Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: lychap on July 19, 2019, 12:28:36 PM
-
I picked this up recently , pretty sure its a deceptive glass but wonder as to its age.
The lower part of the bowl is solid glass and concealed by beehive ribbing while the upper portion has optic vertical ribs, think the stem is a baluster.
3 1/4" tall, the bowl diameter is 2 5/8" while the foot is 2". Has a faint pontil scar.
Any suggestions gratefully acceped :D
-
hi - breaking my own resolution now...…………… sometimes not possible to resist temptation.
I think the folk here will want to see some additional pix, please - and regret I can't make out the beehive ribbing from this one photo alone, but would agree with your thoughts of baluster stem (as opposed to an inverted baluster).
You may well be correct with the suggestion that this is a deception glass - and though I could be wrong, don't think it's a deception shape that's very common, and would be interested in your reasons for dating as Georgian or Victorian - again, from this one picture it's not possible to see the extent of solid glass at the base of the bowl. The bowl shape suggests a pan-topped sweetmeat, though some smaller drinking glasses shared something similar - champers for example.
Bowls from C18 were often given moulding - think gadrooning, and wrythen (sort of helical) gadrooning and moulded pedestal stems, all physical rather than optical.
Is this lead glass and what is the colour. Feet can say more about a glass than you'd imagine - so need to see a good picture of the underside of the foot - with close up adequate to see the faint pontil scar. Also what is the extent, if any, of wear on the underside of the foot and bowl rim. Remember, feet tended to have more of a domed elevation in earlier glasses, and became flatter as the C19 wore on.
For whatever reasons - perhaps comfort on the lips possibly - many glasses from C18 had everted rims (outward) rather than cup shaped.
We're back to the old problem - copying, and it was done in vast amounts for the last 150 years. Assume Bickerton is still the favoured standard tome for these things, and would recommend this if you don't have it already - but none of which is a substitute for going places and handling drinking glasses - provided you don't drop them.
-
I'll try to get some better pics in the next few days :)
-
thanks - just to clarify ................ my mention of C18 dating may have been misleading - I wasn't in any way suggesting this glass was from that period - just making some comparisons in terms of usage of different shapes of glasses. The probability of finding genuine C18/early C19 pieces, from the wild, decreases with each passing decade, which means that there is a far greater likelihood that this glass is of more recent manufacture, unfortunately - would be great if it was otherwise.
-
ok added 2 more pics, having difficulty getting a pic of the pontil scar but will keep trying :D
-
Sorry uploaded wrong files ::) try again
-
???
The pontil scar is to faint for me to get a pic, I think it has been part polished out?
-
sure - in the absence of any pix showing the underside of the foot, then we take your word for it. Digital cameras, rather than mobile phones, are far preferable for photographing glass - that's not to say you have used a mobile, it's just that I notice so many folk now use their phone rather than a camera. Good lighting is essential - raking light is a good means of capturing difficult surfaces where small or shallow features need to be seen, and if reflected light rather than transmitted light is used then this will light up a surface and show small details. As the name suggests, very low angle light, bounced off the subject, tends to create pool of almost mirror like light, on the glass, causing the small details to show as darker points. The backgrounds to some of your pix are 'too busy' - plain dark backgrounds are preferable - it's not easy to get good shots of clear glass, but a plain ground will help rather than a tour of someone's furniture or back garden :)
Generally speaking, untreated snapped pontil scars ceased c. 1740 - 60, after which time the polished depression becomes the norm. Unfortunately, not all glass makers were following the script, and the scar pops up every now and again for probably over a hundred years - often found on utility or tavern glasses or, of course, those pieces intended to look old or confuse, of which there were many c. 1920 - 30 when repro. styles were all the rage.
Would still like to hear in your own words why you consider this glass might be old - always good to hear the opinion of others - none of us is that good that we can't benefit from someone else's knowledge Your subject heading of 'Georgian/Victorian?', covers a vast wedge of history - 1714 to 1901 - a total of six monarchs, during which time the manufacture of glass, shapes and styles changed massively.
Seeing our thoughts in writing helps not just others but ourselves too - just talking about the evolution of glass is a great way to learn.
It's all too common to read descriptions - especially on the bay - where something is described as Georgian/Victorian - not only does it show the seller knows nothing about glass, but worse still they simply can't be bothered to investigate.
You might show your glass to a professional for an opinion - failing which it will likely remain not just anonymous but also undated. Assume it came from the wild? My opinion remains that this piece is most likely to be from somewhere in the last one hundred years rather than C18 or C19.
Hope you won't be offended by the foregoing - it's really intended to help and we all have to start somewhere, and most of us make mistakes along the way - remember, people who don't make mistakes don't usually make anything. ;)
-
I think it is late Victorian but was looking for clarification.
-
you may well be correct - but we'd be interested to know why that particular suggestion :) :) Sometimes an identical example can be found in one of the books, failing which it often comes down to some feature of the glass that helps to date.
-
It just feels like victorian, can't really explain. I don't know when these glasses stopped being made, if they ever were!
-
Don't you get the feeling there's only you and I in the world. ;D ;D I've never understood, but other folk who do collect such stuff seem suddenly to disappear when a piece like this is posted - can't believe that we two are the only ones interested in this type of glass.
I think it's a habit to say Victorian - we want something to be old, and Victorian has always been an easy way of conferring age on something.
The Victorians were very good at copying, especially in utility patterns, but their big thing was pressed glass, and they made it in boat loads, much of it copying cut glass. They also gave us art nouveau at one end of the spectrum but also gave the world some of worst kitsch and cheap glass imaginable.
This piece is distinctive in shape - the pan-top is a straight steal from the older sweetmeat type glasses, and the Georgians and Victorians were big in jellies, custards penny licks etc. and sweetmeats.
I'm not convinced this one is a deception glass, and I can't say I'm sold on the idea of how something 'feels Victorian' - might simply be a poorly made piece with a thick base to the bowl. I've tried looking for my booklet on sweetmeats/jellies etc., but can't find it - I've very few books now, but will dig it out and post details of the book here - it's worth getting a copy if possible.
If you want to look at Georgian drinking glasses etc. you will need Bickerton - possibly not cheap - but a must if you want to see plenty of pix of things that might turn up from C18 and early C19. The bowl on this one is almost a small champagne sort of thing - might be for drinking a liquid.
You might try Replacements.com - you won't find your glass of course, but the variety of shapes and purposes can teach a lot.
Old doesn't necessarily mean poor quality - most early glass was lead composition - it was probably the Victorians who changed all that - pressed glass is almost without exception non-lead. So genuinely old pieces should ring when flicked - likely will have a leadish sort of colour, and in general will conform to certain shapes more with affluence in mind rather than the poor.
Sorry, thought you were new to glass, but see you first registered here some years back. Don't know where you are, but visit museums - the V. & A. in London has a great glass gallery.
I think this one has died now, but who knows you may one day find another with a label on it.
-
Your glass reminds me a bit of mine, but the stem on mine is less curvy. https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,42849.0.html Mine feels old too, can't really explain why, but as soon as I saw it I just thought older rather than recent.
-
Didn't want you two thinking you were the only ones interested! I really appreciate this thread.....am learning lots.......but I can't add anything as you both know more than I do. If anything similar comes out of all the boxes I'm currently working through, I will be sure to add it here. In the meantime, I will continue to watch!
Missed Anne's post before I posted mine...... ::)
-
I’m interested!,just not sure about my depth of knowledge on older glass.I wonder if it’s from one of the Scandinavian glass manufacturers?i think they went through stage of leaning heavily on Georgian aesthetic with their drinking glasses?,but it could be anyone.
-
Hi, You say it has a ‘faint pontil scar’ or it might be ‘part polished out’. In my experience, it is pretty clear when glasses have a polished pontil scar as the texture is completely different from the surrounding glass (in that it’s polished :) ). If it’s part polished then sometimes there’s what looks like a chip in the middle where they haven’t polished away all of the scar from snapping off the pontil rod. You say it might be part polished out then you can still see a mark? It’s not got a ‘T’ or ‘J’ shaped mark on the bottom?
It looks reasonably modern to me, might it and Anne’s glass in the link be related to the Stuart Stratford pattern?
-
I'm pretty sure mine isn't Stuart Stratford, I have loads of pieces of that and this glass isn't the same. Thanks for the suggestion though.
-
the patterning of rings on Anne's glass isn't too far from 'Stratford', but I don't see that similarity on the op's glass, and Stratford Rings glasses usually, though not always, carry the name Stuart plus sometimes the Rd. No. Stuart continued making S/Rings series probably well into the 1970s - I think - so presumably this shape was popular. I forget now what this general shape is called, but doubtless it's shown in the Replacements.com site.
Ekimp's comment about the T or J mark on the underside of the foot (or more usually thought of as a Y mark) is caused by the glass worker using shears to remove unwanted glass (from under the foot) after the foot had been shaped - sometimes erroneously suggested as having been left by the gadget. This suggestion, as a possibility as to the origin of the mark on the op's glass, is worth making especially as the mark - on the glass here - is apparently feint, so may not be a pontil mark, and might instead have been made by shears.
The shears mark isn't generally found prior to c. 1860 - gadget marks (only ever seen on the upperside of feet) are found only very rarely.
For obvious reasons, Y marks from shears aren't found in conjunction with scars or depressions.
This is where a good knowledge of under-foot marks is helpful and why feet can say so much - looking at as many feet as possible is essential to understand the difference between the various marks, all of which can help to date, though not always conclusive.
I don't recall seeing the op's comment as to whether this one rings or not - and there seem to be some varied suggestions as to origin and age, so now we're more confused than ever ;)
-
Anne, your glass is very similar to mine, is yours a deceptive glass?
My glass is not lead crystal and definitely not Stuart Stratford. The glass has the look and feel of victorian, possibly late victorian.
-
if this isn't a deceptive glass then why does it hold so little liquid, it only holds just over 1 fl.oz.
-
Probably because it's a liqueur glass (0.75 oz). A decepetive glass appears to hold more than it does. This doesn't
-
Yeah thats a spirits glass which is why it's that size and not a deceptive glass probably early to mid 20th century. I've attached a photo of a deceptive glass I currently have which is from 19th century so you can see.
Adam
-
What does your glass look like with coloured liquid in it, just out of curiosity?
-
Possibly a deceptive gin glass.
-
probably unlikely - unless of course you can show us some gin glasses identical to your piece and with a gin deceptive provenance. ;) Don't think I've ever seen a gin deceptive, but stand to be corrected - there wouldn't be a lot of point in going through this exercise with gin in view of the colour - toastmasters used these things when imbibing coloured drinks.
Glass lends itself to being successful in the area of deception, in the sense that the refractive qualities of glass deceive us into thinking that the liquid fills the entire bowl.