Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: brucebanner on April 17, 2016, 10:16:56 PM
-
The latest addition to my purple pressed glass collection, any one any idea's to a maker please as it is not marked.
3 3/4 inches in height or 97 mm.
Regards Chris.
-
Thank you for showing this, Chris.
I have only seen one other example (interestingly, with a flared rim as opposed to the upright rim on your piece), and that was unmarked and in purple marbled glass too.
The triangular foot reminds me somewhat of the triangular foot of some Heppell ‘dolphin’ pieces, but I don’t have any firm documentary evidence for a Heppell attribution for your posy vase.
Does anyone have examples to show in other colours, please?
Fred.
-
sorry, can't help with maker on this one................... but, would suggest that Fred's description of the type of glass should be adopted, since this colour has nothing to do with malachite, and I'm very very sure nothing to do with slag glass either :)
More importantly though, I'm confused regarding the attached pix in Fred's reply, showing the candlestick and creamer - both unmarked - stated as being part of Heppell's Registrations from 24th November 1882.
They may well be pieces made by Heppell and I might have missed the point entirely, but looking at this factory's original sepia photographs, submitted to the Board of Trade on the above date and allocated Rd. Nos. 390584 - 86, the pieces in those original pix have very little similarity with this stick and creamer, other than the inclusion of a stylized dolphin somewhere in the design.
Heppell's own factory photos, sent to the Board of Trade and given these three Registration Nos. on 24/11/1882 agree exactly with shapes shown in Raymond Slack's book .......... Rd. 390584 is the covered butter shown left on page 105 - Rd. 390585 is the rather top heavy sugar bowl shown right on page 105 - and Rd. 390586 is the handled milk jug shown on page 104.
I've no idea why Slack omits the Rd. Nos. from his captions to these pix - they would have been useful additions.
I've no first hand knowledge of Slack's comment that "no pattern books or catalogues exist today from this firm (Heppell)............etc.", and their business lasted only from 1874 to 1884, when as we all now know Davidson purchased Heppell's extensive stock of moulds.
If you want to get some idea of the potential confusion regarding Davidson's output in the later years of the C19 - regarding their use of other factories moulds, especially perhaps Heppell's - read Raymond Slack's comments on page 85 of his book.
Davidson produced vast amounts of marbled glass, doubtless much of it from moulds they had acquired elsewhere, so the issue of who made what is not easy to unravel especially on pieces made from other people's moulds that didn't incorporate a trade mark. I could well have missed seeing some recent piece of information that confirms beyond doubt that this stick and creamer are definitely from Heppell, but I'm wondering if their connection with Rd. 390584 - 86 has been made solely on the basis that there's a dolphin lurking in them so by default they must be from Heppell.
Coming back to Slack - I notice he shows a picture of this stick on page 76, in black Vitro-Porcelain, (stated as unmarked), and he includes this in his chapter on Davidson. Perhaps even more telling is Slack's picture No. 54 on page 75 "a dolphin pedestal salt cellar" and with the same stylized dolphins as appear on the stick and creamer - this item he says is shown in a Davidson catalogue "and was probably made from moulds bought from Heppell - being famous for their fish designs".
Apparently Heppell produced only two opaque colours - Opal and "Brown Malachite", so any other colours which incorporate a trade mark, will have been made after 1884 by Davidson.
Unless I've missed something, then it seems difficult to make the jump from Heppell's photos for 390584 - 86 to this stick and creamer.
Sorry this is over-long - not easy to keep matters simple when faced with such an array of information. :)
Ref. 'English Pressed Glass 1830-1900' - Raymond Slack - 1987
-
Malachite or slag glass is the layman's term for this glass, the simple man such as myself will search Google and the like using these terms, there might be others who come across this with a factory pattern book in the future, you never know ;) stranger things have happened.
I think this is the same vase as the flared one, this is egg shaped and I think unless mould blown the plunger would get stuck.
-
I don't buy into the suggestion that you're simple Chris :) as you'll know, there was indeed some very early pressed glass that was made from, or included, some genuine slag (not old slag ;)), and there is also some green marble glass that has the appearance of malachite, and it is green like the mineral, and may genuinely be called malachite marble although green marbled is preferable. But to describe all of the non-green colours as malachite and slag to boot is misleading.
These unorthodox descriptions are perpetuated mostly by those who perhaps unlike you and I, don't read the books, and whilst you can search under whatever names you choose, my opinion is that for the sake of accuracy and when posting on the GMB such pieces should be described as per the books i.e. green/purple/blue etc. etc. marble glass. :) But perhaps if in future you say malachite, then I'll know it's not going to be green ;D
I hope you do get an id for your vase - I've looked at some States material, but no joy.
Waiting for Fred to shoot me down re the Heppell/Davidson words. ;)
-
Thank you for your comments, Paul.
I have absolutely no desire or intention of ‘shooting you down’. You are, of course, perfectly correct in that the file names with my photos of the candlestick and creamer indicate that both items are definitely from Heppell’s RDs 390584 to 390586 – an extrapolation and attribution clearly based on insufficient evidence, especially as both pieces are indeed unmarked.
I now attach the illustrations from the Davidson catalogues of unregistered designs 1880-1890 showing that the dolphin candlestick, creamer (and matching pedestal sugar bowl) definitely appear as Davidson pattern number 11 in each case. As Slack indicates, it may well be that these Davidson designs with the triangular dolphin base may have been made from moulds acquired from Heppell, but I have no more direct evidence to support that proposition than he had, and there is always the possibility that Davidson produced their own dolphin mould designs based on the contemporary popularity of dolphin-themed designs generally.
Looking back at my reference files, I believe that I named the creamer and candlestick files before you provided the definitive Board of Trade photo evidence that correlated the Heppell RDs 390584 to 390586 with their actual designs, and I will amend the file names on my reference files of the dolphin creamer and candlestick accordingly to avoid misleading attributions in the future, re-allocating them accordingly.
Fred.
-
As a follow-on from Paul's reply #2...
Coming back to Slack - I notice he shows a picture of this stick on page 76, in black Vitro-Porcelain, (stated as unmarked), and he includes this in his chapter on Davidson. Perhaps even more telling is Slack's picture No. 54 on page 75 "a dolphin pedestal salt cellar" and with the same stylized dolphins as appear on the stick and creamer - this item he says is shown in a Davidson catalogue "and was probably made from moulds bought from Heppell - being famous for their fish designs".
Here is a photos of a pair of the 'salt cellars' in black opaque glass (to match the Davidson #11 candlestick illustrated in Slack, and also unmarked). The owner says that they are 4.75 inches tall. (Permission to re-use this image on the GMB granted by R Bird).
Fred.
-
I have this candlestick in clear glass that I thought I'd taken a photo of but cannot find said pic anywhere! I'll take another and add for reference. (Even in clear it's handy to see against the drawing.)
-
1
-
heh heh heh is that a gentle reminder, Chris? I'm sorry I forgot all about this... I have also mislaid the candlestick as well, it's in a box somewhere as I packed loads of glass away whilst we are decorating. I'll see if I can run it to earth and take some pics. :)
-
No anne i was about to post a pic of the sugar bowl and creamer i have in white when i noticed Pauls slight sarcastic comment in the earlier post plus Kevin corrected me twice in other posts then i thought whats the point.
-
hello Chris - sorry to hear you feel some recent comments have been inappropriate, and for my part can assure you my words were posted with the most gentle of teasing/humour - if you look at the quantity of smiley's and grins I've posted I think you'd agree that in no way could my words be accused of being serious. None of us can afford to go through life being too sensitive - we'd fall at the first hurdle - and I'm sure most folk would quickly see that the comments you refer to were posted without the slightest intention of sarcasm.
It would be a sad day indeed if we had to remove from the GMB all humour/irony/teasing and all those little yellow faces that tell us someone's real sentiment.
It's of benefit to all of us to remain on the side of facts when we can as it helps to avoid unnecessary misunderstanding, and the books we quote from frequently, are usually a good source of accurate information. None of us is that clever to put us beyond reproach, and if you see any of my words you know to be wrong or inaccurate, then wade in and put me right. ;D
In past years the GMB did include a very few arrogant and rude members - experts in the field of glass no less - who were very quick to show their disapproval and lack of patience with new members, and whose attitude was the cause of the departure of several friendly members. Fortunately, it appears we are now free of members of that disposition, and that's all to the good - although sadly we now don't have the volume of members and there is probably less interest in British glass than say 7 - 10 years ago.
Had you been here some few years back you might have been very justified in complaining - but hope that you won't see either Kevin's or my words as being the cause of genuine unfriendliness. :)
Hope to see your sugar bowl and creamer, in white, when you have the time.
-
In response to Chris, Paul said:
.. hope that you won't see either Kevin's or my words as being the cause of genuine unfriendliness. :)
Yes, indeed. No unfriendliness intended.
I used to be very careful with my posts, to the point of reading them at least three times before clicking the Post button. These days, when I do post responses they are much shorter and they only get a single review before I commit them to screen. But I accept that I can still say things in a way that can come over as rather blunt.
By the way, Paul, you spelled "Skruf" with two "f's" recently. Tut tut. :)
-
thanks for pointing that out Kevin - my apologies - a very scruffy effort on my part. ;) ;)