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

[flying free]

Thanks so much Cagney.

I see what you mean about the Apsley Pellatt designs being similar to the bowl.

Re the additional information in the letters, my reading is:
the first comment implies Leighton had thought he'd never make uranium glass?
the second implies it was glass he'd seen in the warehouse acknowledging it could have been from somewhere else, and does not explicitly imply made by Ford/Holyrood?  or did I misunderstand?

[flying free]

Also this question.
 I'm the first to admit I know nothing about Ford (Holyrood Flint Glass works) or Thomas Leighton but for some mistaken reason I believed Leighton had worked for John Ford.  Did he work for a Samuel Ford?
 
This is the family history of Thomas Leighton here:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Leighton-1547
I think I was mistaken - it seems he didn't work for John Ford at Holyrood Glass works?

or is that information slightly incorrect?
https://www.scotlandsglass.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58
It seems to say here that Old Caledonian glass became Holyrood glass ... I think 

Very confused.

[flying free]

Interesting set of samples of glass from John Ford Holyrood Glassworks 1866 here:
Quote from Science Museum Group

'https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co18828/collection-of-glassware-and-materials-from-john-ford
Made:
1866 in Edinburgh
Collection of glassware and materials from John Ford, Holyrood Flint Glass Works, Edinburgh, 1866, with booklet "Manufacture of Flint Glass" by Pellatt and Co.'

And a post here on social media from Edinburgh Museums showing a tumbler in uranium glass made by Holyrood Flint Glass Works c.1885-1886:
https://x.com/EdinCulture/status/1853770450708423017
Quote post:
'Day 5 #Museum30 - Glow.
Uranium glass made by Holyrood Flint Glassworks, #Edinburgh 1885-1886. Radioactive.'

(Note: To me this is a terrible photo - on black paper,doesn't show the colour of the glass properly, neither does it show the glow under uv)


More information here on Holyrood Flint Glass Works with a picture of the cutting and engraving workshop:
https://www.artisansinscotland.shca.ed.ac.uk/items/show/50

I read somewhere there was a warehouse in Edinburgh and that they stocked parian ware etc.  I wonder if they were importers/merchants as well as glassmakers?

With regard to my last question above:

Link here with a list of invoices sent to John Ford for various items of pottery, porcelain, glass etc - see page 11 of 2038.

hmm, the link doesn't work but I have seen this list and I think it's from the Edinburgh Museums and Galleries.  It also includes the list of letters from Leighton to Ford with a brief detail of the subject in each letter, including the one of 1839 mentioning recipe for canary glass (but not the detailed information of that request, just the subject matter):

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://edinburgh.axlr8.uk/documents/34299/34299%20Museums%20and%20Galleries%20Edinburgh%20(MGE)%20Collections%20Catalogue.pdf

admittedly the list of invoices on that page 11 appear to start 1850s but it does seem to imply they were a warehouse for other manufacturers.  At what date that started to be the case I've no idea.

[flying free]

In 1859 in this publication there is an advertisement on page 154 for John Ford, Holyrood Flint Glass Works - offering all sorts of wares in their warehouses including 'A beautiful assortment of foreign ornamental glass articles'.

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Official_Illustrated_Guide_to_the_La/mxZbAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=holyrood+flint+glass+company&pg=RA2-PA154&printsec=frontcover

I know Neuwelt (Harrach) were supplying for Osler but can't remember the dates at the moment.  So there was trade from Bohemia.
In addition  mirrored glass vases were being made in the 1840s using glass supplied from Germany.

The advert above for John Ford was 22 years later than the Queen Victoria banquet at the Guildhall but it begs the question as to whether Davenport's  Longport and other makers were all stocking 'a beautiful assortment of foreign ornamental glass articles' ... in the 1830s?

Davenport's gathered a vast array of glass and china at very short notice (19 days iirc?). 
I can't see how they'd have organised that with other makers,  via snail mail requests, in the time they had after they were given the contract to supply.  And that in addition to their 8mph horse and coaches.

[cagney]

 The statement by Thomas Leighton" Such glass I as I saw when I was in your warehouse" relates to John Fords best flint glass. John Ford wrote down his receipt and gave it to Thomas. Thomas cannot make this recipe work. Too much sand? The ratio of sand nearly double what Thomas usually uses. He wonders if it may be the "Isle of White [sic] sand you wrote me you sometimes used". Didn't mean to lead you astray with that one 'm'.The other statement concerning Fords canary glass I take as Leighton's feeling it is a novelty and the public appetite {mania?] for "Bohemian Colored Glass" has yet to begin.

  According to Jane Shadell Spillmans intoduction concerning the Ford-Leighton correspondence; John Ford was a partner with Bailey & Company of the Midlothian Glass Works in the leasing of his uncle's glass house after William Fords death in 1819. By 1835 he was sole proprietor and changed the name to Holyrood Flint Glass Works.

  Leighton reminisces in his last two letters [1847]. Seems he and John Ford where quite friendly back in the day, he recalls" we had some very curious scenes and sprees if we look back 35 years". He does not elaborate but does drop names. Some of these may give you an idea of the goings on: "Highland Jenny Jeanie Jack, Mr. Goat, Joe Clarks horse,Sams room with the Naval Officers, Old Tolbert and all the rest of the queer scenes with the Excise".

  The biography of Thomas Leighton seems to be o.k. I learned a few new things about his time in Scotland.

[flying free]

Thanks for the further info
Nice to know the Leighton biography link seems to be good information.

Yes I think Leighton and Ford were friends.  A couple of the letters discuss items of clothing and food being sent back and forth between the two, by ship, according to the museum list.

It's interesting that Leighton couldn't get Ford's flint recipe to work.  It does imply that simply bunging a portion of Uranium oxide into the batch wont necessarily mean successful production.

[flying free]

And really just for my own reminder, another letter HGW/1/11/29 (appears top of page 17 of 2038) .  It's dated 1835 addressed to Mr Ford Midlothian Glassworks from his wife P. Ford, mentions that she is travelling by ship,currently off the coast of Jutland and going via Denmark and that she is going to see her mother in Petersburg.
Edinburgh museums
https://edinburgh.axlr8.uk/documents/34299/34299%20Museums%20and%20Galleries%20Edinburgh%20(MGE)%20Collections%20Catalogue.pdf

If this means St. Petersburg then there is a possible Russia connection in 1835 for John Ford.

[cagney]

 The unworkable recipe for John Fords flint glass most curious. It is definitely out of whack compared to any other flint glass recipes I have seen from the period. The norm for lead or litharge being anywhere from 55%-75% of the amount of sand used, Fords recipe is at about 30%. Leighton degrades [lessens] the sand and still can barely get it out of the pot as he says [too thick]. Leighton's stay in Edinburgh was short and possibly a bit of a whirlwind by his own account " it appears like a dream". There is one other ingredient if added to Fords recipe that will in all probability make it work. He does not write it down for Leighton as it is a closely held secret, surely he tells Leighton of the secret ingredient but Leighton can't recall.

  Some other aspects of the letter from Nov. 28, 1839 I think may have some relevance and my take on it.
"I received your kind present that you sent to Liverpool" [ Leighton's departure point back to America ]
 "According to your directions I bought of Mr. McClenan a small quantity of the white oxide of Besmith [bismuth], the oxide of antimony and the cromit of iron"
  I think the gift sent to Liverpool not from Edinburgh, probably sent from London at Fords direction and probably done by Mr. McClenan [Fords agent in London?] as it seems to be timed to Leighton's departure so as to nullify any obligation on Leighton's part to reciprocate. Of the ingredients bought of Mr. McClenan the standout would be the Bismuth, this ingredient is the missing link I think in Fords recipe for his flint glass. A short article on the properties of Bismuth https://digitalfire.com/oxide/bi2o3

  I think the probability that Ford has glassware in London in 1837 could be very possible. After he gains full ownership in 1835 he is determined to grow the business [Holyrood eventually does become the largest glassworks in Scotland } and to do this he must enter the London market. Surely there is a vibrant wholesale/retail market to the trade as it were. Obviously this would be a highly competitive market as well. To standout he sends his best work in the newest fashion and a novel color.  Given the limited time frame Davenport has I think they are sourcing for the most part from the London wholesale/retail market.  The finger bowls in question most likely engraved to order in London. A plausible case for a Scottish attribution for the finger bowls? As to shipping from Scotland to London the cheapest and probably safest [no breakage] would be by coastal schooner.

[flying free]

I think that is plausible and worth investigating.

But for my money, I don't think those bowls were made in 1837 in England/Scotland.  Not from everything I've read about the sale of uranium oxide, the glass being developed secretly in Bohemia at the time, the Joachimsthal mines, the difficulty of making recipes work etc etc.  I am unconvinced they belong to 1837.

On a different tangent:
I might have made this part up so don't quote me, but I think there was a dearth of glass engravers in England/London in the 1830s.  I must try and find where I might have read that.  This could account for the oddly engraved City of London arms and the odd VA - i.e. done by someone not well versed in engraving perhaps?

However, I've thought long and hard about the VR engraving and to me it's just not right.  There is definitely something not right about it. My thoughts would have actually been Russian for that monogram although I still suspect they'd have engraved a V as a V not a U.

I don't think it looks right for a Bohemian engraver who was good at what they did. Literally every last thing or item I've looked at from the era with a monogram, linen, silver, cast iron etc etc  has the V as a V. It's very odd.

[flying free]

With regard to my last question above:

Link here with a list of invoices sent to John Ford for various items of pottery, porcelain, glass etc - see page 11 of 2038.

hmm, the link doesn't work but I have seen this list and I think it's from the Edinburgh Museums and Galleries.  It also includes the list of letters from Leighton to Ford with a brief detail of the subject in each letter, including the one of 1839 mentioning recipe for canary glass (but not the detailed information of that request, just the subject matter):

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://edinburgh.axlr8.uk/documents/34299/34299%20Museums%20and%20Galleries%20Edinburgh%20(MGE)%20Collections%20Catalogue.pdf

admittedly the list of invoices on that page 11 appear to start 1850s but it does seem to imply they were a warehouse for other manufacturers.  At what date that started to be the case I've no idea.

On 13th January 1836 Bailey & Co Midlothian Glassworks are listed here in the Sheriff Court Extract Decrees next to a Thomas Simson as :
'Bailey & Co Midlothian Glass Works, china, glass and stoneware merchant, Edinburgh'

https://www.oldscottish.com/sheriff-court-extract-decrees-index-mary-shevil-john-sym.html

So in 1836 they were merchants for china, glass and stoneware.  The china and stoneware not their own since they were a glass maker.  The glass they were merchants for? Who knows if that was just their own or bought in stock?