Topic: Small facet cut stem ruby glass - Gorge de pigeon / Gold-ruby instead

[flying free]

OK, so gathering all the information (with thanks   )

hmm, mine is not lead glass as far as I know.
Mine also only has ten facet cut sides on the bowl not twelve however, given it is so tiny, that's probably not surprising. That linked glass bowl is 3 1/4" and mine is only just about 1 1/2" so much much smaller.
The facets on the stem of mine are cut in the same way as those on the linked glass.
The base of the foot we have covered.
19th century is best guess.

Paul  the money is not relevant - I bought it recently (not for £250) because it has a gilded pattern on that has come up on the board a number of times, and where dating is an issue, so just wanted it for a reference point. The fact it didn't cost anything like that was also relevant of course - it is hard getting reference items if they cost a lot of money and it's not an area you collect specifically, as I'm sure you know    (Although if it turns out to be first quarter or even first half 1800s then it fits my 'randomly gathered' collection perfectly  )
 And it's small so a different size to others I've seen.

Thanks everyone for your information and help.  Very much appreciated.
m

[Paul S.]

hello m  ............     sorry if I seemed cynical of your glass  -  really only joking  - what I know of such pieces is very limited.          Beauty and desirability are in the eye of the beholder  -  and I agree yours is a pleasing looking glass.

thanks for looking in Peter.

[flying free]

not at all- completely understood in tone intended

It's a good glass. No damage and a lovely reference.

 I am curious about one thing though - I'm pretty sure it's not cased based on the fact the facets on the stem are quite deeply cut so if it was cased it would have had to have been very thick.  If it isn't cased, (and isn't selenium glass) does that make it gold ruby glass?

I've been pondering this ever since I bought a faceted mug - I think that piece is cased so have been wondering how they blew it, cased it and then cut the facets so they still showed red 

(One other reason I bought it is because Red is quite lacking in my collection and I always feel red gives a display something special when mixed with other colours (I like a mix of red, blue, green amber and amethyst on each shelf.  Yet I've not been able to find a red piece that fits with my other pieces so have bought very few.  This one does (symmetrical, old, no handle, fits in well with bowls and vases). )

[Ivo]

It would be copper coloured rather than a gold dispersion which gives a light or dark cranberry colour. A much runnier version of dark copper glass is used for flashing onto clear. A casing is like icing a cake with a pallet knife and is thicker than a flash- but is not thick enough to cut facets on, so I think your glass is actually coloured through and through in the mass..

[oldglassman]

Hi ,
         I dont think your glass is gold ruby, true gold ruby glass as opposed to red glass was very expensive and very difficult to make and was first produced successfully in the late 17th early 18th c by the early 18th c production seems to have stopped , in the 19th c interrest in gold ruby was revived,with competitions to re discover how it was made ,the first to achieve success was J Pohl but production was exceptionally difficult and expensive,

see  Glass of the Alchemists published by the Corning Museum of Glass , a wonderfull huge tome with beautifully illustrations and essays on many subjectss relating to glass production from the earlest times ,including a very up to date chapter on 17th c  lead glass development in both England and the continent, which I am afraid knocks Mr Ravenscroft a little of his lofty perch

cheers ,

Peter.

[flying free]

Ivo, Peter, yes ... I had completely forgotten I knew about copper ruby glass and the history of gold ruby (slaps forehead)  don't know what I was thinking by asking what it was (stressful week here).
But Ivo thanks for clarifying about the coloured in the mass.  That has vexed me
m

[flying free]

ah, re copper ruby or gold ruby ...  I knew something must have made me ask the question:

Interesting information either re dating this little glass or re what it is made of then-
In the book  Russian Glass of the 17th to the 20th Century:

page 164 item 42 Covered mug (Maltsovs' glassworks, second quarter of 19th century)

'Colorless glass with dark red (copper ruby) overlay, blown and cut. ...

... Dark cherry-coloured glass, coloured with copper compounds ("copper ruby"), appeared much later than "gold ruby." It's rarity is evident from an archival document (dated 1841) in which an anonymous correspondent wrote from Prague to St. Petersburg that the chemist Egermann of Haida was ready to sell the formula for copper ruby glass for 300 talers.  However, this deal did not materialize because such glass was already made at Russian glassworks.  The Journal of Industry and Tradein 1837 documents that copper ruby glass was then made at the Maltsov, Orlov and Bakhmetiev glassworks.'

So ... if my glass was made (or indeed the other linked glass) earlier than 1837, it is possible that it might be gold ruby glass?
Clearly prior to 1837 copper ruby glass was scarce although seemingly in production in Russia. and by 1841 seemingly in production by Egermann.

Or ... if my glass is copper ruby glass, it might help date it to more likely 'after' 1837 or 1841 (if Bohemian) if that was the possible date that copper ruby glass became perhaps more often produced.
m

m

[oldglassman]

Hi ,
          From what I read both glasses would have to have a late 17th or early 18th c date to be gold ruby, or after 1835 (Pohl)to be a revival glass in gold ruby, and either date in gold ruby would command a telephone number in £s to buy,  I dont think either are gold ruby , cant comment on copper ruby glass but the Corning book says , "Red glass of some sort was made almost from the time that glassmaking began"

Was Egerman selling a ruby glass or a stained glass which he is credited to having invented in the early 1840s ?

cheers ,

Peter,
 back to the packing !!!!

[flying free]

well if they were made before 1837 and they aren't gold ruby and they aren't copper ruby and selenium didn't come into being as a colorant for red glass until much later, then what might they be?

'but the Corning book says , "Red glass of some sort was made almost from the time that glassmaking began"'

I wonder what they used to make the red glass though if it wasn't gold ruby and it wasn't copper ruby?  It wasn't prolific I guess otherwise there would be much of it around and there doesn't appear to be.

They must be coloured with something.

m

[flying free]

see my comment in post above and

 In 'Russian Glass of the 17th to 20th Century', page 91 shows a ruby gold tazza/ dated second quarter 19th century (i.e. 1825-1850)

I'm not sure how that ties in with this:
'From what I read both glasses would have to have a late 17th or early 18th c date to be gold ruby, or after 1835 (Pohl)to be a revival glass in gold ruby'

Of course it could be that some items in that photo (there are seven from a particular service) that date 'between' those dates and that ruby gold tazza might be one of them and dates to 1835 on to 1850.  But equally it may date before 1835 since the dates given ar e1825-1850) . I'll try and find it in the online Website to see if it has a specific date attached.

And equally they also show another gold ruby footed bowl (page 86 no 35.) which is dated 1800-1833.

On page 72 they show a decanter in gold ruby glass dated ' late 18th or early 19th century'

On this evidence 'gold ruby glass' was obviously produced early 19th.  Perhaps the Corning meant Bohemian gold ruby glass?

With regard the Egermann question the excerpt from the book is a direct quote:

'Dark cherry-coloured glass, coloured with copper compounds ("copper ruby"), appeared much later than "gold ruby." It's rarity is evident from an archival document (dated 1841) in which an anonymous correspondent wrote from Prague to St. Petersburg that the chemist Egermann of Haida was ready to sell the formula for copper ruby glass for 300 talers.  However, this deal did not materialize because such glass was already made at Russian glassworks.  The Journal of Industry and Tradein 1837 documents that copper ruby glass was then made at the Maltsov, Orlov and Bakhmetiev glassworks.'

It doesn't suggest from the wording that Egermann was trying to sell a technique, it does say that he was 'ready to sell the formula for copper ruby glass for 300 talers.'

I take from that wording and their surrounding comments about the rarity of copper ruby glass, that he was trying to sell the formula for copper ruby glass.