Topic: gadget impression on drinking glass foot

[Paul S.]

We've spoken often on this issue, and it's seemed nigh on impossible to find a suitable example of the impression, adequate in definition, that will photograph clearly enough to reproduce and not leave any doubt as to it's cause.

If you look in Charles Hajdamach's 'British Glass 1800 - 1914', page 35 plate 17, a gadget can be seen which I'm assuming must have been very similar in design to the one that was used on the drinking glass showing here - possibly a port glass - about 4.25" (110 m/m tall).
Originally I'd looked at the example of a gadget in Wilkinson - 'The Hallmarks of Antique Glass' - page 25...  but his gadget looks to have a collar that lacks the larger cut-out of the Hajdamach gadget.             You can visualize the design of this larger opening example leaving the exact impression showing on this port glass.

So there we are - not very exciting really - but it just struck me as remarkable that it has taken to long to find a suitable drinking glass foot, showing the impression of a gadget, with which to illustrate this point.               In fact this impression is good enough to be seen in the main picture.

This drinking glass lacks finesse - irregular foot, horizontal striations, mostly round the upper half of the bowl, and a Y shaped shears mark under the foot.          Almost certainly a pub/tavern glass from the last quarter of the C19, in my opinion.
I shall now probably see them everywhere

[Lustrousstone]

Nice one Paul 

[oldglassman]

HI ,
       Congratulations,
                        could this be the first image captured of the ghostly Gadget mark, I have never seen one.

    cheers ,
                       Peter.

[Paul S.]

Peter  -  could the reason that you've not seen one be due to the appearance of the gadget long after 'your' period
Presumably prior to c. 1860 all bowls and feet would have been shaped, whilst hot, by the pucellas???

[oldglassman]

HI ,
                  Yes long after my main period of interest though still high in interest regarding the method used especially as it has taken a long time to get the massage out there about the Y and T marks being shear marks and not gadget marks so I do when the occasion occurs look ,just for that. and so far as I said I had never seen one.

cheers ,
            Peter.

[Frank]

I would expect gadgets go back further in time. But very odd to be leaving an impression which should not have happened. My Hajdamach is still in storage at the moment.

[Paul S.]

I'd agree that, since this impression is almost impossible to find ordinarily, then we have to assume that possibly some exceptional reason was responsible for it happening on this occasion -  a defective gadget of some sort perhaps.                     I've seen large numbers of low grade pub glasses from the second half of the C19, those pieces on which you'd expect the mark to make an appearance, yet as I say this is the first time for me.
Although this looks exactly how you'd imagine the mark to appear, is it possible that this isn't the impression from a gadget - might it have been caused by some other means?

[bat20]

Why are there not more gadget impressions i wonder ???when you see a gadget and think about the process i can only imagine there polished off.

[KevinH]

Depending upon which literature we look at, a gadget will leave "no mark" (as opposed to a "pontil mark") or "its own pressure mark" (as a result of the spring clip with which the foot is held).

Does that help?

[bat20]

Yes,that clears it up nicely Kevin glass with a gadjet mark in theory should be very expensive.