Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Ekimp on May 31, 2019, 01:53:30 PM
-
Shame about the colour. Is this an Isle of Wight ‘Petit Fleur’ bowl? It looks a similar style to the one shown on the Isle of Wight Studio Glass website but is bigger. Also, there is very little wear so thought it was newer than the early 1980s.
http://iowstudioglass.wikidot.com/petitfleur
The diameter is about 175mm, it is just under 50mm tall and weighs 590g. The rim is almost 10mm thick, the glass narrows at the sides before becoming thick at the bottom with a kick up/bulge on the inside of the bowl at the bottom. Thanks.
-
A plain white background would make it a bit easier to see, but I think you're on the right lines.
i own the lollipop and the small bowl at the bottom in the link there, the blue and olive-y coloured one.
I don't know if they're supposed to be the same colour schemes, as the lollipop has white in it that my bowl doesn't. The white in the lollipop is not so "bitty" as it is in your bowl, it's much more "cloudy", but I have found some "bitty" bits towards the bottom.
My bowl has a sort of flat bottom. It's shiney, but not polished flat - it's all lumpy, so I think it's heat finished. The triangular black label is there and I can't see under it.
The lollipop has a square, clear plastic label.
Looking at my bowl, it does have that strange ring/air bubble in the middle of the bottom that yours has.
Small, early and very thick IoWSG bowls do tend to vary a lot in the execution of the construction. I would not really expect two to be exactly the same.
I think it was only later they prescribed exact dimensions, which they measured with calipers during the making.
There is a bulge in the middle of the bottom inside, over the bubble.
Overall, I think it probably is Petit Fleur.
-
I would agree with Petit Fleur, see the odd bowl from time to time and this is a particularly large example.
John
-
Thanks both, that’s good news. I thought someone might say the colour was wrong for the period (prefer the colours of your bowl Sue, swop? ;D) I’ll try some other photos on white, I really should make a light box etc. Thanks again.
-
Sorry, but I really do like the colours in mine and the colour your great big one is, is not permitted in our home.
Yours is about twice the size of mine, if not more. ;D It is very unusual.
I've realised the dimensions are not on Anton's site.
The bowl (pin dish, really) is 3.5" in diameter, just under 1.5" tall and I'd say the glass is 1cm thick.
(We're in small territory, so I'm mixing metric and imperial.)
The lollipop is small too. 5.5" tall, 4.5" broad and 2.25" deep.
-
It was worth a try :) Unusual is good and partly compensates for pink....actually, I’m sure in the appropriate setting it could look very nice....
I see your dimensions are similar to the other one on the link website (I’m ok with a mix of units as long as no one starts using hands or cubits). Do you know how heavy it is? I wondered if they used the same weight of glass but spread mine out more.
-
10.5 ounces. (which involved my ancient cast iron weights - ;D I can't get more accurate than that. I don't use metric for cooking, only in labs.)
They can't "weigh out" a gob of hot glass - they gather some up and cut about the right amount off. They learn to know pretty much the right size to go for.
-
Ok, thanks. About half then.
-
Yesterday I got another even bigger example!
They both have the same profile and type of base and pontil scar, there is more wear on the bigger one. This also has a much larger bubble in the centre but no random small bubbles and the flower shape is in four quadrants but without the multitude of spokes. The two bowls look like the evolution of a design. The new one is about 200mm diameter, 60mm high and weighs almost 800 grams. They came from different brands of charity shop about 20 miles and two weeks apart. Any thoughts?
I tried the photos on white and for some reason the resizing rotated all images.
-
These were definitely made while IoWSG was experimenting a lot and new designs were evolving dramatically. They needed to find new designs to establish themselves. :)
Their motto was; "Our best work will be done tomorrow." They continued to develop new designs, all the time.
-
Thanks, that’s reassuring :) I was a bit suspicious at finding two unusually large IOW bowls but I suppose it’s possible they were donated from the same source.
I live by a very similar motto that is “why do today what can be put off until tomorrow” ;D
-
I've come across 4 of these bowls over the last couple of months, two in the last fortnight....I did wonder about Caithness, but had quite an extensive trawl and couldn't come up with anything.
-
Great minds, Greg ;D
- I did wonder about Caithness for this newer one - it was the white blobby bits - but then I saw the thin line of deep colour running through it for the delineation of petals, consistent with Petit Fleur and you won't find that in Caithness. Not on the flowery bit of the Toffolo (*) "Tranquility" design you're probably thinking about, I'm looking at a pink one right now - there are thin pink lines - around the flower bit, where powdered enamels have been added, to colour the clear casing.
There are a couple of those in this link.
https://www.ebay.ie/itm/Two-Caithness-Tranquility-Pink-Glass-Floral-Bowls/273822994615?hash=item3fc11f50b7:g:z7YAAOSw4bhcIPns
(*) See Reply 14 - correction for designer of "Tranquility"
-
Interesting.
The bowls I have seen have all been heavy and shallow like the one at the start of this post. If one of the bowls is still there I will try and take a picture tomorrow to add to this thread.
-
It wasn't the Tranquility floral design you were thinking of, then?
I can't find another flowery shallow bowl in the book, but I have made a big boo-boo. :-[ Tranquility was Jimmy Manson, Jeneo Lewis and Colin Terris, not Franco Toffolo.
-
Caithness was more of a subconscious thought. It may well be a red herring in this case as I had a fairly extensive look a few days back and couldn't find a match.
I had a look for the other bowl earlier today, which was the same as the earlier two in this thread, unfortunately it had been sold, so unable to add a photo.
I've seen a few around over the last few months, so will keep my eyes peeled.
-
Liskeard a possibility for the second bowl too.
-
Thanks for the input everyone and Greg for looking for the bowl. My first impression of the first bowl was of a squashed Caithness paperweight (not that I know much about Caithness), it was the small bubbles that made me look at IOW. I thought they were by the same manufacturer but it seems people are suggesting maybe different origins.
-
Could well be, a profile photo of the second bowl might help.
-
Not the best photos but hopefully you can see the profile. First photo is the original smaller bowl, second photo the larger bowl, thanks.
-
My hunch is that your second bowl was made at Liskeard, the way the colour is broken up into 4 quarters like that and pushes up in the centre is familiar. Those bowls come in a couple of different shapes and they don't always have an impressed LG mark. Can't find any examples online at present but occasionally see them when out and about, with luck might get some photos.
-
My little bowl is pushed up in the middle inside too - but the top is rounded, not flat.
I don't know the Liskeard ones, but as John says,"only" 4 petal sections is very worrying, as is the splodgy appearance of the white.
And the lack of elongated "spoke-like" bubbles found in Petit Fluer... and the layers of colours on top of each other rather than beside...
I think we're getting to there being too many "not quite right" features for IoWSG for the second, bigger one.
-
It doesn’t show very well in the photographs but the first bowl is in four quadrants like the second bowl. (Hope this makes sense...) The four dark pink spokes in the second bowl go through the width of the bottom, then the big ‘flower’ colour is in the lower surface of the bottom. This is the same in the first bowl but you can’t see the four main spokes so clearly due to the pattern in the ‘flower’.
In both bowls, the sides curve in towards the top so that there’s a lip/overhang on the inside. The rims of the bowls are quite thick and curved. I know you can’t calibrate base wear but I thought it was a bit light for early 1980s on both bowls.
-
The first one has lots of spokes, which is correct for IoWSG. Lots of spokes could give rise to the appearance of there being 4 quadrants - just from the way they ended up spaced.
It's the lack of spokes in the second worries me. A lot.
-
Yes, the many spokes are in the lower surface except for four of them that go through the width of the bottom (just like the second bowl), you can see them by parallax as you view the bowl at different angles.