11
Glass / Re: Info on James Powell Topaz glass - "The Queen Victoria Topaz bowl"
« Last post by flying free on Yesterday at 07:18:31 PM »Thank you Cagney
I feel as though I'm going round in circles sometimes. I do, however, feel that
each time I reread a previous document, I've learnt and understood a little bit more about what it actually means/how it was written.
On the bottom of page 702/703 of that Ure Dictionary 1853 link there is what I found a VERY interesting description of staining of red glass for stained windows because it relates to the use of ruby (gold and copper) during the Great Exhibition period.
I have also read contemporary reports that the Bohemians were producing ruby in 'ready made cakes' and selling it (to be used for casing I guess?). So I've always wondered, when we see reports of the UK makers producing ruby glass in the great exhibition, whether in fact it was cased with the 'ready-mades' supplied from Bohemia (or Germany?). i.e ruby glass was not something the UK makers were producing themselves from their own recipes.
The same might apply to uranium but slightly different, in that it was refined ready for use then shipped out/supplied maybe by Wenzel Batka? I don't know about why in the US they may have wanted to procure uranium oxide from France. I feel almost sure that the uranium supplies were coming from Bohemia. So I wonder if France had found a way to refine it for use early on? (see my green Baccarat tumbler c.1840) i.e. the French weren't dependent on buying in a fully final use refined product? The French refined it themselves at the final stages and their refined product was a preferred product in the eyes of the US makers. OR it was political/trade agreements dependent making it preferable to buy from France, nothing to do with quality.
I cannot remember the year when the uranium mines production in Joachimsthal were formalised into a national company and started trading on that basis but it was around the 1850 period I think.
From the depth of my memory I seem to recall reading that Johnson Matthey were suppliers in the UK. Perhaps US preferred Whitman/Paris?
Just as aside - is Whitman the same Whitman stamped on the bottom of the pink fishscale glass vases I wonder? GS Whitman maybe??? wracking my brains.
I agree about the design elements of the bowl being seen in the other items in the linked Apsley Pellatt catalogue. They are quite regency in design really. And no, I've not come across a similar style in Bohemian glass. My first thought would have been Russian glass to be honest or French.
Then we also have the little issue of Mrs Graydon Stannus at Graystan glass producing 'best regency Irish cut glass', just 100 years later but selling it as original pieces (
perhaps she got hold of uranium and did a little post Banquet engraving? - Joke, no quotes please)
Which leads me onto something I've commented on previously:
- Was Apsley Pellatt stocking imported glass items, as well as those produced at Falcon Glass Works, in his showroom along with china from producers elsewhere in the UK? Despite the design elements not ringing any bells with me with German glass or Bohemian glass, could these have been produced there to Pellatt's designs but in uranium glass and imported?
- Or could these bowls have been produced at a later period than 1837, perhaps at Falcon Glass Works (given the similarities in designs elements) once they'd found a secure way to produce uranium glass that didn't fall apart?
Because so far there is no corroborating evidence that Davenports produced the glass and china for the 1837 banquet as stated in the Mirror. There isn't even any corroborating evidence that Davenports actually supplied the glass and china for the 1837 banquet except for the report in the Mirror.

each time I reread a previous document, I've learnt and understood a little bit more about what it actually means/how it was written.
On the bottom of page 702/703 of that Ure Dictionary 1853 link there is what I found a VERY interesting description of staining of red glass for stained windows because it relates to the use of ruby (gold and copper) during the Great Exhibition period.
I have also read contemporary reports that the Bohemians were producing ruby in 'ready made cakes' and selling it (to be used for casing I guess?). So I've always wondered, when we see reports of the UK makers producing ruby glass in the great exhibition, whether in fact it was cased with the 'ready-mades' supplied from Bohemia (or Germany?). i.e ruby glass was not something the UK makers were producing themselves from their own recipes.
The same might apply to uranium but slightly different, in that it was refined ready for use then shipped out/supplied maybe by Wenzel Batka? I don't know about why in the US they may have wanted to procure uranium oxide from France. I feel almost sure that the uranium supplies were coming from Bohemia. So I wonder if France had found a way to refine it for use early on? (see my green Baccarat tumbler c.1840) i.e. the French weren't dependent on buying in a fully final use refined product? The French refined it themselves at the final stages and their refined product was a preferred product in the eyes of the US makers. OR it was political/trade agreements dependent making it preferable to buy from France, nothing to do with quality.
I cannot remember the year when the uranium mines production in Joachimsthal were formalised into a national company and started trading on that basis but it was around the 1850 period I think.
From the depth of my memory I seem to recall reading that Johnson Matthey were suppliers in the UK. Perhaps US preferred Whitman/Paris?
Just as aside - is Whitman the same Whitman stamped on the bottom of the pink fishscale glass vases I wonder? GS Whitman maybe??? wracking my brains.
I agree about the design elements of the bowl being seen in the other items in the linked Apsley Pellatt catalogue. They are quite regency in design really. And no, I've not come across a similar style in Bohemian glass. My first thought would have been Russian glass to be honest or French.
Then we also have the little issue of Mrs Graydon Stannus at Graystan glass producing 'best regency Irish cut glass', just 100 years later but selling it as original pieces (

Which leads me onto something I've commented on previously:
- Was Apsley Pellatt stocking imported glass items, as well as those produced at Falcon Glass Works, in his showroom along with china from producers elsewhere in the UK? Despite the design elements not ringing any bells with me with German glass or Bohemian glass, could these have been produced there to Pellatt's designs but in uranium glass and imported?
- Or could these bowls have been produced at a later period than 1837, perhaps at Falcon Glass Works (given the similarities in designs elements) once they'd found a secure way to produce uranium glass that didn't fall apart?
Because so far there is no corroborating evidence that Davenports produced the glass and china for the 1837 banquet as stated in the Mirror. There isn't even any corroborating evidence that Davenports actually supplied the glass and china for the 1837 banquet except for the report in the Mirror.