And how can a piece of pressed glass be 6mm taller or shorter than other pieces of the same model? It doesn't make sense. :spls:
-
Sorry, can't really explain the reason for this anomaly. A difference of 1 - 2mm might be an acceptable variation when considering pressed utility items - particularly older pieces. However, 6mm (if that is what it is) does seem rather extreme. In a large factory/works environment, it may well have be that there was more than one mould for a particular pattern - and if this were so then different moulds may well have given rise to a variation on this sort of scale. Of course there is always the possibility of human error - after all just look at my mistake when quoting the height initially. :cry:
-
I'd assume that a glassworks such as Inwald would have more than one mould for a particular pattern. But wouldn't these moulds have been made from a master mould? :-\ I still don't see/understand what would account for a 6mm difference in a pressed glass piece.
I wonder if anyone else has a 7604 vase? It would be nice to know the exact measurement of another 'live' piece.
-
While the vase is pressed, it looks like it may have been flanged (flared) at the rim. This would have been achieved by opening out the top when the glass was hot. Vases with flared rims can vary in height considerably depending on how wide the rim was flanged - obviously the wider the rim, the shorter the vase. This may explain the difference in height.
-
thanks Steven - sounds like a very real possibility. The business of making the metal moulds is another interesting aspect of the process of glass making -and time served pattern makers existed pre1940/50 in their tens of thousands - although now sadly almost all gone. It's a wonderful experience to visit a foundry and see the many shapes of wooden patterns hanging on walls that once made everything from train wheels to the smallest of castings - all from sand impressions. Since the wooden patterns were known for their accuracy then it is more than likely that the variation was created when the glass was still hot.