Topic: Glass Reference Question

[Ohio]

Quick question...today picked up Decorative Victorian Glass 1988 edition by Cyril Manley, mint condition. Are the attribution is the reference solid or are they shaky in this day & age?   Thanks, Ken

[Lustrousstone]

A lot of them are shaky, but some are not. I just love the pictures

[flying free]

It's a lovely book, and I like owning it.

However, I don't use it as a reference source.  I remember raising it in conversation with a museum curator, using it as a last double double check reference for a vase id, and their response was that it wasn't used as a reference source any more.  There are too many incorrect identifications in it.

But it is still worth having and reading as long as it's not used as a reference source in my view. It was written before the days of the internet and of it's time was a great book.

A better book as a reference source is Mervyn Gulliver's Victorian Glass.  However, in it  he shows a huge amount of glass without identification.  As I understand it, he would not put in an identification unless he was sure.  So as far as I have found, it is accurate, but may not have as many id's in it as would have been liked

Another recommendation for British Glass would be Charles Hajdemach's books on British Glass (both of them).  Massive tomes, but I have used mine so much they have been invaluable.

The last three books all worth every penny if you need a resource on British Glass.

m

[Paul S.]

I re-bound C.H's C20 glass book into two volumes - and it's till too heavy to read in the bath

[flying free]

 

[Ohio]

Thanks Christine, M & Paul. M I brought this up primarily because the Alabaster vases that feature the Roman type scenes are pictured & several are....well the book says "signed". A couple are Richardson's Stourbridge & he calls them "Vitrified enamel colored" yet another one is signed "M. W. & Co. Vitirfied", Mill, Walker & Co. Wordsley. I will give the author props on one piece, #430 which he say is a modern piece of Burmese made in Italy. This particular piece is a really excellent copy of a Mt. Washington Burmese Bowtie vase & what separates it from 98% of all Italian Burmese copies is that Uranium was used in the batch & this one is such a good copy that its extremely difficult to distinguish from the original. MW collectors are happy that this is so far the only one imported known to have used Uranium...98% of the Burmese copies will not react at all to a blacklight. Cryil  got this one right. Book was only $5 & DW thought the pics are beautiful just to look at regardless of attribution so it came home with us.
 

[flying free]

It is lovely to own and many of the identifications are correct (well the ones I know).
However, I would never use it to identify something.  There are too many incorrect id's.

But when Manley wrote it there just was not the information readily available to compare as this is now on the net.  There were no glass message boards in any version so the cross fertilisation of ideas and information was nowhere near as available.  That said,  the information and pictures he managed to include in the absence of the internet, was great.  To me it reads as though he wrote it as a start point for people to investigate more.  Unfortunately as time and the net have moved on, incorrect id's have surfaced with regularity.

What I found interesting was the information he'd passed on from talking to people who worked in the industry.  However, as Frank I think has mentioned, memories are not always accurate either.

That said, I do still read his text as a last check on things.  Just in case there is a nugget of information there.

As Kev mentioned on a previous thread, I'm sure Mr Manley would have loved the GMB   it is probably exactly the kind of thing he was looking for to exchange ideas and information on his glass collection.

[KevinH]

Another point about Manley's Decorative Victorian Glass book is that it was preceded by an American publication (see this link for my reference to it) with a 1968 copyright date. That earlier book illustrates very many of the items shown in the later book. The earlier one has only brief descriptions but they do tie up (mostly) with the later versions.

So, many of Cyril Manley's attributions were set long before Decorative Victorian Glass was published.

[Paul S.]

I've very little experience of decorative C19 glass, so wouldn't presume to criticize, but one feature of his book that might perhaps have made it more useful would have been to have included more details of Registration Nos., especially the earlier ones.       
Some are included, and to his credit Cyril Manley was astute enough to have been aware of the problem of CLASS III glass items being wrongly placed in CLASS IV, ceramics, but it does seem likely from reading his words that he didn't make use of the Board of Trade records with regard to the cross-referencing some of his images with the alleged Registration Nos.             Of course his work was at a time prior to the advent of the National Archives, and so life was nowhere near as easy for researchers.
If you read the text, and realize the efforts he went to in his discussions with glass workers and factory people, it's not perhaps easy to comprehend the level of criticism levelled again him, and makes it more difficult to understand the apparent extent of errors.          Perhaps he was simply too gullible.
If you read the final paragraph of his introduction, he does admit to a lack of certainty with many of his attributions  ..."not all my opinions may be correct.    "My research methods may not seem acceptable to many for they are based on the experience of myself and others, and my handling of glass".
But I like the book, but then I'm a big fan of coloured pictures  -  I rarely read the books........    my sons comment that I simply read dust jacket blub and then profess that I know all about the subject.

Apropos of nothing mentioned here, I think I'm correct in saying that none of Manley's illustrations show examples of either of the Wittmann & Roth Registrations - 41925 (for the scale decoration) and 39086 (the hammered effect) - about which we've spilled not a little ink recently.
Is it likely that he simply didn't find examples - though he had some real gems that today you aren't going to find - or is there another reason he didn't include them?

Mod: The paragraph above has been retained here, but detailed discussion relating to the Wittmann & Roth registered items has been merged into another thread (Replies #37-39, Vase signed G.S.F. - American).

Over the next two or three days, I'll hopefully write a few words on some of the more famous of the Richardson pieces he shows, and include the corresponding National Archive Registration pictures.     

[Paul S.]

Charles Hajdamach refers to the (British) Richardson output as a 'dynasty'  -  probably a fair description of a very successful family of mid C19 glass manufacturers  -  and in Manley's U.K. book that Ken mentions buying, the author includes a few of Richardson's more notable designs.            Quite why Manley didn't provide the relevant British Registration Nos. for these early designs I've no idea - possibly because he didn't frequent the Board of Trade Archives - although in the main he does seem to have been aware of the years of Registration.                So here are just a few thoughts on the very first of Richardson's Registrations.

Their very first Registration, of which Manley shows an example on page 54 - item 6 -  is the famous jug/ewer, decorated with transfer printed scenes of Egyptian rustic life and described as Vitrified Enamel Colour, described by some folk as opaline.

For those interested, the Reg. No. is 42634, as shown on the attached pix, and I've followed Manley and included the matching goblet (item 7 in his book), which was allocated Registration No. 42635  -  both pieces carry the same Registration date of 16th April 1847.

These pieces, with variations on the transfer printed subject matter - middle eastern scenes then later apparently English rural views and floral designs -  can be found elsewhere in the literature (probably Wakefield and certainly Morris), although oddly I didn't see either piece in C.H.,  - but notice that pieces with identical transfer prints appeared for sale in Part Two of the Parkington Collection at Christie's in April 1998.         I don't know the date of sale of the Manley collection, but wonder if Michael Parkington purchased the exact pieces showing in Manley's book.

There are prior dated designs from the Richardson pattern books, but as far as I'm aware none of those was Registered with the Board of Trade - so 42634 and 42635 appear to be the very first Registered designs from W. H. B. & J. Richardson, Stourbridge.

The exact shape/pattern of Reg. 42634, with its distinctive downward pulled scallop on either side of the handle - occurs again in the list of Richardson Registrations  -  namely Rd. 52328 dated 13th June 1848  -  and can be found in clear glass painted with a floral design in coloured enamels and, yet again, in the Parkington sale, in clear glass with cut/frosted decoration of what appears to be convolvulus leaves (popular plant it seems at the time).             
I've attached a National Archive picture of Rd. 52328, and although you can't be certain this was enamel painting on clear glass, I'm of the opinion it was,  -   as opposed to an opaline type.

Christie's show the Parkington clear cut glass jug, based on the shape of Rd. 42634, and state   'Richardson's c. 1850'  -  and refer us to Barbara Morris' book which shows unrelated shapes but similar cutting designs with frosted glass  -   in support of their claim as to date          I've not a clue as to the actual time line of manufacture for some of these later versions of 42634, and like many attributions in books, these are given often without any provenance to support their claim. .....................   on the other hand I wouldn't dare argue with the writings of the late Barbara Morris.

The difficulty we have is trying to decide exactly what it was that Richardson were Registering and when, and whereas ordinarily this should be resolved by looking at the Archives Register - that part of the records where the Applicant's name and address are shown, plus details of what it is that's being protected  -  I have looked, and it's not helped.
In the Register, against 42634 there is a blank..........    against 42635 there is simply the word 'goblet'  .................   and against 52328 it states simply 'water jug'  -  perhaps Richardson were playing hard and fast with the Board of Trade and being evasive, deliberately.

My own thoughts are that 42634 may well have Registered the newly invented 'Richardson Vitrified Enamel colors' only, (dropping the 'u' was apparently the factory's idea) - and not the shape at all ..............   on the other hand 42634 may well have also Registered the shape  -  and the subsequent Rd. 52328 may simply have been to protect their coloured enamelled painting on clear glass of the same shape. ......                          Manley isn't specific in his book as to what exactly he considered was being Registered against 42634 and 35, and comments in regard to a completely different Registration.............  "I'm not sure what was Registered etc. etc.  ....."   so he too was occasionally in some doubt as to the details of that part of the design that was be Registered.                                         There isn't an example of 52328 in Manley's book.

The answer may well be in the Richardson archives, but whatever the answer, it's obvious that an identical shape of jug occurs under both 42634 and 52328.

Of course, always possible that someone here may have a much better answer as to exactly what these two Reg. designs were protecting  -  would love to hear* happy




Bit of a ramble really, and not sure of much use, but if anyone still reading this far down, you deserve a medal.