Topic: Retooling moulds

[Bernard C]

William Heacock in Book 9, 1987 makes this remarkable observation:-

The ROYAL IVY pattern was introduced [by Northwood] in 1890, and the molds were moved to the new factory, retooled and used for the DAISY & FERN and PARIAN SWIRL patterns in 1895.   The molds were then moved to Indiana, Pa. and retooled to form the APPLE BLOSSOM pattern.   The slight increase in sizes on each of these patterns witnesses the widening depth of the mold as new details are carved into the mold.

He goes on to describe another mould that was retooled twice, another retooled once, and then notes that some of these were used as shape moulds for other patterns.

The confident way in which he makes these observations suggests that both the retooling of moulds and the use of moulds as shape moulds for other patterns was fairly widely accepted in 1987.   In Book 2, 1975, he makes no such observations, suggesting that these matters, at least in respect of American mould-blown glass, had been debated and resolved between 1975 and 1987.   (My apologies — I only have these two volumes on my bookshelf)

A quarter of a century on we seem to have no references to such practices here in Britain.   Perhaps this is understandable, as we only have a handful of relevant publications, mostly recent, that have gained widespread confidence, none of whose authors seem to have studied or considered moulds to any extent.   I'm thinking of Reynolds (Walsh), Jackson and Evans (both Whitefriars), Hajdamach, and Gulliver.

In respect of pressed glass moulds we have information from Baker & Crowe about retooling the moulds for two Jobling 1930s figurines because of difficulties in extracting the finished article from the mould, and we know that the Open-Footed Vase (No. 11600) went through a similar process.    Recent discussions on this board about variants of the Bird & Panel Vase (Nos. 11400 & 11500) suggest that one or more of these moulds could have been retooled at some stage, see BIRD VASE - Sowling or Joberby? and Jobling 7000 Bird Bowl Variants.

That's all.   Further enlightenment, comments, and corrections sought, please.

Bernard C. 

[Glen]

Not exactly a re-tooling, but a re-use and adaption, was done by Sowerby in respect of their Diving Dolphins bowl. They dug out the old mould and made a new plunger in the early 1920s.

Northwood certainly also re-tooled some of the old Jefferson moulds that he acquired and used them for Carnival.

[Mosquito]

Bernard, Regarding the Jobling moulds for the Bird and panel Vase and also the 7000 Bird bowl, some evidence suggests that multiple moulds were in use for these patterns. While some of the minor differences, such as the difference in tail feather details on 7000 bowls, for example, may be explained by the mould being re-worked, other evidence points to there being two distinct moulds being used at the same time. I had initially thought the feather detail on the 11400 was evidence of the mould being altered, however, the fact that both smooth and ribbed feather versions in seemingly both Jobling and Sowerby colours exist tends to contradict this.

A better example is my 7000 flanged bowl and crimped underplate set. Both of these are likely to have been made at a similar time, given that they appear to be a set, came from the same source, are both unrecorded variants and are both in a matching colour and finish. However, despite the moulds being broadly similar, there are noticeable differences in detail between the two examples. Neither mould shows significant wear in the areas under question and the differences are very subtle so the changes could not have been made for aesthetic reasons. I will try to add photographs this afternoon.

Another point Baker & Crowe raise is that Jobling's first six art glass moulds were made in bronze, adding that as it is less hard wearing than cast iron, cast iron copies were possibly made (see p12).

[Adam]

Multiple (i.e. two or sometimes three) mould bodies were almost always used at the same time for production reasons in hand pressing.  There could obviously be slight variations in detail between them.  Only for prototypes or in very special circumstances would the grossly inefficient use of a single body be considered.

Adam D.