Topic: Drinking glasses with gadget marks

[Jeffingtons]

In answer to Paul's request to see more 19th century glasses
with gadget marks to the base, here's three of mine.

Left to right in the first image is the order of the bases.

1) T shaped mark
2) has the very faint remains of a gadget mark, probably t shaped. This has so much wear around the bowl, it must have had a hard working life, probably where it ribbed up against other glasses on the shelf I guess.
3) has a swirl shaped mark. Mostly Ts and Ys seem to get mentioned in reference to gadget marks. This is the only swirl I've seen.  I've also seen one or two J shapes in the past. It's a surprisingly heavy glass with a thick bowl. I don't think it's quite thick enough to be a deceptive dram glass though.

[Lustrousstone]

Those are shear marks, not gadget marks: where the gob of glass for the foot was cut off

[Ekimp]

Hi, this topic http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,56058.0.html describes gadget marks. Despite information to the contrary in various places, it turns out that gadget marks are actually marks on the top of the foot.

[Jeffingtons]

Those are shear marks, not gadget marks: where the gob of glass for the foot was cut off

Ah, thanks Christine. I'm still learning about these. So are these shear marks related to the gadget process? Or have I completed misunderstood gadget mark references I've been reading?

[Paul S.]

Christine is correct, and these appear to be shears marks which are found on the underside of the foot only  -  the well known T and Y shaped marks  -  although sometimes the mark will appear as a swirl shape - perhaps the gob was twisted away from the foot.              The true gadget mark is only ever found on the upper side of the foot, and for whatever reason they appear to be found/seen only very rarely

Because of the apparent scarcity of drinking glasses showing evidence of the use of the gadget  -  and in the absence of such marks  -  it's impossible to say whether a glass was finished by means of the gadget, or not, since workers were very clever at hiding/obliterating the rather large impression on the top of the foot.            We're talking here of glasses made approximately between 1830 - 1920.
Wilkinson suggests the gadget appears c. 1830, but he's less keen in telling us when he considers it mostly ceased, thougth he looks to be indicating beginning of the C20.
It's wise generally to be a little open minded with some of the dates quoted for trade practices within the glass trade, and some leeway  -  as with the use of acid backstamps -  is better than being too rigid with dates.

I've really no idea as to a date period for the shears marks - possibly third quarter C19 to well on toward the end of the C20 - if the glass is hand made of course.               Machine made glasses will not show any sign of the T or Y marks.

[Jeffingtons]

Christine is correct, and these appear to be shears marks which are found on the underside of the foot only  -  the well known T and Y shaped marks.             The true gadget mark is only ever found on the upper side of the foot, and for whatever reason they appear to be found/seen only very rarely

Because of the apparent scarcity of drinking glasses showing evidence of the use of the gadget  -  and in the absence of such marks  -  it's impossible to say whether a glass was finished by means of the gadget, or not, since workers were very clever at hiding/obliterating the rather large impression on the top of the foot.            We're talking here of glasses made approximately between 1830 - 1920.
Wilkinson suggests the gadget appears c. 1830, but he's less keen in telling us when he considers it mostly ceased, thougth he looks to be indicating beginning of the C20.
It's wise generally to be a little open minded with some of the dates quoted for trade practices within the glass trade, and some leeway  -  as with the use of acid backstamps -  is better than being too rigid with dates.

I've really no idea as to a date period for the shears marks - possibly third quarter C19 to well on toward the end of the C20 - if the glass is hand made of course.               Machine made glasses will not show any sign of the T or Y marks.

Thanks Paul
So your point on Y and T marks not being machine made, does the same apply for Js and swirls shear marks.

[Paul S.]

Quite probably, though don't think I'm familiar with J marks   -  a machine finished bottom often appears as a small rounded, symmetrically  smooth bump (or at the very least extremely smooth and without any marks).                   Anything that looks as though the surface of the underside of the foot shows a disturbance of the glass surface whilst plastic, will be hand finished.
Bit of an irony really, that glasses - such as the very clean lines of the drawn stem on the other post - which lack knops, pontil scars and other hallmarks  -  are more difficult to date than those with such features. 

[Jeffingtons]

So armed with the info from this thread and the one Ekimp shared,  I've taken a look at the top of those three glasses. The middle glass in particular has a clear anomaly. Is this a gadget mark. The surface in this area has an uneven mottled texture.

[Paul S.]

well, who's the lucky boy then   -  IMHO, yes, this does appear to show the impression left by a gadget, and if you feel the upper surface of this foot you should find that the area within the 'horseshoe' appearance is very slightly raised from the area outside that impression.
It isn't so much the uneven mottle texture, but it's the horseshow shape surrounding the base of the stem, plus that extra projection out toward the rim of the foot, which as said should feel slightly raised from the rest of the foot surface.
If you have a copy of Wilkinson, or can borrow a copy, you'll see exactly how my description matches the shape of the iron gadget when in position and holding the foot of the glass. 

Think I've knowingly only ever found two at the most.

[Jeffingtons]

Thanks again Paul. It's been an educational day 😁