Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: flying free on October 10, 2020, 05:22:59 PM
-
I'm wracking my brains but I seem to remember coming across some information that James Powell made their Topaz glass pre 1850 and it had something to do with Queen Vic's City of London banquet.
Can anyone help? is there evidence that James Powell developed their Topaz glass in 1837 ish and that it was used by QV at the banquet in 1837?
Thanks for any help :)
m
-
ok, don't worry - I've got it here:
1837
https://www.museumoflondonprints.com/image/142383/james-powell-and-sons-whitefriars-ltd-finger-bowl-in-topaz-glass-1837
or even 1827
https://www.museumoflondonprints.com/image/138375/james-powell-and-sons-whitefriars-ltd-finger-bowl-in-topaz-glass-1827
I wonder why in CH British Glass 1800-1914 pp57 the caption on the plate doesn't mention it was made by James Powell? It just says '...English...' and on pp54 where a description of the bowls is given it also does not mention a maker.
-
M, there is a little bit more about the James Powell topaz glass in the big Whitefriars book.
Whitefriars glass,James Powell & sons of London.
Have you got the info you need or should i add some more to your post?
Tim
-
Tim,that would be great. Many thanks as I don't have the book and I'm just curious as to why the bowl has no identifying maker in the British Glass book.
m
-
In the glasshouse recipe book covering 1831to 1838 it records some trials of various colouring oxides.
One of these trials was with oxide of uranium which produced a spectacular yellow which Powells called topaz.
Powells made some silver mounted candlesticks with prismatic drops given by lord Howe to queen Adelaide in topaz in 1836.
In the banquet given by the corporation of London for queen Victoria in 1837 there were 12 finger bowls and the bowls of twenty four hock glasses.
Dont know why Charles Hajdamach would not have attributed the images, he is a very knowledgeable expert.
Tim
-
Thank you. I appreciate it. Is that a direct quote from the book in full?
That's interesting. I'll take another look to see if he mentions Powell's anywhere else in case I've missed it (which is always possible as the book is so big).
m
-
M , that was my version of the text. i worry about lifting authors work wholesale off the page.
other parts of the text related to who retailed there glass and who supplied the oxides for colouring.
Tim
-
Thanks Tim. Yes understood re quoting from text.
No, I couldn't find a reference to Powell's regarding that amber fingerbowl in the book ('Topaz')
-
They may include a Whitefriars credit in future editions thanks to your work.
Tim
-
- Just adding a bit of info here - the occasion was 9th November 1837 and there are descriptions of the preparations for the banquet in the attached link.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HbdGAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA23-IA2&dq=queen+victoria+city+of+london+9+November1837&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7j_yTjbDsAhUSQhUIHdSLCpwQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=queen%20victoria%20city%20of%20london%209%20November1837&f=false
Glass mentioned (page 10) includes some all new lighting spectaculars - 2 large chandeliers 12ft in diameter :o of coloured glass having the royal arms and initials, with national emblems painted thereon. As well as star and lustres loaned by Copeland and Garratt.
The mirrors mentioned are 10ft wide x 10ft high and plenty of them it seems. Wonder where they were produced and whether they were in sections, because I seem to remember a report from someone visiting Russia maybe in the 1820s? that the mirrors produced at the Imperial Glass factory were 10ft and were the largest produced at the time (apparently - can't find the link where I read that though).
- I also came across this interesting video from the Museum of London website. At the introduction the curator says Whitefriars was run by the Powell family from 1837. ( I thought it was 1834?) So did they produce their topaz in the year they took over the glass factory? Were they running another factory before that then? Just thinking about your comment
'In the glasshouse recipe book covering 1831to 1838 it records some trials of various colouring oxides.'
Listen from 1:01 in where the curator Danielle Thom says '... Whitefriars being run by the Powell family from I think 1837, is that right?' and the curator from Headstone, Alison, confirms that.
https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/application/files/1915/8135/2778/HEADSTONE_MANOR_WHITEFRIARS_FILM.mp4
https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/whitefriars-glass-headstone-manor
-
Everywhere else I look it seems to say 1834 but I couldn't find any primary source material for that. Perhaps they made a mistake on the video.
Looking at colour the only thing I could find was this from Whitefriars.com, which talks about colour from 1850 but no mention of the Topaz glass from 1837 unfortunately.
https://whitefriars-glass.com/history-of-whitefriars.php
-
M,you are right about the 1834 date. It may be that the Powells were working from a recipe book inherited from the previous owners of Whitefriars.
In the big whitefriars book there is quite a lot written about the early history of Whitefriars before the Powells bought the business.
Tim
-
Edited to remove previous questions re date Powell's acquired the Whitefriars Glass-works.
I did find the date 1837 quoted in a book written in 1912 though - The History of Fleet Street in Seven Centuries by Walter George Bell.
I'm still wondering why this date was quoted in that book and in the museum video as well.
I thought I'd found a patent but got my decades mixed up so deleted my previous links and questions re the start date year.
I wasn't quite sure what you meant about the book though. Do you think it wasn't Powell's book?
-
Edited to remove previous questions re date Powell's acquired the Whitefriars Glass-works.
I did find the date 1837 quoted in a book written in 1912 though - The History of Fleet Street in Seven Centuries by Walter George Bell.
I'm still wondering why this date was quoted in that book and in the museum video as well.
I thought I'd found a patent but got my decades mixed up so deleted my previous links and questions re the start date year.
-
M, the dates i have used come from the museum of London Whitefriars book.
In the book they publish a price list of glass made by The White Friars glass house from July 1812.
In the list it shows items made in coloured glass. I am thinking when James Powell bought the company it must have included all the old companies recipe books. Also in the book it says the Powells were conducting there own exprriments.
Tim
-
Thank you Tim.
I've edited my two posts above yours so apologies if they now look different to when you answered.
m
-
Blimey, I hope I haven't broken something but the Museum of London Prints link has disappeared on both those links and now shows as error 404. :o
m
-
ok, it's re-appeared here on a V&A site
https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/a-z-of-glass
and the caption reads
'Finger bowl, Davenport & Co., 1837, England. Museum no. C.110-1992. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London'
It's the display picture for the U in their alphabetical list of glass and the descriptor reads as follows:
'U is for uranium glass
The fluorescent yellow-green colour of uranium glass is achieved by adding uranium oxide to the glass mixture or ‘batch’. It was developed by the Bohemian glassmaker Josef Riedel during the 1830s, who named it after his wife, Annagrün [Anna Green]. As this glass contains small amounts of uranium, it's slightly radioactive.'
No mention of James Powell.
But has a makers name attached as Davenport & Co.
Under Descriptive Line, the V&A says:
'Descriptive line
Finger-bowl, England, Staffordshire (Longport), made by Davenport, 1837
Bibliographic References (Citation, Note/Abstract, NAL no)
Lockett & Godden, Davenport, p. 287-8'
In Apsley Pellatt's book the Curiosities of Glass Making 1849 there is really very scant information on Uranium glass. He mentions it on page 73 and talks about the new fashion for scent bottles and the beautiful semi-opalescent, yellowish green colour for these; produced chiefly by the expensive oxide of uranium, mixed with a slight portion of copper and appearing yellow or light green.
Then he goes on to say the chameleon-like effect of it is 'also produced by uranium alone, used as the colouring oxide for gold topaz: it has been much in demand for hock glasses and decanters, and many ornamental articles of glass;...' (hock- my bold, German white wine)
So, if the Topaz bowl was produced in 1837 for Queen Victoria's attendance at the City of London banquet that must have been quite an achievement. Especially given the glass tax laws, although I suppose they wouldn't have mattered if it was for the queen. But it would have meant making up a uranium glass pot specially to produce this glass wouldn't it?
And 12 years later in 1849 Pellatt mentions it was much in demand for hock glasses and decanters.
I wonder where that bowl was produced? And what date for that matter. She married Prince Albert in February 1840. He was German. I presume presents and articles would have come from far and world-wide to celebrate that marriage. That date might fit better with the colour being much in demand for hock glasses etc. However whether it was produced in England at that date is another question as the journalists of the time made much of the fact that even by 1851 at the Great Exhibition, the English glass colours still couldn't compete with Bohemian glass. And the colour of that bowl is pretty amazing.
-
Page 121 here shows an example of Harrach produced uranium glass from c.1840 and 1841
https://pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2000-2w-sg-annagelb-eleonorengruen-uran.pdf
However they showed uranium glass items Chrysoprase in 1831.
-
For ease of reference, adding a link to the piece in the V&A collection, along with a link to the clear glass ice plate that appears with it, and a link to a jug which apparently was produced by Davenport at a much earlier period and also another clear glass plate:
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport-co/
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2181/ice-plate-davenport-co/
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2895/ice-plate-davenport-co/
When you look into the more information tab,this one says
Probably manufactured by the firm of Davenport, Longport, Staffordshire
Cyrus Hill, the grandfather of Mrs Wright the donor, worked at the Davenport glass works
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1227065/jug-j-and-j/
-
For comparison (at least to the clear glass iceplate), I'm adding a link to a Thomas Hawkes piece which, according to Black Country Museums, was produced c.1837.
http://blackcountryhistory.org/collections/getrecord/DMUSE_BH1380/
and just out of interest, a bowl,which according to the Black Country Museum website was produced c.1834-1837.
http://blackcountryhistory.org/collections/getrecord/DMUSE_BH3330/
-
So just following this up as things occur to me.
1) On page 57 of Charles Hajdamach's British Glass 1800-1914 it shows colour plate 4 including this bowl seen in the V&A link I gave earlier.
It's photographed against a white background so a little easier to see the 'real' colour and it appears as a yellow colour glass (in my opinion the yellow is quite clear but leaning towards slightly honey coloured yellow rather than citron if you can picture it). Described in the caption as '... the bowl in yellow glass, ...'
On page 54 talking about this colour plate and bowl, and as part of a suggestion that England, France and Bohemia were all experimenting with colour technology at around the same time period rather than England lagging behind, it says:
'Stunning proof which underlines this theory is found in a set of finger bowls in yellow glass comparable to the 'Annagrun' or yellow-green colour, achieved with uranium, which had been discovered by Josef Riedel in Bohemia in the 1830s. The finger bowls and matching plates in clear glass, partly frosted and engraved, were used at a banquet in the Guildhall for Queen Victoria in 1837 to celebrate her first official visit to the City of London.'
But there is definitely no mention of a maker in the description in CH British Glass pg54. So I'm not sure how this is 'proof' that the English were experimenting with coloured glass at the same time a Bohemia and France really.
2) The mismatch between the uranium yellow bowls and the clear glass plates:
The clear glass plates are engraved with roses and leaves (from the picture on the V&A) and the yellow bowl is described on page 57 as being engraved with roses, thistles and shamrock. I've downloaded the photograph of the yellow bowl from the V&A site and it's incredibly hard to see the engraving because of the way it's been photographed, so I cannot see any roses on the bowl (but I can see leaves which do look similar to the leaves on the clear plate). So I can only clearly see thistles and shamrock on the bowl although the roses might be on the sides unseen in the photo. It's hard to see whether both have been done by the same engraver but the VR insignia looks slightly different to my eye on the two pieces and on the plate it has a small bower of leaves and forget me nots underneath whereas that bower is not on the bowl under the insignia.
3) Neither the V&A or CH describe this bowl as Topaz but I think, whilst the link the Museum of London print site of the bowl has disappeared suddenly, it was described there a Topaz glass,because a link to that description and the bowl still comes up on another print site called Memory Prints here (and gives credit to the Museum of London):
http://www.memoryprints.com/image/142383/james-powell-and-sons-whitefriars-ltd-finger-bowl-in-topaz-glass-1837
CH describes it as 'yellow glass comparable to the 'Annagrun' or yellow-green colour, achieved with uranium, which had been discovered by Josef Riedel in Bohemia in the 1830s'.
The V&A describe it as 'Uranium-yellow glass, cut and engraved' and say it was made by Davenport's
https://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/museum-life/seeing-more-glow-in-the-dark-glass
The use of the term Topaz glass to describe this bowl is interesting because Harrach made 'gold topaz' before 1835. In Farbenglas II (Neuwirth) page 278, it says 'Harrach certainly made the "gold topaz composition" already before the Vienna Exhibition of 1835, when the table candlesticks in this colour were also shown'.
and further on in the paragraph
' A sugar water centerpiece in "gold topaz composition" was part of a presentation by Harrach in Vienna in 1839 (Vienna, 1839; Report, 1840 p. 38).
I'm not suggesting that Harrach's 'gold topaz composition' was uranium glass. Just that it's interesting that the name 'topaz' was linked to Harrach before 1835 and was, I think, used to describe that VR bowl by the Museum of London. Why would they have used the term 'Topaz' as a descriptor?
The use of uranium in colouring glass is also according to that same book, known before 1835 in Bohemia (lots of examples given) and the book says the term Anna-green was used by Blaschka before 1835 - so the book questions whether it can be linked to Anna Riedel since it was already in use before 1835 elsewhere - source, Farbenglas II Walthreud Neuwirth pp.277 under section 'On the history of uranium glass'.
I'm not aware of any other uranium yellow English glass from c.1837. Are there other items out there? It would be curious if this was the only surviving piece.
-
In Apsley Pellatt's book the Curiosities of Glass Making 1849 there is really very scant information on Uranium glass. He mentions it on page 73 and talks about the new fashion for scent bottles and the beautiful semi-opalescent, yellowish green colour for these; produced chiefly by the expensive oxide of uranium, mixed with a slight portion of copper and appearing yellow or light green.
Then he goes on to say the chameleon-like effect of it is 'also produced by uranium alone, used as the colouring oxide for gold topaz: it has been much in demand for hock glasses and decanters, and many ornamental articles of glass;...' (hock- my bold, German white wine)
Just going back to Apsley Pellatt's mention of chameleon glass in the book dated 1849:
In Farbenglass II, Neuwirth, pp276, there is a chapter titled 'Chameleon Glass where it says:
- Egermann exhibited a number of "chameleon beakers" in 1835. And
- 'The colour glass specialists at Adolfhutte succeeded with this creation prior to 1837' (a jug is shown and it is inventoried in the Technical Museum Wien along with date and the inventory 'speaks of "chameleon glass"'. And
- 'J.B. Eisner lists a group of "chameleon" glasses which contain uranium and chromium oxides (Blau,1940, p.17)'
So 'chameleon glass' as a descriptor seems to have been used before 1837 in Bohemia and mentioned by Pellatt in his book of 1849. I wonder was he referring to Bohemian glass?
-
In the glasshouse recipe book covering 1831to 1838 it records some trials of various colouring oxides.
One of these trials was with oxide of uranium which produced a spectacular yellow which Powells called topaz.
Powells made some silver mounted candlesticks with prismatic drops given by lord Howe to queen Adelaide in topaz in 1836.
In the banquet given by the corporation of London for queen Victoria in 1837 there were 12 finger bowls and the bowls of twenty four hock glasses.
Dont know why Charles Hajdamach would not have attributed the images, he is a very knowledgeable expert.
Tim
I'm also curious about this mention of hock glasses in that book for the City of the London banquet. What shape would they have been in 1837 to have been described as 'hock' glasses ? Would they have been this shape?:
https://scottishantiques.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=8457
Was Powell's producing that shape table wear in 1837? Whilst now there is no mention of Powell's in connection with the yellow finger bowl (V&A now has Davenports as the maker) they seem to be mentioned in the book in relation to hock glasses (info from Essi). A 'hock' shape looks like roemers to me. Would they have been a traditional part of English glass production in 1837?
As I posted earlier in this thread, Apsley Pellatt mentions in his book of 1849:
'Then he goes on to say the chameleon-like effect of it is 'also produced by uranium alone, used as the colouring oxide for gold topaz: it has been much in demand for hock glasses and decanters, and many ornamental articles of glass;...' (hock- my bold, German white wine)'
1849 is quite a bit later than 1837 (especially in glass life and fashion) however she married Albert in 1840 so I can imagine if Pellatt talking about them being in fashion after she married Albert. But being popular in 1837 enough to have been produced by an English glassmaker?
-
Lidded goblet from Biedermeier period uranium glass
https://www.palfi.cz/fotoalbum/historicke-bohatstvi/jachymovsky-prumysl/uranove-barvy-a-radium/
https://www.palfi.cz/img/original/1690/uranova-karafa.jpg
-
Annagelb uranglas becher c.1835-1850 is a good match for the colour.
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/23956/lot/80/?category=list
-
1) previous links are broken on the Thomas Hawkes plate (added just because it seems to date from a similar period to the uranium glass VR bowl) - new link here
https://www.blackcountryhistory.org/collections/getrecord/DMUSE_BH1380
and here
https://www.blackcountryhistory.org/collections/getrecord/DMUSE_BH3330
2) To find the uranium glass VR bowl in the V&A collection it's necessary to search Longport in the collection rather than Davenport.
3) Davenport seems to have been John and James Davenport. Reports from around that time don't give any details except to mention it as an extensive glass works in Burslem amongst the many potteries.
-
The Mechanics Magazine 1845
Memoir on the manufacture of glass in Bohemia by M. L. P. Debette (continued part of article - the actual article is in 'parts' with the start being on page281 (starting bottom of right hand column)
This is a translated piece which was written by M. L. P. Debette and originally published in Annales des Mines in 1843)
See page 399 (bottom of right hand column - 5. Greenish yellow ) and 400 where a description of the various colours of Bohemian uranium glass are written as of the year 1843:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Mechanics_Magazine/L45fAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=bohemian+glass+1830&pg=PA284&printsec=frontcover
This was written in 1843 about Bohemian uranium glass specifically the 'greenish yellow' uranium glass.
-
Caveat to this post - I could be very wrong on all this and Davenport could have been making lots of uranium glass in 1837 but ... I think there is a question over this.
Harold Newman in the Illustrated Guide to Glass, 1977 Thames and Hudson has this to say about Uranium Glass pp 323:
'uranium glass. A type of glass produced by the use of URANIUM in the BATCH. It is yellowish-green (ANNAGRUN) or greenish-yellow (Anna-gelb. It was developed by JOSEF RIEDEL (my note- Waltraud Neuwirth has information that the term Annagrun was in use before 1835 and appears to have related to Uranium glass in Farbenglas I pp277), and was later produced by GEORGES BONTEMPS at CHOISY-LE-ROI. See VASELINE GLASS.
(There is no further different information under the heading VASELINE GLASS.)
Newman makes no mention of Uranium glass being produced in the U.K.
Looking at the bowl again, the style and cutting seem quite ok for the period 1830s. To me it has quite a Regency cut about it but open to correction, apart from the flared out rim. The foot design and the ridged facet cutting on the body seem ok for the period and style.
The issue for me is the uranium glass and it being made in England in 1837 or earlier. By any maker. There is very little information on Davenport (Longport) who the V&A say it was made by.
Or rather is it really probable uranium glass like this was being made in the U.K. in 1837 or earlier?
My questions are is it possible:
- this was made in Bohemia and sent here for cutting? or
- made in Bohemia, cut in Bohemia and then sent here for engraving? or
- made at a different time period, made in Bohemia and engraved in U.K. and was never actually used for the 1837 Queen Vic banquet but for another
occasion? or
- made at a different time period, made, cut and engraved in U.K. and was never actually used for the 1837 Queen Vic banquet but for another occasion?
(Just as a note to myself to double check the Annales des Mines 1843 report, from the top of my head, that French report mentioned both Silberberg and Winterberg. Silberberg might refer to Buquoy glass and Winterberg might refer to Adolfshutte bei Winterberg (Meyr's glass). Question to self - did I read that in connection with Uranium glass or opaline glass section? need to check)
-
(Just as a note to myself to double check the Annales des Mines 1843 report, from the top of my head, that French report mentioned both Silberberg and Winterberg. Silberberg might refer to Buquoy glass and Winterberg might refer to Adolfshutte bei Winterberg (Meyr's glass). Question to self - did I read that in connection with Uranium glass or opaline glass section? need to check)
Checked - Silberberg and Winterberg were mentioned in connection with OPALINE uranium glass.
-
Examples of Biedermeier uranium glass in the Passau Museum - as comparison
https://journalofantiques.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Pic7.jpg
Article here
https://journalofantiques.com/features/visit-passau-glass-museum/
and more here:
https://antiquesandauctionnews.net/articles/Germany%60s-Passau-Glass-Museum:-A-European-Art-Glass-Treasure-/#
https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x4774f60037be0c53%3A0x6f04cd0fe31c1dfc!3m1!7e115!4shttps%3A%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPV3lCZlXwlhfaGkJM8M-5bQvdeTOy0BMiHCtwb%3Dw325-h218-n-k-no!5spassau%20museum%20uranglas%20-%20Google%20Search!15sCgIgAQ&imagekey=!1e10!2sAF1QipPOG78Hgk6yHHuYQ0HIfQzMUCsrkGXj5YVihvZe&hl=en
-
In The Decanter, McConnell mentions the uranium-yellow bowls, he says ‘...Whitefriars producing a suite of uranium-yellow rinsers for Victoria’s coronation banquet at the guildhall in 1837’. He calls them rinsers but assume he’s talking about the same thing. He goes on to say that Queen Adelaide (wife of William IV) was presented with a pair of “similarly coloured girandole candlesticks whilst visiting Birmingham in the 1830’s”. Maybe you could find the source of that reference to the candlesticks for corroboration?
-
Thanks :) I think that might possibly be what was referred to here earlier in the thread:
In the glasshouse recipe book covering 1831to 1838 it records some trials of various colouring oxides.
One of these trials was with oxide of uranium which produced a spectacular yellow which Powells called topaz.
Powells made some silver mounted candlesticks with prismatic drops given by lord Howe to queen Adelaide in topaz in 1836.
In the banquet given by the corporation of London for queen Victoria in 1837 there were 12 finger bowls and the bowls of twenty four hock glasses.
Dont know why Charles Hajdamach would not have attributed the images, he is a very knowledgeable expert.
Tim
Essie was paraphrasing information from the book
'Whitefriars glass,James Powell & sons of London '
Also interesting that Essie says the Whitefriars book says:
'Powells made some silver mounted candlesticks with prismatic drops given by lord Howe to queen Adelaide in topaz in 1836.'
and the Decanters book mentions:
Your quote ' He goes on to say that Queen Adelaide (wife of William IV) was presented with a pair of “similarly coloured girandole candlesticks whilst visiting Birmingham in the 1830’s”.'
mmm, perhaps Queen Adelaide was overrun with Candlesticks :)
Or maybe these comments refer to two different pairs of 'topaz/uranium glass' candlesticks? one from Whitefriars apparently and one implied to be from Birmingham somewhere
Or perhaps the fact they were given in Birmingham is a red herring? maybe Whitefriars made them and the giver just happened to give them to Queen Adelaide in Birmingham? I wonder why the Decanters book doesn't say that if the Whitefriars book says they made them?
Or maybe the candlesticks weren't made in the UK at all?
And perhaps the candlesticks are nothing whatsoever to do with the glass bowl ?
More questions
p.s. I think they used to be called hand-rinsers, what we call finger bowls?
-
Ah, sorry, missed that :( You would imagine the candlesticks would be in a museum and documented somewhere.
I thought rinsers were the bowls with two lips in the rim for rinsing wine glasses, the stems of the glasses resting in the lip.
-
Ooh you might be right - I've just been reading something somewhere though (don't ask me to refind it) where it was mentioned they used to be called hand rinsers. I wonder if that denotes each person hand rinsing their own glass rather than what we think of as a hand wash basin for hands?
-
hmm, another thought carrying on from what you've said about rinsers with lips.
That bowl in the V&A could not be described as a rinser for wine glasses could it - with no lip to rest the stem on? Or perhaps in days of yore they didn't have the lip on either side?
Perhaps that bowl has been held up as THE example of the mysterious topaz finger bowls but actually is not one of them at all?
One things for sure, if there was a glass company in the UK producing uranium yellow glass in 1837 it's going to be the most amazing piece of information, especially given how the literature of the past has been written regarding the development of Bohemian uranium glass (1820s and into the 1830s) and then French uranium glass following on quickly from that.
I have two pieces from a French 1842 pressed glass catalogue that may be Baccarat uranium glass. But they are both green and I have no idea whether they were actually produced in 1842 or later on but using the same mold as those in that catalogue.
-
I think the bowls without lips are finger bowls - to wash your fingers - and the bowls with lips are the rinsers or wine glass coolers. Maybe finger bowls are also called hand rinsers but it doesn’t sound quite right, plus the bowls would be too small for the hand? In the Miller’s Glass book it says the wine glass rinsers started with one lip in around 1780, before that they used a communal rinsing bowl. They later added the second lip to balance the design. It says by c.1860 diners used different glasses for each wine so it wasn’t necessary to rinse the glasses. I don’t know if Queen Vic would be expected to do her own washing up ;D
Your quote from Hajdamach in reply #21
’Stunning proof which underlines this theory is found in a set of finger bowls in yellow glass comparable to the 'Annagrun' or yellow-green colour, achieved with uranium, which had been discovered by Josef Riedel in Bohemia in the 1830s. The finger bowls and matching plates in clear glass, partly frosted and engraved, were used at a banquet in the Guildhall for Queen Victoria in 1837 to celebrate her first official visit to the City of London.'
I thought it was a bit odd in that quote (and in the note for colour plate 4) he doesn’t say that the ‘yellow glass’ bowls are uranium glass, in fact, he seems to imply that they are not as he says that the yellow glass is comparable with glass that is made with uranium. I thought it was almost as though there was a conflict between the date of the bowls and them being uranium....but maybe that’s reading too much between the lines ;D
-
Thank you for the explanations for glass rinsers and fingers bowls :) I got distracted and it is called a finger bowl by the V&A. So not to be confused with a rinser :-[
I see what you mean about the CH description, but I'm pretty sure it's uranium. The V&A use it as the example for their 'U' in their Alphabet list of interesting items.
I'm pretty sure that if he'd found evidence it was made at Powell's or at Davenport's he'd have included that.
They way I read it though was that it was used as 'stunning proof' of the development of colour in UK glass at a time when the Bohemians were in their heyday and the French had already made some beautiful coloured opalines.
Which is a bit mystifying because if it's stunning proof then there must be an evidence source it was made in the UK if you see what I mean?
Maybe it was made at Davenports in 1837 and not including a maker's name was because info out there at the time the book was written said it was made at Powell's and perhaps CH hadn't been able to find proof of that , or it was known it might not have been made there but might have been made at Davenports but at the time of writing he didn't have proof of that either.
I don't know... something doesn't sit right with that bowl. And I also think the engraving on the clear underplate was done by a different engraver. I suppose one could have done all the plates and one the bowls. But I also wonder if the bowl has been id'd as Davenports because they know the clear underplates came from there? and they supposedly match.
I just don't think it was made here.
I'd forgotten about this thread here all about finger bowls and uranium glass and that varying shades of colour perhaps dependent on era:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,18341.msg106048.html#msg106048
-
Yes, I see what you mean :D
I assume the yellow glass was uranium too, due to the v&a etc but thought it was odd that hajdamach didn’t mention it.
-
The more I read the piece on page 54 the more I think it's a bit odd to say they are proof of being English glass but then not supply the maker.
-
Image of it glowing here :)
https://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/Combined1.jpg
v normal image
https://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/Combined1.jpg
The rim is firepolished not cut. Generally on Bohemian glass you might find a cut rim.
It's mystifying.
As an aside, the Russians didn't make anywhere near as much glass as the Bohemian makers but according to this article the first mention of uranium glass in an exhibition was in Moscow in 1843:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24182711?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3Ab517296297b4f3fdd4c4b8540bdf849d&seq=16#page_scan_tab_contents
A vase is shown in uranium glass cased in ruby. It's a big piece, cut all over and panel cut. Imperial Glasshouse Dated c.1840-1850 height 50cm and signed on the base.
Source:
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RUSSIAN GLASS IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
B. A. Shelkovnikov
Journal of Glass Studies
Journal of Glass Studies
Vol. 6 (1964), pp. 101-122 (22 pages)
Published by: Corning Museum of Glass
(see page 116 where in note 37. it gives the source as 'Directory for the Third Moscow Exhibition of Russian Manufactures in 1843, Moscow 1843'
-
~Then there is Pellatt's book from the 1840s with as far as I recall no mention of English makers making uranium glass, and no mention of these bowls made for 1837. I might go and have a re-read of Pellatt's book to see what's in there.
-
An interesting bit of information here:
page 65
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/American_Glass/JW9yDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+glass+1830&pg=PA127&printsec=frontcover
American Glass
The Collections at Yale
John Stuart Gordon
2018.
'In 1839 Thomas Leighton, the chief gaffer at the New England Glass Company, wrote to a colleague in Scotland enquiring about the "Canary Metal" he had seen there. " You likewise informed me that to make your Canary Metal you used nothing but the Oxid (sic) of Uranium in your Flint Batch. ..."
Source for that is noted in there as '2. Thomas Leighton, in Jane Shadel Spillman, "The Leighton-Ford Correspondence ," Acorn 3 (1992)'
I think the Ford refers to John Ford of the Holyrood Flint Glass Works, Edinburgh, however it is just mentioned that he wrote to 'a colleague' so it might not have been Ford.
-
Information about Longport (Davenports)
http://www.thepotteries.org/walks/longport/davenport.htm
A piece written in 1843 about John Davenport by
'John Ward, in his History of the Borough of Stoke-upon-Trent (1843), describes how he set up on his own account in 1794:
“Mr John Davenport commenced business at Longport in 1794, and added, in 1797, to his other concerns, the chemical preparation of litharge and white lead, for the use of potters, in their glazes; but this department is now discontinued. In 1801, the making of flint-glass, or crystal, was introduced by them, and is still extensively can-led on; connecting with which is steam-machinery for cutting and ornamenting it. They produce very brilliant specimens of stained glass, and have got up some elaborate works of that kind for church and other windows, particularly one for St Mark’s, Liverpool; and have furnished splendid assortments for the Dukes of Sutherland and Devonshire, the Marquis of Anglesea and Westminster, and others of the nobility.
They have (in addition ...
it further says with regard to the China production I think:
'...Messrs Davenports’ china ware has long obtained celebrity, not only for the excellence of its material, but for exquisite design and embellishments. On his Majesty, King William, coming to the throne, he gave directions for a superb service of porcelain to be made, for the banquet to be given at the Coronation.'
Info on King William IV here (came to the throne 26 June 1830 until his death in 1837)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_IV
This was written in 1843 and goes to lengths to mention 'splendid assortments' for various Dukes and others of nobility (although not known if it was splendid assortments of glass or china) yet does not mention a set for Queen Victoria. It does however mention a china service made for his Majesty King William for the banquet to be given at the Coronation.
It could indicate that Davenports were a source of supply for all things Royal.
Or maybe there has been a mix up over the years in which bits were made for which Royal Banquet, and the service made for King William has become mixed up with the service made for Queen Vic?
Further information seems to say that John Davenport effectively retired in 1820 and then ownership seems to have been:
John Davenport’s eldest son, also John, took no part in the business and had a successful career as a lawyer.
Henry Davenport, his third son, who took an active role in running the business when his father effectively retired from the firm in the 1820's, was killed in a riding accident when he was out hunting at Baddeley Edge In 1835.
Control of the firm then passed to the second son, William Davenport, who became sole owner in 1848
So in 1837, 17 years after John Davenport retired (it says he served as an MP though until 1841), John Davenport may have been in joint ownership with William his son.
-
Article from Barrie Skelcher on Uranium Glass says this:
http://www.glassassociation.org.uk/sites/default/files/Uranium_Glass_sample_article.pdf
'No review of uranium glass could be complete without including the London glasshouse, Whitefriars,
which was acquired by James Powell and Sons in
1834. As far as I can establish, it was the first in the country to use uranium in commercial
manufacture. The Whitefriars archives, held by the Museum of London, record that in 1836 some
silver mounted candlesticks with prismatic drops of uranium Topaz glass made by Whitefriars were
presented by Lord Howe to Queen Adelaide. The following year Whitefriars made twelve finger bowls
and twenty-four hock glass bowls for use at the 1837 Corporation of London Banquet for Queen
Victoria (Plate 14). I have had the opportunity to measure the uranium level in three of the bowls. The
results are consistent with the formula in an early Whitefriars batch book.'
and in his note caption Under Plate 14 says:
'Plate 14: Uranium “topaz” finger bowl
and ice plate from a set of twelve made
for Queen Victoria’s banquet at the
Guildhall in the City of London on 9th
November 1837. The glass and
ceramics for this occasion were
supplied by the Staffordshire firm,
Davenport’s, but it is likely that the
finger bowls were made by James
Powell and Sons.'
The article was written in 1998. CH British Glass was published in 1991 which may explain why it didn't include information on James Powell and Sons being the maker. The Barrie Skelcher information is the more recent than the CH book.
There is a report here from the Guildhall Banquet in 1837 mentioning the suppliers from page 37 onwards.
Unfortunately neither Davenport or Longport or Whitefriars or Powell seem to be mentioned:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HbdGAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA23-IA2&dq=queen+victoria+city+of+london+9+November1837&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7j_yTjbDsAhUSQhUIHdSLCpwQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=glass&f=false
Copeland and Garrett are mentioned:
http://www.thepotteries.org/mark/c/copeland.html
Thomas Pearce is also mentioned. I think they were a supplier? They were mentioned under Lighting
The list of suppliers is very comprehensive.
I presume I've got the correct Banquet.
I don't know anything about the Potteries so have no idea if Copeland and Garrett were linked to Davenports in anyway? It didn't seem so but that was only from a cursory glance and no knowledge basis.
-
just to add a bit more information to that in reply #43 about Davenports.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davenport_Pottery
Wiki doesn't say a huge amount but does say this:
'... By September 1806 the quality of his porcelain wares was such that the Prince of Wales, later to become King George IV, ordered services of the finest and most valuable kinds.[3] '
and
'John retired in 1830 and his sons, William and Henry, carried on the firm. Henry died in 1835 and the firm became William Davenport and Company. '
Potteries info says John 'effectively retired' in the 1820s not 1830.
Mention of supply for another royal King George IV, but still no mention of supplying for Queen Vic.
Firm had become William Davenport and Company by the time of the Guildhall Banquet in 1837.
Referring back to earlier in the thread and the design of finger bowls (no lips) v rinser (with lips) the Corning have this called a finger bowl with lip either side:
https://www.cmog.org/artwork/finger-bowl-1
-
And the Corning have another of the uranium yellow bowls under discussion in the thread - so a different picture showing a different view:
https://www.cmog.org/artwork/finger-bowl-15
Just musing here - comparing the engraved design of the plate and the bowl again.
- It's very hard to tell but the engraved design of the roses, buds and leaves does look similar on both plate and bowl.
- The plate only has roses and buds and leaves, no thistle leaves or shamrocks,
- The plate only has the VR and crown and no flag and it has a strange little bower motif under the engraved VR of leaves and forget-me-nots
- The plate VR does not look to have been engraved by the same hand as the person who engraved the VR on the bowl.
- The bowl also has a flag emblem on it and the plate does not.
- The Corning photograph of the plate and bowl together shows a very different yellow colour to that shown in the V&A pics. Much more browny topaz
colour to my eye.
-
The flag emblem /ensign on the bowl is the coat of arms of the City of London.
-
tinted picture of the Royal Banquet Guildhall 1837 - can be enlarged to see all the detail
https://www.rct.uk/collection/750847/queen-victoria-at-guildhall-banquet-9-nov-1837
Sadly none that look like uranium yellow finger bowls on clear glass under plates.
You can see plain clear drinking glasses but very difficult to tell if there is uranium glass finger bowls and clear underplates anywhere there. Or topaz hock glasses. It's all pretty topaz 'y' but nothing that seems to match the description of the hock glasses or the bowls.
-
There's an interesting piece of yellow uranium glass on page 364 of CH British Glass 1800-1914.
A heavily cut decanter that maybe appears to be from an earlier era than when it was actually made?
Description says:
' Decanter and stopper in yellow/green glass coloured with uranium oxide, Stourbridge, c.1870s, height 12 1/4 in. (31cm)'
-
I’ve had a look through The Decanter by McConnell but that yellow decanter isn’t in there. There isn’t anything that precise shape either, with the bulge in the neck. The section ‘Cut Glass 1850-1900’ has some similar shapes with shaft and globes, some with applied feet with stubby stems, and very similar stoppers (all in clear glass).
-
Thank you - it's really helpful to have someone else take a look and I also don't have the Decanter book.
I been thinking about why the engraved design on the bowl is different to the plate.
So I looked for the wreath design around the bowl.
The earliest I can find is that it was designed in 1887 for her golden jubilee.
It appeared on the reverse of the medals given out to celebrate that:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Queen_Victoria_Golden_Jubilee_Medal
'.. The reverse bears the words IN COMMEMORATION OF THE 50TH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF QUEEN VICTORIA · 21 JUNE 1887 within a garland of roses, shamrock and thistles.
The bust of Queen Victoria on obverse was designed by Sir Joseph Edgar Boehm and the reverse wreath designed by Clemens Emptmayer, who was recommended by Boehm. '
There is one in the collection of the National Maritime Museum showing it was used for 1897 diamond jubilee as well - I think that if the recipient had received it in 1887, they then wore it in 1897 and just received a bar stating 1897 to go on the ribbon of the 1887 medal.
So either the garland in that kind of format was a design device already in use but 'adapted' or 'redesigned' for the medal?
Or it was a design device designed for the medal in 1887? A design which would have then been able to be seen by the public and used by makers of other items . Before or after the 1887 jubilee? Don't know about when the medal design would have been public.
Garland design can be seen on this cup for 1887:
https://i.etsystatic.com/8141123/r/il/9c4c64/1410799053/il_1140xN.1410799053_3mou.jpg
Can also be seen on this tankard although this one contains acorns:
http://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/662896
This is a good example of a cup and saucer for the 1887 golden jubilee - the auctioneers mention 'shamrocks for the jubilee'. I don't know what that refers to:
https://www.ukauctioneers.com/auction_catalogue.cfm?d&itemID=20E9CB0FD7D62AFDD3E5FECEFF580AEAEC2FADC2&auction=21ECCB0AD5&showLots=50&sortBy=lotsort&lotView=list&imagesOnly=N
The garland design in can be seen here again on a mug commemorating her diamond jubilee - this is painted or transfer printed onto a mug:
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/queen-victoria-diamond-jubilee-1410533302
And here
http://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/285349
-
I'm not remotely interested in heraldry or royalty so I really have no idea about these emblems as part of designs. If anyone has any comments or corrections please do step in.
-
I wonder if we are looking at a piece of uranium glass made in 1887.
Or a piece made earlier but engraved later in 1887?
-
I'm not remotely interested in heraldry or royalty so I really have no idea about these emblems as part of designs. If anyone has any comments or corrections please do step in.
I know next to nothing on this but don’t think the design was anything specific to Queen Victoria as the emblems symbolise the 1801 Union don’t they? I’m sure you get engraved Georgian glasses with similar type engraving (Union glasses?)
-
oh ok thank you. I wasn't brought up here so have very little idea about the history. I've just spent ages reading about Queen Vic's children and history having got distracted :o
I looked up glass under that title and found this:
https://scottishantiques.com/Unionengravedbeaker1830
-
;D I can’t remember being taught much history, maybe some of it caught hold ;D
Yes, that’s the sort of glass I was thinking of.
-
I had a whole theory on this (see below)
However this medal from 1840 put paid to it:
https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=715&lot=1801
https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=715&lot=1801
And the medal says 'Ever may love shed rosy garlands round' on it.
I have also found this painting of her in as newly crowned monarch 1837 - where she is wearing a rose garland crown.
https://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/details-photo/queen-victoria-1819-1901-sensitive-portrait-in-profile-from-1837-the-newly-crowned-monarch-wearing-a-garland-of-roses-in-her-hair/MEV-10650277
So it could be possible the plate depicted the garland of roses and came earlier than the bowl maybe? Hence the difference in design and the way the VR is engraved?
Unless they were specifically designed as a set that way, the bowls seem to me to not match the plates in any way, either in glass, design and possibly even in the engraving.
Wreath or garland - I may have not been searching the correct word for the design ::)
OK, I see what you mean but I qualify that by thinking that is an example of the individual emblems being used in a design. Not specifically designed to form a garland. I suppose I'm just wondering if the garland design effect was something specific to her throughout her life using those emblems. Or was it something designed to incorporate those emblems a lot later on in her reign.
I have found I think, but cannot link to, an example of a garland being used earlier on the frontispiece of a book with hand-tinted drawings entitled Costumes of British Ladies from the time of William the 1st to the reign of Queen Victoria which was made in c.1840:
https://stellabooks.com/books/no-author/costumes-of-british-ladies-from-the-time-of-william-the-1st-to-the-reign-of-queen-victoria/1809112#gallery-2
So it could be that these things are just very rare now hence this being the only earlier example I could find (or my searches are no good which is always possible :) ).
However, the garland is a tinted painting in a watercolour effect if you like. It's not very architectural/graphic in design so not easy to copy if you were going to engrave a design from it on glass for example. Hence wondering if there were other examples of this garland being used elsewhere I suppose.
The medal designed for the Golden Jubilee 1887, by contrast, would be I think much easier to replicate. And the way the leaves are depicted is quite similar to the the leaves on the bowl which caught my eye:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Victoria_Golden_Jubilee_Medal%2C_reverse.jpg
From what I read the medal for the Golden Jubilee was the first instance of a medal being made for her occasions.
I can't think the designer/maker specifically copied it from somewhere else. But I suppose if a garland was one of the 'decorative designs' used during her reign then it wouldn't be a great leap to design it to fit a medal.
However, I can believe that once the medal was made public it would have been easy to copy for lots of items. Hence being able to find many items for the diamond jubilee using that design and some for the golden jubilee but nothing earlier if you see what I mean?
-
I have some kind of information here.
I found a report (probably THE report) about Davenport of Fleet Street supplying the crockery and glass in:
No 1554. The Examiner, Sunday 12 November 1837:
page 729.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Examiner/zWiNg5Znyt4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=guildhall+topaz+glass&pg=PA729&printsec=frontcover
1) It says :
'The china and cut glass were provided by Messrs. Davenport of Fleet Street.'
It says the request was given at the last minute but that due to 'almost incredible exertion it was completed on Monday last and forwarded to town from their factory in Staffordshire'.
Note - 1. it makes a point of saying the request was given at the last minute. It does not say they made it all. It says they 'forwarded' it from their factory in Staffordshire.
2) The article talks about the china and how it was all decorated and then says of the glass:
'The decanters, claret jugs, champazne, hock and other glasses, were all richly cut, and ornamented with a vine border, varied with the rose, thistle, and shamrock, and the Royal arms. The supply for Her Majesty's table consisted of three dozen wine glasses, three dozen small claret glasses, three dozen large ditto, three dozen champagne ditto, two dozen liqueuer ditto, two dozen goblets, two dozen carafes and tumblers, two dozen hexagon massive decanters, one dozen claret ditto, 18 wine-glass coolers, two dozen topaz-coloured hock glasses, six water jugs, one dozen topaz-coloured finger glasses, two dozen ice-plates and four antique earthenware jugs with the Royal and city arms in relief.'
Note - 1. The topaz-coloured hock glasses are very definitely listed as hock glasses. I wonder if that 'hock glass' means a 'Römer'? I think I recall that
the word 'hock' was used to refer to German wine hence my query over whether this is being used to described a Römer. Also they specifically
talk about glasses and goblets and then 'hock glasses' is listed separately.
Stephan Buse shows these from Theresienthal dated c.1840. They are tall examples but there were many in the 1840 catalogue of the
standard cup shape with roemer stems as well so just showing these as an example:
http://www.roemer-aus-theresienthal.de/buch4b.html
Shorter examples here: https://antikes-glas.de/formglas/weinroemer-c-248_255.html
2. There are also topaz-coloured finger glasses - not finger bowls or wine glass rinsers but 'finger glasses'.
3. There are two dozen ice plates. They appear to be a listed as a separate item to me without any bowls to go with. Therefore I assume not a 'set'
with that uranium bowl on top which is what is assumed from the photograph of both items together in the V&A.
list for ease of reading with possibly relevant items to this research bolded:
-three dozen wine glasses,
-three dozen small claret glasses,
-three dozen large ditto,
-three dozen champagne ditto,
-two dozen liqueuer ditto,
-two dozen goblets,
-two dozen carafes and tumblers,
-two dozen hexagon massive decanters,
-one dozen claret ditto,
-18 wine-glass coolers,
-two dozen topaz-coloured hock glasses,
-six water jugs,
-one dozen topaz-coloured finger glasses,
-two dozen ice-plates
3) The article carries on discussing more glass and lists hundreds of items of glass for the guests/rest of the event.I'm not going to type it all up but
interesting to note that
- 500 or 800 (difficult to read) emerald green hock glasses were included in the list.
Note - 1. The description of the glass in the article begins by saying 'The decanters, claret jugs, champazne, hock and other glasses, were all richly cut,
and ornamented with a vine border, varied with the rose, thistle, and shamrock, and the Royal arms.'
It only then goes on to discuss the glass for Queen Vic's table and separately afterwards the glass for the masses. The way it was written
implies the glass for ALL was richly cut and ornamented, not just that for Queen Vic's table.
2. I have seen a report on uranium glass recently, that iirc mentioned that uranium glass was used to create the emerald green glass.
see page 400 here: Mechanics Magazine 1843
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Mechanics_Magazine/L45fAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=bohemian+glass+1830&pg=PA284&printsec=frontcover
4) This report does not tie in with the information I gave in reply #44 where there was no mention of Davenports but there was mention of Copeland and
Garrett being suppliers:
'There is a report here from the Guildhall Banquet in 1837 mentioning the suppliers from page 37 onwards.
Unfortunately neither Davenport or Longport or Whitefriars or Powell seem to be mentioned:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HbdGAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA23-
IA2&dq=queen+victoria+city+of+london+9+November1837&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7j_yTjbDsAhUSQhUIHdSLCpwQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=glass&f=false
Copeland and Garrett are mentioned:
http://www.thepotteries.org/mark/c/copeland.html
-
So, in summary:
I think there are many unanswered questions as to where the uranium glass bowl in the V&A originated.
- Nothing in either report from The Examiner or from the Guildhall that says that James Powell or Davenport's actually made the glass.
- Nothing in the Guildhall report says Davenport's supplied the glass (or china) , it mentions Copeland and Garrett .
- Nothing in The Examiner that says Copeland and Garret supplied the glass (or china), it mentions Davenport .
- Barrie Skelcher says in his article that he has examined and measured the uranium glass bowl (his picture shows one the same as the one in the V&A
under Longport Davenport) and it fits within the Whitefriars recipe.
- I think it should be considered that the ice plate and uranium glass bowl in the V&A were not made at the same time, or by the same place, or engraved
by the same person or were made as a 'set'.
- We do not know whether the 'topaz-glass finger glasses' were uranium glass.
- Do we know that the description 'finger glasses' is correct as a description of what we refer to as finger bowls?
- Therefore we do not know whether the uranium glass bowl in the V&A represents the 'topaz-glass finger glass' listed in the description in The Examiner
- We do not know what is meant in terms of shape, by the description 'hock-glass'
- We do not know whether the emerald green hock-glasses were uranium glass.
- We do not know whether the 'topaz-glass' glasses were uranium glass.
- We do not know that uranium glass was being produced in the UK in 1837.
To me :
- the foot of the bowl looks like a Biedermeier cut I've seen on glass from that period but it's difficult to tell without a base shot.
- the cut on the bowl looks like Regency cut glass.
- the rim on the bowl looks as though it might be firepolished although it is difficult to tell from the photograph.
- the engraving on the bowl could have been done by a different 'refiner' to the actual maker of the bowl.
- I cannot place the style of the bowl to any particular country, it seems to incorporate elements that don't point to one particular country of origin.
-
Hock glasses (according to the advert best quality Stourbridge manufacture) c.1851 :
page 341 with pictures of wine glass and decanters
top left hand corner - items from George B. Sander
Allen's Indian Mail and Register - 1851
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Allen_s_Indian_Mail_and_Register_of_Inte/5LYOAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hock+glass+1830&pg=PA341&printsec=frontcover
The shape of a 'hock glass'
A snippet of possible information here (no full book to read):
Source view on google:
English, Scottish and Irish Table glass from the 16th century - G. Bernard Hughes, 1956 (page 378 possibly)
'Little is known of the Edinburgh and Leith Glass Company , although the works operated until about 1830 . ... Similar glasses catalogued as hock glasses were made in England being recorded in 1829 ' threaded and prunted at ls per pound '
-
So there were definitely some topaz finger bowls/glasses of some sort from somewhere ::)
From reply #58 above, part 3) note 1. This implies that the ice plate in the V&A is nothing to do with it as it doesn’t have the thistles or shamrocks. Also, it doesn’t have the City’s arms which the article seems to say was on the pieces at the Queen’s table, but not the other tables.
I seem to remember reading that a ‘Hock’ glass refers to the shape/size of the bowl. I think the glasses at the banquet were more likely to be this type: https://scottishantiques.com/victorian-drinking-glasses/wine-glasses?product_id=22450&limit=100 with a slim stem. Mrs Beeton says in her book “The wine to be served will determine the number and kind of glasses to be used. If, say, claret, hock and minerals are selected, then tumblers, hock and claret glasses should be provided”. Although this is later, in 1861(?), I don’t imagine she was talking about a Römers/Roemer type stem glass in general use in Britain. It might be the case that Römers are Hock glasses but not all Hock glasses are Römers. I think Hock might just be white wine, and their claret glasses are for red wine (I’m not a connoisseur ;D ).
I think finger glasses and finger bowls are likely to be the same thing, or at least for the same purpose. I’ve not heard of ‘finger glasses’ as a type of drinking glass?
-
1) Can agree with most of your comments except the design of the hock glasses:
We cross posted . I wrote above
'The shape of a 'hock glass'
A snippet of possible information here (no full book to read):
Source view on google:
English, Scottish and Irish Table glass from the 16th century - G. Bernard Hughes, 1956 (page 378 possibly)
'Little is known of the Edinburgh and Leith Glass Company , although the works operated until about 1830 . ... Similar glasses catalogued as hock glasses were made in England being recorded in 1829 ' threaded and prunted at ls per pound '
It's a 'snippet' view so I cannot find out what the whole thing might have said, but it seems to say they were threaded and prunted. Which implies maybe like a roemer?
Also I've lost it now, but I just read a something from 'letters written by...' can't remember who, of the period where the author had a Canadian to stay and when he offered him a top up, the guest presented his glass held upside down. The author says he laughed and was tempted to fill it.
That implies that the bottom was a trumpet shape and hollow, hence the confusion of which way up to hold the glass surely?
2) Yes, I think the 'ice plate' in the V&A is an interloper in this. Davenports patented a process of matting glass to be engraved on. From the way I read the process it seems granules of glass were sprinkled onto the area to be matt and then 'melted' on leaving a matt surface (which could then be engraved through?). Rather than it being mechanically matted by wheel or even acid matted. I presume the V&A know that it was matted in the 'Davenport Patent' process so that's how they know it was from Davenports. However I have read that most of those pieces had Davenport marked on them.
-
Um, I don’t know. I’ll have to see if I can find something else on the definition of Hock glasses. Here are some illustrations from Mrs Beeton’s book: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/isabella-beeton.html . None of the glasses look like Römers even though she specifies Hock glasses.
Investing in Georgian Glass by Ward Lloyd (1969) says finger bowls were initially called ‘wash-hand glasses’. “After the middle of the [18th] century, the sides of finger bowls, while remaining straight, begun to slope outwards, and then to assume the cup shape which is familiar today.”
-
I don't have a Mrs Beeton's. Were there original colour plates in it or drawings from the first time she produced it repeated over the editions?
Or was there only one edition ? Wikipedia says it was first produced in 1861 which is 25years, quite a long time from 1837 in fashion/style I think though?
I've just looked up some picture and come across a plate where I'm pretty sure, if it's from her book, the colour glass centrepiece is from c.1870s. Are there plates in the appendix of glassware items?
Just going back to the use of the word 'topaz' on the descriptions.
This was 1837. Did the descriptor 'topaz' mean coloured with uranium glass type colour, or did it mean 'amber' or a paler version of amber?
In Apsley Pellatt (1849) pp73 ( so 13 years after the Guildhall banquet)
he writes of uranium being used for gold topaz and ' it has been much in demand for hock glasses and decanters, and many ornamental articles of glass;...'
However, on page 71/72 he also writes:
'Annealing may sometimes appear complete in Glass articles that have borne the friction of deep cutting; which, when long after exposed to the influence of the atmosphere, become fractured, as it were, spontaneously. A large quantity of Flint,or compound glass, manufactured at the Falcon Works, (of beautiful topaz tint, coloured by uranium, which became richer in hue by diminishing the usual proportion of lead, and by increasing the alkali,) fractured three months after it was cut. Complaints from purchasers at home and abroad reached the Works, and the whole had to be replaced at the expense of the manufacturer.'
-
on Wikipedia a couple of things:
It does appear that various editions might have added colour plates?
Also under Oddities and Plagiarism there is some interesting reading on Mrs Beeton's capabilities. So she may not be the best arbiter of what particular glasses looked like perhaps?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs_Beeton%27s_Book_of_Household_Management
-
Apsley Pellatt had deposited some glass articles made at Falcon Glassworks to demonstrate the glass made there, at the Royal Polytechnic Institution.
see page 94 No.1763.
The book was originally written in 1845 but then additional dates are seen throughout the link so I don't know exactly when they were deposited unfortunately. The earliest must have been 1845 though. That said ,the information in the glass section appears to be around that year or before as there is also reference to 'silvered' glass - and the info on that, I know, is definitely earlier than 1849 when Drayton's process of silvering was in place:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Royal_Polytechnic_Institution_Catalo/YBZdAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=falcon+glassworks+topaz&pg=PA94&printsec=frontcover
These included:
- some items described as 'amber' including an engraved claret jug and an engraved hock decanter and an engraved toilet decanter plus a toilet decanter with amber 'embossment of gems'
and
- a toilet decanter described as 'topaz' and as a 'new shape'.
-
Doesn’t sound like she was the best cook! I think you’re right on the colour plates being added later, there’s one in McConnell from 1907.
This seems quite comprehensive on British Hock glasses: https://scottishantiques.com/german-hock-wine-glasses . Seems they started out like a Römer in the Regency and got more sophisticated as time went on.
-
Oh that's a great article and selection of glasses. Lovely.
Thinking about the colour of what might be called 'topaz' glass and that it seems to possibly denote the colour made with uranium c.1837 , here's a photograph of some Bohemian uranium glass from c.1835 to c.1850. There's an interesting range of colour. Interesting to also note the foot of the tall piece 3rd from right on the middle shelf. The foot looks quite similar in design shape to the uranium glass Queen Vic bowl:
https://antiquesandauctionnews.net/articles/Germany%60s-Passau-Glass-Museum:-A-European-Art-Glass-Treasure-/#
-
Before I forget
There was another celebration at Guildhall for Queen Victoria's golden jubilee - 50th - Tuesday 28th June 1887.
https://repository.duke.edu/dc/broadsides/bdseg19082
-
With reference my quote below the foot is similar but not the same actually. So a red herring.
Oh that's a great article and selection of glasses. Lovely.
Thinking about the colour of what might be called 'topaz' glass and that it seems to possibly denote the colour made with uranium c.1837 , here's a photograph of some Bohemian uranium glass from c.1835 to c.1850. There's an interesting range of colour. Interesting to also note the foot of the tall piece 3rd from right on the middle shelf. The foot looks quite similar in design shape to the uranium glass Queen Vic bowl:
https://antiquesandauctionnews.net/articles/Germany%60s-Passau-Glass-Museum:-A-European-Art-Glass-Treasure-/#
-
On the questions in reply #59 with reference to the list of items in the Guildhall banquet:
'We do not know whether the 'topaz-glass finger glasses' were uranium glass.'
and
- We do not know whether the 'topaz-glass' glasses were uranium glass.
1) in Farbenglas I , pp 278 under the heading 'Topaz Yellow Glass' Walthraud Neuwirth discusses this colour in some detail and at no point mentions Uranium in the colouring:
Some quotes:
'Amber, honey or topaz coloured glasses appear to belong to the same basic colour: a slightly brownish tinted yellow or - to put it more dramatically, gold topaz. ...'
and
'Harrach certainly made the "gold topaz composition" already before the Vienna Exhibition of 1835, when the table candlesticks in this color were also shown. ...'
The paragraph goes on to discuss various other items of gold topaz in the Exhibition and also presented in Prague in 1831.
2) Reports from the Guildhall event only mention topaz not gold topaz.
3) Apsley Pellatt in his book of 1849 (page 72) mentioned Falcon Glassworks making 'a beautiful topaz tint' glass coloured with uranium and it fractured after a three months and had to be replaced.
4) he also mentions gold topaz containing uranium glass on page 73:
on discussing uranium glass ' the chameleon-like effect of it is 'also produced by uranium alone, used as the colouring oxide for gold topaz: it has been much in demand for hock glasses and decanters, and many ornamental articles of glass;...'
It was Apsley Pellatt who introduced the term 'gold topaz' into this conversation with regard to hock glasses in his book of 1849.
The 'finger glasses' and 'hock glasses' in the Guildhall banquet of 1837 were just 'topaz' glass. So they may have been amber or topaz coloured but not uranium?
-
hmm, I may have missed the most obvious :-\
In reply #57 yesterday I commented on the report from The Examiner.
The most relevant information was this part I think:
'No 1554. The Examiner, Sunday 12 November 1837:
page 729.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Examiner/zWiNg5Znyt4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=guildhall+topaz+glass&pg=PA729&printsec=frontcover
'1) ...
2) The article talks about the china and how it was all decorated and then says of the glass:
'The decanters, claret jugs, champazne, hock and other glasses, were all richly cut, and ornamented with a vine border, varied with the rose, thistle, and shamrock, and the Royal arms. ... '
Would the Royal Arms not have been this?:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Queen_Victoria_of_the_United_Kingdom
or this
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Queen_Victoria_of_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Royal_arms_of_Victoria,_Queen_of_England.png
So I would have expected to see something like this on it as an example of a 'royal arms':
https://www.leslieantiques.com/items/536250/Antique-Drinking-Glass-Newcastle-Light-Baluster-1750/enlargement1
i.e. not a crown with a VR below it which would be classed as a cypher or monogram?
Unless the report incorrectly called it 'the Royal arms' when it meant the Royal cypher perhaps?
-
The City of London arms are incomplete too. Should be more than just the shield.
Have you tried searching the collection of the Royal Collection Trust? Believe they have items given to the Royals over the years. https://www.rct.uk/
-
I had a brief look but more than ever now I think there is a query over the bowl and also the ice plate as to whether either were actually made for the Guildhall banquet.
I've also just discovered a piece written in the The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction in Saturday March 25th 1843 edition. It goes through all the lists of oxides etc for coloured glass and Uranium is missing (see page 179 on link)
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Mirror_of_Literature_Amusement_and_I/ur0RAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=queen+adelaide+candlesticks+mortimer&pg=PA224&printsec=frontcover
I am aware that sometime these articles are 're-prints' from information found in other journals sometimes many years earlier.
Apsley Pellatt's book is dated 1849. Information found in journals I've come across since that date seem to use his lecture/book to impart the detailed information on glass.
-
As a complete aside really I came across a letter from
Mr James Green For Powell and Sons sent to White Friars Glass May 1841 ( Whitefriars )
talks about an order from White Friars Glass to Powell and Sons for syringes:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Transactions_of_the_Society_of_Arts/hM4-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=transactions+of+the+society+of+the+arts+1817&pg=RA4-PA61&printsec=frontcover
-
A much more comprehensive list of items here in The Mirror from 1837 Supplementary Number. No.863.
It prints the reports from various papers and is very detailed from page 323 onwards 'The Banquet':
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101075454072&view=1up&seq=359&q1=glass
Few interesting things of note:
1) There are mentions of both finger basins (page 323 and listed as a part of the dessert service)
and also finger-glasses which we've already noted a previous link.
It also mentions 'wine glass rinsers'.
2) It's clear the mention of the Royal Arms on the items ( page 325 - same report as before)
3) An aside The left hand column on page 325 talks about a 'new introduction which attracted great notice' - enamelled glass dessert plates, exquisite workmanship and 'entirely the production of our native artists'.
I wonder what those were? It would be good to find them.
-
Some interesting information here from Dr Jarmila Brozova, on the development of uranium glass in Bohemia and the timing. (if you are interested, you are able to highlight and copy the text and paste it into google translate in order to read the information)
Pressglas-Korrespondenz Nr. 02/2000
https://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/brozova-uranglas.pdf
So I still have queries over this bowl:
1) Timing wise with the development of uranium glass in manufacture:
- could this bowl have been produced in 1837 for the banquet of Queen Victoria at the City of London?
- could this bowl have been produced in Britain in 1837?
- could this bowl have been made at Davenports which is how the V&A have it described? Has it been described as made by Davenports simply because contemporary reports show that Davenports supplied the glass and china?
2) There is the anomaly of whether a simple VR engraved on the bowl could be described as the 'Royal arms', which is what the papers described all the glassware as having.
3) Queen Victoria reigned from 1837 to 1901. Could it have been produced for any number of reasons/occasions during that period?
Perhaps the golden Jubilee in 1887 but would there not have been some record of this somewhere?
Or simply as a gift to her from the City of London at some point in her reign?
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport-co/
-
If the 1 dozen topaz 'finger-glasses' listed does in fact mean finger rinsing bowls, wouldn't they be more likely to be a shape that was just a rounded bottomed bowl with highish sides?
Something like this:
https://scottishantiques.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=4938
rather than these:
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport--co/
https://www.cmog.org/artwork/finger-bowl-15?image=0
-
A much more comprehensive list of items here in The Mirror from 1837 Supplementary Number. No.863.
It prints the reports from various papers and is very detailed from page 323 onwards 'The Banquet':
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101075454072&view=1up&seq=359&q1=glass
Few interesting things of note:
1) There are mentions of both finger basins (page 323 and listed as a part of the dessert service)
and also finger-glasses which we've already noted a previous link.
It also mentions 'wine glass rinsers'.
The link on Babel wouldn’t show me anything but the first page so couldn’t see the context, so not sure if they used the names finger-glasses and finger basins in one list or if they were different names for the same thing given by different authors? I was looking through a 1875-1881 catalogue from Philip Pargeter on cmog today (link below) and noticed that they called their bowls ‘finger cups’. Also, they had significantly different shaped finger cups in the same catalogue so don’t think there were set rules for shape - should imagine it was the same in the 1830s.
3) Queen Victoria reigned from 1837 to 1901. Could it have been produced for any number of reasons/occasions during that period?
Perhaps the golden Jubilee in 1887 but would there not have been some record of this somewhere?
Or simply as a gift to her from the City of London at some point in her reign?
In the front of the same cmog catalogue is a clipping from 1861 showing glass for the use of the Prince of Wales at the opening of the Middle Temple Library. ‘Designed and executed expressly for the Prince’s table’. It seems quite likely therefore, that there would have been many different items made for Victoria and family through her reign for various dinners, events etc.
https://www.cmog.org/library/manufacturer-registered-flower-centres-candelabras-vases-speciment-tubes-and-cut-engraved?search=library_collection%3A24172b728ffcedd7e9b3811ff6dec0d9&page=202
-
Thanks for the link to that catalogue.
Was just going to have a quick look through but on the front page - caught my eye 'Bartleet's ' which should have read 'Bartlett's' perhaps, and also 'shew' rooms, rather than show rooms? Possibly it was spelled shew at that time but I hate a typo and it jars to see things written incorrectly. ;D
-
I've been through one of them but couldn't see any finger bowls with a foot or a splayed rim.
They mostly look to be rounded bottom bowls basically?
I'm just not sure these were finger bowls/cups/glasses. The shape doesn't seem to be right somehow.
Page 8 here - finger cup with 'tube' - is it a flower trumpet? Weird looking article :) but again, not a bowl on a foot.
https://www.cmog.org/sites/default/files/collections/EF/EF2ECA9A-682B-4C7D-A156-AF1B051A828F.pdf
Oh there is one on page 16 - small close set to body, flat circular foot.
-
I noticed ‘shew’ rooms but assumed that was posh for show ;D and I’m not the best person to comment on spelling or grammar!
Yes, I wasn’t looking for bowls with feet but saw most of their ‘finger cups’ were the shape with curved sides, yet there was one that was a cylinder and one more conical etc. Maybe there was a common shape but anything goes.
-
A complete aside possibly - but this is an, ummm, interesting account of the possibility of uranium being mined in Cornwall (2 November 1889 report) Page 19:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/St_Stephen_s_Review/7fknbCXEEfgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+glass+queen+victoria&pg=RA16-PA20&printsec=frontcover
-
1813 Pantologia
Cannot give page number as not numbered but see under URA -
Where there is a description of uranium in glass and how it makes a colour like Chrysoprase. Talks about Klaproth and the various colours obtained from uranium glass. Also talks about it being found in Cornwall:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Pantologia/Jco6AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+glass+finger+glass&pg=PP200&printsec=frontcover
-
I’m not sure if this is relevant as it’s not a yellow colour but there was a question mark over the date of use of uranium glass in Britain...or was it just topaz uranium glass. Anyway, I was looking in McConnells The Decanter for something and noticed an uranium-green body, silver mounted claret jug (page 312). It is dated 1839 (presumably from the silver hallmark) and is described as “glass by Richardson”. This is just a couple of years after the “Whitefriars” bowls so maybe of interest.
The picture credit is for Michael Sedler Antiques and it can be seen in their archives here: https://www.sedlerantiques.com/antique-silver/archive/antique-victorian-sterling-silver-glass-claret-jug-wine-decanter-1839/2579/ . Sedler doesn’t say it is uranium but McConnell does, in the picture description he even mentions the first known use of uranium in British Glass being the Whitefriars Topaz bowls in 1837.
-
Ok. But now we have no source that says 'The Queen Victoria Topaz bowls' were made by Whitefriars in 1837. Currently it is listed on the 'new' V&A site as made by Davenport's
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport--co/
I presume McConnell's tested the decanter for uranium glass then if it's not listed on the Sedler site as being uranium glass.
Sedler doesn't say it's Richardson's glass but perhaps it's been linked via the silver attachment which does have a hallmark?
It's interesting cutting - the neck cutting in layers - quite similar design to the bowls in that aspect, but cut differently from what I could make out.
I wonder if it's in the Richardson pattern books then?
I will have a trawl through Charles Hajdamach's British Glass tonight and see whether there is mention of uranium or uranium green amongst Richardson's 1830s output.
Thank you!
-
there is some interesting information on this site if it's correct. Apparently 'In 1842, Benjamin Richardson's letters report with pride of “his
experiments with new colors such as canary yellow and cornelian white.'
I wonder what canary yellow was? was it the yellow opaline vitreous enamel decanters they produced?
https://uig.printstoreonline.com/food-drink/vertical/pair-richardsons-yellow-glass-decanters-9554929.html
or was it uranium glass maybe?
Source:
https://storage.snappages.site/y3h077nvhv/assets/files/Richardson-Glass-History-The-Antiquarian-39.pdf
'In 1837, Johnathan Richardson took Thomas Webb’s place in the partnership. The new
partnership and new firm name of W.H., B. & J. Richardson did not become official until
1842 even though operational it was effective as of 1838 when Johnathan Richardson
took Thomas Webb’s place in the partnership.
In 1839, Richardson’s firm was described as manufacturers of “Plain & Rich Cut Glass
of Every Color.” In 1842, Benjamin Richardson’s letters report with pride of “his
experiments with new colors such as canary yellow and cornelian white.'
-
Interesting cut glass jugs that say they are from Richardson's here on Revolutionary Players. In particular the jug on the right has a very similar foot to the bowl:
https://www.revolutionaryplayers.org.uk/richardson-cut-glass-jugs/
-
Just wondering if the 'draped' effect on the body of that green decanter is mold blown or cut?
https://www.sedlerantiques.com/antique-silver/archive/antique-victorian-sterling-silver-glass-claret-jug-wine-decanter-1839/2579/
Does anyone know ?
-
On the green decanter, McConnell says “Deep swag-cut uranium-green body...”
-
Thanks :)
So it's quite similar to the pattern on these decanters though even on these pics it's still quite hard to see the actually cutting annoyingly:
https://guinevere.co.uk/product/accessories/barware/pair-victorian-cut-crystal-decanters/
adding for easy comparison the green one:
https://www.sedlerantiques.com/antique-silver/archive/antique-victorian-sterling-silver-glass-claret-jug-wine-decanter-1839/2579/
-
Yes, similar...although the green one looks quite a lot sharper, but that maybe the photos :)
-
yes actually looking at the edges of the clear decanters the swags look quite 'rounded' - not as though they are cut.
Will try and find a better comparison of swag-cuts.
-
As per my musing in this quote - I wonder if these Thomas Hawkes plates were the enamelled glass dessert service referred to:
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O4967/plate-thomas-hawkes-co/plate-thomas-hawkes/
A much more comprehensive list of items here in The Mirror from 1837 Supplementary Number. No.863.
It prints the reports from various papers and is very detailed from page 323 onwards 'The Banquet':
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101075454072&view=1up&seq=359&q1=glass
Few interesting things of note:
1) There are mentions of both finger basins (page 323 and listed as a part of the dessert service)
and also finger-glasses which we've already noted a previous link.
It also mentions 'wine glass rinsers'.
2) It's clear the mention of the Royal Arms on the items ( page 325 - same report as before)
3) An aside The left hand column on page 325 talks about a 'new introduction which attracted great notice' - enamelled glass dessert plates, exquisite workmanship and 'entirely the production of our native artists'.
I wonder what those were? It would be good to find them.
-
M, not sure if this is any help for you. In the June 2021 (issue 11) of Glass matters. The magazine of the Glass Society.
There is a 3 page article titled, Uranium glass; part 1. Its origins; Riedel, Pohl or Whitefriars?.
By John Frith.
Tim
-
Thank you Tim.
I should get a copy - :-X hope I'm up to date on my subs. Must check.
m
-
There was this article written a good few years ago (Frith 2013, Looking at Uranium glassware styles) that mentions
'Between 1845 and 1870 most British uranium glass was made by Thomas Webb and Sons . ...'
https://issuu.com/worldantiquesart/docs/ct111_sept_2013_249704
It does go on to mention other makers but does not seem to be referring to the period of the 1830s, rather much later in the century.
The bowl was supposed to have been made for 1837 though.
-
Tim when did you receive your copy?
I don't seem to have it and don't know how to contact to try and get one - is it online?
-
M, my copy arrived on Tuesday this week.
The person to contact is Maurice Wimpory.
Membership @theglasssociety.org.
I’m not sure if you can get a digital download.
All the best,
Tim
-
Thanks Tim.
I'll wait for post today and then contact Maurice to see whether I need to update subs :)
-
Awaiting my copies which should arrive soon.
In the meantime two things:
1.
An article describing production of uranium glass in Bohemia early 1800s, mentions Neuwelt producing in 1839 and showing examples c.1840
https://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/brozova-uranglas.pdf
Source: Pressglas-korrespondenz 02/2000 Dr. Jarmila Brožová
It talks about how uranium glass started being produced at the end of the 1830s in England and Lorraine
2. Also:
Giving a fuller description of the V&A bowl from their site
https://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/museum-life/seeing-more-glow-in-the-dark-glass
'(Left) Finger bowl, Longport, 1837, made by Davenport & Co., uranium yellow glass, cut and engraved, Museum no. C.110-1992, photographed under LED light © Victoria and Albert Museum. (Right) Finger bowl, photographed under UV light © Aimee Lax, 2020'
And
'The first object is a finger bowl from the early 19th century, an example of the first uranium glass to be produced in Britain. The first use of uranium oxide in glass manufacturing is credited to Josef Riedel, who developed it in 1834, at his glassworks in the Isergebirge, Austria. This finger bowl, as part of a service of 6,000 pieces, was designed not long after in 1837. Made by the firm Davenport & Co., the service was commissioned by the Corporation of the City of London, for a banquet at the Guildhall to celebrate the accession of Queen Victoria.'
-
With reference the engraved crown on the bowl and on the clear glass plate:
Some information re-printed in 1878 about Longports/Davenport (I've found similar information appeared in earlier publications so I'm not sure when it was first printed or written about)- it's all about the pottery with a mere glancing mention of their producing glass in one sentence.
See pages 283 - 286
History of Ceramic Art in Great Britain volume 2 , Llewellyn Jewitt, 1878.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_History_of_Ceramic_Art_in_Great_Brit/HNtKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=davenport+china+hamburg&pg=PA285&printsec=frontcover
However there is mention of the marks they used on their pottery or china.
One of those is a crown mark that I think is very similar to the crown engraved on the bowl and plate.
Of the crown mark used by Davenports the author says :
Page 286
' The marks used by Messrs.Davenport have been various, but almost in every instance the anchor has been the distinguishing characteristic; it is the trademark of the firm. The crown was first used by them, on the Royal Service for William IV., and is now generally used on porcelain services. Figs 429 to 436 are impressed marks.'
My note - the crown mark that looks very similar to that used on the bowl and plate appears in this book as Fig 436.
More information here on Davenport's but not much/any on their glassworks.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/db071d3e-e56e-48f6-914e-fd7e66d751ed
-
Here are some examples of Davenport glass sold by Bonhams in 2005. They were sold in the Joyce Mountain Davenport collection which was massive - about 144 lots of sets of china and some glass pieces (not many):
https://images1.bonhams.com/image?src=Images/live/2005-07/25/94291032-198-1.jpg
https://www.lotsearch.net/lot/three-davenport-patent-glass-items-39846061?page=10&orderBy=lot-title&order=ASC
The one with an image of Victoria on and the word Victoria engraved/etched on it is interesting. The dates given for the three items are 1806-1840.
They bear no resemblance whatsoever to the uranium glass bowl in the V&A.
This bowl dated as c.1820 is cut but clear glass:
https://www.lotsearch.net/lot/a-davenport-cut-glass-pedestal-bowl-39846062?page=6
There was nothing else like the bowl though.
https://www.lotsearch.net/auction-catalogues/the-joyce-mountain-collection-of-davenport-pottery-porcelain-and-glass-117694?page=12
-
In The Decanter, McConnell mentions the uranium-yellow bowls, he says ‘...Whitefriars producing a suite of uranium-yellow rinsers for Victoria’s coronation banquet at the guildhall in 1837’. He calls them rinsers but assume he’s talking about the same thing. He goes on to say that Queen Adelaide (wife of William IV) was presented with a pair of “similarly coloured girandole candlesticks whilst visiting Birmingham in the 1830’s”. Maybe you could find the source of that reference to the candlesticks for corroboration?
In the Glass Matters magazine June 2021 there is an article by John Frith that references these candlesticks again saying they were made by by James Powell & Sons '...when they made a pair of yellow uranium Topaz girandoles that were presented to Queen Adelaide'.
The source he gives is a reference to Barrie Skelcher's book (his note 4. - Skelcher, Barrie. (2002) The Big Book of Vaseline Glass. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing Ltd, 2002, p.12-16.), and references page 13.
He doesn't formally quote Skelcher though, so I've no idea how the phrasing was actually written in Skelcher's book.
And I don't have Barrie Skelcher's book so I don't know what the source was for Barrie Skelcher's information.
-
Candelabra gift! - Except it's all made of silver and the only glass is a mirrored underplate thing that the candelabra stand on.
Question - is this the legendary candelabra with topaz drops referred to as having been given by Lord Howe to Queen Adelaide? Or were there even more candelabra gifts with topaz? This garniture has no topaz drops as far as I can see ???
Earl Howe and Queen Adelaide
Source: (I'm fully quoting from this site - I hope that's ok mods?)
https://www.millionplus.com/luxury-market/rare-scarce/antiques/queen-adelaide-garniture-de-table/
quote (my bold) :
- 1839-40 and 1852 (my note: I presume the 1852 denotes the extra piece added after her death (see description below)
– with marks for R and S Garrard and
R and S Garrard and Co.
– The Surtout: 318 x 70 cm
– The candelabra: 121 x 84 cm
'Comprising a large silver mounted mirror plateau, in four sections with two extra end sections, the boarder cast and chased and applied with vines and scrolls on massive scroll supports, embellished with the arms and supporters and cypher of Queen Adelaide a pair of matching seven-light candelabra with conforming trails of chased vine leaves and the cypher for Queen Adelaide and a ten light candelabrum with the arms of Curzon-Howe impaling Gore for 1st Earl Howe, on a massive scrolled oval base with coats of arms centered by a fountain. Including five oak and iron bound cases with brass labels engraved for queen Adelaide and Earl Howe.
This Exceptional gift was made shortly after a tour she made of the English provinces in the autumn of 1839. It was at that time that she visited Earl Howe at Gopsall Hall in Leicestershire as well as the Earl of Warwick at Warwick Castle the Duke of Rutland at Belvoir Castle and the conservative Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel at at Draycott Manor. It may have graced the table at any of the Earl's residences, which include Curzon House in South Audley Street., Penn House Near Amersham or Gopsall or indeed all of them as the stout cases would allow for easy transportation. The Earls addition of a further candelabrum was made after the Queens death adding to the Splendor of an already distinguished piece.
This wonderful work of art was sold by the family on the 6th of December at Christie's in London in 1933 and has not often appeared on the market since. It is an extraordinary testament to the Generosity of a Queen, the Loyalty of a servant and the skills of great craftsmen and represents a rare opportunity to acquire such a piece.'
-
Tim, a question re your posts on the first page of this thread:
'M, there is a little bit more about the James Powell topaz glass in the big Whitefriars book.
Whitefriars glass,James Powell & sons of London.
Have you got the info you need or should i add some more to your post?
Tim'
and
In the glasshouse recipe book covering 1831to 1838 it records some trials of various colouring oxides.
One of these trials was with oxide of uranium which produced a spectacular yellow which Powells called topaz.
Powells made some silver mounted candlesticks with prismatic drops given by lord Howe to queen Adelaide in topaz in 1836.
In the banquet given by the corporation of London for queen Victoria in 1837 there were 12 finger bowls and the bowls of twenty four hock glasses.
Dont know why Charles Hajdamach would not have attributed the images, he is a very knowledgeable expert.
Tim
question is, is the book you are paraphrasing/referencing from here - is it the Whitefriars Glass: James Powell and Sons book, the one published by the Museum of London?
Just wondering because the link I originally gave to the bowl that said it was by James Powell & Sons was a link to the Museum of London.
Then the link disappeared.
But I managed to find it referenced to the Museum of London on this memoryprints site:
http://www.memoryprints.com/image/142383/james-powell-and-sons-whitefriars-ltd-finger-bowl-in-topaz-glass-1837
And of course we now know the bowl is at the V&A with their information saying it was made at Davenports.
So I wonder if Barrie Skelcher's information in the Big Book of Vaseline Glass published 2002 maybe came from the Museum of London information or that Whitefriars Glass: James Powell & Sons book from the Museum of London which was published in 1995?
Obviously the information in that book regarding this particular bowl now seems to have been surpassed by the new information from the V&A saying the bowl was made by Davenports.
If this is the case then I think the question of James Powell and Sons making this uranium glass bowl might be questioned as it may have stemmed from that book information perhaps.
Which leaves the question - If this bowl was indeed presented/used at the Guild banquet, were Davenports making uranium glass in 1837?
-
I also wonder when James Powell and sons first started making uranium glass.
If the date of the 1830s has been talked about based on this bowl being categorised by Museum of London as from James Powell & Sons, and it no longer is deemed to be by them, then perhaps any talk of them making uranium glass in the 1830s has no reference?
-
Page 217 of this book Men of the Reign dated 1885 discusses John Davenport and says in 1801 they:
'introduced the manufacture of flint glass, or crystal, for the ornamenting and cutting of which they invented machinery. They also produced some remarkable specimens of stained glass, the best perhaps being the window of St Mark's Church, Liverpool'
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Men_of_the_Reign/8-dFAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=davenport++glass+queen+victoria&pg=PA247&printsec=frontcover
I've looked up St Mark's church and there is some history here of it being built and including it's early history. No mention of the stained glass window though, despite a rather detailed but unflattering description of the Church and it's design:
https://liverpool1207blog.wordpress.com/long-lost-buildings/st-marks-church-upper-duke-st/
-
It's only a 'snippet' view on google and I don't have the journal, but it seems to say in the Journal of Glass Studies 1995 that Davenport assembled 6000 pieces within 4 weeks of receiving the order from City of London. I'm noting the use of the word 'assembled' rather than the word 'produced'.
'FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 140
Uranium , or Uranite , was discovered in 1780 by Klaproth , in a mineral called pech blend ( pitchblende ) : it has been since ... more than 6,000 pieces ( predominantly of plain flint glass ) that was assembled by Davenport within four weeks of receiving the order from the Corporation of the City of London.3 The service was for use at the Guildhall banquet given for Queen Victoria on her accession in 1837.'
-
Tim, a question re your posts on the first page of this thread:
'M, there is a little bit more about the James Powell topaz glass in the big Whitefriars book.
Whitefriars glass,James Powell & sons of London.
Have you got the info you need or should i add some more to your post?
Tim'
and
question is, is the book you are paraphrasing/referencing from here - is it the Whitefriars Glass: James Powell and Sons book, the one published by the Museum of London?
Just wondering because the link I originally gave to the bowl that said it was by James Powell & Sons was a link to the Museum of London.
Then the link disappeared.
But I managed to find it referenced to the Museum of London on this memoryprints site:
http://www.memoryprints.com/image/142383/james-powell-and-sons-whitefriars-ltd-finger-bowl-in-topaz-glass-1837
And of course we now know the bowl is at the V&A with their information saying it was made at Davenports.
So I wonder if Barrie Skelcher's information in the Big Book of Vaseline Glass published 2002 maybe came from the Museum of London information or that Whitefriars Glass: James Powell & Sons book from the Museum of London which was published in 1995?
Obviously the information in that book regarding this particular bowl now seems to have been surpassed by the new information from the V&A saying the bowl was made by Davenports.
If this is the case then I think the question of James Powell and Sons making this uranium glass bowl might be questioned as it may have stemmed from that book information perhaps.
Which leaves the question - If this bowl was indeed presented/used at the Guild banquet, were Davenports making uranium glass in 1837?
With reference my question above:
There is some information online from Barrie Skelcher, regarding this bowl on the penultimate page on this link:
http://www.glassassociation.org.uk/sites/default/files/Uranium_Glass_sample_article.pdf
Barrie Skelcher says in this article
Quote - Source 'Uranium Glass by Barrie Skelcher' - found online with link above
'No review of uranium glass could be complete without including the London glasshouse, Whitefriars,
which was acquired by James Powell and Sons in
1834. As far as I can establish, it was the first in the country to use uranium in commercial
manufacture. The Whitefriars archives, held by the Museum of London, record that in 1836 some
silver mounted candlesticks with prismatic drops of uranium Topaz glass made by Whitefriars were
presented by Lord Howe to Queen Adelaide. The following year Whitefriars made twelve finger bowls
and twenty-four hock glass bowls for use at the 1837 Corporation of London Banquet for Queen
Victoria (Plate 14). I have had the opportunity to measure the uranium level in three of the bowls. The
results are consistent with the formula in an early Whitefriars batch book. It is likely that Whitefriars
used uranium to produce other colours and shades, but the only one I have identified is their pale
straw opal items where I estimate the uranium content to be about 0.1% by wt.'
-
I think I might have got to the bottom of this.
This is long - bear with me. It's a possible explanation of why assumptions have been made that this uranium glass bowl was made in England and also by Whitefriars. In conclusion, I think it has all been based on assumptions/possible mis-reading of information available, and I do not believe this bowl was made in England by an English glassmaker in 1837.
1) I mentioned Cornwall mines producing uranium earlier in this thread. I decided to search a bit further.
In searching I came across a book written in 1817 by H.C. Gill called ‘An Historical Survey of the County of Cornwall’ where he mentioned uranium being found in pitchblende in mines there. He mentions in his book, in that chapter, that it is used for colouring glass and gives the colours as Apple Green, Brown and Emerald Green. See page 269
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_Historical_Survey_of_the_County_of_Co/fflRAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=an+historical+survey+of+the+county+of+cornwall+uranium&pg=PA269&printsec=frontcover
2) It seems this information had already been found in the glassworld as in
Journal of Glass Studies
Vol. 37 (1995), pp. 140-145 (6 pages)
Published By: Corning Museum of Glass
I came across an article by F. Peter Lole, Didsbury Manchester, who mentions this book by HC Gill and the information on uranium in the book.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24190783
F. Peter Lole, by my reading of his article, makes the assumption that H.C. Gill is familiar with glassmaking because of the way Gill mentions the glass making in his chapter but then makes no further recommendations as to the use of the pitchblende.
It is my opinion that Lole’s article also implies or seems to make a connection with uranium glassmaking in England at that time. Or at least that the way he's written his information could be 'misconstrued' like that.
I wondered whether actually H. C. Gill was not in fact familiar with glassmaking at all, but had read that information about the uranium glass colours elsewhere in earlier literature and so included it in his book in ‘passing’ if you like.
However, as Lole did, I also wondered why Gill mentioned the pitchblende mines as he didn’t give any other explanation for it’s use.
3) I then came across a long article written in 1917 (see page 165 and 166)
copyright 1915 Society of Economic Geologists, Inc. Economic Geology, v.10, pp161-171
https://www.aditnow.co.uk/documents/RESUGGA-Mine/South-Terras.pdf
The Pitchblende of Cornwall, England – R.A.F. Penrose Jr.
It seemed to me Penrose was intimating that Pitchblende was a substance that miners/smelters did not want due to it’s ‘nature and prejudice to copper ores’ , therefore the reason for including it in Gill’s book might have been so it was known which mines produced pitchblende and therefore were ‘not valued/useful’ at that point.
I may have misunderstood this, but anyway because of my understanding of reading the Penrose article, it led me to investigate further.
I wondered whether Gill had ‘paraphrased’ his casual info on the use of Uranium in glass producing Apple green, Brown and Emerald green from somewhere else.
4) So I looked back to see if there was information earlier than the 1817 of Gill’s book, from Klaproth.
According to The Estimation of Uranium in Colored Glasses , Sheilagh Murray and John Haggith, pp184
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24188153
In 1786, M. H. Klaproth Professor of Chemistry at the University of Berlin, isolated from pitchblende a new substance called uranium.
This led me onto finding the Pantalogica dated 1813 (i.e .4 years prior to Gill’s book and written whilst Klaproth was still alive (d.1817):
Pantalogica Vol VII U- ZYT dated 1813 - Printed by T. Davison, Lombard-Street, Whitefriars
Under ‘URA Uranium’
It discusses M Klaproth and uranium oxide and colours and in writing out Klaproth’s actual mixtures it mentions the colours ‘apple green, brown and emerald green’:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Pantologia/Jco6AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+glass+finger+glass&pg=PP200&printsec=frontcover
Conclusion
a) I surmise that F. Peter Lole’s possible assumption, that H. C. Gill writing of Cornish mines in 1817 knew something about uranium glass being produced, was probably not correct.
b) I think Gill had read the information from Klaproth and copied/re-wrote it in his book as a descriptor for what the Pitch blende could be used for in the absence of anything else.
c) Please also take good note of where the Pantalogica dated 1813 with the information in it from Klaproth regarding the use of Uranium oxide in glass was printed! It was printed by T. Davison, Lombard-Street, Whitefriars
So this MIGHT go some way to explaining the assumption that this bowl was made by Whitefriars?
-
This article says Powell bought the glassworks in 1834 https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/guides/collecting-guides/whitefriars-glass/ as does Ivo Haanstra in his Glass Fact File a-z and even the Museum of London's own website says 1834, so I think the date in the film must be an error.
-
I've just posted a long post above yours Anne.
Thank you for confirming the date in the film is probably wrong.
I still believe the Whitefriars as maker is probably wrong. My long post above yours explains why.
And if ... there is some hard factual information that James Powell produced those topaz uranium glass finger bowls in 1837 then why would the V&A have them down as made by Davenport?
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport--co/
-
Anne can you have a read of my long post and see if you follow my thinking please?
Thanks if you can - much appreciated.
m
-
Fantastic work M. not sure if it would help but if you are anywhere near the Oxford area of the UK i would lend you the big Whitefriars book.
Tim
-
Thank you Tim. And thank you for the offer of a loan of the book. Sadly I'm nowhere near. I may try and order from the library though just to have a read though.
I've also just noted Barrie Skelcher's careful wording in his article. He says 36 BOWLS were made, 12 were Finger bowls (I presume these were finger rinsers) and 24 were Hock Glass bowls (I presume these were wine glass rinsers). He doesn't say they were uranium glass. So who put two and two together and determined that the 36 bowls referred to were uranium glass bowls? and who determined that that particular V&A bowl was part of that 36 bowl set mentioned? How is it actually written in the Whitefriars James Powell archives? Is it written that they were uranium glass or is it just written in the archives that they supplied 12 Fingers bowls and 24 Hock Glass bowls to the Guildhall banquet?
No review of uranium glass could be complete without including the London glasshouse, Whitefriars,
which was acquired by James Powell and Sons in
1834. As far as I can establish, it was the first in the country to use uranium in commercial
manufacture. The Whitefriars archives, held by the Museum of London, record that in 1836 some
silver mounted candlesticks with prismatic drops of uranium Topaz glass made by Whitefriars were
presented by Lord Howe to Queen Adelaide.
The following year Whitefriars made twelve finger bowls
and twenty-four hock glass bowls for use at the 1837 Corporation of London Banquet for Queen
Victoria (Plate 14).
I have had the opportunity to measure the uranium level in three of the bowls. The
results are consistent with the formula in an early Whitefriars batch book. It is likely that Whitefriars
used uranium to produce other colours and shades, but the only one I have identified is their pale
straw opal items where I estimate the uranium content to be about 0.1% by wt.'
And anyway, it all comes back to my earlier comment that IF there is hard factual information that Whitefriars James Powell & Sons produced these bowls, why would the V&A have them down as made at Davenports?
The question of whether Davenports were capable of making them in 1837 remains to be seen. I don't believe so.
-
I reply 111, point 4) the source should read Pantologia - apologies.
-
Banquet in the Guildhall Crypt in July 1851 for Queen Victoria:
Painting here of table settings
https://www.rct.uk/collection/920217/banquet-in-the-crypt-of-the-guildhall-at-the-city-of-london-ball-9-july-1851
-
It’s surprising how much information is available if you know where to look, I don’t know how you do it. Some thoughts on your long post #111, for what they’re worth:
Your logic coming to conclusions ‘a’ and ‘b’ looks good to me, but I wasn’t too sure about conclusion ‘c’.
If someone had read the Pantologia or Gill’s book and thought they were talking about Whitefriars (due to the address of the publisher of the Pantologia) does it matter? They were published in 1813 and 1817, so 20 years before the rinsers in question - those publications were history.
In reply #4 essi paraphrasing from the Whitefriars book said ‘In the glasshouse recipe book covering 1831 to 1838 it records some trials of various colouring oxides. One of these trials was with oxide of uranium....’ So the fact that they were experimenting with uranium oxide between 1831 to 1838 seems documented. Presumably that ‘recipe book’ is the ‘batch book’ that Barrie Skelcher mentions. Even without a documented recipe/batch book, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that Whitefriars had experimented with uranium oxide colourants in the 20 years since those publications would it? They might have read those publications and decided to have a go...with uranium oxide readily available down the road.
I might’ve missed it but can’t remember you saying if you’d looked at the Davenport book referenced by the V&A. I’ve had a look on the Library Service for my region and it’s available to borrow, so you should be able to get it wherever you are in the UK.
-
I don't think uranium oxide was 'ready to go ' down the road though.
That's my point. I think Gill pointed out it was there, but that info/some of that info came from a previous article/book written by a man called Phillips, but I don't think it was mined from there.
I think it was readily available though very, very nearby in Bohemia (Joachimsthal if I recall correctly -open to correction as I've not time to look it up in th books at the mo). And Klaproth was known, and they were massively experimenting with and producing amazing colours already by the 1820s certainly. So instinct says it's in Bohemia it would originate at it's earliest.
I also think the v&A would, if they had hard evidence, have identified it as from James Powell & sons. Why wouldn't they if they'd acquired it from the MOL and had that evidence to hand? As would CH in his book, but he hasn't either.
The publications being 'history' doesn't stand as an argument from what I've seen, because I've looked at various publications over the whole of the 19th century and they repeatedly reprint and repeat information from previous publications going back many tens of years, over and over again, the same information is repeated. Sometimes a bit more recent information is added to it but often it's the exact same info from various publications. And that's why I thought Gill might have just repeated what he'd read about those colour 'names' from a previous document discussing Klaproth's discovery, and I'm sure he had. I don't think he had any idea about the production of uranium glass anywhere.
And the use of the word Whitefriars may well have come from a 'I'm sure I've seen something somewhere/remember reading that this was produced by Whitefriars' type conversation. That happens.
There was information in The Art Journal of 1849 writing about the exhibition in Birmingham, that Bacchus and Rice,Harris produced some uranium glass items. But that was 1849.
That said, of course, this could all be conjecture and doesn't mean it's fact. It could well be that James Powell & Sons produced these.
I just think at the moment there isn't any hard evidence anywhere that they did.
And I also think that had they produced gold ruby glass and uranium topaz glass at that time, any glassmaker might be 'crowing' about it, making it known.
They weren't reticent in coming forward. Richardson's were keen to ensure it was known that the glass they made, despite being distributed by a 'shop' or middle man, was made by them. And I've just read (I think in the Art Journal actually) that some silver smiths who were using glass in their products were told they had to ensure the glassmaker was included on the large card labels they displayed on their stands, and there was a huge outcry because one of them had their own name writ large and the glassmakers name writ so small as to be almost illegible to the naked eye.
So not much different behaviour to how it would be now really.
Apsley Pellatt writes of how gold topaz glass was keenly sought after in his book of 1849. Yet no mention of any of it in the Art Journal of that year really or of any from James Powell in the 1851 Great Exhibition. Odd.
-
And then to add to my questioning - there is also the confusion that arose over the uranium glass elephant foot piano rest:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,52748.msg299463.html#msg299463
Attributed in Newman to John Davenport but in fact was produced by John Derbyshire.
Was this attributed to Davenport because the uranium bowls were thought to have come from Davenports somewhere down the line?
Or is this just another coincidence of wrong attribution of uranium glass being made at Davenports?
-
Apologies Ekimp :) I meant to say thank you for reading and commenting. I'm grateful you took the time given my long missive (missives!).
I will look out the Davenport book but having read somewhere in the Journal of Glass Studies that they, Davenports, 'assembled' the glass and china for the Guildhall Banquet in a matter of 4 weeks from request, I'm not really holding out hope that it will contain evidence of making uranium glass.
-
That’s ok :) your research is interesting. I agree, from what I’ve read here, there is nothing to positively attribute the rinsers to Whitefriars and seems like assumptions were made somewhere. It’s not easy to prove a negative...or a positive.
-
The Art Journal of 1849 mentioned that both Bacchus and Rice Harris showed uranium glass items at the Birmingham Exhibition in 1849.
In the Official Descriptive Catalogue of the Great Exhibition exhibitors (volume 1 - 1851) it mentions Johnson Matthey showing metals and metallic compounds
page 166
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Official_Descriptive_and_Illustrated_Cat/uvvNAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+glass+cornwall+mines&pg=PA166&printsec=frontcover
amongst the list is:
'Uranium; it's oxide; glass vessel showing the colour produced by the oxide of uranium.'
There follows a lengthy description of metals including uranium, and it mentions:
'(Platinum... Uranium is procured from pitchblende, uranite and other minerals found in Cornwall and Bohemia - R.H.)'
and
'(The colour produced by mixing a minute portion of the oxide of uranium in a mass of molten glass is one of the most beautiful colours obtained by art. It is a charming golden green of an opalline (sic) lustre, so peculiar as to distinguish it from all other colours in glass - R.E.)'
-
I don't think uranium oxide was 'ready to go ' down the road though.
That's my point. I think Gill pointed out it was there, but that info/some of that info came from a previous article/book written by a man called Phillips, but I don't think it was mined from there.
I think it was readily available though very, very nearby in Bohemia (Joachimsthal if I recall correctly -open to correction as I've not time to look it up in th books at the mo). And Klaproth was known, and they were massively experimenting with and producing amazing colours already by the 1820s certainly. So instinct says it's in Bohemia it would originate at it's earliest.
I also think the v&A would, if they had hard evidence, have identified it as from James Powell & sons. Why wouldn't they if they'd acquired it from the MOL and had that evidence to hand? As would CH in his book, but he hasn't either.
The publications being 'history' doesn't stand as an argument from what I've seen, because I've looked at various publications over the whole of the 19th century and they repeatedly reprint and repeat information from previous publications going back many tens of years, over and over again, the same information is repeated. Sometimes a bit more recent information is added to it but often it's the exact same info from various publications. And that's why I thought Gill might have just repeated what he'd read about those colour 'names' from a previous document discussing Klaproth's discovery, and I'm sure he had. I don't think he had any idea about the production of uranium glass anywhere.
On my thoughts above, that I didn't think uranium oxide was readily available from Cornwall by 1837 and also my questioning as to whether Gill really knew anything about uranium glass being made or being made in England or just copied information he'd read elsewhere, I found this article written in 2018 from Chemistry World. It says:
'The now abandoned South Terras mine near St Austell in Cornwall was the UK’s only and most important uranium mine, and operated between 1873 and 1930'
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/abandoned-cornish-mine-may-hold-clues-to-uranium-clean-up-/3008478.article
If this is true, then the presence of uranium in the mines in Cornwall as written by Gill, is just 'information'. It did not mean it was mined and used at the time in England. I note the strange wording of the sentence though - if it was the UK's ONLY uranium mine, then I suppose it stands to reason it would be it's MOST IMPORTANT uranium mine.
I don't have a clue about chemistry so I suppose there is always the question of whether it was same type/format of uranium used in glass. By that I mean maybe there were other mines that produced it in a different form available to use for glassmaking? Any ideas?
Conversely, there is evidence that uranium glass was being produced in Bohemia at the time this bowl was supposedly made/used.
And obviously that doesn't preclude uranium oxide being used by English makers but imported from elsewhere in 1837.
If indeed the bowl was made/used in 1837 and not made/used at a later date.
-
My impression was that pitchblende (or uraninite) was something they came across when mining for other metals, something inconvenient, in the way. If they weren’t actually mining for uranium, there might’ve been spoil heaps of the ‘useless’ pitchblende. There might have been pitchblende extracted when mining for tin, for example, but not in sufficient quantities to make an economic uranium mine when larger quantities were required later in the century..
I’m not a chemist either but Wiki says that pitchblende or uraninite is actually two types of uranium oxide with a small amount of lead oxide. If it’s uranium oxide they used in glass, maybe they didn’t even have to refine the pitchblende and I don’t suppose they needed a huge amount, at least not to experiment with.
-
I've been doing lots of reading whilst watching the tennis :)
Too much to write it down but my impression is that they only decided to use the discarded spoils once they realised they could be useful much later in the century.
In addition from what I understand of my reading, in Bohemia they set up a production factory for processing uranium in 1851(?) (for use in glass and porcelain i.e. KPM ?)and kept it a very closely guarded secret. Although it was in use before then definitely by Bohemian makers and also Baccarat. And clearly if Rice Harris and Bacchus showed a uranium glass piece at the 1847 Exhibition in Birmingham, then also here.
But it seems it wasn't that easy to get hold of if they saw fit to set up a processing plant under high security and kept a closely guarded secret in Joachimsthal.
It's exercising my brain because if I'm honest I don't think the shape or the stem/foot or the cutting on the bottom of the foot remind me of a Bohemian glass item. The whole thing makes me think French or Russian ... or perhaps even English ... but later in the century. But that's just 'thoughts' - no evidence for those thoughts at all.
-
It is probably an over simplification to think they could go and collect a couple of shovel fulls in the back of the carriage and sprinkle it in the pot ;D
-
;D
Correction to my previous post - Birmingham Exhibition was 1849 iirc
Rice Harris and Bacchus both showed a Uranium glass piece at that exhibition according to reports of the time. But that is 12 years after this piece is supposed to have been used at Guildhall.
-
Interesting shaped small pressed glass bowl c.1840 from 'probably Styria' (seite 4 von 7 seiten)
https://pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2019w-stopfer-becher-josefsthal-1840.pdf
-
I've managed to find a snippet of information from a German book by Franz Kirchheimer, Das Uran und seine Gesichte 1963. Very difficult to tell what's going on as it's only a snippet view and I'm trying to understand half a story and translate - so no quotes from this please.
However, it seems to me on trying to unravel it that there is some info about girandoles made with uranium added to flint glass being presented to Queen Adelaide written in Glass-making in England by Harry J Powell.
It seems that these girandoles were never found in the British Museum or in the Royal Collection.
This book is well known.
I don't know how the description of these links with the candlesticks with topaz drops info given in the MOL book.
I do think if there was a definite link between Powell & Sons and the bowl in the V&A then they would have made it surely?
I don't have the book so if anyone does and can corroborate or expand on that info that would be great.
I keep coming across another piece of information that 'LLoyd and Summerfield were the first to use uranium in commercial glass in 1857'. And it appears one author is talking about a butter dish (pressed?). Another about Park Glassworks. This L&S info is quoted in lots of snippets from a variety of books in cluding more recent ones. I have no idea if it's true or whether it's just information that has been repeated on and on without there being hard evidence for it.
Also going back to the Birmingham Exhibition 1849 where it was said Bacchus and Rice Harris showed a piece of uranium glass. Describing it as 'showing' doesn't necessarily mean it was made there does it?
Finally, in the Glass Museum article here
https://www.theglassmuseum.com/uranium.htm
it mentions info on Riedel starting to make uranium glass in 1830,
on a visit by the French to Bohemia in order to encourage imitations of Bohemian glass in 1836,
and that Choisy-Le-Roi started producing it in 1838,
and that Baccarat started producing it in 1843.
I honestly cannot see that this bowl was produced at Davenport in 1837.
-
Also going back to the Birmingham Exhibition 1849 where it was said Bacchus and Rice Harris showed a piece of uranium glass. Describing it as 'showing' doesn't necessarily mean it was made there does it?
I've found the Art Journal link again. The author does seem to say that the uranium examples from both companies were productions from those companies:
See page 294 - Art Journal writing on the Birmingham Exhibitioni 1849
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_art_journal_London/65BCAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+oxide+cornwall+mine+1817&pg=PA137&printsec=frontcover
I don't know what the source of this is but in Pressglas Korrespondenz (page 120 of 160) here
https://pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2000-2w-sg-annagelb-eleonorengruen-uran.pdf
It does say that ore was extracted earlier than the previous writings I've come across:
quote
'Already in 1846 were in Cornwall
4-5 tons of uranium ore extracted for coloring glass. It
arose there when the tin ore actually extracted was deposited, where it was mixed in as an annoying impurity. In another, long-disused mine in Cornwall, pitchblende was used from 1873 to 1898'
So it's earlier, however it's still 1846 - 9 years after this bowl was supposedly produced/used in 1837.
On translating and reading through that article regarding the difficulty of processing the pitchblende in Bohemia and how the glass was only for luxury items , and looking at the timeline of production in Bohemia, and having read through all the other information available online (links on this thread), I think the V&A bowl:
- Was not produced in 1837 ... unless it was produced by a Bohemian glass maker (possibly Riedel?)
It appears Baccarat didn't start until after 1837 - I read 1843 but would need to check that date.
It appears Choisy-le-Roi used uranium glass from 1838.
- Was not produced by Davenport.
- May have been made later on in the century for another VR event and then might possibly have been made by an English maker (although I now think the foot does have features of Bohemian glassmaking) .
- If it is actually correct that uranium was extracted in Cornwall for glassmaking in 1846, then I suppose it might possibly have been used in the production of the two items shown at the Birmingham Exhibition in 1849, one by Rice Harris and the other by Bacchus.
Perhaps this V&A bowl was one of their productions?
-
Correction to some information in my post above (see bold):
I think the V&A bowl:
- Was not produced in 1837 ... unless it was produced by a Bohemian glass maker (possibly Riedel?)
Journal of Glass Studies article 2005, says Harrach didn't start producing uranium glass until 1839 - will check their book to see what that says.
It appears Baccarat didn't start until after 1837 - I read 1843 but would need to check that date.
It appears Choisy-le-Roi used uranium glass from 1838.
Correction: I'm adding a source reference for information that
Harrach produced some partly opaque 'Chrysoprasglas' uranium glass in 1831 and later perfected a uranium yellow glass .
Source -
See page 77-79
The Legend of Bohemian Glass - Antonin Langhamer
And also see page 71 for more information
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Legend_of_Bohemian_Glass/UwLCa_h3hTEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=riedel+topaz+glass&pg=PA111&printsec=frontcover
-
On page 185 here
Farbenglas Band I - Dr Walthraud Neuwirth
You can see a Topaz coloured lidded goblet produced by Harrach prior to 1839 :)
http://waltraudneuwirth.at/Buecher-Selbstverlag-Bilder/1993-1998-Farbenglas/1993-Farbenglas01-184.jpg
and compared to (N.B. Different lighting may alter the true daylight colour of the two pieces however the Harrach version looks to have a browner tint)
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport-co/finger-bowl-davenport--co/
https://www.cmog.org/artwork/finger-bowl-15?search=collection%3A87ed4dbdb52f7abbeb70ee8d4edef98d&page=53
On Page 179 of Farbenglas I, Neuwirth shows a "chameleon glass" jug (listed as vase) plate 124. It is panel cut and dates prior 1837. It looks as though it might be uranium glass but this is not stated - it was made by J. Meyr, Adolfshutte (Bohemia) 'yellowish-green cut glass; height: 26cm - Technical Museum Vienna inv. no. TH 12103 (acquired from Rohrbeck, Vienna)'
-
If the 1 dozen topaz 'finger-glasses' listed does in fact mean finger rinsing bowls, wouldn't they be more likely to be a shape that was just a rounded bottomed bowl with highish sides?
Something like this:
https://scottishantiques.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=4938
rather than these:
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport--co/
https://www.cmog.org/artwork/finger-bowl-15?image=0
With reference the shape of this uranium glass finger bowl, the V&A show a set of designs 1824 from France and this shape is fairly similar to one of the bowls:
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O168063/modeles-et-tailles-de-cristaux-design-unknown/
-
I think I might have got to the bottom of this.
1) I mentioned Cornwall mines producing uranium earlier in this thread. I decided to search a bit further.
In searching I came across a book written in 1817 by H.C. Gill called ‘An Historical Survey of the County of Cornwall’ where he mentioned uranium being found in pitchblende in mines there. He mentions in his book, in that chapter, that it is used for colouring glass and gives the colours as Apple Green, Brown and Emerald Green. See page 269
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_Historical_Survey_of_the_County_of_Co/fflRAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=an+historical+survey+of+the+county+of+cornwall+uranium&pg=PA269&printsec=frontcover
2) It seems this information had already been found in the glassworld as in
Journal of Glass Studies
Vol. 37 (1995), pp. 140-145 (6 pages)
Published By: Corning Museum of Glass
I came across an article by F. Peter Lole, Didsbury Manchester, who mentions this book by HC Gill and the information on uranium in the book.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24190783
F. Peter Lole, by my reading of his article, makes the assumption that H.C. Gill is familiar with glassmaking because of the way Gill mentions the glass making in his chapter but then makes no further recommendations as to the use of the pitchblende.
It is my opinion that Lole’s article also implies or seems to make a connection with uranium glassmaking in England at that time. Or at least that the way he's written his information could be 'misconstrued' like that.
I wondered whether actually H. C. Gill was not in fact familiar with glassmaking at all, but had read that information about the uranium glass colours elsewhere in earlier literature and so included it in his book in ‘passing’ if you like.
However, as Lole did, I also wondered why Gill mentioned the pitchblende mines as he didn’t give any other explanation for it’s use.
3) I then came across a long article written in 1917 (see page 165 and 166)
copyright 1915 Society of Economic Geologists, Inc. Economic Geology, v.10, pp161-171
https://www.aditnow.co.uk/documents/RESUGGA-Mine/South-Terras.pdf
The Pitchblende of Cornwall, England – R.A.F. Penrose Jr.
It seemed to me Penrose was intimating that Pitchblende was a substance that miners/smelters did not want due to it’s ‘nature and prejudice to copper ores’ , therefore the reason for including it in Gill’s book might have been so it was known which mines produced pitchblende and therefore were ‘not valued/useful’ at that point.
I may have misunderstood this, but anyway because of my understanding of reading the Penrose article, it led me to investigate further.
I wondered whether Gill had ‘paraphrased’ his casual info on the use of Uranium in glass producing Apple green, Brown and Emerald green from somewhere else.
4) So I looked back to see if there was information earlier than the 1817 of Gill’s book, from Klaproth.
According to The Estimation of Uranium in Colored Glasses , Sheilagh Murray and John Haggith, pp184
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24188153
In 1786, M. H. Klaproth Professor of Chemistry at the University of Berlin, isolated from pitchblende a new substance called uranium.
This led me onto finding the Pantalogica dated 1813 (i.e .4 years prior to Gill’s book and written whilst Klaproth was still alive (d.1817):
Pantalogica Vol VII U- ZYT dated 1813 - Printed by T. Davison, Lombard-Street, Whitefriars
Under ‘URA Uranium’
It discusses M Klaproth and uranium oxide and colours and in writing out Klaproth’s actual mixtures it mentions the colours ‘apple green, brown and emerald green’:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Pantologia/Jco6AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+glass+finger+glass&pg=PP200&printsec=frontcover
Conclusion
a) I surmise that F. Peter Lole’s possible assumption, that H. C. Gill writing of Cornish mines in 1817 knew something about uranium glass being produced, was probably not correct.
b) I think Gill had read the information from Klaproth and copied/re-wrote it in his book as a descriptor for what the Pitch blende could be used for in the absence of anything else.
c) Please also take good note of where the Pantalogica dated 1813 with the information in it from Klaproth regarding the use of Uranium oxide in glass was printed! It was printed by T. Davison, Lombard-Street, Whitefriars
So this MIGHT go some way to explaining the assumption that this bowl was made by Whitefriars?
With reference my comments above:
There was obviously knowledge about Klaproth's discovery.
Klaproth was a Professor of chemistry.
Experiments at this time were carried out by chemists ( and later to determine how uranium oxide could colour porcelain)
However they also used borax beads to determine constituents in metal. Could this have been the 'glass' that Gill was referring to?
And the colours being the colour spectrum seen during the experiments?
See here under URA the description of Klaproth's experiments in the Pantplogia:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Pantologia/Jco6AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+glass+finger+glass&pg=PP200&printsec=frontcover
-
Apsley Pellatt 'amber' glass c.1840 perfume bottle with sulphide of Princess Charlotte:
https://www.lotsearch.de/lot/an-apsley-pellatt-amber-cut-glass-scent-bottle-and-stopper-24965221?page=4
described as 'amber' by Christie's. Very pale straw coloured yellow looking at pic.
Just wondering if this was part of his topaz collection that shattered and had to be replaced but no idea if this is uranium glass.
-
1835 Vienna Exhibition
Harrach Candlesticks in "goldtopaz"
page 241
and toilet bottle (perfume?) in goldtopaz page 242
written in Gothic script but not that difficult to read:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Bericht_%C3%BCber_die_allgemeine_%C3%B6sterreich/R-RKAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=chrysopras+glas&pg=PA242&printsec=frontcover
-
Just wondering to myself here :)
Page 364 of Charles Hajdamach's British Glass 1800-1914 shows a uranium decanter cut glass in a similar colour to the bowls (i.e. yellow uranium glass. Obviously print quality will mean it's impossible to compare the real colours). It's panel cut,honeycomb cut neck lots of cutting on it. He says the decanter is 'Stourbridge, c. 1870s, height 12 1/4"'. I'm looking at it and thinking yep, I thought the bowl could be later in the century and it also has quite a lot of cutting on it.
Now the obvious sticking point is that he had access to the glass in his book I presume so it's possible he could do a better side by side comparison of the bowl in the V&A, which he also shows in the book,and the decanter.
However, it had occurred to me when thinking the bowls could be later in the 19th, that her 50th anniversary i.e. 1887 would be the Golden anniversary. What better time than to produce 'gold' coloured bowls?
As I said, just thinking out loud.
-
I've just accidentally happened upon a very interesting comment in
Glass-making in England
H.J. Powell
Page 103 under the Chapter 'Provincial Glass-Houses'
Where Powell is describing the various provincial glassworks and their history:
'...and the firm became Webb and Richardson. Richardson who claimed the development of etching on table-glass and the introduction of topaz and chrysolite glasses , was for a time associated with Philip Pargeter and ...'
In the catalogue of the Great Exhibition of 1851 there is mention under Richardson displaying Chrysolite glass (this is many years after Harrach btw) but no mention of 'topaz'.
There is mention of Davis, Greathead and Green displaying 'topaz' though.
See page 126
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Official_Catalogue_of_the_Great_Exhibiti/TCWWTsgjYjQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Richardson+chrysolite+glass&pg=PA126&printsec=frontcover
-
I was trying to identify some crackle glass of mine and came across a link of yours for a Clichy book, link copied below. Looking through there I noticed their yellow uranium glass from 1842 (page 101) and thought it might be of interest if you’d missed it (I searched the thread but can’t find mention of Clichy).
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KEYMY4_ytuUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cristallerie+de+clichy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiH07at0ZzkAhULUxUIHYE1D-0Q6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=cristallerie%20de%20clichy&f=false
-
Thank you :) I have the book so will have a look through to see if there is anything similar in terms of drawings etc.
m
-
I've noticed this listing a while ago but didn't read the information from the seller.
https://scottishantiques.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=27673
dated 'c.1850'
Interesting - it's a cut glass uranium yellow bowl /tazza style with stem and foot with lots of detailed cutting and a turnover rim size 21cm diameter and 12.5cm high.
The seller asserts in their information that Davenport was producing cut uranium glass from 1820 and that Webb and Richardson were producing cut uranium glass by 1830.
There is no reference source for that dating of uranium glass production from either of those makers that I could see in the listing.
Seller appears to have compared this bowl with a Davenport example and says this is 'golden yellow with a hint of green' but 'the Davenport examples are distinctly green'.
Colours are difficult to compare online. However, in order to give some kind of description here just in case the seller's listing becomes obsolete, the colour of the seller's bowl looks to me like my uranium Walsh Walsh grape vine bonnet tumbler.
Quote from seller:
'Additional Information : John Davenport began making glass in 1801 some five years prior to firing his first porcelain. Davenport was producing elaborately cut uranium glass from 1820 and perhaps a little earlier. Webb and Richardson were producing cut uranium glass by 1830. This style is invariably associated with Irish glass manufacture from the late 18th and early 19th century however there is no evidence confirming the production of cut uranium glass in Ireland.
The colour in natural daylight is directly comparable to the uranium yellow pieces known to ne produced by Richardsons around 1850. Richardsons had two formulations for uranium glass. This is a golden yellow with a hint of green. The Davenport examples are distinctly green'
-
Very difficult to compare colours online:
Here are some links -
That possibly Richardson turned over rim bowl
https://scottishantiques.com/image/cache/catalog/200531/20053103-1-1000x1000.jpg
my Walsh bonnet glass and another finger rinser maker unknown here
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=18341.0;attach=136539;image
Corning picture of the V&A bowl here
https://www.cmog.org/sites/default/files/styles/cmog_primary_image/public/collections/69/696E9887-9AB4-43E0-A996-A8495BCB390B.jpg?itok=gS6e4avo
-
M, not sure if this is any help for you. In the June 2021 (issue 11) of Glass matters. The magazine of the Glass Society.
There is a 3 page article titled, Uranium glass; part 1. Its origins; Riedel, Pohl or Whitefriars?.
By John Frith.
Tim
The above Part 1 article appeared in Glass Matters June 2021 and Part 2 has appeared in October 2021 Glass Matters.
Along with that on Page 16 of Glass Matters October 2021 there is some additional information from Dwight Lanmon re these bowls.
He says '....There are some interestingly designed finger bowls documented to 1837, examples of which are in the collections of the V&A (C.110-1992), Corning (88. 2.8) and the Stourbridge Glass Museum. The finger ... glass. They were made for use at the high table when Queen Victoria attended the coronation banquet at the Guildhall. The V&A identifies them as a product of Davenport of Langport'.
I wonder where they were documented and why the Museum of London thought they were James Powell, and how the V&A identifies them as Davenport?
https://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/museum-life/seeing-more-glow-in-the-dark-glass
-
I've probably posted this article somewhere before on the thread:
Source - Pressglas Korrespondenz - No 02 -2000
Dr. Jarmila Brožová
Farbgläser (Uranglas)
Auszug aus Höltl, Georg, Hrsg., Das Böhmische Glas 1700-1950, Passau / Tittling 1995, Bd. 2, S. 80 f.
https://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/brozova-uranglas.pdf
A segment taken from within this long and interesting article on uranium glass:
Translated text using google: (Original text at the bottom of this post)
'... At the end of the 1830s, smelting began in England and Lorraine as well
the production of uranium glass, resulting in a competition between England, France and Bohemia
led. The uranium glass of the Harrachschen hut existed
made of composition glass, as is already the case in this hut
Tradition was. It only succeeded after a few years
Hut to melt uranium glass without adding lead..'
So a couple of things:
1) that reads to me that it was at the end of the 1830s that England and France started production of uranium glass. Could 1837(fingers bowls documented for that banquet in 1837) fall into that bracket?
I wonder why the underplates were in plain clear glass rather than matching uranium glass?
2) It also reads to me that Harrach were producing uranium glass made of lead glass as was normal for their glass at that time. And that it took a while fo them to be able to produce uranium glass in unleaded glass which could be enamelled and decorated. Have I understood that correctly?
Original text
'Ende der dreißiger Jahre des 19. Jahrhunderts begannen auch Hütten in England und Lothringen mit
der Produktion von Uranglas, was zu einem Wettkampf zwischen England, Frankreich und Böhmen
führte. Das Uranglas der Harrachschen Hütte bestand
aus Kompositions-Glas, wie es in dieser Hütte bereits
Tradition war. Erst nach einigen Jahren gelang es der
Hütte, Uranglas ohne Zugabe von Blei zu schmelzen.'
-
Coming back to the V&A bowl description - some questions if anyone can help please?
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport-co/finger-bowl-davenport--co/
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2181/ice-plate-davenport--co/?carousel-image=2006BE8998
1) Looking at it - it has an accession code of C110- 1992 - anyone know if 1992 is a date that they may have acquired the bowl or is that just a record number?
2) Also the Bibliographic reference of 'Lockett & Godden, Davenport, p. 287-8' - would this be a source reference for information on the provenance of the maker of the bowl?
3) Lastly, Record Created - 'RECORD CREATED December 13, 1997' - might this mean it hasn't been changed since then?
I'm curious because
a) that underplate is clear whilst the bowls are uranium glass. I feel that's odd. The ice plate looks to have been matted on the base. That is something seen on other DAvenport Glass. However there are no other items I could see in uranium glass in the V&A. The ice plate doesn't appear to have the Guildhall emblem on it and no thistle or shamrocks on it either. I don't think it necessarily belongs with the uranium glass finger bowl.
b) looking at the Potteries.org history of Davenport I can't reconcile the family history of the running of the factory with them making uranium glass for Queen Victoria in 1837:
http://www.thepotteries.org/walks/longport/davenport.htm
part quote from article
'John Davenport’s eldest son, also John, took no part in the business and had a successful career as a lawyer.
Henry Davenport, his third son, who took an active role in running the business when his father effectively retired from the firm in the 1820's, was killed in a riding accident when he was out hunting at Baddeley Edge In 1835.
Control of the firm then passed to the second son, William Davenport, who became sole owner in 1848. Like his father he was a strict disciplinarian at the factory. After a strike at the Longport factory in 1842 he sacked all those who played a prominent role in the dispute including the father of Charles Shaw with the result that his family were forced to seek relief In Chell Workhouse (see “When I Was a Child”, by Charles Shaw).
However unlike his father he was not a very competent industrialist and spent a good deal of his time involved in public affairs and social activities. In the 1840s he was responsible for the revival of the North Staffordshire Hunt of which he was master for 27 seasons. He rebuilt Longport Hall but he found the surroundings uncongenial to his taste and in the early 1850's he moved to Maer Hall where he lived the life of a country gentleman. By the time of his death in 1869 the firm was in severe financial difficulties.
His son Henry Davenport who inherited the business had no real interest in the firm and made no attempt to deal with the problems which he inherited. The firm suffered a series of financial crises which were met by the simple expedient of selling off parts of the business. The last factory was sold in 1887 when the firm then known as Davenports Ltd came to an end.'
-
This book was published in 1843:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Borough_of_Stoke_upon_Trent_in_the_C/M6QLAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=davenport+glass+queen+victoria&pg=PA156&printsec=frontcover
'The Borough of Stoke-upon-Trent, in the commencement of the reign of her most Gracious Majesty, Queen Victoria ' by John Ward :
Page 155- 160 discusses Longport Davenports in quite some detail.
So much detail in fact that it discusses:
- when Davenports supplied a china service for the accession of King William and how it was made for the banquet at the coronation of King William.
- mentions the glassworks at Longport Davenports.
- discusses how the glassworks supplied amazing specimens of stained glass and goes on to mention the various nobility it had supplied glass for.
However, nowhere does it discuss providing china or glass for Queen Victoria's banquet at the Guildhall that I could see. This despite the fact the book discusses King William's china service made at Davenport, and despite the fact the book was written in 1843 (i.e. 6 years post the Queen Vic banquet) and despite the fact that the title of the book is 'The Borough of Stoke-upon-Trent, in the commencement of the reign of her most Gracious Majesty, Queen Victoria '
I find that an interesting omission in light of the other information included.
m
-
And going back to 'The mirror of literature, amusement, and instruction. ... vol.30 (Jul.-Dec.1837)'
Page 326
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101075454072&view=1up&seq=361&q1=glass
'The decanters, claret jugs, champagne, hock, and other glasses, are all richly cut, and ornamented with a vine border, varied with the rose, thistle, and shamrock, and the Royal Arms.'
There is no mention whatsoever of the Guildhall arms/flag seen engraved on the uranium glass bowls in the V&A and Corning.
So ... the clear glass plates could have been for that banquet because they are clear glass which was obviously being produced at that time, although I think the design around the rim is a bit odd as no thistle, shamrock etc. and there is no Royal Arms on them (Unless The Mirror report mistakes the phrase 'Royal Arms' as a crown with a VR engraved on it, instead of reporting it as a 'VR insignia or cypher' which is what I think it actually is)
However, I think the finger bowls seen in the V&A and the Corning are in question as to whether they were made for that event.
I can see in that linked description to the contemporary report in 'The mirror of literature ...' at the time, that there are 'one dozen topaz-coloured finger-glasses' mentioned.
However, I think there is no more provenance that the bowls shown in the V&A and the Corning actually were two of the 'topaz-coloured finger-glasses' being described and referred to.
Indeed the bowls have a Guildhall emblem on them and so do not match the description accurately in 'The mirror' report.
They too do not have the Royal Arms on them either, again unless The Mirror report mistakes the 'Royal Arms' as being a crown with a VR engraved on it rather than reporting it as a 'Royal VR cypher/insignia'.
The Whitefriars book uses the description of the dozen topaz finger bowls and a link has been made that Whitefriars had experimented with uranium glass and that the content of the bowls could match their recipe. But no definite provenance.
The Davenport book (I think - caveat :I haven't seen this book myself - the owner of one of the books being sold wrote me a small line from those pages) mentions on page 287/288 referred to by the V&A '...one dozen topaz coloured finger glasses...'
Therefore it appears to me that everyone is assuming that the bowls in the V&A and the Corning, which are uranium glass with a greeny yellow tint, which have engraving on them that does not match the description in the contemporary report of the time in 1837 in 'The mirror of literature ...' (see link to report at start of this post) are the 'one dozen topaz-coloured finger-glasses' referred to in that contemporary 1837 report.
There is no evidence for this that I can see so far. By evidence I mean a pattern from the factory, or an invoice detailing the supply with a description etc. for example.
Unless the Davenport book details this, but the reply from the seller didn't seem to imply this (he quoted the line and then referenced some photographs on other pages) and I don't want to spend £50 to find out that the information in the book is more piecing together of the 'one dozen topaz-coloured finger-glasses' must equal 'these are two of those finger glasses'.
In addition there is no clear evidence any factory in England was making uranium glass in 1837.
There is evidence it was being made in Bohemia and that they would have had access to supply of uranium.
However the open question is whether these bowls were made at a much later date and not for the 1837 banquet.
-
With reference my comments yesterday on whether a coat of arms or a cypher (see quote below), see this finger bowl made in 1824 and engraved with a coat of arms:
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2146/finger-bowl-wear-flint-glass/
There is a vast difference between the detail on that 'coat of arms' as opposed to what we see on the uranium glass bowls which is to my mind not a coat of arms but monogram/cyper i.e. an engraved VR with a crown above.
And going back to 'The mirror of literature, amusement, and instruction. ... vol.30 (Jul.-Dec.1837)'
Page 326
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101075454072&view=1up&seq=361&q1=glass
'The decanters, claret jugs, champagne, hock, and other glasses, are all richly cut, and ornamented with a vine border, varied with the rose, thistle, and shamrock, and the Royal Arms.'
There is no mention whatsoever of the Guildhall arms/flag seen engraved on the uranium glass bowls in the V&A and Corning.
So ... the clear glass plates could have been for that banquet because they are clear glass which was obviously being produced at that time, although I think the design around the rim is a bit odd as no thistle, shamrock etc. and there is no Royal Arms on them (Unless The Mirror report mistakes the phrase 'Royal Arms' as a crown with a VR engraved on it, instead of reporting it as a 'VR insignia or cypher' which is what I think it actually is)
-
I have found a possible match to the quite distinctive style of foot on this bowl.
Source: Charles Hajdamach, British Glass 1800-1914 (Published 1991) page 48 Plate 34, Right hand Jug. It appears to have the same foot design as the bowl
The caption of said piece says 'Jug with pillar cutting which matches a design in the Webb Richardson books, c.1830s . Height 10 1/8 in. (25.7cm).
He shows on page 46 some jugs and some celeries from Webb Richardson - see 'Plate 30. Plate 31.' and notes they're c.1830s.
I couldn't see a match for the entire jug design. I could see what could be a match for the curved pillar cutting on a piece on plate 31. bottom row middle item noted as 'Jug' on pattern, but not for the rest of the elements of cutting.
None of the pieces on the patterns shown on pages 45-52 seem to have this foot design though.
Unfortunately it's catalogued in the Glass Collections Dudley as 'Probably W.H., B., and J., Richardson.' Graces says the company officially became this name in 1842.
https://www.blackcountryhistory.org/collections/getrecord/DMUSE_BH100
-
I've given in and bought the Davenport book. If it's not a categoric identification from that, I'll be quite cross >:(
m
-
The Gentleman's magazine - Obituary for John Davenport page 545 from 1849
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Gentleman_s_Magazine/YPb5jbale7IC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=john+brindley+glass&pg=PA545&printsec=frontcover
lots of mention for the service made for King William coronation - zero mention of anything for Queen Victoria Banquet at Guildhall.
Does mention that they started production of flint-glass, or chrystal, in 1801 and that it continued to be made still at the time of the obituary.
The glass production was started by a John Brindley and taken over by Davenport.
-
Topaz glass 1849 made by Messrs. Bacchus and Sons. Specifically noted and highlighted in script as Topaz in the description in the catalogue -
Quote:
'179. Water Jug and GOBLET in Topaz , richly cut, manufactured and exhibited by Messrs. Bacchus and Sons .'
in the:
' Catalogue of Specimens of Recent British Manufactures Received in Competition for the Society's Special Prizes
Session 1849 - 1850 '
See page 14 Item no 179
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Catalogue_of_Specimens_of_Recent_British/nkbp-Bq5qDQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=english+opal+glass&printsec=frontcover
-
Note: Is it possible that glass denoted as 'topaz' or indeed 'topaz-coloured glass' doesn't necessarily have to be made with uranium in the batch. Could the yellowish colour or amber colour of topaz can be achieved without using uranium?
Topaz glass 1849 made by Messrs. Bacchus and Sons. Specifically noted and highlighted in script as Topaz in the description in the catalogue -
Quote:
'179. Water Jug and GOBLET in Topaz , richly cut, manufactured and exhibited by Messrs. Bacchus and Sons .'
in the:
' Catalogue of Specimens of Recent British Manufactures Received in Competition for the Society's Special Prizes
Session 1849 - 1850 '
See page 14 Item no 179
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Catalogue_of_Specimens_of_Recent_British/nkbp-Bq5qDQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=english+opal+glass&printsec=frontcover
See also - Art Journal report on the 1849 exhibition in Birmingham
Page 294 where Bacchus and Rice Harris are noted as exhibiting Uranium glass.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_art_journal_London/65BCAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+oxide+cornwall+mine+1817&pg=PA137&printsec=frontcover
-
An interesting bit of information here:
page 65
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/American_Glass/JW9yDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+glass+1830&pg=PA127&printsec=frontcover
American Glass
The Collections at Yale
John Stuart Gordon
2018.
'In 1839 Thomas Leighton, the chief gaffer at the New England Glass Company, wrote to a colleague in Scotland enquiring about the "Canary Metal" he had seen there. " You likewise informed me that to make your Canary Metal you used nothing but the Oxid (sic) of Uranium in your Flint Batch. ..."
Source for that is noted in there as '2. Thomas Leighton, in Jane Shadel Spillman, "The Leighton-Ford Correspondence ," Acorn 3 (1992)'
I think the Ford refers to John Ford of the Holyrood Flint Glass Works, Edinburgh, however it is just mentioned that he wrote to 'a colleague' so it might not have been Ford.
Attempting to work out who Leighton wrote to as a colleague in Scotland in 1839 regarding how much uranium to add to the batch.
This list of glassmakers paying taxes in 1833 lists makers in Scotland in 1833:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GU0SAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=rice,+harris,+%26+co+birmingham&source=bl&ots=bXEQA2YWS-&sig=ACfU3U11WCdmxNfLfkuMoEpZq89suHx-LA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiS88KzqMv0AhVVgFwKHWr6CwM4ChDoAXoECAwQAw#v=onepage&q=rice%2C%20harris%2C%20%26%20co%20birmingham&f=false
Page 76 - Glassworks listed as :
Ayr - Kerr Dunlop and Co
Edinburgh - Edinburgh and Leith Glass Company
Glasgow - Allen Fullarton
William Geddes
John Geddes
Geddes, Kidston and Co
Haddington - William Baillie and Co
Stirling - John Sandeman
Ahah - in this link there is a quote from the book:
https://www.nbmog.org/cains
'In 1828 New England Glass Company superintendent Thomas Leighton wrote to John Ford at the Midlothian Glass Works, Edinburgh, about "a few of our Moulded Artikles [made] the same as you Make the Square Feet.'
Interestingly there is no Midlothian Glass Works listed in the 1833 taxes list above.
-
snippet found in an Antiques publication: No idea if this is correctly 'snippeted' or if the info is true, but if true it would be by 1837.
Leighton wrote to him in 1839 about the Canary metal he'd seen there.
Obviously also no idea also if the 'canary metal' Leighton had seen there was actually made by John Ford of course. It might have been a piece John Ford had from elsewhere.
But anyway, he wasn't appointed manufacturer to the Queen until after 1837 her coronation and the link doesn't imply the canary metal was around in 1837 at all.
In 1835 this firm was dissolved and John Ford carried on in the South Back Canongate under the name Holyrood Flint Glass Works . Two years later that glasshouse was appointed ' Flint Glass Manufacturer in Ordinary to the Queen.
-
Hopefully your new book will tie these down! I was just having a look to see if the engraving on the finger bowl and plate looked to matched in style but it’s hard to see the detail, they don’t look very different.
I did notice that the plate especially (and possibly the bowl too) looks to be decorated with the Intaglio technique that was supposedly invented by Northwood I in the 1890s. I don’t suppose there’s any realistic chance the plates are actually that late?
From Hajdamach “...a standard intaglio cut will reveal a sharp edge on one side going into the surface of the glass at ninety degrees while the other edge slopes gradually upwards to the surface”. Northwood II seems pretty adamant this was invented by his father in early 1890s but maybe that’s in doubt, see also Paul’s decanter http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,70992.10.html But surely Northwood would have been aware of items like these?
Plate: http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2181/ice-plate-davenport-co/
-
This engraved decanter in the V&A is interesting.
Made 1800-1820 but engraved decoration added by Franz Tieze c.1910 - signed by him. Nice shamrocks.
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O249879/decanter-and-stopper-unknown/
-
Ekimp I don't think I quite understand the description of intaglio engraving to be honest.
I don't think the plate engraving looks as though it is engraved in the way you describe intaglio engraving. But that could be because I can't quite get my head around what is being described.
There was another later banquet in the crypt of the Guildhall so they could have been made for then.
Also her Golden Jubilee of course and the 1851 Exhibition.
I think part of the issue is that there are three of them (I think?) The one in the V&A and I think there are two in the Corning. So if there was a set of twelve topaz-coloured finger-glasses then it's reasonable to think three might have survived. So they could relate to the description of 1837 from that perspective.
On a separate note, the open rose on the ice plate looks so 1930s/1940s to me. Perhaps they were always engraved like that though :-\
https://www.laurieleighantiques.com/picturepages/W1564a.html
What does fascinate me is the little shiny kind of polished bits on the leaves and rose. That's something Walsh Walsh did on their fruiting vine. It's a way of knowing whether it's a Walsh Walsh fruiting vine piece or from somewhere else.
Example here:
https://www.exhibitantiques.com/item/538/exhibitantiques/Set-of-Six-John-Walsh-Cut-and-Engraved-Green-Wine-Glasses-c1930.html
-
The other thing that's been niggling is the way the Cypher or VR has been engraved, i.e. the design of the V with the round base.
So for example, this is an invitation to her coronation in 1838.
The way the V is pointed a the bottom is how it is on all the other monogram/cypher items I could find:
https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2021/collection-of-a-connoisseur-history-in-manuscript-part-2/queen-victoria-a-collection-including-two-letters
Bowl for comparison
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport--co/
This was a William IV cypher - ruled before Victoria
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/199718
-
With the Intaglio I have just been going by what is said in Hajdamach and Northwood II as it looked like a useful and quite specific aid to dating but disappointingly it now seems a bit woolly.
Northwood II says on glass engraving: “...It excels in small and delicate designs. Owing, however, to the limited power obtained from the foot pedal and the light construction of the lathe itself, it is unsuitable for engraving design of any size or depth”.
And on Intaglio: “The Free-flowing character of the engraver with the depth and sharpness of the glass cutter’s skill has given a style distinct from both, yet preserving the fine qualities of each”.
Although the plates look to have the standard Intaglio cuts as described by Hajdamach - sharp edge on one side going into the surface of the glass at ninety degrees (from the corner of the wheel) while the other edge slopes gradually upwards to the surface (from the top of the wheel) - perhaps they are small and light enough to be engraved.
On a separate note, the open rose on the ice plate looks so 1930s/1940s to me. Perhaps they were always engraved like that though :-\
https://www.laurieleighantiques.com/picturepages/W1564a.html
I’m not sure the engraving of the flower on the plate is very good. The rose on the plate seems to show a combination of views, the outer open petals are shown face-on whereas the inner bud looks to be shown from the side, so not very realistic and seems an odd way to show the flower. It’s hard to see but the rose on the finger bowl looks the same design. In Investing in Georgian Glass by Ward Lloyd there are about 19 Jacobite glasses shown engraved with a rose and 16 show the open bloom face-on and three show the bloom from the side. None of them look to be done in the style of the plate or the Jacobite glass in your link, and most are better executed in my opinion.
I see what you mean about the ‘V’ in the cipher, a sharp ‘V’ would have been easier to engrave too.
-
This thought doesn't really help me at all, but I noticed the shamrocks seem to be pride of place on these bowls.
In 1849 QV visited Ireland. She wore a dress with shamrocks on especially.
Therefore I'm wondering if ...
However,
1) I still am not entirely sure about that engraved V - who engraved that? It's not the best representation of her cypher. And where would the Guildhall emblem come into play if they were made for the Ireland visit.
2) Another thought occurred to me. In his book printed 1849 Apsley Pellatt Falcon Glassworks mentioned in the book that he had had to replace an entire collection of 'topaz' glass sent out to customers because they complained because it crizzled pretty quickly so it all had to be replaced. The entire batch was wrong.
I suppose I'm just idly wondering if Pellatt might made these - or perhaps cut them?
3) Then there was Osler - They had glass supplied by Harrach certainly after the Great Exhibition of 1851. I wonder whether these bowls may have been supplied to them and then cut by them?
But these thoughts would all put the bowls after the 1837 banquet at the Guildhall.
-
This is where I read the info about the dress with shamrocks for the 1849 visit to Ireland:
https://www.frockflicks.com/victorias-shamrock-gown-2019/
-
Apsley Pellatt engraved glass 1851 for comparison - Rose is very different.
Engraved with variety of vegetation including oak leaves and rose and a crown.
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O4287/wine-glass-apsley-pellatt/
finger bowl here for quick comparison
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport--co/
-
Possibly by Apsley Pellat
Plate in the Corning seems to be engraved for William IV - 1831
The style of engraving the letters as separate entities has some similarities:
https://www.cmog.org/artwork/plate-118
-
There is no definitive information on page 287 and 288 or in the book, that Davenports made all the glass for the QV banquet at the Guildhall.
The authors do make the question when discussing provenance and other details:
page 291
'With this warning in mind, what glasses can be attributed to Davenport? One answer is that with absolute certainty only those marked Patent.'
Quotes from page 288:
a) 'As was remarked in Part One, the splendid occasion must surely have given great satisfaction to John Davenport, though alas there is no correspondence to record it. At the time of the Banquet, the firm was trading in his son's name as William Davenport & Co. There remains a slight element of doubt as to whether all the glass for the Royal Banquet was actually made in Staffordshire. Ronald Brown has found references to Powells, the Whitefriars Glass Works, supplying Davenports with glass in the period 1835-1837. It is just possible that through the London showroom some of the many thousands of pieces supplied to the Guildhall were actually made in London.'
The book then goes on to make the following comment:
b) 'Even if this were the case it would not apply to the decorated wares used at the Royal tables. These, and surely some still exist, would be that truly rare item, a documented example of Davenport glass.
There is one interesting piece of information on page 291:
c) 'Also on the list is the name of Cyrus Hill who is noted as a glass cutter. Mr Brown has researched this man, and it appears from the testimony of his descendents that he was 'the chief designer for Davenports in the period 1850-1865'. Very recently Cyrus Hill's recipe notebook and certain glass and ceramic items have been presented to the Victoria and Albert Museum. These include prototypes of glassware said to have been designed specially for the state banquet given by Queen Victoria.'
Notes from me:
1) It seems the order to Davenports to supply the china and glass was made on the 13th October for a Banquet on the 9th November. They supplied (also in the book and according to the Staffordshire Advertiser for 11November 1837) 'by Monday past'. That implies that at least in the space of a maximum 27 days they supplied many thousands of pieces of china and glass for the banquet.
but then:
On page 289 the following quote after discussing the 1843 report on Children's Employment to Royal Commissioner Samuel Scriven:
'A fascinating glimpse into the Glass Works and it's organisation. We know of no other document which gives the precise size of the Works at any period. It does not seem to be too charitable to suggest that on this evidence Davenports Glass Works was a well-run and orderly medium-sized enterprise'.[/b]
Would a medium sized business be able to make all that glass in 27 days? Is it unlikely?
2) Powells Whitefriars took over Whitefriars Glass Works in 1834 and as far as I know were not glassmakers at the time. Not entirely sure what kind of glass they would be supplying to Davenports in 1835 to 1837 just a few years later if they took over the glassworks untrained? I suppose it could also include stock already there when they took over?
There is nothing definitive in the book to say they definitely were supplying Davenport
3) re this comment in my quote a) above:
' ... It is just possible that through the London showroom some of the many thousands of pieces supplied to the Guildhall were actually made in London.'
it is also possible that some of the many thousands of pieces supplied to the Guildhall were actually made in Bohemia or Germany. We know from Hale Thompson silvered glass that Mr Drayton was importing glass from Germany to silver at that time (link here but there are other links to reports in that thread):
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,65670.msg390015.html#msg390015
So there were many imports coming in. Therefore it has to be a possibility that London showrooms were selling Bohemian and German glass as well I would think?
4) I'm not entirely sure how this comment in the book can be asserted:
'Even if this were the case it would not apply to the decorated wares used at the Royal tables. These, and surely ....'
I understand the reasoning behind this thought. I should think it reasonable that Davenports would like to think Her Maj was drinking from one of their glasses especially if they were going to all the effort of gathering this massive collection of china and glass together.
However, unless it can be proven they were making topaz-coloured hock glasses and topaz-coloured finger bowls which were according to reports, used for the top table, then I don't know how this assertion can be made?
5) Regarding Cyrus Hill - would someone noted in the 1851 census as Glass Cutter (also mentioned in that paragraph) have access to recipe books about the batches?
The book quote doesn't actually say they are batch recipe book, just calls them 'recipe books'. I was just wondering what they might be.
6) It also notes in the book of the report from the Staffordshire Advertiser for 11 November 1837 ':
The decanters, claret jugs, Champagne, Hock, and other glasses, are all richly cut, and ornamented with a vine border, varied with the rose, thistle, and shamrock, and the Royal Arms.'
Once again the question - would an engraved crown with a U R engraved beneath it and the emblem of the Guildhall engraved elsewhere on the bowl, be classed as 'The Royal Arms'?
7) Finally it's interesting that, regarding the banquet, the book notes:
'As was remarked in Part One, the splendid occasion must surely have given great satisfaction to John Davenport, though alas there is no correspondence to record it.'
I think it's reasonable to question:
a) whether those uranium glass finger bowls were in the first instance ever made by Davenport glass at Langport / Longport ? (I've seen this reported as both spellings)
b) whether they are actually the 'topaz-coloured finger glasses' referred to in the description of the banqueting glass for the top table in 1837 ?
-
;) Good to see you here, m. I take it you're sorted? :-*
-
3) re this comment in my quote a) above:
' ... It is just possible that through the London showroom some of the many thousands of pieces supplied to the Guildhall were actually made in London.'
it is also possible that some of the many thousands of pieces supplied to the Guildhall were actually made in Bohemia or Germany. We know from Hale Thompson silvered glass that Mr Drayton was importing glass from Germany to silver at that time (link here but there are other links to reports in that thread):
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,65670.msg390015.html#msg390015
So there were many imports coming in. Therefore it has to be a possibility that London showrooms were selling Bohemian and German glass as well I would think?
Wrong decade! Apologies. That information should not have been in my post.
-
Bohemian glass trade:
THE EXPORTATION OF BOHEMIAN GLASS A HISTORICAL REVIEW
Václav Lukáš
Page 63
'From the 1820s to the middle of the century, sales of Bohemian glass boomed, ... and salesmen expanded foreign markets '.
-
Sorry the book wasn’t more help, disappointing. I’ve heard a whisper that Father Christmas is bringing me the Harrach book that you recommended.
-
Aah, well, the Davenport book hasn't told me anything at all that I haven't managed to unearth myself to be honest. But a shame re the bowl.
The Neuwelt book is a gorgeous book. Really fantastic pictures and information. Mine is well used. :)
I'm getting the Thomas Webb book and a European Glass book by Olga Drahatova. I've not seen either and just fancied a bit of a read.
m
-
One more piece of information.
Firstly, I acknowledge that the authors of the article I have discussed below, Ronald Brown, and the book, Terence A. Lockett and Geoffrey A. Godden, were pulling together all this information (and the book especially acknowledges most of the research for the Glass chapter as being from Ronald Brown) in a time when this was not available online. It had to be searched for and found in archives and dug out. It's been a much easier task for me to find these articles and info online.
I have the Ronald Brown article written in the Journal of the Glass Association Vol 5 1997.
1) In that article he writes about the service made for the banquet at Guildhall. He says the glass was decorated with the royal cypher. That isn't what the contemporary articles of the time wrote. They wrote it was decorated with the Royal Arms.
2) He shows in black and white photographs Plate 2, the bowl and the ice plate from the V&A and discusses them as follows:
'The two pieces in question are the ice plate, and the topaz finger bowls (PLATE 2). The topaz or uranium glass was at that time, the perquisite of Messrs Powell of Whitefriars, and entries in their ledgers show transactions with Davenports during the late 1830s.'
There are a number of points about that short paragraph.
a) How does he know that topaz glass was always uranium glass? Topaz is a descriptor of colour or just a factory descriptor of the factory's glass (Harrach was making 'GOLD TOPAZ' remember). I know that Pellatt ascribed topaz as being made by use of uranium, but I think it's a stretch to add the word uranium into that description of the bowls as they were only described as 'topaz-coloured' in contemporary reports of the time. Topaz stone can be amber. Amber glass is not always made of uranium glass.
b) Because it's possible Whitefriars had a recipe for uranium glass in their books around the 1830s, it's a tenuous link to comment on that in conjunction with the bowls in the V&A and the Corning, just on the basis that Whitefriars showed some trade in their ledgers (Source quoted in his article as: 9. Ledgers, J. Powell. Whitefriars Glass. Courtesy of Museum of London) with Davenport isn't it?
I recognise that Barry Skelcher assessed W/F uranium glass recipe and said the bowls could have come from them, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence they were made in 1837 ... that would be 3 years after they took over the glass house at Whitefriars as novice glassmakers at that time - seemingly/possibly way before Mr Pellatt, in an accomplished glasshouse, made a batch of topaz glass that all had to be destroyed by customers as unfit for purpose and replaced in entirety by Mr Pellatt.
All in all, this is presumably why the Museum of London no longer show the bowl as being by Whitefriars, and that the V&A don't either. But none of this information points to the bowl being by Davenport Glass either. ???
-
I have found today 10Dec21 a different report of the items furnished by Messrs Davenport of Fleet Street.
This was a report in the Birmingham Journal of the 11 November 1837.
Issue no 650, 8 pages
https://www.lastchancetoread.com/docs/1837-11-11-the-birmingham-journal.aspx
1) Of note! In the entire supply list including the list specifically for Her Majesty’s table:
- There is no mention of topaz-coloured hock glasses anywhere in the report.
- There is one mention of ‘two dozen topaz coloured finger glasses.’
In addition:-
- There is mention for the main entertainment (i.e. not top table) of ‘800 hock ditto, (emerald green)’
This list of the items on Her Majesty's table quoted in the Birmingham Journal reads much more logically than the list I found in the Examiner earlier in this thread. I queried that list then because some things didn't seem to add up - see post:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,70066.msg391958.html#msg391958
2) Regarding the mention of ‘two dozen topaz coloured finger glasses.’,
I am sure I’ve read somewhere that finger was a type of design or cutting ??? In my imagination sort of like a description of panel cut or facet cut or petal cut. I need to try and find where I read that expression.
Basically I was just pondering that a finger glass might not necessarily mean a finger bowl. Could it simply mean a drinking glass cut with panels ?
ok, I've found my reference to finger cutting or fingered in two place:
a) American glass 1760-1930 The Toledo Museum of Art Vol 2, Kenneth M. Wilson 1994 - page 704 and page 799
'...cut around the base with fingering'
and
'5 grids of eight pointed stars and one area of fingering , with alternating upright and upside-down small fans in between'
and
'Wine Coolers, puntied and fingerd 6 dollars /doz'
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/American_Glass_1760_1930/fATrAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=wine+glass+cut+around+the+base+with+fingering&dq=wine+glass+cut+around+the+base+with+fingering&printsec=frontcover
b) In the Lockett and Godden Davenport book page 287
'As for Glass, it is your own fault if you have no orders from us for Common Cut Goods. - I get button flint wines fluted or fingered weight 3 x at 8/- per doz. 5% discount without any risk of cutting - Best Tumblers 1/2pt fluted or fingered 61/2 at 10/6 - 5% dsict, without any risk. If you liek to get up 5 or 600 dozs of each at these prices we shall sell them ... I believe we want more fingered than fluted.'
3) I've directly cut and pasted the relevant info from the Birmingham Journal and shown below for easy reading.
In the LCTR link I gave above, it is necessary to scroll down through the journal to about just over half way and the report then appears:
Birmingham Journal of the 11 November 1837.
Issue no 650, 8 pages
‘The china and cut glass were provided by the Messrs. Davenport, of Fleet- street, and it is hut justice to that es- tablishment to state, that although the order was not given till the 13th ult., owing to their incredible exertions it was completed on Monday last, and forwarded to town from their factory in Staffordshire. The dessert plates for the royal table, are of white china, with vine border in gold, and a wreath of oak leaves and acorns in raised mat gold, around the rim. A medallion at the top contains the crown, and another at the bottom the city arms emblazoned in their proper colours. In the centre are the letters V. R., in a handsome cypher, surrounded by an enamelled wreath of flowers, of the most brilliant tints and exquisite workmanship. There were twenty. four of these plates, which we understand are valued at ten guineas each, and they certainly form a hitherto unrivalled specimen of the perfection to which the manufacture has attained in this country.
The decanters, claret jugs, champagne, hock, and other glasses, are all richly cut, and ornamented with a vine border, varied with the rose, thistle, and shamrock, and the royal arms. The supply for Her Majesty's table, consisted of three dozen wine glasses, three dozen small claret glasses, three dozen large ditto, three dozen champagne ditto, two dozen liquer ditto, two dozen goblets, two dozen curafes and tumblers, two dozen hexagon massive decanters, one dozen claret ditto, eighteen wine glass coolers, two dozen topaz coloured finger glesses, two dozen ice plates, and four earthenware antique jugs, with the royal and city arms in relief. For the entertainment generally there were furnished by the Messrs. Davenport 1,600 wine glasses, 800 claret ditto, 800 champagne ditto, 800 hock ditto, ( emerald green) 800 tumblers, 400 deeatiters, 300 water bottles and tumblers, 350 wine glass coolers, & c. The china was a pure white ground to correspond with that provided for Her Majesty's table, the patterns being extremely chaste and void of all ornament, with the excep- tion of a vine border in raised gold surrounding the rims, handles, & c. There were 1,500 large plates, 750 soup ditto, 1,500 pie ditto, 1,200 dishes, ( various sizes) 100 soup tureens, 200 sauce ditto, 50 dessert centre baskets, 200 compotiers, 500 ditto plates, 750 ice ditto, & c.
There was singing and music of course, and…’
-
1) Point b) above - should read 'fingered weight 3 oz' not just '3' sorry.
"b) In the Lockett and Godden Davenport book page 287
'As for Glass, it is your own fault if you have no orders from us for Common Cut Goods. - I get button flint wines fluted or fingered weight 3 x at 8/- per doz. 5% discount without any risk of cutting - Best Tumblers 1/2pt fluted or fingered 61/2 at 10/6 - 5% dsict, without any risk. If you liek to get up 5 or 600 dozs of each at these prices we shall sell them ... I believe we want more fingered than fluted.'"
2) More information here on the description of plain and fingered glass (i.e. cut?) and fluted glass (i.e able to be mold blown?)from The Glass Industry in South Boston, Joan E. Kaiser, page 23
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6O4EykAA1YQC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=fingered+or+fluted+glass&source=bl&ots=alTi3679y7&sig=ACfU3U18glcsCFzB2qixhFmUYf4it6relQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjy_JSV49j0AhVTVsAKHRqJC94Q6AF6BAgUEAM#v=onepage&q=fingered%20or%20fluted%20glass&f=false
3) Also in the link I gave in my post above to
a) American glass 1760-1930 The Toledo Museum of Art Vol 2, Kenneth M. Wilson 1994 - page 704 and page 799
it goes on to say that wine coolers evolved in the late 18th century from finger bowls. So why would there be finger bowls at a banquet in 1837?
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/American_Glass_1760_1930/fATrAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=wine+glass+cut+around+the+base+with+fingering&dq=wine+glass+cut+around+the+base+with+fingering&printsec=frontcover
4) In fact in the Lockett and Godden book on Davenport glass, they go on to say on page 287:
'... It will not help us to identify Davenport cut glass, fluted or fingered wine glasses, but it is an insight into the nature of their trade, which ...'
Therefore it could make sense that ' two dozen topaz coloured finger glesses' is actually describing some cut drinking glasses couldn't it?
Of course, there is always the possibility that The Birmingham Journal just omitted or mis-typed their list and missed out the other 'topaz' items by mis-typing, however this doesn't detract from the possibility that 'finger glasses' meant cut drinking glasses, not finger bowls:
e.g.
Birmingham Journal list:
'...coolers, two dozen topaz coloured finger glesses, two dozen ice plates, and four earthenware antique jugs,...'
versus Examiner list:
'... coolers, two dozen topaz-coloured hock glasses, six water jugs, one dozen topaz-coloured finger glasses, two dozen ice-plates and four antique earthenware jugs with ...'
-
'3) Also in the link I gave in my post above to
a) American glass 1760-1930 The Toledo Museum of Art Vol 2, Kenneth M. Wilson 1994 - page 704 and page 799
it goes on to say that wine coolers evolved in the late 18th century from finger bowls. So why would there be finger bowls at a banquet in 1837?
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/American_Glass_1760_1930/fATrAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=wine+glass+cut+around+the+base+with+fingering&dq=wine+glass+cut+around+the+base+with+fingering&printsec=frontcover'
Therefore it could make sense that ' two dozen topaz coloured finger glesses' is actually describing some cut drinking glasses couldn't it?
Which might explain the description in the Birmingham Journal: ...
'The decanters, claret jugs, champagne, hock, and other glasses, are all richly cut, and ornamented with a vine border, varied with the rose, thistle, and shamrock, and the royal arms. The supply for Her Majesty's table, consisted of three dozen wine glasses, three dozen small claret glasses, three dozen large ditto, three dozen champagne ditto, two dozen liquer ditto, two dozen goblets, two dozen curafes and tumblers, two dozen hexagon massive decanters, one dozen claret ditto, eighteen wine glass coolers, two dozen topaz coloured finger glesses, two dozen ice plates, and four earthenware antique jugs, with the royal and city arms in relief. For the entertainment generally there were furnished by the Messrs. Davenport 1,600 wine glasses, 800 claret ditto, 800 champagne ditto, 800 hock ditto, ( emerald green) 800 tumblers, 400 deeatiters, 300 water bottles and tumblers,350 wine glass coolers, & c.
And even the lengthier list in the Examiner:
'The decanters, claret jugs, champazne, hock and other glasses, were all richly cut, and ornamented with a vine border, varied with the rose, thistle, and shamrock, and the Royal arms. The supply for Her Majesty's table consisted of three dozen wine glasses, three dozen small claret glasses, three dozen large ditto, three dozen champagne ditto, two dozen liqueuer ditto, two dozen goblets, two dozen carafes and tumblers, two dozen hexagon massive decanters, one dozen claret ditto, 18 wine-glass coolers, two dozen topaz-coloured hock glasses, six water jugs, one dozen topaz-coloured finger glasses, two dozen ice-plates and four antique earthenware jugs with the Royal and city arms in relief.'
(the rest of the Examiner list for the general entertainment glass is the same as the Birmingham Journal and also only mentions 350 wine glass coolers.)
-
So what is a finger glass? what kind of cut might this be? What is being described in the quote below?
In the Lockett and Godden Davenport book page 287 it says:
'As for Glass, it is your own fault if you have no orders from us for Common Cut Goods. - I get button flint wines fluted or fingered weight 3oz x at 8/- per doz. 5% discount without any risk of cutting - Best Tumblers 1/2pt fluted or fingered 61/2 at 10/6 - 5% disct, without any risk. If you like to get up 5 or 600 dozs of each at these prices we shall sell them .. I believe we want more fingered than fluted'
Is it possible that a 'button flint wine' means a wine glass with a knop in the stem with the knop known as a 'button'?
Is it possible that fluted refers to a type of shape or cutting - so it could be fluted meaning flaring out towards the top or tall and plain?
Is it possible that fingered refers to a type of cutting meaning having shorter than full height 'finger' like panels cut onto the bowl of the glass?
Difficult to know because in my imaginationn, for an example, I might have thought the top of this decanter would be 'fluted' and the bottom would be 'fingered' if describing a cut - however it is described as 'slice and flute cut':
https://www.bada.org/object/slice-and-flute-cut-glass-georgian-spirit-decanter-engraved-prince-wales-feathers
-
Regarding the fact that all reports say the glass for the top table were engraved with the Royal Arms:-
The 'Arms' would look something like the engraving on this Goblet made 150 years prior, they would not just be engraved with a crown and a V/U R underneath:
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O250189/goblet-and-cover-unknown/
-
The decanters, claret jugs, champagne, hock, and other glasses, are all richly cut, and ornamented with a vine border, varied with the rose, thistle, and shamrock, and the royal arms. The supply for Her Majesty's table, consisted of three dozen wine glasses, three dozen small claret glasses, three dozen large ditto, three dozen champagne ditto, two dozen liquer ditto, two dozen goblets, two dozen curafes and tumblers, two dozen hexagon massive decanters, one dozen claret ditto, eighteen wine glass coolers, two dozen topaz coloured finger glesses, two dozen ice plates, and four earthenware antique jugs, with the royal and city arms in relief. For the entertainment generally there were furnished by the Messrs. Davenport 1,600 wine glasses, 800 claret ditto, 800 champagne ditto, 800 hock ditto, ( emerald green) 800 tumblers, 400 deeatiters, 300 water bottles and tumblers, 350 wine glass coolers, & c. The china was a pure white ground to correspond with that provided for Her Majesty's table, the patterns being extremely chaste and void of all ornament, with the excep- tion of a vine border in raised gold surrounding the rims, handles, & c. There were 1,500 large plates, 750 soup ditto, 1,500 pie ditto, 1,200 dishes, ( various sizes) 100 soup tureens, 200 sauce ditto, 50 dessert centre baskets, 200 compotiers, 500 ditto plates, 750 ice ditto, & c.
There was singing and music of course, and…’
I think they are talking about finger bowls rather than finger cut drinking glasses. They list drinking glasses then go on to list other tableware after, including the finger glasses. The description of the other drinking glasses include what they were for, such as champagne, rather than how they were cut.
Although the wineglass coolers may have evolved from finger bowls, they coexisted rather than supplanted. For example, in the Whitefriars 1931 catalogue they were still suppling finger bowls and coolers at the same time, see page 21 of the 1931 catalogue https://whitefriars-glass.com/whitefriars-cat-1931.php
“...are all richly cut, and ornamented with a vine border, varied with the rose, thistle, and shamrock, and the royal arms”. In addition to your point about the cipher not being the same as the royal arms, the V&A ice plates also only have the rose decoration. As I said, I don’t think the engraving on those is very good - good enough for the top table? Maybe they were just in a hurry.
-
Yes, I do agree about the way the lists are written to be honest :) However, if they were finger bowls, that doesn't explain why there were only one dozen of them??
Just a note though, from my reading, finger bowls came back into fashion in America in a big way late 18th early 19th I think through gestures of grandeur. So any writings about that period may not necessarily pertain to the earliest development and use of finger bowls.
-
aha see page 38 here for an example described as 'cut finger or fringe fluting' on a tumbler:
Source: GLASS OF THE BRITISH MILITARY
ca. 1755-1820
OLIVE R. JONES & E. ANN SMITH
https://sha.org/assets/documents/Glass%20of%20the%20British%20Military%20-%20English.pdf
-
1) oops no, I don't agree about the way the lists are written :-[
In the Examiner list,the 'two dozen topaz-coloured hock-glasses' appears AFTER the decanters and wine coolers and before the six water jugs. It's not as clear as it being listed as drinking glasses followed by other glass accoutrements.
'The Examiner list:
'The decanters, claret jugs, champazne, hock and other glasses, were all richly cut, and ornamented with a vine border, varied with the rose, thistle, and shamrock, and the Royal arms. The supply for Her Majesty's table consisted of three dozen wine glasses, three dozen small claret glasses, three dozen large ditto, three dozen champagne ditto, two dozen liqueuer ditto, two dozen goblets, two dozen carafes and tumblers, two dozen hexagon massive decanters, one dozen claret ditto, 18 wine-glass coolers, two dozen topaz-coloured hock glasses, six water jugs, one dozen topaz-coloured finger glasses, two dozen ice-plates and four antique earthenware jugs with the Royal and city arms in relief.'
(the rest of the Examiner list for the general entertainment glass is the same as the Birmingham Journal and also only mentions 350 wine glass coolers.)'
However that's not to say that they were not finger bowls ( get out clause here :) )
2) The top table apparently had ten people on it in total having just re-checked the report in the Examiner.
-
Ok, almost :)
I still think they were bowls though. The Glass of the British Military looks interesting. The ‘cut finger or fringe fluting' on the tumbler shown in there is what John Brooks calls in his book on tumblers ‘cut flutes’ or ‘concave cut flutes’ and they are similar narrow cuts. Brooks shows examples from 1798 to 1825, so they were nothing new or exciting so why mention them in the account (if that’s what they were talking about)?
I see later on in the Glass of the British Military, figure 66 shows two of the rinser type bowls with two lips in the rim. They identify them as ‘lipped coolers or finger glasses’.
-
I don't know.
But something doesn't look right about those bowls being made by an English maker for that banquet in 1837.
And something doesn't look right about the engraving on them.
I'm wondering if they were made and engraved abroad with no knowledge of what the QV Arms would look like? No time to supply a template? So just do a V and an R and hope for the best - and they would already know what the crown would look like from history I guess?
I think the engraving of the flora on them and the plates is actually really lovely to be honest apart from that rose on the plate.
The crown on both looks 'ok' but clearly isn't the Arms and cypher looks hurried and wrong.
Perhaps that's why there were only one dozen of them - that's all the maker had ready made and they needed to be shipped?
-
Yes, I think when they mention finger glasses they are talking about bowls, but not necessarily the uranium bowls in this topic. The other thing with the VR on the plate is they haven’t even got the letters the same height.
-
On the topaz-coloured glass: What is meant by 'topaz-coloured' ? (see Examiner list of items for the 1837 banquet noted at bottom of post)
On the description given below I'd assert that the uranium glass bowls shown in the V&A and Corning do not meet the definition of 'topaz-coloured glass':
Topaz glass - taken from The Practical Mechanic and Engineer's Magazine Vol IV 1847 from an article taken from the Annals des Mines 1843:
Page 266 - Under the Chapter Heading 'Chapter VIII - Of Coloured Glass'
Quote:
'Yellow There are five distinct yellows:-
1. Topaz-yellow - prepared with charcoal dust
2. Antimony yellow...
3. Orange-yellow...
4. A peculiar-yellow...
5. Greenish-yellow - this colour provides a fine effect in daylight; by candle or gas-light it appears of a dirty yellowish-white. It is prepared with the yellow oxide of uranium of commerce; but as this material always exhibits traces of the presence of iron, the yellow glass made by it always presents on the edge a light greenish tint'
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Practical_Mechanic_and_Engineer_s_Ma/lbc5AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=topaz+neuwelt&pg=PA219&printsec=frontcover
'The Examiner list:
'The decanters, claret jugs, champazne, hock and other glasses, were all richly cut, and ornamented with a vine border, varied with the rose, thistle, and shamrock, and the Royal arms. The supply for Her Majesty's table consisted of three dozen wine glasses, three dozen small claret glasses, three dozen large ditto, three dozen champagne ditto, two dozen liqueuer ditto, two dozen goblets, two dozen carafes and tumblers, two dozen hexagon massive decanters, one dozen claret ditto, 18 wine-glass coolers, two dozen topaz-coloured hock glasses, six water jugs, one dozen topaz-coloured finger glasses, two dozen ice-plates and four antique earthenware jugs with the Royal and city arms in relief.'
(the rest of the Examiner list for the general entertainment glass is the same as the Birmingham Journal and also only mentions 350 wine glass coolers.)'
-
I presume that these uranium bowls in the V&A and Corning are lead glass?
see also page 219 of the report taken from an 1843 report in Annals des Mines (right hand column under heading 'Properties of Glass' where it states that in Bohemia only one glassworks used lead glass. I think this may have meant Harrach but that would need to be checked.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Practical_Mechanic_and_Engineer_s_Ma/lbc5AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=topaz+neuwelt&pg=PA219&printsec=frontcover
The design of the foot of the bowls corresponds with the jug I linked earlier in this thread - Dudley Museums had that jug as 'possibly' W.H., B., and J., Richardson.
-
I don't know.
But something doesn't look right about those bowls being made by an English maker for that banquet in 1837.
And something doesn't look right about the engraving on them.
I'm wondering if they were made and engraved abroad with no knowledge of what the QV Arms would look like? No time to supply a template? So just do a V and an R and hope for the best - and they would already know what the crown would look like from history I guess?
I think the engraving of the flora on them and the plates is actually really lovely to be honest apart from that rose on the plate.
The crown on both looks 'ok' but clearly isn't the Arms and cypher looks hurried and wrong.
Perhaps that's why there were only one dozen of them - that's all the maker had ready made and they needed to be shipped?
Actually I'm going to retract that question in bold above and my speculation about where they might have been engraved .
I'm just simply wondering if the crown the V/U R and the Guildhall emblem were added after the bowls were originally engraved.
i.e. the bowls were made and engraved with the flora at one point, but then the Crown, V/U R and the Guildhall emblem was added afterwards at another time.
They don't look like any finger bowl I can see in terms of shape. I wonder if they were fruit bowls/pudding bowls really?
However, I take Ekimp's point that the list is 'probably' referring to finger bowls rather than finger cutting.
-
Some history from the Archives on Davenport China and Glass
It appears, at least in the 1820s, that the firm seems to have had an Agent in Rostock Germany and also that a nephew who had worked for the firm set up an 'outpost' of Davenport glass in Hamburg in Germany.
Quote:
'James Davenport junior, son of John Davenport's partner James, worked for the concern in England for a time, but in 1823 he was exploring the possibilities of setting up on the Continent. He visited both Brussels and Rotterdam with this end in view, but eventually set up in what seems to have been a branch house of the English concern in Hamburg with his brother Uriah and Joseph.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/db071d3e-e56e-48f6-914e-fd7e66d751ed
I can't think what connection those two geographic regions have with china and glass except that they were possibly major shipping ports at that time?
So perhaps they were ports used for distributing trade - which could include Glass items ready made or include transportation of uranium oxide?
Just trying to think laterally about how Davenports Longport Glass might have supplied or made a uranium glass bowl in 1837 ...
m
-
The other thing that's been niggling is the way the Cypher or VR has been engraved, i.e. the design of the V with the round base.
So for example, this is an invitation to her coronation in 1838.
The way the V is pointed a the bottom is how it is on all the other monogram/cypher items I could find:
https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2021/collection-of-a-connoisseur-history-in-manuscript-part-2/queen-victoria-a-collection-including-two-letters
Bowl for comparison
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport--co/
This was a William IV cypher - ruled before Victoria
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/199718
From this reply onwards for a few replies we discussed the way the VR was oddly engraved on with the V seemingly having a rounded bottom so it looked like a 'U' rather than a 'V'.
I can't remember if I've already added this link but this is a link to a gilded china plate made by Davenports in 1837 apparently for the Queen Vic. The monogram looks markedly different to the glass one... and so does the Guildhall emblem. So they clearly knew what the insignia/emblem and monogram should look like. And given all the talk of how important this factory was, I'm a bit bemused about their engraving ability and quality :-\
https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/plate-with-the-monogram-of-queen-victoria-reigned-1837-1901-davenport-co/hQEg68TUCU2QiA?hl=en&ms=%7B%22x%22%3A0.5222792959804466%2C%22y%22%3A0.527585810347094%2C%22z%22%3A10.684883483087775%2C%22size%22%3A%7B%22width%22%3A0.8822625220928658%2C%22height%22%3A0.4375282390195216%7D%7D
-
Just adding Val St Lambert as a reminder to myself.
m
-
For colour comparison - Example of Baccarat 1830s (If I have read this correctly) pressed glass in this Pressglas-Korrepondenz article:
https://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2018-1w-stopfer-vogt-sg-baccarat-pokal-1830.pdf
-
snippet found in an Antiques publication: No idea if this is correctly 'snippeted' or if the info is true, but if true it would be by 1837.
Leighton wrote to him in 1839 about the Canary metal he'd seen there.
Obviously also no idea also if the 'canary metal' Leighton had seen there was actually made by John Ford of course. It might have been a piece John Ford had from elsewhere.
But anyway, he wasn't appointed manufacturer to the Queen until after 1837 her coronation and the link doesn't imply the canary metal was around in 1837 at all.
In 1835 this firm was dissolved and John Ford carried on in the South Back Canongate under the name Holyrood Flint Glass Works . Two years later that glasshouse was appointed ' Flint Glass Manufacturer in Ordinary to the Queen.
Just adding this interesting tumbler for Gladstone with a sulphide of Gladstone - apparently dated 1880 and made by John Ford Holyrood Glass works- in the Bristol Museum collection stores:
http://museums.bristol.gov.uk/details.php?irn=122319
'Interesting' because the cutting on it is quite intricate and that along with the sulphide and calligraphy makes it look older than it is (I think) and it's dated 1880.
-
According to the information here John Ford was appointed Glass Maker to Her Majesty in 1855 - so the info in my quote above is incorrect.
' In 1839, his nephew, John Ford, took on the business and in 1855 Queen Victoria granted him the licence of being 'Glass Maker to Her Majesty', the place now assuming the title of 'The Royal Holyrood Glass Works''
Source:
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2887234
-
With regard the shape of the V on the engraved VR on the bowl and plate, which has been under discussion on this thread as the V looks like a U rather than a sharp pointed V shape found on her cypher and other VR monogrammed articles:
This is apparently a sampler from the Biedermeier period, apparently identified as Austrian - it has an alphabet on it. The V looks like the shape of the one engraved on the vase and plate, i.e. with a curved bottom like a U:
https://www.samplers-berlin.com/en/sampler/biedermeier-1840.html
The R looks quite similar to that of the sampler as well.
By contrast this sampler is dated 1850 and attributed England and whilst the R still looks similar the V is a sharp pointed V.
https://www.antiques-atlas.com/antique/victorian_childs_needlework_sampler_1850/as527a684
These samplers are all with a pointed V dating to c.1840 English
Ellen Kingscote's English Sewing Book Samplers Wisdom and Honour circa 1840s
https://farmgirldrygoodsshop.com/ellen-kingscotes-english-sewing-book-samplers-wisdom-and-honour-circa-1840s/
I wonder if the engraved 'V'R was done by a Bohemian engraver?
(or Russian? I've not looked into that yet but would like to as something about the way the insignia lines are decorated with leaves reminded me of monograms on Russian glass but could be misremembering. Also something about the cutting on the bowl.
Monogram style like this is what it reminded me of:
https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2020/russian-works-of-art/a-porcelain-plate-from-the-orlov-service-imperial
)
-
On the topaz-coloured glass: What is meant by 'topaz-coloured' ? (see Examiner list of items for the 1837 banquet noted at bottom of post)
On the description given below I'd assert that the uranium glass bowls shown in the V&A and Corning do not meet the definition of 'topaz-coloured glass':
Topaz glass - taken from The Practical Mechanic and Engineer's Magazine Vol IV 1847 from an article taken from the Annals des Mines 1843:
Page 266 - Under the Chapter Heading 'Chapter VIII - Of Coloured Glass'
Quote:
'Yellow There are five distinct yellows:-
1. Topaz-yellow - prepared with charcoal dust
2. Antimony yellow...
3. Orange-yellow...
4. A peculiar-yellow...
5. Greenish-yellow - this colour provides a fine effect in daylight; by candle or gas-light it appears of a dirty yellowish-white. It is prepared with the yellow oxide of uranium of commerce; but as this material always exhibits traces of the presence of iron, the yellow glass made by it always presents on the edge a light greenish tint'
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Practical_Mechanic_and_Engineer_s_Ma/lbc5AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=topaz+neuwelt&pg=PA219&printsec=frontcover
'The Examiner list:
'The decanters, claret jugs, champazne, hock and other glasses, were all richly cut, and ornamented with a vine border, varied with the rose, thistle, and shamrock, and the Royal arms. The supply for Her Majesty's table consisted of three dozen wine glasses, three dozen small claret glasses, three dozen large ditto, three dozen champagne ditto, two dozen liqueuer ditto, two dozen goblets, two dozen carafes and tumblers, two dozen hexagon massive decanters, one dozen claret ditto, 18 wine-glass coolers, two dozen topaz-coloured hock glasses, six water jugs, one dozen topaz-coloured finger glasses, two dozen ice-plates and four antique earthenware jugs with the Royal and city arms in relief.'
(the rest of the Examiner list for the general entertainment glass is the same as the Birmingham Journal and also only mentions 350 wine glass coolers.)'
Just came across something which might help regarding what is meant by 'topaz' coloured:
From Walter Spiegl
Farbige Gläser
http://www.glas-forschung.info/pageone/pdf/farbglas.pdf
Scroll down to page 30 under the Heading 'Rosa Rubin und Topas-glas
'Mit dem Goldrubin verwandt ist das »Topasglas«, das man in Neuwelt schon 1829
herstellen konnte und bei Lötz und Schmidt in der Goldbrunnhütte etwa seit 1830.
Neben der Goldauflösung wurde der Schmelze eine kleine Menge Antimonoxid
beigegeben, das dem Glas eine rötlich gelbe Färbung verleiht.'
using google translate this says:
'Related to the gold ruby is the »topaz glass«, which was found in Neuwelt as early as 1829
could produce and at Lötz and Schmidt in the Goldbrunnhütte since about 1830.
In addition to dissolving the gold, a small amount of antimony oxide was added to the melt
added, which gives the glass a reddish-yellow color.'
So - was the set of topaz glasses referred to in the list quoted above actually a reddish yellow glass rather than a uranium yellow glass?
If it was, this might preclude these uranium glass bowls in the V&A and the Corning from being part of the ' one dozen topaz-coloured finger glasses' in the list quoted above?
The becher in this link mentions topasglas so could be the kind of colour referred to perhaps - the seller has this listed as dated 1836:
https://antikes-glas.de/neuwelt/becher-silberbeize-geschnittenen-ansichten-neuwelt-p-1293.html
-
i.e. could topas-glas or topaz be a different earlier name for amber glass?
Something like this perhaps?
https://www.exhibitantiques.com/item/2067/exhibitantiques/Antique-Georgian-Regency-Amber-Wine-Glass-c1830.html
or these?
https://scottishantiques.com/amber-decanter
There is a cut glass Stand in the Harrach book page 77, heavy cut and with a portrait of Emporer Franz I sulphide. The stand is a similar colour to the becher I linked to from Antiques Neuwirth. Dates 1831. Unfortunately there is not a description of the colour or name of it.
-
Note: Is it possible that glass denoted as 'topaz' or indeed 'topaz-coloured glass' doesn't necessarily have to be made with uranium in the batch. Could the yellowish colour or amber colour of topaz can be achieved without using uranium?
Topaz glass 1849 made by Messrs. Bacchus and Sons. Specifically noted and highlighted in script as Topaz in the description in the catalogue -
Quote:
'179. Water Jug and GOBLET in Topaz , richly cut, manufactured and exhibited by Messrs. Bacchus and Sons .'
in the:
' Catalogue of Specimens of Recent British Manufactures Received in Competition for the Society's Special Prizes
Session 1849 - 1850 '
See page 14 Item no 179
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Catalogue_of_Specimens_of_Recent_British/nkbp-Bq5qDQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=english+opal+glass&printsec=frontcover
See also - Art Journal report on the 1849 exhibition in Birmingham
Page 294 where Bacchus and Rice Harris are noted as exhibiting Uranium glass.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_art_journal_London/65BCAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+oxide+cornwall+mine+1817&pg=PA137&printsec=frontcover
With regard to the question over whether 'topaz' in colour would imply made with uranium glass, see my posts #196 and #197.
-
According to the information here John Ford was appointed Glass Maker to Her Majesty in 1855 - so the info in my quote above is incorrect.
' In 1839, his nephew, John Ford, took on the business and in 1855 Queen Victoria granted him the licence of being 'Glass Maker to Her Majesty', the place now assuming the title of 'The Royal Holyrood Glass Works''
Source:
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2887234
About the letter dated 1839 that Leighton sent to Ford asking about uranium glass, it seems Holyrood was making uranium glass in May 1841:
Source: Jill Turnbull, The Magic and Misery of Glassmaking: Researching the history of the Scottish Glass Industry
https://booksfromscotland.com/2017/09/magic-misery-glassmaking-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’. '
I don't know why it's referred to as 'called canary or topaz'. I don't have the book and do not know whether that is her interpretation of the colour name of uranium glass. It seems strange for a glassmaker to name their glass colour as 'canary or topaz'.
And it's still 4 years after the 1837 banquet given for the coronation.
-
So, John Ford at Holyrood Glass works was making uranium glass in 1841.
His uranium glass is referred to as 'called canary or topaz' in Jill Turnbull's book:
Source: Jill Turnbull, The Magic and Misery of Glassmaking: Researching the history of the Scottish Glass Industry
https://booksfromscotland.com/2017/09/magic-misery-glassmaking-scotland/
There were a dozen 'topaz-coloured' finger glasses on the Banquet table.
If the dozen topaz finger glasses (assuming this means finger bowls) in the list for the banquet were uranium glass they would have needed to have been produced and cut and engraved in 27 days or less, because that is the length of time Davenports were given to produce all the glass and china for the banquet.
Could they have been made at Holyrood Glassworks? and if so when could they have been made?
1) Could Holyrood Glassworks have made the bowls in the V&A and the Corning in 1837?
- We don't have evidence Holyrood Glassworks was making uranium glass in 1837. The earliest reference is Leighton's letter in 1839. This is followed up by evidence in Jill Turnbull's book that they were making uranium glass in May 1841.
2) This is a clear cut glass epergne that this information from University of Edinburgh says was made by Holyrood Glass works.
They say it was made by the Holyrood Flint Glass Company, Edinburgh, between 1840 and 1842, to mark the accession of Queen Victoria.
Artisans and Craft Production in 19th Century Scotland
University of Edinburgh online exhibition about Scottish artisans, their work and working lives, between 1780 and 1914
http://www.artisansinscotland.shca.ed.ac.uk/items/show/9
Shows a Glass Epergne from Holyrood Flint glass co. c.1841. It consisted of 40 separate cut pieces and apparently took two years to make.
Description says:
‘This cut glass epergne (table centrepiece) has 40 separate pieces. It is about a meter in height and was made by the Holyrood Flint Glass Company, Edinburgh, between 1840 and 1842, to mark the accession of Queen Victoria. …’
‘…This epergne was made for a royal table setting and was used on state occasions at Holyrood Palace in Edinburgh. It was also displayed at the international exhibition displays that were mounted by the company – as in Edinburgh in 1886….’
‘…This glass epergne represents a spectacular display of craftsmanship and ingenious design, with numerous cut glass elements in the eight separate bowls and on the upper section, which is topped with a glass replica of a crown and a Maltese cross. Richard Hunter, foreman glasscutter for the Holyrood Glass Company, made and probably also designed the piece, taking two years to complete it and bringing prestige and publicity for his employers in the process.’
- That seems like a long time to make a cut glass epergne?
It was 40 pieces though and by comparison if we assume the uranium cut glass engraved bowls in the V&A are the 'dozen topaz finger glasses' in the description for the banquet, we are only talking about 12 cut and engraved uranium glass bowls v 40 pieces.
However, they would have had to have been made, cut and engraved and delivered in 27 days
3) The uranium bowls are engraved.
This is a report from 1869 (The Industries of Scotland, David Bremner) that described the engraved glass from Scotland of 1856 as in it's infancy and as 'coarse and inartistic'
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Industries_of_Scotland/fz1VAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=the+industries+of+scotland+manufactures+of+glass&pg=PA376&printsec=frontcover
‘In the modern school of glass-engraving Edinburgh stands in the highest class, and it is exceedingly creditable that that position has been gained after only a few years' exertion. At the Art Exhibition held in Edinburgh in 1856 glass-engraving was in its infancy in Scotland, and the specimens then shown were coarse and inartistic.'
- If the engraving was coarse and inartistic and in it's infancy in Scotland in 1856, then it seems to me the engraving on the uranium glass bowls in the V&A and the Corning were unlikely to have been made twenty years earlier in 1837 in Scotland.
The U instead of V is questionable however the rest of the engraving is to my mind very artistic.
4) From further reading it seems Holyrood Glassworks did have a connection with a Bohemian glass engraver called J. H. B. Millar.
Source: The Industries of Scotland 1869
See page 386 and 387 in the link below where it says Mr Millar only worked for Messrs. Millar & Co and for Mr Ford of the Holyrood Glasswork:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Industries_of_Scotland/fz1VAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=the+industries+of+scotland+manufactures+of+glass&pg=PA376&printsec=frontcover
I can't find the info source reference now, however I think Mr Millar came over c.1850 and started his engraving then (will find source and link later).
5) Millar exhibited at the 1862 International Exhibition (see page 410) where they were described as exhibiting engraved glass and china:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Record_of_the_International_Exhibiti/Tx9dAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=great+exhibition+1862+glass&pg=PA402&printsec=frontcover
6) Further in the description of 1869 in Industries of Scotland by David Bremner, Bremner writes this:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Industries_of_Scotland/fz1VAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=the+industries+of+scotland+manufactures+of+glass&pg=PA376&printsec=frontcover
‘At the Art Exhibition held in Edinburgh in 1856 glass-engraving was in its infancy in Scotland, and the specimens then shown were coarse and inartistic.
It was not until the firm of Messrs J. Millar & Co., of Edinburgh, turned attention to the matter that a decided. and hopeful start was made. So rapid was the progress, that Messrs Millar were able to show at the Great Exhibition of 1862 a collection of engraved glass which attracted universal attention, and won the favourable notice of art critics. A happy hit was made by the beautiful fern pattern then first produced, and now copied by engravers everywhere. Following up the success thus achieved, the firm have gone on producing novelty after novelty. At the Paris Exhibition they made a magnificent display, and, notwithstanding the severe test of competition with the famous glass-makers of the Continent, held their own in the department of engraved flint-glass. Some of the decanters and wine glasses shown were exquisitely beautiful, and were eagerly bought by art collectors. In order that engraved glass might become popular, it was necessary that it should be cheap as well as beautiful; and the Edinburgh makers were among the first to meet both requirements, the result being that their productions are finding their way to the tables of the middle as well as of the upper classes of society. The nobility are now having their coats of arms engraved on every article of table crystal; and persons who have no heraldic emblems to display are having their glasses inscribed with mono-grams.’
So could Millar's have engraved the uranium glass bowls in the V&A and the Corning after 1850?
7) Bonhams show a c.1862 goblet with a coin in the stem here, of which they say in their footnotes 'The engraving was probably executed in the glass engraving studio of J.H.B. Millar, which was supplied with blanks by the Holyrood Glassworks of John Ford. Several examples exist in the collection of Huntly House Museum, Edinburgh.'
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/17241/lot/1410/
Not the greatest photography (click on the image and it will enable you to + to enlarge the detail) to show the design but the style of engraving might have some similarities with the V&A and Corning bowl engraving in the style of the leaves?
-
4) additional information
With reference point 4) in long post above - re Millar coming over from Bohemia in 1850:
Source: Artisans and Craft Production in 19th Century Scotland, A University of Edinburgh online exhibition about Scottish artisans, their work and working lives, between 1780 and 1914
http://www.artisansinscotland.shca.ed.ac.uk/items/show/9
quote:
'...The owner of the company mid century, John Ford, who took over from an uncle, was apprentice trained as a glasscutter, making a cut glass fruit bowl as his apprenticeship piece. The company also maintained a strong relationship with a glass engraving workshop, J.H.B Millar, founded in the 1850s by a Bohemian entrepreneur with Bohemian workmen. J.H.B Millar was particularly associated with the development of the Scottish fern pattern design.'
-
8 ) Engraved glass from Millar exhibited at the Paris Exhibition 1867 was shown in the Art Journal in quite some detail and numerous examples (see page 95) :
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Art_journal/ZllVAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Messrs.+Millar+%26+co+engraving&pg=PA379&printsec=frontcover
- If it was reported in 1869 that he worked only with Holyrood glass works then I presume these examples were made at Holyrood?
9) National Museums of Scotland show this glass from Millar from 1875 on twitter. If you enlarge the museum link you can see detail of the engraving. The script is gothic style however the foliage can be seen quite well. There seems to me to be some polished highlights on the smaller leaves:
https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/collection-search-results/goblet-presentation/634065
https://twitter.com/NtlMuseumsScot/status/1440354034158764040/photo/1
Link to uranium bowl in V&A for quick comparison of engraving style:
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport-co/finger-bowl-davenport--co/?carousel-image=2016JR2220
-
An interesting piece of information here:
A wineglass engraved, in the V&A.
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O4287/wine-glass-apsley-pellatt/
The information says:
'Wine glass, England (possibly London), possibly made by Apsley Pellatt & Co., 1850-1850'
'GALLERY LABEL
Probably commissioned by the City of London, whose arms are included in the decoration, and made to commemorate the Great Exhibition of 1851.
British Galleries: TWO WINE GLASSES engraved with Exhibition motifs
Apsley Pellat, the famous firm of glass manufacturers, showed many drinking vessels in their display, as well as a huge chandelier. The twisted white threads in both stems imitate Venetian glass. Many glasses in this style were engraved, using motifs relevant for the occasion - including the globe (signifying the international theme) and the crown (signifying royal support).(27/03/2003)'
CATEGORIES
Glass
British Galleries
Drinking
Great Exhibition
SCRAN
OBJECT TYPE
Wine glass
MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES
Clear glass with opaque twist, engraved
BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Wine glass, England (possibly London), possibly made by Apsley Pellatt & Co., 1850-1850
DIMENSIONS
Height: 14.0cm
Bowl diameter: 8.4cm
Foot diameter: 7.0cm
Dimensions checked: Measured; 07/07/1999 by Terry Diam. of foot 7.0cms
STYLE
Victorian
GALLERY LABEL
Probably commissioned by the City of London, whose arms are included in the decoration, and made to commemorate the Great Exhibition of 1851.
British Galleries: TWO WINE GLASSES engraved with Exhibition motifs
Apsley Pellat, the famous firm of glass manufacturers, showed many drinking vessels in their display, as well as a huge chandelier. The twisted white threads in both stems imitate Venetian glass. Many glasses in this style were engraved, using motifs relevant for the occasion - including the globe (signifying the international theme) and the crown (signifying royal support).(27/03/2003)
Read less
OBJECT HISTORY
Possibly made for the royal tables at city banquets at 'The Albion' Banqueting Hall, London, in commemmoration of the Great Exhibition 1851
Possibly made in London at Apsley Pellat's Falcon glassworks
-
You might be interested in the engraved Victoria diamond jubilee tumbler I found.
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,72538.0.html
I think it was just a relatively cheap souvenir but I don’t think the engraving is worse than on the finger bowls. Especially when you consider the engraving on my glass is about a third, or half the size of that on the finger bowls.
-
That's a great find Ekimp.
The engraving is lovely :) I don't think it's the same quality as the finger bowls to be honest (eeek, sorry) but that's taking into account the whole design and balance of the engraving stylistically across and around the bowl. But as a souvenir it's very good for that period I think. To compare souvenirs of the period and type the only ones I've remembered are things commemorating Exhibitions such as Glasgow maybe?
It's a great find. I presume there must have been quite a few of these made but perhaps they have all been ditched over time as they're not easily found online when searching! There are a few online but they're very basic and 'mass produced'.
That one looks like nice quality as well with the polished flat base. The engraving is similar, perhaps the bowl looks more careful/polished because it's on uranium glass and clearly a quality piece.
Mind you it's possible the Royal Household just got these plain old things :)
https://www.wheelerantiques.co.uk/glasses/antique-wine-glass-etched-queen-victoria-emblem-probably-royal-household
Very stylish but not much going on there ;D
-
And having said all this about John Ford Holyrood uranium glass, I've been wondering where this Holyrood Topaz uranium glass might be.
It's just occurred to me that Apsley Pellatt had to replace an entire shipment as it fractured a few months after receipt.
So, a comparison:
The recipe from Holyrood in Jill Turnbull The Magic and Misery of Glass Making:
was given as:
' 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/
The recipe given here (1876) is :
Gold Topaz, 6 cwt. of batch. 3 pounds of oxide of uranium.
From online conversion it looks like 6 cwt. is 672lb? (open to correction)
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Johnson_s_New_Universal_Cyclop%C3%A6dia_a_Sc/CJNRAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=recipe+uranium+glass+flint+oxide&pg=PA569&printsec=frontcover
If that is correct then the amount of uranium in Holyrood glass might be quite high?
I have no idea whether the difference in quantities would affect the outcome of the glass crizzling at a later date despite John Ford saying it had turned out well?
-
Thanks, I wasn’t saying my glass was anything fantastic so you’re ok :D I was assuming my glass was reasonably cheap, being on a light weight tumbler rather than something nice and heavy, but even so, the engraving doesn’t look too dissimilar to the stuff for the Queen’s table. I think the way the thistle, leaves, and rose is constructed on my glass is the same as on the bowls, they have used similar mark making.
The overall look of the engraving on the bowls, taken as a whole, is good. But I don’t think it is very refined when you look at the detail. For example, the midribs and veins on the clover leaves are really quite crude. They are thick lines quickly done in a cross shape, they could be fine and tapered at the ends.
And the areas where they have polished the big leaves looks like it’s just been one quick touch on the wheel. They could have feathered out the polishing along the leaf to add depth.
And the thistle is two dimensional with that rough hatching to make the body. They haven’t even shaded any of the back ground of the thistle before hatching on top.
To me, except for the crown and monogram, it gives the impression of something a bit sketchy that was done quickly.
-
I know what you mean. Especially when you compare it to some of the early engraved glass in the book from Neuwelt to the Whole World. Example page 55 c.1790 or the glass on pages 134/135.
or something like this from the master Dominik Biemann
https://www.artic.edu/artworks/36379/medallion
Or this which is pretty amazing in terms of conveying light and shade and depth to the design:
https://www.bonhams.com/auction/22021/lot/41/a-bohemian-engraved-goblet-and-cover-attributed-to-anton-simm-jablonec-circa-1830-40/
https://www.bonhams.com/auction/22021/lot/41/a-bohemian-engraved-goblet-and-cover-attributed-to-anton-simm-jablonec-circa-1830-40/
The way the bowl engraving is done, or rather the effect it gives, is though quite similar to Walsh Walsh Fruiting Vine I think in some ways, including the small highlight parts in certain areas:
https://www.sellingantiques.co.uk/653181/set-of-six-john-walsh-cut-and-engraved-green-wine-glasses-c1930/#
To be honest I assume all glass engraving must be pretty difficult to do :)
m
-
Better example of John Walsh glass fruiting vine where the engraving can be seen:
https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/fieldings-auctioneers-ltd/catalogue-id-srfi10094/lot-26256a25-90e2-4bf3-8e0a-a93c0119be64
-
The way the bowl engraving is done, or rather the effect it gives, is though quite similar to Walsh Walsh Fruiting Vine I think in some ways, including the small highlight parts in certain areas:
https://www.sellingantiques.co.uk/653181/set-of-six-john-walsh-cut-and-engraved-green-wine-glasses-c1930/#
To be honest I assume all glass engraving must be pretty difficult to do :)
m
Yes, although at least on the Walsh leaves they have taken a bit more care with the polishing. To be honest, I don’t think the Walsh fruiting vine decoration is very good (will I be shot ;) ). It is just commercial, mass produced decoration isn’t it, it’s better than some cheaper glasses, worse than others, but I wouldn’t say it’s anywhere close to high end stuff such as from Biemann.
Your link in reply 202 https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Art_journal/ZllVAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Messrs.+Millar+%26+co+engraving&pg=PA379&printsec=frontcover looks like high end figurative engraving with people, animals and complex patterns. That looks more like the Biemann end of the market to me, rather than the fruiting vine end.
-
Yes, although at least on the Walsh leaves they have taken a bit more care with the polishing. To be honest, I don’t think the Walsh fruiting vine decoration is very good (will I be shot ;) ). It is just commercial, mass produced decoration isn’t it, it’s better than some cheaper glasses, worse than others, but I wouldn’t say it’s anywhere close to high end stuff such as from Biemann.
Your link in reply 202 https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Art_journal/ZllVAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Messrs.+Millar+%26+co+engraving&pg=PA379&printsec=frontcover looks like high end figurative engraving with people, animals and complex patterns. That looks more like the Biemann end of the market to me, rather than the fruiting vine end.
It is more high end. But it was 1867 Exhibition and I was including the link for future reference searches so people could see the glass exhibited and that perhaps they were examples of John Ford's Holyrood shapes.
J. H. B. Millar seems to have started in the (early?) 1850s (Messrs. Millar) and worked with John Ford at Holyrood glass with some Bohemian engravers and then training local people to engrave. It depends at which end of the timeframe they were at I suppose. But it could depend on how much time they had to supply also.
It appears from the Bonhams listing that the museum in Edinburgh has some examples of John Ford engraved articles, so they will have been able to compare and I don't think that goblet is that dissimilar engraving to the uranium bowl.
I agree on the Walsh Fruiting Vine engraving in comparison to high end Bohemian engraving, and for example compared to Stevens and Williams cased goblets. But yes they were making sets of glasses. I don't know how they compared on price with say Stevens and Williams cased goblets.
However I also have absolutely no experience of how difficult engraving on a round piece of glass is to be honest, any piece of glass in fact. I think it's actually very difficult. And Dominik Biemann is absolutely high end stuff so not a fair comparison really.
I think artistically the Walsh Fruiting Vines are gorgeous as a whole design ( I have some) so it really does depend on how you're viewing items. Likewise, I think the uranium glass Queen Victoria bowls are gorgeous as a whole design, the perfect shape design, the cutting, colour, engraving, the whole thing taken together.
m
-
Bonhams show another one here. The monogram is very different to the QV bowls. I think the engraving looks more defined as well to be honest. It's dated 1874
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/10198/lot/390/?category=list
-
From conversation on another thread:
In relation to my bolded comment above (where I was questioning the impact of the Glass Excise Tax on glassmakers in the 1830s), Page 63 of Charles Hajdamach's British Glass 1800-1914 describes an industry in trouble in the 1830s:
'At a time when the ownership of a glassworks was a perilous undertaking which could lead quickly to bankruptcy, most glass producers were intent on survival rather than producing publicity material which might have been saved for posterity'.
and
'...in 1830 when most Dudley works were already complaining of financial problems due to the Glass Excise, which seems to have eventually forced the closure of the most important factories'.
and on page 70:
'Throughout most of its life the Hawkes factory was hampered by the Glass Excise. Prices were increased in 1825 as a result of the changes in the way the tax was charged and in 1835 the evidence Hawkes gave to the Commission of Inquiry clearly outlined the effect of the tax:
'I was out of business for a short time, for three years; I gave it over to my brothers, and they were so disgusted with it that they retired. I renewed the business with the hope that some alteration would take place, and I carry it on for one of my younger sons, to whom I thought I was doing an act of justice.'
From my reading of what CH has written, it appears Thomas Hawkes was the most important glassworks in Dudley(see page 63).
If this is what he is writing about the Tax Excise then I guess other factories must have been under similar pressures.
I think Hawkes closed in 1842 (see page 69 of the same book) where discussing a worker it says ' In 1842 his disappearance from the directories coincides with the closure of the Hawkes firm and...'
Does this indicate an industry that could in 1837 have used expensive oxides to produce a newly developed colour glass?
-
With regard to my query over use of uranium glass and colour in the UK in the 1830s:
Charles Hajdamach British Glass 1800-1914 mentions a comment in the Art-Union Magazine of April 1846(9 years after the uranium glass bowls are said to have been made) - see page 82:
'We have intimated that Messrs. Richardson are direction considerable attention to the improvement of coloured glass; in this art we yet lag behind our neighbours; chemistry has at present done little for it in this country; these gentlemen have, however, already made great advance in rivaling (sic)the productions of Bohemia; and we have little doubt that, a few years hence, we shall see at least equal the best of the imported articles; their specimens of opal glass are remarkably successful; and of cutting, engraving, and polishing, they supply examples second to none that have ever been produced in this country.'
That doesn't read to me like a country producing fabulous coloured glass pre 1846.
-
Not sure if you have this information from this source, i came across it tonight.
British table and ornamental glass by L.M Angus-Butterworth. Published 1956.
"In 1837 a pair of glass girandoles,or branching candlesticks, coloured yellow by a salt of uranium were presented to Queen Adelaide"
Tim
-
Hi Tim and thanks for remembering this thread. Yes, there is information here in this thread (Link to my post below). Apparently the girandoles had uranium droplets according to the info I quoted on this link... they weren't uranium glass girandoles from what I read. Also there is no definitive id that they were made by James Powell that I could find. And since that information in my linked thread was written it appears the V&A have changed the identification of the maker of those bowls apparently made for the Coronation banquet Guildhall to now be from Davenport. Hence me querying all the information re identification so far:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,70066.msg391911.html#msg391911
I wonder what the source of L. M. Butterworths information was?
-
A uranium glass butter dish bottom from Islington Glass works Birmingham dating to late 1840s here on linked thread. It's pressed glass but shows the colour of the uranium glass from c.1849 (see Art Union Journal October 1849 page 307 for engraving of the butter in the links in the thread):
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,73283.msg407097.html#msg407097
Also note on the Art Union Journal page 314 (dated October 1849) a reference to the fact that 'not long ago' the (?coloured) glass for brass was all supplied from foreign sources and that now they 'believe' all parts are manufactured 'at home':
https://archive.org/details/sim_art-journal-us_1849-10-01_11/page/314/mode/2up
That was 1849.
The Queen Victoria uranium glass bowls were apparently made for 1837 - cut and engraved. That's 12 years earlier than this comment in the Art Union Journal.
See also their footnotes on the bottom of page 314 ! The notes don't indicate to me that anything like the QV uranium glass bowls were being produced 'at home' in 1837.
https://archive.org/details/sim_art-journal-us_1849-10-01_11/page/314/mode/2up
See also page 294 on this link (1849) middle column bottom of the column, where the use of colour is extolled v previous years and the strength of overseas glass imports in previous years:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_art_journal_London/65BCAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+oxide+cornwall+mine+1817&pg=PA137&printsec=frontcover
I'm finding lots of information directly from source articles dating to pre 1852 that indicate these bowls were not made in Great Britain in 1837. I'm not coming across anything that might even indicate they could have been.
If anyone has any further thoughts/sources I'd be very grateful :)
-
The 'uranium glass butter dish' should have read 'honey'.
-
Not sure if you have this information from this source, i came across it tonight.
British table and ornamental glass by L.M Angus-Butterworth. Published 1956.
"In 1837 a pair of glass girandoles,or branching candlesticks, coloured yellow by a salt of uranium were presented to Queen Adelaide"
Tim
I wonder if the reference for these candelabra (L.M. Angus-Butterworth 1956) came from the wording in Harry J Powell's book - Glassmaking in England 1923? I don't have the book but on searching online brought up this:
https://archive.org/stream/dli.bengal.10689.10443/10689.10443_djvu.txt
On page 131 of that book (info from search on the internet) it says:
page 130 ...
'At the present time there are hundreds of varieties of glass, differing
from each other' in chemical composition. To this list the Whitefriars
Works have contributed a fair share. The advertisement of 1710 refers
to two varieties of flint-glass, “ best ” and “ ordinary ”: unfortunately the
... continuing on page 131
recipes have disappeared, but the two kinds probably differecf in the
quality of sand, or in the proportion of red-lead. Until the hampering
excise regulations had been withdrawn, little could be done towards the
scientific development of the industry. It is, however, recorded that in
1837 a pair of glass girandoles, coloured yellow by the addition of a salt
of uranium to the ordinary flint mixture, were presented to Queen
Adelaide.'
In reference to this, as I mentioned in my post here:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,70066.msg391911.html#msg391911
it appears from what Barrie Skelcher wrote, that the candelabra were in fact silver with uranium glass droplets and presented in 1836. So perhaps Harry J Powell and Barrie Skelcher were either writing about a different set of girandoles ... or used a different way of describing them, as it seems unlikely two uranium glass sets would have been presented one year after the other?
-
I came upon this in my research on glass recipes. Availiable online from the Rakow library at CMOG [Creative Commons]. Sources for where to buy ingredients in England are given and two that sell uranium. Maybe an outside chance you may come across an archive and be able to cross reference with a glassworks. In any event an excellent and easy read for anyone interested in mid 19th century glassmaking.
-
Thank you so much for sharing Cagney.
1) I think the whole thing is here:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Treatise_on_the_Art_of_Glass_Making_To_w/fhldAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=oriental+green+uranium+glass&pg=PA73&printsec=frontcover
Published by W Gillinder in 1851 in Birmingham.
The Introductory pages are interesting. Much bemoaning of the Excise duties and how that affected glassmaking and then saying 'in the last five years' things had progressed since it was dropped. i.e. he was saying this in 1851.
Also talks about a 'state of ignorance and degradation' amongst glassmakers during that period before his treatise was written and uses that to explain a lack of progress in glassmaking as well.
I read it that he goes on to say he hopes that with his treatise written it might encourage progress.
So from his writings it doesn't sound like the British glass industry was in fantastic competitive shape in the decades prior to 1851, or of a skill to be able to compete with Bohemian colour and design imports etc.
Interesting. Published 1851 the year of the Great Exhibition.
Victoria's bowls supposedly made 14 years earlier.
I suppose it's important to take into account it may not have been written from altruistic desires but perhaps also PR - just in case.
2) Topaz is mentioned in the book a few times. Here are two recipes named 'Victoria Yellow or Topaz'
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Treatise_on_the_Art_of_Glass_Making_To_w/fhldAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=oriental+green+uranium+glass&pg=PA73&printsec=frontcover
3) I can't remember the dates of manufacturing of uranium glass in the USA, thinking about Ford's letters. Does the date coincide with this treatise being published 1851 including recipes? or was it earlier (I'll do a trawl back through later).
-
The earliest documented evidence in the U.S.A. I can find is the small furnace at Sandwich built in 1844 specifically for the manufacture of colored glass. called the "canary furnace" in company records. I believe Leighton of New England Glass Co. most likely a few years earlier than 1844. Gillinders treatise of 1851 and 1856 at Rakow also complete and similarly an easy read as Googles.
-
I don’t know if this might be relevant to this topic but on the Love Decanters website he has what he says is an Irish late 18c to early 19c boat shaped pedestal salt. It’s the wrong colour but looks like uranium glass, that would be very early use of uranium glass wouldn’t it.
Going by Irish Glass by Phelps Warren, first edition, that type of salt was late eighteenth to early nineteenth centuries, evolving to ball shaped salts by c1820. I don’t know if the pedestal salts were reproduced but it might be of interest to various time lines mentioned earlier in the topic.
Uranium salt on Love Decanters: http://www.lovedecanters.co.uk/LDIrishMisc.html
On his youtube video, you can see it glowing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9MDz8K6yQg
-
Klaproth first isolated uranium in 1789 as far as I read:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,72609.msg403913.html#msg403913
If that salt is late 18th century then that's very interesting.
Is there something about the shape that dictates that it's late 18th?
Is there any research showing Uranium glass was being produced in Ireland in late 18th? Before uranium glass in Bohemia was being produced.
Could it date later into the early 19th?
-
I’ve only got the Phelps reference for late eighteenth to early nineteenth centuries. As far as I’m aware, it’s the shape of the bowl with the pedestal with a “lemon squeezer” foot, but don’t know much about them. Here are a couple in the cmog. The first one is also shown in Phelps plate 78c.
https://glasscollection.cmog.org/objects/24257/salt?ctx=d216716423c84311adb216476e53e82dd94f18fe&idx=157
https://glasscollection.cmog.org/objects/8410/salt?ctx=67c69eee36f190eee977b93e5765a0cc5a4a8efb&idx=206
-
just putting this here because the design of this bowl, the sturdiness and shape of it, reminds me of some Russian glass items. The cutting reminds me of the cutting on lots of things but combined with the cutting on the base underneath, it reminds me mostly of the red glass flask, right hand in this picture (see Seite 7 von 41 Seiten):
https://pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2019w-chukanova-maltsov-pokal-1903.pdf
This is about Maltsov glass but it's seems to me, from the uranium glass becher also featured in that picture, that the colour of the uranium glass is different. Anyway, leaving it here for comparison info.
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport-co/finger-bowl-davenport--co/
That said, there were two visits I could find:
- Dinner in St George's Hall, Windsor Castle, for Tsar Alexander II of Russia. 14th May 1874
- The other from Tsar Nicholas II later in 1890s. I think a visit to Balmoral and a family visit rather than State.
Neither were held at Guildhall.
Also, I don't think this would explain the curious U rather than V on the engraving as if it were family wouldn't it be even more likely they would ensure the V was a V as per the Monogram.
-
Talking of the U shaped V on the engraved monogram on the V&A clear glass plate and uranium glass bowl, this piece linked below is from what I understand earlier than 1839 (from Saint-Louis) and the engraving doesn't look the most sophisticated however the V definitely looks like a V:
https://laterreestunjardin.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Cristal-Saint-Louis-4.jpg
Source - https://laterreestunjardin.com/cristallerie-saint-louis/
That UR of the monogram is inexplicable.
-
ref the monogram UR v VR
This is a silver snuffer tray in The Royal Collection Trust dated apparently to 1839-40 - the monogram V is definitely engraved as a V
https://www.rct.uk/collection/47725/snuffer-tray
-
For future reference just in case it becomes linked/important:
A uranium glass butter dish base c. late 1840s Rice, Harris Islington Glass
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,73283.0.html
-
ref the monogram UR v VR
I think they have just copied the v from a cursive script.
-
just dashing out but in case I lose it
It could have been taken from something called Round Text hand or Round text alphabet.
https://pennavolans.com/the-family-of-english-round-hands/
-
Yes, if you look at some of the charts used to teach penmanship, where each letter is shown separately, some of the vs look just like the v on the bowl and plate.
For fun, some Czech and German examples (German at the bottom), although 20th century:
https://typomil.com/2007/01/normalizovane-skolni-pismo/
-
I need to look into it more but in the example page I linked only the 'Round Text Hand' has a CAPITAL V written in the way of the bowl and plate.
The other two don't. And all the examples I can find (not many admittedly) have her V written/inscribed etc with a pointed base.
It's odd. There's something odd about it.
-
A Davenport china plate produced for the banquet 1837 in link below. They knew how to write a V for the cypher/monogram. It has a point.
https://www.bonhams.com/auction/22840/lot/124/a-davenport-royal-banqueting-plate-circa-1837/
-
Yes, if you look at some of the charts used to teach penmanship, where each letter is shown separately, some of the vs look just like the v on the bowl and plate.
For fun, some Czech and German examples (German at the bottom), although 20th century:
https://typomil.com/2007/01/normalizovane-skolni-pismo/
The V on the left of the last examples on your link is very similar, more similar than my Round text alphabet link. Specifically the little loop on the top right of the U/V seen on the bowl:
https://typomil.com/typofilos/wp-content/obrazky/normalizovana-lat-nem3-big.jpg
The bowl:
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport--co/?carousel-image=2016JR2220
-
This article is from:
Source -
glassmaking-in-London.co.uk Industries
LONDON GLASS CUTTERS & ENGRAVERS c.1793
by Peter Lole (Article from Glass Circle News no. 78. 1999, p. 6)
http://www.glassmaking-in-london.co.uk/industries
It is regarding 1793 and 1794 (so 40 odd years before the bowls were apparently made for the Coronation banquet), and obviously the glass industry must have changed in the next 40 years of course - e.g. see the note regarding the drop in proportion of Excise Duty paid by London as a proportion of the whole English sum 40 years after 1793. However, it's interesting regarding the number of people listed as glass-engravers as a proportion of the whole (very few) and for the fact that at that time 'London had half the Glass Engravers listed in the whole of England.'
'The most suprising feature was that clearly London in the early 1790s was still by far the most important domestic Glass centre in the country. It had more than twice as many cutters as the rest of England put together, and half the Glass Engravers listed in the whole of England. It had almost a third (19 out of a total of 66) of the Glasshouses and Glass Manufacturers listed, but forty years later the proportion of Excise Duty paid in London had dropped to only 2% of the total English sum of £680,000. (See: C.R.Hajdamach: British Glass 1800-1914 Pp 413-41) But this note is really directed only to Cutting and Engraving.'
It's possible things changed drastically in the intervening 40 years and the number of glass engravers increased but it's quite surprising how few engravers there were listed.
-
There is no definitive information on page 287 and 288 or in the book, that Davenports made all the glass for the QV banquet at the Guildhall.
The authors do make the question when discussing provenance and other details:
page 291
'With this warning in mind, what glasses can be attributed to Davenport? One answer is that with absolute certainty only those marked Patent.'
Quotes from page 288:
a) 'As was remarked in Part One, the splendid occasion must surely have given great satisfaction to John Davenport, though alas there is no correspondence to record it. At the time of the Banquet, the firm was trading in his son's name as William Davenport & Co. There remains a slight element of doubt as to whether all the glass for the Royal Banquet was actually made in Staffordshire. Ronald Brown has found references to Powells, the Whitefriars Glass Works, supplying Davenports with glass in the period 1835-1837. It is just possible that through the London showroom some of the many thousands of pieces supplied to the Guildhall were actually made in London.'
The book then goes on to make the following comment:
b) 'Even if this were the case it would not apply to the decorated wares used at the Royal tables. These, and surely some still exist, would be that truly rare item, a documented example of Davenport glass.
There is one interesting piece of information on page 291:
c) 'Also on the list is the name of Cyrus Hill who is noted as a glass cutter. Mr Brown has researched this man, and it appears from the testimony of his descendents that he was 'the chief designer for Davenports in the period 1850-1865'. Very recently Cyrus Hill's recipe notebook and certain glass and ceramic items have been presented to the Victoria and Albert Museum. These include prototypes of glassware said to have been designed specially for the state banquet given by Queen Victoria.'
Notes from me:
1) It seems the order to Davenports to supply the china and glass was made on the 13th October for a Banquet on the 9th November. They supplied (also in the book and according to the Staffordshire Advertiser for 11November 1837) 'by Monday past'. That implies that at least in the space of a maximum 27 days they supplied many thousands of pieces of china and glass for the banquet.
but then:
On page 289 the following quote after discussing the 1843 report on Children's Employment to Royal Commissioner Samuel Scriven:
'A fascinating glimpse into the Glass Works and it's organisation. We know of no other document which gives the precise size of the Works at any period. It does not seem to be too charitable to suggest that on this evidence Davenports Glass Works was a well-run and orderly medium-sized enterprise'.[/b]
Would a medium sized business be able to make all that glass in 27 days? Is it unlikely?
2) Powells Whitefriars took over Whitefriars Glass Works in 1834 and as far as I know were not glassmakers at the time. Not entirely sure what kind of glass they would be supplying to Davenports in 1835 to 1837 just a few years later if they took over the glassworks untrained? I suppose it could also include stock already there when they took over?
There is nothing definitive in the book to say they definitely were supplying Davenport
3) re this comment in my quote a) above:
' ... It is just possible that through the London showroom some of the many thousands of pieces supplied to the Guildhall were actually made in London.'
it is also possible that some of the many thousands of pieces supplied to the Guildhall were actually made in Bohemia or Germany. We know from Hale Thompson silvered glass that Mr Drayton was importing glass from Germany to silver at that time (link here but there are other links to reports in that thread):
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,65670.msg390015.html#msg390015
So there were many imports coming in. Therefore it has to be a possibility that London showrooms were selling Bohemian and German glass as well I would think?
4) I'm not entirely sure how this comment in the book can be asserted:
'Even if this were the case it would not apply to the decorated wares used at the Royal tables. These, and surely ....'
I understand the reasoning behind this thought. I should think it reasonable that Davenports would like to think Her Maj was drinking from one of their glasses especially if they were going to all the effort of gathering this massive collection of china and glass together.
However, unless it can be proven they were making topaz-coloured hock glasses and topaz-coloured finger bowls which were according to reports, used for the top table, then I don't know how this assertion can be made?
5) Regarding Cyrus Hill - would someone noted in the 1851 census as Glass Cutter (also mentioned in that paragraph) have access to recipe books about the batches?
The book quote doesn't actually say they are batch recipe book, just calls them 'recipe books'. I was just wondering what they might be.
6) It also notes in the book of the report from the Staffordshire Advertiser for 11 November 1837 ':
The decanters, claret jugs, Champagne, Hock, and other glasses, are all richly cut, and ornamented with a vine border, varied with the rose, thistle, and shamrock, and the Royal Arms.'
Once again the question - would an engraved crown with a U R engraved beneath it and the emblem of the Guildhall engraved elsewhere on the bowl, be classed as 'The Royal Arms'?
7) Finally it's interesting that, regarding the banquet, the book notes:
'As was remarked in Part One, the splendid occasion must surely have given great satisfaction to John Davenport, though alas there is no correspondence to record it.'
I think it's reasonable to question:
a) whether those uranium glass finger bowls were in the first instance ever made by Davenport glass at Langport / Longport ? (I've seen this reported as both spellings)
b) whether they are actually the 'topaz-coloured finger glasses' referred to in the description of the banqueting glass for the top table in 1837 ?
I don't know if I've put this information in the thread already but in addition to the authors of the above book noting:
'7) Finally it's interesting that, regarding the banquet, the book notes:
'As was remarked in Part One, the splendid occasion must surely have given great satisfaction to John Davenport, though alas there is no correspondence to record it.''
... the attached photograph shows the Annual Register of Deaths 1848 of the death of John Davenport. Much detail in there on the stained glass made by Davenport for Dukes and Marquesses of various houses but no comment at all on Queen Victoria City of London banquet glass: