Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: brucebanner on February 01, 2014, 08:46:53 PM
-
This is another of my recent finds, any help welcome please, it has a hollow stem, rough snapped pontil, a few white seeds and wear to the base. I think it might be a deceptive glass as the inner sides are really thick and taper up towards the rim, it also has a lovely ring to it, i'm not sure what it's for or what it's real age is. It's 5 1/4 inches in height 3 inches across the rim and 2 5/8ths across the base.
-
Hi, I'd say definitely not Georgian. I would have said late Victorian or later from the style but the rough pontil mark has me confused as I would have expected a gadget mark.
-
I'd agree with Neil - not Georgian I'm sure - the foot diameter looks too small.
As for the pontil scar - believe this is can be found on glasses right through to about 1870 ish.........they appear on some of the tall pressed thumbprint ales occasionally (the Sowerby sort) - although they seem mostly to have gone by about c. 1860, after which the Y and T marks start to appear (on lesser quality glasses).
I thought we'd killed off the Y or T marks being from the gadget ;D ;D - when Peter put us right some time last year - they are apparently caused by the shears when separating the gob on the foot from the pontil rod.
My own opinion is that this is not a deceptive glass. There are drinking glasses from the middle third of the C19 showing this thicker walled feature - noticeable on some rummers especially - where this thickness appears on the lower two thirds of the bowl. Other than suggesting this is happens for some reason during the blowing process, I don't know the cause.
Having said that, I can't really see the full outline of this bowl - so if the depth is more like a penny lick, then I'm wrong and you're right, but assuming the depth to be standard, then probably not deceptive. ;D
Date wise not really sure - these hollow stems aren't easy - but if pushed I'd go for c. 1840 - 1860 ish, roughly, approximately. ;)
-
Thanks for taking the time Paul to explain these little bits of info i have learnt a lot from you recently and it's helped me no end as with everyone else on this board, i just love this old glass, this one is so top heavy it's a wonder it has survived as long as it has.
-
I've no idea about glasses, but the foot looks really oddly too small. If you say it's really top heavy, I'm just wondering could the foot have been cut smaller than was original to cover damage to the original rim maybe? Or could the foot be a replacement? does that happen, or rather is it likely to happen to this kind of glass or isn't it valuable enough to do so iyswim?
m