Topic: Early pressed glass Peter Robinson & Edward Bolton Comport 1856

[Paul S.]

Can't always guarantee that these things were made in the year of Registration, but if the lozenge appears sharp and clear then quite possible  -  and it helps also to give the Rd. No.

I've attached a picture of the original drawing from the National Archives at Kew.                      Nice piece by the way - a good find.

[Paul S.]

Registration No. is 105196.

[bat20]

Thanks for the extra info Paul,it's always nice to find lozenge on a piece of glass and then looking up the history.

[agincourt17]

Here’s a celery vase to add to the various shapes for Robinson & Bolton’s RD 105196. 29cm tall.

(Permission for the re-use of these images on the GMB granted by Debra Saunders).

Fred.

[topcat]

Hi, I'm new to GMB and I have a pair of comports of design 105196 – P2. Thanks to agincourt17 for this informative link http://www.inchicore-pressedglass-museum.org/Edward%20Bolton1.htm

I inherited these from my great granny, who apparently used them on the fining table for  white and brown sugar. They are 6.5" tall and approx 991g in weight.  They vary slightly in height and weight, is this usual?

See pictures on Dropbox
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4od6sz5don46fq7/AABKAaDMnam1QbQQrv7TmyZHa

Tricia

[agincourt17]

I'm not sure if the variation in weight and sizse is usual, but it is certainly possible or even probable.

As far as I am aware, the size of the gobbet of glass that was put into the mould for pressing was estimated by skilled and experienced guesswork, so the resulting piece that came from the mould was, by its nature, somewhat variable in weight. Likewise, the fact that the hot piece had to be removed from the mould and manipulated by hand was quite likely to cause some degree of distortion or variation in the dimensions.

Fred.

[Paul S.]

Hello Tricia  -  welcome to the GMB.

Like Fred, I'd also assume some variation was inevitable regarding the finished sizes of these things.      I don't know how many separate shapes/patterns there are for Rd. 105196 - probably at least four judging by the images we have posted here, and there might be more, of course.

Congratulations on the quality of your pix and drawing  -  you obviously have some skills with the photography.
I notice you call your shape comports - might it be possible that their purpose was intended to be as open sugars?        Looking in Silber & Fleming, comports from that period appear quite shallow, and often more delicate, compared to sugars which tended to be far more chunky.

Sorry to seem ignorant, but can someone tell please me what the 'P' designation refers to in the link.

[topcat]

Thanks for your expert opinions.  I agree that my items are probably "open sugars" rather than comports because they are quite chunky. 

I used this handy tool to identify the mark, and the "P" is the parcel number.
http://1st-glass.1st-things.com/lozengetranslator.html

Tricia

[Paul S.]

thanks for the explanation Tricia , although I'd suggest that to include Parcel Nos. together with the Rd. No., albeit the correct one, is unnecessary and possibly confusing  -  I don't recall seeing this before.

All pieces which conform to the design protected by Board of Trade Registration 105196, no matter what shape or whenever produced will, to the best of my knowledge, carry the exact lozenge details as shown in your very clear drawing.

It's always possible, of course, that the creator of the history page in your link had some other reason for including Parcel Nos.         In the ordinary course of events, I don't get the impression that Parcel Nos. convey special significance, although when searching archives/books to confirm Rd. Nos., then often a Parcel No. is one more piece of information which might help to verify a maker.

GMB members will always help, if possibly, to supply comprehensive Registration details for any glass about which you might like to know more.

Might we get to see more of your glass collection some time?