Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: agincourt17 on April 11, 2013, 04:37:47 PM
-
A superb sterling silver-mounted and pressed flint glass cream pail, with pastoral scenes of a shepherdess. The rim is hallmarked for Sheffield 1878, with the maker’s mark for Jehoiada Alsop Rhodes
Dimensions: 200g, 6cm (w), 10cm (l), 13cm (h, including handle).
The glass pail is Sowerby pattern 1263, and it appears on page 5 of their pattern book IX (1882). Sowerby peacock head mark to the underside, but no diamond registry mark, so it appears to be an unregistered design. The design obviously dates from 1878 or earlier due to the silver hallmark, and post 1876 (because this was when Sowerby first started using the peacock head trademark).
The decoration almost certainly depicts Little Bo Peep looking for her sheep (after one of Walter Crane’s illustrations).
Although pattern numbers were not always allocated in strict chronological order, it would appear that pattern 1263 would probably have been allocated somewhere between 18 September 1877 and 30 November 1877.
An uncommon Sowerby pattern, and this is the first sterling silver-mounted Sowerby piece that I have ever encountered.
Does anyone have photos of Sowerby pattern 1263 in other colours to share, please?
Has anyone else come across silver-mounted Sowerby pieces, and if so, do they have photos of those to share also?
-
Sorry, but forgot to say that permission for the re-use of the photos on GMB in my first post of this thread was granted by nicolasjoly4fwa.
-
... Although pattern numbers were not always allocated in strict chronological order, ...
What evidence have you for this? The only example I knew of turned out to be a picture caption error in Cottle.
I've only had one Little Bo Peep through my hands, and it was an exact copy of the Crane illustration in The Baby's Opera, published 1877. It was in opalescent glass and quite fabulous. No picture, I'm afraid. There's a Jet example pictured in Cottle.
I've had a couple of silver-mounted Sowerby items through my hands — both were just rims on salts I think. No pictures. EPNS mounted Sowerby turns up more frequently in my experience.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Thank you , Bernard, for the reference to the jet Bo Beep / pattern 1263 in Cottle (page 66, by the way, for other interested parties).
As to evidence for less-than-strict non-chronological dating of some Sowerby pattern numbers…
for the past year or so, for my own ‘entertainment’ I have been building a database correlating Sowerby RD numbers with their pattern book numbers, cross referencing them to the appropriate pattern book pages and, wherever possible, photos of each pattern in as many variants of size and colour as possible – a bit like Cottle crossed with Slack, Thompson, Murray, Lattimore etc. (but with knobs on and lots more pretty pictures). It has been an interesting exercise which has filled in lots of gaps (and time), though still far from complete (especially the flint glass tableware ranges).
Here are a few short sequences from my database showing RD numbers, followed by corresponding registration dates, Sowerby pattern numbers, and pattern book pages showing the pattern number. The chronological anomalies should be self evident.
260802 29 February 1872 – P5 1035 XI, p57
267742 7 November 1872 – P7 L1402 XI, p47
274743 31 July 1873 – P5 1054 XI p19
282663-664 1 June 1874 – P8 1080 XI, p2
282663-664 1 June 1874 – P8 1671 IX, p12
288210 1 January 1875 – P2 1088 XI, p14
282663-664 1 June 1874 – P8 1080 XI, p2
282663-664 1 June 1874 – P8 1671 IX, p12
288210 1 January 1875 – P2 1088 XI, p14
317234 17 December 1877 1280 IX, p5
318789-795 20 February 1878- P3 1397 XI, p59
318789-795 20 February 1878 - P3 1315 IX, p6
318792 20 February 1878 – P3 1291 IX, p5
319585 20 March 1878 – P7 1298 IX, p5
319589 20 March 1878 – P7 1299 IX, p6
323400 8 July 1878 – P9 1325 IX, p6
323400 8 July 1878 – P9 1325½ IX, p6
323400 8 July 1878 – P9 1400 IX, p8
325097 16 August 1878 – P11 1329 IX, p6
333424-429 17 March 1879 1403½ IX, p8
333427 17 March 1879 1392 IX, p7
334637 28 April 1879 1408 IX, p8
334642 28 April 1879 1423 IX, p8
335972 6 June 1879 1411 IX, p8
336595 30 June 1879 1422 IX, p8
-
Confirmation of the accuracy of the Little Bo Peep / Walter Crane decoration source.
-
My copy of Book IX page 12 doesn't have a 1671 on it so I am guessing that it is the 1617 toast rack that you are referencing. The two registrations on June 1, 1874 were for an ice plate and a plate neither of which sound like a toast rack. It is possible that the registry mark on the toast rack may be an error or perhaps the design (sans the toast rack) was identical to the earlier registration.
Do we know how the registration process worked? Was it really a simple registration or was it an application that required a review similar to the US design patent process? How comprehensive was the protection? What happened if the design was already in use by another party?
Sid
-
Sorry, Sid – you are quite correct, the toast rack should be pattern 1617 (simply my typo).
Jenny Thomson (p30) certainly describes the registration of 1 June 1874 as ice plate and plate, though the online National Archives catalogue doesn’t give a subject for either registration .
I vaguely remember seeing somewhere that the registrations may well have been for a pattern details rather than shapes (though I can’t find the reference at the moment), and that the particular features were for the surface stippling and for the beaded edge detail – both of which are common to the handled basket pattern 1080 (XI, page 2), and the toast rack 1617 (IX, page12), and both of which bear the same lozenge mark.
There are, of course, many Sowerby patterns bearing surface stippling and beading, but without access to the details of the original registration representations then for the moment much remains in the realms of speculation or supposition.
I note that at the bottom of page 38 of pattern book XI (1885) there are 2 plates – patterns 1074 and 1074½. Both are shown as being from registered designs. 1074 is plain stippled and 1074½ has stippled panels and beaded decoration. I don’t, unfortunately, have reference photos for either plate, and I know of no other source that is able to confirm their registration numbers. I do, however, have photos for a sugar bowl and comport in pattern 1074, but they bear the lozenge for 22 April 1874 – Parcel 8 (corresponding to RD 281933) – both pieces having stippled panels and a beaded rim (though the beads are much larger that on 1080 or 1617).
As to how the actual registration process worked….? I’m not sure of the details of the process, but there may well be some kind GMB member who is able to summarise the pertinent steps for us.
-
Hello
I did some digging and here are a few answer to my questions:
Registration was an application process. The applicant had to submit an application in a prescribed format which was reviewed to determine if the design was "new or original" and not previously published in the UK. If the application was rejected, the proponent was given 10 days to appeal. If it was accepted, the design was registered and the proponent's information entered into the registry. That implies that the date in the registry is not the date of submittal but the date of acceptance.
An interesting item to note under the 1883 rules is that, unlike the USA, the design was not published and access to see the design was not allowed for any person other than the proponent or his agent for a period of 5 years. After 5 years this lapsed and anyone could apply to see the design. This might explain some of the spurious registry marks appearing on items that are not related to the actual registration - keep the competition away by implying your item was protected by Design Copyright.
Here is a link to the 1883 Act - http://archive.org/details/patentsdesignsa01britgoog
Sid
-
Agincourt17, you have a very strange definition of entertainment ;D And, I have a book of nursery rhymes, dating from when my mother was young (late '20's) with what must be Walter Crane decorations. Do bellow if you would like scanned pictures (pretty sure it's out of copyright ;) )
Carolyn
Added: Confirmed as "The Baby's Opera" A Book of Old Rhymes with New Dresses, by Walter Crane, Engraved and Printed in Colours by Edmund Evans. There is no publication date that I can find, but the frontspiece lists my mother and siblings with love from (some chick I've never heard of) July, 1929. My mum would have been approaching her fourth birthday.
CMP
Okay, last time, I promise: Now I know why Bo Peep looked so familiar, she's in my book!
CMP
-
Carolyn, "Baby's Opera..." was first published by George Routledge & Sons in 1877 (in an edition of 10,000 copies), and has been reprinted numerous times since.
For anyone not familiar with the whole work, there is a complete scan of a first edition copy online at
http://www.illuminated-books.com/books/opera.htm
-
And how does one date this book (apart from writings within for date of gifting the book)? For what it is worth (I'm thinking maybe $0.02, if you can find anyone to take pennies) My book is identical to the one shown (apart from a couple of baby scribbles and the inscription at the beginning).
This one was publised by Frederick Warne & Co., Ltd London and New York, so obviously not THE first edition you mentioned.
Carolyn
-
Most books can be dated fairly easily from their imprint information, usually found on the verso (the back) of the title page – in addition to the publisher, there is often the date or some other indication of the edition or impression of that particular book.
Unfortunately, Walter Crane is one of those authors / illustrators whose works are particularly difficult to date, and “ Baby’s Opera” seems to be no exception. Many of the editions (especially the pre-1900 editions) are undated.
The British Library online catalogues are not particularly helpful because of this, and they don’t even offer a clue as to when Warne took over the publishing rights. Neither does there seem to be any detailed online bibliography of Crane’s works.
The 2 main printed bibliographies are Masse, Gertrude C. E. A Bibliography of First Editions of Books Illustrated by Walter Crane. London : Chelsea Publishing, 1923 and Spencer, Isobel. Walter Crane. New York : Macmillan Publishing, 1975, and between them they almost certainly offer as much detailed information as to editions, bindings, points of issue etc. as you will find anywhere. Sadly, I don’t have either bibliography to hand to be able to help you.
The chances are, though, that ‘your’ copy of “Baby’s Opera… is more-or-less contemporary with the inscription date.
-
That's what I'm guessing. But might have a boo at Mr. Google's suggestions to see if there is an electronic version of either of your suggestions sometime when I'm bored. ;)
Carolyn
-
... As to evidence for less-than-strict non-chronological dating of some Sowerby pattern numbers…
for the past year or so, for my own ‘entertainment’ I have been building a database correlating Sowerby RD numbers with their pattern book numbers, cross referencing them to the appropriate pattern book pages and, wherever possible, photos of each pattern in as many variants of size and colour as possible – a bit like Cottle crossed with Slack, Thompson, Murray, Lattimore etc. (but with knobs on and lots more pretty pictures). It has been an interesting exercise which has filled in lots of gaps (and time), though still far from complete (especially the flint glass tableware ranges).
Here are a few short sequences ... The chronological anomalies should be self evident. ...
A very useful exercise, and one I should have done myself years ago.
However we have to be careful not to come to unwarranted conclusions. I think that there are enough apparent discrepancies and irregularities in Sowerby pattern numbering to show that first (lozenge) and second series registration numbers and dates were not relevant to Sowerby's allocation of pattern numbers. I don't believe that we will ever know how they did allocate pattern numbers, but that doesn't stop you drawing the conclusion that they were sequential.
It is actually quite unusual to be certain how any British glassworks allocated pattern numbers. One notable exception is Walsh, because of a transcription error in the "W" factory pattern book on p.109, where pattern W10419 was followed by W14020. This new sequence appears uncorrected in later trade catalogues and advertisements, showing that it was when the pattern was entered into the factory pattern book that decided the pattern number. So C20 Walsh pattern numbering was sequential within the "W" and "A" pattern books, but we can't be certain how it was done earlier (see the pattern numbering on the Crushed Strawberry / Electric Blue advertisement in PG, 1 November 1883, Reynolds p.41).
Bernard C. 8)
-
Referring to reply No. 6 from Fred, re Sowerby factory pattern No. 1074 (the stipple decorated sugar bowl) Rd. No. 281933 dated 22.04.1874.
Rather late in the day, and probably of little use now other than curiosity....... but unusual for a drawing submitted to the Board of Trade in support of an application for a new design/Registration....... in that it shows the factory pattern No.
However, not remotely unique - I've seen this before on Sowerby drawings, but certainly uncommon.
-
Thank you, Paul.
Fred.
-
Hi Fred
I bought this Sowerby 1263 Little Bo Peep today in a very unusual colour. At first you may think gilded , but I do not think so. It looks to have been hand painted to highlight the figures , trees , moon , rim and feet.
Under certain lighting it appears gold but when held up to a light is very purple and slightly iridescent. The colour seems to be permanent and cannot be scratched off.
Roy
-
Thank you, Roy.
Not a glass colour that I can recall seeing in any other Sowerby piece.
Fred.