No-one likes general adverts, and ours hadn't been updated for ages, so we're having a clear-out and a change round to make the new ones useful to you. These new adverts bring in a small amount to help pay for the board and keep it free for you to use, so please do use them whenever you can, Let our links help you find great books on glass or a new piece for your collection. Thank you for supporting the Board.

Author Topic: RD confusion  (Read 1035 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline brucebanner

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 1633
    • Victorian glass
    • United Kingdom
Re: RD confusion
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2017, 06:43:31 PM »
I thought i would show these off, for three reasons, first the size much bigger than those in the gallery, secondly they are near idenical and you can see from the second picture they are from the same mould and thirdly the colour which is uranium green not the more yellow one shown. Chuffed they are  both in mint untouched condition considering the potential RD age.

They measure 9 inches in height, 5 inches across the rim and 4 inches across the base diameter.

Regards Chris.
Chris Parry

Offline Paul S.

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 8041
  • Gender: Male
Re: RD confusion
« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2017, 07:54:06 AM »
Very impressive Chris.                It seems I still hadn't added the Kew picture for this Angus & Greener Rd. 209161 from 26th June 1867 - so now attached.            Regret I don't know enough about these celeries to know whether how many sizes or colours were in fact made - so will leave that to Fred or others to comment on, but as you say would certainly appear that these do come from the same mould.
How distinct, or otherwise, do the lozenges appear on these uranium examples?         

I think our debates regarding the duration of the life of a mould has always been one of those inconclusive matters  -  some no doubt having lasted longer than others for various reasons - some having been sold by the original factory to another manufacturer - some meeting their demise as ordnance fodder for WW I.
Some older (early C20 designs?) pressed patterns have re-surfaced in recent years - mostly in the States apparently, and just possibly more in the way of Carnival.




Offline brucebanner

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 1633
    • Victorian glass
    • United Kingdom
Re: RD confusion
« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2017, 07:31:04 PM »
Yes Paul the lozenge inside near the base, is that a photo or coloured plate?.
Chris Parry

Offline Paul S.

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 8041
  • Gender: Male
Re: RD confusion
« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2017, 07:44:30 PM »
this one Chris is a sepia photograph.          Perhaps they were keen to show off what in 1867 was still a very novel process for recording images, but now these original photographs don't always provide a good material for capturing with a digital camera.           The surface is very shiny and attracts light and then seems very keen on reflecting it.             I assume this original shape was a sugar.

Offline brucebanner

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 1633
    • Victorian glass
    • United Kingdom
Re: RD confusion
« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2017, 08:59:28 PM »
I'm wondering how the moulds were made, were they cast in sand from clay models?, some patterns are so detailed especially the American ones, i have a few pressed items from America not much to go on really but much better quality than English.
Chris Parry

Offline Paul S.

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 8041
  • Gender: Male
Re: RD confusion
« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2017, 11:23:05 AM »
well, it would seem we don't have any experts on mould making.
If you look in Ray Slack's book - page 19 - there is the photo of the old guy cutting a pattern into a mould..........  though what the mould is made from isn't clear, and elsewhere in the book Slack quotes from a contemporary C19 source where moulds are stated to have been made from iron, brass and gunmetal.
Always fatal to make observations when you know nothing about the subject, but I would have thought that perhaps only the basic body outline of a mould might have been sand cast from a wooden pattern.            As you say, many of the glass surface designs are very detailed and intricate, and possibly beyond the scope of sand casting, so my uneducated guess would be that the basic mould shape was cast and then, like the guy in Slack's picture, the patterning was cut using hardened steel chisels etc.
Brass obviously the easiest to cut, then iron and finally gunmetal perhaps.
Pattern making and foundry sand casting was massive industry in the C19, and pattern making a very skilled trade.           I don't know much about the States pressed glass industry, so can't comment as to whether their pressed patterns were more detailed etc. than ours, but certainly some of our work was of a high standard.

Offline Lustrousstone

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 12501
  • Gender: Female
    • Warrington, UK
    • My Gallery
Re: RD confusion
« Reply #16 on: May 22, 2017, 07:01:28 PM »
Here is a description of a relatively modern way of doing it. I suspect the old fashioned way wasn't so very different in the basics http://www.carnivalglassworldwide.com/fenton-mould-making.html

Offline Paul S.

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 8041
  • Gender: Male
Re: RD confusion
« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2017, 09:06:01 PM »
thanks for the link Christine  -  looks like I shall need more than a couple of minutes to digest all that information. :)

Offline mhgcgolfclub

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 1325
Re: RD confusion
« Reply #18 on: May 28, 2017, 12:29:00 PM »
This bowl is registered to Angus Greener 26th June 1867, it has the same central pattern but does not have the linking rings.

It also shows that items were made for many years after the design registration as it also has the 1st Greener lion trade mark just below the date lozenge which must mean the bowl was not made before 1875.

Roy

Offline agincourt17

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 1696
  • Gender: Male
    • Pressed glass 1840-1900
    • Wales
Re: RD confusion
« Reply #19 on: May 28, 2017, 04:16:59 PM »
Henry Greener  pieces with the 'fans and fan roundels' pattern that Roy shows in the previous post seem always to be marked with their 1st lion trademark (used between 1875 and 1885), irrespective of the shape (bowl, dish,, pitchers,  creamer, celery vase, comport) or the colour (clear, dark cobalt or marbled).

The only piece that I have photos of in the 'fans and fan roundels'  pattern that bears a lozenge registry mark in addition to the 1st lion trademark is a circular dish in clear glass  - but the lozenge here is for 8 June 1878- Parcel 11 (corresponding to RD 322393, which should be for a completely different Henry Greener pattern - based on a stylised lanceolate leaf design). Also, in this particular case, the centre  motif to the dish is a fan roundel (as might be expected) in contrast to the looped strapwork design on Roy's dish.

So, yet more cases of Henry Greener pieces with 'odd', 'inappropriate' or 'abberant' lozenges.

Fred.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk

Look for glass on ebay.co.uk  Look for glass on eBay.com (US)
Link to Glass Encyclopedia
Link to Glass Museum


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