As far as I'm aware, it's the Glass Association 'Blue Book' which is the only generally available source for both pressed and cut glass Reg. Nos. (Slack, Lattimore, Thompson and Hadjamach covering pressed glass only), although for reasons unknown to me, 555817 is omitted from the Blue Book. This bowl is both deeply cut and with wheel (intaglio) engraved decoration.
Registration Nos. included as part of the back stamp on cut glass, are rather thin on the ground, for fairly obvious reasons, and it is usual to find the factory name only (Stuart/Webb/E.&L. etc.) - think I have only two pieces of cut glass that show a Reg. No. (and these are both Stuart).
I visited the National Archives at Kew (London) earlier today, and looked at both the 'representations' (the image/drawing/photo part of the registration) and the 'registrations' (the written/descriptive part) for this No. - and pleased to say I found that the archive details of 555817 do agree with my bowl (I was worried that because I couldn't see the number in the Blue Book, then maybe the No. on the bowl was wrong).
Unfortunately, in the archives the image shown is simply a drawn outline of the 'bowl' - there is no indication that this item was destined to receive cut decoration, neither is there reference to the engraving of fruits. Nonetheless, the distinctive outline shape of the bowl is unmistakable, and so I'm convinced all is o.k.
As far as the archive wording is concerned, this adds little of use other than detailing the fact that Stuart made requests to extend their copyright of this pattern/design twice..........once in 1915 and again in 1919, and on both occasions their request was successful. The date of first registration for this bowl is 20th January 1910.
Registrations allocated to Stuart are very thin on the ground prior to about 1920 (there appear to be only 10 occasions between 1908 and 1920 for example) - then there is a little flurry in 1921.
I really don't know whether to think it any more easy or less so - when trying to date a piece of cut glass compared to a piece that has been pressed. After multiple pressings, a mould deteriorates and detals becomes less clear, but where you have a blown blank of a bowl, such as this one - which can be cut with a given pattern at any time - then it is perhaps the style of the script of the factory name (part of the back stamp) that becomes the indicator of age.
We know from the books that the word 'Stuart' was first registered for use as part of the back stamp c.1924 (maybe not used perhaps until 1926) - and on that basis this bowl could not have been cut/decorated earlier than that date (give or take a bit). Do people think that a mid to late 1920's date appropriate for this peice - bearing in mind the wheel engraving of fuits (which to me looked earlier in style - but I'm really unsure). OR, might the bowl have been made earlier than the mid '20's and kept in stock and brought out later for further work and marking??
I very much like the nice touch of the petal decoration within the ground/polished pontil mark (I have no other pieces where this has been produced - might this perhaps be an indicator of some particular period), and the engraving of the fruits is of a very high quality, and needless to say it rings like there is no tomorrow.
Feel free to comment - all thoughts are welcome, and thanks for looking.