There is no definitive information on page 287 and 288 or in the book, that Davenports made all the glass for the QV banquet at the Guildhall.
The authors do make the question when discussing provenance and other details:
page 291
'With this warning in mind, what glasses can be attributed to Davenport? One answer is that with absolute certainty only those marked Patent.'
Quotes from page 288:
a) '
As was remarked in Part One, the splendid occasion must surely have given great satisfaction to John Davenport, though alas there is no correspondence to record it. At the time of the Banquet, the firm was trading in his son's name as William Davenport & Co. There remains a slight element of doubt as to whether all the glass for the Royal Banquet was actually made in Staffordshire. Ronald Brown has found references to Powells, the Whitefriars Glass Works, supplying Davenports with glass in the period 1835-1837. It is just possible that through the London showroom some of the many thousands of pieces supplied to the Guildhall were actually made in London.'The book then goes on to make the following comment:
b)
'Even if this were the case it would not apply to the decorated wares used at the Royal tables. These, and surely some still exist, would be that truly rare item, a documented example of Davenport glass. There is one interesting piece of information on page 291:
c) '
Also on the list is the name of Cyrus Hill who is noted as a glass cutter. Mr Brown has researched this man, and it appears from the testimony of his descendents that he was 'the chief designer for Davenports in the period 1850-1865'. Very recently Cyrus Hill's recipe notebook and certain glass and ceramic items have been presented to the Victoria and Albert Museum. These include prototypes of glassware said to have been designed specially for the state banquet given by Queen Victoria.'Notes from me:
1) It seems the order to Davenports to supply the china and glass was made on the 13th October for a Banquet on the 9th November. They supplied (also in the book and according to the Staffordshire Advertiser for 11November 1837) 'by Monday past'. That implies that at least in the space of a maximum 27 days they supplied
many thousands of pieces of china and glass for the banquet.
but then:
On page 289 the following quote after discussing the 1843 report on Children's Employment to Royal Commissioner Samuel Scriven:
'A fascinating glimpse into the Glass Works and it's organisation. We know of no other document which gives the precise size of the Works at any period. It does not seem to be too charitable to suggest that on this evidence Davenports Glass Works was a well-run and orderly medium-sized enterprise'.[/b]
Would a medium sized business be able to make all that glass in 27 days? Is it unlikely?
2) Powells Whitefriars took over Whitefriars Glass Works in 1834 and as far as I know were not glassmakers at the time. Not entirely sure what kind of glass they would be supplying to Davenports in 1835 to 1837 just a few years later if they took over the glassworks untrained? I suppose it could also include stock already there when they took over?
There is nothing definitive in the book to say they definitely were supplying Davenport
3) re this comment in my quote a) above:
'
... It is just possible that through the London showroom some of the many thousands of pieces supplied to the Guildhall were actually made in London.'
it is also possible that some of the many thousands of pieces supplied to the Guildhall were actually made in Bohemia or Germany. We know from Hale Thompson silvered glass that Mr Drayton was importing glass from Germany to silver at that time (link here but there are other links to reports in that thread):
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,65670.msg390015.html#msg390015So there were many imports coming in. Therefore it has to be a possibility that London showrooms were selling Bohemian and German glass as well I would think?
4) I'm not entirely sure how this comment in the book can be asserted:
'Even if this were the case it would not apply to the decorated wares used at the Royal tables. These, and surely ....' I understand the reasoning behind this thought. I should think it reasonable that Davenports would like to think Her Maj was drinking from one of their glasses especially if they were going to all the effort of gathering this massive collection of china and glass together.
However, unless it can be proven they were making topaz-coloured hock glasses and topaz-coloured finger bowls which were according to reports, used for the top table, then I don't know how this assertion can be made?
5) Regarding Cyrus Hill - would someone noted in the 1851 census as Glass Cutter (also mentioned in that paragraph) have access to recipe books about the batches?
The book quote doesn't actually say they are batch recipe book, just calls them 'recipe books'. I was just wondering what they might be.
6) It also notes in the book of the report from the
Staffordshire Advertiser for 11 November 1837 ':
The decanters, claret jugs, Champagne, Hock, and other glasses, are all richly cut, and ornamented with a vine border, varied with the rose, thistle, and shamrock, and the Royal Arms.'
Once again the question - would an engraved crown with a U R engraved beneath it and the emblem of the Guildhall engraved elsewhere on the bowl, be classed as 'The Royal Arms'?
7) Finally it's interesting that, regarding the banquet, the book notes:
'
As was remarked in Part One, the splendid occasion must surely have given great satisfaction to John Davenport, though alas there is no correspondence to record it.'
I think it's reasonable to question:
a) whether those uranium glass finger bowls were in the first instance ever made by Davenport glass at Langport / Longport ? (I've seen this reported as both spellings)
b) whether they are actually the 'topaz-coloured finger glasses' referred to in the description of the banqueting glass for the top table in 1837 ?
Topic: Info on James Powell Topaz glass - "The Queen Victoria Topaz bowl" (Read 22805 times)
