Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: chilternhills on August 15, 2016, 08:26:24 PM
-
There is an attractive vase currently on eBay which is said to be Victorian cameo glass and signed on the base by hand G.S.F. I have found another two pieces of the same pattern on a Boston, Mass. auction site. Perhaps the maker is American. Any ideas who the maker is? I can't find a thing on the Internet about the maker's mark, which is somewhat surprising.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/371701332905 (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/371701332905)
-
European Victorian cameo wares, and those for a decade or so into the C20, show cameo decoration work almost exclusively of a naturalistic style i.e. either flora or fauna, or a combination of the two, rather than geometric patterning - so this piece is unusual in its appearance.
Why don't you simply ask the seller for provenance to support their 'Victorian attribution'. Of course it is always possible that this is from the States, so perhaps there was a factory producing this unusual decorative style of cameo.
Regret I can't help with the lettering.
-
There is a huge huge thread on this signature under fish scale or fishscale I think.
I;ll try and find it. I put many links on that thread trying to work out the maker.
This is the link to that thread - I think it has all the info so far.
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,35137.msg190335.html#msg190335
-
thank you m. I shall be at Kew for much of today - to save the time of wading through all those pages, is there a chance you might be able to summarize some sort of conclusion for us? :)
-
looking for some clues as to who G S F or G L F was.
Vases appear to date to c.1886 possibly. January?
reg design number on it of 41925 if it's possible to check what is said about this number?
any information available on Webb reg design - shell shape pattern was registered by Thomas Webb on October 8 1886, no 58374 -
there are now many of these vases out there signed GSF or GLF.
Who was that GSF?
Is there any information that can be found linking Webb to GSF?
From memory I believe Alisha has said she believes they were made by Harrach.
Thanks Paul - anything you can find would be helpful
There is one particularly bulbous shaped vase with a zig zag collar that is quite an unusual shape which could help possibly - shape here (also seen in pink that looks like a bottom in a pair of pink fishnet tights ;D)
http://eronjohnsonantiques.com/products/g0720-english-stevens-and-williams-koi-decorated-glass-vase
Thanks for anything you might come across to help solve this mystery.
m
-
The previous thread seems to be about the same pattern as this one.
To summarize the previous thread:
Signature: interpreted as either G.L.F. or G.S.F. I see it as G.S.F. Perhaps it was the gilder's mark rather than a makers mark.
Maker: There is a strong preference for either Thomas Webb or Harrach.
If you want to buy the vase: too late! :P I bought it! ;D It was too gorgeous to leave and will go into IOW Glass Museum.
One question though: is it definitely a cameo or some other technique? I can't be sure from just the pictures.
-
thanks to both of you :) ......... sorry, I've obviously missed an opportunity - I'd left the house for Kew promptly after posting my note, so wasn't aware of the request to check this T/Webb Registration, and don't posses a smartphone so can't check things on the hoof;D
However, should be possible to solve the question quickly.
Unfortunately, I no longer have my copy of Gulliver, but I do know that he includes most of the T/Webb Registrations for decorative designs in the back of his book.......... so we need someone to check the book please. Either that or has Fred got any of my earlier pix from Kew that would show both of these Registrations?
Relying on memory, but am I correct in saying that T/Webb Registered a 'shell shaped pattern', but only for the purposes of a handle design? Thought someone had added these things to the Board, somewhere.
Must admit I wasn't entirely sure about the middle letter - but whatever, think the letters could well be the gilders initials. Certainly on Continental wares, many pieces do carry the decorators initials. Do these letter look Continental rather than British?
There seems to be a lot of speculation and assumption about the attribution of these things, without any real provenance - was wondering if the gilding might have influenced folk to think of Jules Barbe - wasn't he T/Webb?. Can't see anything remotely like this in CH's C19 Glass - re chapter on Cameo glass.
It may be significant if these pieces only ever turn up in the States??
Is it known if T/Webb ever produced this sort of finish on a cameo piece?? - and why did Alisha 'believe' this was Harrach?
Quote ..... "One question though: is it definitely a cameo or some other technique? I can't be sure from just the pictures."
Not long to wait - then when it arrives, you can tell us ;D
Quote ........ "If you want to buy the vase: too late! :P I bought it" ........... American Express?? ;D ;D
-
Checking "Gulliver" ...
Quote from "m":reg design number on it of 41925 if it's possible to check what is said about this number?
any information available on Webb reg design - shell shape pattern was registered by Thomas Webb on October 8 1886, no 58374 -
41925 = not listed in the section for Thomas Webb & Sons Limited
58374 = "Oct 8, 1886. Diaper of semi-circular lines forming a decorative pattern"
The line drawing shows a "scale" decoration with each "scale" in the form an upright arch and having three lines to the arch. (m had referenced what was probably this decoration, but I think the link to a pic is now dead.)
Quote from Paul S.
Relying on memory, but am I correct in saying that T/Webb Registered a 'shell shaped pattern', but only for the purposes of a handle design?
Yes, this was covered by 212674 for a shell-shaped handle, pouring spout, foot. And 212675 for a shell-shaped prunt, matching 212674. And 212676 for a variation of the top of a handle. And 212677 for an applied circular prunt matching 212674. All of those designs were Oct 19, 1867.
-
thanks - interesting to note that Rd. 41925 dated 26th January 1886 is included in Thompson, and described by her (although possibly taken from another location) as "Pattern worked on body of the glass to represent fish scales" - in view of it's inclusion here do we assume this was a decorative form applying to pressed glass only? Sorry, is this a dead end? - not quite sure now how we got to this Rd. No.
The Registrant for 41925 was Wittmann & Roth, London, 'Glass & China Manufacturer'.
Edited ............ that's probably a rubbish comment - there must be cut glass design Nos. included in Thompson.
in the Grover's book covering 'Art Glass Nouveau', there's quite a list of artists working in the field of cameo work, but regret can't fit these initials into the frame.
-
that reg number has been seen on the bottom of one or maybe two pieces of this fishscale design vases with the signature GSF ( GLF ) iirc which is how we came to get the Whitman and Roth and the design number.
Whitman and Roth - not a lot known about them
GSF ( GLF ) - iirc nothing known about him/her/them
Again, if my memory serves me, there has been some discussion about Whitman and Roth and Harrach somewhere, or a possible link between the two along the lines of Whitman and Roth (possible distributor/designer) and Harrach (the maker). There was a piece written in somewhere which is how this possible line of though came to be.
But iirc this is still speculation.
Again if my memory serves me, I think Alisha said she'd seen a piece with this fishscale pattern on in the Harrach museum??? and so had her piece down as Harrach I think.
The problem I think, is that I found a pair of vases sold by Fieldings id'd as Thomas Webb. They had the same collar gilded pattern as a fishscale vase.
I'm not sure how Fieldings came to know their pair of vases were definitely Thomas Webb. And without definitive source I am naturally suspicious that the pair actually were Thomas Webb.
We have no further known facts on this.
m
-
Paul , is that the correct spelling of Wittmann and Roth?
If so, apologies as I didn't check before typing that name and distracted by a phone call I can no longer edit my post.
m
-
ok I've found a bit more information that I'd posted before I think - there is a clear version with scales that is also assigned to Wittman and Roth and comes in various forms - it has an rd number of 39086.
Accompanying a listing for a jug was some information-
The link below shows a jug. The information accompanying that listing might be where I'd read about the Bohemian connection.
Info on the listing is as follows:
'Registered Design number 39086 was allocated to 'Sidney Wittmann, of Wittmann & Roth' London, described as 'Glass & China Manufacturer', on 30th November 1885. The design was described as 'Raised pattern on glass surface to imitate hammered metal'. Sidney and F Pohl, a member of the Bohemian Pohl family, apparently patented a method of making glass in imitation of tortoise shell on 25th October 1880. That would appear to date this creamer quite well ca. 1885 - 1890, as the pitcher is signed with the acid mark capital W within an Owl standing on a crescent moon. Carved & Decorated European Art Glass / all by Ray & Lee Grover; British Glass 1800-1914 / by Charles R. Hajdamach; Victorian Decorative Glass British Designs, 1850-1914 / by Mervyn Gulliver; Decorative Victorian Glass / by Cyril Manley; Nineteen Century British Glass / by Hugh Wakefield -- part of a collection of art glass to be sold live on eBayLiveAuctions on Oct 5th at 1pm, Andy & Rob Collection.
Length:4
Width:0
Height:4.75
Weight LB:0
Weight OZ:12
CONDITION:
minor loss of paint'
https://new.liveauctioneers.com/item/5715096
I think it might be fairly circumspect to link Wittman and Roth with Pohl given the description on the listing (e.g. using 'tortoiseshell' to describe a fishscale pattern) and to link Pohl therefore with these type of fishscale designs. However, it could be that the clear versions are more 'tortoiseshell like' in pattern rather than symmetric 'fishscale like' perhaps.
So it might be fair to link in this way to the clear versions.
But anyway, this is where I think the thinking came from linking a Bohemian maker to these pieces.
-
some good sleuthing m - but we must be cautious about introducing too much irrelevant material.
quote ....... "is that the correct spelling of Wittmann and Roth?" - tis indeed.
The 'live aution' comments are very confusing, and the top caption to the cream jug is wrong - the pattern is not tortoishell, but hammered - which is stated correctly later down in the text.
We must ignore all references to tortoishell in this instance, which was a visual colour effect, and not a surface texture appearance such as this hammered look............. will be confusing if we don't.
I'm in no doubt that the surface texture of the red bulbous vase at the beginning of this thread is identical to what is being described as a hammered finish on the cream jug, and quoted in your link as 'raised pattern on glass surface to imitate hammered metal' - Registered Design No. 39086 - Thompson also confirms this description when listing 39086.
Unfortunately, I don't presently have a picture of the Kew image of 39086 from 30th November 1885, which is a post lozenge period Registration - and will have to wait until next week.
Charles Hajdamach describes in some detail the making of the tortoishell glass - but completely omits any reference to the Registration for the 'hammered' invention of Rd. 39086 - so not our day there.
We appear to be able to now discount Harrach, and must ignore any reference to tortoishell when speaking of the hammered design, which has more of an appearance of honeycomb, possibly, but maybe that's just my eyes. :)
So - we need to know the type of manufacturing process of Rd. 39086 - is it simply some rather clever form of pressed glass manufacture, or a different process involving cutting or acid - can anyone on the Board help with that question?
I was just a little surprised at the quality of the gilding on the foot of the red vase, but some pieces are cared for more than others.
-
ok, this was Alisha's post about a possible Harrach version. Alisha writes in her description that on the clear version with the Wittmann and Roth mark and three gilded feet, the pattern is raised above the surface of the vase as opposed to the pink versions which have the pattern 'embedded' into the glass.
She also shows a tall vase with a 'fishscale' type pattern on it that appears to be different to either her fishscale clear marked vase or the pink ones and says that tall vase is Harrach.
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,35137.msg307103.html#msg307103
Two things I observe -
1) it seems to me that her clear vase with the marked rd number on the base is different pattern to her tall version id'd as Harrach? and
2) although the reg design marks are different on the clear raised pattern vase (39086)and the pink vases with embedded pattern marks (rd 41925 see http://fieldingsauctioneers.co.uk/lot/4696 for example),
they are both registered by Wittmann and Roth.
The key is to find a definitive source of who Wittman and Roth were.
Then to find primary evidence of where they ordered these vases from.
These two vases from Fieldings (sold as Webb's):
http://fieldingsauctioneers.co.uk/lot/104885
are the pair I referred to that have the same ridged zig zag gilded collar as this cream fishscale vase (which has a black script enamelled signature of GLF (GSF ) on the base:
http://eronjohnsonantiques.com/products/g0720-english-stevens-and-williams-koi-decorated-glass-vase
and which appears to be a similar or the same shape as this pink fishscale vase:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,35137.msg255206.html#msg255206
m
-
So - we need to know the type of manufacturing process of Rd. 39086 - is it simply some rather clever form of pressed glass manufacture, or a different process involving cutting or acid - can anyone on the Board help with that question?
A feature that I cannot get my head around (maybe I am just being a bit slow?) is that some of the examples shown clearly have the raised design continuing to the top of the neck - but some keep going over the top of the rim.
In fact, the eBay item linked to at the start of this thread shows a very clear continuation of the pattern onto what seems to be a standard flat cut rim, probably with a bevelled edge - and the pattern is within a painted (or gilded) rim top. Not only that, but the top of the rim clearly shows uneven wear of some kind revealing the plain flat white of the base colour of the vase, without any "scale" pattern.
How could this be achieved?
-
The rim is cut, bevelled and polished flat and appears to have a design cut into it - but to my eye the design is not the same as the fishscale pattern on the body of the vase?
http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/xXIAAOSwnQhXohYE/s-l1600.jpg
-
A feature that I cannot get my head around (maybe I am just being a bit slow?) is that some of the examples shown clearly have the raised design continuing to the top of the neck - but some keep going over the top of the rim.
In fact, the eBay item linked to at the start of this thread shows a very clear continuation of the pattern onto what seems to be a standard flat cut rim, probably with a bevelled edge - and the pattern is within a painted (or gilded) rim top. Not only that, but the top of the rim clearly shows uneven wear of some kind revealing the plain flat white of the base colour of the vase, without any "scale" pattern.
How could this be achieved?
Perhaps they are blown in white, cased in pink and then blown out into a mold which has the scale pattern on it?
Then the necks are hand cut in the zig zag design and the rims hand cut, polished and bevelled?
The cream one obviously not cased in pink though, just blown out into a mold with a the scale pattern inside it.
On another note it appears Wittmann and Roth also commissioned Loetz for vases?
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/188729-loetz-octopus-vase-pn-unknown-wittmann
Sidney Adolphus Wittmann and Richard Charles Wittmann
47 Great Marlborough Street
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/26703/page/444/data.pdf
Newpaper advert from Wittmann and Roth 1890 April 1 The POttery Gazette.
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/35733280/
Plying their trade with American and Colonial buyers - appear to me to be 'the middleman'. They comment that their good cannot be found elsewhere and are registered. So.. perhaps they registered the items because they had designed them and commissioned them from makers ... maybe Bohemian in light of the Loetz vases.
edited to add : Here is information on the Loetz site about Wittmann and Roth and Loetz
http://www.loetz.com/featured-articles/loetz-octopus-victoria-and-the-english-connection
m
-
surprised that Fieldings saying T/Webb for Rd. 41925 - not the sort of error you'd expect them to make - this was a 'pattern worked on body of the glass to represent fish scales'. But it's an intriguing pattern, covering the body entirely as it does - but they say it was cut, so cut it was, but as we know it was a decorative design Registered in 1886 to Wittmann & Roth of London.
Is it possible that this blank was made by T/Webb, bought by Wittmann & Roth, and decorated by their cutters - or imported as a blank and then cut by W. & R. - I don't see it being a practicable issue to import an expensive piece which had already been made and cut in Bohemia.
Am sure we'll never know.
Apart from being able to provide Kew images of the original drawings for Wittmann & Roth Registrations Nos. 39086 and 41925, which I hope to do in the coming days, this sort of decorative ware not my area, so shouldn't really be commenting, other than to say..............
I think it will help if we use only the description 'hammered' for this piece and those with similar surface decoration.
As mentioned above and in some of the links, there are pieces being referred to that do have genuine 'fish scale' decoration - so think we have to make it very clear when using that description as to which Registration we're referring to - otherwise we might get very confused.
As I've discovered when looking at Kew drawings, information as to methodology etc. is usually non-existent, so we may not pick up any more useful info from them - but worth a try.
W. & R. Registered other designs, for patterns of lamp shades, and 'patterns - whatever they were - so might have a look at those when I'm at Kew.
-
Paul, it would be wonderful to have the Kew information :) Thanks so much for taking the time to do this.
I think the information Warren Galle has mentioned in his article on the Loetz vases made for Wittmann and Roth is very important.
It explains the relationship between Loetz and Wittmann and Roth, and also explains to some degree
a) why the vases were registered by Wittmann and Roth
b) how Wittmann and Roth asked for them to be marked to denote their registration in the UK, and
c) for how long the design was registered to Wittmann and Roth in the UK.
http://www.loetz.com/featured-articles/loetz-octopus-victoria-and-the-english-connection
However:
- whilst the Loetz site gives evidence for the link with Loetz and Wittmann & Roth, it doesn't get us any further as to the maker of the ' fishscale ' /' hammered ' pink or cream vases,
- or the clear raised ' hammered ' design vases (i.e Alisha's which has the three gold ball feet.
Questions:
Perhaps they were also produced by Loetz?
Perhaps Wittmann & Roth used other Bohemian makers to produced designs for them or bought their designs - e.g. Harrach?
m
-
sorry - just trying to get my head straight here -
a) Having read the long previous thread it appears I did find a pink vase with 'fishscale' decoration with the design number 39086 painted on the base apparently in black with a thin border around the number. Link was to a vase in Trocadero and it's now dead.
The 39086 rd number has been found impressed on the clear fishscale vases registered by Wittmann and Roth.
Note - the pink vase I found only had the number enamelled on the bottom in black.
b) then I found this Fieldings version also pink, with an rd number of 41925 (apparently registered by Wittmann and Roth (see d) ) and sold by Fieldings as Thomas Webb.
http://fieldingsauctioneers.co.uk/lot/4696
c) these pink 'fishscale' type vases with a cream interior have been seen with enamelled GSF or GLF signatures on
d) Paul looked up the rd number 41925 with info as follows:
'...interesting to note that Rd. 41925 dated 26th January 1886 is included in Thompson, and described by her (although possibly taken from another location) as "Pattern worked on body of the glass to represent fish scales" ...'
and
'The Registrant for 41925 was Wittmann & Roth, London, 'Glass & China Manufacturer'. '
e) Then another pair were sold by Fieldings as Thomas Webb that have a similar/the same zig zag collar to one in cream 'fishscale' with bulbous body and which has a GLS GFS signature only on the base. The cream bulbous body vase is remarkably similar to a pink fishscale vase in the same shape, except it is fully cream,not pink over cream.
Which begs the questions:
Why did Fielding sell one with that RD 41925 number on as Webb?
Where is the proof it was made by Webb's?
and also
How come I found a pink fishscale version with the design number 39086 enamelled on it's base?
Were there two separate rd numbers for these vases?
For shape information I'm adding:
this one - sold last year by Fieldings sold as Thomas Webb, but also says made for 'Whitman (sic) & Roth' and says it has an rd number on the base (not identified in the listing). It is a clear 'fishscale' design straight sided wide tube shape with a bulbous ring around the base above an indented foot. Gilded with birds.
https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/fieldings-auctioneers-ltd/catalogue-id-srfi10035/lot-1da0ba96-d4c6-47b5-b416-a49000c2b44b
and another in pink - sold as : A small late 19th Century Thomas Webb & Sons vase for Whitman & Roth (sic) of ovoid form cased in pink
https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/fieldings-auctioneers-ltd/catalogue-id-srfi10035/lot-8623e348-367e-4eb7-ac51-a49000c2c691
and yet another jug version
http://fieldingsauctioneers.co.uk/lot/120728
which appears to be very similar to this clear jug
http://www.ebay.ie/itm/c-1885-Reg-No-39086-HAMMERED-METAL-Wittmann-Roth-CRYSTAL-w-GOLD-Pitcher-/231784032960?hash=item35f767aac0:g:nQ4AAOSwhkRWbyEg
Where is the proof they were made by Webb's?
Judging by the number of examples I've found, whoever produced them was pretty prolific if this many have survived.
Incidentally - love the owl on a crescent moon logo for Wittmann and Roth - could it have been chosen as the Owl (too'wit' toowoo) for Witt, and moon for 'mann'?
-
thanks for the links m - very interesting. Auctioneers aren't exempt from errors in attribution as we know, and suspect they make as many if not more than others, although Fieldings are probably better than most, and errors are perpetuated no doubt from one catalogue to the next, unless someone corrects them, loudly. Ebay is particularly bad where you can see that one seller has copied an attribution or provenance from another - suppose you have to make some allowance if they don't specialize.
Glass designers are no less imaginative with their inventions than other areas of artistic craft, but not thinking here so much of Rd. 41925, which we are taking on trust as a cut pattern of fishscales, although the extent of all-over 'cutting' is so extreme that in some ways it looks almost unreal.
Thinking more of Rd. 39086 - the 'hammered' decoration. Looking at the clear jug in the last of your links, I'm struck by some surface features when viewed a little closer.
Look at the appearance of the narrow non-relief channel that runs very neatly and clearly around the lower end of the handle - a fully gilded handle from T/Webb? - sounds a bit tacky to me - despite being of shell form - although there is in fact a precedent in a loving cup decorated by Barbe. This channel appears well defined and regular without a break - there aren't any hammered blobs that look to be partly hidden under the handle, so assume this decorative effect created after the handle applied And look how exact and precise the gilding is on that lower part of the handle where it meets the jug.
Kevin's comments about the pattern overlapping the rim are valid - it does seem an unusual effect on something where the surface effect was mould made, possibly - so does this suggest some type of patterned stencil or resist had been used to create the hammered effect, and this, for whatever reason, overlapped the rim?
I've looked through Woodward's 'Art Feat and Mystery', also the Thomas Webb Museum catalogue, but nothing there of relevance that I could see. As you have more or less commented already, in the absence of any provenance then the various auction house attributions for pieces showing the hammered effect as relating to T/Webb should be treated as erroneous, unless proven otherwise, especially as the relevant Rd. No. is known to be the property of Wittmann & Roth.
very much looking forward to chilternhills (sorry, don't know name), letting us know if possible how the hammered surface decoration achieved - when you've received this very attractive vase. Apart from not knowing the maker of course, the methodology of the design seems to be eluding us completely at the moment. :)
-
As expected, nothing in the way of additional information in either the Representations book, or the Register.
Not quite sure what the insect is - possibly a cicada - but not sure......... certainly a passion for decorating with images of insects in the C19.
Suddenly realized that neither 39086 nor 41925 appear in Raymond Slack's list of Registration Nos. - the reason appears that both (although I've seen the Register for 39086 only, but quite happy to believe that same applies to 41925), are CLASS IV, as can be seen in the attached picture.
Lattimore doesn't breakdown the post 1884 Nos., so he's no help if you want details at item level.
So, have to assume the Jenny Thompson made a point of looking at the actual Registers, thus picking up on all Registrations whether CLASS III or IV, rather than looking simply at lists for CLASS III (glass) only.
Wonder where that vase is now??
There is always some loss of definition/contrast when photographing these things, so apologies for lack of quality - but do folk agree there's a possibility that both the top and bottom rims might be metallic - they have an appearance of being a separate item from the glass.
In fact the glare seen in the pix is not my fault - the original image is in the form of a sepia photograph, and obviously the photographer appears to have been unable to avoid some amount of glare.
The Register repeats the wording we've seen already, regarding the Applicant being a 'Glass and China Manufacturers', although as will be seen from details of Rd. 41925, they are relegated to being Merchants only at a later date.
Regret there's no Kew image of the underside of the base, and since the original picture is a sepia photograph it's not possible to know if the piece was gilded in any way.
Won't speculate further regarding the method of manufacture of the 'hammered' effect, as hoping the op will be able to provide details when vase arrives.
Hope of some interest. :)
-
this is the other known Registration discussed above - Rd. 41925 dated 26th January 1886 - the surface pattern of which is described by Thompson (wording doubtless taken from the Kew Register), as 'pattern worked on body of glass to represent fish scales'. A very good example is shown in m's link to the Fielding's auction listing - where it is attributed in error to Thomas Webb, despite the inclusion of the correct Registration No. ........ http://fieldingsauctioneers.co.uk/lot/4696 forget now if there are links, above, to other examples of 41925.
Unfortunately, I didn't take a picture of the Register entry, but am sure it will be another CLASS IV item - will put this right on the next visit.
Apologies again, the original photograph comes with ready made glare about which I can do nothing - hope it doesn't disfigure the vase too much.
Fieldings describe the decoration as 'cut', but I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case - looking at the profile of their ovoid vase, I doubt that this pattern could be cut within the recesses of the shape, and it has a very moulded look.
Is it possible that the prototype design was a moulded effect, with the intention for the mass produced pieces to be cut?? I wouldn't have thought so.
Have included a single picture of a later Wittmann & Roth Registration - 67040 dated 2nd February 1887 - where they are now shown as simply 'Glass & China Merchants' - but as can be seen, still knocking out CLASS IV Registrations.
Coming back to the earlier Registration of 39086 - the 'Hammered effect' - I've just remembered that Fieldings said "A late 19th Century Thomas Webb & Sons jug manufactured for Whitman (sic) & Roth" - not something we're able to verify as far as I'm aware - perhaps we should ask them if they're able to help us on this attribution.
So now we need someone with an example of the 'fishscale' Registration 41925 to confirm whether the pattern is cut or moulded - and looking forward to more information on Rd. 39086, hopefully, although none of this unfortunately resolves the matter of who made these designs.
Six more pix I think, so two will go over the next post.
-
and the last two pix.
-
Interesting.
The Archives 41925 image clearly shows a thin raised rim at the top of the vase, with the fish scale design ceasing immediately below that rim. The other examples we have seen in the links do not (as far as I recall) have a defined rim at the lip of the items. Does it mean anything? Maybe not.
And it is also interesting that the Archives image shows a realistic fish tail effect at the base. Nice touch, if a little "over the top" maybe.
-
;D - Kevin - did you mean 41925? Yes, I also noticed that top rim feature, and wondered if that was confirmation of some part of a moulding process :-\
-
Yes 41925 ... that's what it says. (Or did I cheat and change it with my Moderator hat on?)
-
of course, what we really need now is m's input - the lady is so comprehensive ;)
-
Serious point - the fish scale design on the Archives image shows four loops rather than the three seen on other items.
-
I've gone to bed ;)
-
Paul, that's fantastic! Thank you sooo very much.
Have to say that gilded insect is beautifully done - (silently wondering if it is Jules Barbe for Thomas Webb :-X).
So I am time limited at the moment but are we seeing :
a) the clear versions which are the 'hammered' design?
b) the pink versions which are the 'fishscale'registered design?
Maybe not as it has occurred to me that I found a pink version with a black enamelled rd number on the base that was the 3 number not the 4 number. So perhaps they can't be separated by hammered (clear glass, 3..... rd number) and fishscale (Pink or cream glass, 4..... rd number). On the other hand, perhaps the black enamelled number was added 'afterwards' to that pink fishscale vase(eek :-X .. link no longer available but I'd guess that hand painted rd numbers on bases could be suspect sometimes).
On the making of them:
Kev, I've been thinking that it might have been cream cased red (pink), blown into a mold, hence the pink being quite pale on the widest parts of the body and darker in the less blown out bits at the foot/neck perhaps?
Also ... perhaps those metal collars might have been why the rims are cut on some. Lovely with the metal collars I have to say.
That one with the fishtail foot - I'm sure I found one in real life that has that effect as well.
There are so many, and so many here in the UK, that I have to think perhaps Bohemian (prolific senders of glass to UK, and also known Bohemian maker (Loetz) made for Wittmann and Roth, and also more likely with cut and polished rims than a Uk maker perhaps?). Also metal bashers (as Bernard called them) often made collars for Bohemian glass here I think. (that collar is lovely in the sepia pic)
That jug also reminds me of a Harrach type shape.
Also, Wittmann - that's a German name isn't it rather than English? Perhaps there was an easy connection to Bohemian glassmakers because of family connections maybe?
With regard to them being made by Thomas Webb - I think the Webb archives are in Dudley aren't they? So it is entirely possible that Fieldings have found the Webb pattern to be honest. Webb will have made them for Wittmann and Roth perhaps as a 'sole' product for them and Wittmann and Roth will have as we have seen, made sure their number or mark was put on them. Bernard used to say that retailers did not like their makers marking their pieces. Wittmann and Roth seem to have been middle men rather than retailers and perhaps went one further ensuring that all products made for them were marked as theirs (I think they marked ceramics as well and I don't believe they were made by them either).
Ooh, I hope we manage to solve this one.
m
-
I think we need some factual input now - we've probably speculated adequately. :)
I've just tried Will Farmer at Fieldings, but absent until Monday, so will speak to him then. Hopefully he'll be able to shed some light on the origin of their provenance and their comments on the ovoid crushed cranberry scale patterned cameo jardinaire carrying the Rd. No. 41925, as "made by Webbs." Perhaps he might also have some thoughts on the 'hammered' design Rd. 39086.
Fish, in some form of carp looking species, were common on Bohemian glass as decoration in the C19, so who knows, and the list of applicants for British Registrations during the same period is littered with names more native to eastern and central Europe than England.
-
prefer to think of it as 'brainstorming', rather than 'speculating' ;D
m
-
just had a phone conversation with Will Farmer at Fieldings, who keen to help us with definitive provenance as to whether these 'scale' moulded pieces carrying Wittmann & Roth Rd. 41925 are from T/Webb factory, or non-U.K. manufacturer. Will has asked that I send him an email confirmation of our discussions today, where I've requested details of provenance of Fielding's statement that T/Webb were definitely makers for retailers Wittmann & Roth - so will do later today.
Presently Will Farmer is in process of cataloguing large collection from academic source, which think includes one of these scale mouded pieces - so asked that we have a little patience and has promised will help in due course.
I will also mention the 'hammered' pieces - Rd. 39086 - and see if Fieldings are able to assist with that one as well.
-
have you seen the clear hammered version of cameo lampshade just posted on another thread?
will link in a second
Link here - just in case it is a similar 'hammered' background and might become important at some point.
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,63355.msg355529.html#msg355529
ooh, hopefully the large catalogue from an academic source might be .... Thomas Webb from the pattern books ... maybe?
I see 'academic' and think university and one of the universities has a very large glass collection - maybe Sheffield? can't remember, but it might be that. sorry ... yet more speculation - I cannot help myself ;D
m
-
seem to remember Will Farmer commenting somewhere in our conversation something to the effect that this large collection was a project that he'd been working on for three or four years, but beyond that I've no idea as to any names - it may well have simply been a large private collection - and I wasn't in a prying mood :)
Fingers crossed we will eventually get a positive result.
yes, thanks for the link, but in all honesty cameo not my area, so shouldn't open my mouth and put foot in it - but marvellous piece, and wish I'd found it. ;) Presumably not T/Webb - didn't they always sign their 'fleur cameo' pieces - in relief?
-
It also says in the book the Thomas Webb versions came in lilies or tulips. So on the basis this isn't a lily or a tulip and it's not signed, I would think then not Thomas Webb 'Cameo Fleur' ?
Which would leave Richardson's Rich Cameo as a possibility based on the background effect.
And perhaps Bohemian glassmakers as well?
m
-
Paul S said in another thread (Reply #8, Glass Reference Question (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,63356.msg355591.html#msg355591)):
Apropos of nothing mentioned here, I think I'm correct in saying that none of Manley's illustrations show examples of either of the Wittmann & Roth Registrations - 41925 (for the scale decoration) and 39086 (the hammered effect) - about which we've spilled not a little ink recently.
Is it likely that he simply didn't find examples - though he had some real gems that today you aren't going to find - or is there another reason he didn't include them?
I agree that in Decorative Victorian Glass Manley does not show examples of "fish scale" or "hammered" items. But ...
... in the earlier American book: Collectible Glass Book 4, British Glass, published by Wallace-Homestead Book Co., copyright 1968 Theodore C. and Viola V. Lagerberg, there are three examples (of fish scale pattern - in pink) listed as nos 332, 333 & 340. Manley's description was essentially: Unknown English; ones similar to item 340 but in pearl iridescent being continental. He also stated that "Thos. Webb & Sons have no record of the surface pattern". And he added that he thought the pattern was referred to in America as Webb "fish scale". [My emphasis.]
Item 332 is a Jug with a handle with "squared off top"; Item 333 is a shallow bowl and Item 340 is (seemingly - no sizes given in the book) a large vase with what looks like six bulbous body sections. All three items have a shallow foot noticeably less wide than the body.
As for why these were not in the later book, perhaps Manley discovered all three examples were really "continental"? Just a thought! :)
-
Mod: Some parts here have been edited following a move of discussion between threads.
thanks for the additional information - regret - I've never owned the books of which you speak so can't comment, but........ and sorry if I seem thick, but are you saying that the Largerbergs used Cyril Manley's expertise and knowledge to assist with attributions etc. for the text of their book??
I would agree that the absence of any 'scale' patterned pieces in Manley's U.K. book - being discussed here in another thread (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,63356.msg355548.html#msg355548) - does look to indicate there may have been issues about which he had some concerns.
We don't want to side-track this particular conversation too much since the Wittmann & Roth issue - as Kevin suggests - resides properly in another thread. I sense there may be difficulties here with making a proven connection between the 'scale' Reg. 41925, and the popularly assumed T/Webb attribution, as manufacturers, under agreement, from Wittmann & Roth - but I may yet be forced to eat my words - there's a lot of very knowledgeable folk out there, and regret I'm not one of them.
quote................"He also stated that "Thos. Webb & Sons have no record of the surface pattern". And he added that he thought the pattern was referred to in America as Webb "fish scale". [My emphasis.]"" ............ is certainly a rather damning comment as to any provenance that Wittmann & Roth farmed out their Rd. design 41925 for Webb to make......... which is what some folk are claiming.
-
...are you saying that the Largerbergs used Cyril Manley's expertise and knowledge to assist with attributions etc. for the text of their book?? ...
I should have confirmed something that I missed when I first mentioned the book in the GMB: It is stated that all descriptions were by C. C. Manley.
-
thanks - so the man got about then ;D
-
Kev you refer to a bulbous vase in reply #37 - does it look like this please?
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,35137.msg255206.html#msg255206
I am so curious as to who made these. I haven't come across any information that links them to known Harrach shapes so far. I'm beginning to wonder if a) they might have been made by another Bohemian maker or b) they really were specialist designs from Wittmann and Roth or GSF made especially for them by say.. Harrach perhaps or another Bohemian maker, and because they were an outside source (Wittmann and Roth or GSF) designs they were never replicated in other decors. If we'd come across the shape in other known decors that would give a good link to possible maker. But never see them in anything but the fishscale or hammered shapes.
Btw - throwing a curved ball here, that pink always reminds me of Stevens and Williams (and Steuben for that matter, but then I'd not expect to see them in the quantities I have, here in the UK).
m
-
looking at some of the knowledgeable comments from two or three years back, regarding the W. & R. 'scale' pattern Rd. 41925, I can't now help but feel we've currently been wasting a lot of time and effort going back over what appears to be very well trodden ground. I should perhaps read these things in more depth, but it seems there was no shortage of folk being very emphatic, then, that T/Webb had been quite properly dismissed as the maker of these pieces. Taking that thought together with Manley's comments etc., it would seem pointless for anyone to maintain the Webb provenance.
Unfortunately, when a reputable auction house - many of whom understandably don't have the time for in-depth research - maintains faith in a particular provenance/attribution, then there is an assumption, by the public, that the assertion/s must be true.
-
Well, the only thing is, it's ok to be emphatic but there was never a definitive no to Thomas Webb on the basis of pattern books.
And then I found two vases Fieldings 'sold as Thomas Webb' that had the same collar pattern and gilding (they weren't the fish scale or hammered vases though). So that does raise a query.
I am adding a link to a good example of a gilded pink fishscale vase - so people can look at the attributions of these vases and perhaps get more clues:
https://fineart.ha.com/itm/art-glass/webb/an-english-satin-and-enamel-glass-vase/a/614-30228.s
- it has a polished pontil, a black enamelled GSF signature on the base, the firepolished crimped rim, and a gilded design on it.
m
-
hello m. well, Manley commented that T/Webb had no record of this surface pattern, and commentators from 2012/2013 GMB posts appear to have exhausted all avenues and came to the conclusion there was no justifiable reason for hanging on to the Webb provenance. As for your comments about the Webb catalogue, this is possibly an instance of not being able to disprove a negative, so to speak.
The Webb attribution has been maintained by those who it appears have not carried out proper research, instead relying on prior comments from others only and just copy the wording - combined with the mysterious G.S.F. initials - which as far as I can see have never been shown to belong to anyone at T/Webb who can be linked positively to manufacture of the Rd. 41925 design.
Your link is another States based source, and it does seem the other side of the pond are more than keen to maintain the Webb attribution since it will carry a better price - despite the probable fact that none of them has actually researched these pieces, and what does the comment "Concurs with house" mean? :)
Looking back to where I added pix of the original photos of the designs from W. & R. (for scale and hammered decoration), my opinion is that the piece in your link shows the hammered design Rd. 39086, and not the scale design Rd. 41925.
Again, only my opinion, but the lack of details of provenance by the auction house, in your link - omitting the W. & R. connection, and attributing their vase to the wrong decorative pattern - shows that research has not been done effectively. Again, like so many sellers of these things, on the face of it there looks to be copying of someone else's description, and not a good one at that. :)
Have to say that I was surprised that Fieldings described Rd. 41925 (for the scale pattern) in the link to their sale, as being cut - it seemed far more likely that it had to be a moulded pattern.
-
Sorry, I have been away for a couple of days. But in the meantime the vase has arrived. It's gorgeous. Here are some pictures so that we have the vase on record.
Now that I have the vase I must say it looks moulded: white inside then pink added and then into a mould. But don't take that as gospel. I have little experience with Victorian glass.
Anton
Mod: eBay image used with permission: Nine Caroline Antiques say "we would be happy to have you use them".
-
And finally the signature. My mother, who is in her 80s and more used to older style script, reckons it says G.L.F. And who am I to contradict my mum? :P Actually, I think she is right and I was wrong in an earlier comment. That agrees with a previous identification by an auction house.
Anton
Mod: eBay image used with permission: Nine Caroline Antiques say "we would be happy to have you use them".
-
thanks Anton - it's a cracker of a piece. It's useful to have your confirmation that the surface is 'probably moulded', although not so sure we actually know how they did it.
That middle letter is a tease - I'd agree it's likely to be an L, but not entirely sure.
-
This post is added as a quick memo - to help me remember to look at something else, but also to make some brief comments that do not need to be retained.
Yes, nice vase and good photos. Personally I think the middle letter is either "I" or "S" as these seem to tie in better with "copperplate" style letters.
I still cannot get my head around how the outer pattern on the vase was made to continue over the top of the rim of that vase (and others) but seemingly only on the parts that are gold painted / gilded.
The thing I need to look further into is the sale catalogue of the Cyril Manley collection in 1986. Just to see if the three items with so-called "fish scale" pattern [what we are now calling "hammered"] in the early American British Glass book were in that sale and maybe had some interesting descriptions. I may be a while - there was a lot of glass and very few pics. :)
Also, for completeness, I will review the many previous links from this and the other long thread on the "fish scale" subject, to try to locate examples that are close to the three Manley had.
-
I'm with Kev and an I
These complex moulds are common - think Kralik or Loetz Martele - though getting the pattern over the top was clever but surely easier with blow moulding than pressing
-
we seem to be getting our knickers in a twist as to which surface pattern we're speaking about - and should try and keep to the corresponding description, and shown in the National Archive photographs, and Jenny Thompson's words.
The earlier of the two 39086 is the hammered pattern - as showing on Anton's vase - the later design No. 41925 is the scale (fishscale) pattern.
These can be seen reasonably clearly in the Kew photos posted earlier - I think :)
-
Anton, sorry about this, but it seems that the pics of the vase you have posted have been cropped directly from the eBay images. Is that right?
If you have permission from the copyright holder (presumably the seller) to use their pics then please confirm. Otherwise we will have to remove the images (as per Board guidelines on use of other people's images) and you will need to take your own photos.
-
I'm with either an I or an S and leaning mostly towards an s having looked extensively through scripts for long periods recently and a few months ago.
I think Alisha mentioned that it might be Acid Cut back. I think it might be possible that a pattern was put on the vase and then acid cut back and that might explain why the rim is patterned.
It might also be that the rims were supposed to have a metal rim on top hence it not mattering whether they had the pattern continuation or not.
Is the rim firepolished on this one Anton?
And I forgot to check - does the base have a large polished pontil mark?
Paul, thanks for adding the comments on the vase I linked to from the States. I didn't bother reading the blurb but only added it because it seemed to have pics of all the 'details' we've been discussing.
m
-
I did wonder about some sort of resist being applied - the pattern being incised through that - and then given an acid dip........ but clueless really, just guessing. Perhaps now that Anton has the piece in his hands he can make a better judgement.
-
Sorry I forgot to say about the pictures I posted. Nine Caroline Antiques say "we would be happy to have you use them".
-
Thanks Anton. I will add the permissions comment to the posts with the pics.
-
coming back to my Reply No. 33 - just thought I should mention that to date I've not heard from Will Farmer at Fieldings, and this one may remain anonymous for the time being.
-
page 308 Wittman & Roth advertisement
The Pottery and Glass trades Journal September 1879
Advert mentions ' original importers of the iridescent glass'
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Pottery_Glass_Trades_Journal/hyUGAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=longport+glass+works&pg=RA1-PA209&printsec=frontcover