Author Topic: Is it really Jobling?  (Read 3299 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline B & M

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Is it really Jobling?
« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2006, 11:05:26 PM »
Thanks Bernard. So 'British Make' is OK for Bagley after all. Sorry for confusing the issue Pamela  :oops:

The frog certainly does look correct for the bowl, I was just a little unsure given its obvious similarity to my Jobling examples.

Steven  :)


Offline Tony H

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 355
    • http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/index.php?cat=10002
Is it really Jobling?
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2006, 05:10:14 AM »
Hi
Some interesting comments here have you had a look at my posting

http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,1819.0.html

This I hope is a link to some questions about Jobling

Tony H in NZ


Offline Bernard C

  • Committee
  • Members
  • *
  • Posts: 3105
  • Milton Keynes based British glass dealer
Is it really Jobling?
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2006, 07:46:10 AM »
Quote from: "B & M"
Thanks Bernard. So 'British Make' is OK for Bagley after all. Sorry for confusing the issue ...

Steven — please do not apologise for expressing an opinion!   And always remember that my views are just my opinions, and I have been known to get it wrong, more often than you may think!

Tony — thanks for resurrecting that topic, as there were some interesting points made there.   I think it has been shown to be unsafe to attribute British Glass purely on the use of expressions such as "BRITISH MAKE", "BRITISH MADE" or "MADE IN ENGLAND" in relief inscriptions.

On the subject of the three glassworks' flower blocks being too similar for it to be a coincidence, I've checked the dates.   Bagley was certainly making their 227 block in 1927, which is four years before Davidon's compressed air technique was patented in 1931.   Therefore I believe that the "Sag" or "Droop" technique as described in Davidson's 1910 patent was used for all these blocks.   See Stewart & Stewart for details.

I doubt whether Davidson would have been willing to supply moulds using their new compressed air technique, which may have been in an experimental stage in 1927.   No reason, however, for them not to capitalise on outdated technology.   We know that Davidson was quite happy to supply other glassworks such as Walsh and Monart/Liberty with their flower blocks and holders, why not the equipment to make them?

Bernard C.  8)
Text and Images Copyright 200414 Bernard Cavalot


Offline Bernard C

  • Committee
  • Members
  • *
  • Posts: 3105
  • Milton Keynes based British glass dealer
Is it really Jobling?
« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2006, 05:24:35 PM »
Quote from: "Bernard C"
... We know that Davidson was quite happy to supply other glassworks such as Walsh and Monart/Liberty with their flower blocks and holders, why not the equipment to make them?

I had not thought this through fully.

Prior to around 1930, demand for flower blocks from the other pressed glass factories would have been mainly for flint (uncoloured) versions.   After 1930, this demand almost completely switched to matching coloured versions — impossible for Davidson to supply.

The alternative is the completely opposite scenario, that they all just copied each other.   But were the various mouldmakers capable of this complex work?   Baker & Crowe makes reference to problems that the Jobling mouldmakers had with the Franckhauser plaster models, necessitating major modifications, but by this time the Lalique/Franckhauser partnership had produced many successful designs, so one can assume that the problems were on the Jobling mouldmaking side.

When did Davidson's 1910 patent expire?

What other possible scenarios were there?

Bernard C.  8)
Text and Images Copyright 200414 Bernard Cavalot


Offline Adam

  • Glass Professional
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
  • Sowerby 1949-56, Davidson 1956-61, Jobling 1961-72
Is it really Jobling?
« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2006, 07:27:25 PM »
Bernard - The "Sag" or "Droop" method was the only one used by Davidsons post-WW2.  I haven't looked up the compressed air patent which you describe - it may, like the vast majority of patents about anything, have been a non-starter.

Adam D.


Offline Bernard C

  • Committee
  • Members
  • *
  • Posts: 3105
  • Milton Keynes based British glass dealer
Is it really Jobling?
« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2006, 04:58:08 PM »
Adam —  Thanks for that information.    The implications are quite interesting, but I have not thought them through properly yet.

Steven — I seem to be the successful bidder on the "Jobling" bowl.   You may not be aware that I hold a minority view that commenting on eBay auctions can distort the market, hence my silence on your original query.

No such problems now.

While the seller's attribution may be correct, I think this bowl is more likely to be a late pre-war Bagley piece, as we know almost nothing about Bagley's late '30s and 1940 pre-Utility designs.   I don't even know when they abandoned this production to concentrate on war work — it was probably much earlier than the 1942 extension of the CC41 regulations to cover this type of glass.

I should be able to work it out from the lettering font.

Bernard C.  8)
Text and Images Copyright 200414 Bernard Cavalot


Offline B & M

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Is it really Jobling?
« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2006, 06:59:32 PM »
Bernard, congratulations on winning the bowl. I quite understand your views regarding commenting on active auction listings, particularly where there is no conclusive evidence of maker.  I look forward to hearing what you find out from the lettering.

I too had a vague suspicion that it might be Bagley, strengthened when you indicated that 'British Make' would be appropriate for some of their items. For me the simply represented flower form looks wrong for Jobling, though hopefully you will be able to find out more when you receive it.


Offline Frank

  • Author
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 9143
  • Gender: Male
    • Glass history
    • Gateway
Archive Candidate
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2006, 10:01:29 PM »
Bernard,

Can you round this off now?
Frank A.
Please help preserve glass web-sites for posterity by donating to The Glass Study Association a non-profit organisation.
Scotland's Glass - Ysart Glass
Glass Zoo - Glass Study.COM
Commercial Czech


Offline Bernard C

  • Committee
  • Members
  • *
  • Posts: 3105
  • Milton Keynes based British glass dealer
Is it really Jobling?
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2006, 03:11:23 PM »
... When I get back from Dorset, and get my new PC working.  ...

Bernard C.  8)
Text and Images Copyright 200414 Bernard Cavalot


Offline Mosquito

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 844
  • Gender: Male
    • 中国 (China)
    • Jobling Art Glass
Re: Is it really Jobling?
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2007, 01:46:59 PM »
I'm reviving this thread as I have recently acquired another of these unknown bowls. I have taken some further photographs, including the 'British make' moulded mark.

http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5283
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5284
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5282
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5281

Sadly I don't presently have any confirmed Jobling pieces with the 'British Make' mark with which to compare the marks. If anyone can shed any more light on the piece I would be very grateful.

Dimensions are 8 1/4 inches in diameter at the rim by 3 1/4 iches high. Diameter of foot is 3 7/8 inches.

 

This Website is provided by Angela Bowey, PO Box 113, Paihia 0247, New Zealand