Question From Friday?

We have two questions. First, did pieces sometimes make it out of the plant without the pontil grinding being polished and with all other things considered, Steuben made? Second, if not Steuben made, who were the others that produced this form?

David Kingsley and Duane Moulton

Great Informative Responses

1. Good Morning!

I actually attended the auction where this vase was purchased and could not make up my mind who made it. It is my understanding that the consignor was a fairly serious collector of Imperial and that is who he/she thought made it.

Funny, as collectors and dealers the anxiety we feel when a piece is on the auction block and we have to make a “call” as to who we feel made a certain piece and weather to purchase it or not&&&probably not a real problem but in our world&&.

Gwen Stebbins

2. The piece in question is a Shape 429 Vase. A similar example is pictured as Shape 429 on the Club’s website. I have never seen a signed example of this piece but have seen many unsigned examples. It is sometimes found as a perfume lamp with DeVilbiss mounts. This was the first Decorated Aurene piece I ever bought,30+years ago based on a listing in the Antiques Trader.

How times have changed.

David Goldstein

3. Hi Alan,

This form was also made by Fostoria and was used as a perfume lamp base. The way to tell the difference is to shine a bright light inside. If it is Steuben the outside will have a creamy color and if it is Fostoria it will appear flint white. The perfume lamp parts were usually a fairy or nymph holding the bulb that went into the opening to heat the perfume to disperse the aroma.

Beth Shaut

4. Hi There,

This appears to be decorated Steuben Calcite to me, but then I am not the final word by any means. These vases are quite common, as I have seen many over the years. I cannot address the polished pontil issue, but I do seem to recall seeing this model in an ornamental brass mount of sorts, whether as a mounted vase or a perfume lamp of some sort. I cannot recall which, but I am certain that one of the other members will chime in and help as well.

Regards,

David P. Doanldson, MFA

5. I might be able to help David and Duane. This information doesn’t come from the scholars, but from the workers. I’ve been told over the years that if a colored glass item sat perfectly flat and the break from the iron did not cause the vase to tilt, then the pontil was left alone as this added cost to the piece or if it had to be ground, since a person couldn’t see through the glass there was no need to polish the pontil. If a piece did have to be ground and/or polished it decreased the profit margin. Factories be it Steuben, Quezal, or any of the other manufacturers were well aware of this and for them “Profit” was not a dirty word. Clear or colored crystal left no choice. They had to be ground and usually, but not always polished.

As for the manufacturers of this design I have seen it in Steuben, Imperial, and I believe Quezal but I’m not sure of the latter. The Imperial was paper labeled. I believe that this was probably designed by some one else and contracts were let out. All regardless of the manufacturer were of the same dimensions and color combination.

Bobby Rockwell