Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
Glass / Re: Variation of Kosta Boda's Bernadotte line?
« Last post by susi on Today at 02:14:03 PM »
Sorry it took me so long to reply.  Lost my password.  So, anyway, yes, there is a little trapped air bubble in the stem.
2
British & Irish Glass / Re: blanc-de-lait versus white vitro-porcelain.
« Last post by Ivo on Today at 02:11:51 PM »
Interesting stuff - but the world of white glass may be a bit larger. It starts with venetian lattimo, aka milk glass. First made with bone ash which gives an opal translucence, later with tin oxide which produces a much harder opaque white. From there, all manufacturers used their own variations, and attached their own trade marks to it. There are hundreds of different recipes. I think it is safest to use factory terms for factory glass only . Opal, opaline and opalescent are generic glass terms and can be applied to factory glass, just like milk glass or opaque white glass.. But factory specific terminology is tricky. If blanc-de-lait is a sowerby fancy term, it applies to sowerby glass only. And vitro porcelain should only be used for products sold as such.
I still am taken aback whe n i see people describing a glass as kingfisher or pewter. ....
3
Glass / ewardian oil bottle?
« Last post by bat20 on Today at 02:01:04 PM »
Hi all,anyone have an idea on the date of this sweet little oil bottle,it has a polished pontil with 44 on it but no stopper with very little wear in the neck and floral engraving,there is wear to the feet with a high pitched ping when flicked,many thanks.
4
British & Irish Glass / blanc-de-lait versus white vitro-porcelain.
« Last post by Paul S. on Today at 12:53:00 PM »
If the Mods want this elsewhere, it can be moved to wherever is the best place.        I'll reply later to Fred's request for Archive pix re the Sowerby pieces.

Believe we've discussed the matter of the misuse of the Sowerby trade name 'blanc de lait' before, but just thought it worth clarifying again, since the term has been wrongly associated - in the literature - with plain white vitro-porcelain.
The pieces shown by Roy are white vitro-porcelain, and hand-decorated with enameled colours, whereas blanc-de-lait was decorated with opaque staining, and is a true opalescent glass.

Lattimore (1979) uses the term 'blanc-de-lait' correctly and shows one of the swan decorated spill vases.     Like Raymond Slack, he recites the well known story of the Newcastle tradesman returning from Paris with several pieces of this novelty opalescent glass only to be told it had originated in Gateshead, and as such he had been 'carrying coals to Newcastle'.
Lattimore adds the word 'opaline' to his description - which is probably incorrect  -  he may have meant to say opalescent.
He also shows some opaque white vitro-porcelain, decorated with enameled colours.

Sheilagh Murray (1982) uses the name when referring to hand painted plain white vitro-porcelain, although on the same page she shows a genuine piece of opaque coloured stained blanc-de-lait, and calls it 'early opal bowl hand painted in ochre'.

Simon Cottle (1986) follows Murray precisely in using the term to describe white vitro-porcelain decorated with enameled colours - but a little later in his catalogue shows stunning pieces of blanc-de-lait which he describes simply as "opalescent press-moulded glass with amber staining".

Finally, we get to Raymond Slack (1987) who describes correctly both blanc-de-lait and hand-enameled white vitro-porcelain.
The value of Slack's book is in the thoroughness of his research........... fortunately he provides factory evidence to
support separate descriptions leaving us in no doubt as to which is which.
Extracts from both Sowerby's own advertisements and the Pottery Gazette are quoted.
With hindsight, it was perhaps unfortunate that the factory chose to use the word 'opal' to describe their very first white vitro-porcelain.
sorry if this is all boring, but just thought it worth repeating to help avoid confusion.*:)
5
Thank you, Paul.

I look forward to seeing the National Archive pics for RD 365165 and RD 350084.

I don’t have any pics at all for RD 350084 described by Cottle and Thompson as a sugar [basin],  though I do have some pics for many of the other RD numbers in the RD 350083 to 350093 bundle - all with pattern numbers in the 1470s and 1480s.

I agree that this thread is becoming overloaded and in danger of diverting significantly from the original topic title, so I have no problem with a new thread re. the Sowerby stained or enamelled  pieces (though referencing links between topic threads would be useful).

Fred.
6
Glass / Re: Rare Davidson Blue Pearline Coral & Shell Vases
« Last post by Keencollector on Today at 12:11:38 PM »
I have the one that is 9 cm high with fluted top and also a fluted bowl that is 24 cm wide.  This is not marked but was told it  is Pattern 134, C 1885 and a Heppell mould.  I expect it would be one of those purchased by Davidson from Heppell.   It appears on the cover of Standard  Encyclopedia of Opalescent Glass, Fifth Edition by Bill Edwards and Mike Carwile.

Will post a photo in due course. 
7
Fred  -  I have a National Archive pic of Sowerby Rd. 365165 - which is what I assume you meant to say in your last paragraph - and will watermark this and post after lunch, together with Sowerby Rd. 350084 dated 24th May 1880.          I think that 350084 might also be of interest as it's possible it's another shape that is related to these enameled/stained items that Roy has introduced.

However.................  this thread might be in danger of getting a bit overloaded now that we've branched out and started to discuss these enameled/stained pieces produced by Sowerby, so I had it in mind to start a new thread for the latter as I feel there is some mileage yet to go, and didn't want to confuse the issue.
There is an important piece of confusion relating to these white pieces which I wanted to air and a new thread is perhaps the best way forward  -  but I'm open to suggestions.

What do people think  -  let me know, and if you're happy for me to simply continue 'in situ' then I'll just bash on. :) 
8
Roy’s sugar and creamer look like Sowerby enamelled Blanc de Lait (though Cottle seems to describe the technique as ‘stained’ rather than enamelled – perhaps some pieces were stained and some enamelled?).

Most of the of shapes that I have seen in stained  or enamelled Blanc de Lait are shown in Sowerby’s pattern book IX (1882), but Roy’s sugar and creamer are giving me some problems at the moment.

The nearest pattern shape I can find is indeed Sowerby pattern 1616 (shown on page 12 of Pattern Book IX, 1882) – except that the floral patterns on the panels of Roy’s pieces are different to those shown on pattern 1616, and the handle on the creamer in the pattern book has ‘bobbles’ whereas Roy’s is plain.

Simon Cottle has a colour photo of creamer 1616 on page 54 of his book “Sowerby – Gateshead Glass” which is definitely in accord with the Sowerby pattern book drawing and shows the ‘bobbly’ handle and that the stained floral decoration has ten ‘daisy heads’ per panel compared to the five on Roy’s creamer and sugar.

Hajdamach (‘British Glass 1800-1914’) shows a sugar basin on page 352 (colour plate 43) with the description “Sugar basin in white vitro-porcelain enamelled with flowers, Sowerby, marked with the peacock’s head crest and the registration diamond for 19 October 1881, and the word PATENT, height 3 5/8 inches (9.2cm)”. It has floral panels with 10 ‘daisy heads’, just like Cottle’s 1616 creamer and the 1616 sugar in the Sowerby pattern book

The only problem with Hajdamach’s description is that there doesn’t seem to be a Sowerby design registration on 19 October 1881, though there is a Sowerby design registration (RD 365165) for 19 MAY 1881 – Parcel 9, described by Cottle and Thompson as ‘sugar’). It may be that Hajdamach has misread an indistinct month letter on the registration diamond – May = E and October = B, not dissimilar basic letter shapes. 1881 would seem a likely year for pattern numbers somewhere in the 1600s (e.g. 1616), as pattern 1568 accords with an RD 362734 on 1 March 1881, and  pattern number 1672 accords with RD 374774 on 15 December 1881. 

The other Sowerby pattern that has a sugar and creamer with floral decoration vaguely similar to Roy’s set is pattern 1446 (and that comes in plain variants and stained Blanc de Lait versions) but the actual shape of the 1446 sugar and creamer are quite different .

I will endeavour to trawl through the Sowerby pattern books and other standard Sowerby reference books over the next few days, but there seems to be a disparity between Sowerby pattern 1616 and Roy’s pieces - similar shape (and quite likely the same registration diamond) but different floral pattern on the panels (and, of course a ‘bobbly’ handle to the creamer instead of the plain handle of Roy’s creamer). Maybe Roy’s sugar and creamer are previously-undocumented RD 365175 / pattern 1616 variants.

Still not sure how any of this ties in with a Sowerby Patent though.

If Paul S. happens by this post, I wonder if he has the registration representation of RD 365175 (19 May 1881 – Parcel 9) to hand for comparison, please?

Fred.
9
British & Irish Glass / Re: picture library for T/Webb colours.
« Last post by keith on Yesterday at 11:06:30 PM »
Very nice, can't see I've seen a Webb plate before, just about everything else though, ::) ;D ;D
10
With a Bohemia Glass export label in this style, 60s, 70s or 80s+, many variations of this label were used, yours looks more 80s than 60s.

John
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Search
eBay.com
eBay.co.uk

Enter key words
Link to Glass Encyclopedia
Link to Glass Museum
Enter
key words
to search
Amazon.com