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

[flying free]

Thank you for the Bismuth link.
Wow, I wish I understood chemistry and glass making better. 
Does this indicate that making lead glass with uranium oxide was difficult?
or was this comment pertinent only to flint glass?

Thomas Leighton had been a glassmaker for many years before he went to the States.  Surely he knew how to make his own recipes?

[cagney]

  Well, I will start with the Bismuth stuff. Bismuth seems to impart the same or similar desirable qualities to the glass batch as lead.  Because of its lower melting point than lead it it a better flux. Flux is the melting of all your disparate ingredients together into one homogeneous mass. The better the flux the more integrated these ingredients become. In conjunction with lead you may have a super flux.

  I see no problem with adding uranium to a flint glass recipe. Of all the recipes I have looked at it seems it is as simple as dumping a certain amount in your flint glass recipe to get the desired effect you want. I would note that uranium oxides  seem to have a very high melting point, one number I came across was 2865 centigrade.

   Certainly Leighton has his preferred recipe for flint glass, in fact he has four or five. He still keeps a recipe that he says corrodes the pot. Gillinders treatise on glassmaking contains 14 different recipes for flint glass. Almost all batch books I have looked at contain a collection of other peoples recipes. Seems to be endemic to glassmakers.

  I am hardly an expert on glass engraving, usually my concern is, is it engraving of yesteryear or yesterday? Judgement in quality a whole different thing. For me, four different categories, poor, good, better and best. Offhand, one of the better if not best examples of early English engraving to come to my mind would be the Prince of Wales service by Perrin, Geddes & Co. Although fairly simple in design it is most delicately rendered and I think shows a high degree of craftsmanship. If I was to judge the engraving on the QV bowl it would be "good". If I knew it was a rush job, probably on the high end of the "good" scale.

   John Ford is Sole proprietor of Holyrood c. 1835. Is he still a partner in Bailey & Co. Midlothian or in direct competition?

[cagney]

  The only other Ford recipe I could Find. This shows up in T. Howe's batch book given to W. Libby c. 1870? Almost impossible to know how old or new this recipe was at the time.

[flying free]

Thank you very much for the info on Bismuth

All I recall is that Apsley Pellatt said something had to be reduced to make the uranium glass not disintegrate at a later date so I just don't think it was simple to make initially. There really is very little info on the use of uranium in glass that I can find from that early period 1830s in the UK.
 
It seems from reading Neuwirth that there was not much information available from what is said in the Farbenglas book.  The book references various exhibitions in Vienna and a piece shown by Neuwelt in I think 1831 (?) and Neuwirth also had access to the pieces in the museum collection, so far more access to info than I could ever hope to find just searching the net.


The Perrin Geddes set is gorgeous isn't it? I agree, it's lovely.


I don't know the answer to your question about John Ford as to whether he was in competition with Bailey & co.
I'm a bit confused with what I've read about Caledonian being under the uncle Ford and then it (Caledonian) disappearing and becoming Mid-Lothian under Wm. Bailey  and then John Ford (nephew) taking it over and it being renamed Holyrood.  Bailey I think had a bottle works as well.
Also the Leighton Biography I linked to refers to a Samuel Ford, not John Ford (uncle).
It's all a bit confusing .  I don't have Goblets and Gaslights book unfortunately.

The recipe for uranium glass given by John Ford is interesting. Thanks so much! It looks as though there was discussion about it being modified as someone suggested a different quantity for the copper or using a different modification of copper?
Such a shame we don't know how old it is.  Again the reference in Goblets and Gaslights was a recipe in John Ford's recipes dated after 1837, I think it was dated 1841? although the Leighton letter was 1839.

I've searched for Holyrood agents and not been able to find anything in London at all so far.

Your help is very much appreciated!

[flying free]

And going back to 'The mirror of literature, amusement, and instruction. ... vol.30 (Jul.-Dec.1837)'
Page 326
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101075454072&view=1up&seq=361&q1=glass

'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.'

There is no mention whatsoever of the Guildhall arms/flag seen engraved on the uranium glass bowls in the V&A and Corning. 
So ... the clear glass plates could have been for that banquet because they are clear glass which was obviously being produced at that time, although I think the design around the rim is a bit odd as no thistle, shamrock etc. and there is no Royal Arms on them (Unless The Mirror report mistakes the phrase 'Royal Arms' as a crown with a VR engraved on it, instead of reporting it as a 'VR insignia or cypher' which is what I think it actually is)




However, I think the finger bowls seen in the V&A and the Corning are in question as to whether they were  made for that event.

I can see in that linked description to the contemporary report in 'The mirror of literature ...' at the time,  that there are 'one dozen topaz-coloured finger-glasses' mentioned.

However, I think there is no more provenance that the bowls shown in the V&A and the Corning actually were two of the 'topaz-coloured finger-glasses' being described and referred to. 

Indeed the bowls have a Guildhall emblem on them  and so do not match the description accurately in 'The mirror' report.
They too do not have the Royal Arms on them either, again unless The Mirror report mistakes the 'Royal Arms' as being a crown with a VR engraved on it rather than reporting it as a 'Royal VR cypher/insignia'.

The Whitefriars book uses the description of the dozen topaz finger bowls and a link has been made that Whitefriars had experimented with uranium glass and that the content of the bowls could match their recipe.  But no definite provenance.

The Davenport book (I think - caveat :I haven't seen this book myself - the owner of one of the books being sold wrote me a small line from those pages) mentions on page 287/288 referred to by the V&A  '...one dozen topaz coloured finger glasses...'

Therefore it appears to me that everyone is assuming that the bowls in the V&A and the Corning, which are uranium glass with a greeny yellow tint, which have engraving on them that does not match the description in the contemporary report of the time in 1837 in 'The mirror of literature ...' (see link to report at start of this post) are the 'one dozen topaz-coloured finger-glasses'  referred to in that contemporary 1837 report.

There is no evidence for this that I can see so far.  By evidence I mean a pattern from the factory, or an invoice detailing the supply with a description etc. for example.


Unless the Davenport book details this, but the reply from the seller didn't seem to imply this (he quoted the line and then referenced some photographs on other pages) and I don't want to spend £50 to find out that the information in the book is more piecing together of the  'one dozen topaz-coloured finger-glasses' must equal 'these are two of those finger glasses'.

In addition there is no clear evidence any factory in England was making uranium glass in 1837.

There is evidence it was being made in Bohemia and that they would have had access to supply of uranium.

However the open question is whether  these bowls were made at a much later date and not for the 1837 banquet.

I may have already linked to the official report of the banquet from the Guildhall, but I came across it again so am linking it here.  There is mention of all the people and companies they paid for their services/loan of silver and gold plate/printing/stationery supplies etc etc. for the coronation banquet at Guildhall.
  Not one single mention of Davenport/Davenports:

See page 34 onwards in the link where every expense is detailed.
Source: 'Reports relating to the entertainment of Her Majesty The Queen in The Guildhall of the City of London on Lord Mayor's Day 1837' (printed by Arthur Taylor 1838)

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Reports_Relating_to_the_Entertainment_of/HbdGAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=queen+victoria+banquet+guildhall+report&pg=RA1-PA32&printsec=frontcover


One reason could be that the thousands and thousands of china and glass articles supplied for the banquet were washed,packed up and sent back to the supplier/organiser of the supplies.  Therefore there was no payment to be made to them.  But there was not even an acknowledgement of their services, no thank you, nothing.




The other odd thing is that Queen Victoria confirmed to Guildhall in July of 1837 that she would be attending Guildhall in November on Lord Mayor's day.  So they had plenty of notice.
The Mirror report appears to say Davenport supplied at very short notice having been given 3 weeks notice to supply. It says 'The china and cut glass were provided by the Messrs. Davenport of Fleet St ; and it is but justice to that establishment to state, that although the order was not given until the 13th ult., owing to their incredible exertions, it was completed on Monday last, and forwarded to town from their factory in Staffordshire.'

 Did Guildhall forget she was coming or forget that they'd have to serve the dinner and wine with crockery and glass? Patently not, so why such late notice (according to the Mirror report) to supply?

The reports also note that all the glass was cut.  It's also note-worthy that the Mirror report says the china and glass was 'provided' by Davenport's.  Not 'made by' Davenports.

[flying free]

From 1853 - report on uranium and how it is processed, actually mentions ornamental uranium glass in quantity being recently imported from Germany -

This is I think the 4th edition of this book so I don't know  whether this material was covered in previous (i.e. earlier) editions.  This ad for a sale of a later edition states that the dictionary was first produced in 1842.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ures-Dictionary-Arts-Manufactures-Mines/dp/1542102413

However this 1853 edition reports on uranium glass as:

 'The beautiful greenish-yellow, of which colour so many ornamental glass vessels have been lately imported from Germany...'
(see attached photograph for the quote)

A Dictionary of Arts, Manufactures and Mines - Andrew Ure M.D. 1853 4th edition.
page 709
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Dictionary_of_Arts_Manufactures_and_Mi/GHIPAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+glass+1837&pg=PA708&printsec=frontcover

If Davenports, John Ford, Pellatt or any other maker was producing this in the UK in 1837 then surely they wouldn't mention 'so many' ornamental glass vessels being imported from Germany?  Surely they'd be blowing the trumpet of UK manufacturers?

It does imply a more recent import and that's published in 1853. If it was included written in the same way in the 1842 apparently first edition, it would still be mentioning uranium glass imported 'lately' from Germany.   

Even if it did appear in the 1842 edition in the exact same wording, that is still 5 years after the banquet the bowls were supposedly produced for.
And if we give the bowls the benefit of the doubt and assume they were the topaz finger bowls the Mirror says were produced for the banquet, then it could very well imply they were imported from Germany.

[cagney]

  This ia the first description of the refinement/reduction of uranium ore I have seen. I find it most interesting that they reduce it and make sure there is no lead left in it then add a certain amount of lead/flint and cook it to get the powdered form to add to the glass batch. Gillinder in his treatise gives some descriptions of refining/reducing particular ingredients, but not uranium. I think by the 1850s it could be had already refined to a large degree. The sourcing most important as to quality of the refined ore [Whitman/Paris better than the English].

  Leighton in his letter to John Ford after returning from Scotland {1839} mentions that they {NEG Co.} have won one gold medal and two silver in competition, " I think you beat me". Seems to imply that Holyrood has won awards already. The gold and silver medals awarded to the New England Glass Co. {NEG Co.} were won at local/regional exhibitions/fairs  arranged by mechanic associations and the like. Similar happenings in England? If so, perhaps deserving of further inquiry.

  There does not seemed to be a whole lot of information on finger bowl/glasses of Bohemian/German origin from this period. The QV bowl stands out in one other aspect and that would be the foot. The norm seems to be fingerbowls without. Although, the Pellat catalog does show basically the same shape #39. Other attributes of the QV bowl show up in various other objects in the catalog such as  the step cutting#62 #63 #68 rich cut and the foot cutting #30.

  The earliest documentation you have for lead glass using uranium in England is 1839 at Holyrood albeit probably one pot batches, 1841 for a large batch. You are tantalizingly close "m".

 

[flying free]

Thank you Cagney I feel as though I'm going round in circles sometimes.  I do, however, feel that
 each time I reread a previous document, I've learnt and understood a little bit more about what it actually means/how it was written.

On the bottom of page 702/703 of that Ure Dictionary 1853 link there is what I found a VERY interesting description of staining of red glass for stained windows because it relates to the use of ruby (gold and copper) during the Great Exhibition period. 
I have also read contemporary reports that the Bohemians were producing ruby in 'ready made cakes' and selling it (to be used for casing I guess?).  So I've always wondered, when we see reports of the UK makers producing ruby glass in the great exhibition, whether in fact it was cased with the 'ready-mades' supplied from Bohemia (or Germany?).  i.e ruby glass was not something the UK makers were producing themselves from their own recipes.

The same might apply to uranium but slightly different, in that it was refined ready for use then shipped out/supplied maybe by Wenzel Batka?  I don't know about why in the US they may have wanted to procure uranium oxide from France.  I feel almost sure that the uranium supplies were coming from Bohemia.  So I wonder if France had found a way to refine it for use early on? (see my green Baccarat tumbler c.1840)  i.e. the French weren't dependent on buying in a fully final use refined product?  The French refined it themselves at the final stages and their refined product was a preferred product in the eyes of the US makers.  OR it was political/trade agreements dependent making it preferable to buy from France, nothing to do with quality. 
I cannot remember the year when the uranium mines production in Joachimsthal were formalised into a national company and started trading on that basis but it was around the 1850 period I think.
From the depth of my memory I seem to recall reading that Johnson Matthey were suppliers in the UK.  Perhaps US preferred Whitman/Paris?

Just as aside - is Whitman the same Whitman stamped on the bottom of the pink fishscale glass vases I wonder? GS Whitman maybe??? wracking my brains.

I agree about the design elements of the bowl being seen in the other items in the linked Apsley Pellatt catalogue.  They are quite regency in design really.  And no, I've not come across a similar style in Bohemian glass.  My first thought would have been Russian glass to be honest or French.
Then we also have the little issue of Mrs Graydon Stannus at Graystan glass producing 'best regency Irish cut glass', just 100 years later but selling it as original pieces ( perhaps she got hold of uranium and did a little post Banquet engraving?  - Joke, no quotes please)

Which leads me onto something I've commented on previously:
-  Was Apsley Pellatt stocking imported glass items, as well as those produced at Falcon Glass Works, in his showroom along with china from producers elsewhere in the UK?  Despite the design elements not ringing any bells with me with German glass or Bohemian glass, could these have been produced there to Pellatt's designs but in uranium glass and imported?

- Or could these bowls have been produced at a later period than 1837, perhaps at Falcon Glass Works (given the similarities in designs elements) once they'd found a secure way to produce uranium glass that didn't fall apart?

Because so far there is no corroborating evidence that Davenports produced the glass and china for the 1837 banquet as stated in the Mirror.  There isn't even any corroborating evidence that Davenports actually supplied the glass and china for the 1837 banquet except for the report in the Mirror.

[flying free]

Further to my above comment about the first edition of  'A Dictionary of Arts, Manufactures and Mines' apparently being produced in 1842 according to the info found on a link to a later edition sale of it on Amazon, I have now found this version online which I believe it dated 1840.

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Dictionary_of_Arts_Manufactures_and_Mi/lUU9V1ykb6gC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=a+dictionary+of+arts+,++manufactures+,+and+mines&pg=PA14&printsec=frontcover

There doesn't appear to be the information in it that I found in the 1853 edition (see photograph and reference pages in above post) about uranium.  So it seems that the reference to recently imported from Germany uranium glass vessels didn't appear in the 1840 version but did in the 1853 version.  It seems the information in each edition was being updated in some part.

For Cagney - on page 386 of this 1840 version there is a report on dissolving peche-blende and the process to make  oxides ... I think ... my understanding of these things is very basic! I'm not sure it's about making uranium oxides though.

On page 1263 there is discussion briefly of uranium from peche blende in Cornwall.  It says not of use for the arts. This is 1840.

[flying free]

I have re - read the report in the Mirror.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101075454072&view=1up&seq=361&q1=glass

On re-reading to me it appears to read that the supply of articles for her Majesty's table were procured separately. It doesn't state they were supplied by Davenports.

It is very specific about two enamelled glass dessert plates (We think Thomas Hawkes perhaps - from discussion with KevH on another thread?) that were used by 'Her Majesty' and the 'Duchess of Kent'. It says they were owned by Messrs. Hetherington & Co of Regents Quadrant (I looked them up and they appear to be lamp dealers?).
It also states very clearly that they were 'a new introduction which attracted great notice' and says they were 'expressly manufactured for the occasion'. (see left hand column bottom half of section in photo attached). 
This could imply that other items for Her Majesty's table were items already held at Guildhall.

Then it discusses the Queen's table and what was on there, but no statement of who made or supplied the crockery or glass.

Then it very specifically states that the supply for the masses, 'the entertainment generally' i.e. not the top table, was supplied by Davenports.  It does not specify the Davenports when listing the crockery and glass for Her Majesty's table.

(In addition to this, I'm bemused because there were other banquets at Guildhall, so I presume they didn't have enough crockery for the 'entertainment generally' or didn't want to use what they had, for this particular banquet.)

So just my thoughts here:

Could it be, the crockery and glass for Her Majesty's table was already available at the Guildhall?  The decoration would fit maybe with King William?,  but that it had to have the VR painted in the middle.  So perhaps that was sent off to Davenports to be enamelled? or perhaps enamelled elsewhere?. 
The glass had an engraved border and the Royal Arms.  That might have been stock they already had with the engraved border ok for King William and the Royal Arms likewise?
Likewise the earthenware jugs which had the Royal and City arms.

Then separate to those top table items which the Guildhall already held, Davenports supplied a mass of china and glass for the main guests tables 'the entertainment generally'.

If my theory is correct, then even IF the uranium glass bowls in the V&A and the Corning were a part of the set of a 'dozen topaz finger glasses' cited by the Mirror,  they would fall under the Royal Table crockery and glass ... that was not  supplied by Davenports.

The Guildhall held other banquets so presumably had enough crockery and glass to supply those banquets.  But perhaps not enough to supply a matching set for guests of a banquet as big as the QV banquet. 
Therefore they asked Davenports to supply for the masses, washed it all and sent it all back because they already had large stock in house that hadn't been used for this banquet?
Which would explain why there was no evidence in the Davenport documentation of an invoice or even a mention, and no evidence of Davenport being mentioned in the Report of the Guildhall Banquet or cost apportioned to them which it was to every other supplier and greatly itemised.
 
And there would have been no reason for Davenports to publicise this because the items they supplied hadn't been used by the Queen or top table so no PR to gain from that.

I can't think what might have happened to the limited selection of items used for the top table but perhaps they were items the Guildhall kept for Royal banquets dating from King William times (given the decoration on them)  and from thence onwards into Victoria's reign where the VR now being enamelled on the plates from this first of her banquets would have been fine.  There were other Royal banquets held there at later dates.