Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: POWELLGLASS on October 16, 2019, 03:36:57 PM
-
Identification of champagne saucer with four tears. Height 5,1/2” diameter 4,1/8”. No marks.
-
Hello. Please post a picture of one glass taken side on so we can clearly see the profile, and a picture of the base - even unmarked bases can give useful information. A close up of the detail would be great too!
-
Photos as requested. Just to confirm there is no pontil on the base
-
Is it possible that they come from Germany? I know this design... but don‘t know where I‘ve seen them. I‘m German, that is why I asked
Monika
-
Found them in Coldstream in the Scottish Borders
-
The remind me of Thomas Webb or Stuart pieces.
I need to have a look to see which.
Edited to add:
Specifically they remind me of these two vases with applied dabs and therefore I think there is a possibility they may be Stuart:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,55750.msg316021.html#msg316021
-
sorry to seem thick m, but to which post No. in your link, are you referring? :) Again, perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't it far more likely - in view of the description - that the op's saucers are far more modern than the old/antique pieces your may be thinking of?
It's very true that 'tears' were a form of surface decoration in the are nouveau style , but in view of the description of the base on these examples, then these sound to be far more recent. :)
-
The first one which shows the photographs of my vases:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=55750.0;attach=148598;image
Yes I see what you mean about no pontil mark on the foot.
However the dabs and trails definitely remind me of Stuart pieces ;D
m
-
thanks m - and quite true that Stuart used dabs/tears, but only on much older glass, as far as I know - I'm convinced these saucers are modern. :)
-
and you may well be right :)
-
so do you think they were mold blown with prunts in the mold?
Just asking because applying prunts by hand is quite time consuming and specialist - an additional part in the process if you like. So how come they have no pontil mark?
-
pass ……….. I think we would need to have these in the hand to know as to whether the dabs were part of the mould - but not impossible that was the case, though regret my knowledge of modern glass manufacturing is very lacking. If the dabs appear too uniform and lack any 'rear or behind' to them, then quite possibly moulded. An indication of age might be wear - not sure if there has been any comment on that - hand made dabs on glasses 80 - 100 years of age might show some dirt. Can't recall now if the 'saucer' was common in the early part of the C20 - but anyway I'm convinced these are modern.
Presumably by far the majority of modern drinking glasses are machine made and so lack a depression or scar as would be seen on older hand made glasses - at least that's what I see when I'm looking at them.
-
POwell can you upload your pictures at 640 x 400 pixels because any detail is impossible to see on the small pics you've uploaded.
Thank you
m
-
Found this ref in V and A archives Philip Webb Glass with similar tear
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O5135/wine-glass-webb-philip-speakman/
-
Webb was a big mate of Wm. Morris, though I think he's probably better known for designing Morris and Janey's pad at Bexleyheath rather than designing drinking glasses, though obviously he did and they're precious things. Webb's genuine second half C19 thin clear glasses are to die for - wish I had some - unfortunately, like many other historic artistic features, tears/dabs have been copied over the years. Apart from these tears/dabs, do other aspects of the pieces shown here suggest that sort of age? I would have thought that period items would have a scar or polished pontil depression.
Appreciate it sounds like unwarranted criticism - especially in view of the similarity, and to someone who might lack knowledge of the period in question the appearance looks spot on, but on the face of it the chance that the op's glasses are genuine period Philip Webb designs is exceptionally unlikely, unless there's something we've not been told.
If it were simply a matter of similarity of design that was required for proof of provenance, then we'd all have some great glass.
With regard to the V. & A. reference above, it seems that Morris commissioned Powell's to make a series of plain glasses for which Webb was the designer, and some of Webb's original designs are included in Leslie Jackson's book - page 97 - plates 1 to 4, although only one piece is decorated with prunts/dabs - not tears as on the glasses here and the V. & A. example. None of the glasses shown in Jackson is a champagne saucer, though that's not to say Webb didn't design such a shape.
However, since anything is possible then would suggest that the V. & A. are contacted, with images, with a request for confirmation of the suggested provenance.
In view of the name POWELLGLASS do you already have C19 pieces from that factory which might help with id for these saucers? :)
-
Very interesting. I downloaded the image and cannot see a pontil mark. And is that rim cut and polished? So blown from the top maybe?
Also interesting. Those dabs are applied in a specific way and it looks to be the same way as those on my vases. Now ... I'm not sure if all makers applied them in the same way (maybe applying dabs and trails has a well known 'method') but if they didn't ... then maybe the maker of that tumbler and the maker of my vases is the same maker?
m
-
Hi Paul, thanks for this info. Yes I did collect Harry Powell pieces many years ago, but let them go to concentrate on the 1930s era. I agree that these saucers are not from this early period, not as delicate. But they are well made especially as to how the tears have been applied. At the moment not able to post better images because of restrictions in my iPad.
-
Can't see a pontil mark either m, so unsure how the V&A Webb piece made, though suspect a dip mould, do you think? - but wouldn't there be a need to attach the base of the piece to the rod afterwards in order to provide the top with a fire polished rim? If you look at many C19 largish drinking glasses (without stems) - for example beer etc. - those frequently have very wide depressions underneath where the scar was removed, and assume such mould made designs had to be blown from the top.
Seems unlikely that the Webb pieces would have been sold with a cut/bevelled finish to the top rim - that was more of a Continental feature I thought.
Traditionally, hand made stemware was made in three parts - except the drawn stem variety which were only two - but all needed final finishing of the top rim which meant attaching to the rod and then removal of the scar when cold.
Leslie Jackson does include some champagne saucers designed by T. G. Jackson c. 1870, but they're of a pan-topped variety rather than the plain saucers we would recognize from the C20 - similar to those posted in this thread.
-
I am certain my vases are Jules Barbe decorated (reference vase in Charles Hajdamach British Glass and also the specific way he did something in his gilding design and also application). And I think they are Stuart. The dabs and trails are it looks to me, applied in the same way as the one in the V&A and imo they were hand applied. I don't know why but there is a curious reflective line across the dab and it appears on the one in the V&A as well. Yet to the eye when I am looking at the vases the dabs and trails appear to have been applied as one application if you see what I mean. They do not have a pontil mark under the foot :o