Topic: The mystery of the 1953 Coronation Bagley ER bloom trough set

[Bernard C]

Here's my recently acquired green set, the only set I've even heard of other than the Pontefract Museum blue set from the Parsons collection here.   Both sets are incomplete.   Pontefract's is the Scottish variant with just one "I", mine's the universal variant missing both "I"s.

Click on the image above for GlassGallery file with extra information and an enlargement.

It dates from between the Accession on 6 February 1952 and the Coronation on 2 June 1953, but we can refine that date to a certain extent.   It must have taken H.M. Government some time to produce and publish manufacturer guidelines.   Also we know that manufacturing was in full swing by the abdication in 1936, about 10½ months after accession, so it is reasonable to suppose that in this case manufacturing was under way by December 1952.

Mine is in non-uranium green (not a guess — I always test).   This is interesting as Bagley's Carnival range, registered November 1946, is, in my experience, always in uranium green.   This could be evidence that Bagley ran out of stock of uranium in between.

Now the mystery.   Why the rarity?

Priced in pennies or, perhaps, a shilling or two, it should have sold in huge numbers.   So I submit that it can't have been sold to the public.   I think it was most likely a giveaway to retailers, possibly to indicate Bagley's grateful thanks for their loyalty in stocking Bagley products and helping Bagley switch back from war to commercial production.   The set would have been an ideal component for shop window displays celebrating the Coronation.

Also it is interesting to note Bagley's coloured advertisement for posy troughs on the front cover of PG of 1 October 1952.   I don't think the coincidence of dates was any accident.   "Free and very useful gift with every trade order", perhaps?

What do you think?   Does anyone know of any other evidence?

Bernard C.  

[Lustrousstone]

Bagley's Carnival range... my experience, always in uranium green. 

Not in mine, it's frequently found in non-uranium green. I too always test and have had both.

See here for my theory on the Carnival range http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,26878.0.html I believe the bulkier version was likely made pre-war and before design registration. I also have cheese dishes with the same attributes


Not that this helps your EIIR trough theory much

It dates from between the Accession on 6 February 1952 and the Coronation on 2 June 1953

Is the there documentary evidence of this? It could be later.

Also we know that manufacturing of what? was in full swing by the abdication in 1936, about 10½ months after accession, so it is reasonable to suppose that in this case manufacturing was under way by December 1952.

Sorry but this doesn't make sense.

Priced in pennies or, perhaps, a shilling or two, it should have sold in huge numbers.

How many people would have had space to display the full set?!!

There is a complete green frosted set pictured in the Bowey and Parson Bagley book belonging to a James Wood. I might be tempted to think that one was uranium, but...

[Bernard C]

Bagley's Carnival range... my experience, always in uranium green. 

Not in mine, it's frequently found in non-uranium green. I too always test and have had both.

See here for my theory on the Carnival range http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,26878.0.html I believe the bulkier version was likely made pre-war and before design registration. I also have cheese dishes with the same attributes

Christine — apologies, I had forgotten your butter dish topic.   Without any additional evidence I prefer registration at the time of development with lack of a number on moulds made after protection had expired.   All examples of green Carnival I've seen have been with number and with uranium.

It dates from between the Accession on 6 February 1952 and the Coronation on 2 June 1953

Is the there documentary evidence of this? It could be later.

Anything is possible but your conjecture is most unlikely.

Also we know that manufacturing of what? was in full swing by the abdication in 1936, about 10½ months after accession, so it is reasonable to suppose that in this case manufacturing was under way by December 1952.

Sorry but this doesn't make sense.

I had included the words "Edward VIII Coronation souvenirs" but took them out as so obvious as to be unnecessary.   What other abdications in 1936 are causing confusion?   

Priced in pennies or, perhaps, a shilling or two, it should have sold in huge numbers.

How many people would have had space to display the full set?!!

As the set is roughly the same size as a large souvenir plate, and including Commonwealth, about 50,000,000, perhaps?

There is a complete green frosted set pictured in the Bowey and Parson Bagley book belonging to a James Wood. I might be tempted to think that one was uranium, but...

Not in mine — 2004 edition.   Thanks for the information.   So that's three sets now.

Christine, I don't really see any need to change any of my original posting.   Sorry about that.

Bernard C. 

[Lustrousstone]

I know you don't like being contradicted, but green uranium carnival is frequently found without the registered number. I can lay my hands on three different items right now.

Back to my butter and cheese dishes, the physically larger and heavier versions do not have numbers. Would post-war austerity and cut backs explain the use of extra glass? There are significant differences.

There is a lot of Bagley that you would expect to be more common and yet isn't.

[Bernard C]

I know you don't like being contradicted, but green uranium carnival is frequently found without the registered number. I can lay my hands on three different items right now.

Christine — you haven't contradicted me — you've just pointed out something I've not seen.   It doesn't make any difference to what I wrote originally.    BTW the only example I've come across of a seriously delayed first registration was shown by Sid (I think) not long ago to be an error in Cottle.   ... and there's nothing I appreciate more than being shown to be wrong.

Back to my butter and cheese dishes, the physically larger and heavier versions do not have numbers. Would post-war austerity and cut backs explain the use of extra glass? There are significant differences.

They are obviously from different moulds.   Have you considered whether they might not be Bagley?   Recently it's been shown that there was something going on between Walther and Bagley, whether copying or transfers of moulds or both has not been fully established yet.   Certainly this helps to explain Bagley's wide variety of styles of plinth and flower block.

There is a lot of Bagley that you would expect to be more common and yet isn't.

I differ from you there.   In an industry dominated by a handful of trade buyers you are bound to get some lines much more popular than others.   Discrepancies are further enhanced by salesmen being on commission, selling what they are good at selling, and selling what makes the best commission for them.   It's not just Bagley where this happened, it's everywhere throughout industry.    It's perfectly normal.  To make any product successful you not only have to get manufacturing and distribution costs right, but also the pricing and commission structures.

Bernard C.