Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: mhgcgolfclub on May 20, 2012, 09:49:55 AM
-
Help please to ID the vaseline glass Buddha.
I have had this for several weeks and first thought it may be Cambridge glass as I bought it from a seller who also sold me a Cambridge glass vaseline geisha girl figure.
I now know its not Cambridge glass or Gillinder and Sons but cannot find an ID for it.
The figure stands 7.25" or 18.5 cm in height and weighs 1875 gm. There is also quite a lot of ware to the base.
Thanks for any help
Roy
-
Roy
I have NEVER seen this Buddha before in 15 years of studying, searching, collecting, buying, etc. I have never even seen a photo of it.
If I have not seen it in 15 years, you can honesty use the wording of 'rare' (I know.....waaaaay to overused, but in this case, it is true).
Dave
aka: Mr. Vaseline Glass
-
But uranium glass is still being made - (I believe a major source of the metal is Japan) it could well be brand new and mass produced - particularly given the subject matter.
-
Roy mentioned wear to the base - so maybe not so new . . .
-
Wear can appear on a base quite quickly, (especially if encouraged >:( ) .
But uranium glass has not stopped being made - so it could be a few years old - 5 or 10, maybe.
For example, a student at Edinburgh College has made wonderful moulded Uranuim glass trolls, with dreamcatchers stuck on their heads. I saw one at the conference a couple of years ago.
(I didn't buy it - and bitterly regret it. M would have had a fit at the luminous pink bits in the dreamcatcher).
But I imagine Mr Vaselineglass probably hasn't seen one of these either.
I'm not being rude - Mr. Vaselineglass - it's simply that your research has, I assume concentrated mostly on older works and possibly not on this sort of contemporary glass.
(I'm not forgetting the fabulous fish goblet - I could never, ever forget the fabulous fish goblet - but that's an individually made artist piece - not moulded. ;D )
I don't know if it really, really is brand new. I'm just very, very, very suspicious. ;)
-
Sue
My glass research goes from 1840-ish to the present, and covers art glass, pressed glass, mold blown, individual artisan glass, utility glass (like railroad signal lights or stage lights), etc. I write a newsletter for our vaseline glass club, so I am always on the lookout for fresh story ideas. Your example of the student at Edinburgh college making dreamcatchers? NO, I have not seen that, but that fits under the same category as my fish goblet....an individual artisan design.
When a mold is made, it costs a lot of money. That mold is not going to be used just a few times. You mention Japan as a possible source of new production. There is now the world's only uranium glass museum in the southern part of Japan, and they actually make some vaseline glass there. They have large annual conventions, and the general public just comes through by the 1000s to see their exhibits. (at our convention, even with local press, we might have 2 or 3 curious souls who happen to be in the hotel and wander through our exhibit).
While the websites that feature photos of those conventions use an English translator, it is possible to figure out what information is trying to be conveyed. I have not seen one of this style of buddha in any of those photos either.
(p.s. did you know that there were UK vehicle headlight lenses that were once made out of yellow uranium glass?) My depth of knowledge on vaseline/uranium glass may have a few gaps in it here and there, and everyone can point out obscure minutia facts (like car headlights, or students at Edinburgh college), I have reached a point where if something was mass produced, I would have heard about it, even if it was made within the last 5-10 years. Heck, I usually hear about it from someone if it was made last month! LOL !! I don't always know who made something or when it was made, but at least I have seen a previous example....and this was is new to me. Roy knew the point I was trying to make.
Regarding current uranium glass production: Japan is dabbling in glass production through their new museum, but I don't see a lot coming out of Japan. The majority of stuff being made now (world-wide) is in the Czech Republic. There are individual artisans who are buying blanks and doing nice representations of old Biedermeier era cut glass work in vaseline. There are tons of buttons and beads in uranium glass coming out of Czech Republic.
In the USA, Fenton is now auctioning off everything, including their equipment, their name, their proprietary information, etc. Boyd Glass has stopped glass production and will sell off their inventory until it is gone. Pairpoint is still making cup plates if special ordered. I have not heard that Mosser has shut down, but Mosser is probably the only US maker who still might be making it in the future in the USA.
I am also suspicious of new glass, but also glad to see it when it comes on the marketplace, as it means that someone thought there was enough interest in my favorite glass to take a chance on making a large investment. To buy a pound of uranium dioxide salts to make a batch of glass is about $1700 USD, and as it takes 1-2% of total batch weight to make a nice uranium glass, that is only a 50-100 pound batch. Add to that the enormous cost of the natural gas to melt the batch, and it adds up very quickly.
The Japanese influence on glass was very big in the 1920s. Both Gillander and Cambridge made Buddhas. There is also a geisha made by Cambridge. I have also seen another geisha made from vaseline glass that is different from the Cambridge version. Other companies also made other patterns that had a Japanese influence to them during that time period and the glass was distributed world wide. My first impression is that this piece was made during that 1920s time period.
Mr. Vaseline Glass
-
Thganks David and Sue
I would agree with David on the age unless proved other wise.
I agree its possible to age the base if you wanted , but there is a small chip and some nibbles along the edge of the back of the base.
The item was bought by a dealer who also bought a Cambridge glass geisher girl from the same person which in its self does not mean a lot, I bought the geisha girl myself , the colour of both pieces was very similar. I rember when buying the buddha being told it had came with a geisha girl which I knew was correct thats why I first thought of Cambridge glass
I have also looked on the web for another one , the only one I could find was a completed item on ebay which did not sell. I am 99% sure that the one I bought is the same one as it described the small amount of damage .
I would have thought if mass produced it would be quite easy to find an image of another, most buddha's that seem to be made today are out of jade
A picture of the geisha girl below.
http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/mhgcgolfclub/clothes/?action=view¤t=sha9.jpg
Thanks again
Roy
-
I stand corrected!
Thank-you for your resume, Mr. Vaselineglass. My interest in this stuff has only recently been seriously piqued (it's all Christine's fault) - but I'm still only skirting around the edges. :-[
It was the cast troll (with dreamcatcher hair) that made me realise there was a possibility that such a thing might be new - particularly with the contemporary fad there is for buddahs.
(And the student had got her uranium glass from Japan.)
I am aware of the contemporary Desna uranuim bits - I've even got a "Grape Harvest".
-
Roy
the geisha? I have seen that geisha attached to a stand, and then there was a pipe that ran up behind her back and ended in a lamp fixture.
Dave
-
The other point about modern uranium glass is that it tends to be yellow (or custard), i.e., for its glorious colour, rather giving an uplift to green.
-
I'm a little suprised that this is puzzling. This is from the large Cambridge Buddah mold (note I say mold). Perhaps is because the small 4 1/2" Buddah is seen far more than the large Buddah (which is a real horse compared with the small one). Now here lies the problem, Summit bought this mold from IG when IG closed & cleaned up the mold, produced it in Light Emerald (Vaseline) & Teal Blue, however there is a slight difference between Summit's Vaseline & Cambridge Light Emerald which is a shade lighter & frankly without having it in my hand I can't make a call. I will say though that Cambridge had a London showroom & you will find many Cambridge flower frogs in europe from the same time period so I'm leaning yours is Cambridge. As for the Geisha lamp (non-Cambridge) there is a debate as to whether this is a Geisha or a monk figure, regardless she/he differs from the Cambridge Geisha & is to the best of my knowledge is still unattributed although it has been suggested Germany since there is a monk figurine lamp that is German. Hopefully this Cambridge marriage of the large Buddah with a Geisha flower frog base may help you determine whether your is Cambridge or Summit.
-
OHIO! Wow....I just looked in the Cambridge (COLORS IN CAMBRIDGE GLASS) and yup, there it is on the page showing EMERALD color. I have never seen it in yellow, and my eyes tend to only look for yellow, so I skipped right past it when I have looked at that page before. Good call!
LUSTROUSSTONE:
I find that it depends on the individual maker and who made the original batch. If it is GREEN GREEN, then it is uranium glass, PLUS ferrous oxide added (ferrous oxide = rust). That is different than just uranium dioxide as the SINGLE COLORANT used in the batch.
Our vaseline glass club had a convention piece made a few years ago (a square toothpick holder) and the buy who made them let a piece of cullet in the batch that had uranium oxide + ferrous oxide in it. It was just one piece of cullet, with the majority of the cullet being melted was just yellow uranium glass. The entire pressing of the toothpick holders turned out light green with not a hint of yellow.
The reason you see modern as only yellow, is because collectors lean towards that color more than they do to the green uranium glass.
Here is a picture of the toothpick holder I mentioned. The round disk next to it is a quality control sample from Fenton to compare to their master color to make sure the batch color was correct before they used the new batch. You can definitely see the difference.
(Roy...sorry about hijacking your thread!)
-
Dave it helps to have 38 years in U.S. glass, 22 of which as an NCC member. I don't wish to hijack this thread, however sometime I'd like to discuss with you the 1%-2% of Uranium needed to produce reactive glass in a batch especially a batch as small as 50-100 lbs. I have reviewed some of the Cambridge glass formulas for reactive batches, large batches of over 1/2 a ton & these are from Henry Helmers (America's glass chemist) book. Now there is a codicil of what I'm about to say & that is its entirely possible that todays UDs are not anywhere of the same strength/power of those used in the 19-teens through around 1960. Having said that this is the formula for Cambridge Light Emerald which many call (right or wrong) Vaseline. Cambridge Light Emerald Chemical Formula:Sand 850 lbs, Soda 330 lbs, Feldspar 100 lbs, Lime 42 lbs, Nitrate 50 lbs, Lead 36 lbs, Arsenic 10 lbs, Copper Oxide 13 oz, Uranium 43 oz.
This is a 1,358 lb batch & you can do the math. The salts/UD used to produce the reaction of a 1,358 lb batch is in the tenths of one percent. You mention Topaz, well its higher, but still is only 7/10th of 1% for a large batch. I'm simply wondering if the 1%-2% U salts figure has been repeated for so long that people simply accept it rather than looking at company batch formulas? Helmers worked for Cambridge, Heisey, Fostoria, Economy, Morgantown, Erickson, etc. just to name a few over his lengthly career & his book covers several thousand glass color formulas. It would seem that nowhere near 1%-2% in the vast majority of cases (based on batch weight) of salts/UDs was necessary to produce reactive glass, at least not from the 20s through the 60s, but again I there is not a "strength/power" indication of the chemicals of that period to compare them with the same chemicals used today so who knows? Just a thought. Ken
-
Ken
I am definitely going to have to look up that book when I go to Corning/Rakow Library this october!
I have only two references for actual formulas. One is a Fostoria formula from an original chemist book, (page 164 in my book if you have it), and that one used 1.35% of the total formula.
The other book is Hajdamach's book, BRITISH GLASS 1800-1914. In the back of that book, there are 19 different glass formulas showing some amount of uranium usage. All were formulas from Thomas Webb and Sons. Some used very little: LEMONESCENT, a color that does glow nicely, used 3 1/4 oz. and the lead crystal batch was 112 lb. there was also 2 lb. 12 oz. of arsenious oxide (which made it opalescent when struck in the glory hole). Emerald green used 6 oz. for 112 lb. batch.. Aquamarine green used 1 1/2 oz. for a 112 lb batch. LEMON used 7 1/2 oz. for a batch that weighed 293 lbs.
I think you are on to something. it is just one of those often repeated things. it may be a hold over from Reidel's formula in the 1840s, when the refinement was not there.
Dave Peterson
-
Thanks Ken and Dave
So Cambridge glass is a strong possibility , I just assumed that the larger Buddha was a larger version of the smaller one.
I would like to think its more likely to be a Cambridge glass one rather than a summit but I do not have the experience or reference to comfirm 100%.
I do agree that we do see many Cambridge glass figures in Britain , while not to many Summit pieces a few of the small lions.
Anyway Ken it great to be able to narrow it down to either Cambridge or Summit which early today I thought it was going to be difficult to even narrow it down to a country so I am more than happy .
As to the glass formulas that way over my head and far to technical for me but still interesting to read
Thanks again Roy
-
Roy you would think the two Buddhas would be alike, but they are actually different. Sue has a good picture on her site of the small one.
http://www.black-poppy.co.uk/Cambridge/photo420.htm
The small one has a top knot & earrings & his belly isn't showing. There are two other U.S. Buddhas, Fostoria which is seated & is entirely different than Cambridge facially with a large bun instead of a top knot & a large necklace. The one thats a bit of a fooler in the 6 1/2" Gillinder one which is close to the Cambridge one, however no top knot, no errings & his hands are clasped. When I llo at the coloration of yours I'm 95% certain its Cambridge...the Summit Vaseline is simply darker than the Cambridge Light Emerald & your pic of the non-blacklit one is spot on plus while its possible a Summit one made it to europe its far, far more likely your is from the London store. Ken
-
Thanks Ken for all your help
I have taken a few pictures outside in natural light
Roy
-
That cinches it Roy...it's definately Cambridge Light Emerald. You might be suprised that the age of your Buddha is between 1924 to 1928. Ken
-
Thanks Ken
As much as I google Cambridge glass Buddha there seems to be extremely little on the the Buddha figure
Thanks Roy
-
Hi, I just wanted to share my "large" Cambridge Glass Buddha in amber with everyone. It is about 10" high and weighs about 6.5 pounds and has a pewter screw base.
My father, grandfather and great grandfather all worked at the Cambridge Glass factory in the cooper shop. From what my dad told me, they used to go through the glass scrap pile after working. They picked this out of the scrap pile...it never went into production in this color from what I can tell.
And it was used as a doorstop for 40 years in my grandmother's house! Now it sits proudly in my house, but not as a doorstop!
-
What a great story. :)
Welcome and thank-you very much for joining to show us your very unusual treasure and telling the history.
It's beautiful picture you've taken - the light shows it off at its best. 8)
-
wuliechsin: Your piece is actually what I would consider to be very important piece of Cambridge history. Your large Buddha is actually a marriage of the figure & the base which is Cambridge Ivory & is the base to a Cambridge Ivory one or two bun Geisha flower frog. You see the Buddha(s) both small & large were never flower frogs, however over the years two large Buddhas have surfaced with the Geisha base & both were dismissed as simply clever "marriages" by someone, however in light of yours & the fact Cambridge was always experimenting I am left to believe that in fact this was a factory experiment.
I am asking if you would please consider emailing me as I would like with your permission to write an article for the monthly Cambridge Crystal Ball magazine which would profile your story with the names of all your family who worked in the copper shop & the picture of your Buddha. To email me simply click on my board ID of Ohio & you will find my email address. I am a long standing (over two decades) NCC (National Cambridge Collectors) member & have written multiple article over the years for the Cambridge Crystal Ball. This is an important piece of Cambridge history. Thanks, Ken
-
I just came across this thread via a net search. Thank you - it was very informative. I've also got one of these Cambridge buddha lamps that's got green glass (assumedly uranium glass based on this thread). How do I find out more about it and is anyone collecting who could give me an approx value? Is there a Cambridge glass museum still in Cambridge, OH and would anyone want photos of it for the museum? I'm not sure how rare it is -- online I've seen some photos of amber and clear versions, but not green. This seemed like a good place to inquire. Thanks!
-
The large & small Buddha(s) are simply uncommon...not rare or scarce. We cannot discuss values here so I suggest you check on line for prices. Yes the Cambridge Glass Museum is in Cambridge & we there are several Buddha(s) on display. Your green one is probably Light Emerald although another company (Gillinder) also made large & small Buddha(s), however the Gilinder small Buddha does not have the top knot nor large earrings like the Cambridge large Buddha & both sizes of Gillinder Buddha(s) look alike, one is simply larger than the other while the large Cambridge Buddha is far different than the small Cambridge Buddha. Also the Gillinder Buddha(s) have a well defined base they sit on while neither size Cambridge Buddha(s) have a base since they was used (the majority of time) as a lamp figurine. The were largely produced in the mid 20s until 1930 in decent production numbers.
I will add they loosely fall under the category of "religious" figures & that has always held down their values a bit...same thing applies to many 'religious" based figures produced by Fostoria. Ken