Topic: Topaz or Canary or Victoria

[cagney]

  Photos are selected entries from Geo. W. Leightons copy of William Leightons batch book with other notations. Available online from the Rakow Library at CMOG. Creative Commons, no copyright.
Seems to use topaz and canary as similar if not the same. Victoria maybe a little more green, all use approximately the same amount of uranium. A handful or more other recipes using uranium listed as well.

[Ekimp]

Thanks for posting this. I wonder which uranium compound they used.

[flying free]

Thanks Cagney.

Am I reading you correctly that it could be the terms canary and topaz were interchangeable?  Therefore, if so, it could be that in certain descriptions/instances the use of the word topaz may not denote a particular colour of uranium glass but might simply be a term for uranium glass?
or it could mean that topaz and canary (in certain descriptions ) denote the same colour of uranium glass?

m

[cagney]

  You are exactly where I am at. I have questions. George W Leighton sure seems to use the two terms interchangeably. Trying to find a second source to either discount or account for this topaz terminology. A bit obsessed to know if the English terminology is the same as the bohemian. No luck , need help. I seem to recall that Bohemian topaz had a certain gold matrix added . Am I correct in my recollection?
 

[flying free]

eeuggh - my laptop has crashed and I'm currently on a broken 15 year old one, so limited in what I can do hence being so quiet.

Also festivities planning getting in the way of doing lovely glass stuff.  I will remember your question and go and have another look at the books (especially Farbenglas volumes) as soon as I get some time in the next week or so. It might throw some light on the conundrum.

I have big question marks over:
a) the Queen Victoria uranium glass bowl allegedly being produced in England  for her coronation banquet at Guildhall in 1837
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport-co/finger-bowl-davenport--co/

b) And also over exactly how successful the uranium glass recipe was (Scotland maker - can't  remember name now) although recent research has shown the maker saying 'successful' with his recipe. That was c. 1840 though so after the  Queen Vic banquet bowls in any event.

As I always say, I may be wrong, but something not right about those bowls being produced a) at Davenport and b) in 1837 anywhere in England or Scotland. It's vexatious.

[cagney]

  I think the Leighton - Ford correspondence c. 1839 intimates a slightly earlier date, " You likewise informed me that to make your Canary Metal you used nothing but the oxide of Uranium in your flint
batch". John Fords recipe works out to about 1 lb. of uranium per 91 lbs. of flint batch. Leighton seems to have refined it down to about 1 lb. of uranium per 133 lbs. of  flint batch.
  Concerning finger glasses/cups/bowls I can give you this tidbit from Jane Shadel Spillmans book on ' White House Glassware '. Among the glassware purchased through James P. Drummond "Importer and Dealer in China, Glass and Earthenware" by Presdent Van Buren for the White House in 1837 are 6 doz.green finger cups @$3.66 per dozen. Among the glassware  ordered by President Tyler in 1841 are 1 doz. green finger bowls. One housewife's advice book of the period described there use, under the listing "finger glasses".

  One other tidbit from the same book. Van Buren owned a personal set of English table glass, bought by his son in England in June 1839. According to the invoice for the set, there were two dozen each of six sizes of stemware, all engraved in Queens pattern.

 

[cagney]

  I think your critiques of the VR bowl have some validity, especially the foot. As to the difficulty in the making of uranium/canary glass, I don't think it necessarily that difficult. My theory is that cullet used may interact negatively in the batch. Leightons advice to use flint batch No. 1 in his canary or topaz is telling, he literally makes his own cullet from the same flint glass recipe.
  The timeline for completion of the set for the dinner is suspect as well. One example of a timeline for a large important order of cut and engraved glass could be the large set made by Bakewell, Page and Bakewell for the White House In 1829. It is not known exactly when it was ordered, but it is believed that it was soon after the inauguration of President Jackson on March 4. The order was pretty much complete in late July. A Pittsburgh newspaper account dated July 25, 1829 first sentence reads " That order is nearly complete". The order consisted of 435 pieces engraved with vintage and a coat of arms based on the Great Seal of the United States [ eagle, shield, ribbon,etc.]. This order would not have been a problem for Bakewell as they had French engravers already on hand that they had enticed to emigrate. Even if you discount the whole month of March this is a four month timeline.

   Leightons recipe for flint glass No.1

[cagney]

 The Corning Museum has a celery and wine rinser from the White House made at a later date [1850s] that pretty much mirrors the Jackson set with minor differences. The link is too long for me to address. Simply go to their site, click on Explore the collection and put Pierce in the search bar the examples will show up within the first results.

[flying free]

I will check those out and thank you

I suppose my problems are that I don't have the first clue about making glass.  But some things make me query that QV bowl:

1) The timeline of producing it - days? as Davenports got together the china and glass for that 1837 banquet at short notice? I don't think it's possible



2) producing uranium glass with lead.  The Bohemians were producing uranium glass in the 1830s. It was a big new thing/colour it seems to me.  I don't know if Neuwelt or Riedel was using lead in the uranium glass.  They might have been.  So they might be  contenders for the timing of 1837.  The shape of the bowl makes me think 'Russia'.  However I've not been able to find anything to match it so far.


Whilst I don't doubt everyone loved it and it's effect and were experimenting:

-  I don't think it was that easy to produce given that Pellatt had an entire batch crumble after delivery to clients and had to re make the entire batch of goods at their own expense and re-ship. 
- In 1839 Leighton was corresponding about how to make it.  It had been made in Bohemia for years beforehand.
- If Ford's uranium batch was so successful where is it?  Where are the items made by Ford?  Nothing has surfaced in all this time.
- It was expensive rare component.  I don't think it was being madly produced all over the world in 1837 for use in glassmaking.  I get the feeling it was being produced in secret in Bohemia at the time and sold from there.  But that's just a feeling so no evidence.
- Davenports don't seem to have produced other items that make me think they were an amazing top class glass maker at the time.
- There is no documentary evidence I can see in the Davenports book.  Does the V&A have documentary evidence for their identification of this piece as being by Davenports?  If they do why haven't they publicised this as a British maker making uranium glass in 1837 as it seems to be sooooo rare.  And if so, why did the British Museum have it originally listed as Whitefriars?


3) I do wonder if the set was made for another much later banquet. 

[flying free]

  ...
  Concerning finger glasses/cups/bowls I can give you this tidbit from Jane Shadel Spillmans book on ' White House Glassware '. Among the glassware purchased through James P. Drummond "Importer and Dealer in China, Glass and Earthenware" by Presdent Van Buren for the White House in 1837 are 6 doz.green finger cups @$3.66 per dozen. Among the glassware  ordered by President Tyler in 1841 are 1 doz. green finger bowls. One housewife's advice book of the period described there use, under the listing "finger glasses".

  One other tidbit from the same book. Van Buren owned a personal set of English table glass, bought by his son in England in June 1839. According to the invoice for the set, there were two dozen each of six sizes of stemware, all engraved in Queens pattern.

 

1) See page 52 on this link for a description of what Queen's pattern might have been  and some information on what the Davenports supplied glass might have been.  Hint, I think this link page 52 is suggesting  the glass decoration 'could be' that horrid Davenports method of fusing a matted pattern onto glass to make it look as though it was engraved? - it's horrid looking stuff in my opinion:
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/13434/lot/158/
and isn't comparable to the engraving on the uranium QV bowls so I'm not sure the 'Queen's pattern' is linked to the uranium bowls other than maybe that it could be a floral design incorporating her roses etc etc ?
see here for comparison of the above type of decoration and that on the uranium bowls:
https://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/Combined1.jpg

See also here for a Perrin and Geddes glassware that was commissioned by the Liverpool Council for the Prince of Wales in 1806.  In my opinion much higher quality glass from 1806 than any of the Davenports in the Bonhams example?
https://www.lyonandturnbull.com/auctions/five-centuries-furniture-and-works-of-art-inc-property-of-the-earls-of-crawford-balcarres-609/lot/170

Also I thought that Davenport method patent was much earlier  than perhaps this Van Buren order might have been to be honest. Would they still be supplying this type of thing at the end of the Van Buren presidency (1841?)  This document seems to say the Davenports order was for personal use and towards the end of his Presidency:
Source: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site Historic Furnishings Report Addendum, Part 1: Historical Data Section
-Janice Hodson
Historic Furnishings Researcher 2019

http://npshistory.com/publications/mava/hfr-add1.pdf

2) Interestingly this Hodson document was dated 2019 and on page 52 it also states that very little Davenport glass has been identified and no pattern books survive. 



Question: If no pattern books survive then on what information have the V&A based their assertion  that Davenports,  at very short notice, produced some fabulous but oddly engraved uranium glass finger bowls for the QV banquet held in 1837?  The same bowls that the Museum of London had previously credited as Whitefriars?

I had been wondering about Apsley Pellatt and John Ford (Holyrood Glass) as possible contenders.
- Apsley Pellatt had the uranium crumbling disaster and had to resupply - which implies that he might have re-supplied successfully.  Did he have a dozen finger bowls left over that could quickly be engraved?  He talks about this in his book but there is no date I can recall.
- John Ford Holyrood Glass -  I'm not sure there is any evidence he was successfully making uranium glass in 1837?