Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Topic started by: Gary on April 30, 2012, 07:45:53 PM
-
Whilst viewing the Perth museum Monart collection, I took these pictures of this inkwell. What I would like to know is this a Salvador or Paul Ysart inkwell, the base is green.
Gary
-
***
I don't think it is by Paul - but what does Kevin think - that's the important question?
Alan
-
... what does Kevin think - that's the important question?
Actually the really important question is whether anyone knows of actual evidence of whether any bottles like the one shown were made prewar!
Current accepted ideas are that bottles of this shape and with the striped neck and well patterning are by Salvador Ysart. This is based on a) confirmation by Paul Ysart that a bottle of the same shape and with striped neck and well was "one of dad's" and b) at least three examples seen in later years of similar bottles with a "Y" cane in both the stopper and the base.
Another similar bottle is illustrated (in b&w) in British Glass Between the Wars and the text with that is a source of information that suggested it was made in the 1930s as a personal gift for somebody. I bought that bottle at the Christie's sale of Ian Turner's Monart collection and after speaking with Ian, I was happy that the text was only hearsay and that probably 95% of similar bottles were actually made post-war at the Ysart Brothers company (trading name Vasart) and generally referred to by collectors as Vasart.
-
These two pictures were taken at an earlier visit to Perth museum and were describe by the museum as Monart post war advertisement material. The inkwell shape is very like the one in my earlier post, the door handle has a PY cane in it.
Gary
-
The bottle in the b&w photo is by Paul Ysart, which would tie in with the museum description of post-war Monart. The shape is similar to the Salvador / Vasart bottles but the important point is that it is the shape plus the striping in the neck & well (and the stopper shank) that mark bottles of this type as Salvador / Vasart.
Other than that, without getting into cane analysis, it is usually the size of the bottle and stopper that is the next best indicator of Paul Ysart bottles which tended to be larger than those of Salvador / Vasart. But it's not quite that simple. Sizes vary within both Paul's and the Salvador / Vasart bottles.
Another point is that (probably) most Paul Ysart bottles have a clear neck & well (and stopper shank). But there are several known that are decorated in those sections. However, I have never yet seen or heard of a Paul Ysart bottle with the striping as in the Salvador / Vasart examples.
And although the majority of Salvador / Vasart bottles do have striping in the neck & well, there are some that have clear glass in those sections. Some folk have thought these must be by Paul Ysart, but the canes (and other features) show them to be of the Salvador / Vasart type.
----
The PY doorknob is a good example of something that is rarer than his inkwells!
-
Thanks Kevin for your concise and informative reply.
Gary
-
Actually the really important question is whether anyone knows of actual evidence of whether any bottles like the one shown were made prewar!
I have just purchased this Salvador Ysart ink bottle at my local auction house in Perth.
The provenance of this particular ink bottle would certainly point towards it being a pre war piece. This is the quote from the auction house catalogue "Alexander G. Hendrie, Supervisor/Works overseer at Mocrieff Glass for 47 years, retired 1961. The present lot was formed part of a display housed in the Shore Works, Shore Road, Perth and was gifted on retirement".
The vendor was the grandson of A Hendrie.
The collection consisted of pre and post war Monart vases, bowls and an ashtray, also there was two Paul Ysart paperweights, one with a label P/W 17 and my ink bottle.
My one is on a purple base, with 2 rows of canes and a scrambled middle.
Gary
-
Thanks for that, Gary.
My thinking, just to get things straight in my mind ...
Within that info, perhaps there is evidence supporting a pre-war date for the bottle. The book Ysart Glass tells us that the "Shore Works" were owned by Moncrieff's but "became disused during the 1930s depression" [i.e. Great Depression 1930-1]. The buildings were occupied post-war by the Ysarts when they formed Ysart Brothers Glass (Vasart) in 1946.
So, can we suggest a date for the "display housed in the Shore Works"? It is feasible that the display could have been before 1930, but presumably a few years or so after the start of the Monart glassware? Yes, that could be feasible. Could the display have been during the depression years? Maybe.
Or how about after the depression years? Did the buildings remain unused from 1930/1 through to 1939 (and then on to 1946)? And if so, would they have been a fit place to "house a display"? Maybe.
And one other question ... where would the bottle have been kept between "sometime pre-war" and 1961 when it was gifted to Mr Hendrie on his retirement?
...
Any other points or thoughts folks?
-
Moncreiff Glass had from the 1920's two distinct buildings in the harbour area - 1/ Shore Works and the Tay Works buildings, so to that extent the YSART GLASS information is out of date. I have no idea what dates they were in use, hopefully at a later date I will go to Perth library to do some research, as they have boxes of Moncrieff Glasswork archives.
This is only circumstantial evidence re A Hendrie, in the Moncrieff Glassworks list employees ledger it shows a A Hendrie starting in 1915.
By 1921 there appears in the ledger a new department named "Hendries Dept " and in the main it seems to be school leavers (14 to 15 years old) who are enrolled into this department.
This would tie in with his position as work overseer.
But the main point is, not where it was displayed (though important) but that it was given to A Hendrie on his retirement from Moncrieff Glassworks, so it begs the question, why would Moncrieff Glass have this ink bottle,on display and given as retirement gift, if it was a Vasart piece.
Gary
-
My question would be "was he gifted the whole of this collection on retirement" - it seems quite a lot to be gifted - or was SOME of it a retirement gift and other parts collected by him over time?
As we all know, stories about grandads / grandmas things can often be a part of the truth, but not necessarily the absolute truth!
Just to add - whoever made it it is a lovely thing, and I thought one of the nicest pieces from the auction :)
-
My question would be "was he gifted the whole of this collection on retirement" - it seems quite a lot to be gifted - or was SOME of it a retirement gift and other parts collected by him over time?
As we all know, stories about grandads / grandmas things can often be a part of the truth, but not necessarily the absolute truth!
Just to add - whoever made it it is a lovely thing, and I thought one of the nicest pieces from the auction :)
To reply to your first question Roberta, he was gifted the whole collection on his retirement (hearsay from his grandson) which is not a great present after 46 years service (no information of any other retirement present), what you have to remember, these pieces cost Moncrieff literally a few pounds to make. Also at that time 1961 Monart was running down production and was no longer considered of any use.
I have no idea if he collect Ysart glass before or after his retirement.
It is definitely IMHO by Salvador Ysart, thanks Roberta it was the piece I really wanted from the sale.
Gary
-
Hi everyone,
As he said, Gary's bottle was sold at Lindsay Burns on Wednesday where a collection of mostly Monart items was auctioned. The auction room included the following for all the items in the collection:
Provenance: Alexander G. Hendrie, Supervisor/ Works overseer at the Moncrieff Glass for 47 years, retired in 1961. The present lot was formed part of a display housed in the Shore Works, Shore Road, Perth and was gifted on retirement.
This was placed under 14 glass items included in the sale (from lot 374E to to lot 374R). Still, I am sure that the attribution was wrong for one paperweight lot - lot 374H:
http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/lindsay-burns-and-company/catalogue-id-srli10006/lot-a0b51ac8-29fd-484a-a609-a4760103b041
This was Ysart bros or early Strathearn but never a Monart paperweight.
In view of all that, I am not so sure that we ought to rely too much on the statement of provenance. As Roberta says, time does all sorts of things to our family stories.
It is a lovely, lovely bottle anyway.
SophieB
-
Thanks everyone for the extra comments and questions.
I agree with Gary that the purple base inkwell with purple striped neck is a Salvador Ysart item.
I agree with Sophie that the Lot 374H (octagonal paperweight) was not a Monart item. But I do not think it would have been Ysart Brothers - more likely either Vasart Ltd or, as Sophie says, Strathearn. It was difficult to tell from the auction photos whether the weight was one of the range of moulded ones or was faceted.
I think the auction wording "... present lot was formed part of a display ..." was ambiguous. What did they mean by "was formed part of"? Perhaps it was supposed to mean that all of the lots from Mr Hendrie's collection formed the full display; but it could equally have meant that all of those lots formed part of the display
I agree that Gary's point: ... why would Moncrieff Glass have this ink bottle,on display and given as retirement gift, if it was a Vasart piece
is the main indication of a pre-war attribution for the bottle. My own thoughts earlier were deliberately avoiding that part of the reasoning, in order to see if all of the other information could fit with a pre-war production.
-
Hi Kevin,
I don't think I will ever be able to recognise Ysart bros from Vasart Ltd ???. Many thanks for the correction :)
Could you give me some pointers to help distinguishing them?
And to answer your question, the paperweight was moulded.
SophieB
PS: Sorry! Gary, I had not read properly and had not realised that you had already quoted the auction description... Oups!
-
I suppose it's a bit off topic, but ... just for Sophie (and anyone else I guess) ...
How to Distinguish Ysart Brothers Weights from Vasart Ltd.
1. Make sure in your own mind that it is "Ysart type"
2. Make sure in your own mind that it is not a PY weight
3. Use a shortwave uv lamp - if the reaction is Blue it's Vasart Ltd or later. Otherwise it's Ysart Brothers (first period Vasart) [or perhaps a pre-war Monart period by Salvador!!]
Easy ;D
-
Question - if Gary's gorgeous inkwell is pre-war - could some of the ones assumed to be Ysart bros/Vasart also be pre-war? As we know canes can be used over a long period, so ones that Salvador used at Monart, could he also have used later? Does the UV reaction therefore become the best way to date these? (does this work on glass same as the paperweights?)
Also, is there any evidence that Salvador and Paul both used the same canes at Monart whilst working together?
Are there any definitive answers to the above?
(Sorry had a glass of wine now ;D ;D)
-
Hi Roberta,
I have been investigating all of those questions for many years. I recently added a request under the British & Irsih Glass forum: Attention all MONART collectors ... (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,59584.0.html) in the hope of covering some of the ground once again.
To answer your questions, my understanding / observations so far are:
1. If there is any definite proof of an assumed Vasart item actually being a pre-war piece, then yes, some of the many other items might also be pre-war.
2. There are known pre-war Ysart canes that are used post-war in Vasart items and on through Strathearn and in "unknown maker" work, too.
3. The uv tests will work on any item that has enough clear glass to show a reaction. But for non-paperweights, it is often only by looking at the edges where clear glass shows that a uv reaction can be seen. But the uv reaction of pre-war Monart and Vasart items is pretty much the same!
4 a) For pre-war Monart non-paperweight items, the same canes were certainly used by all of the Ysart men. This is a simple consequence of their production routine where each of them had a particular role - with main shaping by Paul and finishing by Salvador.
4 b) I have evidence, from examination of paperweights, that a number of canes can be found in both Paul's and the other family members' post-war work. This strongly suggests that although Paul (and perhaps Salvador) had "personal canes" pre-war, they probably did get "shared". I suspect that when Ysart Brothers Glass was started, lots of canes, including some thought be personal to Paul, were just picked up and taken to the new venture. And ... Some of the canes in Vasart items that are said to be "Salvador personal canes" are also known in Paul's paperweights ... with the most likely explanation being that they are pre-war canes that migrated to "both sides of the family".
-
Hi Kevin,
Many thanks for all these explanations.
With regard to the distinction Ysaert Bros/Vasart, I may be able to do stages 1 & 2 (more or less successfully), but cannot do step 3 at all (at least not at the moment). So I will have to ask... you ;D
SophieB
-
Hi everyone,
As he said, Gary's bottle was sold at Lindsay Burns on Wednesday where a collection of mostly Monart items was auctioned. The auction room included the following for all the items in the collection:
This was placed under 14 glass items included in the sale (from lot 374E to to lot 374R). Still, I am sure that the attribution was wrong for one paperweight lot - lot 374H:
http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/lindsay-burns-and-company/catalogue-id-srli10006/lot-a0b51ac8-29fd-484a-a609-a4760103b041
This was Ysart bros or early Strathearn but never a Monart paperweight.
In view of all that, I am not so sure that we ought to rely too much on the statement of provenance. As Roberta says, time does all sorts of things to our family stories.
It is a lovely, lovely bottle anyway.
SophieB
I agree totally what you say, it was not a Monart paperweight, even with my limited knowledge of paperweights, I did say to Nick Burns ,prior to the sale I did not think that was a Monart paper weight, one cannot rely on family stories and it is a lovely bottle :)
The only definite way of proving if these type of ink bottles are pre war, is if a labeled piece ever turned up and to date none has, to my knowledge.
Gary
-
The only definite way of proving if these type of ink bottles are pre war, is if a labeled piece ever turned up and to date none has, to my knowledge.
Yes - except if a label has been reapplied incorrectly by a collector or auction house after falling off another item. Actual proof, beyond doubt, is so difficult.
But maybe one day an article will be found, in something like a magazine or newspaper showing a pre-war date, that clearly illustrates ink bottles of this type. One main problem we have is that inkwells never appeared in the Monart catalogues, although they were clearly based on shapes of one or two Monart scent bottles.
-
My question would be "was he gifted the whole of this collection on retirement" - it seems quite a lot to be gifted - or was SOME of it a retirement gift and other parts collected by him over time?
As we all know, stories about grandads / grandmas things can often be a part of the truth, but not necessarily the absolute truth!
Just to add - whoever made it it is a lovely thing, and I thought one of the nicest pieces from the auction :)
mmmm funny I said the same thing to someone the other day that theres no way he was presented with all these pieces at one time and several being same shape and similar colourways etc
-
Mmmm , strange that Mr Millar........ ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
Said it was one if the nicest pieces though whenever Salvador (most probably) made it!
-
;D
-
. One main problem we have is that inkwells never appeared in the Monart catalogues, although they were clearly based on shapes of one or two Monart scent bottles.
I believe you are wrong Kevin in your view that Monart did not have a catalogued inkwell shape.
Shape T in the Monart catalogue is in my opinion an inkwell, I agree is is difficult to tell from the image in the Monart catalogue, if it is a scent bottle or an inkwell.
The link below shows what in opinion is a Monart shape T.
http://www.weights-n-things.com/en/archive/modern-paperweights/europe/ysart-paul/onion-spire-inkwell-py-cane.html
Gary
-
Thanks Gary. You may be correct. What we need is confirmation from somebody (or several somebodies) with a confirmed shape T bottle.
I think the deciding factor is whether the body of a bottle is fully hollow or if it has a small "well" below the neck and solid glass (with or without internal decoration) below the "well". If it is fully hollow, then I think it would be for scent. If it has a "well" section, it would be an inkwell.
I believe the criteria of "hollow or not" could, and should, be applied to any Moncrieff catalogue bottle of shapes: T, VB, WB, HE, IE, RE, PF, ZG, KH, SI and EJ.
-
Thanks Gary. You may be correct. What we need is confirmation from somebody (or several somebodies) with a confirmed shape T bottle.
I think the deciding factor is whether the body of a bottle is fully hollow or if it has a small "well" below the neck and solid glass (with or without internal decoration) below the "well". If it is fully hollow, then I think it would be for scent. If it has a "well" section, it would be an inkwell.
I believe the criteria of "hollow or not" could, and should, be applied to any Moncrieff catalogue bottle of shapes: T, VB, WB, HE, IE, RE, PF, ZG, KH, SI and EJ.
I am of the opinion the ink bottle discussed in this thread (link below) is a Monart shape T. Without a Monart label with a shape code it would be difficult confirm 100% the shape.
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,47603.msg268031.html#msg268031
I agree with your parameters of defining an inkwell bottle and scent bottle.
On the shapes you mention, shape T has a "well" therefore an ink bottle. Shapes VB,WB, KH, SI, EJ, and ZG are unclear from the images in the Monart catalogue wether they are inkwells or scent bottles.
Shapes PF, HE and IE are hollow and are scent bottles.
Gary
-
I'm puzzled by the discussion above. I look at the stopper when deciding if I have a scent or an inkwell. A short stopper goes with an inkwell, an elongated stopper is a scent bottle. Further, I would expect the capacity of a scent to be smaller, but that is not always the case. You could also consider the design. A floral design lends itself to a scent.
Just another opinion. I realize the glass makers themselves may have labeled them differently.
-
I'm puzzled by the discussion above. I look at the stopper when deciding if I have a scent or an inkwell. A short stopper goes with an inkwell, an elongated stopper is a scent bottle. Further, I would expect the capacity of a scent to be smaller, but that is not always the case. You could also consider the design. A floral design lends itself to a scent.
Just another opinion. I realize the glass makers themselves may have labeled them differently.
All my comments in this thread have and are related to Ysart inkwells or scent bottles.
I look it from a different angle, I look at the capacity the item can hold to decide if it is an inkwell or scent bottle.
The capacity of a scent bottle is invariably larger.
Could you explain why the shape of the stopper determines if it is a scent bottle or an inkwell.
See photos below.
The first image is a scent bottle and the second is an inkwell.
-
***
Did anyone really use these bottles for ink or scent? I doubt it very much. Surely the names are just notional, and so you call them what you wish?
Alan
-
Allan's thought was:
A short stopper goes with an inkwell, an elongated stopper is a scent bottle.
An "elongated" (pointed) stopper was used in all of the (few) PY example inkwells I have seen that look like the "Shape T" bottle in the catalogues. The body of those PY bottles all had a regular millefiori ground and a small well section below the neck.
Gary confirmed: ... shape T has a "well" therefore an ink bottle
Thanks Gary. When I looked at the two copies of catalogues that were sold in an auction near me a while ago, I did not note the "well" section in the shape T item - hence my point about having not seen any confirmed evidence of pre-war inkwells.
And I have noted that, in the catalogue details, shapes VB and EJ are the only others that are shown with an elongated stopper, but their body shapes strongly suggest being hollow blown. So, unless the elongated stoppers were sometimes used in other bottle shapes, I am left with just shape T as the evidence of a pre-war inkwell.
I guess I really should check my research copy photos and make a note of the canes used in those shape T bottles!
-
Thanks Gary, Kevin, and Alan.
I had the impression that a perfume bottle will often have a long pointed stopper so the owner can dip into the perfume and then touch (dab) the perfume to whatever body part is to be scented.
Just an observation. I'm not a collector of scent bottles. I agree there is no consistency among paperweight related objects.
Allan
-
***
Did anyone really use these bottles for ink or scent? I doubt it very much. Surely the names are just notional, and so you call them what you wish?
Alan
Whilst agreeing very few people nowadays use Monart inkwells or scent bottles for their intended purposes.
When Monart was first produced it was intended for practical use and not just a decorative item and as such were marketed as vases for flowers,fruit bowls, inkwells, scent bottles ect.
As a Monart collector and researcher it is important for me to learn the differences between Monart pieces and to be able to categorise them. To me what they are called is not notional,but very real.
If we followed your argument a stage further, we could call paperweights, lumps of glass with some glass inside, as nobody uses paperweights to hold down paper on a desk anymore (or very few).
Gary
-
I am "one of the few"!! I do use paperweights, including Ysart ones, for that purpose.