Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Bernard C on May 10, 2014, 11:15:08 AM
-
See two images, each with click main image to enlarge feature, via http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-19883
Here you will see a ruby Thomas Webb posy with Rd 80167 engraved on the base (September 5 1887, for the petal rim crimp), with a matching rim on an epergne flute, with matching colour on a rose bowl. All are high quality productions.
The colour is a rich reddish purple. It is not Alexandrite as popularly defined today (are we certain how defined Alexandrite was?), but it's not far off. Is it heat sensitive glass? Is it a variant of Alexandrite? If not, what is it?
More views of the rose bowl via http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-19885
Thanks for your interest.
Bernard C. 8)
-
attractive pieces Bernard.
To some extent we might all see these pinks/reds/rose/amethysts/ruby colours slightly differently - to me the epergne flute and rose bowl look somewhere between amethyst and mauve, perhaps, but in view of the clear body on your pieces, it's difficult to find a match with other known heat reactive pieces......... Gulliver, the Grovers etc., - it does look different from most of these other rim shades.
Heat reactive pieces seem, usually, to work their way from pale straw to the rim variations of red/deep red/deep purple/metallic fuchsia/blue (see Christine's Alexandrite and the CH example) depending on the re-striking.
Gulliver's single example of Alexandrite seems almost to be closer to Amberina, and the Grovers comment that they believe that Alexandrite was produced by T/Webb and S. & W. only.
The only example that I can see presently that has a clear body and which might have a close match to your rim colour is the small bowl in Gulliver from S. & W.'s 'Grotesque' pattern. Obviously the shape has nothing to do with your pieces, but the colour might have.
Is Alexandrite simply a variation of Amberina? Heated for longer perhaps? - part of the definition of both Amberina and Alexandrite seems to be that a straw body is required to start with, so just possible that your pieces may not be related to heat reactive glass.
-
Bernard, is that really a matching rim on the epergne though? It has 8 'petals' whereas the ruby vase has 7. I'm a bit curious about these pieces and whether or not they are all Webb (having come across this issue regarding a vase with this rim on the 'Arboresque' question thread). I know the vase has an rd number on it, but does that RD preclude any other maker from copying the rim shape?
I have a piece of Alexandrite. I admit I know nothing about making glass but I cannot see the connection between your purple pieces and the Alexandrite piece I own. The V& A have a piece of Alexandrite iirc, and it could be a rose bowl - I'll see if I can find it and that might match your shape.
My Webb Alexandrite piece is uranium and I think, again iirc, Webb Alexandrite was twice heated and the rim edge shows as chocolate from a certain angle.
S&W Alexandrite is made in a different way I think - is it cased rather than heated? I think it is - better go and read up on this as I've probably remembered this all incorrectly :-[
I'll link it if I find it.
edit - V&A Thomas Webb Alexandrite rose bowl
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1190455/bowl-thomas-webb-sons/
p.s. - is the bottom of the rose bowl 'pleated' or kind of 'ribbed' as it curves towards the pontil mark?
m
-
Bernard, is that really a matching rim on the epergne though? It has 8 'petals' whereas the ruby vase has 7.
I am adding the following point while I think of it, in case Bernard does not look in for a while.
I believe the Thomas Webb Rd design 80167 was for the shape of the rim "petals", not the specific number of "petals". In Gulliver, the drawing copied from the official records for that Rd number shows the rim formation, but with ten "petals".
-
Thanks Kev . However does this preclude anyone else from having made that shape of petal on the rims?
Or did the RD only last for a set period of time.
m
-
page 318 British Glass 1800-1914 Charles Hajdamach -
gives a description of how Thomas Webb Alexandrite glass is made. It appears to me to start with an amber glass (I guess uranium amber), reheated once to get the change from amber to red and again '... finally to reheat the very top of the glass to get a beautiful violet blue.'
In fact on the piece I have the colour goes from amber to red to violet to blue and the very edge of the rim is chocolate.
If the epergne and rose bowl are clear glass at the bottom is it possible they were 'cased' finely with amethyst glass at the rims before being shaped?
m
-
I am not really sure, but I read somewhere that Design Registrations were in force for 5 years (I think), with an option to renew. So, if no renewal was made then copies could be made, but would many companies want to copy an "old" design?
-
I don't really know Kev. My 'sensible' head would think no to that question.
I only really started to question those kind of things to be honest, when I realised that Victorian looking epergnes were still being made well into the 20th century and it occurred to me that the same glass and shapes were being made over and over again for donkey's years. I'm always shocked by how some amazing forward looking and inventive glass was being made by some companies and yet, concurrently, other companies were still producing the same old 'best-sellers' year on year.
So for example on page 40 of CH's 20th Century British Glass there is an advert from 1921 for J.F. Bolton Bowater showing epergnes, flowers vases and baskets. It says '... Smaller Stourbridge companies specialised in these ranges until the late 1920s'. They all look Victoriana, with frills and crimped rims etc. including one set that has a squarish castellated rim around each piece - a rim that is very similar to a castellated rim I've seen referred to as ' a marker for Stevens and Williams'.
Just for interest, here are some examples of Steuben 'Grotesque' - shaded from clear to another colour. The shapes are very different to Bernard's, but the effect of the colour shading on clear is similar. I don't know how it was achieved though.
http://aarf.com/festeuben01.htm
I also believe both Harrach and Moser made amethyst to clear shaded glass. Again I don't know whether it was achieved through reheating or through finely casing the clear glass in amethyst.
I've attached a picture of a vase shading from uranium green to pink and with an opalescent rim. It was heated to get the opalescent rim I think but I don't know how the green to pink was achieved.
The lampshade I've also attached was very large and incredibly heavy. I think it was cased in pink rather than heat treated but that was just my opinion on it.
m
-
Another example of why I queried the rim (sorry had to think back as to why I had that question in my mind) is that on page 228 of Gulliver's British Victorian Decorative glass,there is a little crackle glass salt with a very similar petalled rim. It has 6 petals in this case. He does not refer to it as a Webb piece.
-
That's because the lovely Mr Gulliver will not commit himself unless 100% positive. Though I suspect the salt is Webb. The shaded casing effect, as I suspect Bernard's is, can be achieved by blowing a smaller bubble into a larger bubble until it bursts to achieve a partial coating
-
thanks for the explanation Christine :) I could not remember how it was done. I think you have explained this before and that there are a couple of threads on here with some further discussion on that casing method but I couldn't find them.
edited to add:
With regards the definition of Webb Alexandrite, I understand it that the base glass is uranium and that the rim should show as chocolate at the very edge when angled.
There is a good description here from Kev regarding Stevens and Williams Alexandrite. I read this as the colour effect not being achieved via a reheating method but by casing of glass in various colours -
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,563.msg2430.html#msg2430
'As for "Alexandrite", again Revi describes this well enough - at least for the Thomas Webb version. It was a term used for a tri-coloured shaded glass (amber - rose - violet) formed by two reheatings. Stevens & Williams apparently used the same name but Revi's description, "plated transparent yellow with rose and blue" differs from Manley's, who stated "cased Rockingham [a chocolate colour] over citron over crystal". Hajdamach seems not to cover "Alexandrite" for Stevens & Willams.'
and on the Fairy Lamp site Jim has added a page with all references found at that point, to Alexandrite glass from Thomas Webb and includes descriptions of Stevens and Williams cased Alexandrite glass
http://www.fairy-lamp.com/Fairylamp/Temp/Alexandrite_References.html
Nigel has handled and owned a number of Webb Alexandrite pieces and given a very clear description of Thomas Webb Alexandrite here (btw subsequently in that thread he determined the fairy lamp was indeed Webb Alexandrite)
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,9368.msg79563.html#msg79563
m
-
I don't think the rims should show chocolate; some items do but glasses generally do not and they needed to match. They were also easy to hold and reheat with their vertical bowls, so I suspect that whatever was achieved with this expensive metal was OK, except for glasses
http://lustrousstone.co.uk/cpg/displayimage.php?pid=1780
-
I had just been going by what Nigel had said in the post I linked above regarding the chocolate rim.
This one is wine glass shaped 4 1/2 " tall, and has the chocolate rim.
http://www.shop.glasstiques.com/Alexandrite-Stem-Glass-1794.htm
m
-
I was under the impression that if the rim has gone as far as chocolate, the thing has been overcooked during production. They were supposed to stop when it had gone blue.
Obviously, with it all being red-white hot, it was very hard to tell when that point had been reached. :)
-
That's an optical illusion from looking into the metal itself. I've just checked my glasses and they show it , but not from straight on and held against the light.
-
having looked at Parts 1 and 2 of the Christie's catalogues for the Parkington collection - the items referred to by Nigel in m's link - can say that the images of the pieces in question are too small to reveal any chocolate colouring. Contrast in the pix is good though, and shows the main deep rose/purple/fuchsia/violet blue signature colours of Alexandrite to good effect, with one piece appearing to show an excess of blue due to over-heating.
Michael Parkington had some very choice pieces of Alexandrite - one of which was a tall wine which, very unusually for this material, showed the re-struck colours at both the bowl rim and foot rim.
As we know, it's the gold in solution, apparently, that is responsible for the Alexandrite colours when re-heated - I wonder if it was 24 ct. - and of course the same ingredient is responsible for the pinks in Burmese.
Both contain uranium (will someone please reconfirm that Alexandrite does glow please), although Burmese has other ingredients to give the opacity etc.
Before I was aware of the Truits comments that they believed the manufacture of Alexandrite was confined to the U.K., I looked in Kenneth M. Wilsons volume one of 'Mt. Washington & Pairpoint Glass' expecting to see reams of the stuff, alongside Burmese and Peach Blow etc., but nothing, despite an entire chapter on the history and litigation surrounding Locke's invention of Amberina.
Which I thought was odd, since surely someone in the States, making Amberina, would have heated twice and discovered those colours beyond Amberina which we now call Alexandrite.
It seems that in order to profit from what had become an explosive market for Amberina (the 1880's) and avoid legal issues with New England Glass Works (Joseph Locke), Mt. Washington made their own product called Rose Amber - although the two products appear mostly indistinguishable, with a possibility that some Rose Amber looks decidedly more fuchsia than ordinary Amberina.
I believe that the States Amberina and Rose Amber were both of lead glass manufacture, but I don't know if this was also true of Alexandrite.
The Alexandrite pieces in the Grover's volume are interesting and definitely worth a look, and include plates, one of which exhibits much blue around the rim - although in view of the date of the book the picture quality is not too good. These authors give a brief account of the re-heating process necessary to achieve the colours Alexandrite - referring only to amber, fuchsia and blue - there's no mention of uranium or chocolate.
They also show a wine goblet - a surviving shape that seems possibly more common than others.
CH's piece of Alexandrite is a very good photograph, and shows the requisite colours very well.
As far as I can see, Alexandrite is absent from both of Barrie Skelcher's volumes on uranium glass, and unfortunately, the quality of the pic. in Manley is very poor, and his description really too brief.
Would comment again that the alleged piece of 'Alexandrite' which Gulliver includes, has more the appearance of Amberina or equally Rose Amber - the pic quality is good, so can't blame doubts on the image. Gulliver does give detailed descriptions of several of these heat reactive glass products.....including Alexandrite, which he qualifies as being struck twice "to obtain the change from amber to ruby to violet blue at the rim" - but he makes no mention of uranium or chocolate. This description of his does seem to go against his own exhibit as being Alexandrite.
The Truitt's 'Bohemian Glass 1880 - 1940 includes several pieces of what appear to be genuine Amberina.
Gulliver and the Grovers are additions to Nigel's comments on sources in the literature, but they don't really add a great deal to the information that Nigel had already detailed.
Just to confuse matters - and as already mentioned by m - there have been (or are), other commercial glass products which go under the name of Alexandrite ..........
the Grovers show a transparent pinkish bowl which they attribute as being signed "Moser-Alexandrite",
and in Miller's/McConnell '20th Century Glass' there are items by Heinrich Hussmann for Moser plus ashtrays and sticks from Heinrich Hoffmann. The Miller's pieces are quoted as dating to c. 1929/30.
All of these C20 pieces are so called, presumably, because of the similarity of the colour to the mineral chrysoberyl.
Apologies to Bernard for digressing excessively - but just thought as we had already detracted miles from his piece I might as well go the whole hog and bore everyone.
I'm sure that Lustrousstone is correct in her description of how the colours of Bernard's piece were combined, and feel there's a good chance that m's comment about the similarity to Grotesque is also near the mark.
If you haven't already fallen asleep - you may now do so. ;)
-
Alexandrite is both uranium and lead crystal. Gulliver's piece is most likely Alexandrite because he does not state as fact something of which he is not 100% sure. That dark rim colouring and seeming lack of much blue is not uncommon
-
your comments may well be correct Christine - all I can say is that having looked at a lot of book pix of both Amberina and Rose Amber (States pieces), my opinion is that Mervyn Gulliver's small punch cup appears indistinguishable, in terms of colour, from them - there is some variation within these colour ranges that give rise to doubt.
As you'd imagine, Joseph Locke's original sketch books show that punch cups were included in his repertoire. Of course, it might be possible to argue that the shell ribbed handle, plus the quilted pattern, was uniquely a T/Webb design, and although Gulliver doesn't comment as such, it's always possible that he has matched his cup precisely with a T/Webb pattern book for Alexandrite. :)
-
Im a bit confused about these statements below. Is there a reference for these definitions? Nigel was very specific in mentioning the chocolate rim as well as the colours.
I was under the impression that if the rim has gone as far as chocolate, the thing has been overcooked during production. They were supposed to stop when it had gone blue.
and
Contrast in the pix is good though, and shows the main deep rose/purple/fuchsia/violet blue signature colours of Alexandrite to good effect, with one piece appearing to show an excess of blue due to over-heating. '
My piece shows a fine chocolate rim all the way round and whichever way you view the rim, from top, from bottom , looking into the rim edge, whatever. It isnt an optical illusion on mine.
Also is the following statement known to be true?
' As we know, it's the gold in solution, apparently, that is responsible for the Alexandrite colours when re-heated - I wonder if it was 24 ct. - and of course the same ingredient is responsible for the pinks in Burmese. '
I ask this, given that the poster Moultermike says on this thread
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,9368.msg210338.html#msg210338
This morning I and a student at the university of Kent at Canterbury did some spectroscopy on a Webb's Alexandrite wine glass. I had established previously that the body of the glass was radioactive, so the yellow is caused by uranium. W.W. Weyl in his book "Coloured Glasses" (ISBN 0-900682-06-X), gives three possible ingredients for purple glass; manganese, nickel and titanium. The maximum spectral absorption of the purple in the wine glass was near 575nm, which is consistent with titanium, but not with manganese or nickel. He stresses the difficulty of reducing titanium to the purple (+3) form. However, I suspect that re-heating in a chemically reducing atmosphere, or even covering the edge of the glass with oil and re- heating it, would form purple Ti3+.
I suspect, therefore, that Webb's Alexandrite is based on uranium and titanium, though X-ray fluorescence would be needed to confirm this.
i.e. Im asking is it only the gold in the metal that enabled the colours in Alexandrite?
Which leads me onto:
With regards the question over whether the American makers could have just found out that heating twice would have produced the Alexandrite effect seen in Thomas Webbs Alexandrite - Is it not possible that their glass metal/mix/recipe was in fact not the same as the recipe used at Thomas Webb, therefore they could not just make the same colour effect as seen on Webbs Alexandrite? I think it's possible it wasn't because there has been discussion that the Webb Alexandrite is uranium glass whereas the American versions aren't? I think I've remembered that correctly. If I have then the metal was made differently which could explain why the versions are different and why they didn't just heat twice to get the same effect.
Paul, with ref your comment (see quote below) on the Alexandrite piece in Gullivers referring to page 256 where he shows a Punch Cup. I can see the violet in the cup and I think its possible there is too much magenta in the photograph for it to be a true representation of the colours of the actual piece. Just my opinion though.
But I also agree that Gulliver would not have referred to this as Webb Alexandrite if he did not have proof it was.
Would comment again that the alleged piece of 'Alexandrite' which Gulliver includes, has more the appearance of Amberina or equally Rose Amber - the pic quality is good, so can't blame doubts on the image. Gulliver does give detailed descriptions of several of these heat reactive glass products.....including Alexandrite, which he qualifies as being struck twice "to obtain the change
from amber to ruby to violet blue at the rim" - but he makes no mention of uranium or chocolate. This description of his does seem to go against his own exhibit as being Alexandrite.
-
edited to add to the above:
Just to add to the discussion re the optical illusion v actual colour of chocolate on the rim and dichroicism of the effect, I held my piece very close, right up to, an LED light this evening with the light shining onto it, so I was viewing it with little light coming through i.e. viewing it front on with the light shining onto it from the front if you see what I mean.
When I do that the whole top half of my piece goes chocolate :o
Viewed with light on it from a distance, i.e. normal diffused lighting it shows all the colours I mentioned previously.
I've seen a picture of the goblet in the Parkington collection (or at least I think it's the one you were referring to) - stunning piece of art.
m
-
I suspect Christine might have been my reference for overcooking to chocolate, it probably came up during the many excited conversations about her glasses.
There was a great deal of discussion going on and lots of poking different lights at them when a large crowd of us all met up.
It looks far better without the chocolate. (I never thought I'd ever say anything like that ;D )
-
Nigel appears to be the only person who mentions the chocolate... The Webb colour recipe list in Hajdamach cites a tri colour containing gold and uranium among a long list of ingredients. I wonder if this is Alexandrite
-
I had suspected Nigel was the origin, but defaulted to you, as the one who passed it on. :-* :-[
-
He does :) but he has also probably seen, as far as I know from what he's said on that thread link and from the rarity/scarcity of Thomas Webb Alexandrite pieces around, the greatest quantity of different pieces of Webb Alexandrite, so his comments would have been obtained from that perspective. I assume he will have seen that feature (however it is perceived i.e whether 'definitely there', 'dichroic effect' or 'optical illusion') in all the Webb Alexandrite pieces he has seen, in order to make the comment.
I'm just off to look at the CH book for the recipe. But in the meantime I wrote this so will post it :)
I have been having a very good search around having done so previously at great length when I was researching my piece of Thomas Webb Alexandrite.
I have been unable to find any other shaded glass that contains the violet to blue at the top with the chocolate rim (or dichroic?appearance of chocolate rim), other than those identified as Thomas Webb Alexandrite.
Obviously I can't tell if any of the other makers shaded glass pieces I've seen are uranium glass but none I've found have been mentioned as such. But what is clear to me from the photographs is, that they look very different to those pieces identified as, or that I recognise as (subjective of course as it's based on my opinion/recognition), Thomas Webb Alexandrite.
And the TW pieces are very rare.
My thoughts are that the violet to blue or violet/blue at the top, with chocolate rim (however it is seen or 'perceived'), along with the glass being uranium glass (since I've not been able to find a reference anywhere that shaded versions of those pieces titled by the owners as Amberina, Bluerina, Rose Amberina, Fuschia Amberina etc are uranium glass) would be markers for the glass being Thomas Webb Alexandrite, along with the requisite three colour shading from being twice struck starting with amber.
With the exception of three pieces, the other 'shaded' glass I have seen has been easily identifiable from my perspective, as not being Thomas Webb Alexandrite and could not be confused with it.
With regard the exceptions, I came across last night and a few months ago, three pieces that were not titled by the owners as Thomas Webb Alexandrite but which I thought might be (obviously again subjective based on my opinion as a layman ):
1) a small creamer in the Chrysler museum collection. They have a number of Thomas Webb Alexandrite pieces which are labelled as such. This creamer is not labelled Thomas Webb but I think it is.
2) A posy vase with crimped rim that was sold on ebay as an American maker but which I thought was Thomas Webb Alexandrite, and it sold for a vast amount of money and I suspect I was right in my thoughts
3) A piece I've seen listed as Libbey which made me pause. The piece has similar qualities to a very tall goblet labelled by it's owner as Thomas Webb Alexandrite and which I think might be the one Paul referred to earlier.
So from my perspective, with regard all the other 'Shaded' pieces I've come across online, I had no problem working out that they were not Thomas Webb Alexandrite and couldn't be confused as such.
I'm wondering three things:
- Firstly what happened to the pieces from the Parkington collection?
- Secondly, there has been mention on previous threads that all the glass came from a single pot. I wonder if that is true?
- Lastly, I wonder if they just made a series of single pieces (or sets in the case of Christine's glasses) in terms of shapes, with no repeats?
m
-
There was a single wine glass for sale at the same fair as Christine brought hers to show, but it had a different optical effect - it was much plainer than the quilted effect, with simple vertical panels.
-
- Lastly, I wonder if they just made a series of single pieces (or sets in the case of Christine's glasses) in terms of shapes, with no repeats?
I doubt it. The same shapes do appear more than once. They are not generally completely free blown, so a short run in one mould is much more likely than a one-off and then change the mould.
David had a footed compote with a chocolate rim but you'd be hard put to see the blue: it's more like a fine line of indigo. This shape would be very difficult to reheat accurately. I reiterate my view that the chocolate is overheating; that is may be more desirable and "valuable" because the colours overall are more intense but the original aim was probably blue at the rim as with the easy to reheat vertically sided glasses. Quality control and lack of consistency probably contributed to the short run.
-
I agree (opinion only) that the chocolate colour should not be there.
It just doesn't look right. :-\
-
maybe - but it looks perfect on my piece ;D
I have to say, it is a very, very fine line all around the rim and if someone not into glass, was looking at it I'd guess they wouldn't see it. But it's there nonetheless :) And mine has a very definite area of blue around the top shading from the rose then violet to blue.
Christine, do you have a reference for the same shape appearing more than once? I've not been able to find any which is why I was wondering about the Parkington collection.
I take your point about the moulds, and would add cost to the reasons for it being a short run.
Bernard also questioned iirc (opened to correction if I've incorrectly remember reading this) the theory that it all came from one pot, by asking whether it was possible they couldn't replicate the recipe.
Just had another look at CH British Glass and in fact my piece is so similar, in depth of colour and the colour variation and the rim, to the piece in there (but not an identical shape), that I suppose it's possible it came from the same mold and was made by the same hand.
Mine is a honeycomb mold with each segment of the comb being six sided. It's hard to tell on the pic in CH if that was the same mold.
m
-
Christine - re the recipes
I noticed there is a colour called 'Tricolore' they launched in 1886.
Would this be different to the 'Tricolour' they refer to in the recipe I wonder?
p.s. as a complete aside, I also noticed they used 'brass pin dust' in all their greens. Conjures up images of someone grinding brass tacks to put in the mix ;D
I also noticed there is no mention of Titanium in the recipes (just referring back to an earlier post link where the research referenced Titanium)
m
-
The same-shapes thing is just an observation over time. It is highly likely that all the pieces were made by the same chair or two chairs. The moulds were standard (certainly a honeycomb mould and a ribbed mould), so it's not that that's the expense, it's the interruption of production for swapping moulds and designs. This was factory work and each chair had a high daily target and consequent output.
The recipe would have been written down. Alexandrite was just plain expensive for time, ingredients and hard to maintain consistency.
I meant Tricolore, I just couldn't remember how it was spelt. The brass pin dust is likely factory waste
-
I'd typed more before realizing that Christine had posted again............ I hope my notes haven't crossed with hers - apologies if they have - but will leave my words as written..............
quote from m........."obviously again subjective based on my opinion as a layman ):" ............ shouldn't you be a laywoman ;D
since I don't possess any Alexandrite - or come to that Amberina or Rose Amber - I'm not best placed to comment, but.............
just to repeat that the pix in the Christie's catalogues are high quality - albeit way too small though to detect any chocolate in the rim area, but what is significant in all of them, plus CH's piece, and Christines, is the noticeably amount of blueish violet. With Alexandrite, it seems that desirability is all about aesthetics, and without this violet/blue shading, appeal seems to drop off.
I wouldn't dare contradict Nigel's expertise or knowledge on these pieces - he's seen many and held them, so I'm sure his description is accurate, but chocolate is a colour that you wouldn't perhaps expect to see....blues and violets etc., yes, but obviously chocolate is there on some pieces.
It's well documented that heating glass containing gold (in colloidal form) produces a ruby colour (Newman says it was 22-carat), and this was produced for several centuries I believe - but at some point the gold was replaced with chemicals.
Just discovered there was something called Rose-Teinte.......... produced by Baccarat in the first half of the C20, and called 'Baccarat's Amberina'......... colour achieved by similar process of re-heating, but using less gold, apparently, than true Amberina, and the final shade varied from pale amber to a delicate rose.
In view of the mountains of manufactured glass containing uranium, it doesn't seem that heating metal with this constituent produces any change to the overall colour.
Could well be that the States Amberina may have been a different recipe - otherwise I'd agree that someone somewhere would have made the discovery of Alexandrite on that side of the pond.
I've read the chapter on Amberina/Rose Amber in the book on Mt. Washinton Glass, and regret to say that nowhere did I see anything detailing the recipe for these particular products, unfortunately.
I hope that it wasn't thought I was being unduly arrogant re the matter of the colour of Mervyn Gulliver's punch cup.
I think what I was trying to say, but probably failed to do, was that bearing in mind how we most accurately see (and describe) a piece of Alexandrite i.e. showing the typical fuchsia/violet blue as seen in CH and the Parkington pieces, then the MG piece appears to fail this test of appearance.
I appreciate that there is variation in Alexandrite (and Amberina), but would still maintain that if we all went out and bought pieces that agreed with Mr. G's piece, then most of us would come home with Amberina only.
I believe that Bernard made a comment recently that this author is attending the National this coming weekend - perhaps someone might 'ask the author' about this item.
I bet Bernard wishes he'd never started this one ;)
-
I believe that Bernard made a comment recently that this author is attending the National this coming weekend - perhaps someone might 'ask the author' about this item.
That was last weekend ;D. I don't remember any Alexandrite this time
-
ooopps - sorry for getting the wrong weekend. :-[
-
oh ok,but over the page they provide a recipe for 'Tricolour' as well.
Interestingly 'Tricolore' was launched in 1886.
If Alexandrite is indeed 'Tricolore' then 1886 would be an earlier date than I've seen it mentioned. Interestingly the honeycomb mold which mine is, was introduced in 1886 as well.
m
-
oops, my reply above was to Christine regarding the Tricolour/Tricolore .
Paul, no not at all ! - your comments about the punch cup raised doubts for me.
Even though I feel it is just a poor colour representation in the pic, I had a good look around last night.
There are a few punch cups (amberina , sold in the States) that come up when I searched. None look anything like Alexandrite even allowing for poor photography. But I also noted that the handle on all of them was very differently placed and done to the one in the book. Likewise I noted that the mold used for them was not as neat, precise, tight ... whatever, difficult to put it across, but just not the same as the one in the book.
I also noticed that the jug I referred to in the Chrysler collection is very similar to an amberina shape jug I've seen. But again the amberina jug is not as neatly done in shape, the mold is not as tight/neat in pattern, the handle is slightly different, etc.
However, I'll admit to thinking 'that one in Gulliver's needs checking out now' once I got to the end. So a small query that probably needs justifying by a pattern number or mold match or something, in my mind now.
Thanks for going through the Christie's catalogues :)
m
-
Adding to my post above
Just for the record and so people don't have to click through to the link I gave earlier -
Nigel says:
'There were 10 pieces in the two Michael Parkington sales back in 1997/98 - I handled all of them (Pt I - lots 281, 2 & 3; Pt II - lots 302, 03 & 04) I have owned three pieces, and have been lucky enough to handle others.
The correct colouring is: rising from citrine, going into rose pink, then into blue and, finally a chocolate brown rim. Most pieces are thin, which would probably make them unsuitable for such use. This would also suggest that the colouring on the night light is "up-side-down", since the rose pink is within the body and the citrine toward the rim. There appears to be no blue and it is doubtful that there is a chocolate brown rim from what can be seen in the photo.
True Thomas Webb Alexandrite commands substantual prices, so I don't think it is advisable to assume it to be that rare commodity. If the colouring for all four constituants is poor, or the chocolate brown is missing, then the value is commensurately (even substantually) less. '
I don't know whether the chocolate is there deliberately or not, or in fact whether it is a natural by-product of the second re-heating at the rim, but it seems the fact that the chocolate is there (along with the other criteria as well of course) means it is definitely without doubt a piece of Webb's Alexandrite which affects the value.
Christine has said her glasses have this when you look into the rim edge, my piece has this although it is a very fine faint line all around the rim, and from the pieces I can see online clearly enough, they have it too :)
Nigel has handled at least thirteen pieces and more according to his post.
Christine, thanks, I understand about the mold changing. I was just surmising that the metal and production full stop for Alexandrite might have also been so expensive , adding to quality control etc that it wasn't a repeated exercise.
m
-
???
So it would seem that Nigel said the chocolate should be there!
Weird.
It looks better without, but I wouldn't pay the market prices, whether the chocolate was there or not.
-
How does Nigel know this is the correct colouring; all the literature mentioned so far cites three colours. Why are all the glasses apparently only tricolour?
-
'... It looks better without, but I wouldn't pay the market prices, whether the chocolate was there or not.'
;D
IMHO it's worth it. Every penny. An exquisite type of glass that broke new ground well over hundred years ago. Very special.
The only other thing I have owned that matched it for desirability for me (in terms of the constituent make-up of the glass rather than a piece that had been cased/hot or cold worked etc) was my lithyalin hyalith glass. It was truly wretched to part with it even though it was for a good cause.
Christine, I've no idea. Perhaps because all the thirteen plus pieces he's handled were like that?
m
-
I think that a certain lady should be charitable with her wine glass collection and give one to Sue, one to m and one to me .........then we might arrive at a better consensus of opinion re the colour ;) ;)
-
and one to David as well I suppose, as he hankers after one. Hmm, the best I can do is to let you use them should you ever visit.
-
I get to fondle the lady's own personal "keeping one" when I visit - if I'm good. That will do me.
I can be vicarious about enjoying my glass. ;D
I have fondled and studied it quite considerably already, every second of which is etched permanently in my brain.
Getting back to the "one pot only ever melted" theory,
How big were the pots?
What was their capacity, in litres or pints?
-
Sue I love your questions! When I spent a day making the paperweight, thinking of exactly that question for this piece and also the Mdina cobalt blue, I asked the guy ' how many pieces do you make from one pot' ? To which he replied 'well it depends how big or small the pieces are' :-[ I thought it a perfectly reasonable question.#
If I'd have thought more quickly I'd have said, well one third medium,one third small and one third large - how many could you make in total? :P
m
-
My thick Mdina cobalt charger probably contains enough metal to make about 20 or more alexandrite glasses...
(and I'm suspecting that if there was only one pot, it must just about all be accounted for, by now.)
I was thinking about the "one pot only theory" there too. ;)
-
16 hundredweight sounds like a good answer or about 800 kg per pot. Page 84 if the link (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HndMAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=glass++pot+size&source=bl&ots=QK-Aip07S0&sig=LvKShk0JruqegxJzW8ChC0zg9so&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1jdyU_THMe-R0QXR44CIDQ&ved=0CHQQ6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=glass%20%20pot%20size&f=false) doesn't take you to the right place
-
Grrrrr, ( ::) ) now we need to know the specific gravity of the different metals in order to work out volume.
Anybody know offhand?
And I thought the pots in studios were a lot smaller than the ones in factories?
(the link takes me straight to p84. :) But it jumps to different pages when I try to scroll anywhere to read it all.)
-
Fantastic link - thanks :)
800kg -
16hundredweight is 1792lb.
stupid questions coming up -
a) would 1792 lb of raw materials melt to 1792 lb of metal ready to use?
and
b) would a whole pot get used?
If so, and based on the fact that Webb Alexandrite pieces are very fine and quite light, that would mean quite few pieces could be made from one pot ... putting it mildly ;D
m
-
ok, Sue and I cross posted - I can see she has already been more thorough and technical in her questions than my rather basic calculation ;D
-
:-[
I'm worse than that.
I've recalculated.
800kg = 1763.6981lbs
-
Why do we need the volume? Thomas Webb was a factory. This particular one was Aspley Pallet's; the whole article looks worth a read.
a) would 1792 lb of raw materials melt to 1792 lb of metal ready to use?
and
b) would a whole pot get used?
Near enough; it's melting not reaction. Most likely most of it. 80% is possibly a good guess; say 75 with other losses and waste.
Four decimal places is a little silly...especially as the 16 cwt would be very nominal anyway.
-
whoa, that's a lot of glass - especially for thin fine and small pieces.
m
-
So, is it possible they did not use a whole pot for Alexandrite, given the expense of the special ingredients, and the quality control issues etc?
-
I was only ever interested in volume - because that's something I can get hold of in my head, and make comparisons. I can get hold of the difference in "mass". ;)
I know 4 places is too much, I just tend to include them in calculations that get multiplied by figures such as 800, because then they can make a difference.
I normally drop a few when I get to the end, but that was copied and pasted, so I didn't. :-[
How much wastage would there have been for the Alexandrite pieces?
How many failures for each perfect piece produced?
-
I was about to ask also, would the whole pot have been used to create Alexandrite i.e. given that it had to be reheated to create the colours, presumably not reheating it would have just left it as amber uranium glass.
However, thinking about it, given the expense of the added ingredients, I presume they wouldn't have 'wasted' them on just creating amber uranium glass pieces.
m
-
Paul, if you were worried about the punch cup, take a look at this
http://gorgeousglass.org.uk/collections/getrecord/DMUSE_BH1996/
I'm more worried about this. :-\
m
-
Who knows really. It's possible they had smaller pots for "specials".
I think the posy is Ok in that's it's Alexandrite. It's certainly Webb with that honeycomb mould. I think it's an example of reheating issues. Burmese didn't always come out as it should yet it was still sold. This one is overcooked; the top is quite dark
http://lustrousstone.co.uk/cpg/displayimage.php?pid=991
-
how do we know it's Alexandrite though :-\
It might be a Webb shape and mold (did Mount Washington do this shape as well for their Burmese?) , but the colours shade from red to amber - no three colour shading and no chocolate rim :-X
Possibly it's uranium glass and that's how they know. Otherwise I'd have said not Alexandrite given the photograph and their description ???
Edited - oops sorry, I see you said Webb because of the mould not the shape.
Edited again - when the pics enlarged it does look as though it's possible the colour might change near the rim. In which case, that is not a good description given on the site as it just says:
'Posy bowl, heat sensitive "Alexandrite" glass shading from red at rim to yellow at base, bulbous shape, honeycomb moulded with hexagonal red rim'
Perhaps that explains why no other books mention the blue and the chocolate - they just mention the tri-colour and hadn't observed the finer details of these pieces?
-
as we've discussed, the most desirable Alexandrite seems to have been those pieces showing the violet/blue shading at the rim, such as the Parkington/CH pieces - probably because they give the most dramatic visual effect, and that brings us back to aesthetics again.
There could also be a case to argue that sellers are describing their pieces as Alexandrite simply because it has the Amberina look but that the pattern/design is known to be from T/Webb, although I would have thought the museum had done their homework. Pity though that the T/Webb attribution isn't supported with a little more detail - perhaps you should ask them for details. ;)
Some sellers might go for a British provenance rather than the States - irrespective of colour - simply because they know Webb made a particular pattern.
Christine may well be correct again with your link - I don't know - but can say that colour wise your linked posy looks very much like some of the Rose Amber from the States. I wish you could see the pix in my 'Mt. Washington Glass' book - the variation within the two States types of this heat reactive glass is greater than you'd imagine - some rim colours border on a deep ox blood.
This factory did a lot of ball-optic moulding, and possibly other optic variations, but off-hand I can't see honeycomb.
The workers did have their share of problems achieving satisfactory colours, apparently - too much lead sometimes might ruin the batch and they then had to stop work.
Burmese from the States does vary enormously.
-
Hi Paul
Yes, I've looked at many pieces of rose amberina, fuschia amberina, bluerina,and just plain old amberina and they do vary enormously. I'm not at all keen on the pieces that are very dark at the rim and to be honest, I don't like the darkness of the amber either :-[ They don't appear to be very 'delicate' compared to the Webb's Alexandrite pieces which appear 'finer' in all ways, colour, shape, mold patterns and design (well, that's going on photographs of course since I don't own a piece...).
I'm half tempted to try and find a piece I like now just so as I have a comparison but then I read that there was 'amberina' being produced from Italy and suddenly it all became too complicated. I'd hate to end up with the wrong thing and trying to work out who produced what and which bits are really old seems like a minefield from my cursory reading in the last couple of days.
m
-
Seems this stuff was making big money back then, and it would be difficult to over-estimate the success of this art-glass, financially, in the States during the early 1880's - although this was all rather over-shadowed at the time by what must have been very expensive litigation for the two companies........... but that's what seems to happen when there's money to be made.
Copying must be the second oldest profession, and the genuine article was plagued by European imports (into the States), much from Germany, and seems it did end up with the name of German Amberina.
The Truitt's book includes examples of Bohemian Amberina, which they attribute to the Harrach glassworks, although they don't discuss this product in the text - which included not only the typical amber to red, but what looks like some entirely red pieces - they also include shell-ribbing on a handle.
According to Kenneth M. Wilson, these 'foreign imports' caused serious economic problems for sales of home grown Amberina, and into the bargain it seems that these imports were made by 'shell casing/plating' the colours - i.e. not 'homogenous in structure' like the real thing - so made to be sold cheaply and to undercut the genuine article.
Some imports were found to be simply stained red over amber - which is perhaps easier to detect from the plated examples, about which Wilson comments...."the two types of glass could not be distinguished (the States originals and the plated imports) except by experts".
One of the differences, apparently, is that the original Amberina and Rose Amber were lead containing metals, whereas those from Continental Europe were not. ........... so flicking essential :)
There are other factors that apparently help to suggest the origin, but won't go into those here.
Some examples of the original States products are known to have been engraved - very beautiful too.
Believe that determining the differences between the various products has given the States people real headaches, but it is very attractive, and one of those types of glass that brings out the lust in us collectors, so can see the appeal.
Of course credit for almost all of this information goes to Wilson, and if you've the slightest interest in art glass from the last quarter of the C19, then his volumes are a must - they're sold under the 'Antique Collectors' Club' banner.......... so does that mean I'm an antique ?? ;) :)
-
Thank you for all the additional and very interesting information Paul :)
I've done lots of looking around and there doesn't seem to be any maker anywhere that made the tri-colour (4/5 colour ? if amber, rose, purple, blue and chocolate rim all showing) anything like Webb's Alexandrite at all. I've not happened upon a piece of amberina I fancy yet either. Still I'm sure I'll find one that becomes a must-have at some point ;D
m
-
since we've come so far off-topic, I'll add a bit more just to confound the issue further ;)
I notice that the Truitt's book shows a Rindskopf product which the factory called 'Grenada' - superficially very much another Amberina lookalike, with examples showing wrythen and optic ball-moulding.
Although the authors don't discuss this product in depth, they do comment that it was made c. 1900 at the Barbarahόtte factory which "was best known for its production of iridized glass during the art nouveau period, and such pieces were given names such as Grenada, Ahambra, and Pepita".
As an iridized (or Carnival) type of glass, the colour is quite strident, and of a far deeper/darker colour than would be associated with Carnival glass, usually....... colour wise, some of it looks a good contender for Mt. Washington's 'Rose Amber'.
Also, presumably, using salts rather than a coloidal gold solution to achieve the colour it was no doubt one of those eastern European products, imitating bona fide Amberina, that so worried The New England Glass and Mt. Washington companies.
In view of the method of using salts to achieve this colour, presumably it's legitimate to call Rindskopf's Grenada a type of 'Carnival' glass??
If anyone has any of these iridized pieces from Rindskopf, it would be interesting to hear their comments.
Certainly on the page, these iridized products 'look the part' - but of course in the flesh they may well not stand up to scrutiny when compared to genuine Amberina/Rose Amber. :)
-
I think the iridising is over the colour, not what creates it
-
If it's pressed and iridised you may call it carnival. Otherwise not.
-
thanks to both of you for the clarification on these points. :)
-
... I bet Bernard wishes he'd never started this one ;)
Paul not at all. Many of the most interesting discussions on the GMB have arisen off-topic. I'm not sure whether this comes into the "most interesting" category, but it is certainly lengthy.
Kevin Grateful thanks for your valiant efforts to keep this topic on the straight and narrow. I gave it up as a lost cause before you. ;D
I'm thinking of restarting this topic, without using the A-word or the other A-word, urging contributors to do likewise.
Bernard C. 8)
-
mmm, yes it has drifted off topic rather at a tangent. But I think that is because the piece in question was being queried as to whether it was created via a heat sensitive method.
From what has been said on the thread I read it that so far opinion is that the original piece at the start of the thread was possibly not created through a heat sensitive method of creating colour, but possibly through 'casing' the clear glass with amethyst. This might possibly have been achieved through blowing one bubble of glass into another?
And with regard to the petal shaped rims, I have found three more pieces in Gulliver's that have petal shaped rims, but which are not ascribed to Thomas Webb's. One of which is on page 201 and actually has a ten petal rim. Since Gulliver also shows a recorded design drawing / pattern from Webb with a ten petal rim, in the back of the book, it's curious that he then doesn't identify the piece on page 201 as Webb. That might be because his parameters for ascribing a piece to a maker were that they had to be in the pattern books. Or it could be that he did not look at the pattern books and because it does not have an rd number on it, he did not ascribe it.
Or it might be because that piece could not be found in the pattern books and there is some query over whether other makers also made the ten petal shaped rim.
m
-
M Gulliver only attributes when he is 100% certain. That gives you, his reader, an interesting extra piece of information. Look through all his Webb registered design style petal rims and see if he attributes any to a different maker. See where I'm going? It's rather like Bill Heacock realising that Butler Brothers, glass wholesalers, didn't unpack their barrels, one of the most important discoveries for the attribution of EAPG.
As you're counting petals, here's another for you: http://fieldingsauctions.co.uk/lot/105570 ;D
Bernard C. 8)
-
Yes, and they have an engraved rd number on them to identify them.
There's quite a few with engraved RD Numbers on them. Why would some have the number engraved on them and some not I wonder?
m
-
is it possible that....... with any given new decorative design that a factory wished to protect, the initial pieces of whatever shape that carried that new feature, also carried the diamond (or Rd. No.), to ward off any potential copying.
Possibly, subsequent and differently shaped pieces, even though they might include the earlier Registered decorative feature, might have omitted the diamond or Rd. No., since the decorative design was already Registered. ....??
-
Yes, and they have an engraved rd number on them to identify them. ...
M No they don't. The purpose of an engraved Rd number was and is to show that some part or all of the design was or is protected.
... Why would some have the number engraved on them and some not I wonder?
M Simply cost. Although I think all the Webb Rd numbers were engraved by the same hand, so he or she must have been quite fast at it, it still cost money, reducing profit. Here the law of diminishing returns kicks in. Once Webb's local competitors had seen examples and read the PG write-up, continuing to mark examples of the registration would have had little or no real effect, whether or not anyone plagiarised the design.
Also there was a stock control nightmare. As major exporters to the US, Webb would have been well aware that a Rd number was an open invitation to US makers to copy without fear of legal action. So Webb would have had to maintain stock of both marked and unmarked items. So, the sooner they stopped marking pieces, the simpler the stock control, the lower the single stocking level, and the lower the costs.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Bernard thanks :)
I didn't mean they put the rd number there for id purposes, I meant that it meant we could id it to be honest.
Interesting to read again of the export issue with rd designs being copied and the knock-on effects logistically. I remember you posting about this a long time ago.
m
-
M Sadly that more general US export theory has never been properly challenged or discussed here, something I would welcome. In respect of this particular topic, it seems to hold up quite well for Walsh and the better known Stourbridge makers, except for three or four S&W ranges like Jewelled and Mat-Su-No-Ke, which always seem to carry the registration mark.
Bernard C. 8)
-
I have a Mat- su-noke piece without registration number :)
I did have a pair but sold one. Neither have the registration number on.
m
-
And I have seen unmarked Jewelled