not quite Peter - sometimes it takes a day or so to get the little grey cells working - the delayed resonse is no indication of apathy.
Coincidentally, I had just finished typing the following - went to post - and discovered you had submitted the next glass. Anyway, here is an offering on the Lynn example, sorry it's a bit wordy - and if you're looking Emmi, it's not my fault, just the nature of the beast.
thanks again Peter, great piece - and hope you won't think my contribution impertinent - perhaps some folk might find it interesting if we flesh out the historical context slightly.
I lost a blue 'bonnet' glass recently, on ebay, and am still miffed - however, I'm inclined to call these things deserts/jellies (which you suggest), they seem too deep - plus I feel the outline shape is wrong - for a salt, but who knows, any port in a storm perhaps. However, what we must not call it, apparently, is a Monteith, and using it for a single malt is perhaps the best use (not that I would drink from mine - and I don't yet have a Lynn example).
I notice that Ward Lloyd described this horizontal banding feature as 'moulded', which you say is now considered to have be tooled - a view shared by Newman, who suggested that the effect was produced by the pucellas (the tongs which prior to about 1830 was the tool which produced the striation marks on bowls, and which would be the obvious candidate for the horizontal bands on these so called Lynn glasses - Wilkinson). One leg of the tool is placed inside the bowl and the other outside, thus forming the shape required.
Apparently, during the period of manufacture of Lynn glasses (middle third of the C18), the pucellas was still made of metal (Ash), and more inclined/useful for leaving marks on bowls - and it's possible that this trademark banding ceased for just the reason that wooden pucellas were inadequate for creating the banding effeciently. This is pure speculation on my part, however.
The name Lynn refers to Kings Lynn (Norfolk - U.K.).
Hartshorne is quoted as having said (c. 1897), he knew of specific reasons for assigning these things to Lynn, but apparently never expained what these were and went to his grave without divulging details. It seems unlikely that he would have made that claim based solely on the generalisation that there were glass houses in Norfolk, which of course obviously, there were, and apparently, this entire concept of glasses with horizontal banding being called Lynn pieces, sprang solely from Hartshorne's comments in the late C19.
You're the expert Peter, and I take it that it still remains correct that glasses with this banding remain unaccounted for (archeoligically speaking) from the Kings Lynn area.
As for the location of glass houses in that part of Norfolk, there is evidence of Roman glass workings at Caistor-by-Norwich (Kenyon), but subsequent to that period it appears that Norwich remains inactive as far as glass making is concerned.
There is good evidence that there was a glass house at Yarmouth - date wise somewhere from the end of C17 to the middle of the C18 - and Buckley has suggested that these Lynn pieces might have originated in Yarmouth somewhere around 1725 - 1758, although presumably this again was his peculation only.
Thorpe cites Mansell as having started, or absorbed, glass houses in a variety of places including Kings Lynn, but the best of entries for Lynn glass that I have, comes from Elville.
Some of the best glass making sand has been extracted from the Lynn area since the C18, so a very good place to be if you want to make glass, and it's a matter of record that there was a glass house operating at Lynn from c.1693, and still apparently fully working c.1747 - although probably killed off not too long after that date by the dreaded Glass Excise Act which had been implemented only a year or two earlier in 1745.
I'd like to think it really was Lynn - sounds a little romantic.
Anyway, don't drop it, and thanks again for sharing. Next one please
Topic: Ex A C Hubbard Jr Collection (Read 4286 times)
