Topic: Pressed glass crown jar, RD 183953, Alfred Edmund Edwardes, 14 February 1865.

[Anne]

Adding link to another topic where we discussed Edwardes at length:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,21696.0.html

[Paul S.]

I was surprised to see the Kew image for this item in David's link (Ivo also showed the same pic back in 2010)  -  as far as I know none of the glass (Class III) items can be viewed down at individual item level, on the screen.                Can only assume that Earthenware (Class IV) works differently to glass.

For some reason, I don't seem to have a picture of 183953 taken from the Kew Representations Book BT 43/61 - which covers Class III, glass items  - April 1852 to Sept. 1870.
However, I do have pictures taken from the corresponding Register (the words part only) which is Kew ref. BT 44/7 (this covers Class III items only) and is a single volume running from 1842 to 1882 - between these two dates the Board of Trade obviously wanted to keep the various materials separate, and so the individual volumes each contain one Class only.   
After this I think the Board of Trade included ALL Registrations for ALL Classes (numbered consecutively) in books - thus you find reams of wallpaper and printed fabric designs together with glass, wood and metal etc. in the same Register - although I believe there are exceptions, and textiles and sculptures are on their own.

Sometimes when I watermark there is a loss of sharpness to the original image, which is a shame, as these two attached pix started out life with amazing clarity  -  I don't think it happens every time though.

I don't think the attached pix add anything new, but thought they'd be of interest for the sake of completeness - hope the wording can be read.       
The very fact that these pix are taken from Kew volume ref. BT 44/7, confirms the fact that this design was included in Class III glass, and you can see from the left hand column the wording 'Classes I & IV also' - an obvious attempt at cross-referencing.
Quite what the word 'jar' implies I'm not sure.

I shall be at Kew in the coming week or so, and if possible will take a snap of the drawing in the Representation book BT 43/61 (glass only), for comparison with the images we already have of this Rd.

David - am sure Patricia (see, I got it right that time ) is an expert at researching archives, and assume she is aware that, for Kew, a readers ticket is essential in order to access the archives and take pix etc. - the procedure for obtaining a ticket can take some little while, from memory.

P.S.   the above probably sounds confusing - and probably is if you don't have experience of The National Archive methods and archives.    It's well worth going onto their web site and having a look at the various sections for Board of Trade Registrations for the C19, and should help to flesh out some of the terminology and might help to make more sense of some of these Rd. Nos. wot we speek about.      

[David E]

I actually took the link from a previous post by Tigerchips (where did he go to?), so can't claim credit for finding that. However, I have been through the Archives before and know what a minefield it can be. Patricia does have a reader's ticket, and she has a good understanding of how it all works.

Let us know what you discover!

[Baked_Beans]

Very interesting topic ! Here is my theory...which might be entirely wrong but as Frank said in one of the linked threads the crown is the St Edward's crown....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Edward's_Crown

My guess is that Alfred Edmund Edwardes was the designer and not anyone else i.e. an agent. He was interested in the crown because of his name being similar (with an added e) and / or he may have been the sculptor that Anne found in the census (in the linked thread). Perhaps the original mould was for metal and then the mould was adapted,much later, for use with glass to make these jars or inkwells in celebration of Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee which was in 1887. The bright yellow colour being significant. Here is an example of a pair of crown pin cushions dated 1886 (one year prior) probably to celebrate the Golden Jubilee (the link says Diamond!) .

 http://www.steppeshillfarmantiques.com/silver-and-porcelain/d/pair-victorian-novelty-silver-royal-crown-pin-cushions-queen-victorias-diamon/156087

The other colour crowns may also be from 1887 (assuming this theory is correct) or later when the moulds were used again for the diamond jubilee when Baccarat may have added their name.

So perhaps the glass was made quite a bit later than the design registration date. This may have been suggested already but as I say it's only a guess/theory. 

[Paul S.]

quote.................."So perhaps the glass was made quite a bit later than the design registration date."

Always a possibility.......just because a design on paper is submitted to the Board of Trade - and a Registration No. allocated - doesn't mean production had to commence at or about that date, but it might be impossible now to determine if that was the case. 
We can see from the CLASS III Register (BT 44/7) that Edwardes Registered this design in glass on 14th February 1865, but it's possible he may have delayed production, although looking at the Representations book won't resolve that question.

As opposed to designs on paper only, many (later) applications sent to the B. of T. were in the form of a prototype or a fully fledged item that went into retail market, some prior to being allocated a No., hence they sometimes carry the words REGN. APPLIED FOR, as with Jobling for example.   

[David E]

Paul, Mike, I know a design registration has a limited lifespan (3 or 5 years), and I don't think that it can be used past that date, but I might be wrong. If I'm right, then perhaps that crown design was only used up until 1870.

[Baked_Beans]

Thanks Paul & David , I didn't know about the time limits. I always thought limits (e.g. patents) were put in place to protect the designer and after that period of time anyone could use the design . But I know nothing about this area (as you can tell!) . I think I should scrap the whole idea that the moulds were made for metal and then adapted for glass...totally off piste 

[Paul S.]

we are speaking here of B. of T. Registrations, as opposed to patents  -  I've no idea of the rules or regulations governing the latter.
Registrations can certainly be extended, and some designs that I've seen at Kew are annotated in the Registers as having been extended two or three times - each extension for a further 3 or 5 years.
From memory I'm sure that situation can be seen in some of the pix I've posted on the Board for Fred - the extensions might even have been in red ink.

Board of Trade Registrations provide protection (in theory) for the initial period of 5 or 3 years, after which, presumably, if there is no agreed extension by the B. of T., then anyone can copy the design.

Not entirely sure David what you mean by ....."and I don't think that it can be used past that date" ....   is it the Rd. No., or the design you're suggesting that can't be used.            Sorry if I'm being thick.

[Baked_Beans]

Cheers Paul , interesting  


look at this ................    

http://www.vaselineglass.org/crowninkA1.jpg

[Baked_Beans]

Iv'e just thought of another theory , which I think might solve the question, but it's somewhat sad 

Sadly, Queen Victoria lost Prince Albert only a year or so before her Silver Jubilee so there weren't any Silver Jubilee celebrations . Her Silver Jubilee year would have been 1863 . I think this glass crown was intended for that occasion . The design was probably published and registered a little later having been put on hold due to Queen Victoria's loss.  It was however used for her Golden and I think Diamond Jubilee celebrations.... if I'm right...and that is a big 'IF' !! . It could have been a commissioned/approved design, initially, which is why it is in the on-line National Design Archives  .

https://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/TheQueenandspecialanniversaries/HistoryofJubilees/HistoryofJubileesouvenirs.aspx