Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: flying free on January 06, 2011, 06:53:45 PM
-
I have absolutely no idea why I opted to 'save' this, and I'm wondering why someone else opted to save it by having it stapled?
I can't work out whether it is actually silver, but I think at the very least the base is possibly - although I haven't managed to trace the marks on it and they don't appear to be standard British silver hallmarks to me. The lid isn't marked and to me doesn't seem to match the base design, but it fits the pot perfectly and the pot fits the base perfectly. The spoon doesn't seem to be that old, and is probably a marriage I guess, but seems to match the base. Having said all that, overall it does seem to work together as a piece.
I really love it. Can anyone enlighten me on the glass perhaps, possible age, is it cut crystal or glass? does that pattern have a name (windowpane?). All the inside edges around the top are bevelled (or have an arris ;D), the little panes all are bevelled, the glass seems to be beautifully cut to my very inexperienced eye.
It is quite substantial and heavy and the whole piece is 12cm high by 11cm wide (that's the base measurement).
Thanks in advance for any help.
m
-
more pics
-
well I've cleaned it up and it is all silver and I am sure it is all a matching set. :hiclp: The rail around the base is applied with little screws and the handle on the lid is the same. One of the screws on each piece is marked with a 4.
So I guess the glass pot must be crystal. A friend suggested that it may have been one of a pair hence the repair, but I also think that if the metalwork is silver that would have been good reason to have it repaired despite not being able to use it functionally.
I have not managed to id the hallmark. I can find a Birmingham maker with the same mark, but then it would have had English and city marks as well. The little 4 on the screws looks to be a European 4, so perhaps it is European silver?
Just a couple more pics because it is so lovely ;D
-
got it! It's not silver but silver plate, the maker I found was correct - Hukin and Heath Birmingham, but this is their silver plate mark not their silver mark. The maker mark seems to date it to before 1919 so far as I can see, as they appeared to have changed it to a different design after that. It seems they also made designs by Christopher Dresser :rah: - Obviously I'm not suggesting this is, but definitely a quality maker.
Glad I saved it now :D
m
-
not quite sure about the date now. From my research it seems to be that mark also was used in the 30's. Then I found what seemed to be a matching butter dish for sale here - seller states registerd design number 789791 dating to 1934. Mine has a number engraved on the base 1177.
http://www.iauctionshop.co.uk/c1934-hukin-heath-silver-plate-glass-butter-dish-clt90-p-9451.html?osCsid=e120a189d768a92dea90324b6d6bbef5
I have a couple of other observations on this linked dish - 1) the glass dish isn't the same design as mine and doesn't seem to fit into the base properly 2) also the lid isn't the same as mine and doesn't look right on that dish 3) I think mine is the correct lid, and I think that dish should have a lid with the handle like mine to match the base handles.
However this does show that my lid is the right match (I think??) because the handles on that butter dish match my lid.
so glass wise I am no further forward because obviously there must have been a large number of makers of cut crystal/glass around at the time especially around the Birmingham area I would have thought?
onwards and upwards ;D
m
-
We're listening even if we're not responding M! :kissy: It's cleaned up beautifully, it looks amazing now! Bernard has had a few similar queries which seem to have stopped us in our tracks - I think this is an area which would benefit from someone digging into it as there seems precious little solid information about, which is such a shame given how nice these pieces are.
-
thanks Anne :kissy: I knew someone was listening ;D
If you or another of the mods has time, please could we change the title to read 'Hukin and Heath - Christopher Dresser? preserve pot with silver base'. I was hoping perhaps Nigel or Bernard may look in and notice the thread as well. Many thanks.
My thoughts now are:
1) that this could well be a Dresser design or at least an 'after Dresser' design. I can't quite get a handle on definites but the bun feet seem to be one of his markers. Also the design of the rails/base bit, seems to be similar to his letter rack and toast rack.
2) That said I did find a toast rack in this design with the same shape top as my lid (no finial though) and that was not attibuted to Dr Christopher Dresser but just stated Hukin and Heath.
3) From what I've read he did go to Japan early on when he first started designing for Hukin and Heath and this does have a distinct oriental feel to the design.
4) The number 1177 on the base of my piece is not a registered design number I don't think, but may be the design number of Hukin and Heath pieces in their inventory or a design number for Christopher Dresser pieces for Hukin and Heath in their inventory
I did read somewhere all their design records were lost (can't remember whether it said 'destroyed') in the '50's, but that Christopher Dresser designs were registered with the patents office so I may be able to trace it or not (if it isn't his) that way.
5) This is a fabulously well made piece and I am now very sure all the bits are matching. I realised the engraving on the lid also matches the way the glass is cut! ( see pic)
having said all that, it is not stamped with his design mark, and only has the H & H and eagle mark, along with the number 1177.
m
-
I see no reason why it isnt Dresser the metal work looks OK the glass isnt overly ornate , i have recently sold some Dresser pieces to the Brooklyn Museum in New York and another piece to a University in the USA , There is a very good new book out by Christopher Morley called
Dressers Decorative Design , i will have a butchers in the morning .
I have a fair sized collection of Dressers work ,ceramics glass and metalwork . :tof: :hi:
-
:kissy: thank you JP - I was wondering if anyone had a book :)
I really appreciate it.
m
-
Hi i couldnt find an exact match but i have several more Dresser books and catalogues to check , if you send me your email i will let you have Chris Morleys email ,i am sure he can help . jp
-
Hi JP
You should be able to click on the envelope next to my post? and contact me via my email?
if you can't please let me know as you have your email address hidden and I can't contact you.
Many thanks for your help. I do appreciate it. I went to the Library yesterday but there were no books on Dresser pieces nor anything much in any of their design books. I did find Millers 2009 which had I think, a preserve stand but no bottles if I recall correctly, and that had a design no in the 1000's, but was not the same piece as mine.
thanks
m
-
Neither of you have your emails publically viewable. You need to change your profiles.
-
Thanks Christine i didnt notice it was hidden . :kissy: Must be da teknikal gissard
-
Hi JP I've sent you an email now. Many thanks.
And thanks Christine - I haven't worked out how to undo my email yet, but I'll try.
m
-
M. — see Mystery Arts & Crafts Condiment Set in Glass and EPNS (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,22938.0.html) for a similar rod and ball mount, although by Travis, Wilson & Co Ltd of Sheffield and dated 1910, not H&H, together with some discussion on the style.
The glass pot is almost certainly Walsh's Kenilworth pattern, launched 1925, still being produced postwar, and possibly went with the cut glass team to Tudor in 1951. See Reynolds pl.18, figs.58 & 101. I could tell you for certain if I handled it. This goes some way to explaining the staples, as Walsh cut glass was always on the pricey side, making a repair worthwhile. Check for a Walsh or Walsh England mark as sometimes it is very faint indeed. Don't worry if it's not marked — all the Greater Stourbridge glassworks made unmarked cut, much of it for buyers who didn't like marks. Lack of a mark here does not indicate a second.
Hope that helps,
Bernard C. 8)
-
Hi,
Bun feet on silver were by no means exclusive to Christopher Dresser. If Bernard is right, and I believe he is, that the glass is Walsh, and dated 1925 then maybe a re-think is called for?
The chasing in the silver mearly reflects the pattern of cutting on the glass, and IMHO is not a Dresser design I'm afraid.
Like Monsieur L'obbs I have a number of books on Dresser, including the thought provoking one by Chris Morley, and I would tend to drop on the side of not Dresser - but it's always worth checking ;) :)
Nigel
-
I agree with Nigel and Bernard after looking thru the books, the metal work does have similarities and is H&H but not nessesarilly Dresser . A couple of years back i had two pieces dismissed by a couple of experts but those same experts have offered to buy those pieces in the last twelve months as for the glass ,yes it is probably a Walsh Walsh replacment- Kenilworth i believe , i sold an H&H claret jug with the same cut glass the Auction house described the lot as Christopher Dresser, it sold above estimate . :-\
-
thank you all so very much for your fantastic help on this - I really appreciate it :)
So, my thoughts are these:
- I cannot deny that we need to pay some bills and so would love it to be a Dresser piece
hence my keen interest in id'ing ( will have to sell another piece of glass instead ;D ) however,
- even if I hadn't had that small hope that it might be, I would still love to find out something about it as a) it is absolutely outside my realm of collecting and something I would never, ever, usually even look at never mind buy and b) when I bought it, it was one of those instances where my hand just went out automatically and picked it up so it clearly had 'wow' factor somehow.
So, if I forget the bills that need paying and just concentrate instead on having some fun, this is what I've come up with:
Against
1) I agree that there are many makers who have made similar pieces with the rail and ball, the bun feet etc
2) There are some nice touches to this piece that presumably reflect the fact it was made by a good designer somewhere along the line but also could just reflect a good maker
3) I can see that there are marked similarities with the butter dish metal base that apparently has an RD no 789791 - which according to that seller is for year 1934 - it does look to be the same design as my base. And from the metal base on that dish it seems my lid is the correct match as the handles on my lid seem to match the handles on that butter dish base.
4) The glass jar on mine seems to work very well with the shape of the metal base (the glass pot has the corners cut off and left plain which seems to work in my holder) and the date Bernard has given for it being Walsh Kenilworth , the design of which dates to 1925 and that was still being produced in 1934, would support that date of the registered design 1934 above
5) I have found another Hukin and Heath piece (cruet with cut glass bottles in wood base with silver banding, bun feet and handle, marked H&H) with a similar handle to my lid and the bun feet, and is not attributed to Dresser. the lids on the glass pieces in this date to 1872. Of course they may be a marriage with the box base.
http://www.kaminskiauctions.com/dec29p2.htm
scroll down a few and the picture is there
6) my base piece is not marked with the Dresser mark or a registered design no, and the lid and spoon are not marked at all
For:
1) The serial/design number on my base is 1177. As far as I can see this would be an early serial number, if it were related to Dresser serial/design numbers for Hukin and Heath. The design numbers for the Dresser designs for Hukin and heath that I have found, go back to 1000 numbers, one of which is number 1867 on a condiment set registered design for year 1878.
Christopher Dresser's assocation with Hukin and Heath started in 1877 if what I have read is correct? Therefore this could be an early design by him dating to around 1877/1878. I cannot fathom why a piece produced by Hukin and Heath in 1934 would have a number of 1177 on the back when they had been in business , what, c.80yrs then? So it doesn't fit in with it being one of their own design/serial numbers either unless it makes it a really early piece in their own inventory, which I think is unlikely?
2) my piece does not have a registered design number on it at all. Merely the H&H plate stamp plus the serial/design number. Could it be an earlier piece before his designs were registered ? Why does it not have a rd design number on it?
3) From the silver hall marks I found, if I read it correctly it appears to me H&H used this mark 1881-1882 and 1823 - 37 with the H&H appearing separately in ovals (I got the dates wrong in my previous posts)- would this translate to the silver plate mark of the H & H all being separately within ovals?. If so it would support against it being 1877/8 then I guess (amended post) but I'm not sure the marks will translate to silver plate being marked in the same way.
4) The base box in the linked piece could be a marriage and made later than the jars- but I have doubts it would be a 1930's marriage with jars that date to 1872. So could the jars and lids be a marriage? If they are originally with each other, then this box could be an 1870's piece which would support my preserve pot being an earlier design (though not necessarily a Dresser design granted)
5) If I have read JP's reply correctly (and apologies if I have misunderstood), this could be a replacement glass piece in my set. An old repair, but perhaps on a reaplacement piece anyway?
Any further comments very much welcomed - do my arguments make sense? :wsh: ;D
thanks again
m
-
Bernard, I have examined it in detail and as far as I can see it's not marked which is a shame.
Everyones help has been invaluable, and I hope you don't think by my response that I haven't been listening to your comments - I am just querying the odd things that occur to me about this piece and I'm not ready to ascribe it to 1934 at the moment ;D
m
-
OK, lets look at your suggestions under "For".
It is quite possible for a company to produce a design for long, even extended periods of time - especially if it has been a good seller. This would make it possible for an item to have a serial, or design number on the base that dates from much earlier, but not a registration mark.
It is probable that the marks on the silver (plate) have nothing to do with the glass, although logically since the design matches one would imagine that it was correct (possibly making the other piece you have linked to having the wrong glass?).
If I have read it correctly, I'm afraid I don't understand the reference to 80 years of a company's existence as being relevant, surely it is the date of the item that matters?
It is a given to assume replacement glass when it comes from a later date to the item in question, but just because the glass comes form an earlier date it doesn't necessarily mean it is right. It is quite possible that items made in earlier times (in this case glass), in a particular tradition, are likely to fit. However, given the strong pattern linking the silverplate and the glass on your piece it would at least suggest that the two are matching and original, since it is difficult enough to find replacements that fit, without having to match the pattern. I guess that it is also possible for the glass to be changed if made over a period of time, since suppliers may well change, however this glass looks a dead ringer to me.
I'm am deliberately being a devil's advocate here since it is so very easy to fall into the trap of believing what you want something to be, rather than accepting what is likely to be true. Believe me, we have all done it!! Keep an open mind, whilst still hoping for the best, or, if selling, list, describe, and let the market decide.
Whatever you decide, good luck :)
Nigel
-
I have to agree with Nigel about wanting or hoping for a particular attribution, it can easily sway your opinion, it's a bit like wearing blinkers. It keeps happening to me...... ;D
John
-
Not all Dresser items fetch a high price at the moment ,for instance the pieces i sold to the Brooklyn Museum of Decorative Arts went for the opening bid . not a lot .
-
thanks all :kissy:
Just for the record, as I said earlier on in the thread, I'd love it to be a Dresser design because then it might have paid the lecky bill, but honest guv, I'm not trying to make it into something it's not ;D not even in my head ;) It's just there is an unanswered question regarding a valid point I made about the age of the serial/design number on the base of this piece.
Nigel it seems we are agreeing are we not - quote
'It is quite possible for a company to produce a design for long, even extended periods of time - especially if it has been a good seller. This would make it possible for an item to have a serial, or design number on the base that dates from much earlier, but not a registration mark.
i.e my base could have been designed many years earlier than 1934.
Whilst I agree the lid and the glass appear to be a correct match (and would therefore date to 1925 onwards using the glass as the date, and perhaps 1934 using the butter dish base with handles registered design to affirm this), the serial number on the base of my piece remains something to be investigated in terms of when it was designed. I am thinking that the glass and lid could have been designed and made to fit (as a deliberate design by H&H) into a base that was designed many years earlier.
The butter dish registered design date would answer that question, but I don't know what the parameters and latitudes are of a registered design. What I mean is, if the design for my base was registered years earlier, would the adaptation of it, by the addition of handles (for the butter dish), denote a new design, and therefore require it to be registered in it's own right as a new design, hence that butter base having a registered design number for 1934. If the answer to that is no, then I guess I have to admit defeat.
I will contact the registered designs office on Monday and see if I can trace the number somehow :)
JP thanks- until I have answered my question I think I have no intention of selling it. And even then perhaps not, because without the association of Dresser I suspect the value on these things is not high (or not high enough to pay for the amount of electricity we are consuming ::) )
thanks for all your help everyone, much appreciated.
m
-
RD 789791 was registered by Hoskins, Rose and Co. on 8 February 1934). Items from that RD number were presumably made in Czechosovakia because they appear as part of the Libochovice # 146X series (see their catalogue pre-1958 on the Newhall Sklo-Union CD-ROM.
See the GMB discussion on a lidded box or dish in the pattern (quite possibly an example of the ‘butter dish’ referred to in relies #4 and #22) at
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,54940.new.html#new
Fred.
-
Thank you Fred
I'm not sure how this ties in with the cut glass jar in my piece though? I'm a bit confused.
Apart from date where Bernard has given a date on the jar pattern from Walsh Walsh.
I think the glass on my piece is different to the glass in the butter dish isn't it?
m
-
RD 789791 was referred to in reply #4 and reply #22, presumably as guide to possible date of your piece.
Fred.
-
Thanks Fred
The link's not working now as the butter dish has been removed, but I recall on rereading, that I thought the glass of that butter dish was not original to and was a marriage to the metal holder.
Or I suppose it is possible Hukin and Heath used pressed glass Czech butter dishes and also cut glass Walsh Walsh pieces for their inserts? That feels a bit strange - one feels like a high quality item (and someone cared enough about my jar to have it repaired with staples), and the other is I presume a mass produced pressed glass item? Would Hukin and Heath have been producing that kind of variety with their items?
m
-
As far as I am aware, Hukin & Heath were always regarded as manufacturers of high quality items, and I would have though that using Czech pressed glass inerts was not in line with their image or marketing ethos.
Fred.