Topic: Topaz or Canary or Victoria

[flying free]

  museumcollection.winterthur.org/index.php#.Y1cHFS2ZP1x corrected link from above.Hopefully.

There are many violet glasses in that link - lovely colour.
I did note they say 'Stiegel - probable maker'.  Is that what you  meant?
There is also an interesting blog piece on Stiegel glass here, regarding the difficulty of identifying the glass from there v glass from abroad:
https://twipa.blogspot.com/2021/08/henry-william-stiegel-manheim-and.html

The Met says this:
'Henry William Stiegel, who operated the American Flint Glass Manufactory from 1765 to 1774, was the first successful producer of glass tableware that was the equal of European imports. The diamond-daisy pattern in this amethyst-colored pocket flask was probably made by Stiegel; the pattern was not used by European glassmakers. Many variations of this popular design exist, as seen in other pieces in the collection (see 1980.502.68 and 34.65).'
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/6635

The daisy is interesting - on this from Spiegl:
http://www.glas-forschung.info/pageone/pdf/farbglas.pdf
it looks the same as this one for example in the Winterthur it seems to me?
http://museumcollection.winterthur.org/single-record.php?resultsperpage=20&view=catalog&srchtype=advanced&hasImage=&ObjObjectName=&CreOrigin=&Earliest=&Latest=&CreCreatorLocal_tab=&materialsearch=&ObjObjectID=&ObjCategory=Glass&DesMaterial_tab=&DesTechnique_tab=&AccCreditLineLocal=&CreMarkSignature=&recid=1959.3095&srchfld=&srchtxt=stiegel&id=c49e&rownum=1&version=100&src=results-imagelink-only

[flying free]

  A footnote in a glass club bulletin from 2012 concerning dating of American canary glass contains this statement: "Bohemian glass scholar Olga Drahotova claims that "yellow and gold uranium glass was introduced both in the Reidel and Harrachs Glassworks in northern Bohemia, and in the Sumova mountains in southern Bohemia, almost simultaneously". BOHEMIAN GLASS,1400-1989, p. 69. The authors use of the term 'claims" in this instance seems to minimize Olga's statement. I was wondering what you think.

It is a strange word for the glass club bulletin to choose :

 Information here on Olga Drahotová (1932-2021) in the Journal of Glass Studies 2021:
https://www.proquest.com/openview/c9d29e91949b464e26fb0eac87e79913/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=49252


however, it's possible it wasn't used in a way meant to minimize Olga's statement in the book, but perhaps used because as far as I could see there were no reference sources given specifically for that comment by her, so nothing for them to reference to? Perhaps that's why they used the word.


- In the book  Bohemian Glass 1990 English Text, Copyright Flammarion, the chapter written by Olga Drahotová page 69 says what you've mentioned above.


- Interestingly a few years later in Farbenglas 1, Neuwirth W, 1993, gives more detailed information (if I've understood it correctly) about developments of uranium glass:
page 277
Under the chapter heading 'On the History of Uranium Glass'
'In the Uranium Compounds in Industry' (glassmaking and porcelain painting) of 1963,Franz Kirchheimer devoted an illuminating chapter pointing to a large number of early sources connected with the subject (Kirchheimer, 1963, p. 274ff.).  The ...'


Further on she says:
'...Some authors of specialised contemporary literature mention the use of uranium in glass-making on in passing or not at all. To draw the conclusion from this, that uranium was not used before 1840 to colour glass, would be incorrect.  It can be proved that the 'composition glass factories' of Bohemia knew about uranium's power to color glass - already before 1835 - at Blaschka, as can be gathered from surviving accounts ...'
She then lists in detail numerous surviving accounts which include uranium.

at the end of the paragraph it says:
'... If we assume - and there appears to be no evidence to the contrary - that these terms came about at the same time as the "raw compositions," we find the term "Annagrun" already before 1835; can it therefore still be connected with Anna Riedel?'

Neuwirth also says on page 277 'The history of uranium glass lies in obscurity'.

[cagney]

  Pellatt recounts one batch gone bad. Adulterants [too much alkali] probably entering his ingredient stream through his supply chain. Presumably he has made uranium batches before and after this episode. Peculiarities of using uranium in a glass batch may involve a much smaller window of error than a simple batch of lead glass. Considering the whole batch probably slightly radioactive it is a small wonder that the ingredients get along at all.

  As to the Stiegel bottles, the term "attributed to Stiegel" was meant to imply probably. There is no "hard" evidence that Stiegel made these bottles it is pretty much circumstantial. Only one of these bottles has an actual history of even being in the country in the 18th century. They do differ from their Central European cousins in certain aspects such as composition [through spectrographic analysis], shape [ more rounded] and most of this family of bottles occur in the violet/amethyst color. Any other color including clear are rare. The bottle in Farbenglas is interesting in that it shows a design feature [diamond daisy] attributed to Stiegels glassworks and a design feature [checkered diamond] attributed to John Frederick Amelungs New Bremen Glass Manufactory 1784-94. Both glassworks started in this country by Germans employing German workmen.

  The Met says:"this pattern" [diamond daisy] "was not used by European glass makers" is obviously in error if the bottle in Farbenglas be European. This same statement more or less is repeated in books/articles as recently as 2018. Thus my "glass gospel" comment earlier in this thread.

  A photo of my favorite design of these "Stiegel type" bottles. Almost timeless pattern, could very well work in todays market I think.

[flying free]

Repeating this from the Queen Victoria thread just in case it is of interest:

The Chemistry of Pottery etc etc.
The chemistry of the several natural and artificial heterogenous compounds used in manufacturing porcelain, glass and pottery.
- Simeon Shaw, published 1837 , printed London W. Lewis & Sons Finch-Lane.
See pages 503 (Flint glass onwards) - 507



I'm not suggesting the glassmakers of the day turned to Simeon Shaw's book to work out how to produce their own glass, however, this was published in 1837 in London -  and there does not seem to me (unless I have misunderstood or misread) to be any mention of uranium in any of the 'recipes' for glass colours.

Remember Queen Victoria's banquet at Guildhall was November 1837.

Uranium did seem to be mentioned in conjunction with enamelling pottery if I've read it correctly.  But there didn't seem to be mention of using it to colour glass.

In the making of 'Topaz' glass it mentions including 'Gold-Colored'.  Referring back up the page to 'Gold-color there is no mention of using uranium to produce it.



Referring back to my post #61 ,
'...Some authors of specialised contemporary literature mention the use of uranium in glass-making on in passing or not at all. To draw the conclusion from this, that uranium was not used before 1840 to colour glass, would be incorrect.  It can be proved that the 'composition glass factories' of Bohemia knew about uranium's power to color glass - already before 1835 - at Blaschka, as can be gathered from surviving accounts ...'
She then lists in detail numerous surviving accounts which include uranium.

I wonder if it was known how to produce uranium glass  in Bohemia prior to 1840  .... but not in England.

[cagney]

  Your last sentence a very plausible statement I think. There does seem to be a trial and error period in England around this time period. Whether do to procurement of the ingredients of a certain purity or a interaction with something in their basic flint glass formula. Most if not all recipes for flint glass at this time contain a certain amount of manganese as a de colorizer, as the sand will still have some amount of iron no matter how many washings. Manganese also used to limit bubbles in the glass during the blowing process. Leighton mentions that if you leave out the manganese in the uranium batch " the color will be better". Gillinders treatise on glassmaking c. 1851 gives 20 or so recipes for flint glass, all call for some amount of manganese. Of the 4 recipes for Victoria yellow or Topaz  three omit this ingredient.

  Interestingly the Bohemian recipes for there clear glass does not seem to do well with a certain amount of manganese given the statement in bold letters in reply #42 of this thread. Their recipes possibly more amendable to the addition of uranium as compared to the English flint.

 Of note concerning the the Stiegel bottles and their coloring. His seemingly very successful use of the violet color and the difficulties encountered by the German/Bohemians may be do to pure luck on Stiegels part. He omits a few ingredients used in central European recipes and Barium is present in all these bottles. As Barium was not even discovered as an element yet, it probably was naturally present in the local sands used.

[flying free]

Thank you so much for such interesting information. 

The link to the Simeon Shaw publication 1837 on Glass is here - apologies for omitting it previously:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Chemistry_of_the_Several_Natural_and/W4EOAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=the+chemistry+of+glass+simeon+shaw&pg=PA499&printsec=frontcover


I thought I'd read something about sand used re Stiegel (Steigel as it's sometimes referred to in old documents) but I can't find what I came across the other day now irritatingly. It was some old report somewhere.
I did come across this report on glass (written by Anonymous) published 1883, which may be of interest/contain some interesting info on glass manufacture per se although I've no idea if the info is accurate - anyway, it might be interesting :
Page 80 mentions 'Steigel'
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=svTzEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1123&printsec=frontcover&dq=1837+glass+making&source=entity_page&newbks=0&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

On page 75 it reads:
'As is stated in the chapter on materials, sand is but seldom used in Bohemia, Quartz, which is quite abundant, being substituted for it.'
Perhaps this might link in with your explanation re the violet glass?

[flying free]

deleted.  - remembered that Spiegl showed the diamond daisy design as being 18th century:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://www.glas-forschung.info/pageone/pdf/farbglas.pdf

I wonder where Stiegel had his molds made?
another of the diamond daisy bottles here - the glass looks as though it has other colours mixed in
https://live.pookandpook.com/online-auctions/pook/stiegel-glass-works-cologne-bottle-18th-c-5352337

[cagney]

  The use of quartz as a silica base most interesting. I was not aware of this fact. Quartz being a highly pure form of silica there may be no need of a de-colorizer in the batch, thus their unfamiliarity with the properties of manganese. Much as the English unfamiliarity with the properties of uranium?

  Stiegels former career as a ironmaster and eventual inheritor of a local ironworks [he married the owners daughter] would account for the molds being made. Careful study of each different pattern in this series of bottles involving the extensive holdings at Winterthur and holdings in the Philadelphia Museum of Art show consistent anomalies in the molding of each different pattern to heavily suggest that there was only one mold used for each pattern.

  Regarding the bottle in the link [Pook & Pook Auction]; it is most likely blown from a gather taken from the top of the pot. This is where impurities would form and be ladled off before use, but of course not necessarily all of it. This especially true of open top pots, these may require more than one ladling during their given use of a batch. Early 19th century American price list this as"tale" [second quality] and sold it at a discount.

[flying free]

Report on Glass compiled by Jos D. Weeks Special Agent addressed to Hon. C. W .Seaton Superintendent of Census March 21st 1883 (This appears to be the document I was quoting previously I think?)

See page 25 for the information re quartz used in Bohemian glass:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Report_on_the_Manufacture_of_Glass/IKs6AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=is+bohemian+glass+quartz+different+to+sand&pg=PA1062&printsec=frontcover

small information on Stiegel on page 80
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Report_on_the_Manufacture_of_Glass/IKs6AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=is+bohemian+glass+quartz+different+to+sand&pg=PA1062&printsec=frontcover

[flying free]

Repeating this from the Queen Victoria thread just in case it is of interest:

The Chemistry of Pottery etc etc.
The chemistry of the several natural and artificial heterogenous compounds used in manufacturing porcelain, glass and pottery.
- Simeon Shaw, published 1837 , printed London W. Lewis & Sons Finch-Lane.
See pages 503 (Flint glass onwards) - 507



I'm not suggesting the glassmakers of the day turned to Simeon Shaw's book to work out how to produce their own glass, however, this was published in 1837 in London -  and there does not seem to me (unless I have misunderstood or misread) to be any mention of uranium in any of the 'recipes' for glass colours.

Remember Queen Victoria's banquet at Guildhall was November 1837.

Uranium did seem to be mentioned in conjunction with enamelling pottery if I've read it correctly.  But there didn't seem to be mention of using it to colour glass.

In the making of 'Topaz' glass it mentions including 'Gold-Colored'.  Referring back up the page to 'Gold-color there is no mention of using uranium to produce it.



Referring back to my post #61 ,
'...Some authors of specialised contemporary literature mention the use of uranium in glass-making on in passing or not at all. To draw the conclusion from this, that uranium was not used before 1840 to colour glass, would be incorrect.  It can be proved that the 'composition glass factories' of Bohemia knew about uranium's power to color glass - already before 1835 - at Blaschka, as can be gathered from surviving accounts ...'
She then lists in detail numerous surviving accounts which include uranium.

I wonder if it was known how to produce uranium glass  in Bohemia prior to 1840  .... but not in England.

In this description of the Great Exhibition 1851 page 1007 under Austria, re Wenzel Batka's display of items it says
'Uranium is a very rare metal and occurs ...'
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Official_Descriptive_and_Illustrated_Cat/d5BZAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+oxide+very+rare+batka&pg=PA1007&printsec=frontcover

So in 1851 in a description of the Great Exhibition, uranium was described as 'very rare', although the description does mention using it in small quantities to colour glass by that point.