Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Paul S. on May 26, 2012, 05:50:34 PM
-
I think if you wait long enough there'll be an example of everything in uranium - and I was assured at the boot sale that this was a bowl type liner, but for what I don't know. Seems poor quality glass (transluscent), full of bubbles and some small stones, and is about 3.3/4" - 95mm tall/high - and has very feint traces of iridescence and possibly a water mark on the inside. Might have been caused by some sort of food or liquid content maybe. The rim has been ground/polished and bevelled.
Fairly certain it's not a tea mixing bowl - those I've seen all appear to have a flat base, and stand upright - but guess this might be a variation) - cant be a finger bow or a rinsing bowl - so probably is a liner, and I would think of some age. No pontil mark on the round end - so am thinking blown into a mould, then cut to produce a rough rim before grinding, possibly.
Would appreciate people's thoughts or ideas. Thanks for looking :)
-
Surely the whole point of the uranium oxide is surely to get a reaction from the UV in sunlight?
If it's a liner, or a central mixing bowl/sugar bowl from a wooden tea caddy - and that's what it looks like - there wouldn't be much point in adding uranium oxide, since the piece would rarely see the light of day. Since it's a faint reaction, perhaps it's just some manganese in the mix.
I agree with what you suggest about the method used to make it.
Blow it into a mould, crack it off the rod and then grind the rim flat.
-
thanks for your input Chris.
You may be correct about the ulterior motive of including u. oxide in glass - I don't think I have any u. pieces of which you might say they had spent their life hidden from view, although this piece does have credentials for being a liner despite not being blue. It seems to be a fact that liners 'per se' are usually 'bristol blue', but nothing surprises me - things turn up in uranium that you'd never have guessed existed.
Were there such things as sugar bowls in caddies??
Definitely not manganese, I've just re-checked and it glows very well in the dark of the laundry box - I'll post another pic. tonight, once the daylight has gone.
I've just looked through both of my Skelcher volumes, and it seems he didn't include any 'liners' - although there is a finger bowl I think - and
unfortunately the colour/opacity (or otherwise) of this one doesn't fit easily with most of the colours/shades of uranium that we are accustomed to seeing. It has the bubbles of Walsh 'Pompeian', but otherwise is the wrong colour, and the only piece in either book with which it comes close is an unattributed goblet which Skelcher dates to about 1870 (page 170).
I don't think it's modern - although could be early C20 - and because of the feint traces of a level caused by some substance, will go with a liner/mixer with culinary connections of some kind - but whether Continental, British, or States, I wouldn't like to say :)
Ref. 'The Big Book of Vaseline Glass' - Barrie Skelcher - Schiffer (2002)
-
Surely the whole point of the uranium oxide is surely to get a reaction from the UV in sunlight ]
You'd be surprised at how many pointless glass types uranium appears in: grey for example
http://lustrousstone.co.uk/cpg/displayimage.php?pid=892
http://lustrousstone.co.uk/cpg/displayimage.php?pid=856
-
and the glow in the dark.......
-
Were there such things as sugar bowls in caddies??
They were arguing about it on some antiques programme I watched, possibly even the BBC Roadshow. The talking heads pointed out that tea was popularised as a means of consuming sugar from the slave plantations, and that the "mixing bowls" found in caddies were probably sugar bowls. After all, if you're going to use a teapot, why would you need a mixing bowl? Makes sense to me.
You'd be surprised at how many pointless glass types uranium appears in: grey for example
Can't argue with that! ;D
-
And sugar came in loaves and needed breaking up into pieces, so you'd need a receptacle to put it in.
-
I'd agree it makes sense, at least you'd have everything in one place - I had just picked up the expression from other people - but I really don't know for certain. Maybe there were some folks who had a fad for mixing their Darjeeling and Earl Grey to produce a blend. I also don't know how well the the lumps of sugar would keep if left in the bowl inside the caddy - and is it possible that the insides of the bowls might show more evidence of damage if they'd contained lumps of hard sugar? And would the sugar tongs be kept in the caddy as well?
The attached pic. is a pair of hand held Georgian (the III??) sugar cutters/nippers - although there were larger examples mounted on a wooden board for stability. The small projection on this one is not a mini hammer for whacking the lumps (which I'd assumed originally) but a steadying device so that the nippers could be used on the ede of a kitchen table. I was at a boot sale last Saturday, and the guy was packing up to leave, and told us everything was a £1 each for a quick sale - and don't know how I didn't see it, but suddenly the guy next to me had found one of these and was handing over his quid :( The hinged clip at the end hold the handles together against a sprung lever, when not in use.
-
sorry, forgot the pic.........
-
Just googled this.
Tea was a very expensive commodity in the 18th century and was heavily taxed. By the middle of the century the tax imposed on tea was 119% and it became necessary to devise a method of preventing theft. Lockable wooden boxes, some quite ornately decorated, were produced in which a pair of caddies could be kept securely. These boxes were in use by the reign of Geo II as can be seen from the following: "Advice To The Waiting Maid" in the publication Directions to Servants by Jonathan Swift and published in 1745. He makes the observation; "the Invention of small Chests and Trunks, with Lock and Key, wherein they keep the Tea and Sugar, without which it is impossible for the Waiting maid to live......".
http://www.ascasonline.org/articoloMAGGI128.html (http://www.ascasonline.org/articoloMAGGI128.html)
Love the nippers. Nice buy!
-
thanks...........so we'll go for this one being a sugar liner from within a tea caddy, possibly. Obviously, has to be post c. 1830 ish, in view of the uranium, but I guess could be anywhere around the middle or second half C19. :)
-
When these rich folk locked their tea up in caddies they had both black tea and green tea - hence there normally being two receptacles for the tea itself, and the need for a mixing bowl - not for blending different blends together (who would mix earl grey and darjeeling ??? ) but for mixing the green and black teas together, before brewing.
-
hello Sue.......thanks for your reply :). It was only a rhetorical statement, just to make the point - which I had originally considered - which in fact you appear to have now confirmed.......i.e. that the purpose of the bowl within a caddy was as a tea mixer in which to blend different sorts of tea.
So I take it that you are suggesting we now discount the sugar bowl idea, and come back to this being a true tea mixing bowl?
-
I suppose I should have referenced my source of info for that......... Eric Knowles.
It was an antiques tv programme in the uk.... the one with Sandy Toksvig, where collectors (members of the public) were challenged with identifying stuff. ;D
-
I know someone who stores tea bags in a Georgian caddy, and then uses the bowl to deposit the used bags after they've been squeezed out.
Let's face it, until someone finds an old user manual ;D or an indisputable literary reference, noone will ever really know what the bowl is for!