Topic: Ink Wells, Ink Bottles and Stands

[Paul S.]

have to say I'd assumed that Cobourg had always been the correct spelling, and bearing in mind the proximity of this SE5 area to the centre of the city and the age of much of that part of south London bordering the Thames, then I thought it likely to have been a late Georgian origin rather than later.           My comments about the possibility of a clerical error in the spelling seen in the Archives Register, prompted possibly by the Bavarian issue, was not intended to be taken too seriously, although there's an outside chance it may have been true.          Having checked the London A - Z there doesn't appear to have ever been a Coburg St. remotely near the Old Kent Road, and I'm of the opinion it was simply a typo when the Register entry was made.
Phonetically, the pronunciation for both spellings is the same, so not difficult to imagine the clerk getting it wrong.

[Anne]

It is shown as Coburg Road on the original 1861 census sheet, Paul, which matches your Nat.Archives phot of the RD Register.It was also shown as Coburg Road on subsequent Census up to and including 1891. I've not checked 1901 or 1911 yet. That he was shown on the Census at that address means it was his home address not his work one (although he may well have worked from home as so many small business people did.)  He may have had a works somewhere else though - that's one to check in the Trade Directories next.

Interestingly, the 1891 Census street list shows two roads with different spellings: http://www.census1891.com/streets-c.php...
There is Coburg Road, Old Kent Road, CAMBERWELL  and a Cobourg Road, St George, CAMBERWELL plus several others with the Coburg spelling.

Edited to add:
1851 PO Directory London
7 Cobourg Road (note alternate spelling here!) has 3 names listed for it (multiple occupancy of houses was common)
Munday Richard, grocer & baker
Trump Benjamin, tailor
Truscott Henry, auctioneer

Incidentally, there is a stationer and printer of 24 Nelson Square, Blackfriars Road, by the name of James Truscott, so given that Henry David Green Truscott is listed as an auctioneer and appraiser perhaps the ink making was a sideline with a relative?   

[Anne]

thanks for your input on Eliezer Edwards, Anne, very informative and adds much of interest.          His Christian name is apparently from old testament Hebrew - although that doesn't necessarily mean he was Jewish........   in the C19 it was commonplace to give biblical fore names to children. 

So it seems we have two addresses for Mr. Edwards - both overlapping in date .............    one in B'ham and the other in Worcestershire  -  the former being a business address and Kings Norton his domestic residence, perhaps.

But can we rely on the accuracy of the 1861 census showing that he was a manufacturer - and not simply a wholesaler/agent  -  perhaps he thought it gave him better status to say he was a manufacturer.

I realised that about Eliezer being a biblical name, Paul, as several of my family had them too.  

I also found another RD by him to add to Fred's list:
Reference:   BT 43/61/104379
Description:   
Registered design number: 104379.
Proprietor: Eliezer Edwards.
Address: Birmingham, Warwickshire.
Subject: Wasp and insect trap.
Class 3: glass
Note: Description created from this document and the register in BT 44/7
Date: 1856 Apr 17

(I wondered if this was the same item as Fred's listed one below but in glass?
Useful Registered Design Number: 3826 registered April 10 1856. Subject: Insect trap. Category: Traps for Birds, Vermin, Insects. (Class I, Metal). Remarks: 699 provisional registration.)

And a reference in other Nat.Archive documents DR 149/126 & DR 149/127 "Tenancy agreements between John Lord's executors and his tenants in St Paul's Square" to his being "Eliezer Edwards of Birmingham, wholesale perfumer" and "Assignment of leasehold messuages in St. Paul's Square, Birmingham, from the executors of John Lord to Eliezer Edwards of Birmingham, manufacturer, 24 June 1851," so he seemed to have been an archetypal entrepreneurial businessman! In addition to his RD's he also registered several patents.

 Yes the Kings Norton address would be Mr. Edwards' home address in 1861. I hadn't found him in 1851 but have done so tonight with a bit of sideways thinking. He has been mis-indexed as Eliza, female, a "Retired Mansas" (whatever that might be!  ) but looking at the original sheet it's clearly a transcription error as he is actually listed as Eliezer Edwards, aged 35, of 49 St Paul's Square, Birmingham, an inkstand manufacturer employing 10 men. 

In 1871 he is again listed at the Reservoir Road, Edgbaston, Kings Norton, Worcestershire address, this time described as, "Glass manufacturer, employing 15 men, 9 boys, 20 females". I've had a look at Reservoir Road and it's a mix of older and modern houses but no indication of a glassworks of any kind there.  The residents in the Census are almost all merchants or manufacturers of some kind, so clearly a prosperous neighbourhood.  The addresses on the Census are always residential addresses (including hotel, inn, club, institution or vessel etc.), so he may well have had (as many big industrialists did) two houses and it would depend on where the family were on each Census night which address they appear on.

In the Birmingham Daily Post 31 August 1871 there was an article about the failure of Eliezer Edwards' glass manufacturing business, which was wound up with debts of over £3,000.

Incidentally, by the 1881 Census he was listed as an "Author general literature", which is perhaps an understatement, as he was the author of several books, and the magazine Edgbastonia,  as well as writing columns for the Birmingham Post and Birmingham Daily Mail newspapers! According to his brief obituary in the Birmingham Daily Post Feb 23, 1891, he began writing in 1876.

[Paul S.]

your research is very impressive Anne, and in comparison my input is rather meagre but.............   as far as the spelling of this south London road is concerned it would seem that there is a constant difference between what is seen on maps and the spelling used on the various census returns.
It's a well known fact that one of the main reasons for errors in non-fiction literature and related material is due simply to the copying from an earlier work (which already carried an error)  -  this type of continuation or repetition of mistakes happens in publications where subsequent authors rely on previous records and for whatever reason don't do their own research.

When I wrote my notes, above, have to say that I had looked only at an early 1970s A to Z for London, plus a Bartholomew's road map of London, which although undated, was probably printed somewhere around the very late C19 or possibly very early C20.
Both these maps show the spelling as COBOURG.
Anyway, it's a bit academic for us since we all know exactly what it is we're talking about, but goes to show how mistakes come down to us through the centuries.

I'd assumed this area of London/SE5 - Walworth and Peckham - was down market, having as it does the odd workhouse, asylum and various gas works near to hand, plus a canal or two.
Some of the nearby Streets have names like Trafalgar and Victory, so perhaps not as old as I had first thought.           Another road name is Ossory, which might be a corruption of Ossuary  -  a charnel house or where bones are stored.

[agincourt17]

I presume that the following extract refers to the same Eliezer Edwards:

According to
https://billdargue.jimdo.com/placenames-gazetteer-a-to-y/places-d/digbeth/

In 1837 Eliezer Edwards came from Kent as a young journalist to work on the Birmingham Daily Mail. In his book of personal recollections, First Impressions, Edwards describes his arrival in the town.
On . . . until at length the coachman, as the sun declines to the west, points out, amid a gloomy cloud in front of us, the dim outlines of the steeples and factory chimneys of Birmingham. On still; down the wide open roadway of Deritend; past the many-gabled 'Old Crown House;' through the only really picturesque street in Birmingham - Digbeth; up the Bull Ring, the guard merrily trolling out upon the bugle, 'See the Conquering Hero Comes;' round the corner into New Street where we pull up - the horses covered with foam - at the doors of 'The Swan.' (The Swan was a coaching inn at the junction of the High Street with New Street.)

Also, for the full text of "PERSONAL RECOLLECTIONS OF
BIRMINGHAM AND BIRMINGHAM MEN." REPRINTED FROM THE "BIRMINGHAM DAILY MAIL," WITH REVISIONS, CORRECTIONS, AND ADDITIONS. By E. EDWARDS. BIRMINGHAM: MIDLAND EDUCATIONAL TRADING COMPANY LIMITED. 1877.
see: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18821/18821-h/18821-h.htm

Fred.

[Paul S.]

quick question to the Mods. please.......       I can add more Kew inky related pix to this thread which would probably mean that this subject heading will need amending to remove the four Rd. Nos. shown at present  -  or I can start a completely new thread with similar heading but four new Nos.
No panic for answer but just wondered which way the Board would prefer me to jump.

[Anne]

I've still not managed to locate where Eliezer Edwards' works was, but will keep looking for clues.  Genealogy and old newspaper resources are a real treasure trove of information even for glass!

The Directories show the spelling as Cobourg too Paul. It's not uncommon to see variants though.

Paul, I'm happy for the RD's all to be continued in this topic to keep them all together for now. If it gets lengthy we can split into separate topics at a later date if felt necessary. Let me know what changes you want making to the Subject when you are ready. 

[Paul S.]

thanks Anne  -  I think there are something like 30 ink related items.            My suggestion might be to simply delete the Rd. Nos. from the subject heading, leaving just the words  'Re:  Ink Wells/Bottles/Stands'  -  but if you have better idea then leave it up to you.

Here are another four Registrations.............    Walsh was a manufacturer........   Blackwood appear not to be perhaps as they're shown as 'proprietors'  ............   likewise William Blamire Tate of London. (Seward St.).           In Ray Slack's book, he shows the company name as BLANURE - but looking at the Kew image and the Register page I'm fairly certain the correct spelling is BLAMIRE.           I've tried resizing and watermarking the Register page, but the end result is less than clear, so I've not bothered showing this, but am fairly certain my reading of the name is correct.

Hope of interest, and if there are any of these pieces out there it would be good to see a picture.

[Anne]

I read it as Blamire too Paul.

[Paul S.]

thanks Anne  -  It's possible I suppose that if you looked at the Register page only - with smaller handwriting - then you could be forgiven for getting the spelling wrong - have a look at page 96 in Jenny Thompson and you'll see what I mean  -  and it may well be that Ray Slack did use only the Register.              Anyway, we now know what the correct spelling is.

As a matter of interest I had a look in Colin Lattimore's book 'English 19th-Century Press-Moulded Glass' - to see what spelling he might have used - in fact I needn't have bothered.                Lattimore's book includes an Appendix A - REGISTERED DESIGNS, which details ........
'A List of all Registered Designs in Pressed Glass, 1842 - 1883'  ................    this is a book that I bought many years ago -might even have been my first book on British pressed glass, and which I now rarely look at  -  preferring Slack or Thompson, and now I realize why!
Despite the rather grand title of 'A List of All Registered Designs etc.' - in fact there are a fraction only of all CLASS III Registrations - and his list omits some years entirely.             How did this happen - probably a 'pot boiler' published at a time when there was greater interest in pressed glass, and seen as a quick gap filler, possibly.                  Anyway, by way of a warning  -  the List of Registered Designs lacks as many, or more, than it includes, and would be an unreliable source.                     I think mine should go into the bin