Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Pinkspoons on November 26, 2006, 01:58:26 PM
-
Bit of an oddity, this.
5.25" tall, vertical controlled bubbles, 5 vertical optic ribs, exact match for WF's Ruby colourway, has many WF attributes in quality and design...
...but it doesn't pop up in any catalogues. There are a few 'nearly right' patterns, but the presence vertical ribs nay-say all of them. The base seems to have some indication of lobes, which would make it nearly spot on for patt 9355 (ignoring the ribbing) but they don't translate to the rest of the outside of the vase so they could just be due to the internal ribs. It's also on the Is It Whitefriars board, but on the off-chance that someone recognises it as a non-WF piece, I thought I'd post it here too.
Overview (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/pinkspoons/wf-vase.jpg)
Base (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/pinkspoons/wf-base.jpg)
Inside (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/pinkspoons/wf-inside.jpg) showing the vertical ribs
Edit: The vase next to the similar 9355 pattern:
Two Vases (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/pinkspoons/qr.jpg)
-
Whitefriars.
-
It's an uncatalogued shape, if it is... so here's hoping! :D
-
I still think it pat. 9355 Nic. I have VERY closely examined mine - I have a Sea Green and a Sapphire Blue. Both of mine have slightly different bases, one more lobed than the other. I think you may be confusing vertical optic ribs with the natural small "folds" in the glass as it tapers to the base. Almost like a crease. If they were true optic ribs, whether vertical or horizontal, they would create some distortions in the glass when viewed from the outside, which they don't seem to be doing on yours, and certainly not on mine. I do think it is a slightly "off" shape of 9355 which is a bit more tumbler shaped....don't forget these were hand blown items and some slight variations may occur....remember the beaked vases we discussed some while ago and the variations in sizes and shapes of those?? Emmi
-
The ribs are very distinct, go right to the top of the vase (as can be seen in the 3rd photograph) and do distort anything behind the glass - it's just difficult to show because the colour is dark. I'll have another go at photographing it to see if I can show the effect more fully.
-
Couldn't get one photo to show the ribbing, so I threw together a quick .gif animation. It doesn't show it terribly well, either, but it gives a bit of a hint.
It's a little over 300k, so patience may be required
Animation (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/pinkspoons/wf-anim.gif)
And a view of the world from inside the vase, giving a clear picture of the ribs:
Animation (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/pinkspoons/anim2.gif) (250k)
-
And a view of the world from inside the vase, giving a clear picture of the ribs:
Blimey it looks lile a heart operation!!!
Can't add any more Nic, you have it and are handling it, so if you don't think it conforms to Pat 9355, you'll have to keep searching! emmi
-
It's a surgeon's-eye view of the clutter on my study desk. :lol:
I would say that it conforms with a lobeless 9355 in every way, except for the ribbing.
-
Nope... I've searched and searched - and haven't found anything that conforms with this vase, so I'm just going to chalk it up as a squiffy 9355. I'm not confident enough in the differences to fall into eBay "Super-rare experimental Whitefriars" hyperbole, I'm afraid!
I always seem to find the dodgy-shaped ones! ::)
-
Remember all beautiful pieces start as a rather rough and ready first version and gradually the craftsman gets better and better and is finally making them like a "master" craftsman. That is my experience working 40 years in a glass factory!
And yes some of the "dodgy" experimental ones do get sold or given as friggers to the craftsman to sell off for some beer money.
Mind you they took the trouble to hand polish the base.......
Often the team that makes it shares a drink with the guys and ladies in the processing shop! "You scratch my back" sort of thing! ;D
-
....Hallo Pinksppons........I REALLY like your animations of the vase!! Those four internal ribs look like the interior of the 4 lobed shape, designed by William Wilson, pattern number 9411 or the small molar shape - much nearer the height of yours, W. Wilson again, pattern number 9410 (I'm looking at the molar here, circa 5.5 inches high including clear casing to the outside). The exterior 'creases' on the lobed vase are not nearly as distinct/deep as those on the molar shape (see Lesley Jackson, page 134, plate 142) so I'm thinking if there is a significant variation between these two patterns then it's reasonable to speculate that a glassmaker could conjure another variation with no surface creases or lobes at all.......put another way your vase perhaps started life as a lobed or molar but the maker changed his mind...or something::))........that it looks like a hybrid between one or other of the patterns above and 9355. Therefore a good trial or frigger. Friggers at Whitefriars were not supposed to replicate catalogue items and they vary in quality of craftmanship. There's some really wonky ones so you can tell that they were made by inexperienced staff, say footmakers pieces. Others, though, are well made and finished as a matter of pride (by gaffers and keen, talented learners especially) to be taken home as gifts for in-laws etc's. There's a few other views it'd be good to get on this'un before saying for an absolute certainty it's Whitefriars - it looks like it, though and bar the lack of casing looks like it could easily 'fit in' with the series of smooth-walled bubbly and non-bubbly vases designed by W. Wilson and G. Baxter around the 1954 and 1955 period.......if not a teeny bit before..... no casing like W. Wilsons earlier bubbly bits. Pinky
-
Hello, Stephen and Pinky. Thanks for the background information and suggestions.
Pinky, there are 5 ribs inside the vase and five faint lobe-like wobbles on the base, rather than 4.
I have a 4-lobed 9385 which is fairly smooth on the interior, but the creases on the exterior of the vase feel very much like those on the inside of mine. I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to actualy glass-making techniques, much to my shame, but are creases like that pushed and prodded into shape by hand (not literally by hand - ouch!), or made some other way?
I've taken one or two better photographs of the vase - don't know if they'll help at all...
Vase 1 (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/pinkspoons/1-5.jpg)
Vase 2 (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/pinkspoons/2-3.jpg)
Vase 3 (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/pinkspoons/3-3.jpg)
Vase 4 (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/pinkspoons/5.jpg)
Vase 5 (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/pinkspoons/6.jpg)
There's a few other views it'd be good to get on this'un before saying for an absolute certainty it's Whitefriars - it looks like it, though.
Any idea where I could get these views? It'd be nice to know that I've not just bought a wonky one for once! ;D
-
Ah... looks like the vase is going back to the wonky bin - I've just found another on eBay!
Auction (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Whitefriars-Bubble-controlled-Red-Vase_W0QQitemZ190067717260QQihZ009QQcategoryZ64877QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
-
...........hallo Pinkspoons::)).........am perplexed like you, hearing little doubting noises in my mind, questions that won't be silenced::))...I'm intrigued by the glass-making technique for this vase hence the need last night to seek 'other views'.....that is, for the sake of eliminating all the possibilities, if it's NOT a frigger or trial why start life as a molar or lobed but finish as another (5 lobed pieces as well as 4 lobed made in other shapes). Pinkspoons I'm going to have a natter with Ray Annenberg and see if he can help us. The fact that another has appeared on eBay now has 'made the voices louder'::)) and leads me to wonder whether this is a production shape that I have not searched the catalogues diligently enough for or a production shape which did not enter the catalogues - this has happened before. Or that it's not WF. I'll come back, Pinkspoons. PinkyX Please not to be putting it in your wonky bin as it looks like a very nice vase::))
-
No need to worry - it's only a hypothetical wonky bin. :D
I've asked the seller if their vase has internal ribbing too - just to double check that they're the same pattern. If so, I may put a bid in - a pair of them would be quite nice, whatever they turn out to be. If not, then the eBay one may just be an ordinary 9355 with only slight lobing (I can see an undulation towards the base in the 2nd auction photograph).
Thanks for taking the time to look into this one. :)
Edit: The seller replied, and the vase does seem to have similar internal patterns.
-
......Pinkspoons.......I'm ever so sorry - haven't had a chance to get on to Mr A yet because local property developer has just mashed down creatures and trees in my neighbourhood (before residents views due in and planning application has barely been scrutinized) and fighting to stop it on all fronts - many communications written and to be written yet.
Vidfletch has also been indisposed for his own reasons - but rang me last night....he had a look at your vase (thank you, Vidfletch) and wondered whether the bubbles weren't too small - that Wilsons tend to be more elongated. It might be of Swedish origin speculates Vidfletch.
For your info - I've got a couple of bits here that look and feel like Whitefriars but that I'm querying - they almost but not exactly match the catalogues. Orrefors/Stromberg/(Elverston or Elvers?....sorry Pinkspoons my glass mind is an absolute blank currently) Captain Dunn-Cook closely connected with one/some/all these names before he joined Whitefriars - hence a strong design link. Perhaps one of the Swedish houses mentioned above be worth a peep......Patrick Hugo a Hoganot a Go Go or another can come to help us Pinkses and clarify that elvin name.
Sorry to confuse the issue, Pinkspoons....these other bits I've got here equally stinkerish. Apologies too for lack of bubble observance. Will get on to Mr A about lobes and tumbler vase combination rationale as soon as I can but at the moment I really am tied up very tight indeed. PinkyX .....signed off then sudden thought - would people be reckoning this selenium ruby? Selenium won't turn red if in lead crystal?........tis why Full Lead Crystal Gold has an orangy tinge in certain lights - it's selenium trying to go red but can't? More muddling but can't clarify these strands currently...........
-
............and if it's a Whitefriars selenium ruby twill more than likely be cased in clear (soda based) glass not lead (water test good idea if the casing is very thin). Your vase looks uncased in the picture so I got muddled then last night it was a classic case of 'brain drain'. A few chunks (not by any means all) have managed to fall into position, though, Pinkspoons and...
I've had a chat with my old pal Hudders (Graham Hudson) who collected these some time back. He's had a look at yours and feels it's Whitefriars - 9355 mini version of 9117. He found many variations in lobe prominence (and attendant crease depth) from vase to vase. Mr A is away but've managed to sound things out with another glassmaking chum who has confirmed Hudders and your findings in lobe/crease variation by way of the method in the glassmaking.
I speculated earlier that the vase may have been a frigger based on a lobed or molar form. Well it isn't a frigger but is a variation on the lobed and molar forms. The tumbler part isn't important - that was just me being incorrect. The ruby ball is first blown into a bubble mould. Then it's cased in clear glass. Then it's blown into an open optic mould as are other lobed and the molar shapes - in your case an open optic with 5 creases. At this point the vessel/vase is roughly half the size it's going to be - the glassmaker then blows it further and shapes accordingly .The variation in lobe prominence is a function of glass weight (and gravity etc - imagine the maths - cor - I can't::)). If the glass is heavy and cased in a lot of crystal the lobes are far more prominent - that's the molar vase. If the glass is very light together with very little casing the lobes can almost be said to have been 'blown away' - there may be barely discernible creases to indicate they're there and you'll have to search the underside carefully to find the lobes. There will, of course be many 'in betweens' because the glass is hand blown.
Does this help Pinksppons? PinkyX PS the bubbles are fine says Hudders - Vidfletch still questioning
-
Hello, Pinky. Thanks for taking the time and effort to look into this vase - it is very much appreciated.
Your vase looks uncased in the picture so I got muddled then last night it was a classic case of 'brain drain'
It is uncased. Solid ruby all the way through, as far as I can see.
I had pondered the size of the bubbles too, as most of my WF bubbly pieces have quite elongated ones - except for my Parker Pen ashtray, which has equally tiny bubbles. But the other pro-WF factors outweighed the cons, so I was never really doubting that it was WF.
Emmi came to the idea earlier in the thread that this might be a 9355. Would it be okay to say that this is the general concensus?
Thanks for the explanation for how these vases are made - it's really fascinating. My knowledge of the glass-making process is woefully limited. And please forward my thanks to everyone who chipped in. :)
-
Hi Nic, since this thread started, I have purchased two of these, almost identical to yours, slightly different bottoms on each one, and bubbles similar to yours. I agree that the bubbles are not so elongated on these compared to several larger vases I have in the same range. The size of them seems to be "scaled down" to suit the smaller size of vase and are in the main more round. One of them has more obvious "creases" which you first described as vertical optic ribs, if I remember rightly, but optic ribs are a different kettle of fish entirely. So my view remains as it was earlier, that it is a 9355. It's been an interesting exercise though and a good close inspection of a piece which is generally just "on the shelf" brings to light some interesting observations! Cheers Emmi
-
.........I think you're probably right Pinkspoons and Emmi. Please be knowing that I'm deeply respecting your knowledge and 'feels' for the glass.......I know I'm being fussy and silly but I've not collected this era and am a teensy bit worried about the casing thing.....just want to clear it up - every little bit of extra technical thing helps. And I'm wondering in general, whether there were different sized bubble moulds.........
-
.......hallo again Pinkspoons.....your bubbly vase needs to be cased in something or it'd look a bit like the outside of a pineapple or a golf ball. A casing to the exterior seals the air that forms the bubbles. And yours isn't cased in clear glass. So I asked my glassmaking pal again to find out if the ruby vase could have been cased in another layer of ruby......or whether the vase could have been made like the ruby ducks - where the inner layer is clear glass and the outer layer ruby - to explain why your water test didn't come up with results.
He reckons some earlier examples could well have been made using either method - that various ways would have been tried over the years to get the best results. Thing is he says - 'ruby on ruby' would probably oft have resulted in a too deep too dark colour and the bubbles trapped between might have been difficult to see so it's not the most reliable way. The 'ruby on clear' method is a possibility too but what the results are like - hard to tell - but try a water test again to see if an inner clear layer is detectable, suggests my pal. Ultimately a good reliable form was devised - 'clear on ruby' - the one commonly seen from the mid 50s onwards.
My pal says that there are also different sized bubble moulds for different sized bubbles and vases - hence big bubbles are not just a result of glass being stretched out as it's blown - I don't understand this technology so I can't be any more specific currently.
But I did have a more diligent look at the catalogues, Pinkspoons, and one pattern in particular reveals a change in bubbles over the years. If you take a peek at the 1938 catalogue, where Whitefriars bubble vases first seem to appear, the bubbles are smaller and arranged in 'paired rows' in pattern numbers 9116, 9117, 9118, 9119, 9127 and 9135. In the 1940 catalogue 9117 appears again (along with 9135). Vases and bowls with paired bubbles are extremely rare say my chums so keep an eye out. In the 1950 catalogue 9117 appears again but this time the bubbles look very different - they're not in paired rows but, rather, are larger more elongated bubbles - some 'joined up' by accident (my pal says glassmakers would try and have it so as this wouldn't happen).
So it looks like 'bubbles' has been a rather dynamic phenomenon - far more so than I understood when this thread first started, Pinkspoons. I've learnt a heck of a lot and with you to thank for bringing it up - not to mention all the pals that chipped in with help. There's obviously a lot more to learn about bubbles and lobes (certainly for me about 'open optics' with vertical creases::)) but it no longer feels as 'itchy' to me as it was at first - that 'the bed has roughly been made with a corner or two tucked in'.
Be good to hear if anyone can help make the bed look immaculate - like the ones in hotels - the sheet turned down and a chocolate on the pillow. PinkyXX
-
Hospital corners is what makes a bed perfect ;)
-
Be good to hear if anyone can help make the bed look immaculate - like the ones in hotels - the sheet turned down and a chocolate on the pillow. PinkyXX
Yes I can, thanks to a 7-month stint as a hotel housekeeper! ;D
Oh and I forgot... 2 weeks working in the geriatric hospital in my teens... all I did was make beds! ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi in a bored moment looking through some old posts clicked on the link two vases and lo and behold my kitchen sink appeared odd or what ? :huh: