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

[flying free]

I've just accidentally happened upon a very interesting comment in
Glass-making in England
H.J. Powell

Page 103 under the Chapter 'Provincial Glass-Houses'


Where Powell is describing the various provincial glassworks and their history:

'...and the firm became Webb and Richardson.  Richardson who claimed the development of etching on table-glass and the introduction of topaz and chrysolite glasses , was for a time associated with Philip Pargeter and ...'



In the catalogue of the Great Exhibition of 1851 there is mention under Richardson displaying Chrysolite glass (this is many years after Harrach btw) but no mention of 'topaz'.
There is mention of Davis, Greathead and Green displaying 'topaz' though.
See page 126
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Official_Catalogue_of_the_Great_Exhibiti/TCWWTsgjYjQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Richardson+chrysolite+glass&pg=PA126&printsec=frontcover

[Ekimp]

I was trying to identify some crackle glass of mine and came across a link of yours for a Clichy book, link copied below. Looking through there I noticed their yellow uranium glass from 1842 (page 101) and thought it might be of interest if you’d missed it (I searched the thread but can’t find mention of Clichy).

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KEYMY4_ytuUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cristallerie+de+clichy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiH07at0ZzkAhULUxUIHYE1D-0Q6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=cristallerie%20de%20clichy&f=false

[flying free]

Thank you   I have the book so will have a look through to see if there is anything similar in terms of drawings etc.

m

[flying free]

I've noticed this listing a while ago but didn't read the information from the seller.
https://scottishantiques.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=27673
dated 'c.1850'



Interesting - it's a cut glass uranium yellow bowl /tazza style with stem and foot with lots of detailed cutting and a turnover rim size 21cm diameter and 12.5cm high.

The seller asserts in their information that Davenport was producing cut uranium glass from 1820 and that Webb and Richardson were producing cut uranium glass by 1830.
There is no reference source for that dating of uranium glass production from either of those makers that I could see in the listing.



Seller appears to have compared this bowl with a Davenport example and says this is 'golden yellow with a hint of green' but 'the Davenport examples are distinctly green'.

Colours are  difficult to compare online.  However, in order to give some kind of description here just in case the seller's listing becomes obsolete, the colour of the seller's bowl looks to me like my uranium Walsh Walsh grape vine bonnet tumbler.



Quote from seller:
'Additional Information : John Davenport began making glass in 1801 some five years prior to firing his first porcelain. Davenport was producing elaborately cut uranium glass from 1820 and perhaps a little earlier. Webb and Richardson were producing cut uranium glass by 1830. This style is invariably associated with Irish glass manufacture from the late 18th and early 19th century however there is no evidence confirming the production of cut uranium glass in Ireland.

The colour in natural daylight is directly comparable to the uranium yellow pieces known to ne produced by Richardsons around 1850. Richardsons had two formulations for uranium glass. This is a golden yellow with a hint of green. The Davenport examples are distinctly green'

[flying free]

Very difficult to compare colours online:

Here are some links -
That possibly Richardson turned over rim bowl
https://scottishantiques.com/image/cache/catalog/200531/20053103-1-1000x1000.jpg

my Walsh bonnet glass and another finger rinser maker unknown here
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=18341.0;attach=136539;image

Corning picture of the V&A bowl here
https://www.cmog.org/sites/default/files/styles/cmog_primary_image/public/collections/69/696E9887-9AB4-43E0-A996-A8495BCB390B.jpg?itok=gS6e4avo

[flying free]

M, not sure if this is any help for you. In the June 2021 (issue 11) of Glass matters. The magazine of the Glass Society.
There is a 3 page article titled, Uranium glass; part 1. Its origins; Riedel, Pohl or Whitefriars?.
By John Frith.
Tim

 
The above Part 1 article appeared in Glass Matters June 2021 and Part 2 has appeared in October 2021 Glass Matters.

Along with that on Page 16 of Glass Matters October 2021 there is some additional information from Dwight Lanmon re these bowls.

He says '....There are some interestingly designed finger bowls documented to 1837, examples of which are in the collections of the V&A (C.110-1992), Corning (88. 2.8) and the Stourbridge Glass Museum.  The finger ... glass.  They were made for use at the high table when Queen Victoria attended the coronation banquet at the Guildhall.  The V&A identifies them as a product of Davenport of Langport'.

I wonder where they were documented and why the Museum of London thought they were James Powell,  and how the V&A identifies them as Davenport?
https://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/museum-life/seeing-more-glow-in-the-dark-glass

[flying free]

I've probably posted this article somewhere before on the thread:

Source - Pressglas Korrespondenz  - No 02 -2000
Dr. Jarmila Brožová
Farbgläser (Uranglas)
Auszug aus Höltl, Georg, Hrsg., Das Böhmische Glas 1700-1950, Passau / Tittling 1995, Bd. 2, S. 80 f.

https://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/brozova-uranglas.pdf

A segment taken from within this long and interesting article on uranium glass:
Translated text using google: (Original text at the bottom of this post)

'... At the end of the 1830s, smelting began in England and Lorraine as well
the production of uranium glass, resulting in a competition between England, France and Bohemia
led. The uranium glass of the Harrachschen hut existed
made of composition glass, as is already the case in this hut
Tradition was. It only succeeded after a few years
Hut to melt uranium glass without adding lead..'




So a couple of things:

1) that reads to me that it was at the end of the 1830s that England and France started production of uranium glass.  Could 1837(fingers bowls documented for that banquet in 1837) fall into that bracket?

I wonder why the underplates were in plain clear glass rather than matching uranium glass? 


2) It also reads to me that Harrach were producing uranium glass made of lead glass as was normal for their glass at that time.  And that it took a while fo them to be able to produce uranium glass in unleaded glass which could be enamelled and decorated.  Have I understood that correctly?






Original text

'Ende der dreißiger Jahre des 19. Jahrhunderts begannen auch Hütten in England und Lothringen mit
der Produktion von Uranglas, was zu einem Wettkampf zwischen England, Frankreich und Böhmen
führte. Das Uranglas der Harrachschen Hütte bestand
aus Kompositions-Glas, wie es in dieser Hütte bereits
Tradition war. Erst nach einigen Jahren gelang es der
Hütte, Uranglas ohne Zugabe von Blei zu schmelzen.'

[flying free]

Coming back to the V&A bowl description - some questions if anyone can help please?
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport-co/finger-bowl-davenport--co/

https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2181/ice-plate-davenport--co/?carousel-image=2006BE8998


1) Looking at it - it has an accession code of C110- 1992  - anyone know if 1992 is a date that they may have acquired the bowl or is that just a record number?



2) Also the Bibliographic reference of 'Lockett & Godden, Davenport, p. 287-8' - would this be a source reference for information on the provenance of the maker of the bowl?



3) Lastly, Record Created - 'RECORD CREATED December 13, 1997' - might this mean it hasn't been changed since then?




I'm curious because
a) that underplate is clear whilst the bowls are uranium glass.  I feel that's odd.  The ice plate looks to have been matted on the base.  That is something seen on other DAvenport Glass. However there are no other items I could see in uranium glass in the V&A. The ice plate doesn't appear to have the Guildhall emblem on it and no thistle or shamrocks on it either.  I don't think it necessarily belongs with the uranium glass finger bowl.

b) looking at the Potteries.org history of Davenport I can't reconcile the family history of the running of the factory with them making uranium glass for Queen Victoria in 1837:

http://www.thepotteries.org/walks/longport/davenport.htm

part quote from article


'John Davenport’s eldest son, also John, took no part in the business and had a successful career as a lawyer.

Henry Davenport, his third son, who took an active role in running the business when his father effectively retired from the firm in the 1820's, was killed in a riding accident when he was out hunting at Baddeley Edge In 1835.

Control of the firm then passed to the second son, William Davenport, who became sole owner in 1848. Like his father he was a strict disciplinarian at the factory. After a strike at the Longport factory in 1842 he sacked all those who played a prominent role in the dispute including the father of Charles Shaw with the result that his family were forced to seek relief In Chell Workhouse (see “When I Was a Child”, by Charles Shaw).

However unlike his father he was not a very competent industrialist and spent a good deal of his time involved in public affairs and social activities. In the 1840s he was responsible for the revival of the North Staffordshire Hunt of which he was master for 27 seasons. He rebuilt Longport Hall but he found the surroundings uncongenial to his taste and in the early 1850's he moved to Maer Hall where he lived the life of a country gentleman. By the time of his death in 1869 the firm was in severe financial difficulties.

His son Henry Davenport who inherited the business had no real interest in the firm and made no attempt to deal with the problems which he inherited. The firm suffered a series of financial crises which were met by the simple expedient of selling off parts of the business. The last factory was sold in 1887 when the firm then known as Davenports Ltd came to an end.'

 

[flying free]

This book was published in 1843:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Borough_of_Stoke_upon_Trent_in_the_C/M6QLAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=davenport+glass+queen+victoria&pg=PA156&printsec=frontcover

'The Borough of Stoke-upon-Trent, in the commencement of the reign of her most Gracious Majesty, Queen Victoria '  by John Ward :


Page 155- 160 discusses Longport Davenports in quite some detail.
So much detail in fact that it discusses:
- when Davenports supplied a china service for the accession of King William and how it was made for the banquet at the coronation of King William.
- mentions  the glassworks at Longport Davenports.
- discusses how the glassworks supplied amazing specimens of stained glass and goes on to mention the various nobility it had supplied glass for.

However, nowhere does it discuss providing china or glass for Queen Victoria's banquet at the Guildhall that I could see.  This despite the fact the book discusses King William's china service made at Davenport, and despite the fact the book was written in 1843 (i.e. 6 years post the Queen Vic banquet) and despite the fact that the title of the book is 'The Borough of Stoke-upon-Trent, in the commencement of the reign of her most Gracious Majesty, Queen Victoria '

I find that an interesting omission in light of the other information included.

m

[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.