Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: TripleLutz on February 04, 2013, 05:16:07 AM
-
Newby to the board here. I've got a half dozen or so unidentified vitreous objects I'll be asking for help with over the next few days. I'm a "Bohemian glass" collector who has scooped up these questionables as I was shopping for Loetz, et al.
This is a large, rather heavy vase, 9 3/4 inches wide by 10 1/2 high, blown of clear glass with light iridescence. The distinguishing feature is the series of deep pulled ribs that spiral from base to just below the ruffled mouth. The pontil is ground smooth and the base shows shelf wear commensurate with age.
As I said, it was sold as Loetz and could well be... but I haven't found any good precedents among published Loetz pieces. Any ideas?
Thanks for your help!
-
Welcome to the GMB,beautiful piece,don't recognise the shape,I 'll have a look around,some body will probably beat me to it ::) ;D ;D
-
Thanks, Keith! ;D
-
Keith, does it look a bit Walsh Walsh to you?
Robert (bOBA)
-
Strange you should say that,although I can't remember seeing anything similar in Reynolds book I did post a piece a while ago that Bernard thought may have been Walsh and it was this piece that came to mind when I saw this new post, ;D
-
Have found these doing searches for vases with "ribs". Came across a couple like the Loetz ribbed floriform. The other was said to be possibly "Wilhelm Habel, co-founder of Palme-Konig".
There's also a ribbed Loetz piece illustrated on page 257 of Neuwirth's Loetz Austria 1900.
Keep those opinions coming! Thanks. :D
Please see:
http://www.fontainesauction.net/cgi/viewlot.php?sale=80510&lot=147
http://www.icollector.com/RIBBED-ART-NOUVEAU-ART-GLASS-VASE_i8498664
-
Thanks Keith, that was what I was thinking of... It would be interesting to see what bernard or Craig think of either Bohemian or English ideas...
Robert (bOBA)
-
Thanks for weighing in, Robert.
If you are referring to Craig Orkney, I ran it past him awhile back. He knows I've posted here, so maybe he'll give us an updated opinion. Hope so!
Thanks again,
Doug
-
I had seen this before, as Doug and I are in contact directly as a result of my website. I actually suggested he sign up here. I am at a loss on this piece of glass.
It looks Bohemian in some ways, but the suggestion that it is possibly English is certainly one that, at least to me, carries some weight. On English origins I would defer to those much more wise in the field than I am... Most of my experience amounts to a couple of pieces I bought because I liked them and the price was right, and by accident they turned out to be good English glass....... ;D
In those cases, I was lucky and not educated....
This is an interesting piece of glass and I hope it gets an accurate ID here, as I have been quite curious about it since I first saw it....
As a closing comment I would have to say that after seeing some of the Walsh Walsh examples and studying this piece some more, I would have to say that the glass itself bears a stronger resemblance to English examples than Bohemian examples I could recollect...
Wish I could be of more help, but I do think it is an interesting example....
Craig
Edit In: I have to say that I do not think this example is a piece of Loetz.... I could be wrong, as that is always a possibility, but that is my opinion at this point.... ;D
-
Thanks, Craig. It's great having the benefit of the wisdom of the board and your depth of experience with Bohemian glass. I'll consider it provisionally British, until proven otherwise... ;D
Although it was "sold as Loetz", I bought it because I liked it and knowing full well I'd never seen any Loetz like it!
The more I look at it--right here on my desk for the last couple days--the more I think the ribs are attached rather than pulled. Even so, I can't even imagine how it was accomplished. If attached, there was a lot of heat applied afterwards, as everything is seamlessly fused.
Oh well... I might as well be musing on the construction of the Great Pyramid. It's a mystery! :o
Thanks again.
-
It does have an English look. I suggest it was blown into a deeply ribbed mould and then twisted. Are the ribs near enough identical? Can you just feel them indented on the inside?
-
I felt the finish is very like Walsh MOP, but the lovely trailed ribs kind of put me off Walsh as the maker.... they're just "not Walsh-y". ???
-
Thanks, Sue and Christine! :-*
OK... just returned from "the deck" with some more pictures (beautiful spring-like day in North Carolina!)... mostly I am exploring Christine's hypothesis that the vase was mould blown and then manipulated.
Questions: Are the ribs regular?
See photos 1 and 2. By no means perfectly regular. See the different spacing and bottom condition among ribs at straight-up 12 versus 1 and 2 o'clock. Also, the ribs have thick spots--"knuckles"?--spaced along their length and in photo 2 you can see that these knuckles are not spaced the same rib to rib. Now, I must say they are mostly aligned, but I found and photographed this spot where they are clearly not.
Does the interior surface dip at the ribs, perhaps indicating material flowed into the mould?
Not at all. In fact, when I run my hand along the inside surface of the vase, I find it rises slightly at the ribs, as if material was pushed back towards the interior. On the other hand, in photo 3 (looking into the vase) it appears the material is seamlessly continuous between the vase wall and the ribs.
Are there any other clues?
There are a couple of places where it appears a rib was snagged in the manufacturing process, as if it were caught in the mould and a small "flap" of molten glass were pulled loose. See photo 4. Purely speculation, of course--other processes could have produced the same result.
So where does this leave us....??? Please let me know what you think.
I remain stumped... ??? , but perhaps slightly inclined towards Christine's suggestion of mould blown and then manipulated. The irregularity in the ribs makes one wonder; however, I do not think there would have necessarily been perfect regularity in the mould itself.
I can imagine the ribs being pressed back towards the interior of the vase after it was removed from the mould, causing the slight rise on the inside wall.
And then there are the places where material got hung up in the mould... (Sheesh... what an imagination this guy has... ::))
But if it was made in a mould, how could other examples be escaping us? Made one and broke the mould? ...I don't think so!
Anyhow... again... please let me know what you think. And thank you so much for your time and careful consideration! :) :) :)
I am certainly enjoying this and quite happy to have found this board. Thanks, Craig, for pointing the way.
Cheers!
Doug
-
You are welcome Doug..... Glad you are finding it enjoyable and useful...
-
From all that information, I would definitely go with the ribs being separately applied to the body
-
I go with hot-worked ribs too. :)
-
Hmmmm.... "hot-worked ribs" sounds like home cooking where I come from! ;D
Now that we've traded positions... 8)
What do you see as the most persuasive evidence for "attached"?
Here's my most persuasive argument for "mould blown"...
When I look into the vase and look closely at the glass as it flows into the ribs, it appears continuous (optically clear) at every point. If they were attached, surely there would be a break somewhere...
My initial thought was that the ribs were "pulled"--in which case the material would also be "continuous"--however, I now believe they are too regular and the interior surface too smooth for that kind of manipulation.
Too bad you are dependent on my photography. Let me know if there's any detail you would like for me to try to capture.
And thanks again for giving this your time, Christine, Sue... and others. I really appreciate it. :)
Doug
P.S. I have a fantasy, which some on this board may have already had the pleasure of living out, that some day I'll take enough hot glass classes so I'm not simply speculating about technique. Alas, life is short... my list is long.
-
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,47013.msg264404.html#msg264404
this vase has pinched trails made by pinching the body of the vase I believe. You can feel on the interior where the glass is not entirely smooth.
m
-
If it was hotworked, could it be then that the trails were applied, then 'pie crust edged' with a gadget, then the body blown out and twisted in which case it would be heated to do so, so would the body glass then 'meld' into the applied trails? thereby making it look as though it was all one piece?
m
-
That makes sense.
-
I suppose so. I'm really up against my lack of technical knowledge... specifically how much "melding" can go on as material is added and the piece reheated.
As for the "pie crust" effect on the ribs... another way that could have been achieved: create a flat piece with a pattern running horizontally (perhaps built up out of rods), then slice it vertically to make the strips which are attached as ribs.
A couple of additional observations (after much staring at, and handling of, the vase these last couple of days):
Although the vase has some "heft"--remained thick and rather heavy at the foot--the ribs themselves become quite thin and delicate between the "knuckles", suggesting there was significant elongation ("stretching", "pulling"...) after the ribs were first attached. See photos 1 & 3.
Also... there are some bubbles in the glass, which apparently were in the original "blob". If one assumes they were originally round, more or less, then their final disposition provides clues as to the direction and extent of manipulation of the glass as it was worked. See photo 2 (near foot, bubble nearly round); photo 3 (bubble elongated); photo 4 (in the neck, the bubble is quite stretched and pointy). ("Isn't that rather obvious," you may say. Yes, I suppose it is. Forgive me, but I find it at least somewhat illuminating. Whereas we do not know what the ribs looked like when they were first attached, we can safely assume the bubbles were originally somewhat round.)
Thanks again for the thoughtful comments! :) :) :) Wouldn't blame anybody for saying we've beaten this one enough. Still looking for precedents and a maker, though!
Cheers!
Doug