Topic: WALSH Sunshine Amber Tumblers

[NevB]

I bought these on Ebay as I thought  they were Webb Sunshine Amber. All in very good condition, height is 9cms. They have a faint elongated hexagon type optic pattern and as the second photo shows are full of tiny bubbles/speckles. This link discusses similar ones.

https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,49061.msg276753.html#msg276753

[Paul S.]

very nice - looks to be an interesting purchase.         Is it my eyes, or am I seeing the word WALSH toward the outer rim on the underside on one glass in picture three?     If these are Walsh, then might the inclusions/bubbles indicate these glasses might be from the 'Pompeian' range do you think?           Unfortunately, I don't see a 'waisted' shaped tumbler in Reynolds book, though certainly Walsh did produce tumblers in 'Pompeian' colourway.         Looking at my several different coloured varieties of Webb's tumblers, the base finish on the examples here are very different to Webb's, so that might be another indication these have nothing to do with Webb.
Edited: .........    Having now looked in Hajdamach would add: .............    In a similar way to Thomas Webb, Walsh produced their own take on uranium yellowish glass, which apparently they called 'Sunbeam' amber - some of which was provided with an iridescent finish.    I mention this as although the tumblers shown here have inclusions in a vaguely similar way to 'Pompeian', IMHO, and to my eyes, they look to fall short of the full blown appearance of 'Pompeian'.   

[NevB]

Great spot Paul, I don't know how I missed that  . The two at the front are marked Walsh, the back one isn't. The one on the right has a much larger ground pontil, looking almost as if it has just been smoothed. I don't think it's Pompeian range as the bubbles aren't large or numerous enough. I'll have a look through Reynolds' book and online to research them.

[Paul S.]

sounds like you've made a better purchase than had they been T/Webb.       According to Reynolds, the backstamp WALSH in a straight  line, he suggests is the earlier mark and for which he gives a date range of 1926 - 1930.     I'd agree with you that unlikely to be 'Pompeian' in view of the paucity of inclusions/bubbles - and I notice looking at page 32 that Walsh did make tumblers with an everted rim and slightly waisted shape.    Anyway, congrats. on a v.g. find, especially as the seller also seems to have overlooked the Walsh backstamp.   

[NevB]

Thanks Paul, I've just found the ones in Reynolds in the 1930-45 section but as you say I think these are earlier. Like other Walsh pieces I've seen you have to catch the mark exactly right to notice it, I'm not sure the seller would have known the significance of it anyway. I've just bought another one from the same seller  , who for some reason didn't put it with the other three. Here's a close up of the mark and one with a Pompeian vase for comparison.

[Paul S.]

backstamps have been the subject of the occasional thread over many years, and I remember being taken to task some years back by the late Bernard Cavelot, for being probably too dogmatic about the known period of their use.        Experience was on his side, of course, and I lacked the knowledge that the overlap and continued use of a given mark was often for a longer period than the books suggest.     But at least we have a general broad idea of when and for roughly how long some marks were used.
Coming back to T/Webb, and their tumblers, I have a set of six (all marked) of their Sunshine Amber from the Gay Glass range (as per the link) - plus some non-u. in amber, some in a purple-brown colour, some in clear and a singleton in a washed out something or another ................  so it seems Webb produced a variety of colours.     All have everted rims but are straight sided, and all have a polished pontil depression.
Anyway, very jealous of your Walsh glasses - I don't recall seeing them before, though I have owned various examples of Walsh glass at one time or another.         

[Paul S.]

sorry, meant to suggest that the Mods. correct the subject heading to reflect the fact that these are Walsh and not T/Webb.    thanks. 

[NevB]

Regarding backstamps, Eric Reynolds in his book says the WALSH stamp was applied for on 18/11/1925 and registered on 26/6/1926 as 464471. As far as I was aware numbers were issued sequentially regardless of what the item was ie. glass, metal etc. Perhaps trademarks were registered differently but according to the records this number places it between 7-14/9/1905. Any information would be appreciated.

[Paul S.]

my understanding agrees with all you say, so quite why this apparent difference between the date Reynolds gives in his book, and what, according to the sequence of Reg. Nos. suggests 464471 should be a September 1905 date, I've no idea.     Reynolds does speak of 'Registration Nos.", so we'd imagine this particular Registration would be included amongst the normal 'design' Registrations.       As far as authors go, this Reg. No. is understandably absent - we assume - from Thompson etc. for the obvious reason that it's unrelated to an actual glass design/shape.   
Gulliver devotes no less than nine pages to the subject of designs and shapes which were Registered by Walsh, but the subject of his work is Victorian, so his coverage of such matters ceases c. 1914.     I might go to TNA in the coming weeks out of curiosity and have a look at the Register for 1905-1906.

P.S.   just for interest, should some folk not be aware ................   Whilst Reg. Nos. are indeed sequential no matter what the material, this applies to Nos. post early 1884 only.      Prior to that date i.e. the lozenge period, Reg. Nos. for all materials were sequential but within each separate material - and that had been the case from c. 1840 when the Registration system commenced.

[NevB]

Thanks Paul, I will investigate further.