|
|
Post by bakedbeans on Jan 12, 2014 10:09:20 GMT
I think this little glass might be Whitefriars . It's only 2 7/8 inches tall , ruby with a flint foot and a nice polished pontil mark. I couldn't find it in any of the cats. but as it's most defo. ruby I thought it might be Whitefriars. I only have one though ! Any comments would be great. Thanks Chris for getting this site up and running again. Cheers, Mike.   |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Admin on Jan 12, 2014 21:21:56 GMT
Hello Baked Beans and Welcome to the site. Thats a real head scratcher that one. Im sure someone will be along with a better reply than mine. It does look very similar to a WF piece but the foot being flint is putting me off slightly. Will be back soon after a bit of research  |
|
|
|
Post by marc on Jan 12, 2014 21:35:50 GMT
Hi and welcome to the forum . The shape looks like a miniature 8901, don't know if this would signify the era it might have came from? |
|
|
|
Post by bakedbeans on Jan 13, 2014 19:00:13 GMT
Thanks Guys, I know ruby is a difficult colour to ID as there is so much ruby glass that is very similar to WF's ruby out there. The quality is certainly there though and it must be lead based glass because of the weight. I bought it with a 9516 and 9515 from the same collection which came from a house clearance, so it's not much to go on really but I would like to continue to hope that it could well be WF's  Who knows there might be other examples out there in another colour other than ruby . Good luck with this forum & site it's always been such a useful aid to me in the past  Cheers Mike. |
|
|
|
Post by bakedbeans on Jan 15, 2014 18:36:47 GMT
I've just noticed that there is a glass with a similar profile on page 262 (cat. B, 1870) of the MOL book . Bottom right. If that set is thin though this glass isn't part of it because the glass isn't wafer thin . There is quite a bit of age scratching to the base though so it could possibly date from that period. Anyway it's just a thought. I'm a bit more hopeful now...perhaps ?!
|
|
|
|
Post by marc on Jan 16, 2014 7:12:15 GMT
Hi, Mike Not sure they were making Ruby back then, I could be wrong though. |
|
|
|
Post by bakedbeans on Jan 16, 2014 18:51:42 GMT
Thanks Marc , I have seen a photo of ruby/red prunts on a jug illustrated in the 1860 catalogue on Whitefriars.com . Not sure if it is the same recipe as this ruby though !
|
|
|
|
Post by marc on Jan 16, 2014 19:18:08 GMT
Think the early red was straw opal. I would say your bowl is Ruby which wasn't perfected until the 1940s I believe. I understand that "fatty" Wilkinson made some uncatalogued bowls with a flint foot. Someone will be able to tell you for definate though but I'll ask around. |
|
|
|
Post by bakedbeans on Jan 17, 2014 17:29:52 GMT
Thanks very much Marc for the info. on ruby. I think the prunts on the 1860 jug are a bright red rather than a darker ruby colour (if my memory is correct). I didn't know that early red was straw opal either ! It certainly narrows down the time frame for this glass !
From what you say it would seem highly likely that it's a 'fatty' Wilkinson piece and thanks for asking around . It's a real pleasure for me (at least) to have found it , I will have to try and find some more somewhere ! Thanks again for your help , cheers Mike.
|
|
richardc
New Member
Collecting and selling as always
Posts: 3 
|
Post by richardc on Jan 19, 2014 15:10:24 GMT
Hi Mike,
Try not to make quick assumptions as its very easy to appreciate well made glass, but sometimes very hard to attribute to a particular maker.
Ronnie Wilkinson did make some clear footed friggers but then so did a number of other factory workers. There were also a number of pieces produced with clear feet but that wasn't the norm.
Whitefriars did produce a lot of ruby glass in the 1800s but this was gold ruby, so called because it required real gold to make it. Colours were still to be invented in those days. Its still difficult to identify the less seen or uncatalogued pieces but there are a few well recognized pieces to reference against (see image).
The early pieces are almost always very thin and the ruby is often cased as it was a lot more expensive than flint glass.
Could be later Whitefriars but the later stuff is well catalogued so I'd prefer to see a catalogue image before saying yes or no. A very pretty little thing though.
|
|
|
|
Post by bakedbeans on Jan 19, 2014 17:17:11 GMT
Thanks very much Richard ,
The 'old gold' ruby looks wonderful !
This glass is quite thick , the same thickness (approx.) as the Mike Cripps jug on the left of my first photo and there is no difference in colour . Later Whitefriars ruby has a real richness that I haven't seen in other ruby glass from other makers. That's why I strongly suspect this glass is Whitefriars . I don't think it's going to be possible to prove it without a catalogue image though , as you say . I just think it is highly probable. I don't think it's 'old gold' ruby despite the fact that there is a similar style of glass in the 1870 catalogue which I mentioned above (however that doesn't show a separate applied foot and it looks taller ) .
My thoughts were that it could be an apprentice piece... there is a small, raised mound, inside the glass ,at the bottom where the foot has been pressed to the bowl and that is the only fault I can see . Perhaps a Ronnie Wilkinson glass would be perfectly smooth at the base of the bowl.
It's quite a humble little glass but it's always a pleasure and fun to find a piece like this which at least raises some questions !
Cheers, Mike.
|
|
Who knows there might be other examples out there in another colour other than ruby .
Cheers Mike.
