Topic: gadjet

[oldglassman]

Hi ,
          Confusion rules again.
   quote from the link to Bernards comments above  "  The Y-shaped mark of a gadget is where your fingers are on the upper side of the foot, either side of the stem. "

  The Y or T mark being referred to are on the underside of the foot ,not as stated above,these are the result of shearing off (trailing off as in the video leaves a swirl mark)  the gob of glass that is then formed into the foot , the gadget is then used as shown here .
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQGO3wDesLE&feature=related


 Any marks that might be found from the use of a Gadget will be circular flat marks around the upper surface of the foot which can be almost impossible too see .as these jaws were as Bernard correctly says insulated with asbestos

   

[bat20]

Here's the shear mark for the sweatmeat glass,i can't find any sign of a gadjet mark on top of the foot,so can i safely say this piece was made after the use of the gadjet..

[oldglassman]

Hi,
            No!! , it is very very rare to see any of the marks that may have been left by the gadget and if found are very feint,if a glass has a distinct T or Y mark from the shearing you can assume that a Gadget was used but are very unlikely see any of the marks from the use of the gadget.
 I have seen more modern glasses that have marks on the underfoot that look like a shear mark , but are not distinctively T or Y shaped and i think this mark is the result of the machine production of the glass and not the use of a gadget.


cheers ,
                  Peter.

[bat20]

Ahhh,sorry Peter i feel i driving you to a Commissioner Dreyfuss type eye twitch ;)and at the risk of getting a "beumb"in the post,i often see the remnants of shear marks on glass with polished pontils,could some of these been made with a gadjet..putting my helmet on now

[Lustrousstone]

They might be shear marks but a gadget won't have been used because it avoided the use of a pontil rod

[Paul S.]

I thought all of this had been explained some way back

Unfortunately, even those books that mention this piece of equipment are less than clear on the cause of these marks, although it may well be that their authors knew what they meant but didn't explain clearly exactly what part of the process created them.      Could be wrong, but I don't seem to possess a book that does explain adequately, even Charles Hajdamach fails to use the word shears  -  good job we have Peter
Despite this confusion, the time line given for these shear marks remains valid, and it seems they don't appear before c. 1860, and although they were disappearing by the end of the C19, may have lingered for a while.           
Charles Hajdamach's book does include diagrams of this equipment, so you should have this anyway  -  it must be cheap on the web I'd have thought - unless you already have it.

I don't think I could safely say I've ever seen gadget marks on the upper side of the foot, alhought expect they are there, but only feintly.   Feet are often full of swirls and blips.

Peter  -  should your very last word have been shears, rather than gadget?

[Paul S.]

sorry, think that last bit has crossed with Lustrousstone's comment.

[oldglassman]

 Hi ,
            Yes Paul probably Gadget/shears would have been better,

 bat !!  you said   "i often see the remnants of shear marks on glass with polished pontils " the pontil is polished because it was a rough scar,snapped pontil call it what you like it was the remains from the punty iron, and marks around that area on a polished pontil are remnants of the snapped pontil remains.

 cheers ,
   Peter .
               ps  beumb is on its way .

[bat20]

Thanks everyone, your pain my gain I'm afraid,the penny has dropped!

[Paul S.]

just seen a minky going by with a beumb                       bat  -  assume you don't have Charles Hajdamach's book on C19 glass  -  probably quite cheap from the internet I'd think - and very worth while buying.