Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests > Glass
Topaz or Canary or Victoria
flying free:
- It seems Davenport was asked to 'supply' the goods. The question is where they 'gathered' the goods from at such short notice I think. As you seem to be saying I think, if they were the sole maker of this huge supply you'd think they'd have publicised it, accounted for it and shouted it from the rooftops.
If however the goods were gathered from British companies and companies from abroad, then there is a question were Davenport also a 'middleman' as well as a maker, or was it just for this particular Coronation Banquet that they acted in that way on behalf of 'the nation'?
Also, Davenport seems to have been a prodigious supplier of china so their standing as a company may be because of that, whereas it appears the glass seems to have been secondary and something they were not as famous for at the time.
- I've not had a chance to check the Farbenglas books yet but I think there is mention in there of the Neuwelt 'Gold Topaz'. I'll check it out over the weekend and post again.
cagney:
The use of middlemen seems to have been a common practice. Successive administrations including the Jackson admin. in 1833 ordered glassware for the White House from third party dealers in china and glass to augment the original service made by Bakewell in 1829. Breakage and probably outright theft was considerable. At times large receptions would be held open to the general public {as one newspaper put it the "washed and unwashed"] involving hundreds. These third party orders were considerable, involving anywhere from 5 to 10 different articles bought per dozen or dozens.
19th century topaz or gold topaz in the bohemian sense seems to have not survived in any quantity. Perhaps it was unstable similar to Heisy's marigold.
George W. Leightons notes concerning different batches can be very informative I think. Two examples involving copper in the batch I find very interesting. Monkey is term he uses for a small furnace to do experiments.
flying free:
--- Quote from: cagney on December 03, 2023, 09:18:02 PM --- 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.
--- End quote ---
Thank you for the further info.
I wonder why William Leighton has a uranium glass recipe called Victoria?
Am I right in thinking these recipes are from post 1839 when Thomas Leighton had his discussions with John Ford?
flying free:
--- Quote from: cagney on December 17, 2023, 12:18:08 PM --- 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.
--- End quote ---
That date is good for their correspondence but whether the glass mix was successful is a question.
There is some information here that seems to imply 1841 for Holyrood uranium glass (my bold in the quote below) ?
Source: excerpt online from
The Magic and Misery of Glassmaking: Researching the History of the Scottish Glass Industry
By Jill Turnbull
Published by Society of Antiquaries of Scotland
'...One early venture was the production of uranium glass, called canary or topaz. In May 1841, pot number one (of eight) in the furnace was charged with 545lbs of their clear ‘flint’ (lead) glass[1] to which 6lbs of ‘oxide of uranium’ was added. It ‘turned out very good’.
https://booksfromscotland.com/2017/09/magic-misery-glassmaking-scotland/
cagney:
I take the citation of May 1841 as documentation of a successful large batch of uranium glass, not necessarily the first. Although it seems to imply such. Wether Ford had made previous successful batches perhaps an open question? Leightons query about only the amount of uranium in Fords "Canary Metal" and the use of the of the term "to make your Canary Metal" in his letter seems to imply heavily that he was successful at this time. Wether in smaller batches unknown.
Victoria I think is a more green version of canary. The addition of brass filings in the recipe given at the beginning of this thread serves this purpose I think. In the less than handful of other recipes for Victoria "virtigris" or "blue vitriol" is substituted. These two ingredients are also used in various uranium based greens for special purposes, green for plating, etc.
Doubtful that any of these go back as far as 1839. George W. Leighton's reciept book is divided into sections according to his notes with some overlap. Pages 1-12 recipes made at Wheeling,West Virginia c. late 1880s.
Pages12-16 recipes made at NEAG 1858-1866. Pages 30-63 his fathers[grandfathers] recipes. No dates are given. Pages 64-75 various recipes collected from various sources.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version