Hi Rocco
I don't know enough about Stevens and Williams (very little indeed) or about Mat-su-no-ke to comment on the authority in the article.
I note that it says, that without the engraved number on the bottom the vases are not Mat-su-no-ke. My vases do not have the number engraved on the bottom of them, therefore I might need to revisit my thread and ask some questions and do a correction for now until those questions can be clarified.
However I also note a couple of things in that article that appear to be errors though:
1) Early in the article it says (my underlining)
'
The Mat-Su-No-Ke design pattern was registered on October 18, 1884 by Stevens and Williams under the English RD #15353.'Later on it says
'As per John Scherz, a fellow researcher and glass aficionado, Stevens and Williams only produced Mat-Su-No-Ke decorated glass for a period of one year, starting in 1894 and ending in 1895.'2) Near the bottom of the article it states
'The writer is aware of the existence of Stevens and Williams rose bowls that have Mat-Su-No-Ke decorations applied but do not have the S&W registration. Therefore, they are not a Mat-Su-No-Ke. An example of this can be found in Mervyn Gulliver’s book, Victorian Decorative Glass British Designs, 1850-1914, on page 69, figure 14, and also on page 127. Both images are of the same rose bowl.
'
The reference in Gullivers for that piece says:
'
A vase manufactured by Stevens and Williams Limited using their Registered Design No 15353, dated October 18, 1884 ... . The pontil mark is covered by a large clear glass raspberry type prunt, and the underside of the domed base is engraved with Rd.15353 '[/i]
3) Under the heading
'The piece is a Mat-Su-No-Ke if it has all of these characteristics:'it lists a number of lettered points, one of which is:
B. Has the Stevens and Williams registration (RD #15353) in longhand on the bottom of the rose bowl in conjunction with a doubled domed extended raspberry prunt.[/i]
If the vase on page 127 in Gullivers (the one with the reg number is engraved on the bottom) is the same piece as the piece where the base is featured only on page 69 of the same book, then I can see no double domed extended raspberry prunt. It just look like a raspberry prunt.
In Charles Hajdamach's British Glass 1800-1914, page 304 there is discussion of the pincer patent and mention of Mat-su-no-ke, featuring two pieces, one in black and white plate 285 (that I think is the one I gave you the link to in Gorgeous Glass), the other a coloured satin piece on page 285 colour plate 30. I cannot see any information in there that gives dates or references to it not being Mat-su-no-ke if it doesn't have the registration number on.
With ref the comments in that article on the number of petals on a mat-su-no-ke flower, there is no discussion in British Glass, that I could see, on the number of 'petals' on a Mat-su-no-ke flower head. Mine has 16, but counting the petals on the pattern they show in the article, it seems many have 13.
I will go and check my Stevens and Williams book now and add any further information if it is relevant. -
Edited adding information from that book (The Crystal Years)
page 16 mentions Mat-Su-No-Ke. It says
'... This form of decoration was registered as No.15353 on 18 October 1884.' It doesn't make any reference to 'Pseudo Mat-Su-No-Ke' vases (ref the comment in the article
'Believe it or not, Stevens and Williams also made pseudo Mat-Su-No-Ke. ')or any mention that vases without the registration number are not Mat-Su-No-Ke, nor any reference to the number of feet a piece must have, nor a 'double' raspberry pontil mark.
I also cannot find any reference to production dates ( the article says only produced for one year), in either Gullivers, Charles Hajdamach's British Glass, or The Crystal Years (open to correction if anyone else finds any reference to production please)
I can't comment on any other parts of that article, but it appears there are comments made that might need to be verified by a source?
Your vase is-not mat-su-no-ke. However the first thing I thought of when I saw it was my vase. So hopefully someone might come along who knows these things better than me, and be able to tell if yours is by Stevens and Williams though
m