Topic: S. & W. Alabaster

[flying free]

ok but I can't agree with Cranberry.  Nowhere near for my glass.  Definitely a good rose pink though. Not pale and washed out but definitely not cranberry.  I called mine rosaline in the end and that's what I think it is.  Sorry, meant to say that the colour of mine is like that used on china called Rose du Barry but  I can accept that S&W called only their burmese and cameo Rose du Barry, because they both will have looked quite similar to china I guess whereas the alabaster range doesn't
Have a look at Steuben's rosaline and it's very near I think.
m

[Lustrousstone]

S&W's pink alabaster was Rose Alabaster, so if it's S&W that's what it is

[flying free]

I now have the book and have been trying to research something.
In the case of my pink cordial, I agree looking at his list of colours it seems as though the closest fit is 'Rose Alabaster' according to his book page 72 (note that they were unable to trademark the name alabaster and on page 26 he shows two more pieces in this colour and calls them 'rose alabaster' with no capitals).
However as I've said on another thread,  I think that book is massively confusing particularly on the colours page.
Just one example of many examples I am confused by:
Under the headings
                        Opals                Colour Shade                        Uses
 the author gives 'Rose Alabaster       As name                     Bathroom accessories'

if the 'Uses' section is correct then the only pieces that could be called 'alabaster' are the bathroom accessories in what he describes as Rose Alabaster, Blue Alabaster, Pale Orange Alabaster, Jade Green since this the 'Use' he puts next to all those colours.
Clearly this is not the case, since I have a cordial which is unlikely to be used in the bathroom, and also a green lidded cup, which is identical to the rose alabaster cup he shows on page 26. 

I also have a mauve alabaster with white alabaster foot bowl the same as the bowl he shows on page 26 yet mauve is not mentioned under the  'Opals' heading.
In addition to which there is, if I recall correctly, a beautiful deep mulberry alabaster powder bowl and lid in the Broadfield House Museum.  That colour is not listed under his list of 'Opals' either.

Another confusion is-
 he says under 'Opals' heading that there was a ' Pale Orange Alabaster' - again the 'Use' he puts for it is Bathroom accessories.
There is no mention of a colour 'Cinnamon'.   
Yet on page 25 he shows a photo titled 'Group of coloured and white alabaster pieces, showing blue, jade green an cinnamon'.
Note that the word alabaster has no capital in that description and
there is no mention of the colour 'Cinnamon' in his colours list on page 72.

In addition to which, at the bottom of page 72 the page that lists the colours, it has a small note that says 'Casing colours are listed in Chapter 14' -
however when you turn to Chapter 14, in the text it says
'Colours can be divided into a variety of categories.   Alabaster opalescent (my words - there is no comma between those two words in his sentence), threading, and picked-up powders have been dealt with in separate chapters, as has enamelling and gilding.  The types of colour on which this chapter concentrates are: ...'
And he then goes on to describe what colours and ranges he is referring to in that Chapter 14.  None of which seem to cover or refer to the 'alabaster' range.
( I mention this point regarding casing colours because the 'alabaster' range came in cased and uncased as far as I can work out from his comments and that I have examples of both)
He also describes Jade Green as being uranium glass on page 26.  I have two pieces in Jade Green, one a custard cup and the other a powder bowl and lid and neither are uranium glass.

In short I think there is some confusion regarding the colours and the way they can be used.   Or perhaps it's just me and I'm unable to read it properly.
m

[KevinH]

m said:

The types of colour on which this chapter concentrates are: ...'
And he then goes on to describe what colours and ranges he is referring to in that Chapter 14.  None of which seem to cover or refer to the 'alabaster' range.

...

In short I think there is some confusion regarding the colours and the way they can be used.   Or perhaps it's just me and I'm unable to read it properly.

I agree with your comment about interpretation of text in the book. It is not easy to understand what was intended in some parts.

For your reference to the Ch. 14 colours, the descriptive part begins:
"1.  Self colours , which are listed in Appendix A."

So, perhaps the whole of Appendix A is supposed to be read as part of Ch 14? If that is true, then the range of "alabaster" colours are included as they are listed under "Opals", along with "straw opalescent", which is explicitly mentioned later in Ch 14. But, yes, the "alabaster" colours receive no specific attention in that chapter.

To me, the book seems to be, in most parts, a summary rather than an explanatory text of details such as how and when certain colours were used. As such, can it be used for the sort of details we would like to understand?

[flying free]

phew. I'm glad it isn't just my interpretation of it.
Your first comment here highlights the problem yet again to be honest ...

'For your reference to the Ch. 14 colours, the descriptive part begins:
"1.  Self colours , which are listed in Appendix A." '

... in that
a) it is not denoted at the head of Appendix A that those are all 'self colours'
b) In that Appendix A he specifically describes Black as 'self colour' but that phrase is not used anywhere else in that Appendix, which could indicate to the reader that Black is a self colour but the others are not
and finally
c) how could the colour 'Primrose',   which falls under the 'Opals' heading be described as a 'self colour' when he says it is in fact Cairngorm cased over opal, so not a 'self colour' as I understood it.
And point c) is aside from the confusion caused by the apparently other colour 'Primrose' which falls under the heading 'Other Colours' and in that section is actually described as 'Mainly for casing over Opal or Opalescent' - so is that a Cairngorm over Opal creating the 'Primrose' alabaster and then that same combination cased again over Opal or Opalescent again?

in answer to your question
'To me, the book seems to be, in most parts, a summary rather than an explanatory text of details such as how and when certain colours were used. As such, can it be used for the sort of details we would like to understand?'
 
I don't know.  I have never written a book so I've no idea how complex it can be and the work it entails.  However, as a reader the information in the book is extremely unclear in many aspects not just these I've highlighted. 
 
One small further point that highlights this is his comment on alabaster page 26 -
'In the early days, if a glasshouse was producing a popular line, it was fairly certain that it would be copied in some form by one or more of its rivals.  Stevens and Williams alabaster was no exception.
Stevens and Williams had two main competitors, Richardson of Wordsley and Frederick Carder of Steuben, U.S.A.
Richardson's products can be more or less forgotten.  The shapes were almost identical, and even the white specks which were common in Stevens & Williams articles were there, rightly or wrongly.'   

Err, how on earth could you 'forget' about a competitor who according to you is producing an almost identical product?  And then go on to say how Steuben products were 'misleading to the collector'.  There is something not right about that paragraph. To be frank, I do wonder exactly to which Richardson products he is referring.  If they produced a two colour 'alabaster' range where the pieces are almost identical to S&W then do I have a collection of Stevens and Williams products or Richardson products (with the exception of one marked piece and one that is special and so I know it is S&W for various reasons)?

Personally I don't believe that Richardson were producing single or two colour alabaster glass with pieces almost identical to what he shows as S&W alabaster.  But that's just my gut instinct.  My view could be confused slightly because he also says their Jade Green had uranium in it and I have two pieces that don't have uranium in them, one a powder bowl and the other custard cup.  So... using his definitions it is possible those two pieces might have been produced by another producer since they are not uranium.  But they are identical in every way to pieces shown as Stevens and Williams alabaster including the custard cup in his book and powder bowls in CH British Glass. So I don't believe the Stevens and Williams Jade Green alabaster glass was always uranium glass either.

And I have to wonder why he dismisses Richardson's but then gives so much written space to Frederick Carder at Steuben in that paragraph (where he devotes many lines to describing their wares and colours).  Basically, none of that paragraph adds up for me.

So, therefore my personal view is, as a reference book, it doesn't work really.  There is too much conflicting information in it ... as well as information that is incomplete (when did they start producing their 'alabaster' range?)
m

[flying free]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/blackcountrymuseums/4291014522/

This photo shows the piece I mentioned earlier in the thread - the 'mulberry' (my description) deep purply coloured bowl and lid in the 'alabaster' range, in the Broadfield House collection