Topic: Champagne Glass ? ID = Clayton Mayers & Co.

[dinklepip]

Another rather pretty piece I came across recently, am I right in thinking it is  1930's?  Would love to know who made it


http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b47/cookiepops/champ3.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b47/cookiepops/champ1.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b47/cookiepops/champ2.jpg

[Anne]

Hi Jen, am I right in reading the reg design no as 810374? If so, the design dates from between 26 Feb 1936 and 8 March 1936, but as the number isn't shown in the Glass Association's Blue Book of Registration Numbers 1908-1945 or on the Great Glass listing I can't tell you who it was registered by.  Someone else may recognise the design though.

[dinklepip]

HI Anne, I checked out Great Glass site too and couldn't find exact number.  Yep correct number is 810370.  Crikey, I have such a collection now and so many pieces I need to ID lol

[agincourt17]

Getting some photos of RD 810370 ready to add to the GMB RD database, but decided check on the GMB search facility first, and came up with this unresolved thread from 2008.

Can confirm that RD 810370 doen't appear in the 'Blue Book', but
http://cloudglass.com/ClaytonMayers.htm
shows that RD 810370 was registered by Clayton Mayers & Co. Ltd, North Circular Road, London, N1, on 29 February 1936.

This was Clayton Mayers final glass design registration.

Almost certainly manufactured by Davidson.

The photo links on the opening post no longer work, so I am attaching some photos direct to the GMB as permanent reference. They show champagne saucers and liqueur or sherry glasses, all with a machine-engraved pattern of swags and tails on the bowl (rather in the style of 'Pall Mall' glassware), a plain stem, and a plain circular foot. All are marked with the RD number (acid etched?) on the underside of the foot. The mark is slightly unusual in that it reads 'Regd. Design 810370' rather than the more common 'Rd. No. XXXXXX'.

Does anyone of photos of other glassware shapes from this design, please?

Fred.

[Paul S.]

mystery as to why so many of CM items should be missing from what we'd assume is the list of Board of Trade CLASS III Registrations. 
Of the twenty four which appear in the Stewart's list, it looks like only five are showing in the Blue Book.            I could be wrong, but it seems the total of twenty four should correctly be 25, since 719644 is shown in the Blue Book coupled with 719643  -  this makes the total which are in the Blue Book up to six.

Perhaps CM had a Registration agent working for them, and entry in the correct CLASS was a bit hit and miss.                    Presumably the Stewart's did their research at Kew, and were able to confirm those Nos. absent from the Blue to be in CLASS IV, but we can't be certain of this.

I'll have a look at Rd. 810370 when I visit Kew - either Thursday or Friday this week - and assuming this one is in CLASS IV then probably the others are too.

[Paul S.]

Another CLASS IV Registration - whether deliberate or unintentional we'll probably never know, and in view of this it's likely the other Nos. mentioned by the Stewarts are also missing from the records for the same reason.         Whether CM agent was responsible for the classification or not we'll doubtless never know  -  I see also someone described the items against this Registration as a 'set' - as opposed to a suite.     The relevant description for each glass is underneath each shape.

Sorry the pix are a bit naff  -  the original factory images sent to the Board of Trade were in the form of photographs  -  those old fashioned glossy b. & w. things we used to get back from the chemist, and they're not always easy to photograph when there's acres of overhead strip lighting causing glare.
Two pix will go over to the next post  -  anyway hope of some interest, and as always sincere thanks to the Trustees and Directors at The National Archives at Kew for their help and continued permission for the GMB to use the archive information.

[Paul S.]

the last two for Rd. 810370  .......

[agincourt17]

Thank you very much, Paul - as always.

Query about the various shapes resolved too!

Fred.

[Anne]

Can I just mention something I found on the National Archives website about Class 4 design registrations?  Class IV was not just for pottery even though it was described as Earthenwares. This paragraph explains

The design registry separated designs to be registered into various classes according to the substances used in their manufacture. An individual number was allocated to each design registered and recorded in a class, in this case Class IV. The title for Class IV - 'Earthenwares' does not give a true representation of all the items that may be found within this class. The Class IV volumes also contain items made from ‘other solid substances', items made from leather, stone and even soap may also be found here.

So although most glass designs are in Class III, not all are, so we shouldn't be surprised when we find them in other classes, such as IV.  Some also show up under the Industrial Designs category too.

[Paul S.]

thanks Anne  ..........    regret I don't know the date of that comment, although I suspect C20, but my opinion would be that those words aren't intended to suggest that in the C19 The Board of Trade openly permitted the Registration of 'other solid substances', in addition to pottery, in CLASS IV.         Presumably CLASS Registration appears not to have been policed in the sense that checks were made on legitimacy of substances entered in a given CLASS - in fact it may have been difficult to determine - based on a drawing only - whether a material was glass, metal or earthenware.           As we know, it was a legitimate intention that some designs were in fact intended to be made in more than one substance, and on rare occasions comments to that effect can be read in the Archives, but quite how acid etched drinking glasses slip through the net I've no idea.

Being aware of past anomalies - most probably from the C19 - TNA may have considered it a fair warning to researchers that this situation does exist, although it may not have been permitted officially at the time.

Thanks for pointing this out - as you know I've bleated on about mis-classification on many an occasion, and it's not that uncommon for glass items to be in the wrong CLASS.           It would appear than earlier workers weren't always aware of this problem, as shown by missing Registration Nos. in most of the reference sources we use.

I've only just fired up again with an internet connection, having been cut-off for a day, so a little behind with my posting.