He does
but he has also probably seen, as far as I know from what he's said on that thread link and from the rarity/scarcity of Thomas Webb Alexandrite pieces around, the greatest quantity of different pieces of Webb Alexandrite, so his comments would have been obtained from that perspective. I assume he will have seen that feature (however it is perceived i.e whether 'definitely there', 'dichroic effect' or 'optical illusion') in all the Webb Alexandrite pieces he has seen, in order to make the comment.
I'm just off to look at the CH book for the recipe. But in the meantime I wrote this so will post it
I have been having a very good search around having done so previously at great length when I was researching my piece of Thomas Webb Alexandrite.
I have been unable to find any other shaded glass that contains the violet to blue at the top with the chocolate rim (or dichroic?appearance of chocolate rim), other than those identified as Thomas Webb Alexandrite.
Obviously I can't tell if any of the other makers shaded glass pieces I've seen are uranium glass but none I've found have been mentioned as such. But what
is clear to me from the photographs is, that they look
very different to those pieces identified as, or that I recognise as (subjective of course as it's based on my opinion/recognition), Thomas Webb Alexandrite.
And the TW pieces are very rare.
My thoughts are that the violet to blue or violet/blue at the top, with chocolate rim (however it is seen or 'perceived'), along with the glass being uranium glass (since I've not been able to find a reference anywhere that shaded versions of those pieces titled by the owners as Amberina, Bluerina, Rose Amberina, Fuschia Amberina etc are uranium glass) would be markers for the glass being Thomas Webb Alexandrite, along with the requisite three colour shading from being twice struck starting with amber.
With the exception of three pieces, the other 'shaded' glass I have seen has been easily identifiable from my perspective, as not being Thomas Webb Alexandrite and could not be confused with it.
With regard the exceptions, I came across last night and a few months ago, three pieces that were not titled by the owners as Thomas Webb Alexandrite but which I thought might be (obviously again subjective based on my opinion as a layman ):
1) a small creamer in the Chrysler museum collection. They have a number of Thomas Webb Alexandrite pieces which are labelled as such. This creamer is not labelled Thomas Webb but I think it is.
2) A posy vase with crimped rim that was sold on ebay as an American maker but which I thought was Thomas Webb Alexandrite, and it sold for a vast amount of money and I suspect I was right in my thoughts
3) A piece I've seen listed as Libbey which made me pause. The piece has similar qualities to a very tall goblet labelled by it's owner as Thomas Webb Alexandrite and which I think might be the one Paul referred to earlier.
So from my perspective, with regard all the other 'Shaded' pieces I've come across online, I had no problem working out that they were not Thomas Webb Alexandrite and couldn't be confused as such.
I'm wondering three things:
- Firstly what happened to the pieces from the Parkington collection?
- Secondly, there has been mention on previous threads that all the glass came from a single pot. I wonder if that is true?
- Lastly, I wonder if they just made a series of single pieces (or sets in the case of Christine's glasses) in terms of shapes, with no repeats?
m