Topic: Rare 1840s Baccarat uranium glass becher -show and tell Launay Hautin 1841

[flying free]

The amethyst one Anne linked to here must be a vase surely? 

http://www.ebay.fr/itm/Ancien-vase-verre-epais-ART-DECO-mauve-violet-a-six-pans-bulle-very-thick-glass/322417690237?_trksid=p2045573.c100033.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140423084956%26meid%3D94cb3fe06a864135a5f4248911525233%26pid%3D100033%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D8%26sd%3D391699123921

at 9.6mm diameter at the rim it would be massive and uncomfortable to drink from - I've measured all my largest wine and beer glasses and none are anywhere near that.

comparison of sizes
         Amethyst                                               My green tumbler
  . Hauteur : 12,5 cm                                      9,8 cm (about 3 7/8" ish)
  . Diamètre à la base : 4,5 cm                        4,0 cm (about 1 9/16")
  . Diamètre col supérieur : 9,6 cm                  7,8 cm (just under 3 2/16")

my scales are dodgy but mine appears to weigh 400grms or just under 1lb

With a drink in you'd be hard pressed to lift the amethyst version  comfortably if it is made from the same glass density or weight, let alone drink from something that wide at the rim.  So, it must be a vase I would think.

m

[flying free]

see above re size comparison to the Amethyst versions.

This the size comparison to Neil's PV version:
' The two PV pictures are both of size 1/3 of a quart (they are two variations on a design). They also produced it in 1/5 quart and 1/12 pint size, which was the smallest.'

 A quart is 2 pints.  so
- 1/3 quart is 2/3 of a pint  or about 379ml
- 1/5 quart is 2/5 of a pint or about 227ml
- 1/12 pint is ... very small or about 47ml

mine holds 1/4 of a pint  or 175ml, which is much smaller than the top two PV sizesand much larger than the bottom size.

That is filling it absolutely to the top, assuming that when PV says 1/3 quart for example, they mean filled to the top.

So it doesn't fit the PV sizes.

m

[neilh]

Interesting comparison on the volume, I wonder if that helps to ID, if standard measures varied in different countries?

[flying free]

I reckon that amethyst one holds at least 227ml or 2/5 pint.

crude measuring using a Sowerby? vase but still.

So mine doesn't meet the PV criteria for size but do you know the sizes of the Molineux Webb one please at all Neil?

The shape of mine and the amethyst one is very different including the upstanding inset rim.  The amethyst lip/rim is upright whereas the rim on mine is everted.

Looking at the catalogue drawings the PV lip/rim is upright not everted. 
It is everted on the MW drawing.
I don't think the amethyst one matches the MW drawing.  The rim is wrong and the shoulders are too wide just before the upstanding indented rim.
Neither do I think it matches the PV drawing at all.


m

[neilh]

I don't know the size of the Molineaux Webb piece. The drawings in the Hautin catalog look precise but those in the Manchester catalogs are definitely rougher. I wouldn't get too hung up on if they match the Manchester drawings or not. The point is there are very few surviving catalogs which show pieces from this era. We are discussing 3, and they all show variations of quite a distinctive design. There could easily have been 20 or 30 glasshouses producing something like this. We will never know... "probably" is the best we can do for glass of this era. Personally I have given up identifying any goblet / ale glass as belonging to any particular glass house!

[flying free]

Shame there isn't a sizing reference for the MW pieces but thank you.

Are there lots of becher shapes on that MW page that match  in  shape and actual design (rather than just having one or other elements of the design) to those in the Launay Hautin catalogue pages then?  And are there examples of PV or Molineaux Webb uranium glass from that period?

It probably wouldn't doesn't matter as it's just a piece of pressed glass, but you don't see many uranium pressed glass bechers that match a shape in an 1840s catalogue, so it's a fairly unusual piece.  Therefore  I'm loathe to give up the idea that it's from a maker whose design it actually matches and who was known to be making uranium glass items at that time,  and to just say instead that it could be from anywhere 

I first saw these designs a long while ago whilst I was searching for a maker for an overlay goblet (that turned out to be Saint-Louis) and thought some of the becher designs were lovely.  But the few I found appeared to be in clear glass which is not what I was looking for.  So this was a great surprise to spot suddenly on ebay and sold as a vase.

m

[Anne Tique]

sold as a vase.

In France glasses from this period and style, footed or not, are often presented as 'vase à violettes'.

[neilh]

In the Molineaux Webb catalog virtually all the lowest numbered pieces are from the earliest days of pressed glass, and a few are close to identical to various items seen in Hautin and indeed in Boston & Sandwich designs. The plates interest me the most, you can have a look at the MW plates and compare to Hautin:

https://sites.google.com/site/molwebbhistory/Home/registered-designs/molineaux-webb-unregistered-pressed-glass/plates

There are many Manchester uranium pieces from the 1850s, 1840s remains unproven. Earliest known use of uranium in British glass dates to mid 1830s and the Birmingham factories were using it circa 1840 AFAIK.

Have a look at some early salts and drinking vessels below, I suspect you will find something similar to Boston & Sandwich and Hautin for a few of them... I don't want to put you off your attribution at all, you may well be right... just not in a court of law! 

[flying free]

Anne thank you for the pointer on the terminology.  That's very helpful

Neil yes those were the four I'd been looking at
I did a cursory check and couldn't find the same shapes and designs in the Launay Hautin catalogue though.
But if I have time later I will do a  proper cross check.

It only occurred to me because I have seen three or four times in the last few days, online comparisons where poster is showing a 'similar' item in a catalogue ... and to my eye the pieces don't look anything like the catalogue shapes or designs. 
All that jumps out at me are the distinct differences ... none of the similarities.
The only one that worked for me was the green goblet on PGK where you can see that it is exactly the same as the design drawing in the Launay Hautin catalogue.
But on the basis of what we are discussing, then even on that goblet one could then say, 'well hey, it might be exactly the same but it could have been made anywhere'. 

Extremely happy with my purchase but definitely going to continue to stick to blown glass 

m

[flying free]

I've checked the four 'bechers' (? we don't know what size they are and that could be a mitigating factor on what they are called given the size of the PV versions) from the MW catalogue that Neil put on the image above, against the Launay Hautin catalogues.

They are MW - 119., 104.,10/120 and 125. (125. on the right being the one similar in design and also similar in shape to my becher).


None of them feature in the 1840 or 1841 Launay Hautin catalogues in my opinion.

Certainly there is not a shape or design that is anything like 104. or  10/120. that I could see.



Becher 125. we have already discussed (the one similar to my becher)



With regard to 119. there is a similar becher in the Launay Hautin 1841 catalogue, which is no 2491 B on planche 80. 
http://www.glas-musterbuch.de/Launay-Hautin-1841.21+B6YmFja1BJRD0yMSZwcm9kdWN0SUQ9ODk0JnBpZF9wcm9kdWN0PTIxJmRldGFpbD0_.0.html
However the differences are:
- the lenses are rounded ovals on the Baccarat version rather than the squared ovals seen on the MW version
- the shape appears to me to be slightly wider at the top and more flared at the rim on the MW picture than that on the Launay Hautin

Now, it could be argued I am nit-picking, but there are other items in the Launay Hautin 1841 and 1840 catalogues that do depict the squared oval lenses seen on the MW version.  Just not on the becher 119. 
There are examples of these on planche 77 in both catalogues and they are 2415, 2414, and 2417.
http://www.glas-musterbuch.de/Launay-Hautin-1841.21+B6YmFja1BJRD0yMSZwcm9kdWN0SUQ9ODg3JnBpZF9wcm9kdWN0PTIxJmRldGFpbD0_.0.html
i.e. there is a distinction in the Launay Hautin catalogue and some items have the rounded oval lenses and some have the squared oval lenses.
From the MW drawings, becher 119. has the squared oval lenses, whereas the one in the catalogue has the rounded oval lenses.

So none of the four MW 'bechers' in my opinion match in both shape and design.



btw, I am not at all bothered if mine is MW or Baccarat - admittedly I'd be a little bit perturbed if I found out it was made yesterday though




I did notice there was a query on the MW site about the odd numbering system of the MW Catalogue.
I wonder if it is because the molds have come from different sources?  would that be relevant or is it equally random on the blown glass items?

m