Topic: A Decanter

[Paul S.]

thanks Laird  -  have to say I had misunderstood the earlier comments that the base was 'smooth and polished', and had assumed this implied it was flat and polished.          It's not flat is it - it shows a very wide ground/polished shallow depression (to remove the pontil scar), that suggests a date earlier than I had first thought.       Working on the understanding then that the rings are applied and not moulded, and reading Andy McConnell's comments:-

""In addition to form and decoration, pontil marks are, ironically, amongst the most useful guides for dating a decanter.                Excluding rare examples with star cut bases, most late 18th century and Regency models have wide shallow marks or the entire base polished, whereas later ones tend to have more distinct depression, about the size of a large coin.        Some modern reproductions have faked polished pontils to suggest the removal of the mark.""

Strictly, the Regency period lasted a mere nine years, because they made him monarch in 1820, but I suspect most people would go for something a tad longer at each end - McConnell suggests 1790 - 1830.

These wide shallow depressions are seen often on spirit squares, which presumably come from roughly the same period -  if this is genuine period then since the bottle sits on a narrow foot ring area there should be substantial wear, and the glass colour I'd have thought would be a discernible grey.      I'd also be surprised if the body lacked wear around the midriff -  bottles make contact at their widest part, and if this one was pristine it may not have the age we think.

Regarding the matching Nos. bit  -  McConnell says   ""With every stopper-decanter match unique, some 19th century stopperers engraved numerical match marks on the neck of each decanter and its stopper to assist their reunion.""            That comment lacks the sort of definition that helps in this situation - I had believed matching Nos. came later in the C19, so now unsure.

Leave it up to you now to assess whether this bottle carries sufficient 'hallmarks' to be genuine period, or a later copy          We need an expert on decanters, not someone like me who simply quotes from books  -  so now's your chance to shine  -  gen up on these things and then you can be our expert.

[Laird]

This decanter does have abundant scratch marks on the base foot rim, and also the expected fleabite chips on the decanter body where it would have 'met and jostled against' other decanters in the normal course of daily use. So the evidence is there for a decanter that was in active use. I'll look more closely at the colour of the glass when there is better daylight - dark clouds and rain at the moment.

I'm no expert or specialist in any way. My only claim is to having an interest in 18th and 19th century decanters and drinking glasses with the wish to understand more about my small collection. Of course, I'm always ready to pass on an opinion, but for the time being when it's in regard to decanters and drinking glasses it's largely uninformed and any info I might have gathered will be based on books written by the acknowledged experts.

[Laird]

There's better daylight now, and I am persuaded that there is greyish tinge to the glass.
And there's an air bubble in the pouring spout rim.
I'm tending towards identifying this as early 19th century.

As for the 'CORPORATION' engraving, my assumption is that this implies a city/municpal corporation (eg. M/C, Birmingham, Glasgow etc). Was the word Corporation applied to other organisational frameworks - I don't think it was applied to businesses/companies at that period - but maybe I'm mistaken.

[Ekimp]

I have a similar interest in old decanters and glasses but am far from an expert and have tried to learn from books...and mistakes...and this excellent forum! Your decanter looks nice, Laird, and you can’t beat having the thing in your hands, especially regarding subtle colour. With the slightly grey tone, applied neck rings, and base style, your decanter is looking good for early 1800s then 

The decanter of mine I mentioned, looks similar in style to yours (including the treatment of the base) and I thought ticked all the boxes for Anglo-Irish cut glass, c.1830 to 1850 - that is according to Miller’s glass Antiques Checklist (for what that’s worth). Now I’m thinking mine might be earlier too, which is good, thanks. 

When I see a glass on the shelf with a nice grey tone, it stands out as old amongst all the ‘garage’ type glass (charity shops) and I zero in on it. Sorry to quote from another book, but I have ‘Investing in Georgian Glass’ by Ward Lloyd, 1969. Seems a good book but have no idea if it is well regarded. It says under metal tints that ‘colour alone is a very unreliable guide to dating, because the exceptions are so numerous’. I always feel more comfortable dating a glass with Georgian style as Georgian when it has a nice grey tone, but am left in doubt when the tone is different, what a minefield! Crystal clear though, I always think of as relatively modern.

I’ll have to invest in McConnell's book and the one Paul S recommend (thanks)...I’m sure Paul S is playing down his expertise  . I don’t know much about corporations but wiki says they started quite early for businesses - ‘The best-known example, established in 1600, was the East India Company of London’.

[Laird]

Ekimp - Could you possibly put a pic of your decanter on here? It's useful to see other examples.

Many of the decanters one comes across, no longer have their original stoppers, and for me that is an irritating issue. I've found in Collecting Decanters by Jane Hollingworth, a drawing of typical stopper designs and characteristics, classified by manufacturer eg. CORK, WATERFORD, BELFAST, which could be useful when looking at a decanter and trying to decide on its origin and originality. According to this drawing a knopped mushroom stopper is indicative of WATERFORD.

[Paul S.]

Ward Lloyd was a long standing pal of Peter (oldglassman) - and from memory Peter thought highly of Ward Lloyds expertise and contribution to the area of Georgian glass - but then Peter was an acknowledged expert on the stuff too.
Having deep pockets does help of course, and it's back to the old adage that there's no substitute for handling the stuff, which is easier if you are able to invest in the real thing.            Fifty years ago I'd suggest glass from that period was undervalued  -  now it's probably overvalued - old seem to equate to big bucks, which is fine provided that what you're buying is genuinely old  -  trouble is that the market now has much glass of questionable age, often described as C18 - C19, so buyer beware.
W.L. comments about colour are likely the outcome of an experts view after handling vast amounts of old glass, which is understandable, but I also still feel happy about buying something with grey colour - the implication being that by the law of averages a grey glass is most likely to be old - WITH THE PROVISO THAT THERE NEED TO BE OTHER FACTORS contributing to that decision of age.
It's a known fact that some makers, post 1860 - coloured the glass deliberately - blue or grey.         Probably best to start from the premise that a piece isn't what it seems, and then use all the usual indicators to assess whether genuine or not.         Sellers view the word 'Georgian' as such a cash cow, that if something shows the slightest age, then it qualifies.

Bernard Cavelot once took me to task for suggesting he was an expert  -  I still think his knowledge in some areas was almost second to none, but he was adamant that the appellation didn't apply to him, and I had the impression Bernard didn't favour those who, like me, quoted from books.           His work ethic was probably that you should open you mouth only if your knowledge was acquired via first hand experience, but we all have to start somewhere and sound knowledge often comes only with age.           The word certainly doesn't apply to me.                       But I expect there are folk who revel in the title.

I bought a first half C19 water jug yesterday, with a noticeable grey cast - will try to post a picture for comparison with C20 bright white glass.

IIRC, The Miller's Check List is the Mark West little volume, and I would suggest is reliable, on the basis that I know there are folk who hold West in very high regard.

Even without the skills of a University Challenge finalist, it can be very satisfying to walk round an antiques emporium and almost laugh out loud at the glaring errors of description from sellers who obviously have little knowledge of their wares, but reaching that position takes time to learn - via books and experience.

[Ekimp]

I’ll post a photo of my decanter when it’s not so gloomy, hopefully there’ll be a suitable day sometime before Christmas!

I didn’t know about different styles of stopper being attributable to different makers but I suppose you’ve got to watch out for styles being copied. Occasionally you see traders with a box full of different spare stoppers, there must be thousands and thousands of designs out there. I’m not too bothered by missing stoppers as long as it’s old and the body is interesting, but an original stopper is always nice.

I had a rule not to buy anymore decanters but that proved unworkable I’m now more picky but buy one occasionally if it’s interesting and old. I like heavy cutting in nice grey metal, particularly cut diamonds, and not just decanters. With my limited experience, I completely agree with everything Paul S says regarding the dating of old glass.

I have deep pockets...but unfortunately short arms - so can’t reach all the money rattling around at the bottom. I have bought items cheaply when I have seen something that looks interesting, and then researched the items with the books. After a while I have collected several pieces for comparison and so hope I can identify items that tick all the boxes and are definitely good (probably), and those that are maybes, and those that are not. Caution and doubt is probably the key. I have bought a few relatively inexpensive pieces off of eBay, some good and some iffy, I have learnt that lesson.

Thanks Paul for the information on the two books that I mentioned, I had the feeling that they were ok. I don’t have a problem with learning from books if it’s combined with experience. Personally, I find that unless I have owned an item, then I don’t seem to retain much by just handling it, such as at auction viewings. It’s often surprising how little some dealers seem to know, sometimes expensive duds and cheap gems (which is nice  )

I have a relatively modern Stuart Crystal grapefruit bowl, Reg 719338, that has quite a grey tone. I knew it wasn’t particularly old but thought it was interesting. Look forward to seeing the jug.

[Paul S.]

unfortunately, the Blue Book doesn't list 719338 - might this be a typo for 719538?          Stuart Registered four separate Nos. on 9th March 1926 - I suspect we have all of them somewhere in the Board's archive  -  there was a time when, like most things that are new to our discussions, we conversed ad infinitum about Stuart's Registered designs from the 1920s - some of which remained in production for half a century.     Some of these are well known patterns such as Stratford Rings and Woodchester.
The four Stuart Rd. Nos. from the above date were 719536 - 37 - 38 and 39.

I'm fortunate re the money  -  I have to thank the bank manager for funding most of my purchases - but then they do say that you're not a good customer of the bank until you owe them money.          As long as he doesn't ask what I'm spending his money on.

[Ekimp]

Ah, yes, should be 719538. Not a typo but need new glasses. I think I found it on here or somewhere a while ago after I bought it, it’ll probably be heading back to the charity shop soon.

I always try and be a bad customer of the bank.

[Ekimp]

Some of my decanters including the one similar in style to Laird’s. The stopper fits well but I believe it is a replacement as it is a lighter colour. You can see the body has a notable darker colour in comparison with the others, even though the other decanters look grey on their own or when compared to modern glass.

The small cordial decanter and the beehive decanters I’m pretty sure have their original stoppers. I think the beehive decanter is probably a Victorian example rather than Georgian, what a shame! I think the cordials are good for early 1800s, unfortunately the little one is cracked.