Topic: Pressed glass deceptive?

[bat20]

I've got this one down as a deceptive toasting glass from the end of 19 century,but with my record there'll be no hat eating going on if it isn't,it's about 9cm in height with two seam stopping a cm from the top,I should add an egg does fit well but is not held as firmly as you would want if it was made for such a purpose.

[Anne E.B.]

I wouldn't rule out a penny lick either

[Paul S.]

I would           the penny versions had distinctively shaped bowls which did not look like the shape of this bowl  -   although some of the more expensive versions at around the 6d mark (£0.025p) had larger capacity bowls and may have looked more like this one, and mine are all packed away now  -  but we do have archive material on the Board with which to make comparisons, I think.

This example may simply be a rather thick-walled and slightly crudely made pressed glass for port or sherry, but let's see what others think

P.S.   not for eggs I don't think.

P.P.S.       just found the link, see what you think.    http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,51971.msg294779.html#msg294779

[bat20]

Thanks for your thoughts,interesting stuff,it's thick though I wouldn't say crude Paul the photo doesn't do it justice really,it reminds me of the late Victorian moulded rummers, six sided and quite crisp,in the interest of glass history I've been doing quite a few scientific tests and can say it holds a comfortable mouth full,just right for a toast,just hunting around for some port for a balanced assessment 

[Paul S.]

over the years I've also been in two minds as to the purpose of some later C19 pressed drinking glasses, often very chunky, and giving some confusion as to whether a deception glass or simply a pressed glass item with thick walls.
This thick-walled effect is not uncommon in Victorian tumblers, and the effect is accentuated by the pointy type plunger used to create the cavity.
This type of plunger makes for very thick walls in the lower half of the glass.
I think the true deception glasses really do have very small capacities - am sure we have had them on the board, and they should be found using the Board's search.
Anyway, yours looks good with the booze  -  but if you really want to put ice cream in it you won't get much of a dessert.  

[KevinH]

Paul, could you please give additional thoughts about one of your own "licks" as shown in the message you linked to above (direct link to your post is this one)

The third glass from the left in your lower photo appears to have a similar overall style and bowl construction as the one for this thread. Or is it just being "deceptive"?

[Paul S.]

Regarding that particular example, I was uncertain as to whether it was a lick or deceptive - as you can see from my comments at the time, and I'm really no wiser now.             It's entire construction is very much on the thick side and the bowl capacity is certainly small, both of which could qualify it for a lick, but the single most damning feature against that is the internal bowl shape  -  it lacks that one feature, common to licks, of having an almost flat bottom to the inside of the bowl.            Think I'm coming round more to seeing it as a deception glass rather than a lick, but who knows.               
There is a lack of adequate information and pix in the books - just odd bits and pieces - so not always possible to be certain  -  but it's that bowl shape that may be the deciding factor.

A recently acquired piece that has all the features of a 'lick', is shown as per the attached picture.           This is a pressed piece with two mould seams - a typical flat bottom to the inside to the bowl, half of which is composed of glass (another feature of licks).
It appears unusual (in comparison with others shown in the link) insofar as it has a knop  -  it's also noticeably taller (little over 4" - 105 mm) than all the other examples in those original pix.            My thoughts are that it's possibly an example from late in the lick era  -  it has a look of refined utility - and might be from the post 14/18 war time  -  but this is just my opinion.             There is a fair amount of wear to the underside of the foot.
As to its origin, I've not a clue  -  unless someone can offer suggestions  -  whether licks 'travel', like much other glass, I'm not sure  -  it's tempting to think not since presumably they aren't items of personal possession - in theory they remain with the ice cream seller.     This one has a slightly yellow cast  -  might this indicate Continental origin??

One correction to my original post in the link, concerns that dreaded error - the gadget mark.          The marks referred to on the underside of the feet of some of those licks were NOT from the gadget  -  but should correctly have been referred to as shears marks.