Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Greg. on September 30, 2018, 03:58:21 PM
-
Hi All,
Would welcome any thoughts on this English Victorian vase.
The vase has a purple/pink ground, silver foil inclusions and a mottled inky blue colouring. Clear glass casing.
3 applied clear glass scroll feet, the pontil mark has been covered with a clear raspberry prunt.
Height: 8.5cm
Diameter 12cm
Weight: 485 grams
I have seen similar although not exact pieces described as S&W Rockingham also Thomas Webb and Walsh seem to crop up!
Any thoughts would very much be appreciated.
Thanks,
Greg
-
And celery scrolled feet at that!
It's a bit of a treasure whatever it is. I'm racking my brain cell for the name of some suggestions for an unidentified flask John had, which wasn't any of those suggested, but might be this.
All I can think of to add is Nailsea and I'm sure it wasn't that. ???
-
Thanks Sue :)
I have a vague memory of John's flask now you mention it, I'll see if I can dig it out.
-
Here it is, despite my musings re Salviati, Stevens & Williams remain a contender.
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,62750.0.html
John
-
Thanks for the link John. Interesting piece.
For comparison here are a few examples I have come across which have been attributed to 'S&W Rockingham'
http://fieldingsauctioneers.co.uk/lot/120778
https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-us/auction-catalogues/fieldings-auctioneers-ltd/catalogue-id-srfi10083/lot-51f0ff9e-61a8-4393-ad7b-a89b01018269
The two vases in the above links are both the same shape as each other, so assuming the S&W Rockingham attribution for these is correct, they at least demonstrate quite a difference in the way the colours have been used.
Here a link to another piece in a different shape, again attributed to S&W Rockingham:
http://fieldingsauctioneers.co.uk/lot/120824
All of these examples all seem to have a red/purple ground and use a similar palette of colours to a greater or lesser extent.
I suppose the main question is are all of these pieces in this thread related?
-
;D We know silver foil was difficult to cope with because it reacts if you don't keep the temperature low enough.
And we know Michael Harris and William Walker worked out a way of using it, but they defintely were not the first.
Who else succeeded, before they did?
That'd give you a short list.
(says she, running off and making no suggestions whatsoever. ::) )
We were cross posting, Greg, but what I said stands. (or wobbles about a bit)
I've now looked at all your links.
The lot after to the first Fieldings one, is more like your shape and has unusual external features.
The muilticoloured things don't have celery handles, and they're decidedly spotty, rather than mottled. The foil looks more "crudely" worked. They're rather lumpy and appear to be made from thick glass, compared with your rather more delicate thing.
-
Thanks Sue :)
Agree about the scroll feet, at present I still haven't found one with similar feet or raspberry prunt over the pontil mark.
My vase is quite heavy for its size, around half a kilo, the glass around the base area is quite thick.
Just to throw another example in the mix, here's another example which is the same shape as the one in the last Fielding's link (again I wouldn't like to say if the attribution is correct or not)
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/253800430938
-
Yet again, the foil work looks more crude than your far more delicate stuff. It's been stretched out more and is broken up in big bold chunks, not tiny ones.
My guts are leaning more towards Italy than England.
But I'm aware that might be influenced more by my current longing for a decent pizza than my knowledge of this sort of glass. ;)
-
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that the shape,weight, raspberry prunt, and decor all make me think English glassmaker:
1) Thomas Webb did this very fine foil with splotches and coloured glass overlay c.1882 (ref - Gulliver, Victorian Decorative Glass British Designs 1850-1914 pp169 - caveat that not all the pieces in the book are British)
2) Stuart did some amazing examples of those fabulous shell attached scroll feet (Ref as above see pp173 and 174)
3) The prunt is found on English glass
4) Other makes used that encased foil technique and I should imagine whether it is blown in a mold or how far it is blown out,and also the difficulty of the technique, would influence the size of the foil effect and dispersion.
D'Humy used a similar technique in the late 1870s
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?assetId=237270001&objectId=33975&partId=1
My starting point would be to search S&W and Thomas Webb if it were mine.
Stuart did those shell feet though but I have not come across anything that I can remember where it is mentioned they used this foil technique.
I have no time to look in the S&W book at the mo but is there a definitive identified piece of Rockingham so that the technique can be clearly seen?
My start point would be Thomas Webb actually. If you can find a Webb id for the shell attached scroll feet, and a Webb id for the prunt,
m
-
I don't collect this era, but I do have the Williams-Thomas book. I'm more bleary-eyed than usual but I can't find any illustration of Rockingham in it, unfortunately.
-
Ok, so there is no example of 'Rockingham' in the Williams-Thomas book.
Interesting.
Bit difficult to positively identify a piece of Rockingham from Stevens and Williams if there is no primary reference source.
I couldn't see anything in Gulliver's book (see previous post for reference source) either.
So ... where is the source for any piece that is called 'Rockingham from Stevens and Williams'?
How do we know 'Rockingham' exists as a range and how do we know what it looked like?
-
see my reply above and also I couldn't find any reference to Stevens and Williams 'Rockingham' in CH British Glass in either of the two books. Did I miss something in them?
I'd be looking at Thomas Webb and trying to find the prunts and the shell attached curled feet for a reference :)
m
-
Thank you both for taking a look.
I have also found it difficult to find a reliable example of S&W Rockingham or even a written reference to that matter.
I did manage to find two further instances online which reference S&W and Rockingham, however both of these seem to suggest Rockingham relates to the colour of the glass. Here are both of the links:
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/23586/lot/147/
https://www.prices4antiques.com/Perfume-Bottle-Stevens-Williams-Engraved-Floral-Topaz-on-Brown-English-Silver-Stopper-6-inch--E8862047.html
The Bonhams comment regarding 'Rockingham Ruby' colouring seems to have come direct from the S&W pattern book. I’m wondering if referring to Rockingham as a range may not be an accurate use of the term?
Just a few other observations. Flicking through Manley’s book, (which I appreciate has many inaccuracies which have come to light over recent years) on page 64, item number 93, shows an example which is described as ‘Ribbed Rockingham cased crystal with silver flecks’
On the same page, item 81 shows an item described as S&W with scroll feet and raspberry prunt over the pontil (although no other similarities) Would anyone know if this attribution is still valid?
Interestingly on page 60, item number 64 shows the same bowl which I linked to earlier in reply 6. No direct reference of S&W, although a possible suggestion of Frederick Carder.
-
I don't know where the S&W pattern books are archived, but I'd love to know. Perhaps the answer to your conundrum might be found there.
-
~They are out being used by someone from the family I think at the moment iirc?
I also looked at Manley but am absolutely loathe to include Manley in any reference sources - (his book is lovely, we have visited this issue before, but it is not credible to be used as a primary reference source).
I wonder if 'Rockingham' was a red colour rather than an actual decor? perhaps a cranberry if the Bonhams id is accurate which just to correct Greg (sorry Greg) actually states under Footnotes, 'Rockingham/Ruby' with a slash between the two words:
Quote 'A fine Stevens and Williams silver-mounted claret jug by John Orchard, dated 1891
The globular glass body stained in cranberry and cased in deep ruby, deeply cut in Rock Crystal style with panels of acanthus leaves and rococo scrollwork, the American silver mounts by Gorham decorated with bands of scrollwork in high relief, the hinged cover with a shell thumbrest, engraved beneath the lip with an initial cipher and 'Christmas 1891', 28cm high, the mounts with Birmingham hallmarks as well as marks for Gorham and date mark for 1891
FOOTNOTES
This design appears in the Stevens and Williams factory Pattern Book no.14 listing designs 15532-16644 from 5 June 1890 to 27 June 1891. This is listed as 'Pillared Rock Crystal' with 'Rockingham/Ruby' colouring. The cutting cost 10 shillings and Orchard was paid 13 shillings. The factory selling price (unmounted) was three guineas.'
-
....
Just a few other observations. Flicking through Manley’s book, (which I appreciate has many inaccuracies which have come to light over recent years) on page 64, item number 93, shows an example which is described as ‘Ribbed Rockingham cased crystal with silver flecks’
On the same page, item 81 shows an item described as S&W with scroll feet and raspberry prunt over the pontil (although no other similarities) Would anyone know if this attribution is still valid?
Interestingly on page 60, item number 64 shows the same bowl which I linked to earlier in reply 6. No direct reference of S&W, although a possible suggestion of Frederick Carder.
Re that bowl item number 81- it's a pattern that Bernard had something in and I'm sure it was identified (there was some discussion on his thread on whether it was Tapestry corrected as Bernard actually thought it was Moresque, or not and he was told it definitively was not Tapestry iirc corrected, Bernard thought it might be 'Moresque'). I'll try and find the thread as I can't remember what it was formally identified as in the end.
But again, no to Manley as a source of id, e.g. a bowl on page 80 *no 187 he identifies as Thomas Webb is I am pretty sure Stuart. And there are many more examples too numerous to mention (but lovely book with fab glass examples in his collection - just that many of them are incorrectly id'd with no primary reference sources to pattern books).
Ok here's Bernard's thread - I've not read it yet so I probably haven't remembered that information properly ;D
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,5410.msg45070.html#msg45070
Here is a link to Kev's salts that comes from that thread and seem to have the similar pattern to the bowl that Greg refered as item 81 pp64 in Manley
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-1792
And this is Dilwyn Hier's response to Bernard about his piece (link taken from that thread)
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,5410.msg46317.html#msg46317
UH OH - this is what Bernard had to say later in that thread about his Tazza that I think was the same pattern as item 81 on pp64 in Manley:
'Brian — Your reference to the Webb piece with amber threading got me thinking, and left me unsure about the colour of the threading on my tazza. It could be amber or golden-amber threading, with the green colour that I could certainly see at a very specific angle the result of refraction through the distorted threads.
Since then, fourteen months ago, no progress, until two days ago, Bank Holiday Monday, August 27, 2007, at the Woking Art Deco & Nouveau Fair. I had the tazza on display, and, during a quiet spell (which you never really get at the glass fairs), Mervyn Gulliver checked over my stand and read my information ticket on the tazza with some interest. He then took me back to his stand and showed me the factory pattern book entry for it. Not a close match, but an exact one, with descriptive text and a date.
The succinct description reads: "Ruby body, diamond moulded, amber threads over." Pattern number 3701, dated July 12 1881, and made in several sizes.
Now for the really interesting part. Not Stevens & Williams, Richardson, Webb, or Boulton & Mills, but Stuart.
According to Gulliver, Victorian Decorative Glass, 1881 is also the year when Frederick Stuart left the partnership of Stuart & Mills at the Albert Glassworks, Wordsley, and set up on his own, acquiring the lease of the Red House Glassworks from Philip Pargeter, becoming Stuart & Sons in 1885. So this tazza must be one of the earliest independent designs of Frederick Stuart.
My sincere thanks to all who contributed.
Bernard C. 8)'
Stuart! so I THINK the bowl item 81 pp64 Manley might be Stuart??
m
-
Greg - long reply above and I've added to it just in case you read it when I first posted it.
Basically I think item 81 Manley pp 64 might be Stuart.
m
-
See my previous replies and to add:
Going to be really controversial here ;D
The feet have remarkable similarities with a foot described as on an item made by Stuart and Sons Limited (Gulliver, Victorian Decorative Glass pp 65 - see foot on blue bowl.)
See also the feet on page 174 all Stuart. They look like your foot.
There is a foot reg design by Webb that is similar :
Thomas Webb registered design 21264 October 19 1867 shows a similar design for the feet. (source Gulliver, Victorian Decorative Glass, pp 270)
but that looks more detailed and 'refined/reeded' than your foot.
Hodgetts Richardson and Son RD 238052 also show a similar foot, but the curl is more open, the reeding is finer and more of the 'reeds'.
There is another Stuart foot on page 64, but again not the same as the one on 65 which to my eye really does look remarkably like your foot.
mmm, so, did Stuart ever do anything with an encased foil?
I've found Bernard's Tazza marked in my Gulliver's book as pattern no 3890 ref Bernard. I presume that bowl you were querying item 81 is also Stuart.
Ok last but not least see pp 169 where a crimped rim bowl with shell reeded applied straight feet and with lizards on each end is shown in what looks like a similar decor to yours but is most similar to this one:
http://fieldingsauctioneers.co.uk/lot/120824
-Thomas Webb & Sons Limited. The pontil mark is covered with a prunt impressed with a Registered Design Diamond mark, incorporating the date code for November 11, 1882.
I am finding it hard to believe these items id'd as Stevens and Williams 'Rockingham' are actually by Stevens and Williams, and hard to believe that 'Rockingham' could be used as a descriptor of a decor at all, but I could be wrong.
Indeed this vase
http://fieldingsauctioneers.co.uk/lot/120778
uses remarkably similar colouring and decor to the Webb bowl with lizards in the Gulliver book pp 169. The lizards on the bowl are amber applied glass like the handles on the vase. The decor I think is the same, it's just been 'brightened' up in the Fieldings pictures. But the problem my brain is having computing this is that the Fieldings vase look so 'crude' in terms of design, chunky/heavy, not well balanced somehow. Whereas the bowl in the book is stunning on all fronts.
m
-
I have not looked at this thread in any great detail so I apologise if my comments here have already been covered.
References to items in the books by Gulliver and Manley, and the many internet lnks that can be found, do not explain (to me at least) what "Rockigham" really refers to. There is, however, an interesting internet example (http://en.51bidlive.com/PreView/PreViewDetails/1384212) which has descriptive text including the following: " ...decorated silver leaf over a Rockingham brown ground, ..."
. A Rockingham brown ground? Other references tend to suggest a ruby or an amethyst colour. Hmm.
I have a vase that has the same form, colouring, and size as the one shown in Manley, page 62, item 93. Manley's description states (as mentioned in an earlier post), "... ribbed Rockingham cased crystal with siver flecks (aventurine). ..."
. Ignoring the "aventurine" part of that, I can confirm that Manley's description was accurate in terms of the structure of the item. The external ribs show a translucent amber colour highlighted by the effect of the changed colour of the "silver flecks" laid onto the interior crystal glass.
I am not sure if the amber in my vase and the one in Manley's book was picked up (possibly as thin rods) on the item before an outer layer of crystal was added and then ribbed. But the layer of silver flecks definitely shows as vertical lines of silver and amber,
What is common to many examples with "Rockingham" included in the description, is a multi-tone colour effect and siver flecks. But I do not think such an effect would be regarded as a "design" referred to as "Rockingham". Manley, however, seems to have hinted at a possible "design feature" when he said, in the page 65 descripition, "... it is my opinion that the type [of glassware] was the forerunner of the uniqure 'Silveria' [of Stevens & Williams] ..."
. But in his basic text on pages 35 and 36, he said, "The formualtion of Stevens & Williams glass mixture ... 'Dragon's Blood', I have always understood was accidental when the firm was developing 'Rockingham' ..."
. On that basis, Manley was saying that 'Rockingham' was a colour, not a design feature preceding 'Silveria'.
So, assuming Manley was right on that description of the vase and his page 35/6 text, then my belief is that "Rockingham" refers to a shade (or translucency?) of amber colour (or a rather dark brown if we take the view of the Fieldings link above!).
-
Another vase with similar feet and raspberry prunt (sorry no photo), similar diameter but taller. No idea now why I named it Webb some four years ago...
John
-
The feet are not the same though John.
The ones I referred to in the Gulliver book are I believe,the same,made with the same tool.
There are a few in the Gulliver book but only that one is the same.
m
-
And how many have raspberry prunts over a pontil scar?
-
well, I've not time to double check them all buy Gulliver was I believe careful to only id where there was primary evidence to support.
There is an example on page 64,item 8 which has an rd on it for Hodgetts Richardson & Son 238052, with scroll reeded feet (slightly less tightly curled than yours,but with fine multi reeded application similar to yours) and also has an applied raspberry prunt if that helps?
Oh, and, he shows two Stuart examples on page 52 of raspberry prunts and says ' applied to the base of an item by Stuart'.
So, Stuart,yes to shell scroll foot that looks remarkably similar to the foot on Greg's piece and yes to them using raspberry prunts,but so far,no evidence to show Stuart did a foil intercalaire decor.
m
-
More info
re that item 81 Greg - Bernard's was id'd as Stuart but this is also very similar and may be that pattern possibly?:
http://www.glassfairs.co.uk/news.html#stourbridge
It says these are attributed to S&W but are Thomas Webb and Sons.
So thus far - no pointers to Stevens and Williams on the 'Rockingham foil' items - but some pointers to Stuart (scroll foot and raspberry prunt) and others to Thomas Webb and Sons (potential decor match linking item in Gulliver to item on sale as Rockingham S&W through Fieldings)
-
Is it possible that the vase in the Saleroom link is red but overcooked?
Also,they describe it as having aventurine in it. Is it? Looks like foil or leaf to me ???
And if they are wrong about it being aventurine,then maybe they are wrong about it being 'clear cased'? Perhaps it was cased in an amber hence it appearing more brown than red?
m
Thanks for the link John. Interesting piece.
For comparison here are a few examples I have come across which have been attributed to 'S&W Rockingham'
http://fieldingsauctioneers.co.uk/lot/120778
https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-us/auction-catalogues/fieldings-auctioneers-ltd/catalogue-id-srfi10083/lot-51f0ff9e-61a8-4393-ad7b-a89b01018269
The two vases in the above links are both the same shape as each other, so assuming the S&W Rockingham attribution for these is correct, they at least demonstrate quite a difference in the way the colours have been used.
-
I don't collect this era, but I do have the Williams-Thomas book. I'm more bleary-eyed than usual but I can't find any illustration of Rockingham in it, unfortunately.
There is no mention of a colour called 'Rockingham' in the extensive list of colours on page 72 either.
Just mentioning that because it's odd (odd on the part of the book i mean, and maybe indicates the colour list in the book was not comprehensive) especially if as Bonham's say this was written in the pattern book as Rockingham/Ruby:
quote Bonhams
'FOOTNOTES
This design appears in the Stevens and Williams factory Pattern Book no.14 listing designs 15532-16644 from 5 June 1890 to 27 June 1891. This is listed as 'Pillared Rock Crystal' with 'Rockingham/Ruby' colouring. The cutting cost 10 shillings and Orchard was paid 13 shillings. The factory selling price (unmounted) was three guineas.'
Link to the item for this description:
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/23586/lot/147/
m
-
In my post #18 I mentioned that I had not read the full thread in detail.
I now see that Greg, in his post #12 had already covered the question of Rockingham being a colour / design / pattern. And he referred to Manley, (Decorative Victorian Glass), page 62, item 93.
My post #18 attempted to add some detail about the actual construction of that Manley vase, for which I have a "twin". I also tried to give some thoughts on the colours of the glass and the "silver flecks". And I said "... the layer of silver flecks definitely shows as vertical lines of silver and amber ...". That statement was incorrect (I wrote the post at about 3am - not the best time of day for my concentration). What I should have said was something along the lines of:
" ... the layer of silver flecks definitely shows as vertical lines of amber and a colour that seems to move towards a deeper amber or even a translucent ruby, depending on lighting conditions. The main point is that the silver flecks (foil / leaf), show as amber because (I believe) they are set on clear glass below an amber casing. And the flecks that seem to be a deeper colour towards translucent ruby only occur where there is thicker outer crystal covering them, such as with the ribbing and the thickness of the ckear glass at the foot of the vase. ..."
And my comment about there possibly being rods of deeper amber / translucent ruby was simply incorrect. ... Although in certain veiwing angles there is, curiously, an appearance of a "ribbed cane" below the high points of the outer ribbing of the vase! I think it is an optical illusion.
The references (such as by Helen W and m) to the Bonhams rock crystal scent bottle are I think very useful. But I find it hard to relate any of the shades of ruby in that bottle to the colours in my (and Manley's) vase - except in some specifc lighting conditions.
I wil try to get some photos of parts of my vase to show what I am trying to say.
-
Kev we posted at the same time. But I've written it now so I'm going to post it anyway :)
Rockingham Ware was a Wedgwood treacly brown glaze colour used from c.1865 from what I can deduce.
So - is it possible that 'Rockingham' was what S&W called that dark reddy brown or browny red colour seen on the overlay casing on that crystal jug from Bonhams, in homage to the Rockingham Ware from Wedgwood?
Reading Manley I agree with you Kev that he was using Rockingham to describe a colour of glass.
But where is his proof that vase (item 93) was made by Stevens and Williams?
Without wishing to muddy the waters, could the confusion with silver foil items might have come into play because:
in Charles Hajdamach British Glass 1800-1914 pp 287-289 he talks about the popularity of the combination of glass with metal as a decorative technique in the latter part of the 19th century. He says not only in England but in Europe and the United States. He goes on to talk about Stevens and Williams developing an electro-plating silver deposit method.
This silver plating was used on the outside of their glass pieces from my reading of the above article in the book, but he goes on to say that it was also used on china, because on page 288 and 289 he continues the description of S&W development of this method as follows:
'On Stevens and Williams examples the silver was usually engraved with linear designs and buffed to a bright shine. Some silver deposit decoration was also carried out on ceramics at the glassworks. Two entries in the pattern books,at numbers 24347 and 24348, read 'Coalport China silver deposit' and 'Rockingham Ware silver deposit' and date to the very end of 1897'.
(The 'Rockingham Ware' may be a coincidence in our narrative because Wedgwood have a range called Rockingham Ware)
The silver plating method CH describes in the book appears to describe a surface decoration method of silver deposit on the outside of the glass. He references a black and white plate 209 on page 217 which appears to have a silver surface deposit rim and foot (but difficult to tell in a b/w photo). I don't read it that it is describing a method of using silver internally in a glass item and then casing it over in glass.
Is it possible that somewhere along the line the word 'Rockingham' has been misappropriated and used as a descriptor for those items that contain a dark red or reddy brown glass and also have silver foil encased in them? Possibly taken from Manley's description of item 93?
Did Manley know something about that vase item no 93 that he wasn't telling? did he know S&W made it or did he just decide it must have been from S&W? There are many other examples in his book which have not been correctly identified.
The Bonhams descriptor taken from the pattern books could therefore accurately describe the pillar rock crystal jug, as it could be Rockingham (the colour which is a dark reddy brown or browny red) cased over Ruby (which is the brighter red glass that can be seen on the internal layer) or ...
it could be that the colours show as dark red over lighter red because it was a thick layer of red glass and, where it has been cut back in cameo, the result is the thicker parts just look darker than the thinner parts. So in fact the 'Rockingham' part of the 'Rockingham/Ruby' descriptor in the pattern book actually refers to 'Rockingham' being some silver deposit S&W made on the piece, over 'Ruby' being the entire red colour glass they used to make the blank.
It may well be that a silversmith then added further silver embellishment (lid,spout,curlicues?) as well as the already applied (bands around jug body, and foot and plated handle?) 'Rockingham' silver put on by S&W.
But the pieces which have intercalaire silver foil, i.e. sandwiched between two layers of glass, and are also made from glass which may contain a reddy brown or browny red colour included somewhere in the item, cannot accurately be identified as 'S&W' or even 'S&W Rockingham' without further evidence that S&W made glass in this encased foil method can they? i.e. Manley's item 93 and the items Greg linked to.
m
-
m said ... "But where is his proof that vase (item 93) was made by Stevens and Williams?"
He claimed the shape of the vase was what made it S&W (see the descriptive text for the item).
-
He did but with no pattern id to back it up.
And unfortunately he also claimed lots of other items in the book were English makers and they were not.
And unfortunate also that the shape of that vase is just a 'vase' shape. It is bulbous at the bottom with a tall thinner elongated neck and perhaps an applied foot (photography bad in the book). i.e. it doesn't have any distinguishing features in it's shape to determine it definitively,unless we have other examples of this exact shape and size to back up the S&W id.
There is an item online that is referred to as Webb Argentine. It's one bowl in a browny red glass over foil.
I think it might be on Pinterest now if you put Webb ARgentine into a search and then look at images, but might originally have come from the Black County museums collection online site when it was available to view up to a few years ago. I can't find the site now.
It's an interesting piece.
-
Thanks all.
Thanks M for looking over those Manley pieces.
Here's a link to the Webb Argentine item for anyone wishing to view it on Pintrest:
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/434597432784421133/?lp=true
The Stuart examples with scroll feet and raspberry prunts are interesting, although I also haven't seen one which uses a similar foil decor. - S&W over the years also seem to have used both scroll feet and raspberry prunts, although I still haven't seen an example that uses both of these features along with a foil decor!
I will have look into Thomas Webb, unfortunately I don't have the Guliver book.
Just to add, I did also see a few references to Rockingham on Dilwyn Heir's website, under the members only section.....
http://antiquestourbridgeglass.co.uk/?s=rockingham
-
Greg's link to the "Thomas Webb Argentine" vase takes me to a Pinterest sign in overlay.
For other folk, like me, who are also not "members" of Pinterest, the folliwing link goes straight to the actual item:
Direct Link to Thomas Webb Aregentine vase (https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2Fef%2Fc4%2F0a%2Fefc40ac83d9b87d05053451c19bf78cb.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F434597432784421133%2F&docid=FSheZSYMOJ1U3M&tbnid=RsXQE9yNPU12FM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiehKXz6_ndAhXMJcAKHTLBAR4QMwg1KAAwAA..i&w=600&h=800&itg=1&client=firefox-b-ab&bih=671&biw=1012&q=thomas%20webb%20argentine%20glass&ved=0ahUKEwiehKXz6_ndAhXMJcAKHTLBAR4QMwg1KAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8)
-
Those Pinterest and Facebook 'join us or push off' notices are really annoying. For those who don't know, one can reduce their size enough to read most of the web page underneath by holding keys Ctrl and - (hyphen). This works on a laptop or PC, but I don't know about smartphones. At all. ::)
I really was bleary-eyed the other day and forgot to check the list of colour names in Williams Thomas. It's a useful reminder of the differences between the company's official colour names and those that gradually come into use among glass enthusiasts.
-
...
I really was bleary-eyed the other day and forgot to check the list of colour names in Williams Thomas. It's a useful reminder of the differences between the company's official colour names and those that gradually come into use among glass enthusiasts.
It is but is it complete?
If it is complete - and Rockingham doesn't appear on that list - then is Rockingham a reference to silver plated deposit decor from S&W?
And if it is, then did someone accidentally add the word Ware to the Rockingham Ware in the description of the pattern number that Charles quoted in his book?
Or ... did S&W ( internally in the company) refer to their range of items which had silver deposits on the outside of them (silver deposits put on by S&W in house I mean), as 'Rockingham Ware'? And Charles has assumed it meant a form of China but in fact it was S&W's name for their range of those items.
Greg, you say Dilwyn Hier's site references and shows three pieces with the work Rockingham as a descriptor. I can't see them. Can anyone? Are they just cased in a reddy brown or browny red glass - meaning they are saying Rockingham is a name for that glass colour?
-
If it is complete - and Rockingham doesn't appear on that list - then is Rockingham a reference to silver plated deposit decor from S&W?
And if it is, then did someone accidentally add the word Ware to the Rockingham Ware in the description of the pattern number that Charles quoted in his book?
Or ... did S&W ( internally in the company) refer to their range of items which had silver deposits on the outside of them (silver deposits put on by S&W in house I mean), as 'Rockingham Ware'? And Charles has assumed it meant a form of China but in fact it was S&W's name for their range of those items.
Good points. Over such a long period of time there's a danger of minor misunderstandings or "terminological inexactitude" (now, which politician was it who coined that phrase? :-\ ) compounding one another, and resulting in the kind of head-scratching we have in this discussion. ;)
-
I have joined the Dilwyn Hier site and found an example where Rockingham is actually noted as a brown glass (ref pattern number 11272 book 12.)
So ... the Williams Thomas book does not list all their colour names then I guess?
And secondly whilst Rockingham can be used to describe the browny reddy or reddy browny colour glass from S&W (and the only way of knowing whether an item was actually made using their recipe for Rockingham rather than their recipe for any other dark amber/browny glass from them would be to check the pattern books), I guess it can't be used as a descriptor of those items that have silver foil in them unless they can be found in the pattern books,because other makes could have used a browny amber or reddy brown glass and have used it over foil - i.e. Webb Argentine example.
And btw, from the description and colour example of the piece they show, it is possible that the Bonhams example is an example of a specific named range which used a browny reddy glass (their S&W Rockingham) over ruby. That combination is shown I believe in the colour plate on the site as I said above, on a different piece where they show the pattern book and name the pattern number and give the name of the range.
So Manley was right to describe it as Rockingham meaning the colour. Correction - Rockingham was a reddy brown colour from Stevens and Williams so Manley was not right to describe it as Rockingham meaning the colour until he absolutely knew it came from S&W and has a pattern id to back it up
But we cannot suppose that items with a reddy brown casing over foil internal layer are a range called 'Rockingham' until we have pattern id proof that those foil decors came from S&W or that those shapes are conclusively and only from S&W. correction - because Rockingham was a reddy brown colour that came from STevens and Williams there would not be a 'range' called 'Rockingham'
-
And I am currently looking at a bowl on the site that has the encased foil with amber casing in this instance,with applied fish or lizards (one at either end) and it has a lozenge for Webb. I would say that it has that odd striped appearance as you describe on your vase Kev and in a similar way to that vase item 93 in Manley.
I am going to stick my neck out again and insist that we look at Webb :) and that Manley might have been incorrect in his supposition that it was Stevens and Williams ;D
I'm also going to say that he was definitely wrong about what he says re item no 64, a foil encased bowl with applied lizards which he describes as crystal over pale amethyst (looks like dark amethyst to me) 'with silver flecks (aventurine)', which again looks like silver leaf or foil to me or mica but not aventurine - (ref: Antique Stourbridge Glass .co.uk site under Thomas Webb). And that it's not designed by Frederick Carder as Manley implies.
Also,I think the pieces with splotches over foil are a 'decor range' and the pieces which have a perceived striped effect as in Kev's vase and a fish or applied lizard bowl I've seen on the Hier site (a Thomas Webb piece) are a different 'range'.
Also one more observation - the bowl Greg shows looks quite refined in it's making. The links he gives to the Fieldings site to similar decor items ... well those items look 'clunky' to me. It's odd. I think they look like the same decor, but they look like less refined designs/making than the bowl Greg shows don't they? Almost as though they come from a different period or are meant to represent designs from a different time, whereas Greg's bowl looks as though it belongs in the 1880s/1890s when those triangular bowl with or without applied lizards appear to have been the rage - or is it just me?
m
-
see my previous replies
and also a link to a lizard bowl which has the encased foil and perceived stripes like Kev's vase - right here on our site :)
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,37302.msg204119.html#msg204119
-
I have found the link to the 'Argentine' bowl on the blackcountryhistory.org collection search site.
It is listed as 'Webb's Argentine possibly' and is described as
'Amber and ruby vase decorated with silver foil
Description: Vase, amber and ruby glass, bulbous shape body, decorated with silver foil pattern between the two layers, short neck and flared rim, on small foot.
Dimensions: Height 7.0cm
Credit Line: Michael and Peggy Parkington Bequest'
http://blackcountryhistory.org/collections/getrecord/DMUSE_BH2970/
There is also one vase with a Rockingham colour - it's over an opaque cream glass (their Ivory) so it is perceived as being very brown because of that I would think:
http://blackcountryhistory.org/collections/getrecord/DMUSE_BH2754/
Object number BH2754
-
Kev here is another lizard bowl with the foil and perceived stripes on it.
They say it is thought to be made by Webb but they go on to say Stevens and Williams made similar. I don't believe they did from what I have read on the Antique Stourbridge glass site. I think their comment about S&W is misleading and there is no reference source for either assertion.
http://www.stylendesign.co.uk/guidepages/estoz4.html
-
Just adding the below link, which briefly mentions 'The Burst Foil' glass technique produced by Edward Webb and Joseph Webb, who both apparently produced their own versions in 1883.....(just under half way down the page, titled 'Burst Foil)
http://theantiquarian.us/Glass%20Types.htm
It goes on to comment: ''There are many different types of embedded foil work, of which Burst Foil is the most common and there are famous examples of it by Edward Webb’s 1883, “Oroide and Agrentine (SIC)”. He advertised the use of gold or silver foil between two layers of glass, respectively. Arthur John Nash was responsible for both designs.''
On a related note:
There a piece shown in the below link described as by 'D'Humy' (which was mentioned earlier), the poster mentions that 'An exact example of this vase is in the collection of the Bristol Blue Glass Museum' and shown online. However, the website sadly seems to no longer be active.
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/125095-dhumy-aurora-glass-co-fish-vase-c-188
And also a couple of other examples shown here:
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/79547-aurora-glass-co-c-1890
I presume the first two examples shown are probably Webb? and the other example sold by Bonhams is indeed by D'Humy.
-
1) I would not make any id's without primary reference sources, on any of those foil pieces.
2) I know Thomas Webb & Sons made pieces with applied animals as they have been seen in the pattern books iirc (source Antique Stourbridge Glass) and also there is the marked piece in Gulliver which was reference earlier in this thread.
3) When the blackcountryhistory.org online site shows a bowl saying 'Webb's Argentine possibly' for maker, then I assume they don't mean Thomas Webb (in the dim and distant past I had this query in my mind, but had forgotten about it until you made the link to the Antiquarian site Greg), since it appears that Edward Webb or Joseph Webb made a range called 'Argentine' and Edward Webb was a different maker to Thomas Webb and Sons.
So it is possible that both Thomas Webb and Sons and Edward Webb made foil encased glass.
-
Hi There Greg, I was searching for some glassware which was similar to a recent glass vase i purchased and
it lead me here to your Rockingham piece i wondered if you ever got to the bottom of the attribution ?
It strikes me as a very nice quality piece of glassware indeed the reason is the vase i have just
purchased also has similar feet and a Rasberry prunt in fact looking at your pictures closely do you remember
was one of the feet slightly ground down to make the bowl sit flat on the surface as mine also has this on it and me
and my dad were wondering if this was commonly done to make pieces sit right ? I was hoping it might have been
an aid to attributing mine but maybe not thanks Dan
-
That's Stuart I believe Legsy
-
;D thanks once again flying free that's brilliant information i never really thought of
Stuart & Sons as doing much in cranberry glass ware thanks very much indeed...:)
-
I have a Stuart bowl in a large version very similar design to yours. I would probably describe the colour as ruby not cranberry. It's quite a solid ruby red. I can't remember if I put it on the board but I'm very sure I found a reference for it being Stuart. It's very heavy.
m
-
bowl attached - not sure what happened to my previous post.
It's id'd in Gulliver Victorian Decorative Glass 1850-1914 page 174 - there are three the same in different colours, amber, ruby and turquoise. The turquoise is not like the blue on the splotches on Greg's vase.
Legsy your feet are more ribbed than mine but whilst your exact vase isn't in the book that I could see, there is a Stuart vase with the rigaree and prunts like mine in ruby with feet that are many more ribs than my shell feet - page 173 middle item.
Does your vase have some extra glass trails hanging down from the prunts by the way, apart from the rigaree going around the vase? Ah, I can see them now. There is another vase in Gulliver on the same page, unidentified that has some trails with a clear glass round 'button' at the top of the ribbon trails which hang down.
Also a similar shape to that one bottom of page but different coloured glass and has the ribbon trail with buttons and that's unidentified as well.
So on that basis, I apologise as I'm not entirely sure yours is Stuart as Gulliver has them as unidentified.
-
Greg I found this:
https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1517772215/vintage-multicoloured-glass-bowl-on?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=island+studio+glass&ref=sr_gallery-3-31&sts=1&organic_search_click=1
It has the rigaree like my Stuart bowl and the prunts and the prunt over the pontil mark and the same shell feet. They are all in clear glass as they are on my bowl.
The bowl in Gulliver page 169 with a RD no 390103 with the splotches over bursts foil is, I think, cased in amber and the applied lizards and feet are amber not clear. It has no rigaree on it. The feet are shell topped but with straight down feet not ending in a shell curl.
My ruby bowl has an identified version in amber and turquoise but not the blue of your bowl - at least not in the book.
I'm thinking Stuart for yours and this, but not out loud as no evidence :)
-
No source for id but I'd bet my life those feet on that vase were done at Stuart. They appear to be identical to the feet on my vase.
The base too.
So is this an unknown decor from Stuart?
m
-
Thank you M, sorry not to acknowledge this earlier, I have just noticed your post.
Thanks for the link, that's indeed an interesting comparison, I suspect your are right with the Stuart attribution.
I'm afraid I'm not sure if this is an unknown decor for Stuart.