Posted 11 years ago
Kotsunega
(3 items)
This 13.5 inch long piece isn't signed but I'm guessing it's Tuthill. I looked up past sales on eBay and found one like it, and the seller thought it was Tuthill too. Anybody else know for sure?
Tuthill? | ||
| Glassware6840 of 10058 |  |  |
It does not look like Tuthill to me. Compare the cutting of the leaves of a signed Tuthill to your piece. See link: http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/21801390_6-34-signed-tuthill-american-brilliant-cut-glass
You are correct Tex! I just had a member of the American Cut Glass Association look at the piece. At one time, she had the same piece and said it is not Tuthill and not ABC Glass.
I found an example of Gundy Glapperton cut glass on eBay and it looks a lot like that. They, like Bergen, were a Canadian company that did American Brilliant Period cut glass. Wonder if that's what this is?
Here, go take a look if you want and give me your opinion. I think there's a similarity there: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ANTIQUE-GUNDY-CLAPPERTON-INTAGLIO-GRAVIC-CUT-GLASS-BOWL-9-1-8-WIDE-ABP-CBP-/171210139120?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27dceb65f0
Hi there... First, Bergen was not a Canadian cut glass company. Their main factory was in Meridian, Conn. Also a factory in New York. There is a similarity as you say, but that is all. Your tray is not
American or Canadian cut glass.
There were hundreds of patterns cut that were similar to each other. All a company had to do was change one tiny motif on a competitors pattern and off they went creating their own pattern. Some companies even cut variations of their own patterns.
You're right. I was thinking Birks and said Bergen. What makes you think this piece couldn't be Gundy-Clapperton? I don't have the piece in hand so I cannot black light test it nor do I know whether it has a maker's mark. I'm still inclined to think it is Gundy-Clapperton, though. Why would you say it is neither American nor Canadian brilliant cut glass? I don't mean to sound doubtful I'm just curious what there is about the piece that makes you state that. Thanks.