Topic: Burtles and Tate Glass Swan? ID Help

[Roobarb]

Hello and hope you're all well

This glass swan seems to me to be identical to the Burtles & Tate ones. However, I've only seen examples which have the number 20086 on the base. Could this still be Burtles and Tate without the identifying number? Thank you!

[Paul S.]

the moulds apparently were made to include the Reg. No. within an oblong box, and it's this Rd. No. 20086, from 8th Jan. 1885 that appears - usually  -  on these swans.     In Ray Slack's book, he gives a height of 2.5 inches and length of 3 inches, for both an opalescent example and one of the black ones that were destined for the Oz market.          Always possible there were other moulds that didn't carry the Reg. No., and there may have been other sizes of swan too, from B. & T., and just to confuse matters there are many swans out there that probably had nothing to do with B. & T.   Apparently designed as a posy vase rather than a salt, which is how some sellers promote them.          How it can be shown that a swan without the Rd. No. is unquestionably B. & T. I'm not sure.

[glassobsessed]

B&T made swans in at least four sizes, from memory each size has a slight variation in wing shape. You would need to match the feather pattern and wing shape exactly, suspect they do differ between makers.

John

[Roobarb]

Thank you both for your replies I will have a look at the 4 sizes and see if mine is an exact match. As you say Paul, I guess without the Rd it's impossible to say for sure. I'll also have a look at the posy vases you mentioned

[Lustrousstone]

My question is did B&T make swans in white, as that looks white to me rather than opalescent

[Paul S.]

the edges of this swan give a nod toward opalescent, and IMHO to say simply white glass as, for example, in Sowerby's white Vitro-porcelain or milk glass doesn't adequately describe its appearance, nor is it as translucent as Blanc-de-Lait, though it has to be said that it has a far greater opacity than Slack's opalescent B. & T. swan - shown in his book - which is a tad confusing  -  we need others who have a opalescent B & T. swans to share their pix.        Neither do I think the swan has quite the opacity of Sowerby's 'Opal' Vitro-porcelain, though from memory that might have vaguely similar edge appearance.                     There have probably been a mountain of variables in this 'arsenic and re-heating/re-striking milky/opalescent look' over the years, and perhaps the more arsenic you chuck in the greater is the opacity    -   one of the criteria of opalescent glass is the 'sunset glow'  -  no idea if the B. & T. swans possess that property  -  possibly the higher the arsenic content the more beautiful the sunset.     May we ask Roobarb to confirm please if there is any sign of sunset or fire colour  -  perhaps if there is nothing then we may have to revise our ideas.         I'm going to stick with some form of variation on opalescent  -  until it's proven otherwise Christine, which may well happen               The answer to your question is that I haven't the slightest idea  -  certainly Slack mentions opalescent and black only.

[glassobsessed]

Some B&T swans (and more):
http://www.victorianpressedglass.com/gallery_other.htm

The four sizes in one photo:
http://www.victorianpressedglass.com/images/otherglass/burtles/burtles_8.jpg

[MHT]

I have two swans which are unmarked but have exactly the same wing markings as my marked B&T swans.
One was bought in France, I wonder if B&T may have used unmarked moulds for some export items?

Pictured here: http://www.victorianpressedglass.com/gallery_other.htm
In the picture with four swans, the one on the bottom right is unmarked.

Just to confuse matters, on the same page, the swan with the white bottom and the pink top, the white bottom is a solid white.
This is the other unmarked swan which was bought in France.

Edit: Great minds think at the same time 

[Paul S.]

John  -  believe it or not, in a former life I had three of those u. canoes - now none.        Of your opalescent swans, all are noticeably less opaque than the swan shown here, likewise the four sizes - I do see a little variation in surface patterning - not a lot, but definitely some.              I was going to suggest that perhaps the black versions for the down under market may not have carried the Reg. No., since it would have meant little to the natives.           Without going through the books I think Davidson used a different Set of Reg. Nos. for Oz, to those they would have been allocated for the U.K., and if correct this would give some support to the comment from MHT re 'unmarked moulds for some export items'.          Is there any mileage in thinking that some B. & T. moulds might have wandered into the possession of another glass house at a later date?

[Lustrousstone]

Registrations were only valid for five years, so not all swans would have been marked if they were made for longer than five years. Can we have a better picture of the side of the white swan, as the feather pattern doesn't seem to match to me but it's hard to see