Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: Gill on June 13, 2007, 06:29:40 PM
-
This one has a Davidson look to me but is marked underneath "BRITISH MADE" It's not cofme out in the photo though/ I don't associate this with any particular maker but I'm sure someone knows better!
URL: http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-7437
URL: http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-7436
URL: http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-7435
-
It's not a pattern I recognise but the colour looks to be a dead ringer for my Davidson bowl here: http://yobunny.org.uk/gallery1/displayimage.php?pos=-500
-
Bagley 1333 'Wyndham'
-
Gill, ignore my previous post, I just checked Angela's Bagley Book and there's one shown there (page 28) in satin pink the same shape/pattern/plinth, so Bagley Wyndham it is - and Steven is right (as usual.) 8).
-
thanks, I'd had a look at Bagley Wyndham and Grantham but didn't see one that seemed quite right, did Bagley commonly mark with "BRITISH MADE" ?
-
Gill, YES in a former thread I was told British Made IS Bagley
THANK YOU ALL at this stage for that info ;D
-
It's in Angela's Bagley book and had the option of a black oval or self-coloured plinth
-
Hmmm!
Bagley 1333 'Wyndham'
Not quite.
... so Bagley Wyndham it is ...
Ditto.
... in a former thread I was told British Made IS Bagley ...
Nearly.
It ... had the option of a black oval or self-coloured plinth
Not quite.
Perhaps I better explain — and I am bound to be accused of nitpicking. ::)
Pamela — Bagley used British Made, but sometimes other texts, like Made in England. Other glassworks used British Made, for example I am sure that I have seen it on a Wood Brothers piece, either an eyebath or a baby feeder, although they also used Made in England.
Mod: Paragraph altered as requested by Bernard.
Gill et al — What's it called?
It first appears to my knowledge in the Pottery Gazette advertisement of September 1, 1934, thus, in the absence of earlier primary material, giving us a likely launch date. As it was the first of the two 1333 vase sets, it would probably have been known then as "Vase on plinth 1333".
The second, the diamond-shaped set, was apparently launched in the PG advertisement of April 1, 1936, and was described as "Vase on plinth 1333 D". I think it is reasonable to presume that it was then, Gill, that your pointed oval set became "Vase on plinth 1333 O", which I have seen handwritten with a solidus thus "1333/O".
The name Wyndham was applied to the 1333 range post-war, so if your set, Gill, was then no longer in production, it is not strictly correct to call it Wyndham.
Christine — Option?
Yes, these sets are found today with both matching and black plinths, but I know of no evidence that Bagley sales and marketing ever offered an option. Of course, if a major chain store or wholesale client had a particular preference, the Bagley salesman was hardly likely to object! Alternatively matching plinths could have been an exclusive for one major client. We just don't know, and there are other explanations / scenarios. Note that the 1934 advertisement shows a black plinth on the oval set, and the 1936 advertisement a matching plinth on the diamond-shaped set.
I hope that clarifies this set's history a little.
Now you can throw brickbats at me.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Wow, I'm speechless! So definately Bagley 1333 but not neccessarily Wyndham, may be why I couldn't find it when searching for Wyndham. Excellent answers, thanks. I have a small glass eye bath marked BRITISH MADE.
-
Here's an example on the Wakefield Museum site: http://www.wakefieldmuseumcollections.org.uk/index.asp?page=item&filename=bagley.mdf&itemId=WAKGMP%20:%20P2001.114
-
... So definitely Bagley 1333 but not neccessarily Wyndham ...
Gill — Well, it wouldn't have been named anything else — it's just that Bagley may have ceased production of it before they named the 1333 range, so it could be anachronistic, or, more accurately, prochronistic, to call your set Wyndham.
... I have a small glass eye bath marked BRITISH MADE.
More than likely Wood Brothers of Barnsley. Does it also have a "W" in a rectangle with the corners chopped off — the Wood Brothers' trade mark? See Angela's excellent British Glass After the War (http://www.glass.co.nz/trademarks.htm).
Bernard C. 8)
-
Here's an example on the Wakefield Museum site: http://www.wakefieldmuseumcollections.org.uk/index.asp?page=item&filename=bagley.mdf&itemId=WAKGMP%20:%20P2001.114
Ooh - so the Wakefield on-line collection is up and running. Brilliant! Worth a separate thread of its own, Bernard? Or have you already posted one and I missed it?
-
Can we put this "British Made" myth to rest once and for all? Just to reinforce what Bernard said.
Being marked "British Made" is NOT a good indicator that a piece of glass was made by Bagley. It does NOT appear on all Bagley glass, it DOES appear on some glass that is not Bagley, and sometimes Bagley used OTHER WORDS such as "Made in England".
On the subject of names, Bagley applied names to very few of their designs. Pendant and Queen's Choice were two names applied by Bagley. When Jackson Bros took over Bagley in the 1960s they applied names to many of the Bagley patterns which they continued to produce, and these names were used in the 1964 catalogue. Wyndham was one of those names. This still left a number of Bagley designs without names, and to avoid problems seen in other glass collecting fields (of conflicting names being used by collectors) we (Derek Parsons, Betty Parsons, and myself) assigned names to the remaining art deco designs when we produced our book. All the names can be found in our book about Bagley Glass.
So strictly speaking none of the names apart from Pendant and Queen's Choice are the original Bagley names. But they are the names by which these items are identified today. And so far as I know there is no way to identify glass made in the Crystal Glass Company during the Bagley years from the same designs made in the same department by the same people during the Jackson's years. So we have three situations:
1: examples like the one Bernard referred to, where an item from a design range (in this case 1333) was not produced by Jackson's but other items in the same range were, so the design was given a name
2: examples where an item was produced by Bagley without a name and identified only by a code (sometimes for thirty years or so) and continued in production during the Jackson years, so a name was applied by Jackson's for the last ten years (until the department was closed down in 1975)
3: examples where an item was produced by Bagley without a name and was not given a name by Jackson's but was given a name by Parsons & Bowey.