Topic: BIRD VASE - Sowling or Joberby?

[Bernard C]

The 2598 ashtray is positive proof that Franckhauser was not a mouldmaker, nor did he commission a subcontractor to cast and engineer the moulds.   This is reinforced by the difficulties that Jobling had with extracting the glass from several moulds, including the two main centrepiece figurines that went into production and the 11600 Open-footed Vase, necessitating major changes (see Baker & Crowe).   Franckhauser's involvement finished with the plaster model.   In the past, I have been as guilty as others of describing Franckhauser as a mouldmaker - let's all take the opportunity to become rather more accurate with our terminology.

Bernard C. 

[Anne]

Glen, I was recently watching one of these on eBay - it's a frosted amber colour, just short of 8". The seller didn't mention a mark but that, of course, doesn't mean there wasn't one. Anyhow, the item's photos are still there so check it out here: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7354843469. Hope this may be of use.

[Bernard C]

Glen - a uranium green 8" Bird & Panel Vase would certainly be a Jobling production, as, of the big four English pressed glass factories, only Bagley appears to have managed to retain some stocks of the uranium ore after the requisitioning of supplies by the government.   Bagley used it on the late '40s Carnival pattern.

So, does anyone reading this know of an example?

Bernard C. 

[Adam]

Bernard - I inherited a small bag (maybe a couple of pounds) of uranium oxide at Davidsons.  I didn't use any so it was still there when I left.  Someone later could have played around with it.

Adam D.

[Glen]

Thanks, Bernard and Adam, for your information and further input. (Adam, I love your note about the small bag of uranium oxide lying around at Sowerby's. Wrong Glen! I mean Davidson's. Doh Doh. It's a poor thing when I can't even copy what's written a few lines above, isn't it?  :oops:

That's going to bring a smile to my face all day).

If I have learned one thing from researching and "living" glass over the past years, it is to employ the word usually a great deal. I try not to be firm and finite and often try to introduce a tiny element of uncertainty. That's the scholarly interpretation anyhow. The practical interpretation is that I am "hedging my bets".

Anyhow, back to the Sowerjoberling Bird & Panel Vase. Thanks, Anne, for the link help. What we need are some reports of actual examples of the vase with Jobling trademarks now. We need to compare them and see if we can identify any indicators other than a trademark. Indeed, where and what is the Jobling trademark like on these vases? My Jobling uranium green/vaseline Celery vase has the moulded Rd No 796183 on the inside of the outer part of the base (underneath - on the marie). Can anyone help with information here?

Peter, you noted the shape of the base/foot. Yes, I would say that this style and shape is common and we can't draw anything from it. But your question and Bernard's follow-up raised a point that I would like to pick up on shortly - that is the making of the plaster model. I mentioned in another thread recently that I had had close involvement in the creation of a design -> creation of the plaster model -> production of the glass. I'll put together an illustrated article on it as soon as I can - I think it might be interesting to see how the whole process hangs together.

Glen

[Bernard C]

... Lalique ... could entrust Franckhauser with no more than a pencil sketch and leave him to work it up into a finished design. ...

Rene Lalique and Etienne Franckhauser understood each other perfectly.   Franckhauser would turn Lalique's idea into a plaster model.

It was the partnership that produced the beautiful designs, not one individual.   Lalique was the ideas man, Franckhauser was the sculptor.   The two are inseparable.   I get very frustrated to see Lalique getting all the credit, and, more often than not, Franckhauser's essential contribution totally ignored.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to see an exhibition of Franckhauser's plaster models for Lalique, Sabino, Jobling, Hunebelle and others, placing him in his rightful place as one of the world's greatest ever sculptors.   However, I doubt it would ever happen.    The art world would probably regard grubby bits of plaster as something of a joke.    You need huge chunks of bronze to be taken seriously!

And that was me letting off steam.   You should have seen my first draft!

Bernard C. 

[B & M]

Apologies in advance for a potentially quite boring post but being something of an obsessive collector of jobling, I was fascinated by Glen's discovery and re-examined some of my pieces as a result.  I have previously shared some of my observations regarding the possible differences between Jobling and Sowerby production with Glen, however, having recently joined this message board, i thought it a good time to revisit this topic and add a few more comments that may be of help in distinguishing between the two makers.

http://tinypic.com/k0j24j.jpg

The amber example in the picture, though unmarked is almost certainly Jobling given it's colour, finish and height. The pink vase I believe to be Sowerby as it is generally softer in detail and shorter. What is of note is that both are below 8 inches in height, the pink one is 7 1/2", matching the Sowerby catalogued height while the amber vase measures 7 3/4 inches, 1/4" below the dimension given in the Jobling catalogue. This does not appear unusual as I have a large Jobling example (marked Regn. Applied for) which measures 9 3/4 inches; again 1/4" below catalogue height.

Another difference is in the treatment of the tall central tail feather, the small amber Jobling vase shows virtually no feather detailing, the large vase shows fine hatching (excuse the pun!) towards the base, matching the treatment on the wings and rest of the tail. Because of this, I assume the small vase should have similar detailing but it just hasn't taken well on my example & may have been further obscured by the acid frosting. 

The pink vase in comparison shows more pronounced horizontal ribbing extending the full height of the tail, showing this part of the mould to have been reworked at some time.

Examining the foot on the pink vase, it is possible to make out the impression of a small rectangular repair to the mould, where a new piece of metal has been let in where the two parts come together. Obviously I don't know when this was done but it shows the mould was older when this vase was produced.

Finally, there is a general difference in finish with the pink example having been apparently much more heavily melted/ fire polished, further softening the detail. This is particularly noticeable around the birds & foot, perhaps explained by Sowerby's practice of 'Double Melting'? http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,579.0.html (thanks Adam for a fascinating post).

I hope I haven't bored anybody too much!  :wink:

Steven

[Glen]

Steven - many thanks for the extra information and detailed observations of the differences between the two versions of the vase. I'm most grateful to you - and you most certainly haven't bored me.  

Glen

[chopin-liszt]

Hi, I've asked my brother about his lampshade. He says there is no reg. number on it. He also said he'd just assumed it was Jobling because of its similarity to bowls and other lampshades (eg. my pink rose shade). He said there was a bowl in Miller's glass of the '20's and '30's, (Jeanette Hayhurst) and the reg. no. was780717, but that the number was only used for a limited period. Doesn't say why, but my brother speculates that it might spoil the appearance of the shade.

 I don't care who made it, I just want it :mrgreen:!

[B & M]

Just got a small Bird & panel with moulded registration number, the first marked example I have seen. It is pink and measure 7 5/8 inches high, fractionally shorter than my amber example.

Unusually the reg number is on the upper surface of the foot. There is also what appears to be a moulded number 1 to the underside. The vase has made me rethink some of my previous comments, both in terms of its height and in that the moulding is not as crisp as others I have owned.

I haven't got round to photographing it yet but will try to add a picture as soon as I get chance.

For now the mystery continues........  :?