Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: glassobsessed on September 22, 2021, 06:52:39 AM
-
Found this the other day, the engraved RD lozenge is so clear it was almost disappointingly easy to decipher! A little over 2 inches tall.
According to the info on the Great Glass website registered by Thomas Webb (26th Feb 1876, parcel 9).
John
-
very unusual - sorry to seem thick John, but why the bluish effect?
T/Webb were granted two separate Registrations that day - 298626 and 298627 - both parcel 9, and both are shown in Gulliver as side elevation, but only half of each hat is drawn - no idea where the author sourced his drawings - not I don't think from the Board of Trade drawings which show both in full outline, unless Gulliver decided to save space by reducing the size of the drawing.
TNA Register omits any description of either, but Gulliver has written 'top hat' against 298626, and 'bowler' against 298627 - and this does look to be a good description bearing in mind the shape of each - and he describes these as 'flower holders'. As usual there is an absence of dimensions on the original factory drawings.
I hate to cast nasturtiums but is it possible this one has been pressed some time in the intervening years? I can post pix of the factory drawings if it's of any interest - let me know.
-
The bluish effect is caused by the rather cunning addition of pale blue glass, used in the trail around the rim and the 'double' band just above the brim of the hat. This one is definitely not pressed, the neat little polished pontil mark is the giveaway.
-
Interesting piece, makes a nice change to be able to read the lozenge ;D
-
Very nice find. Is it a toothpick holder?
Also that pale blue trail. I often see items with that colour trail attributed to Richardson or queried as at least, so it's good to have something with the blue trail and an RD for Webb.
Any chance of a pic against white so we can see the blue trail colour more clearly :-*
-
having just trawled through Gulliver, this combination of a clear body with (solid) pale turquoise rim etc., is almost non-existent - though there is a machine threaded water jug which he attributes - without provenance - to Hodgetts, Richardson & Son c. 1877. Is there any wear on the top of the hat John.
The only hat I can see in Hajdamach, is p. 389 (colour plate 46) - obviously lacking any marks - since the author says ........... " bowler hat, probably by Richardson's c. 1880 - height 2.3/4" .. "
I know I'm suspicious by nature, but I'm worried that this is a more recent production. :) How was this one sold?
-
Keith, I feel positively spoilt with such clarity! There is wear Paul, it was bought for a small sum of cash from a house clearance type dealer at a market (I trust my own judgement rather than a given seller's spiel).
It would be a toothpick holder if you put toothpicks in it... (sorry!), Paul mentioned earlier that Gulliver describes them as flower holders. I guess regardless of the intended use, assuming their was one suggested, that any utility rested with the end user.
-
Nice colour! It's a gem of a find :)
-
Hodgetts Richardson piece for comparison:
https://cdn.collectionsbase.org.uk/dmuse/st376.jpg
https://www.blackcountryhistory.org/collections/getrecord/DMUSE_ST376
-
sorry to appear thick m, but aside from the colour of turquoise, how does this help us in 'comparison' with the top hat? ;)
-
because finding easy online comparisons for people who don't have books so they can see what other makers were doing, or even compare to see if the identification of the other maker is correct (museums are not always right) is quite nice :)
Even if it's just comparing the colour of the pale blue. The pale blue trailing is quite unusual .
Lots of errors in museum identifications I find. So it's handy to have the comparisons to see if that 'Hodgetts Richardson' carafe may indeed be by Thomas Webb perhaps.
For example, this item in the V&A is only 'attributed to' Hodgetts Richardson:
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O5054/jug-hodgetts-richardson/
And there are differences to the jug trailing in the V&A and the goblet in the Dudley Museums collection as well. The type of glass used for the trailing perhaps, the goblet looks like opaline glass trails, the jug doesn't. And also that the jug appear to have been machine trailed, the goblet perhaps handtrailed although it's very neat. So the two 'Hodgetts Richardon' pieces might not both be by HR?
-
I refuse to be drawn into any kind of debate about opal, opalescent or opaline glass - I still have memories of our endless toing and froing the last time we went down that road ;) ;D I'd suggest that determining opaline in a turquoise shade - on the screen - is a very big ask ... it isn't simply turquoise coloured glass. As you will know better than me, opaline was a speciality of Baccarat (first half C19) though it was also big in the Gulf of Venice in the C17 - but certainly turquoise was one of the colours made in opaline, and the French were renowned for making the stuff. Usually in pastel hues, and some degree of translucence is essential which is then opacified by the inclusion of ashes of calcined bones and then metalic oxides for colouring. Unfortunately, so many folk seem to think that almost every piece of opaque coloured glass is opaline which does make for confusion.
Regret I can't comment on the veracity of museum exhibits - I have enough problems researching my charity shops finds, but take your word for it that they are knee deep in errors - I suppose we tend automatically to assume that as experts they're going to be 99% correct.
Coming back to John's top hat, and in comparison with your links, it does seem, as you've said, that turquoise was a colour used for trailing albeit rarely, though turquoise used for a solid trail for edge trimming - as on John's hat - seems non-existent, and it was in that sense I was a tad troubled. On the face of it John's hat is unique, at least until another pops up - so I'm prepared to go to a tenner John it that helps. ;) - but I'd suggest a very important find and well done.
-
From Paul above 'Regret I can't comment on the veracity of museum exhibits - I have enough problems researching my charity shops finds, but take your word for it that they are knee deep in errors - I suppose we tend automatically to assume that as experts they're going to be 99% correct.
'
No, I didn't say they were knee deep in errors. I said they were not always correct :)
Yes they are experts. However, many of the identifications or attributions were given a long time ago. They have not always been updated by successive curators as more detailed information has become more widely available by the publication of new books and online resources and theses etc. There are thousands of pieces of glass in the museums collections.
I'm going to add a new example of a query in the Glass section now. Look out for my 'Alexandrite' question :)
-
It appears from your post that you wrote ........... "Lots of errors in museum identifications I find." It's disheartening to say the least to realize this may be the case - I recall visiting the V. & A. occasionally for their drop in surgery/ID sessions, when (and I forget the main guy's name) was in charge (Rene something) - they had entire rooms full of books on glass no doubt funded by taxpayer's money, and we might have thought that level of research information could have avoided too many errors. I think there's an opening for you somewhere there. :-*
-
I did, and I do find lots of errors.
'Knee deep' though just sounds overly dramatic and more excessive than I meant to imply from my wording.
There are lots of books Paul, but equally many of the earlier books may contain incorrect information as well. Research was not as readily available/accessible as it has been in recent years.
The design/pattern books are really the only true source of reference however they are obviously not always available for all factories.
-
you're correct - I shouldn't use a literal expression in a figurative sense - it was just that you seemed to be implying the situation was dire - and I do so love OTT expressions ;D.
As to the other sources you mention - that's why I feel it's important to continue with TNA, as this is first hand original data from the horses mouth as they say.
-
not that it's relevant to John's top hat directly, but just remembered that Sowerby used turquoise - in solid trail form - on their Venetian Ware series manufactured c. 1880.
-
;D
The info you find from the NA is amazing. Without your efforts a great many threads on this board would not have back-up research.
Shame we can't all access the pattern books online really but I do love a piece of detective work :)
Good point about Sowerby!
-
Sowerby nuggets! ;D
-
I refuse to be drawn into any kind of debate about opal, opalescent or opaline glass
Made me chuckle and I wholeheartedly agree. ;D
The blue on the top hat is opaque with no hint of opalescence whatsoever, bit of a relief in the circumstances!
As it has been mentioned a bit of Sowerby Venetian.
-
thanks for posting that picture John - it's an attractive piece of Venetian ware.
-
It shows that there were at least a few companies using this kind of decoration. I guess it is possible that trailing like this was fashionable for a while, maybe made popular after a new development or a particular celebrated design. Pure speculation...
-
Stevens and Williams made a fair few bits covered in coloured threading. Mostly pink.
-
Sowerby seems to have used their turquoise "vitro-porcelain" for the rims, trails and prunts on their Venetian range.
They patented this type of glass in 1876 and made it in a number of different colours. On the Venetian glass I have the colour of the blue does vary, as does the colour and composition of the green base colour.
John's top hat is a nice well made little piece as you would expect from Webb. The blue banding seems to be slightly darker than on Sowerby Venetian.
John, as a matter of interest, for my research, do you have a piece of turquoise VP to compare the two colours?
-
didn't someone (Richardson?) invent an automatic trailing or threading machine or something?
Will check CH British Glass later and report back.
-
Definitely. Lustrousstone has a stunning little Webb lemonescent posy.
http://lustrousstone.co.uk/cpg/displayimage.php?pid=1
-
John, as a matter of interest, for my research, do you have a piece of turquoise VP to compare the two colours?
No I don't have any turquoise here, only piece I have at the moment is Opal.
-
I would have thought that turquoise VP must have been shown on the Board somewhere in the past - have you searched the archive? Looking in Ray Slack's book - page 54 - he shows two pieces which on the face of it might be assumed to be simply pale blue, and they differ slightly in intensity of colour.
-
didn't someone (Richardson?) invent an automatic trailing or threading machine or something?
Will check CH British Glass later and report back.
Now checked - page 273 Charles Hajdamach British Glass 1800-1914
'From 1876 glassmakers had the option of applying trailed decoration by using a machine. In that year William J Hodgetts, a partner in the firm of Hodgetts, Richardson and Son, patented his invention of a threading machine to speed up the hand process and ensure an absolutely regular spacing (Plate 262). The patent was registered on 6 May.'
There follows more information on various factories' inventions of threading operations. Charles shows photographs and gives incredibly detailed information on these machines and the similarities, variances and differences between trailing and threading.
I love this book!