I sympathize with the confusion on these pieces - perhaps not all that I had once supposed to be Lord/Jacobean is such. However, seems part of the original question here was overlooked, and I've browsed the Blue Book for 705632, but appears there is no entry for such a number (assuming it is indeed a British Rd.). Am sure this has been quoted correctly, but just to be sure can you re-check the digits please - they are notorious for being difficult to read, at times. Always possible that this is another one that has escaped the Blue Book.
The comment....."but only the first (705632) looks "Jacobean", interested me because I have what appears to be an identical bowl, and notice that some time ago I had written in bold felt tip (obviously confident at the time) 'Lord/Jacobean' - Rudolfova Hut. Mine doesn't carry any Rd. No., obviously, since had it done so I'd have queried the No. - so maybe although appearing similar they have different origins. My bowl is almost 10" - 250mm in diameter, and with a smooth/polished foot rim.
I have assumed that you are saying it is the bowl in your first pic. which has this Rd. No.
However, as far as pressed glass is concerned probably fatal to suggest that because one piece of glass looks similar to another it is going to be from the same factory - it needs to be either identical or known to carry the same No. Over the past 5 - 7 years I have collected many pieces of clear glass with this 'rectangular lens' look, but really am clueless as to them all originating from the same source, and this is probably the reason for much doubt as to their origin. In my second pic. are four items with this distinctive pattern - and I'm only really sure of two (the Celery and the vase with slightly everted rim) - and this is because I can see them on the small Markbheinn extract on Glenn's page - the second link from Anne. Am uncertain about the tall water jug and claret decanter.
True they do all have mirror polished feet, and I'd like to think they are all Jacobean.
I've not found any marigold or blue pieces - and the single amber mug is the only non clear piece I have (it does carry the words Jacobean Regd). I'd thought for a long time that they were identical, but as can been seen when they are side by side, there are quite noticeable differences, so obviously from completely different moulds.
I've read Glenn's very interesting notes before, but presumably half asleep, and only just picked up on what seems an anomaly re the Clayton Mayer registration of the Nos. 702446 and 709314. I'd always assumed that a British Rd. No. would be given to a U.K. manufacturer only - whereas at the time these Nos. were registered by Clayton Mayer (early 1920's) production of all Lord/Jacobean remained with Rudolfova Hut in Czechoslvakia. No doubt everyone will now shout and tell me why this is not unusual. I see in the Blue Book that Mayer is spelled with two 'e's. - and I've just notice that the No. 709314 is also missing from the Blue Book.
I've never seen any No. on Jacobean other than 791409 (which, in 1938, apparently replaced the very first registration of 702446), and always wondered why I could only find this No. on tumblers - the answer being that it was allocated for a design for tumblers only, and was not registering the 'rectangular lenses' pattern. Being the most recent Rd. No., I guess we're bound to find it more commonly than the other two - I'd agree with the comment that sometimes at boot sales it's possible to be knee deep in these tumblers, with egg cups and dessert dishes a close second and third.
I'd like to find some blue pieces, but they seem very elusive.
Sorry this is rather long winded, and hope not too much objection to my adding some pix and words.
you get a medal if you've read this far.
Topic: CLAYTON MAYER (Read 2946 times)
