Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Otis Orlando on July 07, 2013, 10:52:09 PM
-
Only from previous post, I am wondering whether this is a pompeian piece? I've researched this piece but unable to identify. It's an unusual piece in that it has a pontil scar, which is very pitted around the scared area. Clear signs of ware around where the base meets a flat surface. The outer rim dia. of the dish, not only folds towards the inner dish area, but irregular in shape too. Striation lines are also visible. Surprising, this dish only weighs approx 155kg and is very light indeed! Any help appreciated.
Dia. @ largest point - 16.9cm
Height @ heighest " - 2.9cm
-
Have something similar that,if I remember right,was id'd as Egyptian,I'd check but it's past my bedtime,will look tomorrow unless someone beats me to it, ::) ;D,this also has a folded rim.
-
Not seeing the quality for a Walsh piece. Looks like recycled glass, of the style made for museums to sell in their gift shops.
-
Thanks Keith, look forward to any information you can provide. I do see what you mean about the rim. Have you got a picture of the base area?
Not seeing the quality for a Walsh piece. Looks like recycled glass, of the style made for museums to sell in their gift shops.
It would be of interest to know your hypothesis on this particular piece. :)
-
I don't think it's Pompeian either. My Pompeian has polished pontil marks (one piece is marked) and isn't light for its size. Your dish doesn't look bubbly enough either or a Walsh shape
-
I'd suggest that this is not a Walsh green - theirs was rather more dull or tending to olive I think - this one is a bit sharp and a little too strident.
I'd also agree re the comments about lack of bubbles. :)
-
It would be of interest to know your hypothesis on this particular piece. :)
There's a keen metal detectorist with a shop in town who sells similar reproductions of Classical glass, and I've seen a few in museum and National Trust shops. Not sure where they get them from (if it was reproduction medieval pottery I could give you a bunch of names). I'll ask, next time I'm there.
-
Thanks all the same Paul. I don't think this will make any significant difference but just to let you know the folded rim is towards the base, so please disregard previous info. The fold is irregular in width. The pontil does not protrude and is polished and they are no jagged edges. The glass is very thin and this would take into account, why it is so light. I only provided an approximate weight, not an actual weight. It may not be pompeian or walsh and an identity might never be found. All I know is that it has extensive ware to areas mainly around where the base meets a flat surface, which would definitely suggest to me that this piece certainly has some age. A very interesting piece indeed! ::)
-
That pontil mark is fire polished, i.e., reheated, not ground and polished with a wheel as I would expect on Walsh Pompeian.
-
I'd suggest that the thinness very much points to modern.............I know that one of the often quoted criteria for post 1845 glass is that it was made generally thicker than modern pieces.............so the theory goes, and if you have a thin wineglass/finger bowl/rinser then it's unlikely to be period.
These comments exclude certain first half C20 Italian workshops which produced high quality impossibly thin glass wares :)
-
Hi,
Quote ==These comments exclude certain first half C20 Italian workshops which produced high quality impossibly thin glass wares==
also 17th century and earlier glass I would suggest.(edit) though this is not one of those , (I thought I might add)
cheers ,
Peter.
-
many thanks Peter, and very interesting - suspect you might be referring to John Greene's purchases of thin soda glasses from Morelli, and those of a 'Venetian style' made in London by Mansell.
However interesting, think we'd better stop digressing, otherwise we'll be going too much off-topic and Otis will be more confused than ever ;D
-
Yes that would be them and here is one of mine ,sorry couldn't help myself ;)
cheers ,
Peter.
-
Firstly, thank you for your contribution to this post Peter. I must point out that quality is not my forte' especially when referring to this particular piece. My initial query was mainly concerned as to the originator and period and I might not have made that quite clear. A considerable amount of glass pieces were made by conventional methods in different parts of the world and the quality in a final end piece was sometimes none important. Having inspected this particular glass, yet again, I am more than certain that this is not a modern piece. There is too much ware to the base area to suggest otherwise. The purpose or use of this item also comes into question as I am surprised it's not damaged. The only reason I threw Pompeian into the subject, was solely based upon my previous post.
There's a keen metal detectorist with a shop in town who sells similar reproductions of Classical glass, and I've seen a few in museum and National Trust shops. Not sure where they get them from (if it was reproduction medieval pottery I could give you a bunch of names). I'll ask, next time I'm there.
I would be very interested in any factual evidence to support your reasons and will not disregard your possible prognosis on the subject matter. :)
Your right about that Paul ;).
-
I just knew Peter was going to say he actually had one of those very rare glasses.................... but to say "and here is one of mine" simply implies greediness ;D ;D ;D
-
Sheer greediness! ::) ;D
-
Hi,
Guilty as charged lol.
Otis you have lost me, support what reasons ?, so far all I believe I have said is that I dont believe that this is a 17th century item
Cheers
Peter
ooops its late and the glasses have been used , i now realize you were not asking me but to another poster sorry :-[
-
However ;D,
I think I would support the opinions already given that this is probably not very old and possibly recycled glass ,quite a few items of table ware much like this have popped up on eBay in the last year or so , I actually bought one , a shallow bowl with folded rim , almost the same colour bubbly glass and folded bowl rim , it was new !!!!, I gave it away so don't have a photo to show , I think the Middle east origin is very lightly , museum replicas I come across frequently on my European travels but they are generally of better quality than this piece . ware can be faked !!!
cheers ,
Peter.
-
'Possibly' is not stating it is or it isn't. It could possibly have been made in the Middle east, like you said, that we will never know, unless there is a new shed of light ::). I entirely agree with you that ware can be faked. There is no evidential fact that substantiates that this piece is fake other than visual awareness (posted pics), that in some cases cannot be relied upon unless the product is in specialist hands. Having taken your information as an important factor in trying to ascertain the origin, I took it upon myself to put this dish through an extensive test program ;D. By placing the dish on a flat smooth surface, I gave it the paper test, yes! the paper test. I must point out at this stage, this took a lot of my time ;D. Something I have never done before. by sliding the paper between the base of the dish and the surface, I was able to mark the areas where the paper would not slide through. I found that the areas where the paper would not slide through are the same areas that shows extensive ware. Had this not occurred I would be enclined to agree with and your prognosis. For such a small dish with no 'quality' or great value, ........................who in their right mind would go through the trouble of faking it by paying attention to the areas I have just mentioned? This is only a question as a none specialist. In order to avoid purchasing 'fake' items, your info. is of great value. :)
-
HI ,
Sorry Otis but your paper test is of no value,to fake ware the object is placed on an abrasive surface,concrete or rough sand paper to name just 2, the object is then pressed down and moved randomly around which creates ware looking marks on the 'high' points,the points your paper test detects ware,this takes but moments to do so is no trouble to anyone,you don't have to pay any attention to the under surface to achieve this the high points will make contact and produce the results , I have seen this done on pieces like this in Spain.
You also say that this piece has extensive ware ,in my experience pieces from the 17th century and earlier and of course later which like your piece are very light and of non lead glass the signs of ware can be very minimal because the object does not have the weight that would be needed to create extensive ware from normal daily use even over 100rds of years,in comparing ware on pieces from the 17th and 18th century which are non lead to pieces of lead glass from the 18th c the lead glass will show a far greater level of ware due to its own weight and the effects of daily use.lead glass of course being softer than non lead glass,in comparing lead glass and non lead glass from the 18th century non lead always shows less ware than lead ,its harder.
so extensive ware on a very light piece of glass is always suspicious.
You previously commented that the' quality of a final end piece piece was not important' , I have to disagree with this, when considering if an object may be from the 18th c or earlier quality at this time was paramount, the world was after the best quality available everyone was trying to beat the Venetians who until the last half of the 17thc had the monopoly of quality glass world wide which is why so much effort was put into the research of new recipes which in the end produced lead crystal.
Your piece display none of the attributes I would associate with early piece of glass , the form , the colour and the bubbles along with the fire polished pontil all suggest a much later production , that is not to say that it does not have some age , others here will be better placed to give an opinion as to the possibilities of it being along the lines of Walsh or some other from that time period who produced bubbly pieces like this ,my interest in glass I am afraid ceases around 1800.
In conclusion I would say that this item is not from the 16th 17th or 18th c. My visual awareness(re the posted pics)is I believe pretty well honed from 25 yrs of collecting, buying, selling and personally handling thousands of period pieces in collections and museums both at home and abroad,and as this is a forum that can only judge from photos I can say no more unless you would like to send it to me to personally inspect though I am certain this would be a waste of both time and money .
cheers ,
Peter.
-
Hi, firstly I would like to say, I value your knowledge and expertise on the subject matter. My concerns are, that I have not seen an original or one that is similar to the one posted during my research. This makes it rather difficult for me and other none specialist to define what is fake and what is not fake. Of course, the expert eye, in the right hands and stringent test will achieve better results. I am just bewildered as to why someone would go through all that trouble to fake such an item as this, if that be the case. Further more, if this dish............. is mass produced, why am I having difficulty in finding even one, other than mine? I only can think, that this dish served some purpose other than for fraudulent reasons (and don't say food) ;D, in order to have sustained the ware that is clearly visible. I am not entirely convinced that it is plausible to state this as a fake piece, even though I am aware of no mention of it being stated as fake. There is something about this piece that I just cant put my hands on. It doesn't feel like glass, even though it is. If I were to date this piece, I would say late 19c, early 20c., which would be in line with your conclusion. So please forgive me if I lead you to believe it was older than that. I certainly want be giving my dish away in a hurry ;).
-
HI ,
quote " If I were to date this piece, I would say late 19c, early 20c., which would be in line with your conclusion. "
I am afraid this was not my conclusion , if you go back you will see this ,
" I think I would support the opinions already given that this is probably not very old and possibly recycled glass ,quite a few items of table ware much like this have popped up on eBay in the last year or so , I actually bought one , a shallow bowl with folded rim , almost the same colour bubbly glass and folded bowl rim , it was new !!!!, I gave it away so don't have a photo to show , I think the Middle east origin is very lightly" ,
I don't believe these items are made to deceive , they are cheap interpretations of an antique style,the reason you cant find an authenticated original in this form is that they don't exist,these are made for tourists with the basics of equipment needed the producers don't advertise so you wont find them on the net , they don't have money to advertise, the manufacturing conditions as I said are very very basic with poor quality materials.
quote,,,,, I only can think, that this dish served some purpose other than for fraudulent reasons ,,,,,,, yes you are correct tourist wares is the answer
you say,,,,, I am just bewildered as to why someone would go through all that trouble to fake such an item as this,
again we are not talking fakes here , interpretations on an antique style I would say ,and to make them is no trouble at all , the actual time to produce one once you have the required basics , ie hot glass and a few tools would be a matter moments ,then after annealing a few more moments to apply the ware.
quote,,, There is something about this piece that I just cant put my hands on. It doesn't feel like glass, even though it is."
being recycled glass is probably the reason for this.
You only have to visit the island of Murano to see thousands of new pieces of Roman glass all artificially aged and sold for peanuts to the tourists.
I think to satisfy your curiosity on this item you would be best sending images to the' Corning Museum if Glass'.
Cheers,
Peter.
-
Hi, Correction! 'my conclusion'. Excuse my ignorance, but when 'probable' is thrown into a subject matter, surely this will raise concerns. That is not to say any ones reasons, knowledge and experience is undermind and I hope this is not what I am trying to portray. In order to understand, questions need to be asked. From the information already gathered, has most certainly helped me understand how easy it is to fall into the web of 'none intentional deceit', had I put this up for auction, based upon my own assumption.
I don't believe these items are made to deceive , they are cheap interpretations of an antique style,the reason you cant find an authenticated original in this form is that they don't exist,these are made for tourists with the basics of equipment needed the producers don't advertise so you wont find them on the net , they don't have money to advertise, the manufacturing conditions as I said are very very basic with poor quality materials.
Yes, they maybe or are, quote: 'cheap 'interpretations of an antique style', however, they are unique, as not one is made the same. My hypothesis, baring this in mind, is one hopes in time, these will be tailored to hold the same sort of value as current pieces made in the early/mid 20c. There is something about this piece that I can now firmly put my hands on ;).
Thanks to you all for your time and effort in contributing to this post.
-
is it raised slightly in the middle of the top of the plate? kind of like the pontil mark has been pushed in so the bit of the plate where you'd put your food isn't flat if you see what I mean?
I think it's one of the same as my set, of which I have 8 in two different colours, and which were made in Egypt ... a few years ago I think and still being made.
I'll try and find the link to them
edited - link here to mine - I know yours isn't exactly the same but I think the source probably is.
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,49857.msg281573.html#msg281573
m
-
Hi m, yes I do see what you mean and your description details are correct. The plate is raised around the pontil area. Keith did mention that it could be Egyptian also and within the thread was also along the same lines too. I have also looked at the thread provided by NMott and too from this information/site, has also helped/answered my initial query. If you look lower down the page, it is clear the bowl/plate are very similar.
http://www.maisondorient.fr/verre.htm
I think this is the first Egyptian blown glass I have ever owned. There's something about the feel, simplicity that I really do like. I will most certainly be now looking out for different coloured ones. I thank you all for your help and really do appreciate the time and effort you have made.