Hmm, I don't wish to be painted into a corner here. Indeed, I must emphasis that my earlier observations were by way of provoking a thought process.
I think I made it clear that it was only a possibility
that the term 'manufacturer' was being blurred or mis-used.
However, as an observation, when I think of the advertising that was done in the 1950's and how that would be looked upon nowadays and, moreover, how much would contravene todays standards and regulations, it occurs to me that the Pottery and Glass Trade Gazette was unlikely to have higher standards of policing than any other magazine, periodical or newspaper of the time. Would they not amass their information through that given by seller, manufactuer, wholesaler, etc? Possibly along with taking in an advertisement paid for by the same company :shock:
Marcus's observations that other firms bought into manufacturing are perfectedly valid.
I guess I'm beating my drum about not making assumptions or accepting things on face value. It can produce fertile lines of enquiry. I am open minded as to whether or not Elwells were in fact manufacturers, or just purely sellers.
It would be good to clear up another question posed about 20th century glass history