Topic: Sowerby Open Basket 12th Feb 1879

[mhgcgolfclub]

Hi Fred

Please check the details on this open basket in your gallery. This is in Ivory Queen's Ware and has a date lozenge for 12 Feb 1879  parcel 17 which would be registration 332195 and in Jenny Thompson's book is described as a dish.

regards Roy

[agincourt17]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Roy. Lovely photos of a scarce pattern.

There is only one Sowerby design registration for 12 February 1879 – Parcel 17, RD 332195, which both Thompson and Cottle describe as a ‘dish’  .

Cottle (page 102) has the following entry:
332195   12 February 1879        Dish    IX, p.7 (1376)
and it was from that entry that I had taken the correlation between RD 332195 and the Sowerby pattern 1376 dish.

Indeed, I have some photos (see below) of a pattern 1376 dish with the peacock head trademark and the ‘correct’ registry date mark for 12 February 1879 – just the same lozenge as you have on your dish here.

On checking the Sowerby pattern book IX of 1882, the 2-handled IQW dish that you are showing  seems to be Sowerby pattern 1395, on the top row of page 8 (to the left of a similar piece with the 2 handles squeezed together – pattern 1395½). I don’t have any reference photos of Sowerby pattern 1395 or 1395½  to compare with yours.

So it seems that there is a puzzle here – 2 completely different Sowerby patterns, examples of which apparently bear the same registry date lozenge (for 12 February 1879), which corresponds to a single Sowerby design registration. As Alice said , “curiouser and curiouser”.

Are Sowerby patterns 1376 and 1395, therefore, both based on Sowerby RD 332195, or is Cottle in error correlating RD 332195 with pattern 1376?

This would not appear to be a case in which the same plunger (bearing the lozenge for 12 February 1879) has been used for both patterns (as sometimes happens in Henry Greener pieces around that date) because the interior of pattern 1376 is heavily ridged whereas the interior of pattern 1395 is smooth, and only one piece has the peacock TM.

The design representation is a vital piece of evidence in resolving the conundrum, of course. I don’t have it, but it may be that Paul happens by this discussion and is able to provide a copy for us to see.

Fred

[Anne]

The basket in Roy's photos is clearly a match for the catalogue image of pattern 1395...

There is another example of this basket in the album on GlassGallery
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-20962 with a description which reads:

RD 332051 or RD 332052
A 2 handled basket in Ivory Queen's Ware by Sowerby RD 332051 or RD 332052, with lozenge for 8 February 1879-Parcel 8.

Sowerby pattern 1395 (closed handles), shown on page 8 of Pattern Book IX (1882).

Photo © tandp783.

There is a version with open handles - pattern 1395.

[agincourt17]

Thank you, Anne.

For some reason I had completely missed the fact that I had already posted the reference photos of RD 1395½ on GlassGallery with the correlation to RD 332051 or RD 332052, but I no longer have the photos of the mark for cross-checking that the lozenge on the piece was for 8 February 1879 – Parcel 8.

The difference in the lozenges for 8 February 1879 – Parcel 8 and 12 February 1879 – Parcel 17 are, obviously, the digits for the day of the month (at the 12 o’clock position) and the parcel number (at the 9 o’clock position).

The photos of the lozenge in Roy’s opening post and in my reply both seem to clearly show the date digits as ‘12’, though the parcel number digits in both photos are somewhat indistinct.

If anyone has examples or photos of either Sowerby pattern 1395 or pattern 1376, could they kindly check the details of the appropriate registry date lozenges for comparison and clarification here, please?

The definitive evidence needed to resolve the issue is most probably still to be found in the design representations of RDs 332051, 332052 and 332195.

Fred.

[Paul S.]

some illumination, hopefully, on 332051, 332052 and 332195  .....

Images provided by the Ellison Glassworks, for their design Registrations about this period often lack contrast and appear faint.   They seem to have given the job of providing the Board of Trade drawings to someone with a purple coloured pencil - maybe this fades over the years.

Rd. 332051  -  my photograph of this drawing lacks any descriptive text  -  perhaps in my haste I cropped the image without realizing and cut off the wording  -  I think most of the Sowerby drawings do have some words of description - albeit brief.         This drawing is faint  -  what I'm seeing is a vase/spill vase possibly, with flared rim and handles showing some form of daisy wheel pattern at their base, where they attach to the body.                  As is almost always the case, the drawing doesn't provide any scale or measurement, so regrettably no idea of height.

Rd. 332052  -  The image I have of this one appears the most faded of the three - am sure it wasn't me, as my camera/lens is good - so doubtless it's the Kew image that is equally poor.      Picasa editing would probably improve the contrast, but what with the watermarking as well, this all takes time and I'm presently busy  -  will try to post watermarked pix of all three some time in the coming days but can't promise.
The image carries the wording 'Three Square Vase' - at least that's what it appears to read.               The overall shape is conical with straight sides, and what might possibly be a castellated or segmented rim shape/pattern - but as the image is poor, I'm not really sure of this - there is  certainly some form of decorative rim.                Again, no size or scale is indicated.

Rd. 332195    -  The image shown in the Archives drawing for this Reg. appears to match the picture submitted by Fred, under Rd. 332195 - i.e. Sowerby factory pattern 1376 with simple extending handles at both ends of the dish...........   although this dish shape matches Roy's dish shape (factory pattern 1395) there are very different looped handles placed along the sides of Roy's example.      I don't have any problem with accepting both of these boat shaped dishes as relating to Rd. 332195, despite the major difference in placing of handles.           
As is mostly the case with Sowerby applications to the Board of Trade, the Registration is for the outline shape only - not the surface decoration (which is not indicated anyway) - and the original drawing carries the wording 'New Shape Dish'.                 The cross section view is oval, with side view appearing identical to Roy's piece.           This drawing also lacks any indication of size.

I wondered if there might have been a problem with factory pattern 1395.1/2 - in allocating it to Rd. 332195 - as the outline shape is hardly a dish, and lacks the form of 1395 and 1376  -  however, I suspect that there may have been some artistic licence here, and my thoughts are that all three factory patterns are under the one basic design Reg. 332195.

I've rambled too long on this one, and am out of touch with these shapes etc., so will now allow Fred to digest what I've said, and come back to me with his thoughts:)

[agincourt17]

Thank you very much, Paul.

A part resolution anyway.

Fred.

[Paul S.]

Apologies Fred  -  you may have posted that before I had finally put my pen down              Obviously I didn't read and take in all that had been said, so found myself having to edit backwards and forwards umpteen times.            I think my version now is about the best I can do.

[mhgcgolfclub]

Fred

Some pictures of Sowerby 1376 which I bought at the same time as pattern 1395, lozenge date for 12th August 1879.

Roy

[agincourt17]

Thank you, Roy.

Fred.