Topic: Burtles and Tate Glass Swan? ID Help

[Paul S.]

just to add a little to Lustrousstone's important comments about duration of Reg. protection in the C19.         The Designs Act of 1842 provided for protection of a given shape or design for a period of three years, and this situation lasted from 1842 until late 1883  -  in other words for the duration of the lozenge/diamond years.           In their wisdom the guys who dictate such rules and regulations decided  toward the end of that period that they would increase the three years to five - as Christine mentions - so five years became the norm and covers the 1885 period and date of this B. & T. swan Registration.               It's a known fact that many moulds went on being used long after the date they were made - to such an extent on occasions that the outline of the diamond - or plain No. if Registered after 1883 - became worn and illegible.         I don't recall ever seeing a discussion about the re-making of moulds due to the expiry of a given Registration period of protection - I think this period was important to makers and they were likely keen to continue to show - by means of a Reg. No. - to whom a given design belonged.        Plagiarism of some of the best known shapes and designs was not uncommon, and for which - in the absence of a No. - cannot be attributed with certainty.                 IMHO I can't see moulds being re-made simply because the five year period had expired - it certainly wasn't the case as far as I know - plus there are many examples of Registrations in the Kew Register to show that successful designs and shapes were extended beyond their original five year term, sometimes once and even as many as three extended periods of five years.     I can't think of a valid reason why a maker would want to omit showing a moulded No. on their wares.
 

[neilh]

The current thought on the Burtles Tate swan is that only the registered ones are Burtles Tate. Many companies made their own, some look very close to BT. With such a small item, it is inevitable.

[Paul S.]

I'm inclined to agree with that suggestion.

[Anne]

Can I repeat a comment I made on another topic back in 2015, about molds and registered design numbers, as it may be pertinent:

It's certainly an interesting read, Mike. It's also worth adding that David C Watts, author of the book on London Glasshouses, said some while ago when we were discussing moulds, that the norm for many glassworks was to have four moulds for each piece being made. That way the production would be continuous. He also mentioned slight variations between moulds, e.g. that 1 or 2 may carry a registered design number whilst the others of the same piece do not.  There is, I am sure, still much we do not know about moulds, but my suspicion is that the variations noted in the article may be simply slight differences depending on the mould maker's interpretation of the pattern or when a damaged mould is replaced with a new one.  I could, of course, be totally wrong, so please don't take this as gospel, it's just how I am interpreting what I am seeing.

[Paul S.]

agree, interesting comments - are we aware if the source of that information was verbal, or is there written provenance.     Have to say I've never seen that suggestion in any of the pressed glass books I've owned.    Multiple moulds would be a practicable approach when the demand was high, but then again the act of pressing a piece was over in a matter of seconds almost, and the piece might then have gone to the lehr leaving the mould free for the next gob.     It could be that for more utilitarian wares that were the staple of a manufacturers wares and which were needed in greater quantity this situation was beneficial, but for novelty items required in small numbers then possibly not so important.           I'd still come back to the issue that for a Registered design of which a company was careful to protect, why would they have some moulds with a Reg. No., or diamond, and some without  -  but then I'm guessing too, and would be good if we have something in writing to substantiate this idea.

[Anne]

Hi Paul, the info re the four moulds was in an email from the late David Watts to me as part of a conversation we had about trinket sets and the Century Glassworks.

[Paul S.]

thanks Anne  -  I was thinking more as to whether the information that David supplied to you had come verbally from a glasshouse or perhaps in writing from same.     Many folk say many things, some of which is well founded, and some of which is perhaps less so  -  some info may have a more restricted use.    I might speak to Ray Slack and see if he is aware of this situation, though have to say believe he was working more from an academic point of view rather than in contact with glasshouses. 

[Roobarb]

Apologies, I just popped on to look back at what was said about this piece and noticed the responses to my last post. I must not have my notifications set up properly so will have a look at that! Thank you for your replies and sorry again for late response...
Here are some more photos as requested, it it quite transparent at edges and the beak...

[Paul S.]

thanks  -  if there is an absence of any opalescence, then with the appearance of the 'edges' we now see, I'd put head on block and suggest this has more the look of milk glass.

[Roobarb]

I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but there are swirls in the glass....