Topic: Sowerby 1234 Good Shepherd? vase

[Paul S.]

thanks for your time Christine   -  we will agree to disagree then, for the time being.            I haven't discussed with Raymond Slack the precise nature of all his sources, although obviously he was quoting from the Pottery Gazette at various times, and whilst I have no first hand experience of how reliable or otherwise that source might have been, I note your comments that it may well have been less than dependable at times.
Of course we all know that Vitro-Porcelain was offered by many factories, ultimately, although I think it has a more than passing importance in this matter since it was a Sowerby invention, and was possibly the first of the non glass-looking creations.      It would seem likely that a standard 'white' version (obviously immitating porcelain, since that seems to have been the whole point of the excercise) was almost certainly the first colour to be produced (a natural colour and not needing any staining or additional colourants).

Of the three main types of pressed glass we have mentioned, it would appear that the Queen's Ivory Ware was the only one patented.

There is a lot of information packed into page 35 in Slack, and I'd be the first to admit that I'm rubbish at chemistry, so don't pretend to understand all of the details.

For amateurs like myself, information from respected authors has to be relied on, otherwise we'd all need to retrace exactly the footsteps of every writer to double check that everything they have ever written is correct (or wrong)  -  and this is obviously impracticable.

I will need to now read Cottle, but I get the feeling that the entire thing hangs on which name Sowerby themselves gave to their first Vitro-Porcelain product(which would have been a 'white', presumably), and the matter of whether White and Opal were one and the same colour, as has been stated, or not -  back to Kew, perhaps.         I notice that James Measell recently described his Turquoise 'Multiplication vase as 'blue', which although not a problem visually, does create the potential for people to assume there were two colours instead of one.

my thanks again



   

[Bernard C]

Interesting discussion.   I look at it this way:

Cottle's Sowerby — Gateshead Glass was an exhibition catalogue.   So Simon Cottle probably had a severe time problem, and certainly wasn't able to get the drafts or proofs checked by as many as he should.    There are errors, particularly picture caption errors, possibly because proofreaders didn't have access to the illustrations, as this is a frequent problem with books on British glass.   For example the captions on page 58, the two groups of Malachite, have been transposed.

I'm certain that Simon Cottle didn't get his proofs checked by someone experienced in glassmaking.   Why?   Because he has his colours wrong.

Just consider J.G. Sowerby.   Cottle tells us that he entered the firm in 1871 as a manager and colour-mixer.   He was 21.   However I am sure he was familiar with glassmaking much earlier, probably making his first glass as a child.   As a colour-mixer he knew his colours intimately, so you can rely on the colour descriptions in his catalogues.   There are two relevant aspects here.

Firstly J.G. would not have considered enameling relevant to the colour of glass.   Enameling, even fired-on enameling, was a decorative process, nothing to do with glassmaking, as it could be used on pottery, china, and metal as well.   So he would have regarded the group shown on p.54 not as stained, as it says in the caption, but painted or decorated with enamel.

Secondly the colour white.   White was the colour of flint glass to glassmakers.   I've seen it used in at least two trade catalogues (not Sowerby) to indicate colourless glass.   What surprised me is how the term is still used.    When examining my registered pressed glass cruet set a year or two ago, Ray Annenburg described it as white, then hurriedly corrected himself when he realised that he wasn't talking to a glassmaker!    Like Ray, J.G. avoided the expression white glass in public as it would have been confusing.   To J.G. white, i.e. emulsion paint white, was the glass colour opal.

So my 1234 Good Shepherd? and 1235 Multiplication are both Opal.   Roy's 1234 Good Shepherd? is Turquoise.   Flint was clear uncoloured.    Blanc-de-lait was opalescent, which could also be Stained or Opaque Stained.   Patent [Ivory] Queen[']s Ware was quite different, a cream colour with a high uranium content, and quite thin, made with special dedicated moulds and in existing moulds with larger plungers.    All the other Sowerby colours are fairly obvious.   Finally Vitro-Porcelain encompassed Opal, Turquoise, probably Malachite, and possibly one or two other opaque colours.   So Roy's 1234 Good Shepherd? could have been described as Blue Vitro-Porcelain or Turquoise Vitro-Porcelain.   My two vases could have been described as Opal Vitro-Porcelain, and an order from a customer for White Vitro-Porcelain would have been unambiguous.

I hope that makes sense.

Bernard C.  

[Lustrousstone]

There is still the illogicality of naming opalescent glass Blanc-de-lait (milk white) and white opaque glass as Opal when all the other colours are logically named in the catalogues. Cottle actually states that this is erroneous. We are going round in circles with no primary evidence.

[Paul S.]

very interesting Bernard, thanks.       Despite my disagreement with Lustrousstone, Christine makes a very rational and valid point regarding what seems a lack of common sense when naming these products  -  not that I'm changing my point of view - yet.      I was so sold on the idea that B-de-L is/was the opalescent product by reading the convincing comments by Slack (pp. 44/45)  -  who was quoting direct from the Pottery Gazette,  that I find it difficult to believe otherwise.      However, I fully admit that all of my information comes from what I had assumed to be reliable author sources, and I have no first hand research experience to support my comments.
Throughout his book, when referring to opaque white glass whether from Heppell, Sowerby or Greener, Slack captions the illustrations with the word 'Opal' - although whether Heppell and Greener themselves used the word I don't know.
Interesting also to see that although Davidson offered some white opaque pieces in the 1880's (from moulds they had bought from Heppell, Neville's and Thos. Gray), the Stewarts appear not to state the name of the colour (hope I haven't overlooked it somewhere).

Perhaps a visit to Kew armed with one or two Reg. Nos. from the very beginning of the Sowerby Vitro-Porcelain and B-de-L period, to try and locate some primary information, would be conclusive. 

[Bernard C]

Christine & Paul,

My two vases are in an opaque translucent white (layman's white) glass.   I've known this glass as opal when used for lampshades since well before I started dealing in glass.   J.G. Sowerby was just using the standard terminology for this glass, opal.   Nothing illogical about that.

Christine, you choose to translate Blanc-de-lait as milk white.   It could also mean milky.   When rinsing out a pint bottle* just now, I had a milky liquid that was quite close in appearance to mildly opalescent glass.   So there's nothing illogical about that.

If you look in Timberlake at Kempton's PG advertisements, you will see that they used "opalescent" but not "opal".   I believe that these two glassworks avoided using both terms for the sake of clarity, choosing differently.

The more I consider J.G.'s set of colours the better they look.   They were clear and unambiguous within his glassworks, for his sales and marketing teams, and for his customers, which is all that mattered.   He'd avoided the two most problematical words — white and one of opal and opalescent.   Brilliant.   What a great man.   When they invent time travel, please book me a trip to Gateshead.  

Bernard C.  

* Yes — we still get doorstep deliveries from a real milkman!

[glassobsessed]

Glass can be opaque or translucent but not both at the same time.
My Collins dictionary defines the terms thus:

Opaque - not transmitting light.

Translucent - allowing light to pass through partially or diffusely.

John

[Lustrousstone]

I didn't "choose" the translation: blanc = white; de = of, lait = milk. Milky = laiteux = resembling milk in colour. We do not know the Sowerby thoughts in the late 1800s, so what became opal glass in the 20th century might not have been called opal glass by everybody in the 19th century.