Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: bat20 on October 09, 2013, 12:45:43 PM
-
Hi all,i hope I'm getting somewhere with working out some stem glass identification problems and at the risk of yet another public belly flop,i have another couple of glasses, both with gadjet marks,the one on the left has no ring to it and I've got it down as Victorian 1860 to 1900 sweet meat dish,the one on the right as polish or the like, 70's or so with a ring to it,any feedback gratefully received,many thanks.The one on the left is about 11cm by 11cm.
-
Hi bat20,
Could you please post each item for ID in separate threads, especially if you already think they may be from different countries. Otherwise, discussions can become mixed up and for cases where ID is to different countries it would be difficult for Moderators to split the details out to the correct Forum.
-
It's more of a question about gadget marks and dating their use in other countries than an id for different glasses Kevin,so if it's ok i"d like to keep them together. :)
-
This matter of whether the Y and T marks - nothing in common with inkjet by the way - were made by the gadget, was the subject of a very recent post in which Peter (Oldglassman) made it clear that they are in fact marks created by shears when separating the gob on the end of the pontil from the foot of the glass. See here...... http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,53922.msg305855.html#msg305855
I'd suggest your description of the left hand piece is probably correct, although I'm not sure that the hey-day of 'fern' decoration extended quite to the end of the C19. Other items it might be confused with are the slightly larger comport, and the much deeper open sugar.
As for the right hand piece, I've really no idea if material dating to the 1970's is found with the shears mark - perhaps you might post a picture for us to see. I think your suggestion of Polish is too tenuous a guess - smoky coloured glass has been produced in every country under the sun for many decades - we'd need something of substance to go on to follow you in that direction. However, it certainly looks modern in the sense of being from the last half century.
So.............what shall we say, 'half a public belly flop' ;)
-
meant to add............It seems that any marks the gadget might leave on the foot of a glass, if at all visible, will be seen on the upper surface - although they seem very difficult to detect - but if you do find them a picture would be appreciated. Pictures of undersides of the feet of drinking glasses provide useful information in any event, so nothing wasted by including them. :)
-
Hi ,
Bat20 , you might like to watch this , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQGO3wDesLE&feature=related
cheers ,
Peter.
-
Thanks for the replies again and the mesmerizing clip,the number of failed photos i have now on my computer and the kama sutra type positions I've been in you would not believe ;),so i hope this one of the mark on the smoke glass piece is of some help,the gadjet marks on top of the foot i"m finding hard to spot,i think i need a magnifying glass with a light..
-
That's a shear mark
-
So what we're saying is when people describe their glass as having 'y' or 't" gadjet mark on the base it is incorrect as they are the shear marks only indicating in some cases,depending on the look of the glass,that a gadjet was used,but the actual gadjet marks are found on the surface of the foot and can"t always be seen..
-
Bernard seems to have a good description here http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php?topic=28538.0
I suspect a gadget mark has much broader lines than a cut-like a shear mark
-
Hi ,
Confusion rules again.
quote from the link to Bernards comments above " The Y-shaped mark of a gadget is where your fingers are on the upper side of the foot, either side of the stem. "
The Y or T mark being referred to are on the underside of the foot ,not as stated above,these are the result of shearing off (trailing off as in the video leaves a swirl mark) the gob of glass that is then formed into the foot , the gadget is then used as shown here .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQGO3wDesLE&feature=related
Any marks that might be found from the use of a Gadget will be circular flat marks around the upper surface of the foot which can be almost impossible too see .as these jaws were as Bernard correctly says insulated with asbestos
-
Here's the shear mark for the sweatmeat glass,i can't find any sign of a gadjet mark on top of the foot,so can i safely say this piece was made after the use of the gadjet..
-
Hi,
No!! , it is very very rare to see any of the marks that may have been left by the gadget and if found are very feint,if a glass has a distinct T or Y mark from the shearing you can assume that a Gadget was used but are very unlikely see any of the marks from the use of the gadget.
I have seen more modern glasses that have marks on the underfoot that look like a shear mark , but are not distinctively T or Y shaped and i think this mark is the result of the machine production of the glass and not the use of a gadget.
cheers ,
Peter.
-
Ahhh,sorry Peter i feel i driving you to a Commissioner Dreyfuss type eye twitch ;)and at the risk of getting a "beumb"in the post,i often see the remnants of shear marks on glass with polished pontils,could some of these been made with a gadjet..putting my helmet on now ;D
-
They might be shear marks but a gadget won't have been used because it avoided the use of a pontil rod
-
I thought all of this had been explained some way back ::)
Unfortunately, even those books that mention this piece of equipment are less than clear on the cause of these marks, although it may well be that their authors knew what they meant but didn't explain clearly exactly what part of the process created them. Could be wrong, but I don't seem to possess a book that does explain adequately, even Charles Hajdamach fails to use the word shears - good job we have Peter ;)
Despite this confusion, the time line given for these shear marks remains valid, and it seems they don't appear before c. 1860, and although they were disappearing by the end of the C19, may have lingered for a while.
Charles Hajdamach's book does include diagrams of this equipment, so you should have this anyway - it must be cheap on the web I'd have thought - unless you already have it.
I don't think I could safely say I've ever seen gadget marks on the upper side of the foot, alhought expect they are there, but only feintly. Feet are often full of swirls and blips.
Peter - should your very last word have been shears, rather than gadget?
-
sorry, think that last bit has crossed with Lustrousstone's comment.
-
Hi ,
Yes Paul probably Gadget/shears would have been better,
bat !! you said "i often see the remnants of shear marks on glass with polished pontils " the pontil is polished because it was a rough scar,snapped pontil call it what you like it was the remains from the punty iron, and marks around that area on a polished pontil are remnants of the snapped pontil remains.
cheers ,
Peter .
ps beumb is on its way .
-
Thanks everyone, your pain my gain I'm afraid,the penny has dropped!
-
just seen a minky going by with a beumb ;D bat - assume you don't have Charles Hajdamach's book on C19 glass - probably quite cheap from the internet I'd think - and very worth while buying.