Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: Tony H on September 25, 2005, 07:23:30 AM
-
Hi Glen
I have seen a blue (milk!!) glass cushion pot with a crown as the lid, on the base of the cushion is a Reg Diamond mark for 14 February 1865.
I used Thompson and found registeration was taken out by one Alfred Edmund Edwards of Alva Cottage Twickenham.
The piece is quite small cushion 3.5 to 4 inches square and about three inches high, was in an Antique Shop my wife and I visited today, but the piece was damgaed on the lid (crown) rim and at NZ$95 I was not prepeared to buy it. Also I did not have my camara, but I may be able to get a photo later.
It is not like your crown, but thought you may be interested in the reg.
Tony H in NZ
-
Tony - thank you so much for your interesting information. I have a feeling that I've seen that precious little item in a book somewhere (but as usual can't remember which one :oops: )
Thanks again, Tony. I'm grateful to you.
Glen
-
Here's a picture of that item in the National Archives. ;D
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/designregisters/item.asp?cat_id=0&type_id=0&shape_id=5&item_id=183953)
I think I have seen lots of the metal one's but none made from glass or pottery.
-
I just thought of the most obvious..... Alfred Edmund Edwardes did not have manufacturing facilities for glass, so he contracted it out. At first, it did not have Baccarat's name embossed on the inside bottom, but was added at a later date (Edwardes allowed it, company went out of business, Baccarat bought the mold, etc).
-
Hi all,
I have just bought a very large selection of glass, and am still going through it all, but this thing has caught me eye as it is so strange!
It is a lidded dish, with some damage, modeled as a crown in pale blue glass.
http://i25.tinypic.com/rkoche.jpg
But its the registration diamond that is strange.
http://i26.tinypic.com/2w317pc.jpg
The class number at the top is 1 which is for metal, glass is 111 (3), but the rest of the number is W (February) G (1865) 14 for the day and parcel no.8 I think.
Can anyone help?
Barbara
Mod: Pics added below
-
Presumably also made in metal. Possibly related to Prince Consort's death... to early for silver jubilee. Cannot think of other relevant events c'65.
Try searching for metal examples there might be some documented.
-
Hi Frank
I have just got my glasses on and have found in the back of Jenny Thompsons book an entry for the 14th Feb 1865, which reads I think
Date of deposit No Of Parcel No of design Name of Proprietor
14 feb 1865 8 183593 Alfred Edmond Edwards
Address of Proprietor
Alver Cottage Twickenham Green
Middlesex
But nothing for metal, unless the mould was metal and he forgot to change the number?
-
Hi
The same crown dish made in vaseline glass is shown on page 154 of Barrie Skelcher's The Big Book of Vaseline Glass
Roy
-
I have just got my glasses on and have found in the back of Jenny Thompsons book an entry for the 14th Feb 1865, which reads I think
Date of deposit No Of Parcel No of design Name of Proprietor
14 feb 1865 8 183593 Alfred Edmond Edwards
Address of Proprietor
Alver Cottage Twickenham Green
Middlesex
But nothing for metal, unless the mould was metal and he forgot to change the number?
Hi Barbara, It's quite hard to read isn't it, but the number is 183593, by Alfred Edmund Edwards, and under the date in tiny letters it says Classes I & IV.
The British Library help page on registered designs (http://www.bl.uk/collections/patents/designs.html) gives:
Class 1 Metal
Class 4 Glass, earthenware, porcelain
I haven't find anything about A E Edwards though - wonder who he was?
Wikipedia says Prince Albert died in 1861, so a bit too early for this crown I'd have thought.
-
Hi Anne,
It is strange isn't it, metal and earthernware but no glass!
I can't find anything about him either, maybe an amatuer maker?
Barbara
-
Glass was there, see Annes post. There are a couple of Edwards amongst the potteries in Staffs. The registrant address often is the company address where the company is not named. But of course he could also be a commissioning factor. Registering a design could easily happen several years after the design was first used so only 4 years later is close enough. Would his crown have gone on a cushion on the coffin for the service?
-
I have no idea if the crown was made for the funeral, but if it was do you think it would be in a darker colour glass, as Queen Victoria went into deep mourning as did everyone else, and bright blue is a little bright and a bit in your face.
I don't think Queen Victoria would have been amused ;D
-
It could have been a good seller after the event so they just added a more colourful range, the piece could have been in production for many years.
-
Hi Anne,
It is strange isn't it, metal and earthenware but no glass!
I can't find anything about him either, maybe an amateur maker?
Barbara
I found an Alfred E Edwards on the 1861 Census, age 33, living in 4 Marlborough Hill Gardens, Marylebone, occupation sculptor. I wonder if this was the same man? I'll have a look through trade directories later - the site is down at the moment.
-
Last April (2007), I came across this listing at the KEW in their public search area (but can't find it now). I did a 'image capture, and have the illustration on my computer. there were notes under the item: "This design was also registered in Class I - Metal, Class III - Glass, as well as in this class, Class IV - Earthenwares. This means that the same design could be used for a variety of objects of the same form, but made from different materials. Multiple class registration is often used by manufacturers of cosmetic/perfume containers."
This piece was registered as a "class 4, ornamental design for a jar."
I have seen the vaseline glass version that had the diamond lozenge marking on the inside of the dish. Now, here is the kicker: I have seen (have the photo SOMEPLACE in my computer!) of an opaque blue version, with a raised marking on the inside of the base, and it said BACCARAT. So, It looks like the person who registered the design also used it with at least one other manufacturer. It is not known who pressed the vaseline glass version for ALFRED EDMUND EDWARDES, Alver Cottage, Twickenham Green, Middlesex. The Catalog ref. for the Image details are: BT 43/68. The Registration details for No. 183953 is catalog ref. no. BT 44/8. OH, the official listing at the KEW, shows the last name as EDWARDES with the extra 'E'.
Hope this helps!
Dave Peterson
aka: Mr. Vaseline Glass
-
This rather spectacular inkwell (with a bit of damage on the inside) has a large, prominent Rd. lozenge on the bottom and the date translates to January 14, 1865. However, the class is I not III and so the lozenge finder comes up with no registration for parcel 8 on that date.
So it was not registered as a glass design - is it possible to figure out who made it?
-
Ivo, I think your 14 January 1865 should be 14 February 1865 which states class III, also classes I & IV, with a parcel number of 8.
It's given as design 183953, proprietor Alfred Edmund Edwardes, Alver Cottage, Twickenham Green, Middlesex. Sadly no clue as to what the design relates to though. The reference is page 101 of Jenny Thompson's The Identification of English Pressed Glass.
-
Okay - perfect answer. :hiclp:
There you go:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/designregisters/propitemdetail.asp?item_id=183953&proprietor=14&page=1
We have a name, a date and the hunch that Baccarat may have been involved in the production - which does not surprise me seeing the outrageous colour, quality and finish.
If you wish to merge these threads, go ahead.
-
Hi there
I had this piece about 15 years ago and found the same problem, you are correct that the class is not glass. It is in fact metal. I had the opportunity to discuss it with Raymond Slack and the concensus of opinion was that it was originally produced in metal as an inkwell & registered as such, for whatever reason a glass manufacturer was then able to reproduce it in glass, alliances between glass and metal manufacturers was of course quite common. Only problem is Im damned if I can remember who the original metal maker was.
UKGLASS
Having read Ivos post i think its fair to say we now know who the metal maker was, certainley never heard of Alfred Edmund Edwardes as a glass maker, still no closer to who produced the glass unfortunately.
-
And here's another one shown in one of my non-paperweight web pages. (http://www.btinternet.com/~kevh.glass/pages/pressed/crownbox.htm)
I thought I had commented about mine in connection with Barbara's (as shown in the GMB link Anne gave above), but clearly not - might have missed it. Having checked mine again, I can see that I misread the date letter in the lozenge as a "C" instead of "G".
I see that Barbara's (same colour as mine) has a large chip on the top which might suggest the loss of the Cross as shown in the National Archives information for design 183953 (as per Ivo's link). I can confirm that my example has a simple point at the domed finial which is part of the mouled shape - much the same as Ivo's. Perhaps the glass versions were not produced with a Cross on top?
Another of these (in opaque pale opalescent green , I think) was shown a few years ago in a Glass Circle / Association exhibition, "From Palace to Parlour", Aug - Oct 2003, at The Wallace Collection, Manchester Square, London. But no maker was stated.
Edited as indicated in bold or strikethroughs.
-
Both topics merged for the sake of completeness.
-
It’s been almost 5 years since topic
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,1012.0.html
was last aired, and over the course of time Glen’s green uranium crown as discussed in the first post of the thread has lost its photo (which later morphs into a link from Christine in reply #31).
Mixed in with that topic thread is a mention of “a blue (milk!!) glass cushion pot with a crown as the lid, on the base of the cushion is a Reg Diamond mark for 14 February 1865” (reply #20). This, it transpires, corresponds to a registered design number 183953, registered by Alfred Edmund Edwardes, Alber (or Alver?) Cottage, Twickenham Green, Middlesex, and the design is for a jar.
Tigerchips, in reply #22, kindly provided a link to more details, including the registration representation, online from the National Archives at
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/designregisters/item.asp?cat_id=0&type_id=0&shape_id=5&item_id=183953 now at
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/designregisters/propitemdetail.asp?item_id=183953&proprietor=14&backpage=1
In reply #26, Dave Peterson provides a link to what appears to be a similar Edwardes crown, but with BACCARAT market inside the bottom. Inevitably, of course, that ebay link is now dead.
So, to cut to the chase, I have photos of two examples of the Alfred Edmund Edwardes RD 183953 crown (both with the lozenge for 14 February 1865) to post (hopefully staying visible for some time to come). Each crown has a base measuring about 4 inches square, and stand about 4 inches tall (but, looking at the National Archives representation, both crowns have lost the cross from the top of the crown).
I have posted it separately from the original thread because I think this glass crown jar is sufficiently interesting to merit a topic thread of its own:
firstly, it is one of the few registrations of designs in glass deemed sufficiently important / interesting to be given a substantial descriptive and illustrated link of its own by the National Archives,
and secondly, this glass crown is something of an oddity which, nevertheless, proves a rule – despite being of glass, the lozenge indicates a registration in Class I, metal. Further research shows that “this design was also registered in Class III (glass) and Class IV (earthenware), so the same registry mark has been used irrespective if the material. This means that the same design could be used for a variety of objects of the same form but made from different materials. Multiple class registration is often used by manufacturers of cosmetic/perfume containers.”
First the photos of a crown jar in transparent yellow uranium glass (which reacts strongly to UV light).
(Permission for the re-use of the images of this yellow uranium glass crown jar granted by Paula Chapman)
-
Here are the photos of the second example of the crown jar, this time in jade opaque / milk glass. Unfortunately, the owner was unable to test the glass for its reaction to UV light
(Permission for the re-use of the images of this jade crown jar granted by gold_pins).
Does anyone have photos of this type of crown jar complete with its pinnacle cross?
There are now, obviously, mention of glass examples in yellow uranium, jade milk and blue milk glass – any more examples in other colours to show?
As this design was registered in Classes I, III and IV, does anyone have photos of examples in metal or earthenware to share?
-
I found this example today , sadly it's badly damaged . It's not just chipped and missing the cross but it's ''chunked '' to the base of the crown . One of the feet to the cushion has been damaged too. I bought it in a charity shop for £2.00. If you don't have an example of this, agincourt17, then I would be pleased to send it to you free of any charge :) I guess it's better to have a damaged one than none :-\ It really does glow and the detail is excellent (not shown in the photos) there are even one or two black 'seeds' in the glass plus loads of wear to the base :D Ta, Mike.
P.S. Thanks for posting this thread ....sorry I couldn't find a better example !
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,1012.0.html
-
Thank you, Mike, for your very kind offer, but I no longer collect pressed glass pieces. Almost all the pieces I did possess have been donated either to various museums and collections or to my favourite charities, and I am quite happy now with the pleasure I get from simply researching new items I encounter.
I still haven’t come across an RD 183953 crown jar with an intact terminal cross but, looking back through my reference photos, I do have an example in milky white glass to show that has some of the details still retaining remnants of gold paint or enamel.
(Permission for the re-use of these images on the GMB granted by Alison Whitaker).
Fred.
-
Thanks for the pics. Fred, it's an interesting area of collecting which I've just discovered by finding this piece. I might give it back to the charity shop unless you know anyone that might like it ;) Thanks again for all your research ! I will try to look out of an intact one ! Cheers , Mike.
-
Hi Mike, I would be interested in it, if that's OK? You can mail me from the envelope icon on the left of this panel. I usually make a donation to my favourite charity in cases like this: www.acorns.org.uk where I worked as a volunteer for several years. Just say how much! I'll reimburse postage of course.
-
Yes , I will send it on to you and I will send a message via your envelope....later today ...must dash now ! Don't worry about the postage !
-
Mike has kindly sent this on, and it is an excellent piece of pressed glass! I note that none of the examples has the cross on top of the crown as these were obviously so easily broken off.
The registration mark is curious with Class 1 putting it into the category of metal. We have come across this before: G P Tye's registered design of 1850 was marked on the vase, although not a lozenge, but was actually for the metal support that fitted to the vase. However, I agree that in this case it almost certainly pertains to a metal (or other) version of this glass object, as suggested by Fred.
I would like to make a small correction: the registrant's name was not Alfred Edward Edmundes, but Alfred Edward Edwardes as shown on the National Archives page (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/designregisters/item.asp?cat_id=0&type_id=0&shape_id=5&item_id=183953). A Google search reveals nothing concrete of this name, with either spelling. Another thought is that this name is not always the designer, but could have been a registration agent, although I would have thought the glassmaker was mentioned somewhere on the registration.
Patricia is going to the Design Archives in September, so hopefully she can clear this up for sure, unless Paul is there anytime soon?
-
Thank you for correcting the registrant’s surname, David.
I had obviously originally transcribed it wrongly ( a written version of a ‘Spoonerism’ – there must surely be a proper word for it) because the registrant’s name is actually Alfred Edmund Edwardes.
Forunately, Slack has it transcribed correctly, as per the written details with TNA’s design representation.
I will ask the moderators nicely to correct the registrant’s name in the topic heading.
Fred.
-
Adding link to another topic where we discussed Edwardes at length:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,21696.0.html
-
I was surprised to see the Kew image for this item in David's link (Ivo also showed the same pic back in 2010) - as far as I know none of the glass (Class III) items can be viewed down at individual item level, on the screen. Can only assume that Earthenware (Class IV) works differently to glass. ???
For some reason, I don't seem to have a picture of 183953 taken from the Kew Representations Book BT 43/61 - which covers Class III, glass items - April 1852 to Sept. 1870.
However, I do have pictures taken from the corresponding Register (the words part only) which is Kew ref. BT 44/7 (this covers Class III items only) and is a single volume running from 1842 to 1882 - between these two dates the Board of Trade obviously wanted to keep the various materials separate, and so the individual volumes each contain one Class only.
After this I think the Board of Trade included ALL Registrations for ALL Classes (numbered consecutively) in books - thus you find reams of wallpaper and printed fabric designs together with glass, wood and metal etc. in the same Register - although I believe there are exceptions, and textiles and sculptures are on their own.
Sometimes when I watermark there is a loss of sharpness to the original image, which is a shame, as these two attached pix started out life with amazing clarity - I don't think it happens every time though.
I don't think the attached pix add anything new, but thought they'd be of interest for the sake of completeness - hope the wording can be read.
The very fact that these pix are taken from Kew volume ref. BT 44/7, confirms the fact that this design was included in Class III glass, and you can see from the left hand column the wording 'Classes I & IV also' - an obvious attempt at cross-referencing.
Quite what the word 'jar' implies I'm not sure.
I shall be at Kew in the coming week or so, and if possible will take a snap of the drawing in the Representation book BT 43/61 (glass only), for comparison with the images we already have of this Rd.
David - am sure Patricia (see, I got it right that time ;)) is an expert at researching archives, and assume she is aware that, for Kew, a readers ticket is essential in order to access the archives and take pix etc. - the procedure for obtaining a ticket can take some little while, from memory.
P.S. the above probably sounds confusing - and probably is if you don't have experience of The National Archive methods and archives. It's well worth going onto their web site and having a look at the various sections for Board of Trade Registrations for the C19, and should help to flesh out some of the terminology and might help to make more sense of some of these Rd. Nos. wot we speek about. :)
-
I actually took the link from a previous post by Tigerchips (where did he go to?), so can't claim credit for finding that. However, I have been through the Archives before and know what a minefield it can be. Patricia does have a reader's ticket, and she has a good understanding of how it all works.
Let us know what you discover!
-
Very interesting topic ! Here is my theory...which might be entirely wrong but as Frank said in one of the linked threads the crown is the St Edward's crown....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Edward's_Crown
My guess is that Alfred Edmund Edwardes was the designer and not anyone else i.e. an agent. He was interested in the crown because of his name being similar (with an added e) and / or he may have been the sculptor that Anne found in the census (in the linked thread). Perhaps the original mould was for metal and then the mould was adapted,much later, for use with glass to make these jars or inkwells in celebration of Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee which was in 1887. The bright yellow colour being significant. Here is an example of a pair of crown pin cushions dated 1886 (one year prior) probably to celebrate the Golden Jubilee (the link says Diamond!) .
http://www.steppeshillfarmantiques.com/silver-and-porcelain/d/pair-victorian-novelty-silver-royal-crown-pin-cushions-queen-victorias-diamon/156087
The other colour crowns may also be from 1887 (assuming this theory is correct) or later when the moulds were used again for the diamond jubilee when Baccarat may have added their name.
So perhaps the glass was made quite a bit later than the design registration date. This may have been suggested already but as I say it's only a guess/theory. ;)
-
quote.................."So perhaps the glass was made quite a bit later than the design registration date."
Always a possibility.......just because a design on paper is submitted to the Board of Trade - and a Registration No. allocated - doesn't mean production had to commence at or about that date, but it might be impossible now to determine if that was the case.
We can see from the CLASS III Register (BT 44/7) that Edwardes Registered this design in glass on 14th February 1865, but it's possible he may have delayed production, although looking at the Representations book won't resolve that question.
As opposed to designs on paper only, many (later) applications sent to the B. of T. were in the form of a prototype or a fully fledged item that went into retail market, some prior to being allocated a No., hence they sometimes carry the words REGN. APPLIED FOR, as with Jobling for example.
-
Paul, Mike, I know a design registration has a limited lifespan (3 or 5 years), and I don't think that it can be used past that date, but I might be wrong. If I'm right, then perhaps that crown design was only used up until 1870.
-
Thanks Paul & David , I didn't know about the time limits. I always thought limits (e.g. patents) were put in place to protect the designer and after that period of time anyone could use the design . But I know nothing about this area (as you can tell!) . I think I should scrap the whole idea that the moulds were made for metal and then adapted for glass...totally off piste ::)
-
we are speaking here of B. of T. Registrations, as opposed to patents - I've no idea of the rules or regulations governing the latter.
Registrations can certainly be extended, and some designs that I've seen at Kew are annotated in the Registers as having been extended two or three times - each extension for a further 3 or 5 years.
From memory I'm sure that situation can be seen in some of the pix I've posted on the Board for Fred - the extensions might even have been in red ink.
Board of Trade Registrations provide protection (in theory) for the initial period of 5 or 3 years, after which, presumably, if there is no agreed extension by the B. of T., then anyone can copy the design.
Not entirely sure David what you mean by ....."and I don't think that it can be used past that date" .... is it the Rd. No., or the design you're suggesting that can't be used. Sorry if I'm being thick. :)
-
Cheers Paul , interesting :)
look at this ................ :o :o :o
http://www.vaselineglass.org/crowninkA1.jpg
-
Iv'e just thought of another theory , which I think might solve the question, but it's somewhat sad :(
Sadly, Queen Victoria lost Prince Albert only a year or so before her Silver Jubilee so there weren't any Silver Jubilee celebrations . Her Silver Jubilee year would have been 1863 . I think this glass crown was intended for that occasion . The design was probably published and registered a little later having been put on hold due to Queen Victoria's loss. It was however used for her Golden and I think Diamond Jubilee celebrations.... if I'm right...and that is a big 'IF' !! . It could have been a commissioned/approved design, initially, which is why it is in the on-line National Design Archives .
https://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/TheQueenandspecialanniversaries/HistoryofJubilees/HistoryofJubileesouvenirs.aspx
-
Regret I'm not too good at Royalty and connected events in the C19 - so not sure of the potential value of your latest hypothesis ;D - but a possibility I suppose.
Thanks for the pic of the uranium crown - real burning image.
I'm still unsure as to how the National Archives pic was sourced - perhaps someone enlisted the help of a professional archivist. :-\ I believe that both Tigerchips and Ivo used used it.
-
Cheers Paul ,
Sadly, I think I'm right ...for once .
-
Not entirely sure David what you mean by ....."and I don't think that it can be used past that date" .... is it the Rd. No., or the design you're suggesting that can't be used. Sorry if I'm being thick. :)
Not at all - my explanation was pretty abysmal! :-[ What I meant was that the manufacturer could no longer use the registration lozenge or number after the imposed time limit. So 1870 would have been the last time the lozenge could have been used unless, as you say, it was extended. I think it could still be called a registered design, though. One assumes that after the registration had lapsed anyone could start fabricating their own version?
With regard to the vaselineglass.org link, it is interesting to see the cross to the top still intact. Obviously well looked after! :D
-
quote..................."What I meant was that the manufacturer could no longer use the registration lozenge or number after the imposed time limit. So 1870 would have been the last time the lozenge could have been used unless, as you say, it was extended."
Could be wrong David, but don't think that would be the case. I'm sure that I've seen many pieces carrying Rd. Nos. and diamonds - where the impression was worn and faded - indicating that the piece had been pressed many years after expiry of the allotted 3 or 5 year protection. Moulds were valuable things, and not items to throw away, just because your Registration period had expired.
Someone else confirm this idea please :)
-
Paul, if you had an expensive , valuable (given the potential revenue from it's output) mould wouldn't you just keep extending it every five years so that the protection was in place over the whole lifetime of the mould ? It would make sense to do so and I don't think it would be that expensive. It certainly isn't expensive to register a design these days .
-
I'm sure that I've seen many pieces carrying Rd. Nos. and diamonds - where the impression was worn and faded - indicating that the piece had been pressed many years after expiry of the allotted 3 or 5 year protection.
That could also mean it was a very popular piece where many pressings were carried out or, where the piece was known to be popular, how many moulds they were using ;) Impossible to say how many moulds were made, but I doubt it was very many. It also looks and feels to be a very expensive piece of glass, so I imagine there may have only been one or two moulds, and not many pressings.
Mike, a good point, but you have to consider how moulds are made, and why. The base plate on which the registration mark is found may have been a single piece of metal that was engineered separately. In this case, there is a definite seam mark just by the base edge, so it did have its own base plate, which could then have been easily replaced.
In the case of Tye's vase, we have seen quite a few variations of the base, where he did change the base plate fairly often.
-
Must be losing my grip - I'd forgotten that we'd previously covered aspects of this issue of period of Registration (2013), so here is an edited extract from something I posted then.........
""For designs Registered after January 1884 i.e. where there is a number only and not a diamond lozenge, then the period of Registration (protection) was for a period of five years, which could be renewed - and indeed many designs were extended, sometimes twice or even thrice (and perhaps for longer even).
However, for designs Registered between 1842 and 1883 - the whole of the period covered by the diamond lozenge - then the legal protection given by the Board of Trade was for a period of three years only, and extensions appear not to have been an option. Have to remember that prior to 1839 there was no protection at all for the designs of most materials - and certainly not glass.
There seems to have been an almost arbitrary system of granting protection to the various materials at the beginning of the lozenge period, and it's well worth reading Thompson's comments regarding the Designs Act of 1842.
Registration of designs with the British Board of Trade gave protection only within the U.K., and didn't seem to stop companies outside the U.K. from copying and selling British designs............plagiarism was probably a common problem anywhere.""......
So this is why Kew Register BT 44/7 (the Register for CLASS III, glass only, for all of the diamond years) makes no mention of any designs being extended, and tells us immediately that the design of this 'crown jar' would not have been extended beyond the allotted three years. I've no idea of the reasoning behind this restriction to three years, but presumably they had second thoughts in 1884, and decided that additional protection was warranted, and so made the change to five years with provision for further periods if that was requested.
It's quite possible that when I get to Kew and locate 183953 in the CLASS III glass Representations book, I may well find myself looking at an identical drawing to that which is showing in this thread, i.e. the drawing submitted for the Pottery CLASS IV Registration. For simplicity and economy Edwardes may posted a few copies of an identical drawing to the B. of T. and asked that they shove one of each into CLASS 1, III and IV.
I would have thought that Tye's style of mould with separate base plate was very much in the minority - most moulds surely were two and three piece hinged forms - that created the complete pressing without the need for additional parts. However, I am aware that Patricia's book does show a non-Tye mould that has a separate interchangeable base plate.
We've discussed previously the fact that the moulds from some factories were purchased by other houses, and no reason I suppose that a mould carrying a Rd. No. couldn't be used indenfintely - even until the details became illegible, as they often did.
sorry this ended up a bit long-winded :)
-
Thanks very much indeed Paul for explaining it so well ! It really helps people like me who know so little about this area .
So if you had a mould with a diamond lozenge to the base you were not allowed to use it beyond three years with the lozenge plate still in place. So this puts a complete kibosh on my Golden/Diamond Jubilee theory ::) :-X
-
I don't think you weren't allowed; that's the period of design protection. Whether you continued to use it was irrelevant. It just meant you had no legal comeback if somebody copied your design.
The marks weren't for buyers' benefit but for competitors to see
-
Yes, I'm certain that Lustrousstone is correct - I'd just typed a reply making that point, so if people don't object I'll let my words stand without alteration. :)
hi - difficult to say what proportion of moulds had separate bases - the Tye examples did, and maybe there were more than we might think.
I'm not well up on the making of moulds - perhaps most were sand-cast as iron blanks and then cold-cut by hand to create the design. If you look at the picture in Raymond Slack's book, there is the photograph of the old guy cutting a design into one section of a mould whilst its held in what looks like a purpose made cradle.
Slack's book gives a little information on early moulds and discusses the sort of metals used....iron, brass or gun metal.
But have to correct you on the second part of your post. I wasn't saying that a mould couldn't be used after the expiry of the three year Registration period - presumably it could go on being used for ever almost - but rather that at the end of the three years the legal protection ceased, and anyone could copy the design without fear of litigation.
Also, Registration diamonds/lozenges might appear almost anywhere on a piece of glass - feet, stems, inside bowls etc., in fact probably they appear (for pressed glass) on every part except the base, since they were individual details and needed to be cut/pressed separately for each different design.
It's worth quoting Charles Hajdamach's words on this subject......
"Although not exclusive to pressed glass, the diamond registration appears on that range of objects more than any other because of the relative ease of incorporating the mark into the pattern of the design when it was being cut by the mould maker. On other glass it could be engraved or transfer printed."...........
Would have thought we had people here who had some more in depth knowledge of moulds :-\
-
Thanks again for clarifying that point , I was getting a bit confused....sorry ;)
-
Here is the metal version...... ;D (perhaps)
http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/bbr-auctions/catalogue-id-2892343/lot-20028655
-
I've been doing lots of searching on the internet to try to find an exact copy in either metal or ceramics but I've drawn a blank . I have found a lot of crown and cushions made from brick though ....which also sell beer ;)
The metal inkwell above was the closest I got , but the design is clearly different and the crown lid- section lifts off at a different position. It's probably a case of what happens when the three year protection runs out, more than anything else !
I did find this old ebay listing though which shows some good photos taken from different angles where you can see the detail quite well. The seller seems to have the same idea that it is a Queen Victoria Jubilee piece .
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MEGA-RARE-QUEEN-VICTORIA-JUBILEE-CROWN-TRINKET-BOX-URANIUM-VASELINE-GLASS-/151083576295?nma=true&si=Tr2k6q%252Be2UKcnzHuNYJxJnFd3bQ%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
-
obviously some kite flying from that seller - Victoria celebrated two Jubilees, so I suppose we might take our pick since no suggestion of which one was being indicated - although neither of them (1887 and 1897) agrees with the lozenge date of 1865.. The seller appears not to have deciphered the details of the diamond.
Lustrousstone will know far better than me, but I'd suggest this pale minty green is uncommon, and might on its own have suggested a specific source - I've just ploughed through two volumes of Barrie Skelcher's uranium glass and this shade of green does seem scarce. Might this be a type of green more akin to c. 1900? - it's obviously nothing like those lurid lemony crowns that probably are earlier.
Have just realized that nowhere in the original thread (where the Edwardes crown was referred to) or in this one, was there any reference to Barrie Skelcher's volumes.
This author does show one of the lemony coloured uranium examples - again missing its top cross - and apparently bought it in Oz from a dealer who said he'd acquired it in Jamaica 'where he used to live' ;D - so a very well traveled crown.
Skelcher comments ... "Oddly the design is registered under glass, but this mark is for metal!"
I'm not entirely sure what he means by this........perhaps he'd checked both the Register and Representations books and found this entry in both.
Like most of us, Barrie Skelcher suggests this was made to commemorate some Royal event, but says "but I have not been able to identify any of that date".
Heartwarming perhaps for those who have bought one cheaply ........... Skelcher adds..."Value, if undamaged, $110 - $145 ;)
-
That's interesting ! Tony found a milk blue one in New Zealand and now one in Jamaica ...perhaps they were sold all over the Commonwealth for both Jubilees ...I still think the original design was intended for the Silver Jubilee though. The moulds could easily have been shelved (or sold on) for a period of ten years between Jubilees ;) 'Mega_Rare' if intact , perhaps !!
The weak point is the cross at the top (goes without saying) . The glass is so heavy that it must have snapped off at the top, if picked up by the cross: some of the damage (to three of the examples ,including Tony's) is at the base of the lid when it ,presumably, fell !!
-
The pale green uranium is very unusual, assuming that really is uranium, but I would say the date was still c 1865. You only have to look at the colours of PC's hyacinth vases of that sort of date
-
It looks similar in colour to item number 10, here, (a footed bowl?) , if you scroll down , and described as 'alabaster' .
http://uranglass.gooside.com/kantei/color.htm
-
I'm not saying that crown isn't uranium glass or that that pale green isn't an option for uranium glass, rather that it may not be. About a third of uranium glass listings aren't, so I am always sceptical if there is no photographic or visual (to my trained eyes) proof or mention of a UV light test.
-
Yes, I understood that, just thought the footed bowl (if that is what it is), and this unusual colour might give a clue (as Paul suggested) , did Baccarat (say) produce the colour in c1865 ? If not then which other pressed glass makers produced items in this colour at that time ?
-
Here is a very interesting website showing a large collection of pressed glass .
It mentions here that the words 'Baccarat' and 'Deposee' were impressed on pressed glass from the 1870's . Not sure if the ebay example, mentioned in one if the threads above, also had the word 'deposee' though. But I think it had the diamond mark so no need to add the word deposee perhaps.
http://www.pressglas.de/English_Homepage/Texts/About_Baccarat/about_baccarat.html
-
regret no help from the CLASS III (Glass) Representations Book BT 43/61.
As I thought, it does appear that Edwardes submitted several identical copies of the same drawing to the Board of Trade, and asked them to Register this one design under the several CLASSES we've discussed.
Just for completeness am attaching a picture taken today from the CLASS III book, but as can be seen it is identical to the others, and adds nothing new.
-
Some more pictures of the pale blue crown. Missing its cross , but no other damage other than a couple of tiny chips to the underside of lid.
Roy
-
Wow finally found some information on this A E Edwardes crown vaseline crown jar . We found ours in a thrift store in Chickasha Oklahoma for $20.00 USD. sadly it has suffered the hands of time and has pretty much the same damage as the rest of the ones spoke about in this topic. I must say this has been a exciting and interesting find for us as we often wonder how it ended up in Oklahoma ..
-
Hi Ruhser and welcome to the GMB.
Glad this forum is of help. Yes, they invariably suffer from some form of damage due to the shape: the top cross on mine is missing, but it is still a great statement piece. It could have been shipped to the US when someone emigrated but, with online auction sites becoming so popular, the movement of items across the globe is inevitable.
-
On page 10 of the PDf here https://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2016-2w-duboucarre-dose-loewe-bacc-1880.pdf showing items from the 1870 Baccarat catalogue [MB Baccarat 1870, 2ème Partie, Planche 223] there is an image which looks to me to be the same design as that registered by AA Edwardes in 1865. The text says, " No. 3395, Deckeldose als Krone auf Kissen" (translated as No. 3395, lidded box as a crown on cushions.)