Topic: Was this pressed glass cradle made by W.H. Heppell, Newcastle, please?

[agincourt17]

An opaque pressed glass cradle currently listed on eBay at
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/360777585069?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

Despite showing up in the photographs as pale blue, I am assured that the glass is actually opaque white (and actually listed as being of Blanc de Lait glass, though that is a term that I would normally associate only with attributed Sowerby pieces). Just over 3 inches tall, 5¼  inches long, and 3inches wide. I am told that it is unmarked.

The owner was given to believe that it was a Wm. Hepple (sic.) piece.

Jenny Thompson (page 18) describes the Heppell-registered  design number 370524 (registered on 26 September 1881 – Parcel 1) as “indistinct cradle shape”. I can’t recall ever having seen an example with the lozenge for 26 September 1881, and the online registration summary from TNA does not give a subject description.

There is no reference photo for RD 370524 at the GMB RD photo database.

Has anyone ever seen an example of the Heppell RD 370524, please? If so, is it actually a cradle, and does it match the cradle in the eBay listing?

Otherwise, is there anyone able to offer a firm Heppell attribution for the listed cradle?

Fred

[Paul S.]

I've looked at the National Archives picture for Registration 370524, and whilst the image is of a cradle, it doesn't agree with the cradle design shown in your ebay link.           There are substantial differences, which you will see when I post a copy of the Kew picture.        Unfortunately, although I took three separate snaps, none is really good (the Kew representation is a sepia photograph I think), and the glare from overhead lights was difficult to avoid, but believe definition is adequate for you to see the differences.           As is usual, the Archive data doesn't include dimensions, but not essential in this instance I don't think.

Obviously, someone had done their homework, partly (perhaps looking in Thompson), but hadn't searched for a corresponding picture.

[agincourt17]

Thank you, Paul.

I look forward to seeing the design representation of the cradle in due course.

Fred.

[Paul S.]

As you can see, the Archive cradle lacks the uprights - has a basket weave decorative surface, and the head end is higher due to a couple of rising curves along the edges near the head.

Authors such as Thompson and Slack were gathering their information during the 1980's, when the Board of Trade Representations and Registration archives were held at the Public Records Office in Central London (not sure but it might have been Chancery Lane), and Thompson acknowledges their help and without any mention of Kew.            Thompson's comment that 370524 was an 'Indistinct cradle shape' may well have been in response to seeing this less than clear photographic image - obviously photography had a long way to go in 1881.   Otherwise can't imagine why the comment would have been made.

Let me know your thoughts.

[agincourt17]

Thank you, Paul.

I don't think the photo is too bad after 132 years. It may not have been of top quality when it was first developed, or it may simply have faded over time, but it certainly shows all the cardinal details. (It would, however, be a pity if it continues to deteriorate  to a point where it is no longer sufficiently legible to  be of any use).

As to the design of the cradle itself - both the RD 370524 Heppell cradle and the eBay-listed cradle have some similar features (the rocking feet, the basic flared rectangular body) but they are features almost inevitably found in any traditional cradle design. In my opinion, though, the devil is in the details of difference.

On the basis of the Archive photo I think that the eBay-listed cradle is extremely likely to be merely a 'lookeelikee' piece produced by a manufacturer other that W.H. Heppell. After all, we know that design plagiarism was as rife in late Victorian times as it is today.

The owner is already aware of my reservations regarding a Heppell attribution for the cradle and has expressed an interest in seeing the results of these deliberations. He has generously agreed to allow me to post copies of his images here for permanent reference after the auction finishes (as GMB protocol dictates).

Fred. 

[jsmeasell]

This is a USA product, by Indiana Glass Co. of Dunkirk, Indiana. A quick search on eBay for "milk glass cradle" will turn up quite a few of these now listed.

[agincourt17]

Thank you, James.

Doctor Google provides much the same result. Many of the examples seem to be described as “vintage” with dates varying from the 1950s to the 1970s, and often offered as baby shower gifts or favours.

Simply googling “glass” with “cradle” also reveals versions in clear flint glass,  greyish-green transparent glass and transparent amber glass.

I wonder why they didn’t make blue and pink versions too?

Oddly, Tony Hayter (1st Glass) shows an opaque white version as being 1950s English at
http://1st-glass.1st-things.com/gallery-milk/slides/whitemilkglasscradle.html

Bowdlerised quote ?: "Many hands don't necessarily make light work but they often still manage to produce a satisfactory result (eventually)".

Fred.