Topic: Sowerby pattern 1349

[Paul S.]

I know I've been up since rather early Anne  -  but surely the catalogue page in your link does in fact show what certainly looks like Pattern 1349 under an identical image to this piece?

Anyway, going back to Fred's comments about his lack of reference photo for Rd. 319586 dated 20th March 1878  -  and I've now attached the Kew image for this Registration  -  which in view of the lid would consider very likely to be a biscuit jar, although as usual no dimensions shown on the original drawing.            Apologies the quality is very poor  -  some of these purple pencil drawings are now quite faint.
So, just to prove that it appears none of the Sowerby Rds. from that day has any connection with factory pattern 1349, and I'll now go back to scanning the Kew pictures again.

[Paul S.]

have now cross-checked all Sowerby Registration Nos. in Slack against my pix from Kew between 1872 - and the end of 1879, and appears that I'm missing something like half a dozen Archive images.           Obviously I hope that pattern 1349 is one of them, but regret won't be at Kew for several days, and hope to have news some time next week.

[Anne]

I know I've been up since rather early Anne  -  but surely the catalogue page in your link does in fact show what certainly looks like Pattern 1349 under an identical image to this piece?

Anyway, going back to Fred's comments about his lack of reference photo for Rd. 319586 dated 20th March 1878  -  and I've now attached the Kew image for this Registration  -  which in view of the lid would consider very likely to be a biscuit jar, although as usual no dimensions shown on the original drawing.            Apologies the quality is very poor  -  some of these purple pencil drawings are now quite faint.
So, just to prove that it appears none of the Sowerby Rds. from that day has any connection with factory pattern 1349, and I'll now go back to scanning the Kew pictures again.

Sorry Paul, I was posting quickly from the tablet, which uses an onscreen touch keyboard that drives me to distraction, so I wasn't as clear as I should have been.... the image on Wayne's website shows the item in the OP, but the number below it isn't  sufficiently legible to be able to make out what the numbers are. On the version on the Thistlewood CD the number is missing completely as the image appears cropped just short of the vase itself, thus losing the number.  Looking again at the copy on Wayne's site it could be 1349, 1549 or even 1849 due to the indistinct nature of the 2nd character.

[agincourt17]

Paul, Chris's third photo of the mark in his opening post clearly shows the peacock head trademark below the lozenge for 20 March 1878 - Parcel 7. I can confirm that all the photos I have of the marks from the 'known' patterns in this bundle also have the lozenge plus the peacock head trademark.

As to the pattern number of the piece shown by Chris, the first pic in my reply #2 quite clearly shows it to be pattern 1349 (as does Wayne's online catalogue). The typeface used in the Sowerby pattern book IX sometimes makes it difficult to differentiate between '3' and '5' and '8' when seen in isolation but not when you compare the digits on different pages.

Thank you, Paul, for posting post a pic of the design representation for the contentious RD 319586 so that we can actually see now the design that seemed to be causing so much confusion to all and sundry. Cottle and Thompson were quite correct in that it shows a 'biscuit jar', and you were correct in saying that it bears no resemblance to Chris's pattern 1349 'thing' (which would appear to be a vase or spill after all).
Page 3 of the Sowerby pattern book XI (1885) shows six 'biscuit boxes' (sic.), all from registered designs, as follows:
1032  (RD 260404-405 of 12 February 1872)
1074 (RD 281933 of 22 April 1874)
1074 1/2 (RD 282663-664 of 1 June 1874)
1202 (RD 307690 of 13 Feb 1877)
1365  which is, despite a little artistic licence from the Sowerby draughtsman who specified 'ears' or 'handles' on the base, a pretty clear match to RD 319586 (see my attached pic). 
1405  for which no corresponding RD number has yet been determined (but was most probably registered in early 1879, though there was a design for a biscuit box RD 328740 of 4 November 1878 - Parcel 10).

In any case, I thought  I would try a different approach that may possibly lead to more fruitful results....

Sowerby pattern 1349 appears at the bottom of page 6 in pattern book IX (1882).

Despite the odd anomalies in the Sowerby pattern numbering 'system'(?), the bulk of the patterns on page 6 which are from registered designs appear in the design bundles of
14 May 1878 - Parcel 9 (RDs 321368-321379)
 25 June 1878 - Parcel 10 (RDs 322819-322825)
12 August 1878 - Parcel 6 (RDs 324929- 324932)
16 August 1878 - Parcel 11 (RDs 325096-325101)

The bulk of the patterns on page 7 which are from registered designs appear in the design bundles of
4 November 1878 - Parcel 10 (RDs 328740-328751)
13 December 1878 - Parcel 16 (RDs 330348-330352)
and on into early 1879.

Just looking at the pattern numbers around pattern 1349, most appear to be from designs registered between June and November 1878 (so that would be RDs 32XXXX).

Even so, I've looked through my reference photos within the date range and RD number range without any sign of that elusive pattern number 1349.

Fred.

[Paul S.]

gosh, there are a lot of clever folk here - knowing so much about C19 glass  - I think Fred should be given an honorary award for all his hard work  -  but I'm so very sorry to hear that there are some sick biscuit boxes  -  sincerely hope they recover soon...............    forgive the levity folks.                 Some great Sowerby glass at the antiques fair today - pieces with the nursery rhyme decoration, plus plenty of blackberries and cream colour items.

Re the original posting here, obviously my brain missed registering seeing the peacock's head at certain locations - and as mentioned, I'm short of several Kew images from 1878 and early 1879, so fingers crossed 1349 is one of them.             As an off the cuff comment, and bearing in mind that it appears we've not previously had a posting of 1349, in the flesh, then seems fair to say it is a scarce piece, so well done Chris.

During the course of checking Nos. in Ray Slack's book discovered a typo - in the listings of Design Registration Nos.  -  which folk may care to correct if they have a copy.                     The last item on page 166 is a pair of numbers Registered on 26th February 1877, that should read 307957 - 58 ....    and not 308957 - 58, as shown.   

I haven't forgotten the other group of Kew Rd. Nos. that I promised to post - possibly tomorrow if I get the time.

[Paul S.]

regret to say a lack of success today in finding a Reg. No., at Kew, for pattern 1349  -  it's proving a mystery, and will need more time and effort to try and resolve.

[agincourt17]

Thank you for all your efforts anyway, Paul.

Fred.

[thewingedsphinx]

Look what I found in my surplus box. Unfortunately we don't have a lid we also had it referenced as rd 328740-51 04/11/1878 we had it as a vase but it has a small lip for the lid to sit on.
Cheers Mike

[agincourt17]

Thank you for showing this, Mike.  A pity that it missing its lid.

Fred.