Topic: Issues around (mainly) company names for historians

[Frank]

For historical purpose company names get very awkward, as many companies registered in more than one country and used variations of their names in each country as well as using the name of their factory.

e,.g North British Glassworks = John Moncrieff = Jean Moncrieff et cie (French).

I have found other variations like the Goose Khrystalny cut-glassworks (English) - Kristallwerk in Gus-Chrustalynyi (German) - La Fabrique de cristal de Gous-Khroustalny (French) from a company catalogue. I don't even know which is the correct name. I am not at all sure which cyrillic characters represent the company name 

An early Spanish catalogue is equally confusing as to what is the company name:
Fábrica de Medio Cristal, is that the trade name of Juan LLicé y Comp. formerly Baldoero Casas

These multiple names issue becomes a real headache as you pass through time and of course the modern tendency to trade names between companies leading to chaos for historians.

What approach are other writers taking?

[Glen]

In the context of Carnival Glass, I have always used the name most familiar to the majority of collectors, and generally it is not much of a problem. But in the context of Carnival Glass pattern names, I have (when writing in my books) used all names known, where possible. For example:

Asters (commonly used name) aka Marguerite (Brockwitz name) aka Blomstor (name used in Sweden).

I hope I haven't deviated too much from your main question.

[Bernard C]

Frank — I appreciate the problem, and it causes me some difficulties, but I think chaos is rather strong.

A good example is Bagley.   Their "collectable" glass was made by a division of Bagley & Co. Ltd. called "The Crystal Glass Co.".   Call them that now and you would just confuse everyone.   I believe that it is best to keep to the name familiar to the majority of collectors as long as that name itself doesn't cause confusion, and is reasonably historically accurate.

Bernard C. 

[Frank]

It gets difficult when you find an uncommon usage of the name in print and is I suspect that there are cases where the names differing substantially between countries are considered to be different companies. The fact that the Target Ball collectors have discussed the NBGw for years without linking it to JM, for one. Is one case where language cannot be blamed. Tomey were also considered a separate company since 1900 in some texts but were effectively an administrative division of JM for a long time.

Guernsey Glass has caused some confusion in recent years too. I note Haanstra gives Gus-Krushtalny for what the company translated in English too Goose Khrystalny, possibly at an earlier time.

[Glen]

Guernsey Glass - made even more confusing because their trademark was a B (for Bennett the owner).