pix attached of TNA Kew original factory drawings for Sowerby Regs. 335969 - 72 incl. from 6th June 1879 - showing that Roy's 'New Bowl' is indeed Reg. 335972 - and like Fred, I was unaware of the two sizes in this 'New Bowl'. Am surprised though that there are known examples of this design that lack the lozenge - which is usually very pronounced and not the sort of thing that might be worn away, and since Sowerby were very protective of such patterns/designs that we should have to contemplate the fact that they allowed the use of moulds for this Registration without the lozenge.
I think to be fair, and to give Ray Slack the benefit of the doubt, I'm inclined to think his error in linking this Reg. to Sowerby factory pattern 1411 was one of being too trusting of Simon Cottle's research, which is where - originally - you will find 335972 linked to 1411, since Cottle was published about one year earlier, and very obvious I'd have thought that Ray Slack would have had a copy of Cottle's booklet. I'm sure that had Ray looked at page eight of Pattern Book IX he couldn't fail to have seen the obvious design differences between patterns 1407 and 1411.
Have to say that I'd assumed that we were all well aware that this shape/design of QPIW had been Registered - Slack confirms this fact on page 61 of his book, and Notley refers to items of QPIW being 'PODR' - Notley's way of referring to a design that had been the subject of 'Patent Office Design Registered'. Although QPIW was in fact Patented, I'm not quite sure why Notley uses the word 'Patent' in connection with Board of Trade Registration - and his description of the two pieces illustrated in his booklet could be said to be misleading........... "A Sowerby Aesthetic milk-and-sugar set in ivory glass" he says ...... we know why he uses the word 'aesthetic' (the Japanese influence in the design), but he must have known the mis-understanding that would result.
Misleading insofar as Sowerby produced what is now a very rare colour called 'Aesthetic Green', and which was unrelated to their uranium/arsenic coloured QPIW or the Registrations relating to that material. If you look at the colour of those pieces of 'Aesthetic Green' shown in Slack, Murray and Lattimore, then Notley's colour does seem to be standard QPIW colour, so he might have explained better that what he was referring to was the Oriental influence, and not the colour.
Sheilagh Murray also confirms that this design had 'diamond registration and Peacock mark' - see plate 25 - and speaking of QPIW goes on to say - pp. 28/29 - "Most of these pieces are marked and I have not seen an example which did not carry the Peacock's head." So, hands up those who don't read their books on pressed glass?
Murray spills more ink than most authors discussing Sowerby colours, but surprisingly you won't find the word 'aesthetic' in her index, and the lady seems to have been unaware of this word used to describe a certain yellowish green glass from Sowerby - in the same way other more recent authors have done. Murray does speak of a colour she called 'Pomona Green', and says it was a "green in which yellow predominates" - which could easily be a description of Sowerby's Aesthetic Green, but I'm really only making assumptions and I've no idea what the origin of the word Pomona means.
Lastly, just wanted to say that as some readers of this magazine will be aware, there was recent Board discussion regarding the well known late C19 artistic style referred to as 'The Aesthetic Movement' - a style which had its origins in Japanese art from the mid to latter part of the C19.
It appears more difficult to relate this fashion to glass than perhaps other forms of 'art work', and so much of what might be considered 'aesthetic' can, at the end of the day, be attributed to nothing more than varieties of art 'nouveau' - sinuous, natural shapes full of curves and women's bodies - but lacking the all important evidence of Japanese art.
But having this discussion does allow us to categorically draw attention to specific pieces of glass that may legitimately be referred to as 'aesthetic' (C19 art style and not a colour produced by Sowerby) - and Sowerby's 'New Bowl' Reg. No. 335972 is probably at the head of what is a very small and select group of pieces that qualify.
Notley's milk and sugar set shown in his booklet may well also qualify, and according to that author so might some of Walter Crane's glass nursery designs.
Before leaving Sheilagh Murray it's relevant to note that the lady refers us to the late Barbara Morris' 'Victorian Table Glass & Ornaments' for bit of an expose on 'Aesthetic Glass' - the style and not the colour - chapter 11 Pressed Glass'. Won't quote from Morris as it ticks on a bit, but would recommend reading this as it does sum up very well the qualifications of that style and good to know that our pressed glass is at the forefront of the 'Aesthetic Movement'
As always feel free to criticize in part or in whole.
Topic: Sowerby Pattern 1407 6th June 1879 (Read 2994 times)
