Topic: Sowerby Octagonal Enamelled Bowl Sept 1879 Registration & Pattern Info Help

[Greg.]

Hi All,

Would welcome some further thoughts on this Sowerby octagonal bowl, with raised and enamelled flower designs.

Raised Sowerby Peacock mark to the base along with date lozenge.  Parcel Number '13', Year 'Y' and month letter 'D'. Unfortunately the day number is not readable.

It looks to have been registered during September 1879 (Parcel 13). Only 3 designs seem to correspond to September of this year, the 12th, 18th and 23rd. However the examples I have found registered on these dates don't appear to match.

The base also has the number '1476' written on it, I wondered if this might be the pattern number, however, examples online seem somewhat different...?

The bowl is also lopsided as you can see from the pictures due to manufacture.

Measures 16.5cm long (from handle to handle) and 5.5cm tall.

Any thoughts greatly appreciated.

Greg

[Greg.]

Two final pictures, including one of the base.

[Paul S.]

Hi Greg  -  using the pattern No. 1476 from the base of the bowl, and cross checking this with Simon Cottle's list of Rd. Nos. with corresponding Sowerby factory Nos., then from 1476 in Cottle's list we seem to arrive at Rd. No. 350092 - which he describes as a 'trinket', whatever that might mean.       This seems unlikely since that No. is dated May 1880.

I've looked at National Archive pix for all of the Rd. Nos. from the three dates you've given i.e. 12th, 18th and 23rd September 1879, and it does look as though your piece is related to Rd. 340003 - a bowl - and dates to 18th September 1879.         I will post a picture after I have re-sized and watermarked the Kew image, and let me know what you think.

In the Thistlewood CD's, in Factory Pattern Book IX from 1882, Soweby pattern 1476 is shown on page 9, and is shown with separately applied feet, a ruffled rim and plain curved sides, so my opinion is that yours is not pattern 1476. 
However, on page 10 of catalogue IX there is a factory pattern 1478 which does look a lot more like your piece - similar foot rim - octagonal in shape, and two pierced handles.
My opinion is that it is just possible that Simon Cottle has linked factory pattern 1476 with the wrong Rd. No., and he should have coupled it with 340003 from 18.09.1879, and not 350092.       

Let's see what Fred thinks  -  and I'll post the Kew image of 340003 shortly.

[Paul S.]

I'm not entirely convinced now,  -  some confusion possibly by the fact that yours is misshapen  -  plus not completely happy as to whether I've correctly interpreted the shape of pattern 1476 in the CD catalogue.
However, 1476 does have feet, which yours doesn't, and to my eyes it also doesn't appear octagonal as does pattern 1478.

Here is the Kew picture of Rd. 340003 - see what you think

Remarkable to think that your piece  -  so wonky it's difficult to call it a second even  -  should have got through to a retail stage and been sold.

[Paul S.]

nothing quite like a little knowledge being dangerous.................. 

parts of my earlier paragraph...........       ""In the Thistlewood CD's, in Factory Pattern Book IX from 1882, Soweby pattern 1476 is shown on page 9, and is shown with separately applied feet, a ruffled rim and plain curved sides, so my opinion is that yours is not pattern 1476.
However, on page 10 of catalogue IX there is a factory pattern 1478 which does look a lot more like your piece - similar foot rim - octagonal in shape, and two pierced handles.
My opinion is that it is just possible that Simon Cottle has linked factory pattern 1476 with the wrong Rd. No., and he should have coupled it with 340003 from 18.09.1879, and not 350092.""

....................lacks some rational thinking, possibly.

Since this piece carries the pattern No. 1476, then presumably that is what it is.

For some reason I don't seem to have a Kew picture of Rd. 350092, which was what Cottle linked with 1476 - so can't presently check - if for no other reason than to eliminate this piece being Rd. 350092.

May need to visit TNA for some additional information Greg - I'm sure we'll get there in the end.

   

[agincourt17]

Here's my take on the evidence so far:

Although there is an applied pattern number on Greg's bowl, the reliance that can be attributed to its accuracy presumably depends on where, when, and by whom  the number was applied.

Here are photos of Sowerby patterns 1473, 1476 and 1478 from pattern Book IX of 1882, plus a photo of an actual piece of pattern 1476.

The example of  pattern 1476 does indeed have a lozenge for 24 May 1880 – Parcel 8 (plus the Sowerby peacock head trademark), so I have no particular reason to believe that Cottle is in error in correlating Sowerby pattern 1476 with RD 350092 registered on that date. Thus, Greg's bowl does not conform to the pattern book image for 1476 and neither does it have the 'correct' registry date lozenge. 

I don’t have a reference photo for an actual example of Sowerby pattern 1473, which Cottle correlates with RD 350087 (also registered on 24 May 1880 – Parcel 8, so in the same registration bundle as pattern 1476), but the hexagonal shape, decoration and stub feet do not match with Greg's bowl .

I don’t have a reference photo for Sowerby pattern 1478 either, but comparing Greg’s bowl with the pattern book illustration I think it’s a pretty good bet that there is a match here. The surface decoration of panels of foliage and flowers corresponds very well, as does the interior ribbing of the panels (and both would show on a transparent or translucent piece). The octagonal bowl shape, shallow octagonal foot, and looped or pieced handles are also in good accord.

It looks as if Greg’s bowl has ‘slumped’ on removal from the mould, but the colour applied to the decoration is generally similar to stained or enamelled examples of other patterns from around the same period. It does seem odd, though, that such a mis-shapen item was allowed to find its way out of the glass works.

As to the correlation of Sowerby pattern number 1478 with a particular registered design number from the Sowerby registrations of 12th, 18th and 23 September 1879......

There was only one Sowerby design registered on 23 September 1879 – RD 340254, and that relates to a sugar and creamer of a totally different pattern.

The designs registered on 12 September 1879 are a bundle  of three RDs, 339498-500 (and the pattern numbers that correspond are in the 1420s-1430s).

So that leaves the 5 designs registered on 18 September 1879 (RDs 340002-340006). Cottle correlates pattern 1478 with RD 340004 (though I haven’t actually seem the design representation for RD 340004), but we know of several instances where he ‘mis-correlates’ pattern numbers and RD numbers within a registration bundle.  He doesn’t correlate RD 340003 with a Sowerby pattern number, but the design representation shape for RD 340003 which Paul so kindly shows seems to me to be a dead ringer for Sowerby pattern 1478.

As always, definitive information from primary sources such as TNA at Kew beats information from secondary sources.

Fred.

[Paul S.]

many thanks for your input Fred.

Not an easy one to resolve, made more difficult by the absence in the records of Rd. Nos. linked to factory patterns, and vice versa.            Not realizing that the original decorator had applied the wrong pattern number had me more confused than you can imagine, but since that is now clarified then hopefully we can agree that Greg's bowl is Rd. No. 340003 which agrees with Sowerby's own catalogued pattern 1478.
I'd started out thinking this and then got lost somewhere.

I have Kew pix for all of the five Rd Nos. from 18.09.1879  -  of which I've already posted a pic of 340003, and will post the others for reference purposes later this morning.

In the National Archives, the original images provided by Sowerby to the Board of Trade - for these five September Registrations - carry the following factory descriptions - and against which I have placed in italics Simon Cottle's own description and his interpretation of the factory pattern No., where he includes one:-

Rd. 340002  -  basket           -  basket (1442)
              3  -  bowl              -  bowl 
              4  -  sugar             -  sugar basin  (1478)
              5  -  square vase    -  square vase
              6  -  handled jelly   -  bon bon dish  (1443)
(this last item is a shallow dish with single looped handle - what we might now call a nappy).
A mystery why the last description differs so noticeably when the others agree - perhaps Cottle hadn't seen the Kew description?

But the real issue here is the possible confusion regarding Nos. 340003 and 4, and I have to say that I can't find an image of 340004 (the sugar) in the CD catalogue - I may have missed it so help needed please.                   You will see what it looks like when I post the Kew picture.
In his book, Simon Cottle links (visually) pattern 1478 to a picture of a (large looking) handled bowl - which appears to match Rd. 340003 - the same item as Greg's.
However, in his text Cottle links 1478 with his sugar basin, and links it to Rd. 340004.
Looking at the Kew images for both items, they would appear to differ in size substantially.

So we need to find a catalogue picture of 340004 - the sugar basin  -  but there does seem to be a possible query re Simon Cottle's linking of the bowl and sugar, with factory pattern Nos.
 
 



 

[Greg.]

Many thanks indeed Paul & Fred, for unravelling all of that detail, its much appreciated. 

So it does appear the written number on the base is indeed a red herring in this case!  Nice to see the catalogue image of how this piece was intended to look, without the slump! The National Archives drawing, kindly provided for 340003 also seems to tally up nicely.

Good result, thank you both.

[Paul S.]

If you've no objection Greg, I'd like to continue with the other four Registrations from Sowerby, from the 18th September 1879  ...     this may help Fred, and others, who may find the Kew images of use/interest.
Credit for being clever enough to spot the 'red herring' goes to Fred.

Here then are National Archive pix of Rd. Nos. 340002, 340004, 340005 and 340006 (340003 has already been provided).

I still do have a problem locating a Sowerby catalogue picture of Rd. 340004 - Simon Cottle's 'sugar basin', which it would seem he has in error linked to pattern 1478.
It would seem not to be 1478, since we are now almost certain that No. belongs to Greg's 'bowl' - and this is substantiated by the CD catalogues.

Perhaps Fred can help resolve this point.

[agincourt17]

Many thanks (as always) for showing the design representations, Paul.

Here are photos of Sowerby patterns for comparison with the design representations:

1443, the basket corresponding to RD 340002. Cottle wrongly correlates RD 340002 with Sowerby pattern 1442 (though he does describe it as a ‘basket). I don’t currently have a reference photo of an example of pattern 1443.

1440, which I’m not really sure about but it does have the same general shape and splayed stub feet as RD 340004, but it but it also has loop handles which are not shown in RD 340004. I don’t currently have a reference photo for an example of pattern 1440.

1437, the square vase corresponding to 340005. Cottle correlates the pattern number and RD number correctly. I do have reference photos for pattern 1437 and I will show some in a follow-up posting.

1442, the handled jelly or nappy corresponding to RD 340006. Cottle wrongly correlates RD 340006 with Sowerby pattern 1443 (though he does describe it as a bob-bon dish). I don’t currently have a reference photo for an example of pattern 1442.

It certainly looks as if Cottle has his wires somewhat crossed correlating Sowerby pattern numbers and RD numbers within this bundle of RDs 340002 to 340006 – not difficult to envisage if confronted with piles of design representation sheets and assorted sheets from pattern books.

Fred.