Topic: E.Varnish mercury glass with embossed seal, circa 1849

[flying free]

To add to my comments in my last post.
This is a report from the Exhibition in 1862.(see link at bottom)

 A couple of comments stand out (again given the tone and the way this report is written from much of what I've read):

Firstly on page 109 bottom left, a description of ruby glass (1862) and how there were no makers to match that of Austrian ruby glass
quote:
'the fault of the English being either a thinness of colour, or when greater depth is obtained, purity is lost, and the charming ruby is represented by a semi-opaque brick-dust red.'

and

on page 112

'In 1851, English makers were, with few exceptions, far behind the foreign makers in glass, although the works of the latter were only ornamental in style'  (I've no idea what they mean by that last comment given the sheer tonnage amount of exported glass by Bohemia for example at that time).


Even by 1862 the report doesn't make it sound as though Powell & Co could have in 1851 produced gold ruby glass to make those goblets.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zp0DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA215&dq=great+exhibition+1862+bohemian+glass&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEuozbrM7jAhXIBGMBHRiwAKIQ6AEIVDAI#v=onepage&q=%20bohemian%20glass&f=false

[flying free]

Interested to know what anyone thinks about this piece marked E. Varnish patent etc on the plug on the base.

It is a clear glass double walled goblet, cut, chunky, with the interior done in gilt (?) .  Well, it looks like the interior is done in gilt because there appears to be a little wear right at the bottom but that might be an optical illusion.  The exterior is silver obviously because the entire piece is clear glass.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/183772943336

The rim is also cut but in a different way to the OP's.  Interestingly in one of the reports I read of either the Great Exhibition or the one in 1862, the authors bemoaned the fact that the Bohemians cut the rims of their vases (bechers also perhaps?) in a notched fashion and said it was to cover up their poor quality rim cutting or words to that effect.  This could imply that English glass would have straight rims and that Bohemian glass would be known for cut rims.





Also this one - that green is remarkably similar to the one from that blog report marked Varnish - i.e. it almost glows but isn't uranium glass.
This one is  marked Germany:

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/large-antique-green-mercury-glass-493448088

[flying free]

AHA! Were these goblets mould blown?

 Thinking about it perhaps it was this patent that put the cat amongst the pigeons in the court case and might now put the cat amongst the pigeons -
I mentioned this patent here https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,65670.msg380816.html#msg380816

but on re-reading it,
it might explain why Thomson was insisting it was he that came up with the idea of the double walled blown glass in the court case.
It might also explain how the goblets were made with so perfect a pontil cut.

do read on  - it does get interesting



On 7 May 1851 (so that was the year of the Great Exhibition and I think at the time Mellish and Thomson parted company iirc from the court case) Mellish patented a double walled glass design.
That Mellish patent was Patent no 13624. 

It purports to be about reflectors but that they were double walled so they could be silvered inside.
 
BUT!

It also describes two concave walled pieces of glass and the silvering of the concave side of one and the convex of the other, united by a circular metal rim to which a holder may be attached.

AND!

in addition, the most illuminating part of this patent is part 5.  It talks about blowing glass into moulds in segments and leaving an opening at the smaller end of each segment for the introduction of the silvering material, and the edges of the segments are bevelled off so as to overlap each other. 

Could it be that that sounds like a mould blown goblet with a small perfect hole left in the bottom once put together, so that it could be silvered?

And then the beautifully perfect hole closed with a metal tab and a glass cover? 

Could it be why the bases of the Varnish glasses are scratched with matching numbers on the glass pontil cover and the bottom of the goblet? 

Could it be that cutters at the Berners Street workshop were cutting small glass discs to match the bottom of the goblet pontil hole? 

Could it be that the reason they patented a wire to cut holes from glass was so they were actually able to cut small glass discs, which they could not do on a lathe?

I mention the perfection of the hole because it is mentioned in literature about how well the English Varnish glass is finished at the pontil hole compared to the later Bohemian examples

See page 221.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XWoiqpY8dZ0C&pg=PA221&dq=mellish+silvered+glass&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj549TIo9DjAhViqnEKHSRyDQg4FBDoAQhDMAY#v=onepage&q=mellish%20silvered%20glass&f=false

[flying free]

I found that patent in :
Source reference - Patents for Inventions, Abridgement of Specifications relating to Lamps,Candlesticks, Chandeliers and other Illuminating Apparatus 1871


And this is the part of the court case where Mr Hale Thomson seemed anxious to impress upon them that HE had invented the double wall idea.  I wondered why he was so insistent about it.  So the fact that Mellish had lodged that patent might be why he and Mellish parted company:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,65670.msg368104.html#msg368104


It's also very curious that Mellish and Varnish apparently parted company with Hale Thomson in May 1851 at the start of the Great Exhibition.  Then at the Great Exhibition both Mellish and Varnish exhibited, Mellish with Des and Prod after his name in the report, and Varnish with Pat after his name which would be correct given Mellish was apparently doing some sort of design and apparently overseeing the production, and Varnish had his name on one half of  the patent. 

Poor Mr Hale Thomson seems to have been embezzled out of everything, from what I have read.  Not only by Mellish but also perhaps by Varnish?  He seems to have received no profit from all this work and his ideas. And he was the one to put up all the funding and pay all the 'manipulated' wage bills, and the bills to the glassmakers.

[flying free]

French Patent 14 years long for Mr Varnish dated 7 March 1850.  It is only under his name.

I found this documentation - I think I'm right that the source says it was for a French Patent for Mr Varnish.

The first photo is the source it came from.
The second is the header of the Chapter it was under.
The third is Mr Varnish's patent showing what it was for, that it registered 7 Mar for 14 years.

Does this mean France were precluded from making silvered glass for 14 years I wonder, using this method?

Mr Drayton had passed his patent to M. Tourasse, but it was for a silver solution iirc that didn't work (contained something which caused it to get brown spots)

Hale Thomson's patent silver was next which seemed to correct that problem.

Then came Petit Jean a good few years later with a different solution.

So I am wondering if nothing could be made with Mr Hale Thomson's silver and Varnish's patent for 14 years from 1850 in France? 

Where does that leave Bohemia in making the glass goblets and vases? 

Presumably the patents were registered in France because they were a major source of flat silvered glass making by 1850  - reflectors, mirrors etc.

No mention in any info found so far, of going to Germany or Austria for Drayton or Hale Thomson or Varnish.  Just Belgium, Paris and Stourbridge for Hale Thomson and Varnish.



Detailed information here on the history of patents and how they were applied, covering the period discussed in this thread:

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/an-economic-history-of-patent-institutions/

[flying free]

From the patent system link I gave above, I took the following quote.  I wonder how, based on these costs, Mellish registered his patent just after he left partnership with Hale Thomson after what seemed to be a row? Was he rich ... or did he somehow manage to accumulate quite a lot of money working for Hale Thomson? Interesting he was found Not Guilty of 'adapting' the invoices in the court cases    And interesting that Hale Thomson maintained he saw no profit on his vases and goblets and other items of silvered glass after they'd been sold through his shop run by Mellish and his wife.

'The British patent system established significant barriers in the form of prohibitively high costs that limited access to property rights in invention to a privileged few. Patent fees for England alone amounted to £100-£120 ($585) or approximately four times per capita income in 1860. The fee for a patent that also covered Scotland and Ireland could cost as much as £350 pounds ($1,680). Adding a co-inventor was likely to increase the costs by another £24. '

[flying free]

With reference my post #310:

I'm attaching a photograph of the comments on page 109 for reference. Came from the Guide to the 1862 Exhibition

To add to my comments in my last post.
This is a report from the Exhibition in 1862.(see link at bottom)

 A couple of comments stand out (again given the tone and the way this report is written from much of what I've read):

Firstly on page 109 bottom left, a description of ruby glass (1862) and how there were no makers to match that of Austrian ruby glass
quote:
'the fault of the English being either a thinness of colour, or when greater depth is obtained, purity is lost, and the charming ruby is represented by a semi-opaque brick-dust red.'

and

on page 112

'In 1851, English makers were, with few exceptions, far behind the foreign makers in glass, although the works of the latter were only ornamental in style'  (I've no idea what they mean by that last comment given the sheer tonnage amount of exported glass by Bohemia for example at that time).


Even by 1862 the report doesn't make it sound as though Powell & Co could have in 1851 produced gold ruby glass to make those goblets.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zp0DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA215&dq=great+exhibition+1862+bohemian+glass&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEuozbrM7jAhXIBGMBHRiwAKIQ6AEIVDAI#v=onepage&q=%20bohemian%20glass&f=false

[flying free]

I'd forgotten about this post.
It contains an interesting view although it might just be the view of the antiques person who was helping the OP:

'... the train of thought being that this was a trial/sample piece as the form of the glass is also unknown.'


This post from OP contains a photo of the piece in question:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,65670.msg367271.html#msg367271

Update for those interested

Antique house has confirmed incised initials/mark with further investigation going on this coming week via Christies, Bonhams and the V&A the train of thought being that this was a trial/sample piece as the form of the glass is also unknown.

If anyone has anymore information regarding this form, please leave me a message.

Many thanks
Andrew

[flying free]

BTW in my research meanderings I came across a letter dated I think 1856 from Michael Faraday in reply to someone asking about silvered glass.  Faraday mentioned Petitjean in that letter and that he then remembered that R.W. Swinburne had done something with Petitjean's patent and was enclosing two silvered watch glasses for the recipient to keep.  He said they weren't the best example or words to that effect but were done early on in or again, words to that effect.
So there was an even later link with R. W. Swinburne silvering glass.

 I think there might have been quite a few exhibitors including those with chandeliers on exhibition, that had pieces made using this Hale Thomson process, at the Great Exhibition. 

3)  This is another photograph of the previous page in the Great Exhibition Catalogue.

It shows a company called R. W. Swinburne - pp125

it mentions silvered glass (though I have no idea if it was silvered using a similar process to the Varnish process)
Click here to view

Just a thought because Varnish mentions they showed 'Reflectors' in silvered glass so perhaps a company that could make industrial type equipment as well made their glass?
And if you read through Swinburne's production they look like a possible candidate for making Varnish silvered glass maybe?

Interestingly there was a link between Swinburne and Chance Glass (see link on GMB here)
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,18417.msg106531.html#msg106531

Worth reading.  He seems to have gone out of circulation for a bit at some points? maybe at the point where the Varnish glass stopped being made?  Just assumptions and surmises by the way!  Don't want to see these surmises quoted as facts anywhere 

[flying free]

My comment here on this linked reply shows an advertisement saying silvered items had been accepted by Louis Napoleon at the  Parisian Fetes . This  might be why the silvered wares are in the Conservatoire National des Arts et Mêtiers, Paris.
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,65670.msg380811.html#msg380811

The fetes were described in this book about why the Prince Consort could not attend.  They were in 1851. I think they were in August 1851.
See page 386.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=j2vC7AX8f6wC&pg=PA388&dq=parisian+fetes+1851&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiC9uWj3djjAhUSlFwKHcklD9IQ6AEIRDAF#v=onepage&q=parisian%20fetes%201851&f=false

and in this report of the Commissioners from the Great Exhibition, from those who did visit the Paris Fete it talks about how they also visited the Conservatoire (Appendix c page 56):

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xZdDAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA54&dq=paris+fetes+1851&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw6ayr39jjAhWWEMAKHW_KCmcQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=paris%20fetes%201851&f=false

In the 1978 book: Victorian Table Glass and Ornaments, [ISBN 0 214 20551 7] by Barbara Morris (at that time Deputy Keeper of Ceramics at the V&A Museum), chapter 2, pp 31-40 cover "Coloured and Silvered Glass". There is coverage of basic information relating to Thomson / Varnish / Mellish / Lund. There are three plates showing examples of Silvered wares.

The statement, "... probably made by James Powell & Sons of Whitefriars" is given but there is no reference to Tallis's comments for the 1851 Great Exhibition, although that was probably the source of the statement.

The chapter ends with a paragraph covering "Drayton's process ... introduced about 1850". A quote from the Art Journal 1 February 1853 is given, beginning  "... an ingenious mode of silvering glass ...".

What is perhaps new to us here is a company name: Plate 14 on page 33 shows three silvered glass items "acquired in 1851 from the Silvered Glass Company". One item has the "Varnish" plug and the other two have "Thompson's". Location of the items: Conservatoire National des Arts et Mêtiers, Paris

Do we already have a reference to the Silvered Glass Company?

In fact the Advert appears in the Quarterly Review dated September 1851.  Could it be that it is an advert from Hale Thomson as he and Varnish and he and Mellish had parted company in May 1851.
An indication that he was still selling his silvered glass items in September 1851.