Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: brucebanner on July 26, 2016, 05:50:17 PM
-
I think this vase has been on here before but i have now found a plate with a very similar pattern, the plate has a lozenge which is totally unreadable and i can not find the vase on here, the lozenge in the base of the vase looks like the month m and year a T 1867 and the date is 2 something, the only one i can find with this date is a Molineux and Webb biscuit barrel, any thought's ?
Regards Chris.
-
Chris, this 'linked ring' decoration is from Angus & Greener's RD 209161, registered 26 June 1867 - Parcel 8. The design was for the decorative pattern rather than the shape.
I have pics on the GMB RD database of the celery in part-frosted clear, pale blue, yellow-green uranium and purple marbled, in the vicinity of
http://www.yobunny.org.uk/glassgallery/displayimage.php?pos=-21178 (http://www.yobunny.org.uk/glassgallery/displayimage.php?pos=-21178)
and there are pics of lots of other shapes including several different creamers, a pedestal sugar, round plate, oval dish, and covered butter.
Fred.
-
Thank you Fred, i have spent most of the afternoon searching.
-
assume from your comments Fred that we already have the Kew image on the Board?? Perhaps I've posted some time in the past and forgotten. Must admit the blue and uranium celeries are very desirable.
-
I know off topic but i found this today, on the database you have one with no lid and the detail is lovely. RD 254027.
-
the 'linked ring' pattern, as a style of decoration on Rd. 209161 looks to have been dear to A. & G's. heart - it occurs again on Rd Nos. 214357 and 214358 both of which were Registered on 26th November the same year. These November Registrations are both identically shaped open sugars, and although my pix from Kew are such that I can't see the stem of 214357, I understand that the difference between the two (since there obviously must be a difference) is in the stem shape - put me right if I'm wrong please - but otherwise 214357/58 are identical in design.
Despite having three separate Registrations, we really only have two designs here - 209161 with the plain linked ovals and no other embellishment - and the single design of linked ovals plus large 'tears' which is a pattern showing identically on 214357/58.
At a quick glance you could be forgiven for thinking all three were the same pattern, but of course we know that's not the case.
Not a problem then, you say................. however, I'm a little confused regarding the relationship between the plate showing in the very first picture here which Fred has confirmed as 209161, and the original factory photo for this Registration from which it appears to differ as follows .........
The plate from Chris shows large tears - on the base - below the linked ovals, thus suggesting that it refers to 214357/58 and not Rd. 209161 which lacks this extra embellishment.
Sorry to be Mr. Thicky............ have I lost the plot somewhere? Meant to say - if we need any of the Kew images to substantiate or clarify any of the above, let me know.
Would agree the hexagonal jar is attractive - George Davidson and Registered on 1st May 1895 - sorry, don't presently have the Kew image, but will try and get tomorrow.
-
probably trying to read too much into these things at times......... there's no doubt that both designs are closer in pattern that we'd like and not too difficult to be confused - they need studying carefully to clarifying the difference. Perhaps easier to differentiate on shapes such as plates, but less so on celeries for example, where part of the design is omitted. That part of the design round the border does differ too, so suggest you forget my words from last evening, and think I now can tell the two apart, and Fred is correct with his comments regarding the plate from Chris.
Have shown couple of plates which believe show the two distinct designs............ regret can't re-photograph them as long since given away, but hoping against hope that each had legible lozenges which was how I separated them at the time. Shout if you don't agree.
Meant to say............ is it possible for someone to put up pix showing clearly the difference between 214357 and 214357 - apparently it's to do with a variation in shape of stem or foot I think - seems my Kew pix aren't good enough help me.
-
Chris, thank you for the photos of the Davidson RD 254027 jar.
Paul, I don't seem to have the design representation for RD 209161 (which I presume is one of their sepia photos). Thank you for showing the RD 214357-358 plate alongside the RD 209161 plate - a nice comparison.
As to the Angus & Greener RDs 214357 and 214358 of 26 November 1867 - Parcel 9, I see that Jenny Thompson describes them as "Sugar basin foot and sugar basin". The only photos that I have are of a comport with the appropriate registry date lozenge, but unfortunately the photos (which are not of particularly good quality) don't show any detail of the stem, though they do show some of the detail of the foot.
Fred.
-
quote............ " is it possible for someone to put up pix showing clearly the difference between 214357 and 214357". What a muppet - my apologies, it should of course have read 214357 and 214358. thanks for the comments Fred - I'll come back to this one a little later.
Meantime - here is the National Archives image of the hexagonal lidded jar - Davidson's Registration 254027 - the original design based on a plate rather than the jar. Davidson not really my thing, so no idea if this was one of those multiple pieces from a large 'suite' or not - Davidson quite keen I believe on suites. Anyone else have pieces with this design?
Perhaps we can tidy this thread up a little?? the subject heading might be made more useful, and this Davidson reference might be hived off to stand alone perhaps?
-
Thank you for showing the Davidson RD 254027 design representation, Paul.
This is the basic design behind the Davidson 1896 suite (a.k.a. "Somerset" by American collectors).
There are quite a lot of different shapes known in this pattern, and they can be found in clear, blue pearline, yellow pearline and pink 'Rosalin' glass.
A selection is shown on the GMB RD database at http://www.yobunny.org.uk/glassgallery/displayimage.php?pos=-16310 (http://www.yobunny.org.uk/glassgallery/displayimage.php?pos=-16310) and sequence, and on the GMB Davidson Pattern Numbers database at http://www.yobunny.org.uk/glassgallery/displayimage.php?pos=-22122 (http://www.yobunny.org.uk/glassgallery/displayimage.php?pos=-22122) and sequence.
Fred.
-
I thought i would show these off, for three reasons, first the size much bigger than those in the gallery, secondly they are near idenical and you can see from the second picture they are from the same mould and thirdly the colour which is uranium green not the more yellow one shown. Chuffed they are both in mint untouched condition considering the potential RD age.
They measure 9 inches in height, 5 inches across the rim and 4 inches across the base diameter.
Regards Chris.
-
Very impressive Chris. It seems I still hadn't added the Kew picture for this Angus & Greener Rd. 209161 from 26th June 1867 - so now attached. Regret I don't know enough about these celeries to know whether how many sizes or colours were in fact made - so will leave that to Fred or others to comment on, but as you say would certainly appear that these do come from the same mould.
How distinct, or otherwise, do the lozenges appear on these uranium examples?
I think our debates regarding the duration of the life of a mould has always been one of those inconclusive matters - some no doubt having lasted longer than others for various reasons - some having been sold by the original factory to another manufacturer - some meeting their demise as ordnance fodder for WW I.
Some older (early C20 designs?) pressed patterns have re-surfaced in recent years - mostly in the States apparently, and just possibly more in the way of Carnival.
-
Yes Paul the lozenge inside near the base, is that a photo or coloured plate?.
-
this one Chris is a sepia photograph. Perhaps they were keen to show off what in 1867 was still a very novel process for recording images, but now these original photographs don't always provide a good material for capturing with a digital camera. The surface is very shiny and attracts light and then seems very keen on reflecting it. I assume this original shape was a sugar.
-
I'm wondering how the moulds were made, were they cast in sand from clay models?, some patterns are so detailed especially the American ones, i have a few pressed items from America not much to go on really but much better quality than English.
-
well, it would seem we don't have any experts on mould making.
If you look in Ray Slack's book - page 19 - there is the photo of the old guy cutting a pattern into a mould.......... though what the mould is made from isn't clear, and elsewhere in the book Slack quotes from a contemporary C19 source where moulds are stated to have been made from iron, brass and gunmetal.
Always fatal to make observations when you know nothing about the subject, but I would have thought that perhaps only the basic body outline of a mould might have been sand cast from a wooden pattern. As you say, many of the glass surface designs are very detailed and intricate, and possibly beyond the scope of sand casting, so my uneducated guess would be that the basic mould shape was cast and then, like the guy in Slack's picture, the patterning was cut using hardened steel chisels etc.
Brass obviously the easiest to cut, then iron and finally gunmetal perhaps.
Pattern making and foundry sand casting was massive industry in the C19, and pattern making a very skilled trade. I don't know much about the States pressed glass industry, so can't comment as to whether their pressed patterns were more detailed etc. than ours, but certainly some of our work was of a high standard.
-
Here is a description of a relatively modern way of doing it. I suspect the old fashioned way wasn't so very different in the basics http://www.carnivalglassworldwide.com/fenton-mould-making.html
-
thanks for the link Christine - looks like I shall need more than a couple of minutes to digest all that information. :)
-
This bowl is registered to Angus Greener 26th June 1867, it has the same central pattern but does not have the linking rings.
It also shows that items were made for many years after the design registration as it also has the 1st Greener lion trade mark just below the date lozenge which must mean the bowl was not made before 1875.
Roy
-
Henry Greener pieces with the 'fans and fan roundels' pattern that Roy shows in the previous post seem always to be marked with their 1st lion trademark (used between 1875 and 1885), irrespective of the shape (bowl, dish,, pitchers, creamer, celery vase, comport) or the colour (clear, dark cobalt or marbled).
The only piece that I have photos of in the 'fans and fan roundels' pattern that bears a lozenge registry mark in addition to the 1st lion trademark is a circular dish in clear glass - but the lozenge here is for 8 June 1878- Parcel 11 (corresponding to RD 322393, which should be for a completely different Henry Greener pattern - based on a stylised lanceolate leaf design). Also, in this particular case, the centre motif to the dish is a fan roundel (as might be expected) in contrast to the looped strapwork design on Roy's dish.
So, yet more cases of Henry Greener pieces with 'odd', 'inappropriate' or 'abberant' lozenges.
Fred.
-
Fred - I do have the original factory drawing for Rd. 322393, for Henry Greener, and can post here if you don't already have this one. Let me know pleased.
-
Thank you, Paul, but you've already supplied the design representation for Henry Greener's RD 322393.
Fred.
-
If you're watching Fred ............ I've lost the plot on Angus & Greener discussions - do you still need to see the original factory photos for Reg. Nos. 214357 and 214358 or have I posted them previously ........... anyway I do have them - please let me know. :)
-
Paul, I don't have the Kew photos for either RD 214357 or 214358, so I would appreciate seeing of them, please.
Fred.
-
o.k. then, here they are. I think the subject heading is very apt.
Am sure we've been here before - don't really know why I hadn't shown this previously - but as can be seen, there appears no difference in the moulded pattern of these two separate designs - I believe the only difference is in the shape of the stem/pedestal. Quite why the original factory pix didn't make this clear I've no idea - to put one piece on its side thereby obscuring the one feature that shows the difference is a mystery.
-
Thank you, Paul. I will add the Kew photos to the GMB RD database in due course (with a link to this topic thread).
As you say, confusing - but I assume that the Kew photo for RD 214357 specifically refers to the decorative pattern on the foot only, whereas that for RD 214358 is specifically for the decorative pattern of linked rings above tear-shaped studded loops.
Neither RD would seem to refer to a particular shape as the decorative features on the foot and bowl occur on the RD 214357-358 comport shown in reply #7 of this thread.
Fred.
-
am sure you're correct Fred .......... see the attached page showing extract from the Board of Trade Register for 1842 - 1884 - for November 1862.
look at lines 7 and 8 on the right side of the book - opposite the lines reading 'Wear Flint Glass Works' and 'Sunderland'. Hope it's legible.