Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: David E on January 12, 2015, 12:35:23 PM
-
This is the second piece I have seen listed, that does not look anything like Cameo to my untrained eye, but more like a pressed or blown moulding:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/301482989576
Here is the SOLD listing from last week:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181627481816
Again, the squiggly 'Webb' signature (note, not "Webb's") is apparent, and a very similar textured background.
Any thoughts on this?
MODS: Whilst I appreciate the first mention is an active listing, the second is not. If it must be reviewed by the committee, please simply remove the link (only) - it will be easy enough for people to search for 'Webb Cameo' and find current listings.
-
I think they are fine for Webb Cameo Fleur
-
Ah, OK - "untrained eye"...
MODS: Please dump this thread.
-
Other opinions might be worth soliciting. Cameo Fleur was the economy version though
-
Roger Dodsworth shows two pieces of cameo fleur in his 'BRITISH GLASS between the wars' - both have lily designs in relief and the form of stylization appears to agree with the decoration in David's links.
Dodsworth comments that both of the pieces shown in the book are simply marked 'Webb' in the relief decoration - as opposed to 'Webb's'. In the Parkington auction catalogues this factory name on the vases is described as a 'cameo signature'.
If you look in the Thomas Webb museum catalogue (and elsewhere I believe), this particular range is described as 'Pseudo-Cameo' - presumably since someone didn't like the suggestion that they should be spoken of in the same breath as cameo work from the likes of George Woodall and Jules Barbe. Might this be why Christine suggests cameo fleur was the economy version. :)
-
When you look at the edges of the blue in close up, they are not well-defined - they wobble all over the place.
I'd go with an "economy" version of whatever. The quality I'd expect from Webb's is just not there.
-
But they are Webb. Cameo Fleur was aimed at the mass market and used acid etching only, not engraving. Read about it in Art, Feat and Mystery by HW Woodward
-
and also see page 71 and 72 of 20th Century British Glass (2009) - Charles Hajdamach.
CH says (amongst long and detailed explanation on the process on both pages, including pictures of molds etc):
' This is the range which is often wrongly called 'Pseudo -Cameo'.
(edited to add ... this phrase was specifically mentioned by CH and I wonder whether it might be to correct the phrase usage in previous books. Paul mentions it being used in the Webb museum catalogue and it is also described as 'pseudo-cameo' in Cyril Manley's Decorative Victorian Glass which was produced in 1981 (page 83 item no 197), and which contains a number of errors).
m
-
We've been down this road before regarding this description, and a couple of years back Nigel gave his thoughts..........
""As for psuedo-cameo, this was the phrase used to refer to this type of glass ware when I first entered dealing 26 years ago. It has taken all this time, despite intervenning knowledge to correct. I suggest that it came about through someone latterly using the term and it catching on with collectors and dealers, and the mistake snowballed. Actually, I don't think it really matters how it arose, rather that we now use the right terminology.
Cheers, Nigel""
Trouble is that I'm now not sure what Nigel was saying the 'right terminology' should be :-\
It's unfortunate that the expression was used in both Woodward's book and the Dennis Hall catalogue - sources that would be thought of as providing correct information.
-
Paul, as a matter of interest (I don't have either of those references), what year were they produced please?
mm, Art, Feat an Mystery is coming up as 1978. I had been wondering whether the phrase used in Manley's book had influenced but since his book was produced 1981 then it seems Art Feat and Mystery came first.
m
-
Whatever the correct term, this is cameo work. The dual layer glass was blown into a mould having the design. Then the background areas were removed using acid and a resist to reveal the flowers and leaves. Then the whole thing was tidied by manual engraving and polishing, ergo economy cameo. The cheating comes with creating the design in the mould rather than manually.
-
yes. And I think the word cheating should be put in inverted commas.
It is a cameo piece, but just not 'totally hand produced' cameo.
And that's no different to many types of cameo work out there (both old and new), where in some shape or form (and in varying degrees in the process) 'mechanisation' is used to make the final article.
Of course, the amount of 'hand work' involved in the process of a particular piece will be a major factor (along with other factors, such as number of layers/colours used/intricacy of design/overall appeal and desirability/age etc) in the value, because that can also affect the rarity of a piece and how difficult it is to complete a piece successfully.
And of course, these pieces are different to a totally hand produced unique one-off cameo work which takes many hours and months of work, and therefore commands a price accordingly.
m
-
As Paul said above, this subject has been covered before. A Board search will reveal several messages referring to "cameo fleur". "pseudo cameo" and also "rich cameo".
The main discussion about the Webb / Richardson items was ...
June 2012 - thos webb cameo vase pattern id please? (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,48149.msg271266.html#msg271266)
-
Forgot this had been on the board and didn't think to search :-\
This demonstrates my point
'And of course, these pieces are different to a totally hand produced unique one-off cameo work which takes many hours and months of work, and therefore commands a price accordingly.'
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,56854.msg322199.html#msg322199
Peter says in the thread linked above that the piece in question, lot 173, sold for $260,000
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/25036818_museum-quality
the description of the sale reads
'9 1/2" SIGNED "THOMAS WEBB & SONS GEM CAMEO" FINELY CARVED ENGLISH CAMEO ART GLASS VASE - "THE ORIGIN OF PAINTING" SIGNED "G.WOODALL 1887" - EXACTLY AS FEATURED IN "ENGLISH CAMEO GLASS" BY GROVER, PAGE 262'
-
coming back to the examples such as those in the original links here, there does seem to have been a fairly widespread attitude of wanting to differentiate deliberately these C20 'fleur' (flower) cameo pieces from the more expensive and more hand-wrought cameos.
Richardson (possibly due to their proximity to T/Webb in the early 1930's) made their own quite similar product, and called theirs 'Rich Cameo', although they appear to have quite distinctive features when compared with T/Webb (no idea if Richardson signed theirs).
The point of this waffle is that I've just noticed that Mark West, when speaking of these 'economy' cameos, describes them as 'faux' cameo - so another instance probably of someone going out of their way to separate them from the Woodall & co. higher end cameo wares.
Charles Hajdamach also mentions that E. & L. did some cameo work similar to T/Webb and Richardson, but I'm not aware of having seen any.
Unfortunately, I don't have a single piece - economy or otherwise - they are expensive, and as Sue has commented, most of the 'fleur' pieces don't inspire me...........the decoration looks clumsy and lacks the appearance of fine art. :)
-
I can see that before buying there is a need to understand the cameo process, and how it has been carried out on a piece, as this knowledge added to other information will mean the buyer understands the value of what is being purchased i.e. would the value be c. $260,000 or would it be more like c. £300.
However I do not agree that this means calling some pieces 'faux' or 'pseudo' cameo, when they are not.
These pieces being discussed are cameo pieces. They are not 'faux' or fake or pseudo cameo. The 'Cameo Fleur' vases from Thomas Webb appear on page 71 and 72 in Charles Hajdamach's British Glass, which is the Cameo Glass chapter.
m
-
I wouldn't doubt your confirmation m that the process for all such named work does indeed qualify as 'cameo'. I'm just surmising that over the years there has been a section of collectors/buyers who considered the need to differentiate between pieces commanding the extremes of values you mention.
Collectors are nothing if not snobby and class conscious, and the origin of faux and pseudo may well have been that they wanted some means of conveying the fact that they had bought something very special as opposed to a fleur piece from T/Webb.
It has to be said that if someone uses just the word cameo, then the scope of reference is large, and needs some sort of qualification.
Think I'd settle for either :)
-
Yes, I know what you mean :)
As a buyer I think I would prefer that, rather than 'labelling' them, a proper explanation of the cameo process used was given in the description.
m
-
just adding a link to the Richardson version of this in the Broadfield House museum collection
http://blackcountryhistory.org/collections/getrecord/DMUSE_BH1344/
m