« Last post by flying free on September 24, 2016, 08:33:56 AM »
Alan, yes I am well aware of the pernicious attempts by media to influence perceptions. I read with a view of 'where is the author, and therefore the message, from', rather than taking anything at face value.
However, the one thing I was interested in is the claim that paperweights (and by the way the paragraph was written, the author appears to me to mean millefiori paperweights) were being made in England in 1849.
I wasn't commenting on what happened to them after they were made, the market forces, the public's perception of them at the time v paperweights made in other countries, or how they were retailed in England, all of which appear to have been the gripe of the author. But the whole sentence is important as a context for the comment that they were being made in England.
I added it because I've read comments over the years but never seen the/a primary contemporary source for the comments so thought it was interesting.
To your list of reasons for odd comments in the Art Journal, I do also wonder sometimes whether they describe items using phraseology we no longer use in that particular context, but instead for something else, which means we misunderstand what the author of that time was trying to convey? (Obviously not 'hundreds of thousands' of Bohemian paperweights).
Actually, it is also in that same Art Journal volume on page 65 that they go on to say they have seen Islington Glass Works Birmingham compound Millefleur paperweights.
Many pages later there is a piece on Richardson Glass:
'The glass of Messrs. RICHARDSON of Stourbridge (the "Wordsley Works") which we have to consider next, is confessedly unsurpassed for brilliancy and purity by that of any manufacturer in the Kingdom; it is not too much to say that it may compete with the best produce of the Continent; certainly we saw nothing at the exhibition in Paris superior to the crystal produced at these works.
From the collection at BIrmingham we select nine examples; our drawings convey no idea of the colour, and but little of the ornamentation, to which the articles have been subjected, either by the engraver or the cutter...'
It also mentions that the Richardson items were the products of everyday production, not items specially made up for the exhibition.