Topic: Numbers scribbed on decanters

[Martyn1]

 Yes you are right.  The problem I see is that each person that I talk to has a different opinion as to what is old glass the other problem is whether what you are looking at is the real thing . I have shown one 3 ring decanter with a number on to one antique glass dealer and he stated 1830s. Another antique glass dealer called it victorian.

[Paul S.]

after a while it becomes apparent that there many collectors and dealers who are obviously genuinely unaware of the extent to which patterns/styles have been copied over the past two centuries, and a mid C19 copy of an C18 bottle will often acquire as much wear as the original.       All compounded by the fact that internet sales - for the sort of glass we're speaking of - frequently has glass attributed with unreliable dating.

I think most people would agree with John's comments as to the reason for matching Nos., though surprisingly there are some good quality bottles out there that for whatever reason are un-numbered  -  normally, there's no difficulty in sensing when a stopper doesn't match.

The offer is still on the table for people here to post pix of their bottles - with matching Nos. - that are undeniably pre 1850.

[Martyn1]

I took my number 5 marked decanter to another dealer  on worcester yesterday. The dealer had been selling glass for over thirty years.  He told me that the decanter is a common type dated to c 1830 - 1835. He had no doubts about it dating to this period. He also explained that numbers on these are actually quite commonly found but are often mistakenly dismissed as being victorian.  He showed me a BADA certified decanter also of the 1830s with a  matching number on the lip and the stopper. The numbers appear to have been used prior to the victorian period.

[Paul S.]

glad to hear you're taking your bottles out for walkies  -  did you ask him Martyn how then do we tell the difference between a William the IV example and a much later Victorian or even 1920s bottle  -  all of the same appearance? 

[Martyn1]

Yes to some extend.  He told me to look at tree sharpness of the cutting as later ones are usually polished and smoother.  Grey or smoky tones are a good sign as are presence of inclusions.  Irregularity of cutting is also a sign of more primitive techniques.  He showed me a victorian period one and it was much brighter and tree cutting was smoother.  It does not sound an raft science though.

[Paul S.]

thanks Martyn  -  my personal thoughts on your dealer's comment are ....................

For British lead based cut glass material there should be a noticeable sharpness on almost all examples up until the first or second decade of the C20, when it became the norm to use acid to speed up the process of removing the grinding marks from within the mitres etc.             This use of acid on cut glass, was a C20 innovation and completely separate from the C19 practice of using an acid mix of hydrofluoric/sulphuric, as practiced by the cameo workers and intaglio engravers.

As for the colour or hue of the glass, I've noticed there are people who will swear blind that some early C19 glass is found with a clear white appearance, but as I've thought often, I'd rather have a nod toward a leaden hue rather than something that's too bright/white.    But here my comments are rather subjective, and I can't substantiate, with provenance, my thoughts one way or the other  -  but I sense there might be more pieces out there, originating in the early C19, that have a grey tone rather than white/bright. 

Irregularity of cutting is a very good point, and I'd go with this suggestion as being on of the better pointers to age.

Unfortunately, in the 1920s there was a renaissance/passion for olde worlde styles, and if you read McConnell's entry for Mrs. Graydon-Stannus  - for example - it's frightening to see the extent such copyists went to in order to produce C20 glass that looked more like C18 glass, than C18 glass actually did.          Hers was perhaps an extreme example - the lady was a forger who set out to deceive, deliberately  -  but there have been other C20 makers such as W/Fs., E & L., and Walsh, who made 'Georgian style' glass, in the C20, on an industrial scale - much of it tinted or coloured to make the copy more akin to the originals.
Hill-Ouston's reproductions in the 1930s replicated the Bristol Blue and amethyst colours on Georgian patterns on a massive scale, much of which was apparently sold in the States  -  so, you can imagine the problems that material is now causing.

To quote McConnell again  …...…...…..""Most British fine glassworks made extensive ranges of 'Georgian' reproduction wares between 1900 and 1939.""

With respect to your dealer in Worcester, I'd still maintain that differentiating between originals and copies of the material we've been discussing is more difficult that is imagined.

[Martyn1]

 Thanks Paul.  I'm sure that you are right and more experienced than myself.  There must still be thousands of real ones out there.  It is probably the case that some real early ones have been dismissed and vice versa.  I used to collect German militaria and still lots of it. There was a scare a while back when a book was published. This book stated that certain versions of the RZM inspection mark were fake. People disposed of loads of good pieces fearing that they were fake. Items were then seen in museums which had had them since the end of WW2 proving them to be genuine.  Eurgh this in mind I may never truely know which of my decanters  are early but hopefully some of them are.  I will just appreciate them for what they are; nice looking items and possibly quite historic