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.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
I disagree regarding your explanation of what a maker of glass (manufacturer of glass) is, and I suspect that many on the board will as well.  The process of refining the glass, i.e cutting, gilding, enamelling, silvering or whatever process is done to the the glass object after it has been manufactured (i.e. made by the maker) is called refining (as far as I know). 


And I had already supplied the corroborating information that Powell's made some of the double walled glass items and that the 'refining' i.e. the cutting, silvering and plugging was done at Thomson's workshop in Berners Street,  in my previous posts about the court cases.

The information in the court cases gives further enlightenment as to who did what process at the Thomson owned workshop in Berners Street.
It also tells you about what exactly Mr Varnish did and what Mr Mellish did.

Mr Mellish was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in 1851 for embezzlement.




I do not agree with these assertions in your post, from looking at the evidence given in the court case:

1) 'Ok,are you ready, the two original patentees were Varnish and Mellish, with Thomson joining up later. nothing to debate!'

No, Thomson did not join up later as far as I read. 



2) 'BLANKS were then sent back to Varnish and Thomson, who COMPLETED the process, silvering.sealing, marking.still no debate!'

No, according to Mr Varnish's evidence he knew nothing about glass and operated the commercial arm of the business.
Thomson did originally do some silvering and may have again done some silvering after Mellish went to prison but i seems  tMr Thomson employed a variety of finisher/cutters etc and it may have been they who completed the process.  He employed Mellish to help him do the process in the first place.  Varnish did not do this.



3) 'Once again, I will say that the end user of any material in the way of production is the manufacturer.'
In the glass world I would say this is an incorrect statement.


By the way, I'm no expert so am open to correction from people who have vastly more glass knowledge than I.  This is just my understanding.


m
2
 ;D nice one
3
I have been speaking to the V&A, to a lady called Judith Crouch.

Ok,are you ready, the two original patentees were Varnish and Mellish, with Thomson joining up later. nothing to debate!

Powells and others supplied BLANKS, this is very important. still nothing to debate!

BLANKS were then sent back to Varnish and Thomson, who COMPLETED the process, silvering.sealing, marking.still no debate!

Tallis had Powells as MANUFACTURING most of the glass for the exhibition, in reality they just provided the BLANKS,no more, just blanks.

I used to buy "BLANK lengths of granite" I would cut, polish, and drill it, MANUFACTURING a kitchen worktop.

This simple phrase refering to Powells as the MANUFACTURER, is what all the contention is about.

Once again, I will say that the end user of any material in the way of production is the manufacturer.

I have suggested to Mrs Crouch that the description should omit "possibly by, or attributed too" to be replaced by "Blanks supplied by Powells and others",and "Manufactured by Varnish and Thomson"

This clears up all grey areas of WHO manufactured Varnish and Thomson, the answer was infront of us all the time.
At the time that Tallis wrote about the Great Exhibition the phrase "Manufactured by Powells of Whitefriars" should have been "Manufactured by Thomson and Varnish, blanks supplied by Powells and others"

I will post again once I have had a reply from Mrs Crouch.
5
I think it's an AV if that helps - or VA of course.

m
6
1) I think the engraved E Varnish mark is on the rim - the rim at the top, not the foot rim. 
And then they mention an ' inserted metal plug in the base.' is also marked

It looks a bit confusing because it also has a decorative silver-looking applied-looking edging around the base rim.  But I do think they mean it is marked on the silver rim collar at the neck.



2) I've just had a lightbulb moment - if you look at the vase in a download you can see that there is an applied metal collar in the stem.
If this is an 'epergne' then the metal collar may not be a damage cover-up but might be the metal insert for the upper vase body to sit in the base.
So by 'metal plug in the base' they might be the inserted metal plug for the vase upper body to set into?



3) I  think it looks as though it has a blue interior.  Could this be a reflection of the silver appearance of the internal layer of glass (i.e.surface facing the inside of the vase  where water would go for flowers) ?  if it is indeed silvered using the silver nitrate method.



4) If it really is silvered in the double wall process, then who knows how they did it because it looks like that could mean:

-  clear internal layer, doubled wall external layer
-  then double walled external layer cased in ruby,
-  then ruby layer cased in clear layer (see downloaded image to show the thick clear layer over the internal ruby layer especially at the foot stem)
-  then clear outer layer cased in white


5) But it just does not look like it was made by an English maker to the eye.
The cutting does not look anything like the cutting on the other E. Varnish double walled silvered glass. 
It has vermicular decoration on it.
The upper rim of the vase (not the foot rim) looks as though it is cut and bevelled underneath the silver collar doesn't it?




6) I wonder if this comment in the description is correct:

'Production Note

'E. Varnish and F. Hale Thomson patented the silvering process used in the manufacture of this vase.'

The vase does have silver applications on it but that is not the same as being a double walled vessel with silver nitrate poured between the layers to give a reflective surface to the glass.




Summary: Very strange piece of apparently Powell & Sons glass  :-\

7
sorry, can't help with maker or to whom the mark refers, but just possible this is a sandblasted logo/mark  -  it has a granulated sort of appearance.         It may well not indicate a maker  -  and might relate to a retailer or wholesaler - and quite modern imho.
8
agree, sounds fishy to me too Christine  -  I was simply drawing attention to something that appeared to have a very close aesthetic similarity - who knows, perhaps the salts gave Wilkinson the germ of an idea ;)

P.S.    if you're going to be in town Robin, then you might try the Grays Antiques Centre (close to Oxford street I think)  - but pricey of course, although they will haggle at times.
Also there's the Kempton (Sunbury) twice monthly antiques market) - Roy, here, is a big fan I recall.           Starts at 6.30 a.m. I think and in the depths of December that can be a bit off-putting  -  but some real gems can be found provided you are early.           As for books  -  you can never have enough.
9
and that deep teal is uranium glass, which is very unusual
10
I think the "Wilkinson" beads are a red herring in this case. The salt's beads are applied blobs
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
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