Topic: Glass Reference Question

[flying free]

Thank you for taking the time to research and share the information

I'm always interested in Richardson opaline items.
Particularly interested  (in reference to my blue Etruscan vase) that they appear to be mostly (with one exception I found in the Black Country Museums site) transfer printed.

m

[Paul S.]

I think you'd know a lot me than me m as to whether this type of material can legitimately called opaline.                For me, the frustration is not knowing what exactly was being Registered, and as I say, that information might only be sourced from the factory records.

This type of decorative illustration was definitely transfer printed, but I'm not so sure about those depicting Greek and Roman stylized figures - often shown in a sort of terracotta or cream colour.              I can post those if of interest.

There is also another very well know surface decoration shown in Manley  -  the 'vermicelli or vermicular' decoration - it's the thread/worm like never ending wiggley line.   It appears on at least two different shapes, one of them having the rope twist handle that Manley shows.

I don't really know that there is the interest so much in some of these things  -  mostly interest is in pieces we can find - and I'd imagine that most of these very early pieces are now as rare as hen's teeth

[KevinH]

From Paul S, Reply #9:

These pieces, with variations on the transfer printed subject matter - middle eastern scenes then later apparently English rural views and floral designs -  can be found elsewhere in the literature (probably Wakefield and certainly Morris), although oddly I didn't see either piece in C.H.,  -  but notice that pieces with identical transfer prints appeared for sale in Part Two of the Parkington Collection at Christie's in April 1998.         I don't know the date of sale of the Manley collection, but wonder if Michael Parkington purchased the exact pieces showing in Manley's book.

The Manley sale was 7/8 July 1986, so Parkinton could well have bought items from that sale.

However ... The Parkington jug / ewer and the Manley one (in his 1981 copyrighted book - 1988 edition ) have very similar but differing print decoration. In the Manley one, the elderly man pointing to his right has his arm well below the branches of the nearby palm. In the Parkington one, the man's arm is set with his hand between the lower two palm branches. Also, the ground around the palm differs in each case and in the Manley one there is a clear row of distant palms behind the elderly man but this feature is not at all obvious in the Parkington one.

The Manley example was also included in the 1968 American "British Glass" book (based on Manley's collection) as Item 251. Again, the "matching" goblet is identical in both books covering the Manley items but has a differing print from the Parkington example.

Incidentally, in the earlier American book, Manley's descriptions simply stated "c.1850". So it was after 1968 that he found evidence of the registration date.

Wakefield, Nineteenth Century British Glass, revised edition 1982, page 67 ref 59 shows a jug with the same shape but with a third differing print to the Manley & Parkington examples. The print is of the same general scene - elderly man and others at a well (?) with palms but details differ. It is described as "White opaline ... monochrome sepia painting. ... about 1850. Victoria and Albert Museum."

Also in Wakefield ... page 66 ref 58 shows a jug of the 42634 / 52328 shape. It is described as "White opaline ... about 1850", but it has an attractive band of foliage top and bottom of a wavy trellis-style band ... which is gilded, not printed (or "sepia painted"). Provenance to "Stourbridge Glass Collection".

Design 52328
And page 72 ref 67 in Wakefield. "Jug ... clear colorless glass with painted decoration ... registration mark for 1848. Victoria and Albert Museum." The decoration is all around the body depicting a flower and leaf display much like the one shown in the actual registration document.

[Paul S.]

thanks -  yes, see what you mean now, obviously I need Specsavers again then.    Very irritating there should this seemingly identical  image but varying in such small detail.             According to Manley, there were many different decorative images used on this 42634 'Vitrified' jug.

I get the impression that most, if not all, of the 'Vitrified Enamel Color' (Opaline) pieces (Regs. 42634 and 42635) look to be without a diamond lozenge, so more difficult for earlier authors to date these accurately - even down to the year - unless they had access to either the factory records or the National Archives.
I notice that the expression 'circa 1850' was used prolifically by Christie's - in the Parkington catalogues - when dating his Victorian pieces - and I would imagine that technically they would have been correct in using this expression for pieces made a few years either side of that date  -  we have to remember always the golden rule when trying to date shapes and patterns that were based on a Registered Design  -  although obviously they couldn't have been made earlier than the Registration Date - they may well have been made a few years later.
I don't know if there is a recognized maximum margin or period of years either side of a quoted 'circa date' - don't recall ever seeing reference to such.
For how many years the Vitrified/Opaline jug Rd. 42634 was in production we may never know, but it may have been popular and been produced for quite some time.

There is an example of 52328 (the apparently same shape as 42634). the clear glass jug painted with coloured enamels showing flowers etc. -  shown in Barbara Morris, which in fact does have a diamond lozenge, although Manley doesn't shown an example of 52328.
I say these two Registrations are the same shape  -  I stand to be corrected, but to my eyes they look the same  -  and it's this possible confusion that makes for some of the mystery surrounding quite what aspect of each Registration No. was being protected.
As with 42634, there appears to have been variation in the style of painted enamel images depicted on 52328 - which you'd assume were hand painted, but can't be certain of that.        Assuming hand painted then remaining examples of 52328 would probably be fewer.

Just to make matters more confusing, the factory Registered another jug/ewer No. 52329 on the same date as 52328 - with a slightly different design, in Vitrified/Opaline and decorated with those transfer prints of Greek/Roman dress.
 

[flying free]

I've a feeling the 'vitrified enamel' refers to the enamels used to decorate the piece rather than the glass body itself.
Just thought I'd add that - did someone ask about this?  or is just that I recall finding out about this many moons ago.

And yes, I would call all these translucent glass pieces by Richardson 'opaline glass'. 

Again, I seem to recall an odd comment in The Crystal Years (the S & W book) about Richardson's doing 'alabaster' glass (in the section about S & W alabaster range), so it's possible they called their opaline 'alabaster' hence the odd comment in the book.  But they are opaline glass basically.  There are a couple of early pieces in hospital green and pale custard yellow as well but mostly white pieces.  Some are very translucent and others appear to be fairly opaque but it can be difficult to tell from photographs.

Not got Manley with me at mo - are the vermicelli pieces registered with rd numbers?


m

[Paul S.]

Cyril Manley includes a single 'vermicelli' jug in his book, shown with rope twist handle - and he comments that the jug is signed 'Richardson 1854', but doesn't include the Board of Trade Registration No., which is 96703 dated 24th August 1854.            As with some of the other early Registered designs in his book, Manley admitted to being unsure as to exactly what aspects of this 'vermicelli' jug were being Registered, and I don't know that I'm a lot wiser either  -  it may well be that Gulliver is more specific - but I don't have that book, although doubtless the answer is in the factory records.

The 'vermicelli' jug Reg. 96703, showing in Manley (page 56 item 53) has a very pure baluster shape, and has design differences when compared with Reg. 42634, so the two bodies are quite different, and it's possible this new baluster shape was being Registered - but then again Richardson were knocking out so many classical ewer and jug shapes around this time it's difficult to tell what was going on.       
Hopefully later today I will get time to post the National Archive pix for Regs. 96703 ('vermicelli') and 52329 - this latter is another jug/ewer body shape with quite distinctive pouring rim.

It's possible that the 'vermicelli' Registration 96703 is the original source of the protection for the rope twist handle, but if that's not the case and someone knows otherwise, I hope they will shout  -  equally, 96703 might protect the combined designs of body shape, surface decoration and the novelty handle.                Richardson were market leaders with innovative designs and product materials, and you can't blame them for being over zealous in producing pieces showing  combinations of their inventions.

The 'vermicelli' pattern is a real novelty  -  exactly what method was used to produce this I've no idea, although some combination of resist and acid is very likely, and Manley comments that ............    "It was a very time-consuming operation, all the pattern marks are hand-worked, and only girls with the right temperament could do the job."                      It always makes me think of pieces of a jig-saw puzzle.

Reg. 81613 on 18th November 1851 appears to have been the final Registration under the name of W. H. B. & J. Richardson, and after a gap of something like three years Registrations from the factory re-commence with 95056 on 14th February 1854 under the name of Benjamin Richardson, Stourbridge.

Apologies to folk who don't have access to images of these pieces  -  hopefully the National Archive pix will go someway to helping  -  alternatively it could be a good opportunity to buy some useful reference books

[Paul S.]

aside from the earlier posts providing literary critique - the later words were intended to fill in some of the gaps in Cyril Manley's book, where his illustrations of Richardson glass lacked the corresponding Registration details etc., and attached are a few more National Archive images which hopefully will add interest and perhaps usability to Manley's work.       Trust it's possible to marry up the attached pix with the following wording:

1.........   another opaline jug Rd. 52329 - dated 13.06.1848, and transfer decorated with figures in classical dress.         It's difficult with some of these jug shapes to know whether they occur in Manley or not  -  I don't think this one does, but that sort of uncertainty highlights the need in all books to provide as much info as possible so that future research can make accurate attributions.

2...........Rd. 96703 dated 24.08.1854  -  this is the classic baluster shape showing in Manley - bottom line on page 56 - and agrees with the vermicelli decoration on his jug.         However, as you can see (if you have a copy of Manley's book - and must take my word for it if not), the National Archive images parts company with Manley's when it comes to the handle  -  his having the more complex rope twist design against the Archives example of a simple C19 strap version.         So ...  Rd. 96703 appears NOT to have Registered the twist handle - and would be very good to discover under which Registration that invention was in fact protected  -  off hand I don't know...........   over to you Kevin.

3..........Rd. 98170 dated 16.11.1854 - another baluster type of shape and another example decorated with vermicelli pattern - but lacks a handle and so not a jug or ewer - the wording reading  'This pattern for all kinds of lamps, globes or shades or pedestals etc.'        I've not been aware of seeing this pattern/shape in the books.

4..........finally, and just for a little interest, some of the monochrome and polychrome Registrations Nos. 43924 - 27 dated 06.07.1847, which were applied often to the opaline pieces  -  perhaps typical of the Victorian's unrealistic approach to Roman life, but no doubt they sold well.  Not quite sure about the apparent Christian winged angel passing the helmet to the soldier  -  I thought the Romans were pagans.

Would suggest that in view of the subject matter this thread should be in British??              Feel free to criticize on anything and everything. 

Sorry, two pix will run over, again.

[Paul S.]

and the last two pix.

[KevinH]

96703

... Manley admitted to being unsure as to exactly what aspects of this 'vermicelli' jug were being Registered, and I don't know that I'm a lot wiser either  -  it may well be that Gulliver is more specific - but I don't have that book, although doubtless the answer is in the factory records.

Gulliver quoted the words from the registered design detail and added a comment in parenthesis: "Pattern upon all kinds of table glass. (Vermicular pattern shown on a jug)"

[Paul S.]

thanks for checking Gulliver's book for me - and judging by the wording on the Registration drawing - plus Gulliver's own comments - it does appear to have been the vermicular pattern only that the factory were protecting - which in fact was Manley's suspicion.

Perhaps Richardson, for whatever reason, never Registered that rope twist handle, although they did Register a rope twist stem on a wine glass - Rd. 96004 - which obviously pre-dates 96703 - albeit not quite the same type of twist though.   Perhaps we'll never know for sure.