Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Yxeli on December 24, 2021, 02:57:00 PM
-
Hi, Thank you for reading and happy holidays!
I have attached a photo of a recent find at a thrift shop, Owner told me it came from the UK but no other information. Its 4.5 inches tall with no markings. Thanks in advance for any help with identification!
-
It might possibly be one of the Italian Empoli makers.
-
I don't want to get your hopes up but there are examples of Clichy glass vases on Ebay and elsewhere online which are very similar, but you can't always trust the attributions.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/154742922036?hash=item2407659b34:g:KQYAAOSwP99fggG4
-
apologies for the similarity of suggestion - I had in fact typed my words before seeing Nev's comments. My source was Wilkinson's 'The Hallmarks of Antique Glass'.
regret I've not the slightest clue either, but ................ blue and white anti-clockwise spiraling was apparently a feature of some bulbous shaped vases from France - Clichy, St. Louis and Baccarat.
I'm not remotely suggesting this piece has that sort of origin or age, but if this one looks to be old then that might be worth looking at.
Would be useful, and if nothing else interesting, so see a picture of the underside - the pontil area - also to know if there is fact any wear on the base and wider parts of the glass. thanks.
-
Welcome :)
The decor is in the Clichy book but the caption on that particular piece which is not the same shape as yours, says Attributed to Clichy.
So the decor is in the book, but unfortunately not definitively designated Clichy rather just 'attributed to'. However it was deemed important enough to include it in the book.
The shape is familiar on your piece though so that's another plus :)
-
Nev B, Paul S and Flying Free, Happy New Year!
Wow how interesting, thank you all so much! It's fantastic to have some manufacturers names that I can now research, Much obliged!
I have never thought of collecting anything before, I imagine the glassblower must have been having a very fun day when his breath made this because it makes me feel alot of joy :) And now I would love to have a little multicoloured collection of these little bulbous things, even if this is just a modern cheap ripoff!
Nev B, thank you for linking the similar Ebay one. I notice that the foot (is that was its called on glass??) is much more pronounced than on mine. I wonder if this might mean mine is much more recent?
Paul S, I have attached a photo of the base (or pontil? new vocabulary for me!) as requested. On the edges of the base (or foot?), when I run my fingers across it, there does seem to be some very small chips, and on the base itself, there is a larger chip too. I'm not sure how old it seems to be, the colours are so opaque and vibrant I initially imagined that this might have been made much more recently, maybe in the 80's or 90's? But I suppose that with glass, vibrancy and opacity wouldn't really change with time? I am an absolute novice as you most probably have guessed by now lol :)
Thank you all again!
-
Hi - thanks for the additional picture - IMHO what we see on the base of yours suggests that your piece on balance is more likely to be modern rather than C19 - but no matter, yours is colourful and attractive. The 'finish' in the centre of the underside of the piece here appears to lack quality, and certainly there doesn't appear to be a shallow ground/polished depression - the sort of finish that collectors call a pontil mark - but then again as you can imagine, pieces of genuine Clichy pink and white spiral decorated glass aren't an everyday occurrence here :) A pontil mark can also be the opposite of the shallow depression - sometimes the worker for whatever reason, doesn't remove the sharp/rough finish on the base, and this effect is then referred to as a pontil scar.
The ebay example, linked above - may well be the real deal, though unfortunately the description lacks any reference as to provenance or sources of attribution, so we're left with only the sellers comments as to origin, and the knowledge that some of these French factories are known to have made pieces in similar pink/blue colorways. Apparently, the connection in Wilkinson is to paperweights from those sources that were made in similar colours in spiral fashion.
Suggestion: put yours on ebay - if it sells immediately, it may well have been Clichy - if you still have it in six month's time, then likely it wasn't ;) Only joking of course, and remember to buy only pieces you like - that way you can enjoy looking at them for a long time.
P.S. quote ...................... "I have never thought of collecting anything before" - I can't imagine going through a day, a week, a month, a year without collecting - collecting is a passion - a whole way of life ............. but have to say I've never any spare money. People who don't collect - anything - are never as interesting as those wot do. ;) ;) ;)
Having written the above, occurs to me to wonder if in fact any of these historic factories still produce glass in appearance like the example showing here ?? Anyone know?? If so then current production of antique designs might account for pieces appearing fresh to the market.
-
I think it's close in shape to some of the pieces in the Clichy book with the bulbous hips.
I think the decor is the same as the one in the Clichy book which is marked as 'attributed to Clichy'. The Clichy book is a pretty specific tome.
I'd think that was Clichy or at least 'Attributed to Clichy' as per the book.
I'm not sure why the base looks as though the pontil mark is broken off rather than polished but the finish on the base inside the casing ie. the little flower shape where the canes join is very similar to the ebay one. So on balance I'd disagree with modern and say the same maker.
m
-
Paul S and Flying Free, Oh how exciting! Two differing opinions haha! :) This adventure with this tiny vase is really fascinating, I never expected it to be a very old piece, I joined this forum thinking 'oh this is gourgeous, i want to know the manufacturer so i can buy more' absolutely thinking this was currently, or very recently at least, still in production! Thank you both again :)
Paul S - ''The 'finish' in the centre of the underside of the piece here appears to lack quality, and certainly there doesn't appear to be a shallow ground/polished depression - the sort of finish that collectors call a pontil mark''
Yes, There isnt any depression on the base, its extremely flat in fact, apart from the large chip just south of the flower in the picture, and I've just googled some examples of pontil scars, it seems this would be positioned more centrally over the flower than to the side of it, if I'm doing my research correctly? If so then this chip is just simply a chip!
''Suggestion: put yours on ebay - if it sells immediately, it may well have been Clichy - if you still have it in six month's time, then likely it wasn't ''
Haha indeed! :) I would never though, this little thing that most probably was made in china or something isnt going anywhere!! :P
''People who don't collect - anything - are never as interesting as those wot do. ''
Oh and yes, this might be my first thing I want to collect, but I'm already feeling like I'm a much more interesting person than I was before lol! :D
''Having written the above, occurs to me to wonder if in fact any of these historic factories still produce glass in appearance like the example showing here ?? Anyone know?? If so then current production of antique designs might account for pieces appearing fresh to the market.''
Now this is the crux of it for me, I want to know whose making these currently so I can call myself an actual collector and become actually interesting , as Ive been told a collection needs to be more than one piece!!
Flying Free - And then you have me thinking that this might in fact be something rare and expensive, and if thats the case, I might never become interesting lol! What a fun mystery this is. :) I was looking at the ebay one more closely just now, there seems to be little bubbles caught in the glass in the base, Ive been looking closely at mine and there arent any suspended air bubbles...might this be a sign that this is a modern version I wonder? And I do see the similarities with the flowers too...wow I may never know, but its very nice to think that maybe, just maybe, I bought something for 10 euro that might be worth a whole lot more! :) Thanks again for keeping the mystery alive!
-
100% Clichy. You will find the whole of the base has been polished to the rim of the base and not just a pontil polish to the centre. 1860-1890.
-
M, is this decor not also the same as the Flacon on page 125 of the Harrach book? The associated text is in the second column on page 114 where it says ‘...identified as Neuwelt product by Jarmila Brožová”.
Nice book btw :D
-
It does look similar and may be the same but my perception of the OP's vase was that the blue stripes were darker on the edges, rather than transparent on the edges which is what the Neuwelt stripe looks like to my eye. Do you see them differently? It's very hard to see on pics that aren't really large enough to see detail so I could be perceiving it incorrectly.
There is a long explanation of that piece in Das Bohmische Glas Band II as well.
OP's pictures are too small to really see the detail at all. If you are reading :) is it possible to upload larger pictures to a 600x 400 pixels please? Many thanks.
In addition to that though, the shape of the OP's vase is very similar to quite a few shapes by Clichy. I wouldn't have said it was a Neuwelt or Bohemian shape at all. That said, the flacon in the Neuwelt book isn't particularly Bohemian in shape admittedly, but it's much less 'distinctive' a shape than the OPs vase to be fair.
I'm not sure I agree with these comments in the reply above yours though:
Quote reply '100% Clichy. You will find the whole of the base has been polished to the rim of the base and not just a pontil polish to the centre. 1860-1890.'
I have a Clichy jug which does not have a polished pontil mark right to the edge. It's in the middle - and the jug dates to about 1845.
I have another filigrana jug which is often referred to as Clichy but I believe is in fact Saint Louis. That also has a small polished pontil mark in the middle. If I recall correctly Ivo said this was because of the way the canes were held on the pontil(??) or for some technical reason.
Also, the book says of this decor 'Clichy (attribué à)'. So even the book is not that definitive on the decor.
And puts the decor at c.1850
Can't remember what date Clichy closed but will look it up.
-
Quote reply '100% Clichy. You will find the whole of the base has been polished to the rim of the base and not just a pontil polish to the centre. 1860-1890.'
I have a Clichy jug which does not have a polished pontil mark right to the edge. It's in the middle - and the jug dates to about 1845.
I have another filigrana jug which is often referred to as Clichy but I believe is in fact Saint Louis. That also has a small polished pontil mark in the middle. If I recall correctly Ivo said this was because of the way the canes were held on the pontil(??) or for some technical reason.
Also, the book says of this decor 'Clichy (attribué à)'. So even the book is not that definitive on the decor.
And puts the decor at c.1850
I did not say that ALL Clichy would have a polished pontil right to the edge, only that the example under discussion did.
1850...1860...does it really make a difference? Also not produced one year only but over a commercial time.
If you care to question my 1860-1890, then where do you get your 1845 from? Where not Clichy paperweights, from which the vases in question a derivative, first produced in 1846?
-
It does look similar and may be the same but my perception of the OP's vase was that the blue stripes were darker on the edges, rather than transparent on the edges which is what the Neuwelt stripe looks like to my eye. Do you see them differently? It's very hard to see on pics that aren't really large enough to see detail so I could be perceiving it incorrectly.
There is a long explanation of that piece in Das Bohmische Glas Band II as well.
I’ve had to use a slight magnification, but I would say the photo in the book has the same blue stripes with a darker boarder just like yxeli’s example, then the clear gap before the white. It doesn't look to me as though it’s a shadow or optical effect. Easiest to see in the middle of the bottle and left side of the stopper where the light is direct. It is difficult to see though. Couldn’t comment on shape.
-
I did not say that ALL Clichy would have a polished pontil right to the edge, only that the example under discussion did.
1850...1860...does it really make a difference? Also not produced one year only but over a commercial time.
If you care to question my 1860-1890, then where do you get your 1845 from? Where not Clichy paperweights, from which the vases in question a derivative, first produced in 1846?
You quite rightly point out that you did not say all Clichy pieces have a large polished pontil mark. I was just pointing out that one piece I own from that mid 1800s period, in fact dated by the book La Cristallerie de Clichy as c. 1845, has a normal polished pontil mark in the middle of the base. I did not say, but should have made clear, that it is not a filigrana piece. It is enamel decorated on clear transparent glass. I also pointed out that neither does another piece have a large polished pontil mark, a piece which is possibly from Saint Louis, is filigrana often seen sold as Clichy but a piece I believe could be from Saint Louis, a similar period mid 1800s. And then pointing out what the reason might be why it has a smaller polished pontil mark.
1850/1860 to me does make a difference though perhaps that's splitting hairs. It depends what period you collect I guess. My interest is in glass 1800-1850. 1850 was very near the start of the Clichy house and just around the 1851 Great Exhibition where they exhibited and Maes was awarded a medal. Also as time goes on it's quite interesting to see in the book the development of the filigrana and also the types of shapes. They do change with the fashions to some degree.
There are quite a few filigrana pieces in the book that are dated to 1845-1850 - two of which, a pair, are a similar shape and filigrana decor to the OPs vase but are mounted with metal as jugs and set into metal bases.
I have no idea of the date when Clichy paperweights were invented/first produced. There is very detailed information the book but I'd need to translate and I have no time at the moment.
-
This gives some information on the Cristallerie Clichy period - the sale to Sevres went ahead in 1889 and the name Clichy wasn't used after that if I understand it correctly (open to correction as had to translate):
1842-1889
https://leverreetlecristal.wordpress.com/tag/maes/
-
Why is the 1851 Exhibition of interest to you if as you say dates are significant to a person interested only up to 1850?
We were talking about filigree vases be they Clichy or St. Louis and you choose to present without any qualification an item of a different and earlier period as an example.
Comparing apples with pears me thinks.
-
This gives some information on the Cristallerie Clichy period - the sale to Sevres went ahead in 1889 and the name Clichy wasn't used after that if I understand it correctly (open to correction as had to translate):
No, quite the opposite. The Sevres name was not used after 1889. It became known as Cristallerie de Clichy
-
Interesting. Thanks. Going back to the dates of the Clichy operation it seems that in 1895 Clichy closed.
https://www.clichy-tourisme.fr/decouvrir/patrimoine/la-cristallerie-maes/
The Office de Tourisme de Clichy La Garenne says:
'Vers 1895, l’entreprise ferme définitivement ses portes.'
It closed it's doors for good around 1895.
quote from site:
'La Cristallerie de Clichy a été fondée en 1842 par Louis-Joseph Maës. Elle est au XIXe siècle l’une des principales cristalleries françaises. Maës et Clémandot inventent un nouveau cristal appelé cristal de Clichy qui sera à la base de toutes les créations de la manufacture.
Cette innovation donne rapidement à la Cristallerie de Clichy une renommée mondiale et lui permet d’obtenir les plus hautes récompenses au cours des Expositions Universelles du XIXe siècle. La Rose de Clichy, un décor souvent utilisé dans ses presse-papiers, est une véritable signature de la Cristallerie de Clichy. Vers 1895, l’entreprise ferme définitivement ses portes. Il ne reste de la propriété que le terrain de la Croix-Rouge Française.'
-
This gives some information on the Cristallerie Clichy period - the sale to Sevres went ahead in 1889 and the name Clichy wasn't used after that if I understand it correctly (open to correction as had to translate):
No, quite the opposite. The Sevres name was not used after 1889. It became known as Cristallerie de Clichy
In the book page 146 it appears to say that for a period
beyond 1896 Cristallerie Clichy existed under the name of 'Cristalleries de Sèvres et de Clichy Réunies' .
-
I’ve had to use a slight magnification, but I would say the photo in the book has the same blue stripes with a darker boarder just like yxeli’s example, then the clear gap before the white. It doesn't look to me as though it’s a shadow or optical effect. Easiest to see in the middle of the bottle and left side of the stopper where the light is direct. It is difficult to see though. Couldn’t comment on shape.
I honestly think that without them together in person it's too hard to tell. The one in the Clichy book I think has darker edges to the blue stripe cane.
I see what you mean about the Neuwelt book one about the slightly darker edging on the cane ( I think I see what you mean) but to me it looks as though there are clear stripes between each blue and white cane and on the one in the Clichy book I don't think there are clear stripes showing between each cane ... but they might be! I'm just trying to imagine how you might get darker edges to the blue canes ... but looking at some other pieces in the Clichy book on the same page, they seem to show turquoise blue canes with dark blue edging to them and I don't think that's a shadow or anything. That said, those pieces do have clear glass showing between the turquoise with dark blue edging stripe and the white stripe! Difficult.
It's impossible to compare absolutely in detail unless OP can upload clearer photos and in larger format so the detail of her vase can be seen more clearly.
-
Hi All!
I'm sorry that I cant get a bigger pic just now as I'm travelling, but what I can say is that the vase has clear glass stripes along with the blue and white. The blue gets darker towards the edges. :)
This discussion is quite academic and as I havent got a clue, I shall leave it in your capable hands and shall supply more pics as requested when I get the chance! ;)
Thanks!
-
Why is the 1851 Exhibition of interest to you if as you say dates are significant to a person interested only up to 1850?
We were talking about filigree vases be they Clichy or St. Louis and you choose to present without any qualification an item of a different and earlier period as an example.
Comparing apples with pears me thinks.
Because photography wasn't available at that time, and pattern books are hard to come by or in some cases, non existent. And fortunately, during that period of the Great Exhibition and leading up to it, the Arts Journal was writing long pieces and descriptions of some of the glass to be displayed or being made, as well as showing engravings of some pieces.
Also in the illustrated catalogues of the exhibition there were a number of engravings of the glass on show. Some of those pieces were made in Bohemia prior to 1851. Of course there are descriptions of items of British manufacture shown in the Birmingham Exhibition in 1849 and also lists of British glass manufacturers items submitted for the 1850 Competition of the Society. But without a picture they are in many ways meaningless e.g. 'Butter and cover in Oriental green glass' anyone? .. . I mean that could be anything frankly. So the Great Exhibition was a good place to see engraving pictures of the pieces on display. Pieces that were being made up to 1851 which covers the period I'm most interested in as well. There was a difference in style and fashion by 1860.
And whilst of course, manufacturers I'm sure continued to make glass in the same old same old style all over the world- the best sellers I presume - there were also distinct changes in glass over the period between 1850 and 1890.
-
These precise dates and actual company name are really all a little pedantic. Clichy in the context we are talking about is glass made in France by a company originally called Clichy between the dates of around 1850 and 1900. If it were 1849 would it matter and if so, is it January 1849 or September 1849 and if either was it the 14th of the month or the 28th of the month. Do you get my drift?
-
I don't need to get your drift. ;D
Do you have any primary reference source to back up your assertion that this piece is '100% Clichy'?
-
Wow! So what are the distinct differences between glass of 1850 and 1860. Please enlighten me.
Also, when you mention the French heyday, you are I assume, referring to the Art Nouveau period of French glass such as Galle, Daum, Lalique and others of the period. This was and is now accepted as the top of French, (European), glass design but in terms of hand blown quality glass not the heyday.
-
Do you have any primary reference source to back up your assertion that this piece is '100% Clichy'?
No, just experience. Do you have any primary reference to show this is not Clichy and if not, by whom?
-
I amended my post as I was halfway through typing a longer reply and decided not to - but you have replied to what I originally wrote as part of a text.
-
Do you have any primary reference source to back up your assertion that this piece is '100% Clichy'?
No, just experience. Do you have any primary reference to show this is not Clichy and if not, by whom?
And that is where we part company probably :)
I like to try and identify glass correctly. Admittedly I'm prone to gut instinct and wanting something to be by a particular maker - can't help myself :) ... but even I know that my 'opinion' or experience for what it's worth, is not what is required to correctly identify a glass maker. It can be a good guide to a first place to start investigating or researching. But it's not a good guide for identifying something as definitely by a particular maker.
-
Is this any better?
-
but even I know that my 'opinion' or experience for what it's worth, is not what is required to correctly identify a glass maker.
Your experience is enough to give a considered opinion on the current acceptance of who made a particular type of glass. As Cyril Manley proves, new information can replace accepted convention and that is no bad thing.
To constantly use a negative opinion without alternative proof or good cause is not conducive to finding an identification of a glass object.
If I needed to, I can find plenty of Bonhams, Sotheby's, Christies references to Clichy glass though of course, some may in fact be St.Louis or Baccarat.
Attribution is / was based on current understanding unless of course they reference an original source. With antique glass it can sometimes be a case of collecting in a class of types such as Wrythen Striped vases by Clichy, St. Louis, Baccarat. Salviati of the 19th century is another example. but let us not complicate the matter.
-
- I can only speak for myself - part of my reason for wanting to ensure items are identified correctly is the fact that some items are sold and therefore purchased at much higher cost than their real value, precisely because they have been mis-identified.
In some cases deliberately mis-identified. In others, well, of course, there is always caveat emptor but that's difficult for any new collector especially with glass which is for the most part unsigned, especially antique and much vintage glass.
In any area of the arts, the name of the maker can skew the price quite dramatically depending on desirability and availability at the time. With glass, much unsigned, it becomes important the buyer knows what they are buying.
In years gone by there was not the wealth of information available at the fingertips so items were identified on whatever knowledge was available from books, word of mouth etc.
- Fortunately time has moved on - much information is now available on the internet and at fingertips and the museums particularly have made great strides in terms of making their collections available to view online. There is also a wealth of information to explore out there in other languages.
In my opinion it's important to attribute and say it is 'possibly by' and give the reasons for that thought process, rather than deliberately identify an item as from a particular maker when there is no real proof of the authenticity.
It stops the situation of people paying huge amounts of money for something that may not warrant the price.
- Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and so people will always pay more for something they desire for whatever reason regardless of the maker. However it's important they know the market value of that item and aren't misled into thinking they own a priceless antique/collectable.
- The other part of my reason for wanting the glass I own to be correctly identified is, that for me, researching a maker or glass house is a huge part of the fun and interest of acquiring knowledge about glass making. I love glass and often I love researching it as much as or more than the actual piece :)
m
P.S.
And in the case of this particular piece, the canes decor appears to be shown in the Clichy book but it's difficult to be really sure they are exactly the same :
1) I think there could be differences (clear glass stripes that I can't see on the Clichy decor) and
2) The Clichy book has a descriptor of 'attributed to' under this particular piece that has similar canes decor and
3) The shape is very 'Clichy' like to my eye but there is not an exact match to the shape in the book, or not that I could see and
4) Ekimp has raised the issue of a piece with similar(same?) cane decor being in the From Neuwelt to the Whole World book (same piece and detailed description appears on Das Bohmische Glas Band II ) and that piece being identified as Neuwelt by Dr Jarmila Brožová
So, enough queries to mean it needs to be further discussed before attribution or identification.
-
There is one here https://antikes-glas.de/en/neuwelt/bottle-colorless-glass-with-thread-decoration-josephinenhuette-neuwelt-p-2504.html?language=en that looks to me to be the same decor as the op’s and the one in the Harrach book but a different colour. Attributed to either Neuwelt or Josephinenhütte with references.
-
Hey guys, couldnt get the image quality right with the 125 kb maximum, so I uploaded them elsewhere, Here are the links:
https://ibb.co/JzFqyTn (https://ibb.co/JzFqyTn)
https://ibb.co/Ntxdckj (https://ibb.co/Ntxdckj)
https://ibb.co/NYWLfwr (https://ibb.co/NYWLfwr)
https://ibb.co/VMZQ6Ym (https://ibb.co/VMZQ6Ym)
If you need more let me know!
Thanks all!
-
Two blue and white ‘Josephinenhütte’ bechers here:
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/8742188_285-kleiner-becher-graflich-schaffgotsch-sche-josephin
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/37698553_becher
And similar here:
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/4984931_244-becher-josephinenhuette-glass-beaker-threads-old
-
Thanks so much for your help Ekimp!
I think the colours match very much to my piece....I reckon you could be spot on ! :)
-
The shape isn't particularly Bohemian though.
The canes may be the same/very similar but it is possible they could also be found on Clichy glass as well. There are two jugs mounted in metal rims and bases in a similar shape to your vase in the Clichy book - with the same/similar cane decor. They are in the Musee Historique et Archeologique de Clichy and are identified as Clichy.
There is also a pink and white decanter in a similar cane decor. To my eye though the canes appear thinner than those on this decanter with the white being slightly wider than the pink in the Clichy decanter:
https://antikes-glas.de/en/neuwelt/bottle-colorless-glass-with-thread-decoration-josephinenhuette-neuwelt-p-2504.html?language=en
There is also a pink and white striped bowl on the opposite page in the Clichy book page 300 - and the pink and white with clear edge canes on that look to be the same width pink and white.
Can you look at the base of the vase and see whether it looks as though it has been polished smooth almost right to the edge of the vase.
English Weather appears to have a similar (the same?) piece and seems to be saying that the piece would be polished right to the edge of the base nearly.
Is yours like this? and is the rim of your vase cut and polished flat or is it rounded?
That pontil finish polished to the edge of the base is something seen on French glass - but not seen on Bohemian glass.
-
Thank you Flying Free :)
The base seems to be the same texture (very smooth and shiny, so polished?) right to the very edge, and then the very edges of the base have some small chips, so not polished there?
The rim doesnt seem to be cut and polished at all, just rounded as you say.
:) Thank you so much for your expertise and time!
-
Heres a picture of the rim if that helps?
https://ibb.co/8bw6YPN
-
Yxeli, I'd go with Clichy if only for the fact your vase is a miniature one, as you say, only 4.5"/11.5cm. Either way you're on to a winner.
-
Thanks Nev,
Wow, well, I still dont want to believe it because that means I'll probably never have a collection! :( But one day if/ when the chips are down and I really need the money, Ill put it online for sale, and I'll come back to this thread and update you all. I'll say 'attributed to Clichy', and if theres a bidding war then...Ill come back and tell you you were right!! :)
Thanks so much!
-
Yxeli, I'd go with Clichy if only for the fact your vase is a miniature one, as you say, only 4.5"/11.5cm. Either way you're on to a winner.
As Nev says, you’ve got something good either way.
As regards the height, the Flacon with this decor (or very similar) in the Harrach book is 14cm high, I assume that includes the tear shape stopper that looks to be a third of the overall height. So the bottle part is probably just over 9cm or 3.5 inches - even smaller.
-
Thanks for confirming the base looks polished/shiny.
Is it slightly indented curved inwards? as though it has a polished circular pontil mark covering the whole base? It's just too difficult to tell from your photographs.
I'd lean to Clichy rather than Bohemian as well. Need to find a shape match.
m
-
English Weather appears to have a similar
Well actually, I never claimed to currently own a piece. I was speaking from experience but quite right, the polished pontil to the very edge is not a Bohemian trait.
The bands of canes are a different size on the carafe because it is a bigger size.
I am going controversial now, (nothing new). The attribution of the carafe as being Josephinehutte, are I believe, incorrect. People have taken the technique of canes in glass from one item(s) and made them all the same when they are clearly different though in some eyes, similar.
I will send examples in next post
-
Whilst these may be "similar" they are very different from the Clichy production.
The glass has a slightly grey tinge and is thinner with the space between the canes able to be felt as ridges, (because it is not a thickly cased).
As Free flying pointed out, the shape is not Bohemian of the initial vase in question.
Why would anyone list in auction an item that is Clichy as Josephinehutte? Look at the prices!
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/4984933_becher-josephinenhuette-glass-beaker-tendrild-old
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/4268363_268-becher-josephinenhuette-glass-beaker-vintage-old
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/8742191_288-becher-graflich-schaffgotsch-sche-josephinenhutte
-
Is it slightly indented curved inwards? as though it has a polished circular pontil mark covering the whole base? It's just too difficult to tell from your photographs.
No, not al all concave, the base is very flat! :)
-
English Weather appears to have a similar
Well actually, I never claimed to currently own a piece. I was speaking from experience but quite right, the polished pontil to the very edge is not a Bohemian trait.
The bands of canes are a different size on the carafe because it is a bigger size.
I am going controversial now, (nothing new). The attribution of the carafe as being Josephinehutte, are I believe, incorrect. People have taken the technique of canes in glass from one item(s) and made them all the same when they are clearly different though in some eyes, similar.
I will send examples in next post
I'm not sure if we're talking at cross purposes but just to clarify:
I'm aware that if the item is larger the canes may appear bigger, but what I meant was that on a couple of the Clichy pieces, it definitely looks as though the white cane is deliberately thinner than the pink cane for example, they both have clear 'stripe' showing between each of them but I think the white canes are purposefully thinner than the pink regardless of the size of the item - see page 303 La Cristallerie de Clichy.
I think we're in difficult territory when comparing canes on items - Josephinenhutte used many as far as I know. The first millefiori paperweight came from Bohemia if I recall correctly.
There is a comment here on this paperweight website about early Bohemian millefiori production saying:
'There is documentation to suggest that some of these factories engaged in the manufacture of millefiori as early as 1833.'
https://www.paperweights.com/paperweights/bohemian.htm
-
No, not al all concave, the base is very flat! :)
Thanks - interesting.
m
-
How do I pick up a quote from another post so it appears in a tinted box when I post an answer?
-
How do I pick up a quote from another post so it appears in a tinted box when I post an answer?
Click where it says ‘quote’ at the top right of the post you’re interested in.
The Flacon in the Harrach book can be seen in the third picture here https://www.kavkabook.cz/en/p/from-neuwelt-to-the-whole-world-300-years-of-harrach-glass That image isn’t very good (you can zoom in a bit) but to me looking in the actual book it looks like the exact same canes as in Yxeli’s vase and in blue/white versions in the Dr Fischer auctions in my links in reply 34. Given the limitations of the printed photo in the book and screen reproduction, I appreciate they might not actually be the same but very similar, or the same canes used by different manufacturers.
Scaling off the screen, the base of Yxeli’s vase is only about an inch diameter, would that make any difference to how it was finished?
-
to English Weather:
click on the top right button on the post which should say quote on it.
Then if in doubt click post and post the quote then click the Modify button on the post you've just posted and you should be able to type underneath all the quoted text that comes up.
To Ekimp:
It's difficult. It's very hard to compare canes off a screen or picture. The way they've been cased in clear or if they've not been cased in clear, how they've been laid on to the piece etc. It's really hard to compare and errors of judgement can be made without having them both in hand.
The size of the base of the piece should not make it difficult to do a large polished pontil mark almost to the edge. I have a cameo piece, tiny, that is in debate/research (was told probably Bohemian but I think it's definitely French) that has a large polished pontil mark right to the edge and it's very small. Probably 2.5cm diameter or less on the base.
This picture of my little cameo piece shows the green overlay showing through the base in speckles - so isn't the best to demonstrate that, despite the snapped off little mark in the middle still showing, it has a large concave polished pontil mark almost right to the edge of the base. It's a tiny piece 9cm tall with a tiny footed base:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=59117.0;attach=169530;image
-
No, not al all concave, the base is very flat! :)
Whilst I don't have the item in front of me and you do, I question your, "very flat" observation. If the base were "very flat" then there would be wear all over the flat surface where as I am guessing, because I can't tell from your pictures, that there is no evidence of wear to the base because the wear point is the very narrow edge of the rim.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
-
To Ekimp:.....
Thanks.
-
Whilst I don't have the item in front of me and you do, I question your, "very flat" observation. If the base were "very flat" then there would be wear all over the flat surface where as I am guessing, because I can't tell from your pictures, that there is no evidence of wear to the base because the wear point is the very narrow edge of the rim.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
You are absolutely right that there is no wear and tear on the base apart from the large chip in the middle. the only tiny chips are on the very edges.
Well, maybe your right actually, if my eyes aren't deceiving me, and im using my thumb to run across the base to feel if there is an indent, maybe just a very slight concave but nearly imperceptable.. theredoesn't seem to be any change in the light reflection on the base if you know what i mean...no curve to the light refelction I dont think :/ ??
-
Here's some pictures??
https://ibb.co/6cQzZ6y
https://ibb.co/pvZbrd7
-
can you please upload your pictures directly to the Glass Message Board ?
If you have problems please contact the moderator. Many thanks.
m
-
No said the "concave" was dramatic :)
It is often very subtle especially on the smaller pieces.
-
I'd forgotten and just to ensure incorrect views don't get passed on:
Annathal bei Schuttenhofen Glas and I think Adolfshutte bei Winterberg and also Buquoy all used large polished pontil marks in the Biedermeier period. All Bohemian makers.
So it's not a specifically French preserve.
However I don't think any were known for their filigrana/canes.
I still think this is more likely French than Bohemian because of the base finish and the shape.
m
-
Stevens & Williams produced a large polished pontil especially during the 1920-30's period but a large pontil was not the point.
Additionally, I don't say no one else polished the bases as on these Clichy vases.
On the small vase we are discussing, the polishing on the base goes right to the very edge of the rim and so it is more than just polishing the pontil, it is by artistic design. I do not recall if this base polishing goes to the rim on larger Clichy vases of this technique.
-
yes I know what you mean - I have a number of S&W pieces and they do have a large polished pontil - in comparison to what we might see as a the usual polished pontil average size, but the S&W are nowhere near right to the edge.
The Bohemian makers I've mentioned however, polished almost to the edge of the piece and in comparing a couple of the pieces I own to an early (c.1820s) French piece from Bercy there is really no difference in the polished base finish.
Although actually if I'm being picky none, including the Bercy piece, are absolutely right to the very edge, which my little cameo piece is and presumably so is the OPs.
-
Mildly confusing in that you say, "there is really no difference in the polished base finish" and in the next sentence, "if I'm being picky none, including the Bercy piece, are absolutely right to the very edge"....is that not different then?
Can't say I can make out from the picture of the cameo that it has a polished base. Actually looks like not polished at all from the picture posted.....but then I don't have it in front of me and you do.
Can't say I know of "Bercy" glass, (or is it the designer?). Do you have any details you can share...please :)
-
Cristallerie de Bercy
Enjoy :)
http://www.culture.fr/collections/resultats?keywords=CRISTALLERIE+DE+BERCY
They are from c.1820s
This is a great book - highly recommend - In French 'Baguiers et verres a boires cu XIXeme siecle', Leon Darnis
http://www.verre-histoire.org/2014/12/24/baguiers-et-verres-a-boires-du-xixe-siecle-par-leon-darnis/
-
With regard to the polished base - mmm, they do have a highly polished lightly concave pontil marks nearly right to the edge. There is a tiny rim showing on both the French and the Bohemian pieces and actually probably slightly more on the French ... but not like the rim showing on say, an S&W piece. The pontil mark is nearly the entire base but not quite.
But the cameo does have it polished absolutely almost right to the edge - slightly concave and at first I just thought the cracked off pontil rod mark in the middle was it, until I felt it and look under light and realised it had been polished over but not quite enough to remove the remains of the rough spot left by removing the pontil.
Presumably not thick enough glass to polish it deep enough, so it's a shallow concave right to the edge but the mark is left.
-
Out of interest, are you able to picture the base across the plane so as to show the polished base.
-
Example of a non Clichy filigree and ribbon bottle
Glass is slightly grey compared to Clichy.
Foot and rim are "lumpy"..rim is distorted
Glass is bubbly
Base is concaved but not polished concaved. Polished pontil.
Last picture is of the top
-
Interesting comparison here for research? - Josephinenhutte with an applied foot and also the thin striped white cane with 5 thin white stripes:
https://antikes-glas.de/en/josephinenhuette/glass-vase-with-white-threads-lace-filigree-josephine-glasworks-p-535.html
And a one with the plain single blue and white canes showing the base photographs:
https://antikes-glas.de/josephinenhuette/vase-blauen-weissen-baendern-josephinenhuette-1850-p-257.html
-
I am finding it hard to understand why it is only on Antikes Glas Neuwirth and Dr. Ficsher Auctions (he being a dealer as well as an auctioneer) that we find this glassware attributed to Josephinhuette whilst all other references I find say Clichy/St. Louis and occasionally Baccarat.
Perhaps both streams of information are both right and wrong with cross mis-representation on both sides.
I have so far not seen any museum held examples of Josephinhuette spiral tapes vases or bottles where as I have seen Clichy, St. Louis and Baccarat examples .
-
Just adding a link to some further information here on Millefiori paperweights from Riesengebirge and Isergebirge:
https://www.paperweights.com/paperweights/bk_kordasiewicz1.htm
'Glass Paperweights: The Heritage of the 19th Century Riesengebirge and Isergebirge Glassworks
by Marek Kordasiewicz
-
I am finding it hard to understand why it is only on Antikes Glas Neuwirth and Dr. Ficsher Auctions (he being a dealer as well as an auctioneer) that we find this glassware attributed to Josephinhuette whilst all other references I find say Clichy/St. Louis and occasionally Baccarat.
Perhaps both streams of information are both right and wrong with cross mis-representation on both sides.
I have so far not seen any museum held examples of Josephinhuette spiral tapes vases or bottles where as I have seen Clichy, St. Louis and Baccarat examples .
This roemer, just as an example, is not 'attributed to', it is identified as being from Josephinenhutte. The source is:
Lit: S. Zelasko. Josephinenhütte 1842-1900, Seite 180.
https://antikes-glas.de/josephinenhuette/roemer-eingeschlossenen-spiralfaeden-blau-weiss-josephinenhuette-1850-p-3424.html
Here is a picture of Dr Stefania Zelasko:
https://jeleniagora.naszemiasto.pl/ksiaznica-karkonoska-promocja-ksiazki-dr-stefanii-zelasko/ar/c13-2483707
Here is a video of the collection in the Muzeum Karkonoska - see 3.18 for filigrana examples. But do watch the whole thing. It's an amazing collection with an interesting presenter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA76fZZlJcg
You're welcome to the links my research has provided for you :) both here and on the French Museum site for Bercy examples :)
-
see my post above and also
this information from Source reference: Paperweights 101, Doris B. Robinson
scroll down to page 26 on the link for a little more information on Bohemian and Silesian paperweights 19th century
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/PAPERWEIGHTS_101/NpQkAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=riesengebirge+paperweight&pg=PA26&printsec=frontcover
-
Flying free; Interesting links etc. Kind of proves my point. None of the examples match the Clichy / St. Louis Blue and White / Pink and White tapes examples.
Nearest is the decanter on the video which has pink tapes only. All the Blue and White are different to the Clichy / St. Louis in significant ways.
Similar, is not the same. The examples you give may well be German / Bohemian (I do not doubt it) but to extrapolate those examples to then state that the two ribbon examples to be the same maker is a jump to say the least. Even the filigree examples are different with non German / Bohemian shapes attributed to be German / Bohemian rather than French of known French shapes.
I am not questioning you but the German dealers / auction houses that choose to extend the attributions, in my mind, for their own sales agenda.
-
Flying free; Interesting links etc. Kind of proves my point. None of the examples match the Clichy / St. Louis Blue and White / Pink and White tapes examples.
Nearest is the decanter on the video which has pink tapes only. All the Blue and White are different to the Clichy / St. Louis in significant ways.
Similar, is not the same. The examples you give may well be German / Bohemian (I do not doubt it) but to extrapolate those examples to then state that the two ribbon examples to be the same maker is a jump to say the least. Even the filigree examples are different with non German / Bohemian shapes attributed to be German / Bohemian rather than French of known French shapes.
I am not questioning you but the German dealers / auction houses that choose to extend the attributions, in my mind, for their own sales agenda.
In the example of discussion on this thread, Antikes Neuwirth gives reference sources to the book by Stefania Zelasko with page number for references. I do not have that book unfortunately.
Dr Fischer gives reference sources to that book and to many others as well for their pieces.
The researchers of those books have had access to documentation that I could not ever hope to see. I'm sure given their work and their research, they are aware of the contrast and compare to French work and what the differences are between them in order to come to their conclusions and produce the books and research.
I have merely given you a few examples of Bohemian canework to try to demonstrate to you that filigrana glass was made in Bohemia and Silesia in the 19th century.
I have supplied you with reference sources for the book which gives the info on millefiori paperweights from there going back to the 1830s. (You mentioned the paperweights, hence me addressing that point).
I have given you links to examples of filigrana and caned pieces in the museums and shown you the person who wrote the book on Josephinenhutte, Dr Stefania Zelasko. That is the reference source that Antikes Neuwirth and Dr Fischer Auctions give for some of their items which have been linked to. Hence me providing that link to the museum video of some of the collection in that museum.
I never claimed to be able to show you the entire array of every piece of filigrana or cane work made in Bohemia in Silesia at that time. I was just trying to demonstrate my point that saying something is French does not necessarily make it so especially if there might be a decor match from elsewhere.
You have just said ' I don't believe it'.
Questioning is anyone's prerogative of course.
I wasn't trying to 'prove' the OP's vase or yours was made in Bohemia. But quite clearly there is a blue and white filigrana/caned perfume bottle in the 'From Neuwelt to the Whole World' book. It was also shown in Das Bohmische Glass Band II written much earlier. It has canes that look like the ones on the OP's vase. I can't show you the actual piece as it's in the books and isn't in that particular museum collection video I linked to, but both myself and Ekimp have the book and can confirm the canes are the same/or so similar to the ones on the OP's piece as to be confusing. And I don't have time to go through all my references to see if I can find the one in the book in another of the museum collections online I'm afraid. So you are going to have to take our word for it.
You questioned the Bohemian connection. That piece in the book is not a one off piece of odd filigrana, there are many examples which is what I was trying to show. I hope you can see from my links there are others from other makers in the region.
Filigrana and caned pieces were being made there at that time (mid 1800s) and therefore I would suggest it is not just a simple case of being able to say the OP's vase is French. Even less so being able to say the OP's vase is by a particular maker when even the Clichy book refers to the piece with similar canes as being 'attributed to'. So in my view, it just isn't that simple.
Also, to compound the query, canes moved from maker to maker as I understand it.
It may be French, it may be Clichy. But a shape match is needed to confirm that in my opinion. Do you have a shape match reference source?
-
I can't show you the actual piece as it's in the books and isn't in that particular museum collection video I linked to, but both myself and Ekimp have the book and can confirm the canes are the same/or so similar to the ones on the OP's piece as to be confusing.
Why can't you show me the picture in the book? If you reference it to be from that book then you can show it.
Best practice is to name the book and author, the page number and figure number if relevant.
-
You questioned the Bohemian connection.
I do not at all, question the Bohemian connection. What I do question is the attribution of many of these two colour tapes pieces to Bohemia.
Indeed, I have a book somewhere that states Bohemia reintroduced the former Venetian cane / filigree style pieces in around 1830.
-
M, is this decor not also the same as the Flacon on page 125 of the Harrach book? The associated text is in the second column on page 114 where it says ‘...identified as Neuwelt product by Jarmila Brožová”.
Nice book btw :D
I know what best practice is :) - my books and research cost me a lot of money and time. I give what information or ideas I think I might have, openly and freely to be debated, because I love glass and love researching and discussing it. As do most on this board. I do sometimes wonder why I don't behave with more reticence.
Ekimp gave the page number 125 - the illustration number is 142
The book is called From Neuwelt to the Whole World - it's copyrighted. But I'm sure there will be copies available to buy:
Concept and Text Copyright Jan Mergl, 2012
Text Copyright Helena Brozkova, Jarmila Brozova, Florian Knothe, Jan Lustinec, Jan Mergl, Lenka Merglova Pankova, Jan Schottner , 2012
Photo Copyright Gabriel Urbanek, Ondrej Kocourek, 2012
Copyright Arbor Vitae, 2012
Copyright Museum of Decorative Arts in Prague,2012
-
You questioned the Bohemian connection.
I do not at all, question the Bohemian connection. What I do question is the attribution of many of these two colour tapes pieces to Bohemia.
Indeed, I have a book somewhere that states Bohemia reintroduced the former Venetian cane / filigree style pieces in around 1830.
Perhaps you need to get more books about Bohemian Glass, read more of the documentation available online - much in German and Czech language but there's a lot out there. The net is incredibly informative.
-
Perhaps you need to get more books about Bohemian Glass, read more of the documentation available online - much in German and Czech language but there's a lot out there. The net is incredibly informative.
The Net is also incredibly misleading due to people issuing misleading information and attribution albeit in good faith. Once it is there,(on the Net), it can be referred to in what becomes a game of Chinese Whisper. Changing just a little in every hand down.
A classic was when Basil Loverage wrote an article on Gray-Stan glass. The article: Gray-Stan Glass by Basil Loverage was later quoted as being: Gray-Stan Glass made by Basil Loverage. One additional word, a world of difference.