Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Paul S. on April 12, 2011, 01:48:14 PM
-
has some quality, and is cased in clear, albeit not particularly thickly - and with a very central and quite deep ground/polished pontil mark. Height is about 9.75"/250mm - and plenty of wear on the base. No marks that I can see - Anyone think it might possibly be Webb's? Thanks for looking :)
-
quite why I thought it was Webb, I can't now remember - but just found this whilst looking for something else, and had made my mind up a while back, after getting a copy of Susan Tobin's book, that it had to be a Wedgwood cylinder vase. I'm thinking it's RSW 20/2 or possibly 3 - in amethyst. Just thought that it would be useful to have a confirmation in case anyone else searches and finds the thing. Grateful if one of the Wedgwood people would confirm please. thanks :)
-
Wedgwood was my first thought Paul - I have two of the narrower versions of this but not in amethyst, I have a Topaz and a Blue.
The colour does look right though for Wedgwood Amethyst
One of mine is unmarked, the other has the wedgwood etched mark in the polished pontil mark.
I think you have it right.
JAK
-
thanks JAK - I think we're both right :) I do have Wedgwood cylinder vases in cranberry, also in what I believe is called 'Opal White' - but what probably threw me was the fact that there is nothing in the book (in any of the vase shapes) in amethyst - plus this one doesn't have the back stamp. Otherwise it does tick all the boxes.
-
I don't have the book so I don't know if this is correct, but I do know that not all the Wedgewood candleholders had backstamps, so possibly some of the vases didn't either - perhaps just a label.
Or perhaps it was a Kings Lynn piece? I'm not sure on dates or designs on that though. There is a Moon Crater vase in Andy Mcconnells 20th century glass that is this colour but only 18cm tall - made in 1968 -1970.
There is also a Lemington vase shown on page 229 that is this shape but I cannot make out if there are any sizes listed in the catalogue ad. Amethyst was used at Lemington.
m
-
I agree - I have Sherringham candle holders and textured vases (moon crater) without the backstamp and ones with the Wedgwood or Kings Lynn stamp. I can't say if Paul's piece is Wedgwood but it looks OK.
Adam
-
thanks for all the replies :) Comments about the presence (or otherwise) of backstamps and labels got me looking at some of my examples to see just what sort of marks they are showing.
Looking at my total of 22 candlesticks/holders that would have been King's Lynn products designed by RSW, these include examples of Sheringham - Sandringham and Brancaster, plus three examples of the squat candleholder/vases RSW 58 (not shown in Tobin's book, but in Miller's). I also have a pair of the 'Helix' candlestick, although I do appreciate that this design is not RSW, but I've thrown it in as it's a similar type of article.
The majority - fifteen pieces - show a backstamp of 'Wedgwood/England' placed on the underside of the foot (roughly in the centre). One of the 'Helix' sticks carries a gold coloured oval shaped label with WEDGWOOD over ENGLAND.
Four pieces are devoid of any markings/labels, and these are 3 Sheringham's and 1 Brancaster.
One of RSW58 holders/vases is without a backstamp, but does have the older paper label showing the word WEDGWOOD in the shape/colour of a horseshoe, underscored with the word ENGLAND.
The final two pieces - one each of Sandringham and Sheringham - in addition to the backstamp of WEDGWOOD/ENGLAND also carry the Portland Vase logo.
Coming to RSW vases - I have only two of the colour combination pieces (RSW 103), neither of which carry any backstamp or label.
As for the Cylinder vases (RSW 20) - the amethyst is entirely without marks/labels as discussed above - the cranberry piece carries WEDWOOD/ENGLAND plus the Portland Vase logo - and finally the White Opal example carries only the original 'horseshoe' coloured paper label. I guess also that in the space of 40 years, or whatever, paper labels can go awol.
So it seems there was definitely a proportion of these products that were retailed without any markings/labels. My humble opinion re the cylinder vases is that they are not too difficult to id - the problems I had with my amethyst example were simply that in my earlier ignorance of RSW pieces (and not having Susan Tobin's book), plus the complete absence of any marks/labels - I was simply unaware of the variety of RSW products. I don't have a problem with the amethyst cylinder being RSW - at least insofar as Tobin's book includes this colour for the RSW20 pattern, but if it can be proven otherwise.......... :)
Over the past 3 - 4 years I have had a variety of animals - mostly now given away - but somewhere in the recesses of the sheds there are examples of a polar bear, snail, owl, porpoise, mushrooms, apples and pears etc. and I seem to remember they do mostly have backstamps, although none has, for me the same interest as the sticks or vases - I think it's only Rosie that collects these wee creatures. ;) I have a pale citrine coloured uncut decanter that carries both the words and vase logo - although I don't see it in Tobin's book (the lady did admit that the book is not comprehensive).
Might we now add this thread to British Glass? :)
-
Paul, sorry I may be missing something here. Does it match your other marked vases for size? If so and they are marked Wedgwood then I guess it probably it is a Wedgwood vase. However, my point was, not that it wasn't probably a Ronald Stennett Willson design, but that this colour was used at both Kings Lynn and Lemington and this shape appears in a Lemington catalogue but without a size. So I was just wondering which one of these it is.
for information re marks
ref Andy McConnells book 20th century glass, page 230-
that horseshoe label was used in 1969
The sandblasted Portland vase mark was used from 69-71.
m
-
you're missing nothing, I'm sure m - probably me that's a bit short on knowledge. Unfortunately, all three of my cylinders are different heights - and I have no idea how much variation there might have been at the factory - with either Lemington or Wedgwood. Sometimes manufacturers quoted sizes are nominal only (as with some Dartington pieces), and in reality there can be quite a difference in measurements. My cylinders are: White - 10"......amethyst - 9.3/4" and cranberry - 9", and unfortunately, Susan Tobin doesn't quote the full range of heights for this range - so I'm no wiser there. The same situation is with Miller's - I can see the Lemington cylinders shown on page 229 but there's isn't any accompanying data to indicate sizes (or colours). My white and cranberry examples are unquestionably Wedgwood......but looks as though we are still not quite at the 100% stage on the amethyst example. Do you know if amethyst was the only colour produced (for cylinder vases) under both factory names, or were there others? :)
-
needs further investigation but I'm rushed at the mo however, page 330 Charles Hajdamach 20th century British Glass, plate 696 shows a white cylinder vase from the Kings Lynn catalogue 1967 , 10" height and states that 'Both are recycled Lemington shapes...'
Plate 700 - page 332 shows fruit bowls designed at Kings Lynn, in the colours Steel, Amethyst and Topaz (CH 20th century British Glass)
but also on Page 228 Andy McConnell 20th Century Glass, shows storage jars designed by RSW for Lemington 1959-1960 in the colours Steel, Amethyst and Honey.
So steel and amethyst appear to be names used in both places (not sure about Wedgwood)
-
Oh, what a thicky - I had foregotten completely about Hajdamach's book - sorry. It's what comes of having too many books :-[ I'll look tomorrow, and thanks again.
-
unfortunately, I don't own any Lemington cylinder vases with which to make comparisons. If you read Hajdamach, it appears that the Lemington cylinders - in steel, amethyst and gold - were produced in three sizes of 10", 9" and 8" - the tallest being identical to the largest K.L. size. The fact that my amethyst is 9.3/4" could be either that it was a Lemington piece intended to have been a 10" one, and the blower had an off day - or, as Lemington didn't make this size then it has to be a K.L. production. Either way, don't think I can say anymore - other than, looking carefully at the pix of Lemington cylinders in Hajdamach, it looks almost that the rims were ground/polished, as opposed to K.L. cylinders which I believe are all fire polished. Again, it could be my eyes, but the Lemington examples - in the book - seem to show only mould blown bases, not ground pontils as I think all the K.L. ones show. Need someone to comment please, who has a few of the earlier Lemington examples.