Topic: Sowerby 1877 glass creamer marked DEPOSE

[agincourt17]

Just to fill in some of the gaps in the discussion (but whether clarifying or confusing, I’m not quite sure):

Here are photos of Sowerby pattern 1231 (with lozenge for 31 May 1877 – Parcel 9, to which Cottle allocates RD 310596) – a slag glass flower trough
(permission for the re-use of this image on the GMB granted by Lynne Clark)
and Sowerby pattern 1217 (the parrot spill vase) with the same lozenge (but RD 310597)
(permission for the re-use of this image on the GMB granted by Cowans Auctions).

I don’t have a photo of Sowerby pattern 1224 (supposedly also with lozenge for 31 May 1877 –Parcel 9), basically very similar to pattern 1225 (an unregistered design)
(permission for the re-use of this image on the GMB granted by shumakka)
but is triangular in cross section rather than rectangular.

Fred

[Paul S.]

I'll digest your comments tomorrow morning Fred.............   but just to say I think we should be careful when linking Simon Cottle's choice of factory pattern Nos. (i.e. 1224 and 1231)  to Rd. Nos. 310595 and 310596.                 You'll see from my earlier comments/pix that the Kew records are not showing these particular factory patterns - they appear instead to show pattern no. 1221 only for both Rd. Nos.

Factory pattern No. 1217 seems to be o.k., and the image of the parrot as shown in the pattern book corresponds with the Kew picture for Rd. No. 310597.

[agincourt17]

Pattern 1231 definitely corresponds to the illustration on page 3 of pattern book IX – 1882, and has a clear lozenge for 31 May 1877 – Parcel 9, so the pattern number and registration date correspond to Cottle’s attribution, irrespective of the RD number. I have photos of other examples with exactly the same lozenge.

As to pattern 1224, I don’t have a photo reference for it, so am not sure if it normally bears a lozenge of not. (Oddly though, page 3 of pattern book IX – 1882 also ascribes pattern number 1224 to a vase bearing a Walter Crane-inspired  design “cross patch” , though this design is almost certainly unregistered – never, to my knowledge, having been found bearing a lozenge).

Here’s a photo of open sugar Sowerby pattern 1221 (as on page 49 of their pattern book XI – 1885) alongside a creamer similar to Roy’s example in the opening post.
(Permission for the re-use of this image on the GMB granted by Tracie Opie).

The illustration of the open sugar in the pattern book indicates that it is from a registered design (and indeed it is, as it bears not only the Sowerby peacock trademark but also the lozenge for 31 May 1887 – Parcel 9), as might be expected, and it obviously corresponds to the design representation for RD 310596 so kindly provided by Paul. (I’m not sure if this open sugar had “DEPOSE” on it or not).

The illustration of the covered sugar version of Sowerby pattern 1221 on page 59 of their pattern book XI – 1885 also indicates that it too is from a registered design (which we now know to be RD 310596). I don’t yet have a photo of a 1221 covered sugar but I fully expect that it too would be marked with the lozenge for 31 May 1877 – Parcel 9.

I’ve also checked pattern book XI – 1885 and, as Paul says, the creamer does not seem to appear in the pattern book alongside the sugar bowls, but I too think it would be a pretty solid bet to ascribe Sowerby pattern number 1221 to it (though I’m not sure which RD number – 310595 or 310596 -  the lozenge corresponds to).

Fred.

[Sid]

Perhaps this may help (and it's free!):

I have started a whole gallery of reference photographs of Sowerby glass items ordered by Sowerby pattern number, cross-referenced (where appropriate or available) with their registered design numbers, registration dates, and Sowerby pattern book references (E&OE)

Awesome job, Fred!

Sid

[auliya]

Thank you Fred, those links are so helpful!

I thought I would take a photo of the markings on the butter dish I have - both base and lid are marked the same. I hope that might be of some help to someone :-)

cheers
Auliya

[Paul S.]

Reference your first paragraph Fred............crossed wires, I think             I don't doubt for a moment that Sowerby patterns 1224 and 1231 carry diamond lozenges which will date them to 31st May 1877 - also that these lozenges are found on Cottle;s 'angular' shaped pieces.

I was simply drawing attention to the fact that there is an obvious case of confusion somewhere along the line insofar as........... Simon Cottle links these Sowerby patterns 1224 and 1231 to the Kew Board of Trade Registrations Nos. 310595 and 310596 - this is wrong, and the objects are completely unrelated.             
His linking of these is misleading to anyone who is involved in cross-checking Registration Nos. with factory pattern data.         Much time is wasted due to the fact that the Rd. images at Kew do not match images of the Factory Patterns  -  despite carrying the same No. in Simon Cottle's book.
The bottom line is simply that these two Board of Trade Registration Nos. were not allocated to these two particular factory shapes/patterns.
My earlier suggestion was that, possibly, Simon Cottle had not seen the Kew images and had simply worked from Sowerby archive material - in which case perhaps we should blame Sowerby for sending the wrong images to the Board of Trade at the time of Registration. 

Unlike yourself, I don't spend that much time involved with C19 pressed glass - neither am I that familiar with other data in Simon Cottle's book, so have no idea if this mis-linking is a one off, or if there might be other instances.
From my experience of taking snaps at Kew, it's apparent that Sowerby's Registrations with the Board of Trade during the latter part of the C19 were prolific to say the least - and so very obvious from looking at the size of the factory's catalogues, I just wish they hadn't used that purple ink that tends to fade with time

P.S.     wish you every success with your project of 'gallery of reference photographs of Sowerby glass items'

[agincourt17]

Point taken, Paul, about ascribing Sowerby pattern numbers to a particular RD number within a design registration bundle without checking the design representation. 

Reliance on Thompson, Slack or Cottle alone (or in combination) always left almost as many queries unresolved as resolved. The only definitive way to check is to have simultaneous access to a a Sowerby piece (or at least decent photos of it), Sowerby pattern number, relevant pattern book illustration, alphanumeric lozenge details, and full registration details (including representation) as at Kew.

Until you started providing the design representations etc. from Kew, that was the main missing link for most researchers interested in Sowerby designs. As is already obvious in this thread, access to all the pertinent identifiers is capable of not only definitively attributing a piece but is also capable of revealing anomalies or longstanding misattributions.

I will amend the details for Sowerby pattern 1231 on the Glass Queries Gallery databases in the light of the information from these postings.

I’m sure there must be more anomlies or errors in the ascription of individual RD numbers to Sowerby pieces with known pattern numbers (and there are certainly problems in ascribing or collating known Sowerby pattern numbers with particular RD numbers within registration parcels corresponding to particular registration lozenges). I know that neilH has had similar kinds of problems with some of the Manchester glass registrations, trying to reconcile actual pieces with their registration descriptions or design representations. Hopefully, with better access to precise registration details as at Kew, many more of the queries posed on the GMB can reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Fred.

[bfg]

thanks Paul, will do......and Fred, just had a peak - well done !