Charles Hajdamach refers to the (British) Richardson output as a 'dynasty' - probably a fair description of a very successful family of mid C19 glass manufacturers - and in Manley's U.K. book that Ken mentions buying, the author includes a few of Richardson's more notable designs. Quite why Manley didn't provide the relevant British Registration Nos. for these early designs I've no idea - possibly because he didn't frequent the Board of Trade Archives - although in the main he does seem to have been aware of the years of Registration. So here are just a few thoughts on the very first of Richardson's Registrations.
Their very first Registration, of which Manley shows an example on page 54 - item 6 - is the famous jug/ewer, decorated with transfer printed scenes of Egyptian rustic life and described as Vitrified Enamel Colour, described by some folk as opaline.
For those interested, the Reg. No. is 42634, as shown on the attached pix, and I've followed Manley and included the matching goblet (item 7 in his book), which was allocated Registration No. 42635 - both pieces carry the same Registration date of 16th April 1847.
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.
There are prior dated designs from the Richardson pattern books, but as far as I'm aware none of those was Registered with the Board of Trade - so 42634 and 42635 appear to be the very first Registered designs from W. H. B. & J. Richardson, Stourbridge.
The exact shape/pattern of Reg. 42634, with its distinctive downward pulled scallop on either side of the handle - occurs again in the list of Richardson Registrations - namely Rd. 52328 dated 13th June 1848 - and can be found in clear glass painted with a floral design in coloured enamels and, yet again, in the Parkington sale, in clear glass with cut/frosted decoration of what appears to be convolvulus leaves (popular plant it seems at the time).
I've attached a National Archive picture of Rd. 52328, and although you can't be certain this was enamel painting on clear glass, I'm of the opinion it was, - as opposed to an opaline type.
Christie's show the Parkington clear cut glass jug, based on the shape of Rd. 42634, and state 'Richardson's c. 1850' - and refer us to Barbara Morris' book which shows unrelated shapes but similar cutting designs with frosted glass - in support of their claim as to date I've not a clue as to the actual time line of manufacture for some of these later versions of 42634, and like many attributions in books, these are given often without any provenance to support their claim. ..................... on the other hand I wouldn't dare argue with the writings of the late Barbara Morris.
The difficulty we have is trying to decide exactly what it was that Richardson were Registering and when, and whereas ordinarily this should be resolved by looking at the Archives Register - that part of the records where the Applicant's name and address are shown, plus details of what it is that's being protected - I have looked, and it's not helped.
In the Register, against 42634 there is a blank.......... against 42635 there is simply the word 'goblet' ................. and against 52328 it states simply 'water jug' - perhaps Richardson were playing hard and fast with the Board of Trade and being evasive, deliberately.
My own thoughts are that 42634 may well have Registered the newly invented 'Richardson Vitrified Enamel colors' only, (dropping the 'u' was apparently the factory's idea) - and not the shape at all .............. on the other hand 42634 may well have also Registered the shape - and the subsequent Rd. 52328 may simply have been to protect their coloured enamelled painting on clear glass of the same shape. ...... Manley isn't specific in his book as to what exactly he considered was being Registered against 42634 and 35, and comments in regard to a completely different Registration............. "I'm not sure what was Registered etc. etc. ....." so he too was occasionally in some doubt as to the details of that part of the design that was be Registered. There isn't an example of 52328 in Manley's book.
The answer may well be in the Richardson archives, but whatever the answer, it's obvious that an identical shape of jug occurs under both 42634 and 52328.
Of course, always possible that someone here may have a much better answer as to exactly what these two Reg. designs were protecting - would love to hear*
happy
Bit of a ramble really, and not sure of much use, but if anyone still reading this far down, you deserve a medal.