Topic: Unusual mark on glass tumbler

[Lustrousstone]

Wear is only a factor; it is not definitive. Did anyone actually make pressed glass in Ireland?

[oldglassman]

Hi ,
          Now for my tuppence worth ,
 The comparison of ware on one item of a known age to an another item of different form and unknown age is in my mind a very flawed method for many reasons,there are so many variables that have to be dealt with , ,if we take decanters they are much heavier than both glasses and tumblers especially when filled so one that has had a very busy life could be very worn indeed,your tumbler which I believe could possibly be late 19thc but more likely early 20thc or even later, especially with the base that it has, has possibly had a very hard life and showing ware to match but again for many reasons it could have achieved this in a far shorter time than your decanter.
 So in short I don't think ware on any item is a guide to age , I have many 16th and 17th century pieces that show very little ware at all , but that's because of there weight and metal , not there age .
  cheers ,
           Peter.

oooop you beat me to it Christine,good question though ,an answer I dont have .

[Paul S.]

must admit Peter, I'd not thought of using wear in the comparative sense to assess age on stylistically related objects  -  as you say, there are too many variables for that method to be reliable.              However, I am a fan of wear, and would rather see some than look at an alleged C18 or C19 piece and see almost nothing  -  but that's just a hang up I have - perhaps engendered by the copyist age we live  -  when there's so many fakes around.

I'm going to quote from Andy McConnell's book, and from the section on 'Moulded Decanters'.................
This author speaks at some length on Charles Chubsee and his revival of moulded wares made in two and three part moulds, at the very beginning of the C19 - an addition to the glass industry that apparently had more influence in the States perhaps than the U.K. (re bottles and decanters).             Apparently he'd been engaged in some industrial espionage in Bohemia on behalf of his Stourbridge employers, and when back in Stourbridge ....
"Chubsee moulds were used to produce a variety of cheap table glass.     Moulded square and barrel pint decanters with combinations of pillars, flutes and diamonds approximating costliercut finishes were made in Britain, Ireland and the United States until the 1850's."

This doesn't offer any proof that the decanter posted here is from Ireland, just that the Irish did use this method to make decanters, and equally many very similar moulded decanters were produced in the States.

Can we ask please what the pontil area looks like, and what evidence, if any, of moulded seams.

But coming back to the wear issue............this feature really mustn't be used as a 'key factor' in determining age, however tempting.
When assessing age there are many features that combine to offer a possible answer  -  and we mustn't jump to conclusions based on personal wishes.

quote................."I have many 16th and 17th century pieces that show very little ware at all , but that's because of there weight and metal , not there age."..............
Another possible reason for lack of wear in this instance is value.........we do tend to be a little more careful with expensive things as opposed to pressed tumblers and moulded decanters.
My glass ceases to accumulate wear from the day I buy it  -  no point in risking damage to expensive pieces.
 
sorry I don't have Dudley Westropp's book   -  is it worth me getting please, it appears to be quite old?

[oldglassman]

 Hi ,
             "Another possible reason for lack of wear in this instance is value.........we do tend to be a little more careful with expensive things as opposed to pressed tumblers and moulded decanters."

 These "expensive things " when made were made to be used they were not made as collectors items only much later have they become this ,so when new would have been used albeit by well healed folks and I don't think ware is ever down to a lack of care, just everyday use .

  " However, I am a fan of wear, and would rather see some than look at an alleged C18 or C19 piece and see almost nothing"

  yes of course ware is important and should be there to a greater or lesser degree,the point I was trying to make in my usual long winded fashion was that heavy ware is not a reliable indicator of great age .

 The decanter posted certainly looks to be as described by Sid, an early 19thc Irish mold blown decanter of typical form ,the mold used being a dip mold ,the decanter being blown out after visiting the mold , but those more familiar with decanters could reveal more, I have never really been a great fan so only have a couple ,yes Paul, that I use !!!!  gasp!!!  lol .

 cheers ,
                  Peter.

[Paul S.]

yes, I should have remembered that you use all of your glass Peter

I didn't know that Sid had commented on the decanter

I'm really am now unsure as to the age of the original tumbler posted here  -  both Sid and you appear to push the date of manufacture into the early part of the C20, perhaps.         These bird bath bases were certainly around then.

[rose de verre]

Hi
You can get the Westrupp book - I think it dates from about 1930, - as a download pdf, free ! as it is out of print, wonderful bargain ! I think it is very good, the pictures are only black and white but nice and clear. He studied and collected the glass before it became fashionable and expensive and he tries to dispel a lot of myths going about at that time - Waterford glass could be identified by a blue tint for example, not the case at all. The export records he prints are staggering - glassware of every type going to every corner of the world. This is in the Georgian era, before the glass tax was reimposed. Very interesting.

[oldglassman]

HI,
                " I didn't know that Sid had commented on the decanter "
 Sorry my mistake ,should have been ,as described by rose de verre.

 The answer to the date on this one is in the mark,hopefully someone will be able to identify it soon.

  cheers ,
                 Peter.

[Paul S.]

hi rose - thanks for the information on Westropp's book.........free is always good.

quote............."The export records he prints (Westropp) are staggering - glassware of every type going to every corner of the world."       Couldn't believe it either.........I'm part way through an oldish U.S. book by N. Hundson Moore ('Old Glass European & American') - who quotes Westropp as having said  "it's quite possibly there's more old Irish glass here (the U.S.) than there is in Ireland".               Moore says "surely it can't all be broken".          The export volumes are almost unbelievable.

quote.............."This is in the Georgian era, before the glass tax was reimposed."
I could be wrong but didn't think the Glass Excise Tax had been levied prior to 1825, in Ireland.             The stumbling block for the Irish glass trade in the C18, apparently, were the import/export limitations imposed by the British government.      Although the British Excise Act of 1746 levied a tax on the glass trade in Great Britain but not Ireland, the same Act did prohibit the importation of any glass into Ireland except from Great Britain, and prohibited the export of glass from Ireland..........so they were dead in the water, so to speak.
It appears that it was the War of Ind. that was the turning point which changed circumstances for the Irish, and their new found free trade combined with lifting of restrictions around 1780 created within a short time a boom in the glass trade, and they didn't look back  --  at least until 1825 when the rot set in due to the heavy excise duty imposed by the British government - and the rest is histroy etc.
These taxes/duties were removed entirely in 1845, right across the board, but way too late to help.

sorry this is a bit long winded, but thought it might be of interest to those two or three people who collect Irish glass

Ref.    'English, Scottish & Irish Table Glass'  -  G. Bernard Hughes  -  1956 (Batsford).

[bat20]

Hi,i think this is the same mark on this moulded shot glass,it must be a factory second with a sort of crazing on the inside and bits in the glass..

[Lustrousstone]

It's not a second. The crazing is called crizzling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_disease
and bits in the glass were normal. Standards for ordinary stuff were quite low, as waste was expensive and customer expectations didn't go much beyond functional.