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

[flying free]

I don't think uranium oxide was 'ready to go ' down the road though.
That's my point.  I think Gill pointed out it was there, but that info/some of that info came from a previous article/book written by a man called Phillips, but I don't think it was mined from there.

I think it was readily available though very, very nearby in Bohemia (Joachimsthal if I recall correctly -open to correction as I've not time to look it up in th books at the mo).  And Klaproth was known, and they were massively experimenting with and producing amazing colours already by the 1820s certainly. So instinct says it's in Bohemia  it would originate at it's earliest.

I also think the v&A would, if they had hard evidence, have identified it as from James Powell & sons.  Why wouldn't they if they'd acquired it from the MOL and had that evidence to hand?  As would CH in his book, but he hasn't either.

The publications being 'history' doesn't stand as an argument from what I've seen, because I've looked at various publications over the whole of the 19th century and they repeatedly reprint and repeat information from previous publications going back many tens of years, over and over again, the same information is repeated.  Sometimes a bit more recent information is added to it but often it's the exact same info from various publications.  And that's why I thought Gill might have just repeated what he'd read about those colour 'names' from a previous document discussing Klaproth's discovery, and I'm sure he had.  I don't think he had any idea about the production of uranium glass anywhere. 

And the use of the word Whitefriars may well have come from a 'I'm sure I've seen something somewhere/remember reading that this was produced by Whitefriars' type conversation.  That happens.

There was information in The Art Journal of 1849 writing about the exhibition in Birmingham, that Bacchus and Rice,Harris produced some uranium glass items.  But that was 1849.

That said, of course, this could all be conjecture and  doesn't mean it's fact.  It could well be that James Powell & Sons produced these. 
I just think at the moment there isn't any hard evidence anywhere that they did. 
And I also think that had they produced gold ruby glass and uranium topaz glass at that time, any glassmaker might be 'crowing' about it, making it known.
They weren't reticent in coming forward.  Richardson's were keen to ensure it was known that the glass they made, despite being distributed by a 'shop' or middle man, was made by them.  And I've just read (I think in the Art Journal actually) that some silver smiths who were using glass in their products were told they had to ensure the glassmaker was included on the large card labels they displayed on their stands, and there was a huge outcry because one of them had their own name writ large and the glassmakers name writ so small as to be almost illegible to the naked eye.

So not much different behaviour to how it would be now really.

Apsley Pellatt writes of how gold topaz glass was keenly sought after in his book of 1849.  Yet no mention of any of it in the Art Journal of that year really or of any from James Powell in the 1851 Great Exhibition.  Odd.

[flying free]

And then to add to my questioning - there is also the confusion that arose over the uranium glass elephant foot piano rest:

https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,52748.msg299463.html#msg299463

Attributed in Newman to John Davenport but in fact was produced by John Derbyshire.

Was this attributed to Davenport because the uranium bowls were thought to have come from Davenports somewhere down the line?

Or is this just another coincidence of wrong attribution of uranium glass being made at Davenports?

[flying free]

Apologies Ekimp I meant to say thank you for reading and commenting.  I'm grateful you took the time given my long missive (missives!).

I will look out the Davenport book but having read somewhere in the Journal of Glass Studies that they, Davenports, 'assembled' the glass and china for the Guildhall Banquet in a matter of 4 weeks from request, I'm not really holding out hope that it will contain evidence of making uranium glass.

[Ekimp]

That’s ok your research is interesting. I agree, from what I’ve read here, there is nothing to positively attribute the rinsers to Whitefriars and seems like assumptions were made somewhere. It’s not easy to prove a negative...or a positive.

[flying free]

The Art Journal of 1849 mentioned that both Bacchus and Rice Harris showed uranium glass items at the Birmingham Exhibition in 1849.

In the Official Descriptive Catalogue of the Great Exhibition exhibitors (volume 1 - 1851) it mentions Johnson Matthey showing metals and metallic compounds
page 166
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Official_Descriptive_and_Illustrated_Cat/uvvNAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+glass+cornwall+mines&pg=PA166&printsec=frontcover

 amongst the list is:
'Uranium; it's oxide; glass vessel showing the colour produced by the oxide of uranium.'

There follows a lengthy description of metals including uranium, and it mentions:
'(Platinum... Uranium is procured from pitchblende, uranite and other minerals found in Cornwall and Bohemia - R.H.)'
and
'(The colour produced by mixing a minute portion of the oxide of uranium in a mass of molten glass is one of the most beautiful colours obtained by art.  It is a charming golden green of an opalline (sic) lustre, so peculiar as to distinguish it from all other colours in glass - R.E.)'

[flying free]

I don't think uranium oxide was 'ready to go ' down the road though.
That's my point.  I think Gill pointed out it was there, but that info/some of that info came from a previous article/book written by a man called Phillips, but I don't think it was mined from there.

I think it was readily available though very, very nearby in Bohemia (Joachimsthal if I recall correctly -open to correction as I've not time to look it up in th books at the mo).  And Klaproth was known, and they were massively experimenting with and producing amazing colours already by the 1820s certainly. So instinct says it's in Bohemia  it would originate at it's earliest.

I also think the v&A would, if they had hard evidence, have identified it as from James Powell & sons.  Why wouldn't they if they'd acquired it from the MOL and had that evidence to hand?  As would CH in his book, but he hasn't either.

The publications being 'history' doesn't stand as an argument from what I've seen, because I've looked at various publications over the whole of the 19th century and they repeatedly reprint and repeat information from previous publications going back many tens of years, over and over again, the same information is repeated.  Sometimes a bit more recent information is added to it but often it's the exact same info from various publications.  And that's why I thought Gill might have just repeated what he'd read about those colour 'names' from a previous document discussing Klaproth's discovery, and I'm sure he had.  I don't think he had any idea about the production of uranium glass anywhere. 

On  my thoughts above, that I didn't think uranium oxide was readily available from Cornwall by 1837 and also my questioning as to whether Gill really knew anything about uranium glass being made or being made in England or just copied information he'd read elsewhere, I found this article written in 2018 from Chemistry World.  It says:

'The now abandoned South Terras mine near St Austell in Cornwall was the UK’s only and most important uranium mine, and operated between 1873 and 1930'

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/abandoned-cornish-mine-may-hold-clues-to-uranium-clean-up-/3008478.article

If this is true, then the presence of uranium in the mines in Cornwall as written by Gill, is just 'information'.  It did not mean it was mined and used at the time in England.  I note the strange wording of the sentence though - if it was the UK's ONLY uranium mine, then I suppose it stands to reason it would be it's MOST IMPORTANT uranium mine.
I don't have a clue about chemistry so I suppose there is always the question of whether it was same type/format of uranium used in glass.  By that I mean maybe there were other mines that produced it in a different form available to use for glassmaking?  Any ideas?


Conversely, there is evidence that uranium glass was being produced in Bohemia at the time this bowl was supposedly made/used.
And obviously that doesn't preclude uranium oxide being used by English makers but imported from elsewhere in 1837.

 If indeed the bowl was made/used in 1837 and not made/used at a later date.

[Ekimp]

My impression was that pitchblende (or uraninite) was something they came across when mining for other metals, something inconvenient, in the way. If they weren’t actually mining for uranium, there might’ve been spoil heaps of the ‘useless’ pitchblende. There might have been pitchblende extracted when mining for tin, for example, but not in sufficient quantities to make an economic uranium mine when larger quantities were required later in the century..

I’m not a chemist either but Wiki says that pitchblende or uraninite is actually two types of uranium oxide with a small amount of lead oxide. If it’s uranium oxide they used in glass, maybe they didn’t even have to refine the pitchblende and I don’t suppose they needed a huge amount, at least not to experiment with.

[flying free]

I've been doing lots of reading whilst watching the tennis
Too much to write it down but my  impression is that they only decided to use the discarded spoils once they realised they could be useful much later in the century.

In addition from what I understand of my reading, in Bohemia they set up a production factory for processing uranium  in 1851(?) (for use in glass and porcelain i.e. KPM ?)and kept it a very closely guarded secret.  Although it was in use before then definitely by Bohemian makers and also Baccarat.  And clearly if Rice Harris and Bacchus showed a uranium glass piece at the 1847 Exhibition in Birmingham, then also here.

But it seems it wasn't that easy to get hold of if they saw fit to set up a processing plant under high security and kept a closely guarded secret in Joachimsthal.

It's exercising my brain because if I'm honest I don't think the shape or the stem/foot or the cutting on the bottom of the foot remind me of a Bohemian glass item.  The whole thing makes me think French or Russian ... or perhaps even English ... but later in the century.  But that's just 'thoughts' - no evidence for those thoughts at all.

[Ekimp]

It is probably an over simplification to think they could go and collect a couple of shovel fulls in the back of the carriage and sprinkle it in the pot

[flying free]

 

Correction to my previous post - Birmingham Exhibition was 1849 iirc

Rice Harris and Bacchus both showed a Uranium glass piece at that exhibition according to reports of the time.  But that is 12 years after this piece is supposed to have been used at Guildhall.