Topic: Huge lime yellow Vase with red handles (Chinese ?)

[aa]

Expressions that may not be entirely correct slip into the language, unnoticed, and become adopted, whether we like it or not, I'm afraid. I know many people who use the term "enamel" as being ground glass, and although I don't favour it, I understand it. Likewise, although I know what people mean by frit, I don't use it in this context.

The people who supply the materials refer to grits and powders or grains and powders. The colour comes in different grades and the best analogy is sugar... in the same way as you get icing sugar, caster sugar, granulated sugar, demorara sugar and "coffee" sugar, we get up to three grades of powder and up to five of grits.
Some call the finest talc, others mehl (German)  or flour.

The main thing is that these handles were made by rolling clear glass in a granular form of coloured glass, which would have been marvered (rolled out on a steel table that took its name from the mispronounced "marbre" in pre-steel days when the "marbre" was made of marble) and then re-heated and brought to the gaffer to apply as handles.

[krsilber]

The benefit of retaining multiple description is that when you uncover new source material you will recognise that some terms could have multiple meanings. It's one thing to know about obscure/obsolete meanings and understand them, and another to perpetuate them unnecessarily, especially when they might lead to misunderstanding.As the Frit discussion shows collectors often adopt a term and re-apply it.  In my opinion this is a problem.  It's the reason "Bristol" in the US has become almost meaningless - its misuse has been perpetuated by collectors abusing the term.   So perhaps any single definition is only valid for a place and period in time.



Taking standardisation to heart would involve re-writing every dictionary and only allowing one meaning per word and one word per meaning.  Nonsense!  But as long as we can say "As blue as the water in a lagoon" and understand, despite never having visited a lagoon - we can be certain that computers will not take over.    I'm sorry, but that seems like a poor analogy.  The blue that comes to mind when you say this will vary greatly from person to person.

"The people who supply the materials refer to grits and powders or grains and powders. The colour comes in different grades and the best analogy is sugar... in the same way as you get icing sugar, caster sugar, granulated sugar, demorara sugar and "coffee" sugar, we get up to three grades of powder and up to five of grits.
Some call the finest talc, others mehl (German)  or flour."

The problem I see with this is that none of these words is particular to glassmaking, whereas I can pick up my general dictionary and find that "frit" is (more or less) ground glass.

Aren't I just totally argumentative!?

[Frank]

... The blue that comes to mind when you say this will vary greatly from person to person.

Aren't I just totally argumentative!?

1. Precisely

2. No

[krsilber]

2. Yes!  (hee, hee)

[KevinH]

Perhaps some of the mix of meaning for "enamel" arose from a common terminology applied to the internal decoration of wine glass stems:

"Enamel twist" was included in the "Technical Terms" section of Glass-Making In England, by H. J. Powell, published 1923. It was defined, on page 45 of the book, as, "Twists of fine enamel threads incorporated in the legs or bowl of vases or wine glasses ...". A similar definition is given for the same term in Newman's, An Illustrated Dictionary of Glass. Usually, "enamel twist" referred to only the white (opal) threads, with coloured glass threads used in the same way being called simply, "coloured twists".

The same basic definition was also applicable to the earlier Venetian techniques using white and coloured threads in all their multitudes of lace-like forms.

In that sense of the the usage, was the "enamel" actually a solid thread of white (opal) glass? Or was it initially formed from white (opal) "frit" or "grit" before being pulled into a thin length?

[krsilber]

As used by the Venetians, the threads were made from solid glass rods.  Newman in the definition of "twist" says they were made from solid glass rods, so I don't see how the definition is similar to the one in which enamel is mentioned.

Another Newman definition:
"enamel glass.  A term sometimes misleadingly and incorrectly applied in the 18th century (and sometimes later) to OPAQUE WHITE GLASS, because its appearance and composition (tin oxide) are similar to those of enamelled or tin-glazed pottery....The term 'enamel' with respect to glassware should be restricted to the vitreous fusible pigment used for surface decoration" (my bold! )

[KevinH]

... I don't see how the definition is similar to the one in which enamel is mentioned.

The definition is similar because of the overall wording, not because of the specific mention of "opaque white glass". For readers without a copy of Newman's book, his definition for "enamel twist" was:

A twist produced by using threads of opaque white glass or of opaque coloured glass embedded in clear glass (as in the case of canes of millefiori type) and twisting and manipulating them.

Although Newman qualified "glass threads" by including "opaque", I think that most people would see that both Newman and Powell used a very similar overall defintion for the term "enamel twist". It is that similarity which I was suggesting may have been a basis for some confusion of terminlogy in the past.

My main point was that those were definitions for "enamel twist" and therefore the term "enamel" had a valid use in connection with "opaque white glass" used internally as well as for enamel as used externally.

[krsilber]

Hmmm, I think you must have a different edition of Newman's or something, because I don't have "enamel twist" in mine (dated 1977, must be first ed.).  Kind of odd, because the definition you mention directly contradicts what he says under "enamelled glass."

I guess what my argument boils down to is that for the sake of easy, accurate communication, it simply makes sense to try to standardize our language (within reason).  This doesn't mean saying that Powell's definition of enamel twist was wrong, it's just dated.  There's no point in retaining definitions that are obscure and misleading according to today's common, correct usage.  Language evolves.  Frank said, "Taking standardisation to heart would involve re-writing every dictionary and only allowing one meaning per word and one word per meaning" - I don't agree with the latter part of the statement, but the fact is, dictionaries do get re-written and outdated meanings are abandoned.   

[Frank]

Lets start calling glass metal then, glass is so misused

[KevinH]

Hmmm, I think you must have a different edition of Newman's or something, because I don't have "enamel twist" in mine (dated 1977, must be first ed.).  Kind of odd, because the definition you mention directly contradicts what he says under "enamelled glass."

The entry is a sub-entry under "Types of Twist". Since I was aware of terms used for internal decoration of antique wine glass stems, I knew where to look. See pages 318-320 for the full list of "twist" terms.

I could have been more specific about where the definition was, and although I was not trying to be evasive, our discussion does illustrate how confusions can arise with seemingly well-defined terms and how easy it is to not know about alternatives.

This doesn't mean saying that Powell's definition of enamel twist was wrong, it's just dated. There's no point in retaining definitions that are obscure and misleading according to today's common, correct usage.  Language evolves.

But who is the arbiter of what is regarded as correct in "today's common usage"? And why should a well-established term used in a particular branch of glass study (i.e. old drinking glass stems) be regarded as not conforming to "today's correct usage" particulalrly if, as I suspect, there are no widely accepted modern versions of the "old" terms?

This discussion is now getting to a point where it could be better split out as a separate topic, or perhaps merged with some similar ideas expressed in a message that Jay started recently about new names for parts of Dutch drinking glasses.

Fascinating stuff.