Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. > British & Irish Glass
E.Varnish mercury glass with embossed seal, circa 1849
KevinH:
And a cople of other links for interest ...
W. Lund Ink Well
Varnish & Co Paperweight
KevinH:
Just for completeness ...
In Reply #25 Mike said:
--- Quote ---Re the number scratched on the bottom, if you look hard you should find the same number scratched on the 'plug', I believe it was a way of matching the two. ... There is more about this in Manley if anyone has a copy to hand.
--- End quote ---
And in Reply #35, Paul said, with regard to the numbers:
--- Quote ---P.S. don't think I have Manley any more, so don't know what he wrote about this material.
--- End quote ---
Having reviewed Manley's book for references to Varnish & Co etc., I can say that I saw no information about "matching numbers" relating to the "plug" used for Silvered Glass items.
So, Mike, were you thinking about a general reference to "bottles and their stoppers" or was it specific to "plugs"?
KevinH:
Another point to clarify:
From the source material I have been through, it seems that everyone takes it for granted that (Frederick) Hale Thomson was a partner to Edward Varnish, at least in 1849 when the Patent for [whatever] was granted. Is there anything to confirm that?
For example, In the Evans, Ross and Werner Whitefriars" book, it is stated in context of the Crystal Palace 1851 Exhibition:
--- Quote --- ... Mr Varnish and Mr Mellish, Hale Thomson's second collaborator ..."
--- End quote ---
This could suggest that we accept that Mr Varnish was Mr Thomson's first "collaborator" and all ties between Thomson and Varnish were broken when Thomson began collaborating with Mellish.
Put another way, do we know when the Hale Thomson impressed plug was first used and was it in collaboration with a) E Varnish b) Mr Mellish c) neither of the preceding?
From the information I have seen I am thinking that "a second Patent of 1850" taken out by Thomson was when his own embossed plug was used. But is that correct?
Lustrousstone:
Paul you are still confusing design and patent. Design merely concerns its form, patent is about what it is used for or how it is made, i.e., function NOT form.
Paul S.:
Dear Christine - obviously I misunderstood the implication of your words - please be gentle with me. ;)
Kevin - does the info. from C.H. - in my reply in post No. 35 - not help you with the matter of scratched Nos.?
Fieldings description of the maker/type of their 'W. Lund & Co. varnish glass ink well', is surprisingly poor, assuming it was in fact their choice of words - no point in contacting them as the item is no longer available, and they seem to have an aversion to replying to my to requests for information. Perhaps you are intended to fill the ink well with varnish? :)
Kevin's extract from Tallis's History etc. ... " which makes the claim that most of the glass was provided by "Messrs Powell & Co, Whitefriars", could well be the sort of comment that might start the ball rolling and make for permanent mis-attribution. Not that subsequent researchers all delve back into archives - rather it's the usual scenario whereby statements that sound as though they have some legitimacy of fact are simply repeated in later books etc.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version