In my reply #305 I mentioned the ruby glass and questioned whether it was made by English makers or was it exhibited by English makers and retailers but actually a Bohemian import (see quote below).
In 1845 in the Art Union Journal (April) page 100 there is mention of a coloured glass Chandelier being made at Apsley Pellatt.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t_c9AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA135&dq=Mr+Powell+%26+co+whitefriars+patent+double+glass&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3vsGxk9vjAhWnTxUIHSTkDSM4ChDoAQg1MAM#v=onepage&q=glass&f=falseThe author talks about it having been designed by the School of Design in Somerset House.
The author says they have seen it in bits but not assembled. The article goes on to mention it having coloured glass drops and speculates what the refraction and reflection will be like once it is fully up and illuminated.
Is it possible that this is the Alhambra chandelier shown by Pellatt at the Great Exhibition in 1851? According to Tallis it was red white and blue.
I wonder if the coloured drops were Bohemian glass? Especially the red ones.
Indeed in page 704 of this link to the Official Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue volume 2 of the Great Exhibition,the description given by Pellatt of coloured glass and how it is made, references Bontemps and is written in such a way that it reads as though he has not made those experiments in coloured glass himself. Imho.
(I have his book but haven't cross referenced what is written in this link with the book yet).
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lLgXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA701&dq=falcon+glassworks+ruby+glass&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxn9eUpNvjAhWwQEEAHSYvDb0Q6AEIVzAJ#v=onepage&q=falcon%20glassworks%20ruby%20glass&f=falseThe glass tax was repealed in 1845.
Near the beginning of that discussion, the author mentions they have seen ruby glass 'equal to the best Bohemian specimens'. In 1845? That's curious because in an 1862 report of the 1862 exhibition, where the author was reflecting on the British ruby glass it was slated as being too thin and if made more intense it became 'brick dust red'. A brown I guess.
(This type of brown colour can also be seen on a piece in a book by Walthraud Neuwirth, Farbenglas I (red and blue glass) where a piece is shown which was not made correctly - overcooked on reheating or something I cannot recall now- and it is liver coloured). Which is one demonstration of how difficult it was to make red glass.
To balance my scepticism, in an article entitled ' GLASS FURNITURE IN THE 19TH CENTURY ' the Corning show a ruby vase made at the Russian Imperial Glass Manufactory and dated c.1829 :
https://www.cmog.org/article/glass-furniture-19th-centuryHowever, reading further in that Corning article, they mention that the Alhambra chandelier was not illustrated and also not noted or discussed by reporters. NOTE - They also say it was the ONLY coloured piece in the firm's display.
Call me cynical but ...
Had it been in bits since 1845? Were the reporters aware that the coloured drops were not made by Pellatt? Is that why it was not reported on? Why the secrecy over the 'only coloured glass' in Pellatt's entire display?
On another subject, further into The Art Union Journal April 1845 article the author also talks about 'vitrified colours'. That's interesting - does that give us a date for Richardson's and Bacchus glass that has 'vitrified' written on the bottom of it maybe?
Middle column second paragraph down is the start of that discussion:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t_c9AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA135&dq=Mr+Powell+%26+co+whitefriars+patent+double+glass&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3vsGxk9vjAhWnTxUIHSTkDSM4ChDoAQg1MAM#v=onepage&q=glass&f=false 
thank you.
However, I suspect I've not really added anything that gets this much further.
I've a controversial suggestion re the red glass used by British makers. Were the pieces they showed at the Great Exhibition actually blown by them? Or were they finished/refined by them having been blown elsewhere? And were the pieces with small amounts of red on them actually from their own red pots, or were they somehow produced as pieces of red elsewhere for use in smelting and then using? Is that a thing? Is it possible to do that? I think from what I've read that it might be but open to correction here.
If they were blown by them then that would have required the British glassmakers to have been running pots for red.
If gold ruby then a) it was very expensive to produce b) it required very careful production and the knowledge of reheating to bring out the red iirc and c) I would have thought they might have been publicising their very special gold ruby glass somewhere?
If it was copper ruby red then again not an easy process I don't think. ( I know Egermann introduced this in the 1840s and his experiments and recipes were stolen from what I recall reading).
So that would mean that just a few years later than Egermann introduced copper ruby glass casing, after the repeal of the British excise laws, in a country where much of the glass had been and still was clear glass production , where Apsley Pellatt appears to have made no reference to them (again open to correction if I have missed something) producing their own red glass in his book dated 1849 (and I have another question over the red droplets used in the Pellatt Alhambra Chandelier for the Great Exhibition), and also where Hardman was having difficulty obtaining a decent red from Birmingham makers (but that might be because he wanted something specific for stained windows admittedly), there were British makers producing red glass decanters and goblets etc from their own red glass pots.
That's major progress in a very short period of time. Or it seems so to me but I have no knowledge of the chemistry of glass colour development 
Topic: E.Varnish mercury glass with embossed seal, circa 1849 (Read 108475 times)
