Topic: Rare Copeland RD 261532 pedestal bowl of 28 March 1872

[agincourt17]

A clear press-moulded pedestal bowl with registry date lozenge for 28 March 1872 – Parcel 7 to the base of the bowl interior which, according to the online summary at The National Archives at
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_hb=tna&_q=261532design+registered+glass
corresponds to registered design number 261532 – registrant  W.J. Copeland & Sons, 160 New Bond Street, London.
The bowl is 13.25cm high, and has a bowl top diameter of 13.25cm

(Permission for the re-use of this image on the GMB granted by David Garrett).

There does, however, seem to be some ambiguity about the precise details of the registrant which leave me somewhat confused:

Although the online summary at TNA clearly states the registrant to be  “W.J. Copeland & Sons”,  Raymond Slack (page 159) gives the registrant as “W.T Copeland”.  The copy of the original handwritten registry entry summary in Thompson (page 108) is sufficiently indistinct as to be ambiguous, so is there a transcription error somewhere [W.J.Copeland / W.T. Copeland]?

Googling “W.J. Copeland + glass” has generated an undated entry in a trade directory as of “Mr. Copeland, Bond Street London – English Crystal Glass”.

http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O6259/the-copeland-vase-vase-jones-j/
lists an engraved glass vase made by “Copeland about 1872-1873”. This vase won a Bronze Medal at the Vienna Exhibition of 1873 where Sir Richard Wallace bought it. J. Jones, an artist employed by the COPELAND GLASSWORKS IN LONDON [my emphasis], made the original design, which consisted of intricate flowing lines known as arabesques. There is a copy of it in the V&A collections. The decoration on the finished piece shows that Paul Oppitz, who engraved the design on the vase, added some fine detail and the winged beasts to the original design.

The Copeland RD 231562 of 28 March 1872 is the only glass design registration I can find. Other W. [J or T] Copeland design registrations in the online summaries of TNA seem to be Class 4: Glass, earthenware etc. …, with addresses in Stoke on Trent (so presumably pottery or china rather than glass)..

There seems to be a link to the long line of Copelands associated with the family firm which produced Spode china in Staffordshire since the 19th century. William Copeland (1765-1826), a traveller in the tea trade became a partner in Josiah Spode's London warehouse and, by 1812, owned three quarters of the London business, comprising the warehouse and showroom that sold fine china to royalty and the aristocracy.
His son, William Taylor Copeland (1797-1868) capitalised on his father's efforts, buying the entire Spode business, including the pottery at Stoke-on-Trent, in 1833. The Copelands continued to run the enterprise, making Spode and Copeland china as W. T. Copeland & Sons, for the next four generations.

According to
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1820-1832/member/copeland-william-1797-1868
…In 1833 he [William T. Copeland] and his new partner Thomas Garrett acquired complete control of the London business for £21,500 and bought the Spode factory in Stoke for £44,000…becoming particularly celebrated for its parian groups and statuettes. He dissolved his partnership with Garrett in 1847 AND SHORTLY AFTERWARDS MOVED HIS LONDON PREMISES TO 160 NEW BOND STREET, subsequently bringing HIS FOUR SURVIVING SONS INTO THE BUSINESS. He died in April 1868 at his country residence at Russell Farm, Watford.

THUS, THE ADDRESS OF THE COPELAND SPODE LONDON PREMISES, 160 NEW BOND STREET, IS THE SAME AS THAT OF THE REGISTRANT FOR THE COPELAND RD 261352.

In 1866, Spode held a Royal Warrant as “Manufacturers of China and Glass to H.R.H. The Prince of Wales”, but all other Royal warrants held by Spode only mention them as manufacturers of pottery or china.

I have drawn a virtual blank regarding a “Copeland Glassworks” in London. Does anyone have any more detailed information about such a glass manufacturing enterprise, and/or the links between the various china and glass manufacturing Copelands, please?.

Fred.

[Anne]

Does this help Fred?

THE LONDON GAZETTE, JANUARY 17, 1868.
NOTICE is hereby given, that the Partnership lately subsisting between us the undersigned, William Taylor Copeland, an Alderman of the city of London, William Fowler Mountford Copeland, Edward Capper Copeland, Alfred James Copeland, and Richard Pirie Copeland, as Merchants and Dealers in China, Glass, Porcelain and Earthenware, at No. 160. New Bond-street, in the county of Middlesex, and also as Manufacturers of China, Porcelain, and Earthenware, at Stoke-upon-Trent, in Staffordshire, under the style or firm of W. T. Copeland and Sons, was, on the 31st day of December last, dissolved by mutual consent, so far as regards the said Alderman William Taylor Copeland, who on that day retired from the concern ; and that all debts due and owing to or by the late firm, will be received and paid by the said William Fowler Mountford Copeland, Edward Capper Copeland, Alfred James Copeland, and Richard Pirie Copeland.
—As witness our hands this 2nd day of January, 1868.
W. T. Copeland. Alfred J. Copeland. W. F. M. Copeland. Richd. P. Copeland. Edwd. C. Copeland.

THE LONDON GAZETTE, APRIL 9, 1875.
NOTICE is hereby given, that the Partnership heretofore subsisting between us the undersigned, William Fowler Mountford Copeland, Edward Capper Copeland, Alfred James Copeland, and Richard Pirie Copeland, as Merchants,. Manufacturers, and Dealers in China, Glass, and Earthenware, and carried on at 160, New Bond-street, London, in the county of Middlesex, and at Stoke-upon Trent, in the county of Stafford, under the style or firm of W. T. Copeland and Sons, was, as and from the 1st day of April instant, dissolved, by mutual consent, so far as relates to the said Edward Capper Copeland, and that the said business will as and from that date be carried on by the undersigned, William Fowler Mountford Copeland, Alfred James Copeland, and Richard Pirie Copeland only, and all monies due to and owing by the said partnership of W. T. Copeland and Sons will be received and paid by the said William Fowler Mountford Copeland, Alfred James Copeland, and Richard Pirie Copeland, who will still continue to trade at the same premises under the style or firm of W. T. Copeland and Sons.—Dated this 2nd day of April, 1875.
W. F. M. Copeland. Alfred J. Copeland. Ed. C. Copeland. Richd. P. Copeland

They attended the Vienna universal exhibition of 1873 and the 1878 Paris expo as below

Catalogue officiel de la section anglaise Exposition universelle (1878 : Paris, France)
Copeland, W. T., & Sons ; Fabricants de porcelaine, etc., et  Inventeurs ; 160, New Bond Street, London. Fabrique a Stoke-upon-Trent, Staffordshire. Objets d'art en porcelaine, sculptures ceramiques, etc.
Link: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021898022

[Anne]

Incidentally, Fred, the Paul Oppitz mentioned in your post was an independent engraver who worked for various people, so my guess he was commissioned to decorate that 'engraved glass vase made by “Copeland about 1872-1873”.'  Apparently it took him 243 days to execute the work on the vase!  His work is superb and examples are in several museum collections.

He was Bohemian, a master engraver originally from Novy Bor or Haida, and came to the UK in 1845 where he later married and raised a family, he was naturalised British in 1853. The Ancestry genealogy site has a number of records of him and his family, including some super photos of the man himself. 

In the 1868 Journal of the Royal Society of Arts Volume 16 he is given as follows: "76 Stamford Street, Blackfriars, S." when engraving a jug and 2 goblets "designed and arranged by Mr Jones in the employ of Messrs Copeland & Sons" followed by the 160 New Bond Street address.  Interestingly, the entry in the Journal gives the price of the aforementioned jug and 2 goblets at £30, which in 1868 was a serious amount of money, the equivalent cost indexed by the percentage increase in the RPI from 1868 to today would be some £2411!   

The Glass Circle 10 from 2005 has an article entitled, Paul Oppitz (1827-1894) by John P. Smith (Query: is this John Smith from Broadfield House Glass Museum?) Does anyone have a copy and can add more?

In "An introduction to English glassware to 1900" by Charles Truman he says,
"By 1873, the Bohemian Paul Oppitz was working for W. T. Copeland, and Frederick Kny and William Fritsche joined the staff of Thomas Webb in Stourbridge shortly afterwards." - it's unclear from that if he was freelance or employed permanently, though evidence from other sources indicate he remained freelance and lived in London until his death in 1894.

None of this tells us who made the RD 261532 glass for Copeland, though it does perhaps hint that their Mr Jones designed it and it was made by one of the big makers such as Webb, who they clearly had a relationship with, rather than running their own glassworks?

[flying free]

if this is wrong or confuses the issue then please feel free to delete
I found this photo where the caption says:

'SERVICE IN CUT GLASS BY MR ALDERMAN COPELAND, LONDON'

http://www.art.co.uk/products/p28106210252/poster.htm?awc=3830_1456997831_3eb5630fa81ff05bc68dc3e4542a5417&aw_affid=205115&aw_gid=0&aw_bid=0&aw_pid=3323242193&aw_cr=&aw_sitename=httpwwwlepricecouk&RFID=274305

I've no idea if Alderman Copeland is the photographer and no relation to the Copeland family  you are discussing at all.  But I suppose what triggered me to post was that in Anne's post above it refers to 'between us the undersigned, William Taylor Copeland, an Alderman of the city of London,'.
Then on here (see link below) I found one of the pieces with the caption
'Copeland cut decanter, unknown designer, 1862. Noted by Dresser in the Illustrated London News.'
http://www.christopherdresser.co.uk/collections/Glass/glass.html
So just thought I'd post this in case.
m

[agincourt17]

Thank you very much, Anne & m., for your work in researching such informative replies.

It would seem, therefore, that the ‘glass’ Copeland and the ‘china’ Copeland are one and the same. I still find it strange, though, that there are a number of references to “W.J.” Copeland and Sons rather than “W.T.” Copeland and Sons – is it really simply a matter of an error in transcribing  handwritten uppercase letter “T”s into printed uppercase letter “J”s or (vice versa) ?

The Paul Oppitz engraved work on glass is certainly of superb quality, and obviously needed a high quality, hand-blown glass blank to showcase the engraved work, so I can see why a link to a manufacturer of high quality glassware (such as Webb) would be a virtual necessity to dealers in (and ‘manufacturers’ of) such high end, expensive items.

The Copeland cut glass service – the “Alderman” is almost certainly W.T. Copeland, and thus pre-1868 – and the Copeland Decanter of 1862 are wonderful examples of skilled cut decoration on hand-blown glassware. Interestingly, the cut service and decanter are stylistically very similar, especially with both having circular features with central raised circular ‘domes’ or prunts. Additionally the “Carafe with Gothic decoration, 9.5 ins, 1862. W & G Phillips, produced by T. Webb, unknown designer” shown to the right of the Copeland Decanter, also has central band of circular prunts –  useful evidence in the proposition of a link between Copeland and Webb.

I think it still begs the question as to why W. [T or J - whatever] Copeland and Sons should have gone to the trouble of designing and manufacturing (or subcontracting the manufacture of) a piece of comparatively inexpensive, press-moulded glass tableware such as RD 261532, presumably aimed at a mass market.  Perhaps they were testing out a potential foray into higher volume, lower price point selling. If so, the exercise seems to have proved commercially dubious as RD 261532 appears to have been their sole registered design for press-moulded glassware.

The subcontracting of the manufacture of press-moulded glassware would also probably have meant forging links with glassware manufacturers who had proven acumen in such techniques (which manufacturers of high quality hand-blown glassware, such as Webb, seem not to have had). In addition, substantial value could be more readily added to high quality china and glassware items by skilful application of decoration by hand, whereas merely ‘dealing’ as middlemen or retailers for domestic press-moulded glass tableware would probably have proved much less profitable, or may ultimately have not sat well with the Copeland’s chosen market image.

Fred.

[flying free]

Fred, did you mean to delete most of your post?
And how are you seeing a picture of the Paul Oppitz engraved glass - my screen keeps showing a blank on that one.
m

[agincourt17]

No, m, I didn't, but for some inexplicable reason the post has appeared formatted with lines through most of it.

I will see if I can modify the formatting or perhaps re-post it in a different format shortly .

I'm not seeing a picture of the Paul Oppitz engraved glass via your links, but there are lots of other pics of his engraved glass online.

Fred.

[flying free]

yes, this link would suggest Alderman Copeland is one and same selling glass and china
http://www.freeimages.com/premium/victorian-porcelain-vases-and-urns-by-alderman-copeland-16047

I agree that your hypothesis regarding testing the market and whether or not it would make commercial sense to sell pressed glass is one possible hypothesis.  Pressed glass would have become quite the thing, and therefore it would be foolish to let a mass market opportunity pass by if it was going to generate a good income.
However, perhaps they decided they were not into pile it high sell em cheap?   Maybe quality control was an issue?

m

[agincourt17]

I've tried reformatting and reposting my reply #4 (or even various bits of it) several times - but to no apparent avail.

I shall soon be out of 'modifying' time, but perhaps a kind moderator would be able remove the pesky 'crossed out' formatting with a press of a few 'magic keys' or even the threat of the Anne's  fearsome 'poking stick'?

Fred.

[KevinH]

Easy job for this moderator ... formatting looks ok to me ... nothing to do !!