Topic: Large Harbridge 1930's art deco cut glass vase perhaps missing it's frog .

[Paul S.]

reading these last few posts, my feelings are that our conclusions about the style of cutting and overall appearance of Mike's vase, only go to reinforce the true definition of the meaning of 'deco' - which the design and cutting of this piece is not.
But we have to remember that, as the saying goes,  ...............style is all things to all men etc. .... and British deco style cut glass is just one aspect (and probably a smallish aspect at that), of the overall influence of that fashion, on glass in general.

Having a 1930's backstamp and known to have been made somewhere between perhaps 1925 and c. 1940, doesn't define a piece as being 'deco'.       To qualify for 'deco style', then it's essential that we 'see' those defining features  - the angular geometry and jazziness and the avante garde break away from tradition.
Jazziness in many forms - the dropping of formalized simple cross cut mitres (as on Mike's vase) and the evoking of fantasy, liberalism, eroticism and many other 'isms 

Understandably, there are limitations as to the extent in which the 'deco' can be expressed - depending on the material being used........    concrete, wood, glass, jewellery  .......   perhaps it's most easily seen in furniture and architecture  -  they're very much in your face, and big.     But it's in jewellery, glass and art that it's seen at its most delicate.

quote from Anne   ...   "And where does Arts and crafts fit into all of this?"  .....   My opinion is that it doesn't ...   Wm. Morris was banging on about something quite different.          A. & C. ideals centred around a misguided ethos that said we'd all be better off going back to handcrafted simplicity and naive charm of rustic living, as opposed to the OTT formalized high Victorian design.       And out of Morris' thoughts grew much furniture of simple design - some sharing many of the angular features of the later 'deco style'  -  the fact that most working class people couldn't afford hand crafted work appears not to have occurred to many of those idealists.         Of course, the same can be said of the output of most leading designers and creators.

CRM (Anne's Charles - I hope) - was into something quite different again, and the Glasgow School were responsible for translating art nouveau into the wider field of architecture and furniture  -  whereas it had previously been confined more to the decorative arts such as painting, jewellery and glass.

Coming back to glass in the deco style........   I've no experience of deco style cut glass from outside the U.K., but the impression I get of avante garde glass from the deco period is that a substantial quantity is not cut, and it was created with greater inventiveness on the Continent than by the more restrained British mind.
British glass designs c. 1920 - 1940 may have excelled perhaps more in the area of cutting than the Continent, but did not embrace or show creativeness in the same deco direction as artists such as Decorchement for pate-de-vere, Marinot and the massive output of Lalique  ......  none of which we can now afford!

I really had thought this thread would have been split before now - so apologies as usual for clogging up 'Glass' with my personal thoughts.        You can tell I didn't go to a boot sale this morning.

Feel free to comment, criticize, or simply remain silent

[nigel benson]

Hi,

I thought it was about time I returned to this thread.

I have to state that my concern is not only limited to these pages and even this thread, but also, and perhaps more pertinently, toward major Museums who either ignore or dismiss British Art Deco glass. My thoughts originate to the notable lack of British Art Deco glass in the V&A's major International exhibition on the subject a few years back. (They also ignored British Arts & Crafts glass, Aesthetic Movement and largely post war glass in the exhibition devoted to the subject.)

I genuinely believe this omission stems from a lack of knowledge on the subject of glass, particularly British, since what glass was in these exhibitions was a repeat of the same old, same old, and not taken as an opportunity to add to the canon of knowledge.  It therefore made me think about all these styles and what they could have added to exhibitions that re-visited each.

Maybe my earlier question was too vague, but there are of course points made by all the contributors – thank you.
 
Yes, largely speaking the term Art Deco covers angular lines, the use of which can partially be traced to interest in all things Egyptian in the 1920's and into the 1930's, both here and abroad. In also goes back to Dr Christopher Dresser in the UK, De-Stil in Holland, Bauhaus in Germany, etc., for its simplicity and restraint.

It is of course a style and it relates to a period of time, although as Paul rightly says, this can be a little looser than many sources allow for, but broadly speaking most think of Art Deco as the mid 1920’s through the 1930’s. WW II blurs the lines because many companies carried on producing pre-war styled items after the war, since it took time to bring in new designs and styles and to react to the new mood post war.

I think that Mike has actually captured my criticism of the use of the term here in that just because something was made during a style period it doesn’t make it that style. The piece in this thread owes as much to the Victorian tradition of cutting as it does the Art Deco. For me that makes it a combo that cannot be ascribed to either properly. Because the two influences are used on the same item you can’t really pick the bit you think looks right, it is after all a whole thing - " and I think the cutting (ignoring the diamond cuts ) does embrace a general Art Deco style.” So, let’s ignore a major part of the vase then it becomes Art Deco – really??

And the quote:  "Harbridge embraced a general Art Deco style ".  Arguably, the same statement could be used for a number of companies, but surely that doesn’t make everything they produced Art Deco?? So much was great quality, often a tour de force of the cutter’s skill, but either traditional, or influenced by the traditional such that it was watered down and couldn’t be truly representative of a particular style, especially not Art Deco.

In fact Paul makes another point about true British Art Deco glass being rarefied, and he’s right, it is difficult to find, even rare, but it’s not always expensive. I’ve paid top dollar for things that I realise are so rare that I will never see another for sale, and I’ve had the luck to find items for a few pounds – but the average is good  Oh, and there’s a great deal more of it out there than many might realise.

Most writers think of stylish British glass in the Art Deco vein beginning with the Harrods exhibition in 1934, although it can be traced back to 1928 with some of Gordon Russell’s designs followed by Powell’s cut glass from 1932 onward. The common factor is the use of a traditional skill, that of cutting, BUT in a restrained, stylish and stylised way – usually with angularity at its most recognisable, but the use of curves mustn’t be ignored.

It is my firm belief that the reason British Art Deco glass does not really exist in the minds of many collectors, curators, and indeed dealers, is because of the general lack of promotion in the UK at the time the items were produced - as opposed to what happened say in France with Lalique, in Holland with Copier, and in Sweden with Hald and Gate and their successors.

Yes, Keith Murray and Clyne Farquharson were promoted, but that only helps prove my point, since they are the names most associated with Art Deco glass in Britain, whereas, there were many other designers and manufacturers, but sadly they hardly get a look in.

Nigel

[Paul S.]

thanks Nigel and very interesting

sorry to digress backward but..............   coming back to the issue of cut glass flower frogs/supports, I've just noticed some relevant information in the Miller's/McConnell volume '20th Century Glass'.
Page 63 shows details from a page from a Harrods (London) brochure advertising 'Finest English Cut Crystal' which the book caption indicates was all Stuart production in the 1920's, and the ad includes a flower support described as 'The Magic Flower Holder' - similar in fact to the example I posted some way back in this thread.
Appears to have been offered in seven different sizes, and if you look carefully at the vases on the Harrods page you can just about make out that the majority have been illustrated with a support in situ.

So obviously a not uncommon add-on in the 1920's but perhaps the majority have become lost along the way.

[nigel benson]

There also appear in the Stuart catalogues in the same way as the Harrods, but, from memory, at least one catalogue had a large illustration of the 'Magic Flower Holder'. They were available separately, and as you note Paul, because of the different sizes fitted a large number of vases.

I have a couple which I think came in mixed lots from auction, but no Stuart vase in the same lot. Also found them with chunks out, so I bet a lot were broken over the years 

Oh, they always have a Stuart etched mark, can't remember for sure, but seem to think they have the registration mark on as well.

Nigel

[Paul S.]

thanks Nigel.         Always very dangerous to make assumptions based on a single example, but if you look at my earlier post (No. 10 I think) you'll see that my one and only 'Magic Flower Holder' does indeed carry a Rd. No., so I'm thinking it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume this applied to all of these scalloped Stuart supports.
Unfortunately, the factory name isn't included, at least it's not on mine.
The odds are probably heavily against most of those genuinely older Stuart vases to remain accompanied by their holders in 2014.

Most of these large wide-mouthed Stuart vases are heavy, and I can well believe that many have gone west over the years when perhaps wet fingers have failed to grip.           Likewise with the supports  -  they are large, cumbersome and fairly heavy and need concentration and care when being inserted into the vase, so many must have broken.
Cutting styles and patterns on Stuart vases from this period lack the later deco and Modernist designs which we now prefer, and often can't be given away.      Usually, when these 1920's vases with their plain bisecting cuts are found, they're chipped, showing much wear with glass sickness and bloom, and probably get binned, and any remaining holders also get the elbow.      I suspect they're well and truly out of fashion.

As I mentioned earlier, my vase appears to have been produced for John Stonier.

 

[Baked_Beans]

I'd just like to thank you all so much  for expanding this thread into a very informative piece of writing and I've really enjoyed reading it ! I will never look at the vase in the same light again ! 

[Baked_Beans]

I wanted to add this as a footnote on frogs/supports.

I picked these up today and they are both Webb Corbett and date from c 1930-1947 according to the marks (which are so faint it was worse than than the Harbridge mark) .It's the first mark here....

http://www.great-glass.co.uk/glass%20notes/markt-z.htm

Thanks so much for the above website , whoever constructed and researched  it 

The vases are the same dimensions but have different cuts and stand five inches tall. The supports have been cut off so they don't reach the base of the vases. 

The frogs/supports have been hand blown with a  crude finish but they would do the job 

[Paul S.]

sorry to drag this one up yet again, but............    going back several pages we discussed the large supports produced by Stuart -  and seems I could have saved myself going to Kew......
Have just noticed that Mervyn Gulliver (thorough as ever) included details of these Stuart frogs/supports in his book - page 269 - Rd. Nos. 637674/75 and 639278 - all allocated in 1914.     
One is a pierced and scalloped design and the other two are scalloped only  -  quite possibly the first flower supports for Stuart vases.

National Archive pix for both 637674 and 75 are shown earlier in this thread, although at that time I was unaware of the third one 639278.           So they can all be seen in Mervyn Gulliver's book.

the Webb Corbett supports are good finds - not seen them before.       

[brucebanner]

From the 1927 Stuart catalogue.