Topic: Greener decorative dish, RD 231430, 31 July 1869 – why not Gladstone/Peabody?

[agincourt17]

I recently bought this pressed glass dish from eBay because I was somewhat intrigued.

The listing said that there was an indistinct diamond registration mark, and an email to the seller revealed that the only detail that they could decipher was a 1 or I at the 6’oclock position. I thought the design was reminiscent of some of the early Greener designs, but initially I couldn’t find an exact match in photo references, so I bid a nominal sum for the dish as an inexpensive exercise in detection .

Now I have the dish, I’ve been able to ‘read’ the details on the diamond mark by the old-fashioned expedient of a pencil-rubbing on thin paper, revealing the identifying details as 31-H-I-8 (registered on 31 July 1869 – Parcel . The registrant was Henry Greener, and the corresponding RD number 231430.

Both Thompson and Slack show a single design registration for RD 231430 [Thompson: ‘Design for a circular glass plate or stand (Gladstone”)].

At
http://1st-glass.1st-things.com/gallery-victorian/slides/dvgreenerflintplates.html
a plate in the ubiquitous Greener Gladstone design is shown alongside a plate with the same design as my dish, but which supposedly bearing the diamond registration mark with identifying details 7-H-A-7 (for 7 December 1869 – Parcel 7). This, in fact, corresponds to Greener RD 236921, which Thompson gives as the equally ubiquitous Greener ‘Peabody’ commemorative design, and which my dish is obviously not.

Does anyone else have Greener pieces with this ‘non-Gladstone’/’non-Peabody pattern and a diamond registration mark? If so, which date does ‘your’ mark translate to, please?

[Sid]

Agincourt17

If the registration mark is on the top of the plate, then it was cut into the plunger used to press the plate.  Given that these plates look to be the same size and shape, the plungers may have been interchangeable and gotten mixed up.

Sid 

[mhgcgolfclub]

I have the same plate in my collection and the date lozenge is for 31 July 1869

Roy

[agincourt17]

Than you, Roy and Sid, for your replies.

So, there is a 'non-Gladstone'/'non-Peabody' dish and a plate in the same pattern, both with lozenges for 31 July 1869.

I can envisge a mix-up with the plungers in the moulding of a run of plates, but find it difficult to envisage a similar mix-up happening with a plunger during a run of dishes, especially as the plunger would presumably be of a totally different form.

I suppose all we need now is a sugar bowl, jug or other shape in the same pattern, but also bearing the lozenge for 31 July 1869.

[Sid]

If we don't have any plates without a registry mark, perhaps there only was one plunger which was used for both the plates.  Maybe Greener wasn't concerned about the registry mark being on it.  There is a similar case with the Marquis of Lorne butter dish which has a registry mark which corresponds to a different design.  The butter dishes are pretty well the same shape so the same plunger worked for both.  Why buy two when one will do!

Sid

[agincourt17]

Here is a Gladstone dish and a Gladstone plate, both bearing the lozenge for 31 July 1869, RD 231430.

As you say, Sid, the ‘wayward’ lozenge on the plungers was probably of little or no concern to Greener compared to economic realities, so quite likely a ‘deliberate error’ producing this anomaly.

I would be interested to see an example of a dish in the ‘non-Gladstone’/non-Peabody’pattern’ with a 7 December 1869 lozenge from a ‘Peabody’ plunger.