Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: Baked_Beans on August 10, 2014, 03:49:39 PM
-
I was lucky to find this. Very faint 1930's Harbridge mark to base. 8.75 inches tall weight 1.9 kg. There is some internal scratching where there may have been a frog . :D Thanks for having a look.
-
Nice and chunky, I like that, good find, ;D
-
It's a lot bigger and fancier than my Grandma's Harbridge confiture, but has the same diamond shape cutting on the rounded sloping sides. The cutting of those shapes must have been a nightmare - each and every single one has to have been modified from the "pure" diamond shape to accommodate the shape of the glass and cover it evenly and completely. It is done so well you almost don't notice.
-
Thanks Keith & Sue,
It really is the best piece of cut glass I have found . I hadn't thought of that subtlety Sue . The mark to the base is so worn that it can only really be seen in bright sunlight at a certain angle. It was a flook that I eventually saw it. It doesn't have the V shaped cuts around the rim that have been mentioned elsewhere . I'm pretty sure it must have had a frog as the diameter to the rim is 8 inches unless a frog from another vase was used which was the cause of all the internal scratching . Ta, Mike.
-
You need to take a magnifying glass to it!
That way you'll be able to see a lot better how each "diamond" is truly shaped - and see the flat surface cut onto that. Fiddly, mind-blowingly difficult stuff.
-
I shall do so, Sue . I might have missed your grandma's confiture in my searching so I will see if I can find it :)
-
Nice piece - Harbridge doesn't turn up that often.
Extremely unusual to find cut glass pieces that genuinely had a frog/flower support, such double acts seem to have been almost exclusively the property of pressed glass.
I know Stuart did at least one 'pair' (a large wide cut vase) with accompanying frog, where the support carries Rd. 637674. Although the vase is without a No. I'm assuming it was 637675, since they're partnered in the Blue Book - however, the vase does carry the Stonier =S= mark, so probably a genuine pairing - and Bernard has commented that John Stonier sourced only from Stuart. There must be others, but they're certainly thin on the ground.
Apart from my Stuart example I don't recall seeing any other cut piece with a support, so although it's possible this Harbridge vase was born with a frog, the probability is that it's more likely the scratches were caused by a housewife's engagement ring or other cleaning implement.
I believe the company were producing for some considerable time after the '30's, but if the mark remained unchanged then perhaps not easy to be specific about a production date, but it does have a pre war look.
just goes to show that some backstamps can be the devil to find - it's easy to spend hours before finding them, and then again you can spend days and find nothing - or even invent something :)
-
Thanks Paul for the information about frogs. Interesting that cut glass vases didn't have them in general. All the internal scratching occurs on or near the horizontal cut band , do you think this might be too low down for a frog (if it had one ...which is unlikely ) ? Where is the frog positioned on your Stuart piece ,if you don't mind me asking :)
As you say the mark was so difficult to see , I kept looking at the vase and thinking that a vase of this quality must surely have one . I could only see the word crystal the last few letters of British and the last few of Harbridge. So I went to the glass marks website (superb site !!) and worked my way through the whole lot ! The website does say the mark is from the 1930's and is identical to the one on the base of a Harbridge oil lamp discussed here on the GMB. The vase does have a slight Art Deco look about it so I guess it is very likely to be pre war .
I shall be looking out for more Harbridge from now on , it's amazing quality and as Sue said the skill needed to produce a vase like this is exceptional. Ta, Mike
-
I do have a pic of my grandma's thing, and I think it has been posted here somewhere. I also know Paul is waiting for me to produce an image of it.
If I can't find it (finding pics is a nightmare, having to name everything and remember what I've called it, is where I and computers fall out.) I'll take another. :)
-
:) found it.
-
thanks for posting Sue - a very attractive piece, and I could offer it a very good home if ever you want to part withit ;) ...... did occur to me - in view of the uncommoness of Harbridge - whether the Mods might let us start a picture file especially for that factory ???
As requested herewith pictures attached of my Stuart/Stonier vase with frog/support.
British Rd. Nos. normally protect body shapes/designs only, rather than decorative features such as cutting, and in view of the date of May 1914 for Reg. No. 637674 showing on the support, I had assumed that the sister No. 637675 - from precisely the same date - must cover the shape of the vase (although this vase is without a No.)
Then a little panic set in - I thought I'd found a match for the shape of the vase in Miller's/McConnell, where the start date of what I thought was the same shape is given as c. 1931 - so confusion - had it been the same shape as my vase I would have expected the caption to show a start date of 1914.
However, I'm of the opinion that the book vase (Stuart factory pattern No. 27480) is not quite the same as my example. Could be wrong but there appear to be differences in overall shape - although if you compare the two there are sufficient similarities to cast doubt - so I'm now not entirely sure and this will need a visit to Kew I think.
The vase is very distinctive with these massive scallops around the rim.
Of course Stuart may well have produced one or two vase shapes over the years that could accommodate this rather wide support ... it measures almost 185 mm (7.25") at the widest - and the factory is well known for continuing some pattern shapes for many decades.
Apologies for digressing from the rather nice Harbridge vase. :)
Ref. 'MILLER'S 20TH - CENTURY GLASS - Andy McConnell - 2006 ...p. 238.
-
I'm afraid I'm quite fond of it, Paul. It has a lot of sentimental attachment for me, my Grandma started giving me cookery lessons when I was 4, so anything to do with home-baking and jam-making that was hers is stuff I'm very attached to and do still use. (Including the ancient balance scales she had - they still work!)
I use it to hold the washing powder scoop I use to measure out the cat's food, so it is in daily use.
-
Thanks SO much Sue & Paul , you have made my day ! Great to see your grandma's piece Sue , obviously a woman with great taste !
Paul your vase looks splendid , that's the first cut-glass frog I've seen , what a great find ! The position is way-up near the rim, as are all the other frogs I have seen , so I have to think that the scratching on my vase could well be due to a rock on a ring (as you suggested)! I stuck my hand in , pretending to do the washing-up, and it does look as if the marks could have been made by a ring , they fall in the same position ! :-X ( it must have been a big rock though ...lucky girl :o )
I like your idea Paul of a pictorial database of Harbridge designs as there is so little information out there and it would be a tribute to all their cutting skills and expertise .
Thanks again ;) Mike.
-
In view of my comments about the relationship of Rd. Nos. with articles of glass, then it's possible that when I do get to The National Archives all I will see is a design in the form of an uncut blank. However, it will be interesting to see the shape of 637675, which I'm assuming is a design for a vase - but can't be certain at the moment.
Will let you know how I get on.
I'd not given the subject of frogs/supports for cut glass items much thought until very recently, but it does appear at the moment that such combinations are very rare.
-
If my Grandma ever had good taste in arty stuff it was completely accidental, Baked-beans!
She committed many, many antique "crimes". (removing the top "crowning" section of a massive bookcase and burning it, getting fed up with having an antique marquetry burr-walnut, round dining table my mother had bought being stored in her garage and throwing it out, without warning. She didn't need or use her garage. No, Grandma was a weird one, but she did like me, I was a little girl and she liked little girls. I had immunity from her weirdness.)
I have seen quite a few of these strange cut frogs around, (but I did volunteer in Oxfam).
I knew what they were; but I would think anybody finding one in the back rooms of charity shops would possibly bin them, not knowing what they were. :'(
-
Ahh, bless her ! I too was immune from my grandad who had a very strong personality ,so I know what it's like ;) He loved mustard and had it with everything ,in large heaps on the side of his plate. I still have his moulded glass mustard pot. The lid broke on it, so he made a copy of it in plywood ::) It just reminds me of the lovely breakfasts he used to cook for us all, with huge mushrooms he picked from the fields at the back of the garden . You just can't put a price on sentimental value .
Good luck with your investigations Paul , that's the joy of glass collecting !
Ta ,..very much :)
-
quote ....... "with huge mushrooms he picked from the fields at the back of the garden" ......... presume Mike that you had Baked Beans with them ;D ;)
Yes, will let you know how I get on at Kew.
-
Ha ha ! Yes , indeed :P ...plus bantam eggs ;) Might change my name to bantam_eggs sounds more sophisticated :P
I'm such a fan of cut glass and I'm sure one day it will see a renaissance :D
It will be interesting to see what discoveries you reveal :)
-
ref. my own quote............ "However, it will be interesting to see the shape of 637675, which I'm assuming is a design for a vase - but can't be certain at the moment."
nope - wrong again - Rd. 637675 is in fact another flower support - very unusual I'd imagine for Stuart to Register two different cut frogs/supports on the same day, and can only assume that they already had it mind that one or both would be compatible with existing vase shapes, or perhaps new designs they had in the pipeline. Regret I still don't know the Rd. No. for my Stuart vase shown here although it does look to be a genuine pairing with the support. When either piece was made I've no idea - the supports may have had a relatively short life - I don't recall seeing one previously. Of course if anyone knows differently please shout.
I've attached National Archives pix of 637674 and 75. My own knowledge of the trading years of John Stonier's business is sketchy, other than the fact that Bernard has already commented that Frederick Stuart installed his own sons as directors when the Stonier business was acquired by Stuart around 1876 - this information was provided courtesy of Mr. Gulliver I understand.
For how long the =S= was marked on Stonier pieces I've no idea, or when it commenced or ceased.
Also attached is a copy of the wording on the reverse of each Archive picture for these two Nos. - it's the same wording for both Rd. Nos. - hope it's legible - the final sentence is the standard wording that appears on the reverse of just about all Rd. drawings etc., but quite why the main wording looks to be deleted with a squiggle I don't know.
Again my apologies for piggy-backing on the op's thread, but thought it worthwhile showing the Archives pix of these Registered flower supports. I've said enough on this matter, other than my usual thanks to the guys at Kew for their help and continued permission for the GMB to access data. :)
-
Is the Stuart one you first posted a pic of, round or oval, Paul?
I have seen an oval one. It was in a vase with an oval shaped inside. (surprise!)
-
quite round Sue - both these supports are round,although I appreciate screen pix can sometimes make shapes appear differently.
-
There was a shop in Crieff that sold secondary market cut glass - but it was always just traditional stuff, there hardly ever was anything of interest. I did spend some time studying an oval shaped vase with a frog like the first one you showed, with the bites out of the edges. It was sort of interesting, but not something I'd have paid £15 for, or given house room.
I'm sure I've seen things like the images from Kew you posted, in the back room of Oxfam. I didn't know what they were - I think I suspected something to do with a toothbrush holder. I honestly cannot remember if I priced and sold them, or if I binned them. There was a minimum price policy, so if it wasn't going to raise 99p it would get binned; and I never put out damaged glass.
-
hi Sue - as you'll know, there is a vast amount of pressed material out there which was partnered by supports and frogs - just think of the Bagley and Davidson vases. But bona fide cut supports seem to be really quite rare.
quote............ "it would get binned" .... oh gosh - more history being thrown away. ;D
Couldn't you please go back and work in the shop so that you can find some good pieces for us ;)
-
I was only making the point that even if these things do turn up in charity shops, it is unlikely they'll end up being put out on the shelves - folk won't know what they are, they'll be deemed unsaleable.
Most folk in the backs of charity shops don't even know the difference between cut and pressed glass.
I'd be back there like a shot if I was well enough, it was fun and I made a lot of good friends. But I do get "ex-worker special treatment" sometimes.
Hauled into the back shop to id something. ;)
I still find myself picking things up off the floor and putting them back on their hangers in every charity shop I'm in. ::)
-
Thanks for posting the designs Paul.
It must have taken a good deal of time to make a cut glass frog/support which fits . How do you make the holes in the second example ? Do you drill them out or what ? Surely it couldn't have been cost effective . Wouldn't the whole idea have been abandoned quite quickly and if it was, then it would be more likely that your vase, Paul , dates from around the time that the frog design was registered (as you implied ) . It would also explain why cut one's are so rare. :)
-
Sue, sorry to hear you are still unwell , my brother has the same problem ( I read a previous post of yours , ages ago) . He can't do any excersie without a bad reaction . He can't even cut the grass (cut grass not glass ;) ) ! He used to do cycling as a hobby /sport , caught gladular fever and has never been the same since. He thinks he has M E . There doesn't seem to be anything his doctor can do for him . It's really debilitating . Anyway I can put you in touch with him if you wish (somehow !) You might be able to compare notes .
;) Ta Mike.
-
I've found a few things that do help, Mike. I am completely ignored by my gp, who treats me with nothing but the contempt prescribed by the psychiatrist in charge of pretending the disease doesn't exist.
I've got a background in scientific research, as does my brother, and I've had time to do a lot of trial and error. I might be able to pass a some good hints on and give him links to good information
email me via the envelope in my profile, I'll give you my email address.
-
Thanks Sue, I will email you via your envelope. My brother lives in the States, he too is a scientist and has spent the last 25 years trying to research his condition (he is in engineering) he too might be able to give some pointers . Cheers, Mike.
-
Given the use of the term "Art Deco" in the title of this thread, I'd be very interested to hear other folks definition of the term. Not a trick; yes I have an opinion (as you might expect), But I'd like to hear what other people think before I make any comment.
Oh, if anyone feels this is high-jacking the thread, then maybe a moderator can separate it off.? Thanks :)
Nigel
-
Geometrical, with straight lines rather than curves, Nigel.
Masculine, rather than feminine.
Anything that reminds me of Macintosh is "Deco" to me.
-
as someone who has hijacked this thread substantially already, my opinion would be to create a separate thread - we seem to have detracted too much already.
Some of the Glasgow School/Arts and Crafts visuals have the looks of bridging the gap between 'nouveau' and the much later 'deco' styles, which seems to have been French inspired, originally. Ironically, it seems that the expression deco doesn't appear to enter the British vocabulary until the 1960's, which surprised me, but am sure those who have an interest in design know what is meant by the term.
quote from Nigel.......... "But I'd like to hear what other people think before I make any comment".
Why should that be Nigel - can we not read your thoughts sooner rather than later.
My own thoughts on the appearance/cutting of this vase is that it doesn't really express the style of 'art deco' - but that's just my opinion.
and here I go again ....... digressing once more. :-X
-
I have already written a published article on the subject of British Art Deco glass, and given a talk on the subject, so I've already nailed my colours to the mast, although, granted not here. It is also the subject of another talk that I will be giving at the Glass Association in September, in Kingswinford, West Midlands
I didn't want to influence other people's thoughts, so I decided I'd hold back to allow for some ideas before I comment. Who knows, there may already be a consensus?
I agree with you Paul, that the Harbridge cut vase that began this thread is not Art Deco, although it is of high quality and workmanship :)
Nigel
-
like perhaps many other already well-defined subjects in life, I'd imagine there is virtually no debatable room remaining for 'opinions' on what constitutes art deco - people have been banging on about it for too long for the style to be lacking in definition.......... perhaps misunderstood though.
Rather than referring to a period, it is, apparently more a style than anything else, although we tend to think of it as occurring somewhere between the end of the first WW and c. 1940, and although dangerous to sum up any art movement in anything less than a substantial coffee table book, deco is typified more than anything else by angular geometry in whatever form it occurs.
I love it ..... why I'm not entirely sure.... I think it's the preciseness and streamlining - the balance of shapes and lines........ it's alive and vibrant and pushes boundaries...... and of course the risqué aspect. ;D
I think we'd all doff our hat to you as the expert on the subject of glass from that area Nigel, and there are some to-die-for pieces out there, although usually out of range of our pockets.
As is so often the case with these threads, folk aren't usually very forthcoming with their ideas, unfortunately, but it would be interesting to have an input from countries other than the U.K.
Now, where's Kevin - he must surely move these last few posts. :)
-
I don't like it much at all. Too sharp, angular and... just uncomfortable-looking. ;D
-
I don't like it much at all. Too sharp, angular and... just uncomfortable-looking. ;D
Which is why I have always preferred nouveau to deco. But I wouldn't have though Charles to be deco as he was the same time period of William Morris. And where does Arts and crafts fit into all of this?
Carolyn
-
Thanks Nigel for bringing up this subject of style. I don't think the shape of the vase is Art Deco but the deep horizontal and vertical cutting , I think , smacks of a certain Art Deco influence & style . Plus the mark dates from the period and there is loads of age scratching to the base. It's a chunky, heavy vase and with strong and deep geometric cutting .
This link says "Harbridge embraced a general Art Deco style " and I think the cutting (ignoring the diamond cuts ) does embrace a general Art Deco style :D
http://www.cambridgeglassfair.com/exhibitions/pastexhibitions/2013-02-harbridgeandwatford.htm
Ta, Mike
-
I've added a pic of the mark and a base shot. You can just see the mark I hope.
-
Here is a link to a pic. of the Chrysler building New York .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Building
Totally stretching the imagination here ??? :o ;D ..... but I hope you can see my own opinion ;)
-
:o
I have never considered the Chrysler building to be Art Deco, I've always thought it was gorgeous - but I hadn't seen the bottom (ugly) part before.
Now, I only like the roof of the Chrysler building. :'(
But I think the cutting on your vase is designed to fit the pear shape of the vase itself. I wouldn't have thought it was Art Deco from looking at it. Just a combination of fairly traditional cuts.
-
I must admit that when I first saw the vase in the shop I thought it might be Victorian from Bohemia and then I discovered the mark. On the whole I agree with you Sue :)
I too love that roof , I tried to go up to the top once but they have closed it to members of the public now . :(
-
reading these last few posts, my feelings are that our conclusions about the style of cutting and overall appearance of Mike's vase, only go to reinforce the true definition of the meaning of 'deco' - which the design and cutting of this piece is not.
But we have to remember that, as the saying goes, ...............style is all things to all men etc. .... and British deco style cut glass is just one aspect (and probably a smallish aspect at that), of the overall influence of that fashion, on glass in general.
Having a 1930's backstamp and known to have been made somewhere between perhaps 1925 and c. 1940, doesn't define a piece as being 'deco'. To qualify for 'deco style', then it's essential that we 'see' those defining features - the angular geometry and jazziness and the avante garde break away from tradition.
Jazziness in many forms - the dropping of formalized simple cross cut mitres (as on Mike's vase) and the evoking of fantasy, liberalism, eroticism and many other 'isms ;D
Understandably, there are limitations as to the extent in which the 'deco' can be expressed - depending on the material being used........ concrete, wood, glass, jewellery ....... perhaps it's most easily seen in furniture and architecture - they're very much in your face, and big. But it's in jewellery, glass and art that it's seen at its most delicate.
quote from Anne ... "And where does Arts and crafts fit into all of this?" ..... My opinion is that it doesn't ... Wm. Morris was banging on about something quite different. A. & C. ideals centred around a misguided ethos that said we'd all be better off going back to handcrafted simplicity and naive charm of rustic living, as opposed to the OTT formalized high Victorian design. And out of Morris' thoughts grew much furniture of simple design - some sharing many of the angular features of the later 'deco style' - the fact that most working class people couldn't afford hand crafted work appears not to have occurred to many of those idealists. Of course, the same can be said of the output of most leading designers and creators.
CRM (Anne's Charles - I hope) - was into something quite different again, and the Glasgow School were responsible for translating art nouveau into the wider field of architecture and furniture - whereas it had previously been confined more to the decorative arts such as painting, jewellery and glass.
Coming back to glass in the deco style........ I've no experience of deco style cut glass from outside the U.K., but the impression I get of avante garde glass from the deco period is that a substantial quantity is not cut, and it was created with greater inventiveness on the Continent than by the more restrained British mind.
British glass designs c. 1920 - 1940 may have excelled perhaps more in the area of cutting than the Continent, but did not embrace or show creativeness in the same deco direction as artists such as Decorchement for pate-de-vere, Marinot and the massive output of Lalique ...... none of which we can now afford!
I really had thought this thread would have been split before now - so apologies as usual for clogging up 'Glass' with my personal thoughts. You can tell I didn't go to a boot sale this morning.
Feel free to comment, criticize, or simply remain silent ;)
-
Hi,
I thought it was about time I returned to this thread.
I have to state that my concern is not only limited to these pages and even this thread, but also, and perhaps more pertinently, toward major Museums who either ignore or dismiss British Art Deco glass. My thoughts originate to the notable lack of British Art Deco glass in the V&A's major International exhibition on the subject a few years back. (They also ignored British Arts & Crafts glass, Aesthetic Movement and largely post war glass in the exhibition devoted to the subject.)
I genuinely believe this omission stems from a lack of knowledge on the subject of glass, particularly British, since what glass was in these exhibitions was a repeat of the same old, same old, and not taken as an opportunity to add to the canon of knowledge. It therefore made me think about all these styles and what they could have added to exhibitions that re-visited each.
Maybe my earlier question was too vague, but there are of course points made by all the contributors – thank you.
Yes, largely speaking the term Art Deco covers angular lines, the use of which can partially be traced to interest in all things Egyptian in the 1920's and into the 1930's, both here and abroad. In also goes back to Dr Christopher Dresser in the UK, De-Stil in Holland, Bauhaus in Germany, etc., for its simplicity and restraint.
It is of course a style and it relates to a period of time, although as Paul rightly says, this can be a little looser than many sources allow for, but broadly speaking most think of Art Deco as the mid 1920’s through the 1930’s. WW II blurs the lines because many companies carried on producing pre-war styled items after the war, since it took time to bring in new designs and styles and to react to the new mood post war.
I think that Mike has actually captured my criticism of the use of the term here in that just because something was made during a style period it doesn’t make it that style. The piece in this thread owes as much to the Victorian tradition of cutting as it does the Art Deco. For me that makes it a combo that cannot be ascribed to either properly. Because the two influences are used on the same item you can’t really pick the bit you think looks right, it is after all a whole thing - " and I think the cutting (ignoring the diamond cuts ) does embrace a general Art Deco style.” So, let’s ignore a major part of the vase then it becomes Art Deco – really??
And the quote: "Harbridge embraced a general Art Deco style ". Arguably, the same statement could be used for a number of companies, but surely that doesn’t make everything they produced Art Deco?? So much was great quality, often a tour de force of the cutter’s skill, but either traditional, or influenced by the traditional such that it was watered down and couldn’t be truly representative of a particular style, especially not Art Deco.
In fact Paul makes another point about true British Art Deco glass being rarefied, and he’s right, it is difficult to find, even rare, but it’s not always expensive. I’ve paid top dollar for things that I realise are so rare that I will never see another for sale, and I’ve had the luck to find items for a few pounds – but the average is good Oh, and there’s a great deal more of it out there than many might realise.
Most writers think of stylish British glass in the Art Deco vein beginning with the Harrods exhibition in 1934, although it can be traced back to 1928 with some of Gordon Russell’s designs followed by Powell’s cut glass from 1932 onward. The common factor is the use of a traditional skill, that of cutting, BUT in a restrained, stylish and stylised way – usually with angularity at its most recognisable, but the use of curves mustn’t be ignored.
It is my firm belief that the reason British Art Deco glass does not really exist in the minds of many collectors, curators, and indeed dealers, is because of the general lack of promotion in the UK at the time the items were produced - as opposed to what happened say in France with Lalique, in Holland with Copier, and in Sweden with Hald and Gate and their successors.
Yes, Keith Murray and Clyne Farquharson were promoted, but that only helps prove my point, since they are the names most associated with Art Deco glass in Britain, whereas, there were many other designers and manufacturers, but sadly they hardly get a look in.
Nigel
-
thanks Nigel and very interesting :)
sorry to digress backward but.............. coming back to the issue of cut glass flower frogs/supports, I've just noticed some relevant information in the Miller's/McConnell volume '20th Century Glass'.
Page 63 shows details from a page from a Harrods (London) brochure advertising 'Finest English Cut Crystal' which the book caption indicates was all Stuart production in the 1920's, and the ad includes a flower support described as 'The Magic Flower Holder' - similar in fact to the example I posted some way back in this thread.
Appears to have been offered in seven different sizes, and if you look carefully at the vases on the Harrods page you can just about make out that the majority have been illustrated with a support in situ.
So obviously a not uncommon add-on in the 1920's but perhaps the majority have become lost along the way.
-
There also appear in the Stuart catalogues in the same way as the Harrods, but, from memory, at least one catalogue had a large illustration of the 'Magic Flower Holder'. They were available separately, and as you note Paul, because of the different sizes fitted a large number of vases.
I have a couple which I think came in mixed lots from auction, but no Stuart vase in the same lot. Also found them with chunks out, so I bet a lot were broken over the years :(
Oh, they always have a Stuart etched mark, can't remember for sure, but seem to think they have the registration mark on as well.
Nigel
-
thanks Nigel. Always very dangerous to make assumptions based on a single example, but if you look at my earlier post (No. 10 I think) you'll see that my one and only 'Magic Flower Holder' does indeed carry a Rd. No., so I'm thinking it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume this applied to all of these scalloped Stuart supports.
Unfortunately, the factory name isn't included, at least it's not on mine.
The odds are probably heavily against most of those genuinely older Stuart vases to remain accompanied by their holders in 2014.
Most of these large wide-mouthed Stuart vases are heavy, and I can well believe that many have gone west over the years when perhaps wet fingers have failed to grip. Likewise with the supports - they are large, cumbersome and fairly heavy and need concentration and care when being inserted into the vase, so many must have broken.
Cutting styles and patterns on Stuart vases from this period lack the later deco and Modernist designs which we now prefer, and often can't be given away. Usually, when these 1920's vases with their plain bisecting cuts are found, they're chipped, showing much wear with glass sickness and bloom, and probably get binned, and any remaining holders also get the elbow. I suspect they're well and truly out of fashion.
As I mentioned earlier, my vase appears to have been produced for John Stonier.
-
I'd just like to thank you all so much for expanding this thread into a very informative piece of writing and I've really enjoyed reading it ! I will never look at the vase in the same light again ! ;)
-
I wanted to add this as a footnote on frogs/supports.
I picked these up today and they are both Webb Corbett and date from c 1930-1947 according to the marks (which are so faint it was worse than than the Harbridge mark) .It's the first mark here....
http://www.great-glass.co.uk/glass%20notes/markt-z.htm
Thanks so much for the above website , whoever constructed and researched it :-*
The vases are the same dimensions but have different cuts and stand five inches tall. The supports have been cut off so they don't reach the base of the vases.
The frogs/supports have been hand blown with a crude finish but they would do the job :D
-
sorry to drag this one up yet again, but............ going back several pages we discussed the large supports produced by Stuart - and seems I could have saved myself going to Kew......
Have just noticed that Mervyn Gulliver (thorough as ever) included details of these Stuart frogs/supports in his book - page 269 - Rd. Nos. 637674/75 and 639278 - all allocated in 1914.
One is a pierced and scalloped design and the other two are scalloped only - quite possibly the first flower supports for Stuart vases.
National Archive pix for both 637674 and 75 are shown earlier in this thread, although at that time I was unaware of the third one 639278. So they can all be seen in Mervyn Gulliver's book.
the Webb Corbett supports are good finds - not seen them before.
-
From the 1927 Stuart catalogue.