Topic: Mould clarification sought.

[Sklounion]

Hi,

Just what is the convention for describing a pressed glass item?

When we talk of four part moulds, are we merely referring to the division of the form, minus base-plate and plunger?

I am having to check this, (pardon the pun) as a  Czechoslovakian reference to one Czech-made item, describes the item as produced in a two-part mould, one of those parts being the plunger.

If the convention in a particular country, is to count all parts of the mould, is that country's convention the one that should be used, when referring to that country's products?

Your views, please.

Thanks and regards,

Marcus

[Frank]

Interestingly Hodkin & Cousen do not make the distinctions, they refer only to 'moulds'. They are clear that for pressed glass the mould is for the outside and the plunger the inside. There is a lot more discussion of bottle-making machines, which of course is more significant in industrial terms. But even there there is little talk of moulds in the senses of 'parts'.

This patent description http://www.ysartglass.com/Moncrieff/Patent/Patuk542677.htm seems to refer to a two part mould (The parison mould) as a/the mould. There is also mention of the neck mould.

[Frank]

Speculating, your Czech description also considers a maybe hinged (once or multiple) mould as one part of the mould. That would be consistent then with both H & C and the patent quoted.

[Bernard C]

Marcus — Expressed simply:

1 = 1, 2 or 3,

2 = 2 or 4, rarely 3,

3 = 3 or 5*,

4 = 2, 4 or 6,

5 = 3 or 5*,

6 = 4 or 6.

* — may not be symmetrical, (90°, 135°, 135°) is sometimes found on early examples.

I hope that is clear.

Bernard C. 

[Glen]

When we talk of four part moulds, are we merely referring to the division of the form, minus base-plate and plunger?

In  my experience - yes. The "mould" (in my experience) comprises the plunger, the mould, the base plate and the top ring.

Reference to a 4 part mould would (for me) infer that the mould itself was in 4 parts. Any item made from such a mould would exhibit 4 mould seams on the exterior/outside of the piece. Thus there would be a plunger, a top ring (probably), a base plate (probably) and a mould that was in 4 parts.

For photos of mould making at Fenton see this feature (my link goes in part way through the full article - use the page links if you need to look at any other stages).

http://www.geocities.com/carni_glass_uk_2000/MouldMakers3.html

Glen

[Glen]

If the convention in a particular country, is to count all parts of the mould, is that country's convention the one that should be used, when referring to that country's products?

This is a separate point - and will no doubt elicit varied responses.

My view is that the writer should consider the readers (i.e. the audience) as well as the country's convention, when referring to that country's products. If the intended audience has a different convention, then it is important (imho) to take that fully into consideration. Perhaps an explanation "up front" regarding the terminology plus "in context" references, would solve the problem (whatever your final choice as to the "convention" you use, is).

Spell out clearly what you mean. That's the only way (imho).

[Bernard C]

... Spell out clearly what you mean. That's the only way ...

Glen — precisely the point I was making.

Bernard C. 

[Sklounion]

Thank you all for this.
I clearly need to do more thinking and research work on this area.
Regards,
Marcus

[Adam]

I agree absolutely with Glen.  Four part means, and must mean, simply a four piece body.  It would be ridiculous to start counting all the bits - apart from the obvious plunger, base plate and top ring you could include three hinge pins, one locking pin and, if you wanted to go completely daft, three push-on or screw-on wooden handles. 

Adam D.

[Frank]

I presume it is also possible that the Czech source faced with the same issue and no GMB to ask just made their own mind up. Which is also perfectly valid, you just need to ensure that your readers are also given the meaning of any definitions you create. Without such rationalisation we would be a much wordier society.