Topic: Question about Jobling's 11700 Celery Vase

[Mosquito]

Just looking through Baker & Crowe this morning & I noticed that in the list of Jobling registered designs on p. 52, there are two entries for the 11700 pattern, 795461 'Celery Vase' & 795462 'Celery Vase (with flanged neck). Surely the difference in reg. no. would indicate more than a flanged vs. straight neck? The illustration in the 1934 catalogue shows a straight necked vase with what appear to be asymmetric handles. I'm wondering if this is an accurate drawing as all the 11700s I have handled have been the slightly flanged version with symmetrical handles and either marked 'Regn. Applied For' or 'Rd. No. 795462', I've never seen a non-flanged version.

So has anyone seen a 795461, non-flanged 11700 vase? If anyone has a photo to share, I'd be very grateful.

Thanks,
Steven

[neilh]

Don't know anything about Jobling but having been through the design registrations at the National Archives, looking at Manchester glass, the differences between registration numbers can be amazingly trivial. In 1885 Burtles & Tate registered about 10 flower stands and they are all very similar. For example, there is one with a flat edge at the top, another with a crinkle edge at the top, another where the edge droops down slightly at the top  = 3 different registrations etc etc...

[Mosquito]

Thanks Neil, I wasn't aware that the differences could be so slight. I guess the only way to solve this may be to do as you have and consult the original design registration application.

The intriguing thing is that if the flanging of the rim were the only difference, it wouldn't fit the pattern of Jobling's other art glass regsitrations. For example, the Fir Cone  bowls were available in flanged, deep, cupped, low-cupped and plate variants all under the same Reg. No. of 777133. Likewise I've seen 11800 celery vases with flanged rims, e.g. here: http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-4624 and these don't seem to have been given a different reg. no. Anyway, if anyone has one of these non-flanged 11700 vases, I'd be very interested to see it, particularly the rim and handles.

Steven

[Paul S.]

I'd agree that it seems to have been an unusually small design variation to have qualified for a separate Reg. No...............    maybe this particular incident was the first such design with more than one shape, and the factory were concerned to make sure they protected themselves against every eventuality  -  but I don't now have Baker & Crowe so only guessing.                See the attached pix which do show clearly the differences between the two designs.
There is however, another matter that has caused some confusion - at least to me - by the fact that this pair of Reg. Nos. are absent from the Blue Book, and because I didn't check this point before visiting Kew   -   assuming without question they would be CLASS III   -   I didn't have it in mind to look in the Registers during my visit.             So, I now don't know if these items were Registered as CLASS III, and the compiler of the Blue Book simply overlooked them, or whether their absence is due to being recorded in CLASS IV..........   in which case they were still overlooked.
Are there any known instances of Jobling Registrations being recorded under CLASS IV??

Whilst looking for these Celery designs, I noticed there were two other Registrations not too distant numerically - although I'm not sure what sort of animal/creature they're supposed to be -  birds, fish, a recumbent fox   ............   anyway I've taken some pix and can post if anyone wishes to see them - the object looks to be some form of ashtray perhaps?                 These are Reg. Nos. 795459/60, which date to 08.08.1934  -  but here again there is a problem with the Blue Book insofar as only one of these - 795459 - is included.     

Including those Registrations not in the Blue Book, 1934 seems to have been an active year for Jobling with what looks like a total of 26 separate Registrations, although in view of the errors then always possible this may not be an accurate figure, and as I say I no longer have the book, so can't double check.

Five pix in total, so one will flip over.

[Paul S.]

last picture with better comparison, perhaps.

[Mosquito]

Thank you very much Paul for taking and sharing these images. It's great to see the original registration photographs and they do confirm that the only difference is in the flanged rather than straight rim. It does seem very odd that this would have been registered separately: the only reason I can think of is that the moulds for the two are different (i.e.the flanged shape was done in the mould rather than by shaping the piece after it had been turned out). 

Regarding the other registrations in that sequence, I guess they'll be for the fox and hart salts. I have the fox here http://www.yobunny.org.uk/glassgallery/displayimage.php?pos=-22518 and the hart is illustrated in British Glass Between the Wars. Still it would be interesting to see the original registration images if you get the chance.

Thanks again

Steven

[Paul S.]

Here are some pix of Jobling Regs. Nos. 795459 and 795460  -  apologies that they lack some clarity/sharpness, which is due mainly to the poorer quality of mid 1930's photography when trying to capture opalescent glass - at least that's what I'd imagine these prototypes were made of.
Unfortunately, there is some in-built glare/reflection in these original sepia pix and sorry but I'm not clever enough to know how to remove this problem.

Whilst I appreciate that the example of the 'recumbent hart' In Dodsworth's catalogue is marked REGN. APPLIED FOR, my opinion is that his text should have included the appropriate Registration No., and have to say that I don't think many of us would describe the piece as a 'cellar'  -  these open pieces are usually called simply 'salts'.
Gosh   -  I've just realized that Steven doesn't include the Rd. No. for the fox in his own catalogue

It's not easy to produce high quality pix of these small opalescent pieces, with good definition etc., and I think that if you didn't know the animal in Dodsworth was a hart you might struggle - although his text does of course provide the answer.

Anyway, I think this is the best we are going to get here, so hope of some interest.