Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: RoyJ99 on April 13, 2014, 07:07:53 PM
-
My 3rd and final car boot purchase of the day and this one I actually know what it is lol. My question for this one is how old do you think it is or is that like asking how long a piece of string is. I know they are still being produced today.
Thanks
Roy
-
Brand new I think.
http://www.bristol-glass.co.uk/About-Bristol-Blue-Glass.html
-
the answer regarding the length of a piece of string, is always (for any length) - twice the distance from the centre to one end ;)
Nice decanter by the way, b.b. is always a great decorative colour. Ivo is obviously on the ball today.
-
Thanks I have looked at that site however further reading suggests that they have remained virtually unchanged for years. I have also found others(such as the one in the link below) which look identical listed as antique however I can find any images of bases etc which is why I'm asking here. I have absolutely nothing to go on regarding whether it's old or brand new tbh. All I know is that it came from a house clearance along with the other items I posted today.
http://www.antiques.co.uk/antique/Bristol-Blue-Ships-Decanter
-
Thanks Paul lol, regardless of age it was an absolute steal at £10. No way I could pass on it.
-
Here's a link to similar (on a cream jug from memory), which I put on the Board's Glass Gallery Marks and Labels, and appears I put 'probably post 1990. I see their page carries the start up year of 1988, so they really are recent. It's possible that someone else may have used this word on the base of b.b. pieces, but I'm not aware that we've had any queries on the subject. http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?album=536&pos=6
-
Awesome, thanks Paul that helps a lot. Any idea as to why there seems to be four marks instead of the usual single pontil scar?
-
Honestly, I'm really not sure, but finishing a large object like this decanter might have meant that when breaking the attachment to the pontil rod, the scar that remained needed to be ground down to avoid problems when standing the piece upright. Perhaps it's only the smaller pieces from Bristol Blue that were sold with the scar remaining.
There is a fair amount of C18 and C19 glass, mostly clear of course, where if you look closely, not all of the pontil scar imperfections have been removed with grinding/polishing. Smallish bubbled inclusions like yours often remain.
I'm sure that the 'four' marks on this decanter aren't significant - just a random defect left after polishing.
I notice that the b.b. pieces from the T/Webb range (from the 1960/70's), appear to have quality ground/polished pontil depressions plus a distinctive factory backstamp, or at least my six pieces do.
Unlike the Bristol Blue pieces which appear to be copying more closely their antique counterparts, the T/Webb pieces don't incorporate genuinely old features such as, for example, the 'top down handles'
Obviously modern backstamps and dremeled signatures are there to avoid confusion with genuinely old pieces.
-
Thanks for that explanation, was just curious if it was a particular technique or reason for leaving the mark like that.
-
I'm sure there's no longer any doubt but Ivo was right and it's from Bristol Blue Glass.
I've had tankards signed the same but in red.
And they are local to me :)
Lovely colour glass btw.
m
-
Any idea as to why there seems to be four marks instead of the usual single pontil scar?
Yes, they used a four prong pontil rod. I don't know how items from Bristol Blue Glass are finished though.
-
I've now given away my one piece of Bristol Blue - but looking at my pic on the Glass Gallery it had a shallow kick and a snapped pontil scar.
Obviously it looks as though I mis-interpreted the picture showing the base of this decanter ..... thanks to Lustrousstone for the explanation of the 'four prong pontil rod'. :)
Looking again at that picture of the base it would seem there isn't any final finishing i.e. grinding or polishing - just snapped from the attachment of those four marks - would that be correct Roy?
-
Thanks Lustrousone and yeah Paul that is correct.
-
thanks - economics again I guess :)