Topic: Dating jelly glasses

[Antwerp1954]

Does anyone know of a guide to enable me to date jelly glasses, custard cups and bonnet glasses? How about the one below?

It is 8.5 cm tall with a polished pontil mark. The metal is lead glass with some inclusions (including a tiny bit of red) and bubbles but is quite white. The engraving of roses and their foliage is quite nicely done and of a better quality than a lot of glass.

I'll stick my neck out and say 1820. What do others think?

[Paul S.]

hi Stuart   .........         The only source which covers these things in particular is the small booklet from G. Bernard Hughes wife, Therle Hughes  -  but it really is only a very small and thin booklet ......'SWEETMEAT and JELLY GLASSES - 1982 (Antique collectors pocket guides).            This really should be a low budget purchase
Therle Hughes book covers jellies, custards and related sweetmeat glasses from the C18 and C19.     Lacks a bit in photographic quality, and dimensions aren't always given.
The lady's OH did include brief sections in both of his books, but can't think of much else - although Bickerton does show one or two under the Rudimentary stem section  -  one of which is a similar shape to yours - a sort of bell/trumpet shaped bowl (although his example is undecorated).

Some of the forms/shapes of jellies are quite distinctive and can be dated reasonably well  -  but I get the feeling this particular bowl shape continued for a long time  - almost from the mid C18 into much of the C19.

So how do you tell if they're early or late in that period?               Lunar slice cutting on the rim of the foot probably indicates late C18 to very early C19  -  and high domed or terraced foot shapes should indicate an even earlier date - mid C18 possibly.             Substantially sized knops and thick feet may well also indicate a good C18 date.   

You may well be correct with a date of c. 1820 for this piece, although have to remember that engraved decoration can be added at a much later date, but the foot does have some doming and looks to be of a good diameter  -  these things can vary enormously in height, and this one looks to be at the bottom of the size range.         This shape are often quite tall - around the 12 - 13 cms. height - and even taller for an example of a 'captain's glass'.                   You don't comment about wear  -  I'd have thought there should be substantial wear if it was genuinely from the Regency period.
In view of your comments about the whiteness of this piece, there's always the chance it may well be later than you are thinking - but I'm really not sure - perhaps others might care to comment.
 

[Antwerp1954]

Many thanks Paul.

I have all those books and have dipped into them to help me. The small book by Therel Hughes is quite disappointing. I find it disjointed and thin (in all senses).

What do you reckon to the Dutch(?) glass I've posted about?

[Paul S.]

I agree with you about the Therle Hughes book  -  was reading mine on the train once and then couldn't find it, so assumed I'd lost it and went and bought abother  -  then found the first one  - so been disappointed twice!!!            I suspect it's too much of a minority interest, so doesn't warrant someone doing a full blown book on the subject.

Regret I don't have the experience of Continental glass, so unable to help with your possible(?) Dutch piece.           Hopefully, Peter might have an opinion.

[Antwerp1954]

I've 20 or so jelly, bonnet and custard glasses. I find they are quite a nice way to collect old glass without moving too far into overdraft territory!

[Paul S.]

personally I wouldn't date a jelly glass - they always expect to come home with me

........I know what you mean tho, they can be addictive - I seem to be knee deep in Victorian jellies and custards.            Attached are pix of slightly earlier and less common sorts...........    first shows lunar slicing on the foot rims, one of which also has an OXO band, so assume late C18 early C19.

The three together show .........   a mid C18 panel moulded piece, domed foot, snapped pontil c. 1750  -  a six sided jelly c. 1775 (apparently there are eight sided examples, but presumably very rare).     The last of these three is a rather plain jelly with pontil scar, folded top rim (folded over towards the inside)  -   but I'm unsure of date, what do people think?   -   acres of horizontal striations, stones, thickish foot, bit wonky, snapped pontil, slightly domed foot and lead glass   -   cud it be as early as 1750-60?

The last pic with what appears to be a taller than usual pan-topped jelly, is possibly mid C19, or perhaps a bit earlier - quite large at 6.25 inches (160 m/m).            Cutting is quite prolific.....   the knop, very bottom of the bowl and top rim are notched  -  a ring of oval punties under the foot  -  lead glass body adorned with well cut stars and swags.     Diameter of foot rim is several mm larger than the top rim.               Pity about the clouding in the lower part of the body.
Cud this be a 'captain's glass'? 

Apologies for highjacking your thread Stuart - but thought you might like to see these.               Don't know if you have a copy of the Delomosne catalogue showing the Tim Udall collection of C18 dessert glasses  -  well worth getting if not  -  and those would take you into overdraft territory!!

[oldglassman]

HI ,
       A Captains glass    http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/19675/lot/119/

cheers ,
             Peter.

[Paul S.]

many thanks Peter  -  have to say that it's a little beyond my budget, but good to see even if we'd need to extend the mortgage to buy it.!!           Lovely piece.

[brucebanner]

Just looking at your pics Paul, do you think this is a jelly?, in your group of three it looks similar to the third on the right, i've had it for a while and thought it was a vase, i had no idea they could get so tall. It's got a few seeds a cracked pontil and lots of wear to the base with a lovely ring. Its 5 7/8th inches s in height 3 1/2 inches across the rim and 2 1/2 inches across the base.

[Paul S.]

I should have given sizes of those three in the middle pic.  -  in fact they're all quite short - the right hand example is in fact 100 mm (4") tall, and is quite a different beast to yours, in more ways than just size, so no similarity there.
Looking at a large selection of C19 jellies, it's noticeable that almost all have some form of knop/rudimentary stem or constriction where the bowl joins the foot  -  it's quite rare to find one without such a feature, but as with everything there are exceptions.


The Victorians had flower stands, the centre piece of which looked a bit like yours  -  they also had flower tubes, although they differed more in shape  -  and with both they were more often than not of coloured glass.           Some epergnes were clear glass.              If yours were C19 and for flowers, then it might be expected to show some water staining  -  then again the size you've quoted is rather tall for a general purpose jelly - although we're back with this elongated bell shape which was fairly common with jellies.           Regret I'm not entirely sure, but would suggest for a dessert of some description.             Not really sure of date, but possibly mid C19.
Would like to see what other people think.