When a collector turns over an art glass item to look at the base, they are not always expecting a signature. Other features can indicate how the item was made, and in some cases where, when and by whom. One significant feature on hand-blown glass is the pontil scar.
The pontil, or punty, is an iron rod that is attached to the bottom of a piece when it is still hot, so that the blowing iron can be removed from the top. That allows the top to be opened out and shaped into a vase or bowl or whatever. When the work is done the pontil is later removed by ‘cracking off’, leaving a scar in the centre of the base. Big factories would normally remove the pontil scar from the finished product by polishing the base. But in studio glass the scar is often left, perhaps after smoothing it with a blowtorch so that no sharp or jagged bits can be felt.
There are many variations on the form of the pontil and its attachment, and hence of the scar that forms. The ones we are interested in here show a distinct pattern of four points, typically arranged around a circle or, when the points are close together, looking like a four-leaf clover. With the four separate points acting as tiny levers, this arrangement allows a stronger attachment without increasing the overall area of contact or the difficulty of cracking off.
 |
| Lloyd-Murray Glass, c.1996 |
Sometimes claims are made to identify the maker of an unsigned piece by its four-part pontil alone. In New Zealand, for example, collectors would be quick to mention Tony Kuepfer, while in the US the names of Don Carlson or Don Richardson frequently come up. Contrary to these comfortable assumptions, the method has been very popular in one form or the other. In Australia alone – only a small part of the international studio glass scene – it seems that dozens of local makers have at least tried it!
 |
| Tony Kuepfer (NZ), 1980s |
There are in fact two distinct types of four-part pontil. In one a regular solid rod is used, with a small nub of molten glass gathered onto the tip to act as adhesive in the usual way. But before attaching the pontil to the piece, the nub is split into four by making impressions at right angles onto the end, using an edge tool (the handle of tongs or shears possibly). That gives four points for attachment, with a separation that is determined by how much the tool is wiggled as it is inserted. The process is described and illustrated in the blog New Zealand Glass, where Fred Daden from the UK is shown instructing Tony Kuepfer in 1977.
 |
| Don Carlson (USA), 1981 |
A second form uses a pontil rod with four points on the end, like a barbeque fork in two dimensions. In this case the points are typically more widely separated, with the pitch circle being determined by the construction of the rod. This rod is typically used without a gather of glass to act as adhesive; instead the rod tips are heated to red hot and pushed into the parent material of the item being made, The effects of this method can usually result in the four scars being smaller in diameter but deeper, with a distinct ridge around each crater. Another implication of the ‘iron pontil’ method is that small amounts of reddish or black oxides of iron are sometimes left behind. This form of four-part pontil is sometimes said to have been invented by Don Carlson, but there are industrial examples dating back to the 1850s.
 |
| Peter Goss (Jam Factory Workshop), c.1976 |
It is not always easy to recognise the four-part pontil scar when the item is in hand, because of local damage that occurs when the rod is removed and the effects of subsequent flame polished. It is harder when the only source of information is photos, even when the images are reasonably well lit and in focus. Notwithstanding these difficulties, we have found examples of the four-part pontil being used by these makers in Australia:
Akihiro Isogai, 1981
Alex Mitrovic, 1983
Chuck Simpson, 1990*, 1991
Colin Heaney, 1988, 1996*
Fred Tessari, 1983
Helmut Hiebl, c.1980
Jam Factory production, early 1980s
John Lloyd, 1997*
John Walsh, 1979
Julio Santos, 1980
Lloyd-Murray, c.1996*
Nick Mount, 1979
Peter Goss, c.1976
Richard Morrell, 1980s
Rob Knottenbelt, c.1980
Rod Smith, 1983
Sam Herman, 1978
Setsuko Ogishi, c.1983
Stan Melis, 1977
(Cases marked * appear to be of the second type using the four-prong pontil rod. The estimate of ‘dozens’ above is based on the rate at which new examples keep turning up.)
 | |
| Stanislav Melis, 1977 |
The role of the Jam Factory is formative here, as in so many other aspects of Australian studio glass. It seems that anyone who was there in the late 1970s or early 1980s had a go with the method at some stage. Indeed, the earliest examples we have found, from Stan Melis and Peter Goss, were made at the Jam Factory. There are other notable cases without that institutional connection, including Nick Mount, Colin Heaney and Helmut Hiebl.
 |
| Nick Mount, 1979 |
Most of the cases listed above use the first type of pontil attachment, where the nub on a regular pontil rod is split into four. The only makers to use the special four-prong rod appear to be Colin Heaney, John Lloyd and Lloyd-Murray Glass, and perhaps Chuck Simpson (which are all closely connected, of course). Some of these makers appear to have experimented with both types of four-part pontil.
 |
| Chuck Simpson, c.1991 |
 |
| Helmut Hiebl, c.1980 |
Collectors can see that the four-part pontil does not indicate any particular artist, given the number of participants and the extent of experimentation. There may be no point trying to trace the origin of the idea in studio glass, since both forms had been in use in factories for decades. More interesting perhaps is why its use has died out. The split-nub type appears to have been abandoned in the 1980s, apart from a brief reprise in the early 1990s when Chuck Simpson came back from NZ. The other form of attachment, with the special four-prong rod, seems confined to Colin Heaney and his (ex-)employees, and then only for a brief period in the mid-1990s.
Perhaps other improvements in the technology of pontil attachment have made the four-part methods unnecessary.
