Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: flying free on August 02, 2013, 09:21:22 PM
-
as it says, I believe it's from the cobalt pot dated 1968-1969 i.e. the first year of production and made by Michael Harris.
The interior is full of chloride streaks much like an inside out vase. The exterior is very dark cobalt blue like this almost inside out vase here.
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,42684.msg237719.html#msg237719
There are escaped silver chloride streaks in the sidestripes which makes them look slightly green.
The rim is a wonky button rim. It's fairly flat not bulbous when looking side on, on the narrow side.
The curious thing about it is there is a very neat, deliberate 'bridge' made in it, that shows as two circular marks, one on each side on the outside in the middle, and the bridge can be seen peering through to the inside.
My pictures have been well lit to show the colours. It is most definitely cobalt blue :)
m
-
more pics
the last one I had to shine the light directly into the vase to get the colours to show. The camera makes it look purply but it's definitely cobalt with chlorides on the inside :)
m
-
The purply tone is what I have had trouble capturing on camera, especially with electric light. That is what I think of as the cobalt blue, I think the blue in my two facet cut IOs and tricorn bottle is different but which was the cobalt?
I just tried to get a photo to show the difference colours together accurately and failed, will have to wait until daylight and a little sunshine tomorrow.
BTW, absolutely exquisite sidestripe m. :o
-
thanks :-*
I'm just trying to find a good photo of it compared to the colour of the fish. Again I found it very hard to get the camera to recognise the different blue tones to show it clearly.
The best comparison is with the overlay blue and white vase, where both are the same deep intense cobalt blue.
I'll look some pics out and post with the fish in a sec.
m
-
here's one with the fish - it's the best I could do
and another with my cobalt and white vase to show the match in colour
-
Very nice indeed, I have one with a similar rim but no bridge.
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,48366.msg272724.html#msg272724
-
Fabby, M - I'm all different shades of violent green - also impossible to capture on camera.
I would hinestly think the bridge is just an artifact, not deliberate.
Given there was only one pot of cobalt melted, is it possible that some of it was "diluted" with clear glass?
It is still speculation that it was '68 ish it was melted, because my "precious baby fish" was dated to '68 by Tim and Elizabeth and that contains swirls of cobalt.
The casing on my "new" bottle is much like the colour you have here. What appears to be diluted cobalt.
-
Thanks Nemmie :)
and Sue, thank you and glad you like it :)
It's possible the bridge was where the sides 'stuck' together inside but it is also possible I suppose, that it was 'poked' to make the bridge.
Looking carefully at it, it looks as though the interior was clear ( I can tell as the 'bridge' link is clear with chlorides in it), then with the chlorides put on which surround the internal blob in swirls as though it was whirled around to swirl the chlories, then the whole was cased in the thick cobalt blue and then the clear side stripes put on - the side stripes have some chlorides in them as well which makes them have a very pale greeny yellowy tinge.
The cobalt colour isn't diluted at all as the vase is ink midnight blue without any light through it.
I purposefully took the photos with strong lighting to show the colours inside the vase but
the outside is very deep dark cobalt blue. I've popped it on a shelf at the moment and with light on the front of it but none through it, it looks nearly black.
Sorry to ramble on, I've just realised did you mean yours looks like diluted cobalt used for the casing?
re the date of the cobalt, was it speculation in M Hill's book then about it being used in the first year of production?
he is very clear in saying cobalt and amethyst in their unmodified form were only used as final colours in for a short period of time in the first year of production.
I would say that the cobalt on my vase is in unmodified form ... i.e. it hasn't been mixed/modified by adding anything else to the cobalt, but was used as plain cobalt to case a 'clear coated with silver chlorides' interior.
I can understand that it could also be describing a piece such as John's cobalt fish which has no other colour in it all other than one under layer of cobalt and then cased over with the wings made of another layer of cobalt.
The alternative to 'unmodified' cobalt would be that the cobalt was mixed with something else to provide other colours perhaps?
m
-
The depth of colour will depend on how much colourant (cobalt aluminate or cobalt silicate or cobalt oxide) you use in the melt. Undoubtedly there was one pot of deep cobalt blue glass melted and possibly a pot or more with less cobalt but the other more common Mdina blue is not cobalt based. It is something that produces a hint of green in the blue. Even that is found in in varying shades.
What is also possible that apart from the one pot of blue, all the other stuff is based on clear glass and coloured using the concentrated colour discs on the pipe or very small melts of coloured glass applied to clear on the pipe. Colorants are the expensive bit.
To my eyes M's side stripe is coloured with cobalt, lots of it, as is her fish vase, but less of it.
-
Ok my tuppeny worth re some of the blues. Starting with the Tricorn and Inside out vase in the first photo, that dull dark blue I would describe as more akin to indigo. In the second photo the vase and the fish are made with the light blue (sky?) like m's fish vase and have the decorative bits in what I think of as cobalt, the swirls on the vase and the wings on the fish. It has that almost purply tone that is quite diffeerent to the other blues.
Photos 3 and 4 are an attempt to contrsat the two dark blues next to each other.
To my eye these are not depths of the same tone, they are different tones.
M's sidestripe looks like cobalt unlike my inside outs, I don't think there is any of the cobalt in your fish though m.
-
Which is what I'm saying. The tricorn and the inside out are based on the "hint of green blue colourant", and the fish and the vase are based on shades of cobalt blue.
-
Except both are made with the 'sky' blue which is not cobalt based. The camera does not distinguish these two blues well, I will bring one to the next National and you can take a look.
-
How do you know the sky blue is not cobalt based?
-
Ok, just so I follow this before I add my comments :)
John you are saying that neither your inside out or tricorn are cobalt at all - I agree - let's forget them.
But you are saying that your fish and your vase in the second photo are both 'decorated' with external wings/trailing made of cobalt,however the base body of those two pieces is actually not cobalt - right?
and that the camera is lying when it shows your fish for example to have a more transparent layer of cobalt as it's middle body and neck/rim but thicker cobalt as it's wings? yes? because only the wings on the fish and the outer layer of trailed decoration on the vase is actually cobalt?
I agree with you and I'll say why in a mo, if I've understood you right :)
m
-
How do you know the sky blue is not cobalt based?
They are two different tones of blue.
Yep, that sums up my ramblings very well m. ;D
-
ok :)
I know what you mean.
My fish vase is a kind of turquoise. Certainly the neck rim and middle body bit is a kind of turquoise. Indeed it looks quite close to a teeny bit of turquoise I could find on a textured square vase but that was difficult to compare because of the amount of chlorides in it really. I've held it against a Sklo Union pressed turquoise glass bowl on one side and on the other side, a piece of George Elliot cobalt glass. The GElliot cobalt glass is much more transparent than the sidestripe, even viewing through two 'sides' front to back (and looks to be a similar/the same cobalt used by MH on the sidestripe), and my fish is definitely not cobalt, definitely leaning more towards a turquoise base glass than cobalt.
However, on very close inspection there are faint darker cloudy streaks/smudges in the wings on my vase. I am unsure whether they are shadows of the swirls of the glass from turning and winding the wings on, and therefore a trick of the light, or whether some darker cobalt blue has smudged it's way into the wings. It's not the reason why it appears transparent cobalt blue in the photos - that is a camera problem I believe - but it could contribute as to why my fish looks as though it's a paler cobalt version of the sidestripe.
So I now know what you mean John. When you've talked before about your cobalt fish only having cobalt wings, I could NOT understand what you were talking about as it looks all cobalt in the photos ;D but now I understand completely.
So, once I get my camera back this evening I will try and take some pics with the fish against the Sklo turquoise and the George E cobalt to try and show where the colour leans towards. The sidestripe is the cobalt of your fish wings and the trailing on the cobalt vase in the same pic you just showed above.
m
-
Turquoise seems as apt as sky as a description (back to the hint of green).
Perhaps this photo will show the two colours in the fish vase better.
-
right, I've also had a good look at my fish again today and this evening.
And what I'm pretty sure of is that the neck and button rim and the v shaped bit that goes down into the vase is some kind of different blue to the wings - not the same as the turquoise blue on my inkwell that has a polished pontil mark, and not exactly the same as the Czech turquoise bowl either (my camera picks that up as turquoise but not the mdina fish as turquoise and the fish isn't the same degree of turquoise as the bowl), but it's also not cobalt blue as far as I can tell.
However my vase also has the neck cased so the best place to show the different colour of the blue is at the low point of the v where it joins the cross of the wings as it were. In the first photo that point is where it looks the brightest clearest palest blue if you can see that?
However, what I can say is that the wings of my fish have cobalt blue swirls in them. And looking at it with fresh eyes, that is probably why I asked when I first bought it, if it was a cobalt fish vase :)
I only had camera back from son this evening so I've had to take pics under artificial light - I don't know if these will work but I will try again in daylight tomorrow and add some more.
My comparison is to a G Elliot vase that has a slightly purply cobalt neck, I think it's slightly purply and not quite exactly cobalt to be honest, but it's near as dammit to the cobalt sidestripe and it shows the comparison better because it's a little more transparent than the sidestripe.
On that photo you should be able to see the cobalt streaks in the wing of the fish vase as a comparison.
-
see above for pics taken under strong lighting back lit to show the colours as best I can.
The pics below are taken this morning. Not in great daylight, but all natural light.
In the first pic, I've compared the fish to an Adolf Matura ashtray which is a deep turquoise. The fish vase (neck/rim/v part base colour is a slightly deeper version of this turquoise. The Matura ashtray often looks blue in photographs as well unfortunately as the camera does not like this tone of turquoise but they are a similar tone.
In the second pic you can see that the cobalt sidestripe is a completely different colour to the Matura ashtray.
In the third pic of all three you can see how much cobalt there is in the fish vase wings, which the camera is picking up . In real life it has the cobalt swirls in it, but doesn't display as cobalt as the sidestripe.
So in short, the fish has a deep turquoise base colour, with the wings having cobalt blue swirled through them but the neck, rim and v dip part not having the swirls although the casing of the wings is drawn up the sides of the neck so it does affect the colour a bit on photographs ... however it displays as a deep jewel like turquoise.
Hopefully photo 4 taken against black will show the difference in tone between the two.
Having now taken the pics, I think the cobalt in the wings is actually distorting the cameras' ability to pick up the colour and I wonder if that is also why John's centre neck and v also will not display as the deep jewel like turquoise on camera.
m
-
It could well be a bit of the cobalt giving that colour to the wings m (lovely photos btw).
I could not decide for sure if the swirling blue in this fish vase could be from that (fabled) cobalt pot or not: https://picasaweb.google.com/Johnmj100/EarlyMdinaGlass#5625165243366066546
On reflection and comparing the blues side by side I think it probably is but it is not something I would like to bet on.
-
thanks :) the pics are the best I can do to show that the fish looks deep dark turquoise to the naked eye. However, it definitely has cobalt swirls all over it - even across the neck bit in some parts there is a fine veil or shadow where the cobalt layer has cased it and in the wings you can see it most clearly in the backlit pics.
I always thought your amethyst/blue mixed fish was a mix of amethyst and cobalt - but once I realised how my fish vase showed up as cobalt on the monitor I realised how difficult it is to tell unless you have a piece of cobalt there to compare it in person.
Does the blue look the same as your cobalt fish blue when you hold it up to compare it? the blue in my wings looks like the cobalt on the sidestripe but it's much less obvious than the blue in your swirly amethyst/blue fish because it's thinly veiled over the turquoise I guess rather than mixed in with it.
m
-
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,50103.msg282961.html#msg282961
Sue, does your fish vase have cobalt swirls in the wings or is it all one colour?
m
-
this is the best I can do on pics to show the difference in colour.
The fish displays as a much deeper jewel like colour of the turquoise that can be seen on the very top edge of button rim of the pic (the cobalt from the fish is reflecting upwards to the bottom part of the rim). I used the rim single layer only because there is the least contamination of cobalt in that area. Photographing just one layer of the glass at that part does show the turquoise colour but in real life its a much deeper version of that turquoise.
In comparison to the very ink dark colour of the sidestripe I held next to it, you should now be able to see the difference hopefully.
The pic that shows the V part of the fish is distorted really as in real life to the naked eye the wings do not show as that cobalt colour, the whole piece looks like a dark jewel intense turquoise on display in real life, because the cobalt interacts with the turquoise base and deepens the colour.
But the pics should show that the fish base colour is a very different colour and tone to the cobalt that is swirled through it and that is used also in the sidestripe. On the fish I think the cobalt has been mixed into the base colour turquoise to case it.
I used a tungsten bulb and the shadow behind the pieces to try and get the best outcome.
m
-
Does the blue look the same as your cobalt fish blue when you hold it up to compare it?
I think it is but it is difficult to be certain even comparing them side by side.
-
have you tried comparing it to your cobalt charger? I can't refind the pic of that at the mo, but that has cobalt swirled into the base glass iirc from looking last night doesn't it?
m
-
This one? https://picasaweb.google.com/Johnmj100/EarlyMdinaGlass#5684180413909505330
It is difficult to tell, but, the glass in the centre is quite a bit thicker and so the colour is more concentrated there. Some of the darker colour is amethyst but it also looks like a small amount of cobalt was used too, one or two small distinct patches are quite visible.
-
oh that's intersting - I assumed the charger displayed as cobalt blue - but isn't it? does it display as the same colour as the neck of your cobalt winged fish?
And I'm very interested in the cobalt fish photographed in MHill's book - has anyone actually seen it in person? I also wonder if that is a similar design to your fish with the neck and v being a different colour and only the wings actually being cobalt blue?
(it looks not far off the colour of my fish in when I compare it to the picture laying my fish against the page btw - and my fish only has cobalt swirled in the casing)
m
-
The 'base' glass of the charger is the same blue as the neck of my cobalt fish and the majority of your fish, I suspect that that is the same for the cobalt fish on page 31 of Mark Hill's book (not seen it in person and no idea who it belonged too).
-
In all honesty, (huge controversy coming up now) perhaps the photograph in Mark Hill's book is distorting the colour, but I think that fish he shows as cobalt, to my eye at least, is not cobalt blue :o
or at least the base glass used for it is not cobalt blue.
It might have cobalt blue in the wings but even then I would have expected it to 'show' as cobalt in the photograph, in the same way as my fish vase does because my fish vase contains the cobalt blue in the wings.
I've photographed my fish in various conditions under various types of lighting bulbs and each and every time, it picks up as cobalt, never that jewel deep turquoise that it actually displays as to the naked eye, despite having the cobalt swirls in it.
m
-
It would not be surprising to me if it was not cobalt but I would rather sit on the fence on that one at the moment. Not surprising as many of the photos in the book are poor, they do not show the glass well. Another error (in my mind anyway) is the description of the fish vases on page 30 & 31 as 'brown' when they are amethyst, depending on the light sometimes the amethyst can look brown.
Like this one: https://picasaweb.google.com/Johnmj100/EarlyMdinaGlass#5752076461391603362
John
-
Have you noticed I've been very quiet?
I cannot get cobalt to show up cobalt next to a turquoisey bit showing the turquoise in pics. I have tried and tried, none of my images do the job adequately.
I can see the difference in reality, as clearly as anything myself, but the camera just won't do it.
However, the cobalt in my "new" strapped bottle did come out when it was placed next to my National Treasure. ???
-
;D yes I have -
I 'think' if you hold up your fish on it's own against a backlight source , it's possible that it also has cobalt in the mix of the casing in the wings - so in your pics, it's not that your bottle isn't showing the cobalt, but that that fish next to it isn't showing the true turquoise ish
colour it views as to the naked eye.
I strongly suspect that the fish shown in Mark Hill's book captioned as cobalt fish, is not cobalt but perhaps the same as John's whereby the wings are entirely cobalt but not the neck and v.
Yours I think might be like mine, i.e. having cobalt swirled in the mix for the wings rather than the wings being from the cobalt batch. I'd like to see another photo of your fish on it's own but with the light strongly behind it because it will hopefully show up the cobalt swirls and patches :)
Is your cobalt streaked new bottle matched to your cobalt charger colour? is it cobalt streaked or is the whole base glass of the new bottle cobalt blue?
I've linked the pic you attached to a previous thread here - second attachment in your post
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,27152.msg164222.html#msg164222
m
-
That early fish of mine has no cobalt in it, none whatsoever. :)
My bottle has a "diluted" cobalt partial casing, it is not streaky. But it is practically pale navy blue - a completely different shade - it seems to be a warmer sort of blue than the turquoise/teal colour.
My tricorn charger with the seaweedy swirls is pure undiluted cobalt - and is just about impossible to see through.
This is a backlit image of the charger - which does brighten the cobalt colour up considerably.
-
so your cobalt charger, John's fish wings, Johns' trailing on his small vase, my sidestripe, the other almost inside out vase (found on another thread), and one of Suzy's almost inside out vases are all the deep inky almost opaque cobalt blue?
then also I believe my fish has cobalt mixed in and has cased the wings. And you think your cobalt on your new bottle has been mixed to to a paler version to case your bottle? I think cobalt was used in a different mixed or diluted format then as well as on it's own.
m
-
The unadulterated cobalt is not opaque but it is dark. As the cobalt pot was a limited resource it is no surprise that it was used sparingly.
-
So does a pot of colour not go very far then? I've only seen one person gathering glass from a pot and she didn't seem to be taking very much out lol... I can't imagine how many vases could be made with one pot of colour.
Does your charger then fit into the category of the turquoise with cobalt also swirled into it?
I'm just wondering whether after using the single pot of cobalt, perhaps he made a series of pieces with cobalt mixed into the pieces (maybe your amethyst/blue fish included in that as well?) but then gave up on the cobalt altogether? Is cobalt very expensive? why would he only make one pot of it?
m
-
Those are questions I can't answer, I don't have the information needed. There was apparently only one pot of cobalt blue and when it was used up that was the end of it. No idea why more was not available or where it came from in the first place. The quality of the glass available to be used at the very beginning at Mdina was not the greatest, no idea if this was a result of finance, a supply problem or something else.
-
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=28360.0;attach=26911;image
thanks :) maybe Tom or Adam might be able to help on how many pieces can be made from a single pot.
John I've been looking closely at pictures you've posted of your fish. Your fish has three casings - the first one (i.e. innermost to the turquoise neck) looks just like the casing on my fish, cobalt blue mixed with turquoise, to my eye.
The next two outer layer wing casings deepen the colour and look as if they are totally cobalt no mix. So it seems to me that my vase only got the single casing of cobalt mixed which is the same as the first casing on your vase. I can see from a photo you posted on another thread where you can just see the first inch of the first casing around the v of your vase. (I've linked the pic above, hope that#s ok)
m
-
I've been reading Mdina Glass & Isle of Wight Studio Glass - Mark Hill.
I'm not sure I understand it correctly or if I do I have some questions then :)
On page 21 it says ' two batches of clear, colourless soda lime glass were melted in separate furnaces. Metal oxides, such as cobalt oxide, were added to one batch which gave colour, in this case a deep cobalt blue. A gather of glass was then extracted from the coloured batch and rolled in chemicals to modify or change the colour, and add others.
The implication being that only one colour was used in conjunction with clear in another batch, and or in conjunction with rolling in chemicals to modify or change the colour, and add others. I can't see that description working for either my fish or John's, if they are two colour, neither for the recent fish posted a few months ago that also had a turquoise neck and cobalt wings. So would it have been the case that both batches of clear colourless glass were coloured rather than just one at some point in production?
My vase is not clear cased.
and where would the cobalt have been if there'd been a turquoise and a clear batch - there must have been two coloured batches at some point?
-
I have no answers at all. Completely clueless.
This thread has been linked to another discussing cobalt, which has brought me back here.
I need to add the very thick inside-out pots with facetted sides cut off to the list of things with cobalt-blue glass. There are a "fair" number of these floating around with cobalt casings, I would think I've probably seen between 10 and fifteen of them in total over the years.
I have also been studying a couple of massively thick Tiger inside-outs, and I'm fairly convinced there is cobalt blue in two of them.
That would mean Tiger got designed by Dobson earlier than originally thought - it would have had to be when the cobalt pot was melted if this is the case, rather than it being after Harris left...
Now I'm wondering if cobalt blue is a descriptor of the colour or whether it means it was produced using cobalt.
-
The two pieces I have that have cobalt in them are both I believe, very early (in the life of Mdina) pieces, not just because of the cobalt but because of the style of the design.
Mark Hill says clearly that cobalt oxide was added to the batch :
On page 21 it says ' two batches of clear, colourless soda lime glass were melted in separate furnaces. Metal oxides, such as cobalt oxide, were added to one batch which gave colour, in this case a deep cobalt blue. A gather of glass was then extracted from the coloured batch and rolled in chemicals to modify or change the colour, and add others.
m
-
Yes, found it. :)
But while it might be implied that this was in '68, it doesn't actually specify that, does it?
It is delightfully vague.
But if you turn over to p.22, it gets a bit better.
(some colours such as an amethyst) "purple or cobalt blue in its unmodified form were only used as final colours for a short period of time in the first year of production".
Does that refer to the non addition of salts, so just the small Fish (and perhaps a few one-offs) really?
It doesn't tell us much about its use in modified forms with salts and other colours. ???
-
Further confusing information for cobalt appears on page 32. I refer to this comment later, but firstly,
I think what we need to know is what exactly Mark Hill means by my underlined
'purple or cobalt blue in its unmodified form were only used as final colours...'
and
'purple or cobalt blue in its unmodified form were only used as final colours ...'
And specifically I want to know because my sidestripe is cobalt and lots of it, and I'm sure it's an early Michael Harris piece. I suspect it might be an example of both those underlined comments, because the cobalt hasn't been rolled in any chlorides or mixed with any, it is pure cobalt on the outside. The interior I believe was a clear rolled in chlorides and then cased over in a final unmodified colour cobalt blue
As I say, on page 32 (under chapter of fish vases) there is further information -
'Colour and patterning also vary widely, with each example again being unique. The green used on other ranges is more commonly seen, (my words- when he says green, I suspect he means turquoise?)as is the very deep purple colour associated with pieces produced during MIchael's ownership of the studio. Both can have added streaks or swirls of deeper colour under the clear casing,or take on a mottled cloudy appearance. The purple itself can appear to have a brown tinge when light passes through it, or appear as a royal blue when light is shone onto the surface. Silver chloride escaping from the area where the glassblower's rod is attached to the piece (the moil) can add an iridescent swirl. Other coloured enamels were also applied to the surface of the internal body, such as sandy yellow, cobalt blue or brown in random swirling or mottled patterns. These can often look as though they have been 'painted' onto the body in an abstract manner.'
To demonstrate this point above, on page 34 there are two very large sculptures made by and signed by Michael Harris and dated to c.1970 I think they both contain cobalt blue swirls in them, with one being mostly turquoise blue and the other being mostly the bright 'teal 'y' turquoise blue. The effect is the same as the cobalt blue in the wings on my fish vase :)
There is only one other piece in the book that I think might contain cobalt and that is the fish on page 31 that is labelled as cobalt blue Fish. I think it might have cobalt in the wings but I don't think the whole fish is cobalt :-[
So it's possible that if Cobalt was only used at all in the first year of production, then these are wrongly dated if they contain cobalt swirls, and should date to c. late summer 1968-late summer 1969.
However, if cobalt was used as a final colour only within the first year but also used in later years within the swirls of a piece, then they could of course date to c.1970 (if indeed they do contain cobalt).
That is a plausible explanation for cobalt use because I think it was expensive? so using it in small quantities as a decorative effect may have been a cost efficient way of still being able to use it?
Perhaps that's how the whole 'swirly' Mdina effect came about? a way of ekeing out expensive colours, making them look stunning but cost efficient by using a clear base.
It's also possible that the 'solid' colour effect of one colour all over the piece, was not a design or aesthetic effect he was looking for in his range.
m
-
Can I have a few hours to try to digest what you're saying, m? ;D
(My swiss cheese brain has trouble with embedded clauses. ::))
-
;D
just one short comment more -
- my fish is exactly the same colours as the Sculpture on page 35. It is that bright turquoisy teal with the cobalt blue swirls in the wings only. (mine has no amethyst or chlorides in though).
m
-
Hello m at the start of this long thread, you mentioned that there was a curious strip of glass across the centre of the little bottle with the button rim.
I have never seen this in a glass bottle until just now when I cam across this very clearly shown similar bridging thread in an art glass bottle.
So just for interest I thought I would add it here whilst it was fresh in my mind. The bottle may well not be Maltese, but the effect is very clearly shown and so here it is:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Art-Glass-Bottle-Vase-with-unusual-Joined-Thread-Inside-/351315515211
I hope it is still relevant to this long runnung saga as a good illustration of the inclusion in the bottle.
-
Hi Rosie
That belongs to a board member I think and might have been posted recently. These 'bridges' appear fairly frequently around studio glass as a design feature, and are where a gadget has been poked through the sides I believe. I think mine has as well to be honest. I don' t think it was an accident.
m
-
I've got a strange strap in the middle of a Fish vase - it is not supposed to be there, it is decidedly an accident.
I was playing around with some very thick Tiger pattern inside-out bowls, putting them up to my kitchen cooker hood lights, and discovering there was a lot more to them than I have ever thought. ;D
One of these, I am sure, has cobalt in it. Here are the pics I took - with and without being lit from inside.
(it's quite easy to tell which is which!)
-
I'm a bit undecided on that one Sue. It doesn't have that slightly odd purple hue that Cobalt always seems to have when photographed.
To be honest photos can be difficult to tell, but that one looks like what I call in my head ;D Mdina 'navy blue'
and is similar to the left hand vase, bottom pic, that John posted here
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,53678.msg304572.html#msg304572
Perhaps the bridge in my sidestripe is just a glitch in the making then.
m
-
It is always difficult with photos, there appears to be cobalt over teal in this vase. It's at a different depth. I thought I had managed to capture some clue of that in the second pic.
It all vanishes when lit from inside, because the light is extremely bright and it's over yellows and browns and teal anyway.
I'm having trouble with taking pics because the glasses I need to see the piece I'm photographing are different to the glasses I need to see the screen on the camera. :-[
It's a completely different blue to John's one you showed - I have that piece. I was planning to photograph it next to my cobalt one to add here, just haven't done that yet. :)