Topic: Sowerby small vase, pattern 1257 – a conundrum

[agincourt17]

Until recently, I had only seen one example of the Sowerby pattern 1257 small vase. It was in white vitro-porcelain, and only bore the Sowerby peacock head trademark.
(Permission for the re-use of this image on the GMB granted by jolieroger8nn6).

It is illustrated  on page 4 of the Sowerby pattern book IX -1882, but Cottle does not link it to any design registration, so I had assumed that it was from an unregistered Sowerby design.

Currently on eBay there are two vases in the same pattern (one in blue malachite and the other in green malachite), but this time both vases bear the Sowerby peacock head trademark AND a registry date lozenge for 18 September 1877 – Parcel 7. See:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2-Rare-Sowerby-Green-Blue-Slag-Glass-Vases-Registered-18th-September-1877-/200953598693?pt=UK_Art_Glass&hash=item2ec9c492e5

Slack (p51) has a page from the Sowerby pattern book VIII – 1880, showing a pattern 1257 vase in brown malachite, but I have yet to come across an actual example in that colourway to check whether it bears a lozenge or not.

The 18 September 1877 lozenge corresponds to a bundle of 20 registered design numbers (RDs 314265 to 314285), and Cottle allocates specific pattern numbers to each RD number within the bundle (ranging from pattern number 1237½ to 1261¾), BUT 1257 is nowhere to be seen in that allocation.

Of those 20 allocated registered designs, I only have photo references for four – 1258 (RD 314277), 1254½  (RD 314279),  1240 – the Gladstone Bag (RD 314283), and 1256 (RD 314284).

Thompson (p31) only shows an illustration of 1240 – Gladstone bag as corroboration.

If Paul S. drops in on this topic, I wonder if he would mind looking at his photos of the Sowerby design representations covered by this lozenge bundle, firstly to see if there is a representation of pattern 1257 corresponding to a particular design number and then, if possible, to confirm that the Cottle attribution of particular Sowerby pattern numbers to the actual design representations within that bundle is correct, please?

Fred.

[mhgcgolfclub]

Pictures for reference

Roy

[agincourt17]

Thank you, Roy.

Now the pictures will be here for permanent reference long after they have disappeared from eBay.

Fred.

[Paul S.]

I have Kew pix for Rd. Nos. 314266 - 314285 ........but for some reason I don't seem to have an image for 314265, and will have to look again at this Representation book some time, and see why I've missed it.

Would seem that that this Sowerby vase with a form of wove pattern design is Board of Trade Registration No. 314271  -  and pic. is attached.

[agincourt17]

Thank you, Paul, for the prompt and definitive reply for pattern 1257.

The pattern book illustrations are quite lacking in detail compared to the design representations (which I suppose is not entirely unexpected).

It does cause another problem though, in that Cottle (page 100) has RD 314271 corresponding to Sowerby pattern 1245 (seen in Sowerby pattern book IX -1882, page 4) though the design representation shows quite conclusively that it does not.

So which RD number in the bundle does Sowerby pattern 1245 correspond to, then? It’s a bit like Rubik’s cube, isn’t it? – you move one association of items or numbers and that then causes a shift somewhere else, etc., etc., until soon all order becomes chaotic – or is it just life generally that is like that? Presumably the true answer is 42.   

I shall be really interested to see if there are any more misattributions of pattern numbers to particular RD numbers within this bundle. If so, then that’s a whole new can of worms….

Fred.

[Paul S.]

it does seem possible that Simon Cottle may not have cross-checked the Sowerby pattern book Nos. with The National Archive data  -  it wouldn't have been an issue had he not quoted so many of the Sowerby Factory Nos.

It does seem to appear that authors tend to to favour going in one direction or the other.............either publishing lists of the Archive Rd. Nos., or publishing data of factory pattern Nos.           It would be a very tall order for someone to publish accurate lists of both  simultaneously, and a mammoth task to treat all of the pressed items from 1842 onwards.

[agincourt17]

Oh to be 45 years younger and live only a stone's throw from Kew (whilst still having enough money not to need to work, and no family committments, of course)!

So much to do and so little time...

Now where's my extended edition of the Big Book of Cliches gone?

Right then ... onwards and upwards.

Fred.