Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: Frank on October 04, 2004, 11:06:02 PM
-
Can anyone shed any light on this chappie and why his mark should be DG.
Hartmann lists at Amblecote, Stourbridge c1920 but dates unknown. Nothing on Petrides site or Ivo's book.
Or does the DG denote Dennis Glassworks which Ivo lists as founded by T Webb. And appears to be related to other Guest's by Hartmann
I ask because this item (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=66870&item=3752706740) on eBay is compared to Monart. I have asked the seller some questions.
-
I briefly tried this morning, but with no success, but if you have the patent number you could try the governments site:
http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/number
good luck
-
Hi Frank
Do not know anything about your piece, what I can do is show this piece
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/d554to/DGglass2.jpg
which I have tried to find who DG glass is, the back stamp is just like your piece, http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/d554to/DGglass1.jpg I would be greatful for any Info on this piece.
tony H in NZ
-
Hi Tony,
It is not my piece. I could read the patent Nr on your piece.
I use http://gb.espacenet.com/ just prefix number with GB.
It boils down to a container made from two pieces, a decorative outer and a 'utility' inner. Joined at the top with cement and in this 1920 patent a metal strengthener at the top.
153,799. Guest, A. H. Jan. 5, 1920. Inkstands. - A match stand, inkstand, or like article, comprising a hollow glass body a, Fig. 1, with a decorated interior surface b, has a tapered glass or other liner c secured in the mouth by cement d, as shown, forming a sealed connexion.
This invention relates to hollow glass bodies -having decorated interiors and it 0 has for its object to provide improved means for protecting the decorated interiors of such bodies from injury in such a manner that their originial brilliancy is maintained for indefinite periods.
In my prior Patent No. 128,229 (1916) I described an ink stand of which the bowl was composed of glass decorated on its interior and protected by a liner which to was supported by a flange around its top edge and held in position by a bolt.
This means of attachment however, permitted dust and moisture to obtain access to the decorated surface with the M5 result that the colours faded or became obscured.
It is therefore the primary object of the present invention to obviate this defect and this I accomplish by permanently connecting the liner by its top edge to the' glass body in such a manner as to preclude indefinitely the admission of dust or damp to be decorated interior such for example as by means 'of a cemented joint.
A H Guest is described as a glass manufacturer. No further patents.
So.... based on all that I 'guess' the DG does stand for Dennis Glassworks and that Guest was working with them or with Webb.
-
I saw a similar piece a few days ago. I didnt know what it was - a tobacco jar didnt occur to me as it was rather large for that (so I thought) but the top was also pewter and in a very similar style to the Ebay piece. It too was a very simple form. The label / backstamp was the same and I too was pondering on who this company might be.
The big difference with that piece I was this: It appeared to be painted on the inside of the glass. The decoration was butterflies with irridescent wings - even the background had a shimmer. I wanted to look inside but the top wouldnt come off & I didnt want for force it. The stallholder knew nothing about it & said it belonged to his "friend".
The painting / decor appeared to be somehow "inside" the glass but if it had a liner that would explain i guess. The mind still boggles as to how such detailed painting work could be done on the inside - unless some sort of transfer ? Fantastic colors.
-
Yes, the wording of the patent indicates it is to protect the decoration. The second patent referred to moisture proofing as the first type leaked.
The eBay label is also in between the liner/outer.
As they are cemented together any attempt to open could break the seal and eventually damage the decoration.
So who is going to start collecting this line :shock:
-
This is an interesting discussion.
My first comment is that "DG" does not stand for "Dennis Glassworks". It stands for "Decorative Glass Co., Amblecote, Stourbridge"
Ok, that sounds as if I am very knowledgeable on the subject. Not true! I checked the Patent reference as located by Frank and then went a stage further since there is a reference to an earlier Patent (128229) in which it is stated: "128,229. Guest, A. H., (trading as Decora- tive Glass Co.). Nov. 21, 1916."
[It's a pity that the full Patent details, as displayed in Adobe Acrobat (pdf file), do not include the referenced drawings.]
To begin with, I thought a mistake had been made by linking the Hartmann reference to the "DG Ware" mark, since Hartmann's reference is to a label "Stourbridge DG", which is taken directly from Cyril Manley's book "Decorative Victorian Glass" (page 125). And Manley, as far as I can see, does not refer to "DG Ware". And that name is not shown in any of my other books, either!
However, from the other entries on this thread, there does seem to be a positive link to Harry Guest's patents and the "DG Ware" label, showing that these are probably all from the Decorative Glass Co. My reasoning is that on page 99 of Manley's book, the entry for a vase (no 327) is as follows:
A fairly common type of glassware, all signed D. G. Stourbridge (the trademark is shown on page 125). The idea was to insert pictures between glass casings. Generally, these are, in my opinion, not worth collecting, but Mr Guest, the patentee, made some pictures from feathers and these I think should be collected. I have been told that some very beautiful pictures were made from butterflies' wings.
So, it all seems to tie together - and perhaps this board has identified a label that I, at least, have not seen attributed in any of my reference books.
The item seen by "paradisetrader", with the butterfly wing decoration is presumably one of those that Cyril Manley (at the the time of preparing his book) had not seen personally. I'd love to see a photo of that piece.
Incidentally, butterfly wings are also believed to have been used for decoration representing such as stained glass windows in cathedrals in some of the Victorian / Edwardian gift paperweights - the type with a picture applied to a flat base and covered with a low glass dome.
-
Good work Kevin.
-
Hello everyone,
Frank emailed me today about this 'DG' discussion.
I pointed the seller that Frank mentions in his email to me in the direction of another reference at the time when I was shown the item (last year if I recall correctly!). In British Glass Between the Wars there is a black and white illustration of an item by the "Decorative Glass Company", Stourbridge, catalogue no. 48 pp57.
It says within the entry "Internal printed mark 'DG WARE STOURBRIDGE MADE IN ENGLAND PAT. 153799'" and goes on to say "The process is fully described in Pottery Gazette September 1925, pp 1383, 1385, where the Decorative Glass Co. is called 'recently formed'."
All the best, Nigel Benson
-
Hello everyone.
Probably the best known of the DG Ware products was their little mustard coloured pot with a glass outer, a white glass or porcelain inner, and the chrome metal band at the top, for "Colman's D.S.F. Mustard" on one side; the Royal Coat of Arms on the other. In the base is the same circular mark or label as is described in BGbtW on the art glass example, and noted by Kevin and Nigel above.
The pot is illustrated on p20 of Blakeman & Smith, The British Bottle Collectors Price Guide and Directory, 1983.
I have had some four or five of these through my hands as they are always popular with glass collectors who want an example of this unusual product, and cannot find one of the much more scarce art glass vases.
Inevitably this throws up another mystery. What is D.S.F. Mustard? Dijon-Sur-France is the best of a number of suggestions I have seen, as if Colman's were launching a Dijon Mustard it would make sense to package it in a quite distinctive and different way to their English Mustard products.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Dijon-sur-France makes :!: no sense at all. What about Double Strength French?
Ivo
-
Ivo - it doesn't have to make sense. Miles Kington did not invent Franglais; he just wrote a book on it and gave it a name!
Bernard C.
-
Well done Tony.
DSF is Double Superfine mustard. Paradoxically it contains 18% wheat unlike the standard mustard.
-
Well done Tony.
Frank, your findings are extremely interesting and not at all paradoxical.
The use of such a proportion of wheat flour is the principal difference between prepared mustard from the North Buckinghamshire area around Newport Pagnell and Olney and that made in the Norwich region. These were the two principal mustard growing regions in England during the first half of the 19th century, and the two dominant brands were and still are Taylor's of Newport Pagnell and Colman's of Norwich.
Taylor's mustard is now made in Cheshire. Some years ago health and safety inspectors condemned Taylor's little factory in Newport Pagnell as not up to regulations. Steven Taylor spent a considerable sum obtaining plans for upgrading the premises, but on submitting these to the planning authority, found that they were refused because the building was listed as of historic interest!
Mr Taylor told me that he was going to abandon mustard production completely and retire, but eventually teamed up with a specialist manufacturer in Cheshire. Their main difficulty was the local water, which imparted a rather different flavour to the mustard. That problem has now been resolved.
I know that Steven Taylor attempted to find a way of eliminating wheat flour from the recipe, at the request of local coeliacs intolerant to wheat flour, but it proved impossible without changing the whole character of the mustard.
So, it seems as if the wheat flour in the North Bucks Double Superfine recipe provides rather more in characterics than just a bulking agent. My partner, Janet, explained to me that the starch in wheat flour thickens by creating a stronger lattice through which water can still flow but at a reduced rate, rather than by a gelatinisation process typical of many other thickening agents. You can also appreciate Mr Taylor's probable unwillingness to get involved in unnatural additives.
On a different point, most commercial mustard pots were ceramic rather than glass. However one of the rarest is a late Victorian amber glass pot made for Taylor's with relief lettering. I have never even seen one - just the photograph in Blakeman & Smith. Please would readers let me know if they come across one.
Bernard C.
-
My question relates to the patent searches. How far back does the http:/gb.espacenet.com patent data base go? For example, can I find the Davidson patent for Pearline which I believe was No. 2641?
Any help would be gratefully received.
Sid
I use http://gb.espacenet.com/ just prefix number with GB.
-
Goes back to 1920 although some earlier patents do show up from time to time. You have to insert GB first then at 6 or 7 digits, zeros in front of short numbers.
-
Butterfly pot here: http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,34709.0.html
-
Mustard pot here http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,34408.0.html
-
Another example here
http://www.matchstrikergallery.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Unknown.html
and here
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,51812.0.html