Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: B & M on March 07, 2006, 04:59:37 PM
-
Just found this bowl while browsing through ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7396205780
As you can see, the seller claims it to be by Jobling though I don't recognise it and it isn't shown in Baker & Crowe. The bowl does have something of a Jobling look about it though in the foot and top rim, etc. but somehow doesn't look right to me.
If anyone knows who made it, I would be very interested to hear. In the meantime I will contact the seller and see how he arrived at the attribution.
Thanks
Steven
-
I notice it has "British Make" on the underside,usually this indicates to me that it is indeed by Jobling.
-
thank you glasswipe! another indication is needed on this one then :o
http://www.pressglas-pavillon.de/tafelaufsaetze/02738.html
-
Pamela - your butterflies bowl is a well-known Bagley piece, although somewhat scarce. Pattern No 3003, launched September 2, 1935 with a full page illustrated advertisement in The Pottery Gazette and Glass Trades Review, along with the 3003 table lamp and the 3008 trinket set.
The 3003 lampshade and bowl were from the same mould. The advertisement shows your bowl as a three-piece flower set with flower block and plinth.
Is there any moulded inscription on the bowl? It is some years since I have had either the lamp or bowl through my hands, and I cannot remember.
Bernard C.
-
http://www.pressglas-pavillon.de/tafelaufsaetze/02738.html
Bernard, thank you, my butterfly is marked
BRITISH MAKE
tried to photograph it - see third picture please
I try to understand:
Rod says in his newly edited 'book': it is Sowerby
glasswipe says: 'British Make' is Jobling
As you, Bernard, even supply the pattern# - I shall move it to Bagley soon accordingly :)
Any objections here from any of you lovely people? :) :oops:
-
This does seem quite confusing, Bagley marked 'British make'? :?
I don't recall seeing such a mark on Bagley but neither did I take it as being solely used by Jobling.
While I have seen some Jobling patterns marked 'British Make' these were items which were introduced prior to the art glass range. In my experience the fircone, oystershell, etc. bowls which the amber Chrysanthemum bowl most closely resemble are all marked with either a reg. number or 'Regn. Applied For' (with the exception of two unmarked bowls from my collection). This was why I didn't feel it fitted in with the rest of the range somehow. Also, I felt that the rather flat central flower motif didn't look right for Jobling given the strength of their other designs from this period.
Pamela, I can see why some would have thought Sowerby for your bowl given its passing resemblance to the butterfly trinket set. It is good to finally have a positive attribution for this piece. I am now wondering whether the amber bowl which started the thread could be Bagley too? I would be interested if anyone can shed any more light on it.
Thanks everyone
Steven :)
-
Pamela, I just noticed from your third picture of the butterfly bowl, the 'British Make' is shown moulded on the frog. Is the bowl marked as well? I am just wondering in case this is a marriage, Bagley bowl paired with a Jobling frog. It certainly seems a possibility given some of the strange combinations I have seen at fairs over the years! :D
Certainly the 3 1/2 inch frog which goes with my Jobling 2621 posy http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-919 looks very similar to yours and is marked with 'British Make' and a moulded number 1 to the underside. Perhaps 'British Make' is exclusively Jobling after all?....... :?
-
Steven, that's great detective work! I did not realize formerly, but you must be right: the frog is 'British make' and the bowl (as far as I can recall) is not marked (have to verify tomorrow when in my museum)
- must be a marriage then! Thank you and all so much! :D
-
Pamela - there should not have been any difficulty with your bowl, as it is both described and pictured in Bowey, Parsons & Parsons, 2004; fully described in Dodsworth, 1987; and is in my set of photocopies of Bagley illustrated advertisements from The Pottery Gazette and Glass Trades Review.
My response was delayed because I cannot access large images pre-formatted in a web page from home, I can only access large images directly in .jpg format, which allows my browser to re-size them. Hence I had a quick look at your web page yesterday at college, when I needed a break from learning MS Access.
I noticed then that your flower block is marked "BRITISH MAKE". That's OK for Bagley, who, from time to time, used all three of "BRITISH MAKE", "BRITISH MADE" and "MADE IN ENGLAND", with "BRITISH GLASS" reserved for clocks, as the clock mechanisms were not British. Is your bowl marked? It would be most unusual if it was marked on the inside, as the same mould was used for a lampshade (danger of relief lettering causing hot spots, cracking the glass). If it is marked it must be on the rim or the outside, although I suspect it is not marked, as Dodsworth would have noted it.
The above was written before seeing the three previous replies.
As for the similarity of the Davidson No. 8 Semi-dome, the Bagley 227 flower block, and the Jobling Flower block, I can't tell the difference with unmarked examples, and I have had many hundreds through my hands. All it indicates to me is that these complex moulds, with the unusual process involved, were all made by the same mouldmaker, probably either Davidson's mouldmaker or a freelance.
I do not believe the block in your 3003 bowl, Pamela, is a later addition. That size is quite scarce, and would be difficult to match on colour.
I hope that helps.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Thanks Bernard. So 'British Make' is OK for Bagley after all. Sorry for confusing the issue Pamela :oops:
The frog certainly does look correct for the bowl, I was just a little unsure given its obvious similarity to my Jobling examples.
Steven :)
-
Hi
Some interesting comments here have you had a look at my posting
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,1819.0.html
This I hope is a link to some questions about Jobling
Tony H in NZ
-
Thanks Bernard. So 'British Make' is OK for Bagley after all. Sorry for confusing the issue ...
Steven - please do not apologise for expressing an opinion! And always remember that my views are just my opinions, and I have been known to get it wrong, more often than you may think!
Tony - thanks for resurrecting that topic, as there were some interesting points made there. I think it has been shown to be unsafe to attribute British Glass purely on the use of expressions such as "BRITISH MAKE", "BRITISH MADE" or "MADE IN ENGLAND" in relief inscriptions.
On the subject of the three glassworks' flower blocks being too similar for it to be a coincidence, I've checked the dates. Bagley was certainly making their 227 block in 1927, which is four years before Davidson's compressed air technique was patented in 1931. Therefore I believe that the "Sag" or "Droop" technique as described in Davidson's 1910 patent was used for all these blocks. See Stewart & Stewart for details.
I doubt whether Davidson would have been willing to supply moulds using their new compressed air technique, which may have been in an experimental stage in 1927. No reason, however, for them not to capitalise on outdated technology. We know that Davidson was quite happy to supply other glassworks such as Walsh and Monart/Liberty with their flower blocks and holders, why not the equipment to make them?
Bernard C. 8)
-
... We know that Davidson was quite happy to supply other glassworks such as Walsh and Monart/Liberty with their flower blocks and holders, why not the equipment to make them?
I had not thought this through fully.
Prior to around 1930, demand for flower blocks from the other pressed glass factories would have been mainly for flint (uncoloured) versions. After 1930, this demand almost completely switched to matching coloured versions - impossible for Davidson to supply.
The alternative is the completely opposite scenario, that they all just copied each other. But were the various mouldmakers capable of this complex work? Baker & Crowe makes reference to problems that the Jobling mouldmakers had with the Franckhauser plaster models, necessitating major modifications, but by this time the Lalique/Franckhauser partnership had produced many successful designs, so one can assume that the problems were on the Jobling mouldmaking side.
When did Davidson's 1910 patent expire?
What other possible scenarios were there?
Bernard C. 8)
-
Bernard - The "Sag" or "Droop" method was the only one used by Davidsons post-WW2. I haven't looked up the compressed air patent which you describe - it may, like the vast majority of patents about anything, have been a non-starter.
Adam D.
-
Adam - Thanks for that information. The implications are quite interesting, but I have not thought them through properly yet.
Steven - I seem to be the successful bidder on the "Jobling" bowl. You may not be aware that I hold a minority view that commenting on eBay auctions can distort the market, hence my silence on your original query.
No such problems now.
While the seller's attribution may be correct, I think this bowl is more likely to be a late pre-war Bagley piece, as we know almost nothing about Bagley's late '30s and 1940 pre-Utility designs. I don't even know when they abandoned this production to concentrate on war work it was probably much earlier than the 1942 extension of the CC41 regulations to cover this type of glass.
I should be able to work it out from the lettering font.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Bernard, congratulations on winning the bowl. I quite understand your views regarding commenting on active auction listings, particularly where there is no conclusive evidence of maker. I look forward to hearing what you find out from the lettering.
I too had a vague suspicion that it might be Bagley, strengthened when you indicated that 'British Make' would be appropriate for some of their items. For me the simply represented flower form looks wrong for Jobling, though hopefully you will be able to find out more when you receive it.
-
I'm reviving this thread as I have recently acquired another of these unknown bowls. I have taken some further photographs, including the 'British make' moulded mark.
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5283
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5284
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5282
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5281
Sadly I don't presently have any confirmed Jobling pieces with the 'British Make' mark with which to compare the marks. If anyone can shed any more light on the piece I would be very grateful.
Dimensions are 8 1/4 inches in diameter at the rim by 3 1/4 iches high. Diameter of foot is 3 7/8 inches.
-
Steven
I have a number of pieces of Jobling in the Weardale pattern all have the Reg No 724094 but one also has BRITSH MAKE which unlike your bowl it is sloping like italics I have tried to photo this but no luck just yet.
Tony H in NZ
-
Steven
I have managed to take 2 photos take a look here.
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5314
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5313
see if this is any help, I have photos in my gallary.
Tony H in NZ
-
Updating this thread as another bowl with the same dimensions and same mark has turned up.
Measures approx, 8 1/4 inches (21 cm) in diamter by 3 1/8 inches (8 cm) tall. The style is very much like that of the amber bowl and it has the same 'British Make' stamp to interior.
Colour is Uranium green.
-
That's definitely a Bagley uranium green. Quite unlike anyone else's. I have a theory that there is either Bagley out there that isn't catalogued (perhaps a retailer contract) or some unknown UK someone else used the same uranium formula. I have one unidentified piece (it turns up regularly in the UK) that matches my Bagley stuff and I have seen and handled another
-
Don't know if it's helpful but I've just realised that I have a footed sugar bowl with British Make on the inside of the bowl. The pic is here: http://yobunny.org.uk/gallery1/displayimage.php?pos=-965 - does anyone recognise this pattern? I don't have a closeup of the mark yet - it's curved around the bowl base - I can add one later if it's helpful.