Topic: From Palace to Parlour — Opinion sought

[Bernard C]

Newby, Martine S., From Palace to Parlour — A Celebration of 19th-Century British Glass, The Glass Circle, 2003, ISBN 0953070303.   Exhibition catalogue, pp120, includes photographs, many in colour, and descriptions of all 234 exhibits, with a useful introduction by Simon Cottle, glossary, bibliography, and list of contents of the Glass Circle Journals 1–9.

I've found myself making reference in this forum to this excellent work three or four times over the last few days, which may explain why one of the two copies available last week on Amazon seems to have sold.

I have yet to hear any criticism of this work.   I have identified only four fairly minor concerns so far.   Three are attributions that could benefit from a little explanation and justification (cat. nos. 141, 175 and 214).

The other is my objection to the use of metric measurements throughout without explanation, leading to a lack of confidence in the measurements given, as you cannot tell whether the owners of exhibits supplied measurements in inches which were converted to the nearest 0.5cm (double rounding errors), or the exhibits were actually measured in metric.   It does matter, as I know I am not the only person who checks measurements, and regards exact inch or half inch principal measurements as supportive evidence for a British attribution, particularly when assessing hand-made glass.   Ideally all glass should be measured in the units in which it was made, and a conversion included afterwards in brackets, thus:- height 10½" (26.5cm) for British glass, the other way around for Continental glass.

I would welcome any other observations on this useful publication.

Bernard C. 

[Frank]

I am not really able to answer for the quality but would make some observations on the assumption that inches points to a British or American (Our Aus/NZ/RSA etc) I have come across Continental catalogues with both Imperial AND Metric measurement being used - either one or the other. In particular I will mention a 1948 Moser catalogue (available to view in the Glass Study/Catalogue) that demonstrates this. Would this mean that such pieces were designed by an Englishman? This should be easy to define if anyone can put designers to the individual piece. We do know that Downey designed for Sklo Union and this Moser catalogue includes designs also produced by Sklo Union but in pressed glass.

Generalisations have some basis but are not ideal grounds for determining origin, even if they increase the probability of a particular origin.

Free blown glassware can vary substantially from a norm and moulded glass that is manipulated after moulding is less likely to fit exact imperial measurements.

Of course it is a valid criticism that both measurements are not used in the book, most of us in Europe can cope with either measurement these days but it is very difficult for Americans due to minimal exposure to the metric system.

[Bernard C]

Exactly, Frank, that's precisely what I meant by referring to it as supportive rather than primary evidence.   Of course there are exceptions, and anyone who wishes to be argumentative can cite examples to support his or her argument.   Nevertheless an exact inch primary measurement will always be statistically significant supportive evidence for the manufacturing glassworks' use of the imperial system of measures, as will an exact centimetre measurement for the use of the metric system.

Bernard C. 

[nigel benson]

Hi Bernard,

As far as the attributions you are concerned about, I don't have the same reservations as you, but, on the other hand, I'm concerned about item number 45 - even though some qualification is put in the text, it seems to be an assumption about the maker (also used in McConnells book "The Decanter"). I'm guessing concerns are related to individuals interests.

As for the measurements, I tend to agree with you about the imperial/metric and vice versa arguement.

I did lend to the exhibition. I do not recall having to provide measurements. We did, however, have to say what the item was and, in order to assist the currating, give useful references that could be used for the items in the catalogue. I rarely give measurements as height and diameter, so since some of my loans have both it confirms my memory that the pieces were all measured during the photographic process done at Malletts, which was the drop off point for all loans. Therefore I would say there was only (possibly) one round up/down process involved. I hope that helps.

Nigel

[Frank]

That clears that up! On page 99 Cottle does mention, the only mention, that collectors provided help for the entries and, 45's caption certainly leaves room for speculation. Is that a left over of "No idea it must be Powell" 

[Sklounion]

Would this mean that such pieces were designed by an Englishman? This should be easy to define if anyone can put designers to the individual piece. We do know that Downey designed for Sklo Union and this Moser catalogue includes designs also produced by Sklo Union but in pressed glass.

Not sure you could go down that route, at all, certainly not with Sklo Union, and even less so with Moser. Imperial measurements given for Sklo Union items in Glassexport catalogues are more closely related to end market than anything else.

Given Bernard's concerns here, I will have to be careful in the compiling of the post-war Czechoslovakian pressed glass database, which will accompany the book on Sklo Union, as a CD-ROM. I will certainly go back and re-instate the 1/32 of a litre, where I have these as the metric equivalent.

Regards,

Marcus

[Frank]

Regardless of why such dimensions were used is irrelevant Marcus, but it is sensible to provide the measurements as given in the source and to add conversions in brackets. In Ysart Glass and most of my websites you will find measurements in both imperial and metric.

For some people there is also an obsessive tendency with measurements, there have been quite a few discussions on the GMB about sizes not consistent with catalogue dimensions. I get many mails from Ysart collectors asking me to help ID there pieces because they differ from those in the catalogue. But of course Ysart is free blown (no moulds) and pieces would be varied for all sorts of reasons or simply just because it was another day. No-one asked the family if they had a reason for not ensuring sizes were more consistent, speculating, it is likely that it never occurred to them during 40 years of producing just 300 shapes. We do know that they did not work with the drawings or measuring tools once they had memorised the designs.

[alexander]

From the viewpoint of a Norwegian - we do not learn the imperial system of measurements
in any meaningful way, usually it stops at a very rough lbs to kg.

It is my understanding that most of the "non-ex English Empire" world have little or no
training in imperial measurements.

A book with only imperial measurements would, for me, mean I'd have to bring out a measuring
band with both metric and imperial measurements to get a good idea of the actual size.
Likewise for recipes demanding a quarter cup of something - we have an imperial/us measuring
vessel just for such occations.

I can see how the reverse would be true also.

I understand it is now illegal to use imperial measurements for commerce in the UK,
I can only speculate that this was considered when taking the measurements for the book.

[Bernard C]

... I'm guessing concerns are related to individuals interests. ...

Nigel — Agreed.   That's why I requested more opinions, as there are few, if any, who will have the experience necessary to make authoritative comment on all 234 exhibits.

Nigel & Frank — Thanks for explaining the process, Nigel.   However it's not quite "That clears that up!" yet, Frank.

A rough analysis of measures in the book shows that measures appear to have been made to the nearest millimetre with ±0.05cm reliability.   However about half of all the measures are whole or half centimetres, rather than the two tenths you would expect.    You will also note a lower than expected frequency of .1, .4, .6, and .9 measures recorded.   This is quite normal and to be expected from the vast majority of people, untrained in taking and recording accurate measurements.   The way it comes about is that all measures between say 4.9 and 5.1 are recorded as 5.0, and only measures from exactly 5.10 to 5.15 are recorded as 5.1.   It happens simply because the human brain likes things neat and tidy, and it takes training and experience to overcome.   The corollary is that if you want accurate measures in your magnus opus, find yourself a friendly engineer to check them all, or take and record your measurements to the nearest hundredth of a centimetre (in this case) and round them properly on paper.

So, I think I have shown that the measurements in the book seem to be reliable to ±0.10cm — probably not accurate enough to derive any additional information from them.

... On page 99 Cottle does mention ...

Newby, not Cottle, Frank.   I notice that Amazon makes the same error.   Martine Newby's authorship is confirmed opposite the title page, and by Simon Cottle on p.99.   I met this lady at a Cambridge fair two or three years ago, and wouldn't like to cause her any distress.

... I will have to be careful in the compiling of the post-war Czechoslovakian pressed glass database, which will accompany the book on Sklo Union, as a CD-ROM.   I will certainly go back and re-instate the 1/32 of a litre, where I have these as the metric equivalent. ...

Marcus — What a marvellous opportunity to set a good example to all, measuring exactly in both systems (keeping brackets for conversions), and, for the first time, telling readers exactly what you have done.   I expect your glass houses to have been able to work in both imperial and metric, as Britsh factors like Lang probably used imperial measures in their tender requests.   I wonder whether you will find any statistically significant correlation between pieces of an exact imperial primary measurement and pieces known to have been made for British factors.

I was amused by your 1/32 litre comment.   0.03125 litre, or even worse, a rounded 0.031 litre, doesn't convey quite the same information!

Bernard C.     

[Frank]

I really prefer millimetres, avoiding the decimal completely as for much of the world a comma is used for decimal point and a period is used for thousands separator. Imagine the anglo-confusion if I used 1,005 cm (10 metres or 1  ) to mean 1,005 mm 
Next to my screen I have a table by quarter inches giving millimetres rounded and exact. Depending on the object, I am uploading, being moulded or blown, I use the exact or rounded measurement.

The part I referred to on p99 has Cottle given as the author not Newby.