Dave â€” further thoughts.
To my previous list should be added Burtles Tate of Manchester.
Barbara Yates (family?), in her article The Glasswares of Percival Vickers & Co. Ltd., Jersey Street, Manchester, 1844â€“1914
, in The Journal of The Glass Association Volume 2 1987
explains that while the surviving price lists indicate that tablewares were only available in flint (uncoloured) glass, coloured glass being reserved for housewares and fancies, examples of coloured PV tableware were known, indeed Tom Percival had several in his collection. She did not speculate on the reasons for this.
I think it is worth considering here the difficulties that British glass historians had two decades ago. There was little appreciation of how factories worked or of their economics. There was certainly no appreciation of the influence of export markets on production. Indeed I think many of these early authors had never been inside a factory of any description. Also there was no Internet. I continue to be amazed at how well our early historians did, considering their difficulties.
Contrast the situation then with today. Only a few days ago, I suggested here that my Chance tot glasses could not have been made in a cost-effective way by Chance â€” they must have been bought in. David checked this out at the Smethwick Museum, and, sure enough, he discovered that my speculation was correct, indeed all tumblers and stemware were bought in.
Back to PV and your celery. The surviving price lists probably only relate to Britain / British Empire. The American market was different, in that both flint and coloured tablewares were acceptable. I believe that our British glassworks understood this well, and shipped over a mix of products that would suit the market. Once they started making specials for a particular market, and British trade buyers became aware of this, then it is not surprising that one or two tried out these lines for themselves.
I hope you find this useful.