hello Chris - looking at the pontil scar, I can see ingrained dirt /discolouration, plus what appears to be some wear on the extremity of the foot rim............ so there does appear to be some age despite your comment that these look new.
Could be wrong, but I'd also agree with the comments about these not being W/F's, although that doesn't mean they couldn't perhaps be an earlier C20 repro from one of the factories that specialized in copying Georgian/Regency styles.
As you'll know, blown-moulded work (prior to the invention of proper pressed glass), is characterized by the pattern being in negative so to speak on the inside of the vessel - a feature not found on pressed glass.
The shape/design of your glass suggests that (just possibly) this might be an example of an early part pressed rummer from around the middle of the C19 - this should be apparent immediately if the inside of the bowl is smooth and without the negative impression of the outside pattern.
The bowl (only) was pressed, thus providing the pattern, and the collar, stem and foot were made separately, and attached, in the traditional way.
Without handling your glasses it's not really possible to be sure of my suggestions, but I'm just intrigued by the dirt in the pontil scar which to me always suggests some reasonable age.
Stuart - when you say 'arch moulded bowl of about 1830', are you referring to 'petal moulding'??
Ref. 'Rummers A Social History Told in Glass' - Timothy Mills - 2013