Topic: ‘Mystery’ glass paperweight marked Rd. No. 160988 ST. PANCRAS IRON WORKS LONDON

[agincourt17]

Thank you, m - you were certainly on the right track.

What threw me, I think, was the orientation of the lettering around the shaft just above the flat base (that turns out to be the top when in use). I suppose they were more conveniently stored with the flat bit down and the prismatic bit up, which was when the lettering would be seen. Once they were installed in a frame the lettering would be hidden anyway.

Fred.

[Paul S.]

sorry, still waiting for a reply from my contact at Kew  -  I've been absent all today, but glad to see you've all been busy and appear to have succeeded in finding out its use.

P.S.   meant to say .........   Fred has a real cracker for us next week - involves an old post from a lady who no longer contributes to the Board - but the story is quite an adventure, and know you'll all find it of interest.                      sssssshhh   -   think I can hear Fred busily typing his notes as we speak

[Paul S.]

have now spoken again to TNA people at Kew, and having looked at the details I've supplied, they regret unable to help with any further information to resolve this Registration.                Very unusual for them to admit defeat, but it seems that the meaning of the pencilled entry, where normally an image of the design would be, is lost in the mists of time and they advise now not possible to discover what happened.

[agincourt17]

Thank you again, Paul, for all your efforts.

When you look at the shear size of the design registration archive, it's no small wonder that there are occasional glitches in the system.

Fred.

[Anne]

I've dropped Ian Macky (glassian.org) a note to alert him about this topic, so hopefully he will pop by.

[ian.macky]

It is indeed a pavement light; I recently acquired that exact article from UK eBay; those are the eBay auction pics which started off the thread.  Attached is my quick pic of it next to a Brown Bros paperweight.

I have ordered the design information from the National Archives, and the digital download should be available shortly.  I will share the results when I get it.  The note from NA regarding my order did say "Patent registration, no design included" which didn't sound very promising.

--ian

[Paul S.]

Hello Ian  -  judging by my own recent lack of success at Kew with the Representation Book (BT 50/147)  -  the Register is BT 51/62 -  plus my conversations with Julie Halls who is the expert on C19 Board of Trade Registrations  -  I'm of the opinion that like myself, you will draw a blank in acquiring any more information on Registration 160988.
Kew's comments "no design included" is correct in that any image and or other comments of use, of this design, that were in BT 50/147 originally, have been removed at some time in the (distant) past.

Regret I'm unsure as to the exact meaning of the expression 'Patent Registration'  ........    I admit to losing the thread of this one a little, and had believed we were speaking of a Registration only, rather than a Patent.        Of course if it were the latter then maybe further information might be found somewhere, but believe we've probably discovered about as much information as we're likely to find............   and so it's not a p/w

There is a service offered here on the Board, regarding those Registrations of interest and where National Archive images and information would help to expand our knowledge.             I know that Kew professional researchers do charge for providing data, although perhaps on occasions they do so for free - really not sure  -  no doubt you will discover very soon.                In future if there is a particular Rd. for which images and details are of benefit you can of course post here, and who knows we might be able to help.

[ian.macky]

Got my scan from the NA.  Yes, it is 51/62.  Nothing much of interest on the registration page, oh well.  --ian

[Paul S.]

I agree it's a disappointment when research hits a dead end.           I photographed that Register entry, plus the Representations page, and was sitting here wondering why I hadn't posted them on this thread.             Could be losing my marbles, but have a feeling that I sent copies to Fred directly - un-watermarked - at least I'm sure I sent them to someone
There remains the mystery as to what the other Registration - No. 160987 - referred to ........  you can see from the page you've posted that it was originally for the two numbers.   

[agincourt17]

You didn't send any photos relating to RD 160988 to me, Paul.

Fred.