Topic: Arculus or Walsh? Error or not? who exactly made this bubbly trailed decanter?

[flying free]

On another thread here
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,2654.msg260988.html#msg260988
I mentioned that on page 410 of CH British Glass 1800-1914 there was a catalogue page for Hill Ouston and I thought I'd found the decanter on page 121 of Reynolds Walsh Glass pattern no A5047 and asked if the entire catalogue page was actually Walsh Pompeian range.  The decanter is listed in that  catalogue page as being in Willow green and Amber no E5440

However now looking through CH 20th century British Glass on page 98 there is a blue decanter that looks to me to be  the same as the one in the Reynolds Walsh book as above, but it says it appeared in a Hill Ouston catalogue and is Arculus & Co Birmingham pattern no 5440.

If it is Arculus it is neither Willow Green nor Amber but blue.  I suppose they may have extended the range to other colours though at a different date. 

So what is it?  Walsh or Arculus?   Did they both make a decanter that was near identical in shape and decor?
m

[Lustrousstone]

Hill Ouston may have both companies make part of the range or some of the colours. Page 98 says the range included amber, yellow, willow green, cornflower blue and kingfisher blue.

[flying free]

Three of the other vases on that catalogue page are also I believe, in the Reynolds patterns as Walsh pieces.
Are you saying that Arculus and Walsh will have made the same range of bubbly glass in the same shapes then?
That could become very confusing. 
In fact there is a vase page 98 and a the jug in the bowl that also look very similar to patterns in the Reynolds book for Walsh although not identical I don't think, btu that's comparing a pattern to the real blown item, they are near enough for me to query.
m

[flying free]

On page 125 CH 20th Century British Glass plate 247, regarding other Walsh Pompeian items it comments
'The Pompeian Green Flower Bowl and oasis is in a bubbly glass reminscent of the products of Arculus and Co'.

[keith]

Wasn't there a connection between the two companies,mentioned in Reynolds somewhere,so could this be 'product crossover' so to say

[flying free]

on page 24 of Reynolds under the chapter The Golden Years 1930-1945 it says that Walsh acquired Hands and further on it says that Hands had bought the Arculus business in 1922.
So...yes Walsh owned Arculus.  It still doesn't explain why a decanter is id'd as Arculus but is in the Walsh pattern books.  Unless they outsourced their production to Arculus.  Or t'other way round?  I wonder who Hill OUston had the contract with?
Also I noticed something odd in the book (Reynolds).  On page 121 where these pieces are in the pattern books I can't see that it makes any mention of Pompeian.  Yet on page 123 in fig 203 there are a few patterns that actually have Pompeian written underneath them - were these shapes solely produced in Pompeian?  and the others 'generic' shapes to be used for various decors?
m

[Lustrousstone]

If Walsh owned Arculus then it's kind of irrelevant; more a question of which factory rather than which company.

I also think you have to remember that pattern books are not order books

[flying free]

Well,I suppose it is only relevant in the sense that the dates may mean they were separate entities at the time this bubbly glass started to be produced.
So e.g under the decanter on page 98 which says it is Arculus it gives the date as mid 1920-early 1930's.
And Reynolds talks about Walsh developing Pompeian under the section 1926-1929. And it appears that Walsh did not buy Hands(owner of Arculus) until the 1930's.
 So it appears the the bubbly range at Arculus and the bubbly range(Pompeian) at Walsh were separate ranges developed at times when the two companies were not one.
The Hill Ouston Catalogue featured in CH British Glass 1800-1914 pg 410 is dated 1934, so by then they may have both been producing the same range.  But before that, there will be pieces that were distinct to both companies.

Yes possibly irrelevant after they were both joined under the same group but not before that. There will have been pieces that were distinct to Arculus.  I suppose I only find it relevant and interesting because I've been hunting for a piece of Arculus... and I'm still not sure that decanter should be listed under Arculus.
m