Topic: Info on James Powell Topaz glass - "The Queen Victoria Topaz bowl"

[flying free]

Tim, a question re your posts on the first page of this thread:

'M, there is a little bit more about the James Powell topaz glass in the big Whitefriars book.
Whitefriars glass,James Powell & sons of London.
Have you got the info you need or should i add some more to your post?
Tim'

and


question is, is the book you are paraphrasing/referencing from here - is it the  Whitefriars Glass: James Powell and Sons book, the one published by the Museum of London?

Just wondering because the link I originally gave to the bowl that said it was by James Powell & Sons was a link to the Museum of London. 
Then the link disappeared. 
But I managed to find it referenced to the Museum of London on this memoryprints site:
http://www.memoryprints.com/image/142383/james-powell-and-sons-whitefriars-ltd-finger-bowl-in-topaz-glass-1837



And of course we now know the bowl is at the V&A with their information saying it was made at Davenports.


So I wonder if Barrie Skelcher's information in the Big Book of Vaseline Glass published 2002 maybe came from the Museum of London information or that Whitefriars Glass:  James Powell & Sons book from the Museum of London which was published in 1995?

Obviously the information in that book regarding this particular bowl now seems to have been surpassed by the new information from the V&A saying the bowl was made by Davenports.


If this is the case then I think the question of James Powell and Sons making this uranium glass bowl might be questioned as it may have stemmed from that book information perhaps.

Which leaves the question -  If this bowl was indeed presented/used at the Guild banquet, were Davenports  making uranium glass in 1837?

With reference my question above:

There is some information online from Barrie Skelcher, regarding this bowl on the penultimate page on this link:
http://www.glassassociation.org.uk/sites/default/files/Uranium_Glass_sample_article.pdf

Barrie Skelcher says in this article
Quote - Source 'Uranium Glass by Barrie Skelcher' - found online with link above

'No review of uranium glass could be complete without including the London glasshouse, Whitefriars,
which was acquired by James Powell and Sons in
1834. As far as I can establish, it was the first in the country to use uranium in commercial
manufacture. The Whitefriars archives, held by the Museum of London, record that in 1836 some
silver mounted candlesticks with prismatic drops of uranium Topaz glass made by Whitefriars were
presented by Lord Howe to Queen Adelaide. The following year Whitefriars made twelve finger bowls
and twenty-four hock glass bowls for use at the 1837 Corporation of London Banquet for Queen
Victoria (Plate 14). I have had the opportunity to measure the uranium level in three of the bowls. The
results are consistent with the formula in an early Whitefriars batch book. It is likely that Whitefriars
used uranium to produce other colours and shades, but the only one I have identified is their pale
straw opal items where I estimate the uranium content to be about 0.1% by wt.'

[flying free]

I think I might have got to the bottom of this.

This is long - bear with me.  It's a possible explanation of why assumptions have been made that this uranium glass  bowl was made in England and also by Whitefriars.  In conclusion, I think it has all been based on assumptions/possible mis-reading of information available,  and I do not believe this bowl was made in England by an English glassmaker in 1837. 


1)   I mentioned Cornwall mines producing uranium earlier in this thread.  I decided to search a bit further.
 In searching I came across a book written in 1817 by H.C. Gill called ‘An Historical Survey of the County of Cornwall’ where he mentioned uranium being found in pitchblende in mines there.  He mentions in his book, in that chapter, that it is used for colouring glass and gives the colours as Apple Green, Brown and Emerald Green.  See page 269
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_Historical_Survey_of_the_County_of_Co/fflRAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=an+historical+survey+of+the+county+of+cornwall+uranium&pg=PA269&printsec=frontcover

2)  It seems this information had already been found in the glassworld as in
Journal of Glass Studies
Vol. 37 (1995), pp. 140-145 (6 pages)
Published By: Corning Museum of Glass

I came across an article by F. Peter Lole, Didsbury Manchester, who mentions this book by HC Gill and the information on uranium in the book.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24190783
F. Peter Lole, by my reading of his article, makes the assumption that H.C. Gill is familiar with glassmaking because of the way Gill mentions the glass making in his chapter but then makes no further recommendations as to the use of the pitchblende.
It is my opinion that Lole’s article also implies or seems to make a connection with uranium glassmaking in England at that time. Or at least that the way he's written his information could be 'misconstrued' like that.

I wondered whether actually H. C. Gill was not in fact familiar with glassmaking at all, but had read that information about the uranium glass colours elsewhere in earlier literature and so included it in his book in ‘passing’ if you like.
However, as Lole did, I also wondered why Gill mentioned the pitchblende mines as he didn’t give any other explanation for it’s use.

3)   I then came across a long article written in 1917 (see page 165 and 166)
copyright 1915 Society of Economic Geologists, Inc. Economic Geology, v.10, pp161-171
https://www.aditnow.co.uk/documents/RESUGGA-Mine/South-Terras.pdf
The Pitchblende of Cornwall, England – R.A.F. Penrose Jr.

It seemed to me Penrose was intimating that Pitchblende was a substance that miners/smelters did not want due to it’s ‘nature and prejudice to copper ores’ , therefore the reason for including it in Gill’s book might have been so it was known which mines produced pitchblende and therefore were ‘not valued/useful’ at that point. 
I may have misunderstood this, but anyway because of my understanding of reading the Penrose article, it led me to investigate further.


I wondered whether Gill had ‘paraphrased’ his casual info on the use of Uranium in glass producing Apple green, Brown and Emerald green from somewhere else.



4)   So I looked back to see if there was information earlier than the 1817 of Gill’s book, from Klaproth.

According to The Estimation of Uranium in Colored Glasses , Sheilagh Murray and John Haggith, pp184
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24188153
In 1786, M. H. Klaproth Professor of Chemistry at the University of Berlin, isolated from pitchblende a new substance called uranium.

This led me onto finding the Pantalogica dated 1813 (i.e .4 years prior to Gill’s book and written whilst Klaproth was still alive (d.1817):

Pantalogica Vol VII U- ZYT   dated 1813   - Printed by T. Davison, Lombard-Street, Whitefriars
Under ‘URA Uranium’
It discusses M Klaproth and uranium oxide and colours and in writing out Klaproth’s actual mixtures it mentions the colours ‘apple green, brown and emerald green’:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Pantologia/Jco6AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+glass+finger+glass&pg=PP200&printsec=frontcover



Conclusion
a)   I surmise that F. Peter Lole’s possible assumption, that H. C. Gill writing of Cornish mines in 1817 knew something about uranium glass being produced, was probably not correct. 

b)     I think Gill had read the information from Klaproth and copied/re-wrote it in his book as a descriptor for what the Pitch blende could be used for in the absence of anything else.

c)   Please also take good note of where the Pantalogica dated 1813 with the information in it from Klaproth regarding the use of Uranium oxide in glass was printed!  It was printed  by T. Davison, Lombard-Street, Whitefriars
  So this MIGHT go some way to explaining the assumption that this bowl was made by Whitefriars?

[Anne]

This article says Powell bought the glassworks in 1834 https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/guides/collecting-guides/whitefriars-glass/ as does Ivo Haanstra in his Glass Fact File a-z and even the Museum of London's own website says 1834, so I think the date in the film must be an error.

[flying free]

I've just posted a long post above yours Anne.
Thank you for confirming the date in the film is probably wrong.

I still believe the Whitefriars as maker is probably wrong.  My long post above yours explains why.

And if ... there is some hard factual information that James Powell produced those topaz uranium glass finger bowls in 1837 then why would the V&A have them down as made by Davenport?
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport--co/

[flying free]

Anne can you have a read of my long post and see if you follow my thinking please?

Thanks if you can - much appreciated.
m

[essi]

Fantastic work M. not sure if it would help but if you are anywhere near the Oxford area of the UK i would lend you the big Whitefriars book.
Tim

[flying free]

Thank you Tim.  And thank you for the offer of a loan of the book.  Sadly I'm nowhere near.  I may try and order from the library though just to have a read though.

I've also just noted Barrie Skelcher's careful wording in his article.  He says 36 BOWLS were made, 12 were Finger bowls (I presume these were finger rinsers) and 24 were Hock Glass bowls (I presume these were wine glass rinsers).  He doesn't say they were uranium glass.  So who put two and two together and determined that the 36 bowls referred to were uranium glass bowls? and who determined that that particular V&A bowl was part of that 36 bowl set mentioned?  How is it actually written in the Whitefriars James Powell archives?  Is it written that they were uranium glass or is it just written in the archives that they supplied 12 Fingers bowls and 24 Hock Glass bowls to the Guildhall banquet?


No review of uranium glass could be complete without including the London glasshouse, Whitefriars,
which was acquired by James Powell and Sons in
1834. As far as I can establish, it was the first in the country to use uranium in commercial
manufacture. The Whitefriars archives, held by the Museum of London, record that in 1836 some
silver mounted candlesticks with prismatic drops of uranium Topaz glass made by Whitefriars were
presented by Lord Howe to Queen Adelaide.

 The following year Whitefriars made twelve finger bowls
and twenty-four hock glass bowls for use at the 1837 Corporation of London Banquet for Queen
Victoria (Plate 14).

I have had the opportunity to measure the uranium level in three of the bowls. The
results are consistent with the formula in an early Whitefriars batch book. It is likely that Whitefriars
used uranium to produce other colours and shades, but the only one I have identified is their pale
straw opal items where I estimate the uranium content to be about 0.1% by wt.'

And anyway, it all comes back to my earlier comment that IF there is hard factual information that Whitefriars James Powell & Sons produced these bowls, why would the V&A have them down as made at Davenports?

The question of whether Davenports were capable of making them in 1837 remains to be seen.  I don't believe so.

[flying free]

I reply 111, point 4) the source should read Pantologia  - apologies.

[flying free]

Banquet in the Guildhall Crypt in July 1851 for Queen Victoria:

Painting here of table settings

https://www.rct.uk/collection/920217/banquet-in-the-crypt-of-the-guildhall-at-the-city-of-london-ball-9-july-1851

[Ekimp]

It’s surprising how much information is available if you know where to look, I don’t know how you do it. Some thoughts on your long post #111, for what they’re worth:

Your logic coming to conclusions ‘a’ and ‘b’ looks good to me, but I wasn’t too sure about conclusion ‘c’.

If someone had read the Pantologia or Gill’s book and thought they were talking about Whitefriars (due to the address of the publisher of the Pantologia) does it matter? They were published in 1813 and 1817, so 20 years before the rinsers in question - those publications were history.

In reply #4 essi paraphrasing from the Whitefriars book said  ‘In the glasshouse recipe book covering 1831 to 1838 it records some trials of various colouring oxides. One of these trials was with oxide of uranium....’ So the fact that they were experimenting with uranium oxide between 1831 to 1838 seems documented. Presumably that ‘recipe book’ is the ‘batch book’ that Barrie Skelcher mentions. Even without a documented recipe/batch book, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that Whitefriars had experimented with uranium oxide colourants in the 20 years since those publications would it? They might have read those publications and decided to have a go...with uranium oxide readily available down the road.

I might’ve missed it but can’t remember you saying if you’d looked at the Davenport book referenced by the V&A. I’ve had a look on the Library Service for my region and it’s available to borrow, so you should be able to get it wherever you are in the UK.