Author Topic: Davidson 589/2 style bowls (Read 1160 times)

Gwion James · « **on:** September 10, 2006, 05:23:26 PM »

I have a pair of 'folded' bowls identical to the cloud Sowerby or Davidson 589/2 pattern http://www.cloudglass.com/sowerbycat.htm but in plain dark amber glass. Can anyone tell me if mine are likely to be early 60s and fairly directly attributable to the Design Research Unit template - or was this widely pirated by many makers and for many years after? Thanks for looking.

David E · « **Reply #1 on:** September 13, 2006, 05:44:02 PM »

I also have a few of these: red, blue, amber, purple cloud, but have always thought of them as Sowerby, c.1960. I'm not aware of any other copies, but Chris or Adam might be able to comment further.

I've just mailed Chris.

ChrisStewart · « **Reply #2 on:** September 13, 2006, 07:34:34 PM »

Hi,
To the best of our knowledge these were made only by Davidson and Sowerby, although it would not surprise me to find another manufacturer.

If your bowls are in amber, then I think Sowerby is the most likely maker of the two.

Regards

Chris

Anne E.B. · « **Reply #3 on:** September 13, 2006, 07:43:59 PM »

I recently had an amber one with a Sowerby label on it.

Adam · « **Reply #4 on:** September 13, 2006, 09:01:59 PM »

I agree with Chris. This is such an inexpensive mould to make, requiring virtually no hand work, almost anyone could have copied it. The glassmaking needed is not exactly state of the art either!

Adam D.

Gwion James · « **Reply #5 on:** September 14, 2006, 10:48:15 AM »

Yes, thanks everyone - what's surprising is not so much that other companies might eventually copy it (mine are quite wobbly and approximate in the making) but that Sowerby would have gone straight into production if indeed this was one of the designs Davidson got from the high-profile DRU as part of a modernisation campaign.

Gwion James · « **Reply #6 on:** September 14, 2006, 03:33:46 PM »

But one tiny point about the supposed ease of copying it, Adam. It would presumably be a little trickier than many designs because one couldn't just take a mould off an existing example - you'd have to calculate the shape of the pre-folded bowl and fabricate a mould from scratch. (I am not sure how the hot glass would have been held for folding either. No pontil, and the round foot is quite differently ground off on each of my two.)

Adam · « **Reply #7 on:** September 15, 2006, 06:22:03 PM »

Gwion - Re the mould cost, perhaps I should have said "relatively" inexpensive! The point was that this mould could be made almost enirely on a lathe. Dimensions would be no problem - contrary to popular opinion moulds for pressed glass, if to copy an existing article are never cast in some way from the glass. Starting from scratch is the only way.

Re holding the article for re-heating ("melting" in the local vernacular), please see my piece "Unmelted, Melted or Double Melted" in page 6 of the Archives. The 7th para in particular. Then come back to me if you like, about that or anything else.

Adam D.

Frank · « **Reply #8 on:** September 15, 2006, 06:29:36 PM »

Link to Adam's piece in archive

http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,579.0.html

Adam the pic has gone from Tinypic, can we yobunny it ?

When will yobunny make it into the dictionary

Gwion James · « **Reply #9 on:** September 15, 2006, 06:33:11 PM »

Thanks, I know little of the techniques - more about casting in metals which I realise is not the same technology.... I only guess that making a mould on any kind of lathe etc. would be easier from an 'undistorted' original. I'll go and consult your text......