Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: MatW on April 24, 2015, 08:08:47 PM
-
Hi,
I bought these two simple small tumblers ( 7 and 7.3 cm). Both are not lead glass and mold blown in a mold of two parts. The lines where the parts were joined can be clearly seen. Also there are lots of bubbles and seeds visible. The pontil mark must have been heated and molten after it was broken off. They likely come from the Netherlands, as the antique Dealer has bought them there. Has anybody a suggestion regarding to their age?
Thank you all,
Mat
-
your tumblers are very interesting. mold blown glass was popular in the usa for about 20 years after the war of 1812 (1815-35), and I suspect something similar happened in Europe as a transition from hand blown to pressed glass. these tumblers are indeed crude, so I don't think that they were a product of that transitional method of producing glass. so I am cautiously thinking that they may be earlier, and perhaps much earlier. the technique has been used for millennia, so it will take some detective work to narrow down the range - and they could still be relatively recent as makers such as blenko have produced glass to simulate much older glass. these I think are authentically old.
-
Hi Mat - Would agree with Tony that these may well not be as old as we're tempted to think, and my thoughts on origin would be Continental possibly, but very difficult to be sure of anything. I can't quite see from your pix, but am assuming there is no evidence whatsoever of a pontil mark, which just might suggest a more modern manufacture - if for example there is a lack of wear, and bearing in mind the non-lead aspect.
You don't mention extent of wear - or absence of.
The size and shape are similar to tumblers from the second half C18, of that there is no doubt - they were often almost as wide as they were tall and with pronounced tapering sides .......... later tumblers became taller and narrower (and made to higher quality), and with straighter sides.
I could be very wrong, but my problem with these is that the type of moulds used prior to the Victorian period (when factory pressing/mould making became commonplace with mass production) - were primarily to convey patterns/decoration to the outside of the glass, and these are plain.
Tumblers from Europe from the middle or second half C18, show mould decoration in the form of wrythen moulding, gadrooning and moulding in the form of flutes, and are blown usually, leaving a scar on the base.
If these were C18/early C19 I'd expect to see considerable wear (bearing in mind their utilitarian appearance)
and some remains of a pontil scar. I certainly think wear is a major factor here, if we want an early date.
Sorry this tells you really nothing positive about yours - and since you've been waiting for a few days have to assume all the tumbler experts are on holiday ;D
-
Thank you both for your help! Paul, as to wear there is quite some on the bottom. There is no pontil scar, the place where it was can bee seen faintly, but it must have been worked over to hide it. I am not expert on glass blowing techniques and have unfortunately no good literature on this, but it seems that the glasses have been heated after removing them from the pontil so that the surface was smoothed. I have no idea from when on such a technique was used?
Mat
-
I think your glass is mould blown (by hand) Mat. It has been cut off at the top, as this is uneven, but has not been reshaped, so it wouldn't need a pontil mark on the base. The mark on the base is either from the mould or from cooling. I too suspect it's not as old as you hope, just poor quality
-
sorry, appreciate Christine has just posted, but hope she won't object to my further ramblings which I'd typed before seeing her comments.
Hi Mat ..... removal of the pontil scar, by heating, is unusual (I believe) in older glass ..... As you will know, when it was necessary or desired to remove the scar, this was normally by means of grinding/polishing, hence the depression or at least some form of smoothing which remains visible.
Could be wrong, but attachment to the pontil rod was to finish the rim, and assuming this had be done and the rod removed completely from the glass, then I'm unsure how any pontil scar might then be fire polished - evenly slightly - since the glass would then have to be held by hand, or similar. Not my area though, so might have this very wrong.
Considerable wear might be found even if these were as recent as middle third of C20 - drinking glasses, used heavily, probably take some punishment.
I would agree with Christine's comments.
-
Thank you both again!I never stop learning here! I was not really hoping anything, I was just confused about these glasses! :)
Mat
-
although I'm sure there are exceptions, it's a misconception to think that glass from the C18 and early C19 must be rough and ready - full of inclusions - and lacking finesse, simply because it's old .... in reality the opposite is true, often. Mass production has a lot to answer for :)