No-one likes general adverts, and ours hadn't been updated for ages, so we're having a clear-out and a change round to make the new ones useful to you. These new adverts bring in a small amount to help pay for the board and keep it free for you to use, so please do use them whenever you can, Let our links help you find great books on glass or a new piece for your collection. Thank you for supporting the Board.

Author Topic: Mystery Goblet  (Read 1660 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline agincourt17

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 1893
  • Gender: Male
    • Pressed glass 1840-1900
    • Wales
Re: Mystery Goblet
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2013, 04:31:51 PM »
Rob, the GMB has discussed this kind of thing with anomolous or 'nonsensical' lozenges in the past (especially in relation to early Henry Greener pieces) at
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,50579.msg286077.html#msg286077

Do your two goblets with the same lozenge but different designs have similar internal bowl shapes?  If so, two quotes from that discussion may well apply to your goblets:

Quote
…perhaps there only was one plunger which was used for both the [items].  Maybe [the manufacturer] wasn't concerned about the registry mark being on it.  There is a similar case with the Marquis of Lorne butter dish which has a registry mark which corresponds to a different design.  The butter dishes are pretty well the same shape so the same plunger worked for both.  Why buy two when one will do!
and

Quote
As you say, Sid, the ‘wayward’ lozenge on the plungers was probably of little or no concern to Greener compared to economic realities, so quite likely a ‘deliberate error’ producing this anomaly.

Also, the John Derbyshire goblets from RDs 274962 and 274963 have been discussed at
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,53689.msg304690.html#msg304690
complete with Paul’s pix from the design representations at Kew. The same topic also discusses Raymond Slack’s probable misidentification of JD’s goblet pattern 256.

I think the board has also discussed ‘nonsensical’ lozenge marks (where the visible alphanumeric identifiers at the interior angles of the lozenge just don’t seem to conform to any of the ‘correct’ design registry systems) but I can’t seem to locate the precise topics at the moment.

Fred.

Support the Glass Message Board by finding a book via book-seek.com


Offline nosloz

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 11
  • I'm new, please be gentle
    • england
Re: Mystery Goblet
« Reply #11 on: December 09, 2013, 05:25:39 PM »
Fred,

Re Internal shape alike?, dead simple one word answer - NO!

The one acknowledged to be the correct one, 198277 as per Jenny's picture/drawing,  is much steeper, more sort of cone-shaped, than a bowl shape, like than the mystery one.

I only concluded my 198277 was that because it matches the drawing perfectly, the lozenge is not distinct, but the one I have seen today matching the mystery one has a crystal clear lozenge mark.

I am getting more confused!!!

Nosloz

Support the Glass Message Board by finding glass through glass-seek.com


 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk
Visit the Glass Encyclopedia
link to glass encyclopedia
Visit the Online Glass Museum
link to glass museum


This website is provided by Angela Bowey, PO Box 113, Paihia 0247, New Zealand