Glass Message Board

Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: David E on April 10, 2016, 08:39:16 PM

Title: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: David E on April 10, 2016, 08:39:16 PM
Found this at Newark last Thursday at a really good price.

Appears to have the Stratford rings around the base of the bowl, and is clearly marked RD 681649, which dates it to 12th March 1921. As usual with this enameled items, the cold painting has flaked a little in places, but overall not too bad.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: keith on April 10, 2016, 10:47:46 PM
Looks like you had a good day, great finds, ;D ;D
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Paul S. on April 11, 2016, 03:31:14 PM
great find David, congratulations :)  -  agree it's a shame some of the painting suffers on these enamelled items.

You're right about the original date of first Registration for 'Stratford Rings' design.         

According to Andy McConnell there were something like 600 enamelled designs introduced between 1928 and 1939, with Ludwig Kny being responsible for the mostly floral patterns until 1933 when Geoffrey Stuart provided the more fashionable Art Deco designs.          McConnell suggests that most of these enamelled patterns were in fact added to Stratford Rings shapes...................   anyway you only have another 599 to go ;)

Date wise looks to be from somewhere between the late '20's and the late '30's, and always possible yours is one of the Kny designs, but that's just my opinion.

Although you don't give a size David, my thoughts are this is not a comport  -  do you think more likely a cocktail glass of some sort  -  which would fit in with the period ??               Of course, if it's nine inches across the top then you could be right ;D
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: David E on April 11, 2016, 09:54:30 PM
Thanks for the extra info. No, it's far larger than it looks: 16.5cm (6½in) diameter and 17cm (6¾in) high! If not a comport then perhaps a sweet/bon-bon dish.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: brucebanner on April 12, 2016, 07:12:15 AM
Looks like you have pattern 28376, minus the birds, here is one I found yesterday, part cut part etched.

3 1/2 inches in height, 4 1/4 inches across the rim.

The pattern looks cheap and rushed on mine.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: brucebanner on April 12, 2016, 07:25:18 AM
Both of ours are described as sweet dishes.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: David E on April 12, 2016, 07:51:15 AM
That's good - a comport would be larger and flatter, I suppose.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Robin G on October 25, 2017, 04:11:18 AM
Bruce Banner ( Chris Parry?) Sorry I don't know you all yet. Does your Stuart catalog have any pages of open salts? I have a colorful painted enamel one, maybe with Stratford rings. Tall flowers and butterflies. It is signed, and has RD 682592. I love it, can post photo if anyone is interested.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Paul S. on October 25, 2017, 08:06:47 AM
I think that's a good idea Robin.

682592 and 682593 were both Registered on 2nd May 1921, and presumably both were for protection of their 'shape'  -  the latter was a pickle with ground glass stopper and included 'Stratford Rings', and we have a picture on the Board's list of Registrations.            I have a Kew image of 682592. and this is described on the original factory drawing as a Sweet Dish - in fact it has a slightly flared rim shaped foot (minus any kind of stem), and again shows 'Stratford Rings'.            I can't seem to find a picture for it in the Board's Registrations section - but that means nothing  -  I seem to lose them, often!               I can't recall seeing the shape of 682592 previously - it may be a scarce shape, or perhaps I've just missed seeing on my travels, and perhaps it's common.

So it appears that your 682592 'open salt' appears to be a Sweet Dish - and if Fred tells me he doesn't have the Kew image then I can post that too. 
When you say signed Robin, assume your mean it has the period backstamp for Stuart, rather than someone's actual signature? :)
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Robin G on October 25, 2017, 02:42:21 PM
Yes, Paul, backstamp. I don't think I'm the only American who equates that with a "signed" piece. I'll try to adapt to the nomenclature you use on this board. I had no idea all the RD numbers are illustrated and tabulated. Anyway, here is my little piece. After WW I  we salt collectors find that many companies continued to make these small items but didn't call them salts anymore, if they ever did. But we sure love to find them and the sizes relate well to other containers in our collections. This "sweet" is actually smaller ( at 2 3/8"h x less than 3"w) than many other items that different company catalogs call "salts".
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Paul S. on October 25, 2017, 03:55:14 PM
that's a great little piece Robin - lovely enamelling too.                  Well you know what they say  -  .....separated by a common language etc. ;D - but we do usually call such mechanically acid applied details as a backstamp  -  would be great had it been compulsory  -  we'd almost be redundant.
Starting c. 1840, the British Board of Trade offered some degree of protection to inventors of new designs, by providing a system of Registration for each specific design/Registrant.          This covered not only designs from within this country, but also I think for designs from outside the U.K., but where these were being sold or promoted within Britain.
This was a numerical system - arranged around a core of 13 CLASSES of materials - wood, metal, glass, ceramics etc., and provided the design was not an infringement of someone else's creation the a No. would be allocated which provided protection (of sorts) for a period of three years.
Initially, when the item in question was made, and where possible it included details of the date of the design, the CLASS and a Parcel No.  -  and these details were shown in the form of a diamond lozenge.               This system lasted until c. 1884, when the diamond was dropped in favour of using a single No.  -  if known this can be checked and can provide details of date of Registration and Registrant.          Original factory drawings (in the case of glass, wood, metal etc.) can be viewed at the National Archives, and we have permission to reproduce these images on the GMB.

Yes, believe there are some 'master salts' than can be considerably larger than most that we're accustomed to seeing.

In the next hour or so I'll add the National Archive copy of the factory drawing for your sweet.              Some designs such as Stratford Rings and Woodchester ticked on for eons - the former still going strong apparently c. 1970 - and new shapes were added frequently from 1921 onwards, although none ever looked as good as these early enamelled pieces - the spiders webb cocktail shaker always comes to mind.         


Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Paul S. on October 25, 2017, 05:47:52 PM
my opinion is that the time we are allotted to edit posts is a tad short  -  it might have looked neater/tidier had this picture been added to my above words  -  what is the duration - something like 35 minutes?        How about lengthening it to half a day ??? :)
No matter  -  here is the Kew image of the original 1921 Stuart factory drawing for their 'sweet', against which they were allocated Registration No. 682592 on 2nd May 1921.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: KevinH on October 25, 2017, 06:26:07 PM
Paul, the time limit for self-editing is 1 hour.

I don't whether that is a technical limit or if Anne can poke it with one her magic sticks. I will raise a query in the Moderator forum.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Paul S. on October 25, 2017, 08:45:38 PM
thanks :)  -  suspect it doesn't matter for much of the time, but another forum which I inhabit appears to allow something like 12 or 24 hours, and this can be useful if errors are discovered or additional info. is found that will add to the interest  -  keeping related matter in one place is possibly neater.
Don't lose any sleep though Kevin  -  not the end of the world. :)

P.S.    a quick modification ;D             I understand from Fred that he has some issues at the moment, so his appearance here may, temporarily, be less frequent than usual.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: agincourt17 on October 26, 2017, 03:43:18 PM
Re reply#8, Paul:

Thank you for showing the Kew image for RD 682592.

I don't  have Kew images for any of the other Stuart registered designs, though I do have the couple of reference photos for the  Stuart RD 682593 pickle jar to show as a permanent reference here.

Fred.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Paul S. on October 26, 2017, 05:41:25 PM
please let me know Fred which Rd. Nos. in particular that you would like to see, assuming you think they will be of interest, and I'll get them when next I visit.          Probably better you tell me, otherwise I'm bound to get the wrong ones. :)
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: agincourt17 on October 26, 2017, 07:33:59 PM
Actually, Paul, looking back through my photos, you have posted the Kew image for Stuart creamer RD 764703  on the GMB at some time previously.

As to the other Kew images of Stuart RDs, they're not really of huge interest to me personally, but thanks anyway for the offer.

Fred.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Paul S. on October 26, 2017, 08:04:43 PM
sure, o.k. Fred   -   if you do find any that you'd like, I shall be at Kew in about two week's time.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: brucebanner on October 28, 2017, 07:08:54 PM
Some pictures of salts from the 1927 Stuart catalogue, regards Chris.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Robin G on October 29, 2017, 08:49:03 AM
Thanks, Chris. These salts are not very modern looking for 1929. Classic, I guess.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: David E on November 14, 2017, 03:36:13 PM
Here's a Stuart salt with Stratford rings I picked up in Utrecht of all places. It measures just 3.3cm tall and as shown in Chris' catalogue page.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Paul S. on November 14, 2017, 05:15:04 PM
very nice find David, and quite rare possibly  ..............   this shape is also showing on the top line of the page of factory patterns of various S/Rings shapes - page 236 of the Andy McConnell's volume of Miller's '20th Century Glass'.            I can't quite make out the factory number for this shape, but it looks to be 22204  -  is that showing on Chris Stewart's  catalogue page do you know??

Is there an acid-etched Reg. No. on the bottom can you see.                    The Miller's book comments that "each shape was registered as it was introduced from 1921"        Although Andy McConnell uses a lower case r, it does look as though he means Registered - as in Board of Trade - since he writes  -  "The registration Nos. were often acid-etched onto the foot of each piece  ..............  etc. etc.
Having said all this, Fred will probably now say we already have this shape and know the Rd. No. ;)
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: David E on November 14, 2017, 05:36:55 PM
22204 is correct, but it's not Chris Stewart, but Chris Parry - see previous page, two topics from the bottom.

The acid-etched mark is simply 'Stuart'.

I'll post another photo tomorrow showing the salt against a grapefruit dish in the same colour. It gives you a better idea of the size.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: agincourt17 on November 14, 2017, 05:56:13 PM
Re. Paul's reply#21
Quote
Having said all this, Fred will probably now say we already have this shape and know the Rd. No
I don't have any reference photos with a Stuart RD number corresponding to the salt shape.

Fred.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Paul S. on November 14, 2017, 06:35:40 PM
thanks for the correction David  -  what you might call a comment based on a pre-conceived idea ;D

thanks Fred  -  coming back to the Stratford patterns in the McConnell book .........  apparently the page depicted is from Stuart's 1938 - 39 catalogue, so that doesn't really help us to know when this salt was Registered - which would probably have been some long time prior to that date, imho.             You'd imagine that a salt for the table would have been a much more likely requirement then, than now, and so an item deemed a basic necessity.
Between February 1921 and August 1922, for example, this factory Registered something like 22 difference designs - although it's not possible off-hand to say if these were all variations on the Stratford Rings, but a fair bet so say many were.               I'll try and find this one when I visit Kew, either later this week or early next, unless we locate in in the meantime.                 I'm surprised we do have this one - rarity value again I guess.
 
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Robin G on November 15, 2017, 04:03:55 AM
Hi Fred- Remember that mine is catalog-listed as a sweet. It had an RD #- I was thrilled that it matched up to something.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Robin G on November 15, 2017, 04:05:59 AM
David, your yellow ( amber? I don't know Stuart's names for their colors) salt with the rings is really beautiful. Thanks for showing me.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Paul S. on November 15, 2017, 08:56:23 AM
apologies for the typos in my last scribble.                   Have an idea that this colour is simply called amber, as Robin suggests.

Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: David E on November 15, 2017, 03:29:37 PM
Robin: Thanks. I was quite surprised to find this in Holland.

Here is the photo showing it in comparison to the grapefruit dish.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Robin G on November 15, 2017, 04:40:27 PM
Lovely- both of them, but I love the little guy best. Now, just find a few more for your message board friends! This is the first salt I've had with an RD # that I really like. All my others- Sowerby, Davidson, etc are OK but not as "pretty" as I usually like.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Paul S. on November 15, 2017, 05:29:13 PM
Hi Robin  -  to which of your salts are you referring to as having a Reg. No. -  didn't we discover that your find was a 'sweet'  -  or am I getting confused - again. ;D
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Robin G on November 16, 2017, 10:33:46 PM
You're right, Paul. My "salt" is a sweet, according to the catalog, but I can't stop calling it by my old moniker! I'm not defending myself, but often both customers and company marketeers call items multiple names. I think David's small piece with the Stratford rings may really be a true salt.
Title: Re: Stuart Crystal comport, Reg.No.681649, 12th March 1921
Post by: Paul S. on November 17, 2017, 08:30:07 AM
thanks Robin  -  looks like you're correct with that interpretation - would agree sometimes it's difficult to refrain from an old habit. :)