Topic: Topaz or Canary or Victoria

[flying free]

  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.

 

Yes, I think I agree.  So as I think I said on the QV thread, this takes us back to potentially 1839 given the Leighton- Ford correspondence.  However, it still leaves us with;
- no definitive evidence that what Ford was producing was in large enough quantities (as opposed to experimental) to make the QV bowls, which in any case were supposedly supplied 2 years earlier in 1837.
- no definitive evidence that the uranium glass Ford produced at Holyrood remained successful and didn't crumble.


The Ford Ranken documentation is in the Museum of Edinburgh.  Surely, as we have previously commented regarding there being no evidence in publicising it/having it in accounts documentation that Davenport  made the glass for the QV, if Holyrood had supplied the uranium glass bowls it would be somewhere in the documentation and would have been raised in that research or by the V&A?

https://booksfromscotland.com/2017/09/magic-misery-glassmaking-scotland/


The comments in this excerpt of the research are interesting:

a)  they make clear the difficulties of mixing colour  and ensuring the glass turned out fit for purpose (not just uranium other colours as well)
and
b) there is a curious comment about the 'magic' of gold ruby glass that apparently turned out clear but over the course of 8 weeks turned red.  Seriously? is that for real or is it 'smoke and mirrors' stuff? I thought gold ruby was made by the inclusion of purple of Cassius and reheating the glass for the red to form?
Source:
https://www.cmog.org/article/gold-ruby-glass


'Purple of Cassius, as described by Kunckel (Kunckel 1716, pp. 382–383), was not invented by Cassius. Johann Rudolf Glauber had already described the process in principle in 1659 (see pages 64–65 in Glass of the Alchemists). This was the ideal raw material for gold ruby glass because it produces gold particles in the finest solution. When the finished product is reheated, the metallic gold forms nanoscale particles, which must be the right size and shape to convey a purple-ruby color through the absorption of light. If the gold colloids, as these particles are called, are too small, the glass remains colorless. If they are a bit too big and too much light is absorbed, the glass looks liverish (German, lebrig), or opaque brownish.'

[cagney]

  Leighton devotes four pages to gold ruby, in detail. From the 250 grams of gold coin to the actual composition of the aqua regia he dissolves it in. In the end he forms them into [sausages] for remelt. It was customary at the time to heavily plate gold ruby over clear lead glass to conserve. There are other recipes for ruby involving gold in the mix relating to specific uses such as ruby enamel for jewelers, ruby for plating, etc.
  The first two photos are a recipe for gold ruby and his notes.
The third photo are his notes on the composition of aqua regia, how to handle it and what to expect.
The fourth photo looking a little liverish? Probably caused by an over abundance of silver in the gold alloy. Can only be noticed in a very strong light at a certain angle.

 As far as the 8 week miracle it just might be possible if left in direct sunlight. I doubt it would be a very strong coloring, similar to sun induced purpling in late soda lime glassware.

[cagney]

  Some continental receipts [recipes] for gold ruby taken from a selected translation of Hermann E. Benraths book "DIE GLASFABRIKATION" c.1875 by Edward Drummond Libbey c.1885. A bit of a hard read for me [his cursive writing], perhaps you have more talent for this writing than I.

  Further reading can be had on CMOG site. Click on RAKOW RESEARCH LIBRARY>DIGITAL COLLECTIONS>POPULAR TOPICS>GLASS RECIPES. It is no.10 of 199 [thankfully]. Although there is a search bar.

[flying free]

  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?
 

I put this in the QV bowl thread Cagney so it took me a little bit to find it again.

Link to the other thread regarding Gold topaz and topaz - Apsley Pellatt comments and Farbenglas information from the book:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php?topic=70066.msg391983#msg391983


Thank you so much for posting the recipe photographs and all the information about ruby/gold ruby glass. It's fascinating to read and really informative.  Thank you!

[flying free]

There is another point I think might be considered.  Apsley Pellatt discusses the peculiarity of the perception on the eye of uranium glass as the light hits the colour but goes on to say this is lost under candlelight. 

I'd been 'allowing' for the fact that the QV bowls were goldy in colour hence fit for a table with plenty of gold stuff on it (crockery/cutlery? etc.). However, what would be the point of including these 12 finger bowls if the splendour of the colour is lost under candlelight?  Why would they even be considered for a coronation banquet when, under candle light and gasoliers, clear glass glitters so much more spectacularly?  And would complement the metal utensils (gold plated? etc) and the flat of the china with gilding.  If I was designing that table I wouldn't be using topaz coloured glass. 

Admittedly, I suppose it would distinguish the table of QV v the rest of the tables if the bowls were coloured rather than clear.

This point is rather negated by the description here of the gold plate on QV's top table:
See last paragraph of page 68 and first of page 69
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_First_Year_of_a_Silken_Reign_1837_8/_4_SAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=guildhall+banquet+1837+coronation&pg=PA273&printsec=frontcover

I'm not sure there is any glass in the world that could compete with that level of gold plate adornment across a banqueting table, or indeed stand out against it.

[flying free]

I put this in the QV bowl thread Cagney so it took me a little bit to find it again.

Link to the other thread regarding Gold topaz and topaz - Apsley Pellatt comments and Farbenglas information from the book:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php?topic=70066.msg391983#msg391983


Thank you so much for posting the recipe photographs and all the information about ruby/gold ruby glass. It's fascinating to read and really informative.  Thank you!

I'm adding this link here for ease of comparison.
Source: Excerpt online from Farbenglas 1, Dr Waltraud Neuwirth

See page 185  for an example of Neuwelt produced 'Gold topaz' glass goblet from before 1839:
http://waltraudneuwirth.at/Buecher-Selbstverlag-Html/1993-Farbenglas%201-%20Farbenpaletten.html

[cagney]

  The links to the Passua Glass Museum and the Neuwelt goblet w/cover informative and much appreciated. Thank you.

  Generally cut glass falls into 1 of 3 categories for me.
!. CUT GLASS- some areas cut, some not [as blown]
2. RICH CUT GLASS- cut allover [except areas to be engraved] top to bottom.
3. SPARE NO EXPENCE CUT GLASS- the  Prince Of Wales set by Perrin & Geddes a good example of this type.
The QV bowls I think rich cut bordering on spare no expence, if the rims cut, fully the latter. The step cutting and even the foot cutting O.K. for the period in England. According to Spillmans  book WHITE HOUSE GLASSWARE it became fashionable in the mid 1830s for finger bowls to be colored, usually green. Hock glasses as well, frequently a light green. The color of the beverage or water not to be noticed?

  I have re read portions of Hajdamach's book concerning the period 1800-1850. Of special interest is page 66 concerning The Dudley Glassworks of Thomas Hawkes. Specifically a quoted entry from the Worcestershire Directory of 1840, which described the works. The last sentence of this entry reads as follows: "The splendid gold enamel desert service, furnished to the Corporation of London on her Majesty's first visit to the Guildhall on the 9th November, 1837, was manufactured here.

  As far as Pellatt's remarks on lighting and the effect on uranium glass, while the desired effect may be lost, I think color still there. The two photos here illustrate this quite well. The shaded foot and stem might as well be any yellow glass, while the directly lit top seems to glow.

[flying free]

Hi Cagney. Thank you for the further information from Hajdamach.  I think Kev and I discussed what that set from Thomas Hawkes might have been - perhaps one piece in the V&A - I'll search now and link it if I find the one we thought it might be:

edited - I think it might be this that the report you noted is referring to:

https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O4967/plate-thomas-hawkes/

Thank you for the pics of the lit uranium glass.  I think they illustrate that under candlelight/gasoliers the pieces I suppose could have been plain amber without needing to be uranium really?  Does the uranium really add anything spectacular under poor lighting I mean?

[cagney]

  The probable Hawkes gold enamel of some interest certainly. The larger point to be made I think is that the entry in the Worcestershire Directory c.1840 gives evidence of a second glassworks, besides Davenport, is participating in production of glassware for the Queens banquet. This fact may imply a possible consortium of glass manufacturers suppling glassware to said banquet.

  Your hypothesis concerning period lightings effect on uranium lead glass most probably correct.
My recent [just now] experiment with uranium lead glass on this cloudy day.
1. photo taken in indirect daylight from the window
2.photo taken in indirect daylight muted[shade down]
I firmly believe the type and intensity of light can affect dramatically the perception of color in uranium lead glass.