Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Jay on March 31, 2008, 07:05:01 AM
-
I need to improve my vocabulary so that I can describe my glass collection better, and like a previous poster I'm not finding it online.
I'm working on a system which will identify (some of the) patterns in Dutch stemware (wineglasses and tumblers).
I will need to describe each tiny feature!!
'Bowl', 'stem' and 'foot' and 'rim' aren't too tricky! (and their usage can be intuitive), and I can describe the colours, engravings, etc.
However I will need to develop more detailed terms for all the other characteristics and features.
What's the name for the 'join' between bowl and stem (or stem and foot)?
Stems come in all shapes including 'baluster' stems: (They bulge at the top or in the middle or at the bottom of the stem). Is there any established vocabulary for describing their proportions, etc?
Stems might be cut or faceted, sometimes they have an extra 'feature' added at the top and/or bottom of the stem.
Any words for this?
Are there any standards for describing curves and parabolas which could be made to function for this sort of purpose?
Are there ANY words which can be used usefully without conflicting or becoming obscure.
'Recurve' 'flared rim', 'egg-shaped', 'pear-shaped', 'convex'. I'm finding it very hard to determine whether is any real standardised useage.
Of course, I can always be inventive and make my own definitions but would much prefer to find an existing and proven 'methodology'.
Perhaps there is an author whose descriptions of glassware are clear, and whose technique is worth imitating?!
-
Don't you mean not more than 100 words ;D. I don't know much about glasses but in writing about old glasses, there seems to be defined terminology for stem and bowl shapes. Maybe there is something in Frank's glass study to help
-
Miller's Antique Glass, Mark West, ISBN: 9781840002829 is a good resource for terms. Also Great-Glass.co.uk contains some good definitions:
http://www.great-glass.co.uk/glass%20notes/drink.htm
I'd also support Christine's suggestion to subscribe to: www.glass-study.com
Sorry, I've run out of words... ;D
-
Nobody loves a critic but actually the great-glass page rather shows my problem. (of course I'm not trying to describe 18th or even 19th century glasses ;-))
Sometimes the words seem to refer to ariel/plan view of the object, sometimes to the profile view? Are the illustrations defining the 'foot' to be applied to the internal shape or the external shape? (This pairing of inside and outside shapes is not necessarily associated in the same way for Dutch glass, e.g. a 'terraced' external profile often has a solid foot!)
Likewise, I am supposed to an see an eggshape in the illustration 'Ovoid'? Which end of the egg? The bottom part of an egg is spheroid, isn't it? Am I trying to find an egg-shape inside the bowl or on the outside of the glass? When does it stop being spheroid and start being ovoid?
The pics are not very helpful since they don't indicate what part of the illustration is being referred to.
What is 'stepped' about? what technique or shape is being shown in the blurred illustration? This is a description of an exterior profile feature?
I'm not sure how 'ogee' as shown here compares to the usage of the same term for furniture?
I looked at a couple of miller publications without finding anything relevant at all.
I suspect my question is unanswerable, or better said, that it is impossible to standardise terms and meanings that are already quite loosely defined, and I'll have to start on a (more strictly defined) vocabulary of my own, to make it fit for purpose. :(
-
The terms are mostly defined by auction houses and borrow heavily from furniture and architecture. The vocabulary is fairly established. I am not aware of any illustrated on-line guide to the terminology and would recommend you get a number of books on the subject. American terminology is reasonably well catered for but for English you would be best to buy in as many of the older titles as you can afford in order to get a full understanding.
This is one of the cheaper ones with copies on Abebooks at just under $100 http://www.glass-study.com/cms/index.php?option=com_jombib&task=showbib&id=1438
Generally with this area the books you need tend to be rare as the collectors are eager for them. Education is not free.
There are about 70 titles listed in the bibliography but that is incomplete. In due course some of the rarer titles will be digitised in the Glass-Study.
-
What is the purpose of your descriptions, and the audience?
I would think you might want to use a more recent reference than the 1926 one Frank cites, though I don't know how much the terminology has changed.
You might try going to a museum site. Often if they provide online access to examples from their collections, they also show the descriptions they use in their own catalogues, which are quite detailed. This is a search for "goblet" on the Corning Museum of Glass site (under "Browse Collection"):
http://www.cmog.org/collection/info.php?page=0&v=1&s=goblet&type=all&t=objects&f=&d=
Of course, that's American terminology, some of which is different from British English.
-
This is a lot better, and restricts itself to definable terms.
I'm trying to devise a 'matrix' so that people will be able to identify their Dutch stemware (which is a total of perhaps 500 patterns but if I can guide people to identifying the most popular 80 of them from a text based search of the database then I'll already be a happy man!).
-
I was advised that Bickerton* is the standard for terminology and usage in the UK trade, and the shapes of bowl stem and foot shown on all the glass sites that cater for old drinking glasses are all taken from Bickerton.
Eighteenth Century Drinking Glasses by L M Bickerton. Now out of print, I got mine from Abe books secondhand.
-
This is another of those fascinating subjects that crops up within the GMB from time to time.
My own limited experience has shown that there has been much variation in what is presented in "regular" literature. For example the following gives a comparison of numbers of types of Bowl, Stem, Knop and Foot illustrated or described in three not-quite-random selections from my (small) collection of books, with the Great Glass website also included:
Glass Through The Ages - E. Barrington Haynes - 1949 (revised 1959)
Bowl ... 28, Stem ... 23 (includes Knop), Foot ... 12
Eighteenth Century English Drinking Glasses, An Illustrated Guide - L. M. Bickerton - 1971 (revised 1986)
Bowl ... 14, Stem ... 16 (includes Knop), Foot ... 6
An Illustrated Dictionary of Glass - Harold Newman - 1977
Bowl ... 22, Stem ... 30, Knop ... 24, Foot ... 19
Great Glass website - Philip and Ann Petrides - 1999 to present
Bowl ... 15, Stem ... 10, Knop ... 12, Foot ... 6
From just those few references it is clear that there is much variation in numbers covered but it is not easy to understand why some forms were, or were not, included. One thing that has puzzled me (but which I have never tried to follow up) is whether or not the difference in numbers between Haynes and Bickerton gives a true reflection of "English" vs "Other".
However, the Foot illustrations in Great Glass are actually the same as shown in Bickerton's book. Therefore the point that Jay rightly makes about a solid terraced foot is answered by the fact that both Great Glass and Bickerton show only "18th C. English" forms. I have made this comment not to specifically answer Jay's question (which may well have been rhetorical) but to show the sort of problem that can arise when researching information from limited sources.
But who amongst us has a full set of literature from which to draw inspiration? Frank's Glass Study is impressive but, as he says, is incomplete. And I am sure that Adam Aaronson won't mind me saying that, having seen (some of) his collection of books on glass, I realised how lacking my own collection was, and still is. :)
On the general question of what is it that is being described in text or images, I believe it has always been the case that it is the external form. Where an internal element is of particular interest it has usually been described as an additional aspect - such as the capacity of the bowl of a "toastmaster glass" (also described as a "deceptive bowl") or the shape / size of a "tear bubble" in a stem.
-
And since this is my current area of interest, let me tell you I am finding it a minefield...
when is a sherry a port or is it a small wine?
When is an ale a dwarf or a short?
When is a deceptive really a penny lick?
What makes a funnel a funnel and not a trumpet?
and as for balusters, light balusters and balustroids.....
years of handling glass that is what it all takes......I am not sure I have enough time left....
-
I imagine some of the problem may "stem" from the fact that different manufacturers (and historians and authors) used different terms for the same thing. You will find plenty of synonyms, as I'm sure you're aware! Maybe it would be easiest to choose a group of terms from the many available that you think covers the range of your glass features adequately, and offer a glossary of those.
What are penny licks?
-
What are penny licks?
The Wikipedia defintion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_lick) is probably as good as it gets, but I am not convinced about the "disappointment" bit. The comment about the glass appearing to have more than it actually held is also said to be the case for a "toast-master glass" - so that the toast-master did not get as drunk as everybody else but appeared to be taking the same amount! I have to say that when I put some orange drink in that type of glass there was virtually no "deception" at all - it just looked like the same glass with a small amount of drink in it! So maybe not all those glasses were up to the job!
However, since I do like to question things on occasion ...
... Why is it that in my books on old(er) glass (including some by American authors), the term "Penny lick" does not appear? Even Newman's Illustrated Dictionary does not include it, and that book covers many things from many places. Was it perhaps just a "novelty" American thing? Is it a more recent term that has been applied to 19th C items?
-
Here's what I found on penny lick from this page http://www.ice-cream-recipes.com/ice_cream_glasses.htm (http://www.ice-cream-recipes.com/ice_cream_glasses.htm).
It was the growing commercial ice trade in the 19th century that meant populations of towns and cities could be introduced to ice cream as a new and special treat - the ice cream vendor. These ice cream sellers could keep their ice cream chilled and fresh to offer people and and in the UK they used small glasses for a taste at a penny each. These became known as 'penny licks'. However, as the penny lick became established as a popular treat, it became clear that hygiene was also an issue to be considered. The 'penny lick' glasses were simply wiped clean when handed back before being re-used! So, in the interests of public health, they were (sadly) banned in 1926.
-
Interesting that it says penny licks were banned in 1926, as my mother who was born later than that, remembers them still being used in Lancashire when she was a child in the 1930s.
-
Maybe they were allowed to be used in the Icecream parlours that had facilities for washing them, whilst the icecream vendor with a cart could not?
I believe that the commercial production of wafers also helped end them for the cart vendors, as the wafers and cones were much lighter and took up less room than the glass.
-
More likely the penny lick, being a 'deception' glass was not considered legal.
-
I knew that I wouldn't be the only researcher facing these questions! ;-)
However, I was also thinking that the forum here gives us a unique opportunity to do some standardisation.
The shortcomings of previous attempts are rooted in the fact that a single author with a single approach ends up very specific in some areas whilst omitting others entirely.
Their own bias creeps in! For example; who decided on 'inverse baluster'? Which way is up?
and David who decides when it constitutes a 'deception' and when it's just a small portion?? LOL!
If we want to use terms like 'ogee' then we need a clear understanding of how this relates to the way the term applies in furniture.
If we make references to egg-shape or eliptical, recurve or convex, then we need to use the same vocabulary as readers and other authors.
In this forum we have the DIVERSITY of disciplines which might make the task worthwhile, and allow our collective researches to be in a more standardised and (therefore interactive )form ?!
The only audience I care about communicating with is the present company, not some 80 year old tome which is gonna be totally out of date in it's useage and context (?!)
-
Variety is the spice of life.
-
Maybe they were allowed to be used in the Icecream parlours that had facilities for washing them, whilst the icecream vendor with a cart could not?
Heck Lynne, I don't think my mum ever went in an ice cream parlour as a child, it was always off the cart. I'm seeing her later in the week though so shall ask her some more about this. Where she was raised was a poor Lancashire cotton mill town - I don't even think there was a cafe there when she was young!
-
When I was at Portobello one of the neighbouring stalls was a specialist in novelties including Penny-licks, they are a huge collecting field with immense variety.
-
Anne said:
Interesting that it says penny licks were banned in 1926, as my mother ... remembers them ... in the 1930s.
That's a good point. If the Internet is used as a source of info on "Penny licks" different versions of "facts" and dates can be found but input from people who actually used the items can often open a discussion even further.
Jay said: The only audience I care about communicating with is the present company, not some 80 year old tome which is gonna be totally out of date in it's useage and context (?!)
Oh dear! I find that sort of view to be very negative as it suggests a complete dismissal of all earlier sources, whether they are correct or not. Also, the information presented by people in this board is surely heavily influenced by the "80 year old tomes" (as well as later lieterature using the older details). If we ignore the earlier definitions and descriptions, all we are left with is brand new thinking. But this discussion clearly relies on older terminology, otherwise, why raise all the questions about it.
Perhaps, Jay, you should present a full list of completely new, modern names and descriptions to cover all aspects of the glassware you are considering. Then other GMB members can discuss them but with full disregard to any existing terms and finally they can be ratified and made known to the world as "Jay's glass terms as agreed by GMB members". Yes, I am being rather flippant, but with a serious point in mind - inventing new terms where existing ones are adequate (albeit needing some clarification in some cases) is not the way to go.
Frank said, about the "Penny licks": ... they are a huge collecting field with immense variety.
Now that's the sort of comment I like to see. I admit that my knowledge of "Penny licks" is very limited and my initial comment / question about the lack of info on these items in glass books (the ones I have) is still something for which I would like to learn more. Given the "huge collectng field" of these items, is there any specialist literature that covers them? There is certainly nothing obvious that I can find online.
-
Hi,
I was just about to compose a reply when I was warned that there was a fresh posting - Kevin's.
Oh dear! I find that sort of view to be very negative as it suggests a complete dismissal of all earlier sources, whether they are correct or not. Also, the information presented by people in this board is surely heavily influenced by the "80 year old tomes" (as well as later lieterature using the older details). If we ignore the earlier definitions and descriptions, all we are left with is brand new thinking. But this discussion clearly relies on older terminology, otherwise, why raise all the questions about it.
I fully agree Kevin.
Let's not try to re-invent the wheel here! For instance there are already a huge range of accepted terms for different types and shapes of knop, and the shapes that may connect them to another knop, or to the bowl of the glass.
Yes, terms such as 'ogee' do have a relationship to furniture and hence architecture, as you suggest Jay, however I fear that the only way to fully understand these sorts of relationships is to get hold of copies of the books you (sadly) seem to dislike, read 'em and gain the understanding you need for the task you describe. I seriously doubt there is a short cut to achieving this - particularly not surfing the Internet, since the information your require doesn't seem to be out there in the form you need it in.
Unfortunately, my experience of this board is that there are no regular contributors who fully understand the terms you need through their own collecting or dealing, so although we may be able to piece things together, who is there to confirm the validity of the conclusions, unless they are well established terms? Once they are out of the general remite I feel we may create terms that have already been established elsewhere. Maybe we can coaxe someone out there to help?
Perhaps on a more positive note, maybe finding and talking to reputabe dealers who know this period of glass and who use the terms, having learnt them from others and/or done the reading may help be far more to you.
By the way 'Bickerton' was re-printed by the Antique Collectors Club sometime ago and I've even seen copies of it at reduced price book stands at fairs in the UK.
Nigel
-
I was being slightly inflamatory, guys. mea Culpa. (but I'm probably gonna inflame again) mea maxima culpa!
However the point I was trying to make was that I cannot be restricted to a vocabulary that was written before the emergence of the relevant technical developments.
My main use for it would actually be that I would carefully avoid any conflict in names or definitions.
In the early days of the 'common market' there were endless meetings to agree standards, from the sizes of screws to the naming of roads. Now we see the benefits of this systemisation. I'm just pleading for a 'standard dictionary' or glass wiki! so that we can improve our descriptions for the next generation. Where there are conflicting definitions then they can be 'moderated'!
('ogee' seems like a good example! of a term which can't just be adopted without an explanatory definition/derivation.)
IMHO...
If Bickerton is the preferred 'standard' then it should be diseminated by internet (by this board?), and if each member of this forum is expected to search for an original copy and pay through the nose for it, then it won't be the standard for very long, methinks ?!
(Out on a limb on my own, but singing a happy tune!)
P.S. Kev, there's bound to be a very obscure old book about penny licks somewhere (I've met several collectors, myself) which you can pay a fortune to try and obtain, but I note that your first thought was to look online! ;-)
-
Bickerton - yes mine is the ACC version - this is a fully revised edition, with lots more pictures than the earlier one. Not messed about, but properly revised by Bickerton. Cost about £35 through Abe books, and worth its weight in gold.
-
Excessive dissemination through the GMB would potentially impact copyright. Unless the terms are quoted in response to particular questions and give the source.
To achieve what you want to do and put it on the Internet can only be done, with any authority, by studying 80+ year old books so that suitable judgements can be made on the roots of terms and how their use has developed and changed over time. Additionally for the Internet you will need to include UK and American terminology. Collecting drinking glasses was the main area of glass collecting and study over a long period and remains a sub-world of glass collecting that largely ignores the 20th century. The web is riddled with resources that have not been well researched and there is no substitute for doing a job well.
The reason that many of the terms are meaningless to many people is largely cultural and that there is not a significant body of on-line collectors of this area.
A Glass-Study member has just commenced a project to address the motif's on cut glass - this study will not only be based on existing collecting literature but also original manufacturers descriptions. The project will not be a short one as it involves wide consultation and will conform to the appropriate standards. It requires, as with all good research, no special skills but an enthusiastic interest in the area and readiness to study a lot and to take advice from those more learned.
-
However the point I was trying to make was that I cannot be restricted to a vocabulary that was written before the emergence of the relevant technical developments.
Ah, that seems to suggest that your lists would use new vocabularly for each and every new technical development for which a term or description is not already covered in the existing literature. Sounds like a task that is even more complicated than I imagined by just inventing new terms. :)
'ogee' seems like a good example! of a term which can't just be adopted without an explanatory definition/derivation
Newman's Illustrated Diictionary of Glass ... gives: "Ogee - A shape or ornamentation in the form of a double curve, as in the letter S. It is sometimes continued to form a DOUBLE OGEE." Is that a reasonale defintion?
If Bickerton is the preferred 'standard' ...
I don't think it is considered as any sort of standard for terminology. It was just (probably) the best work of its time in covering a whole range of English drinking glasses. The terms used in the book were not invented (as far as I can tell) by Bickerton - and in any case, I have already shown that Bickerton has fewer terms described than in at least one of the older books, so it can't be regarded as a "standard".
P.S. Kev, there's bound to be a very obscure old book about penny licks somewhere (I've met several collectors, myself) which you can pay a fortune to try and obtain, but I note that your first thought was to look online! ;-)
Well, I had said that I looked online, but that was not my "first thought" - my first thought was, "Is there a book covering "Penny licks" and showing examples?". Do you still have contact with any of the several collectors you have met - and, if so, could you ask them if such a book exists?
-
I don't think it is considered as any sort of standard for terminology. It was just (probably) the best work of its time in covering a whole range of English drinking glasses. The terms used in the book were not invented (as far as I can tell) by Bickerton - and in any case, I have already shown that Bickerton has fewer terms described than in at least one of the older books, so it can't be regarded as a "standard".
Kev, when I asked the antique glass valuer at the auction where I bought my glasses what she recommended, she advised me to get Bickerton, as that was the book that was now treated as a standard by the collectors and antique glass dealers. May not be the case, of course, but interesting that was the only book that she was prepared to recommend. The fact that it is so copiously illustrated is very useful, as there are so many slight variations to consider.
-
... that was the book that was now treated as a standard by the collectors and antique glass dealers ...
I believe it was regarded as "a new standard reference work" for 18th C. drinking glasses, but not that the terminology contained was any sort of standard. That's a good example of how information gets "distorted" by innocent word of mouth and subsequent interpretation - nobody is "wrong" in what they say or understand but the real facts are not fully passed on. [This assumes, of course, that my own belief is correct!]
Edited to correct spelling errors - posserbly not awl of them!
-
I think in the end, with most terminology not just glass, that certain things acquire "standard" status just because a majority of people find the term descriptive and/or useful, and use it to the exclusion of other terms.
For example, I would be much more likely to refer to a pontil mark these days than a punty, although in theory the two terms should be equally useable ( edit: shouldn't they? or am I wrong?). Somehow punty just doesn't sound right to me. Ithink it is just that I have heard pontil more often and my ear is now attuned to it.
-
Depending on who you speak with (and which country has been the major influence on their vocabulary) "Punty" should strictly be used only for the iron that is used to gather the glass. The mark left after detaching the glass from the punty is regarded by some glassworkers as simply a part of the finishing - and may just be described as "unfinished".
However, "punty" seems to have been based on "pontil" (from the French) but was not adopted in all English-speaking countries, hence "pontil" continued in use, or has since superseded "punty" where that was used.
But you are right about the point that many terms, like "pontil mark", have become a standard - at least amongst collectors. It's interesting that "pontil mark" has a 9-line description in Newman's book, but "punty" was excluded as if it never existed in any of the sources he used!
We have discussed "punty" and "pontil" elsewhere in the board. Here's a couple of instances where those working in the glass industry have commented:
"Unmelted, melted or double melted?" (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,579.0.html)
"Glass Technology - The Pontil or Punty" (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,19621.0.html)(In that message, there is a comment by Ivo that neatly sums up what I believe is current thinking on the subject!)
-
A book gets termed 'a standard' work when the quality of the research contained is considered to be of the highest standard available at the time, not because it is popular.
-
A book gets termed 'a standard' work when the quality of the research contained is considered to be of the highest standard available at the time, not because it is popular.
Agreed, but I am also referring to general terminology that becomes adopted by the general populace simply because it suits a purpose at the time. What was a DVD before it was just a DVD... I can't remember what the initials stand for now, it is just a DVD, like a compact disc is just a CD to many people... (I can at least remember that one...)
-
Jay I think whatever terms you choose you will need to define them so that your readers see what you see, so why not use those already well defined such as ogee. Baluster is, apparently, less well-defined shapewise in the wider world, so there you could perhaps opt for tear drop or inverse teardrop. I think perhaps you need to minimse your terms but use adjectives to widen their scope
-
Im reminded by a sketch with Rowan Atkinson, 'Not the 9 oclock news' when he talked about a
Flange of Baboons, made up for the sketch, the term is now in general use ;D
Andy
-
LOL Baboon is SUCH a Rowan Atkinson sort of word... I can hear him saying it..
BaB-Booon
lovely explosive consonants... ;D
-
But this discussion is about one of the oldest areas of glass collecting with terminology defined by generations of collectors and scholars. Creating a web page with newly invented terminology would only result in derision.
-
But this discussion is about one of the oldest areas of glass collecting with terminology defined by generations of collectors and scholars. Creating a web page with newly invented terminology would only result in derision.
I don't even think that much attention would be spent on it. Derision requires a modicum of effort. New terminology would simply be ignored.
-
New terminology would simply be ignored.
Hmmm, not entirely! I included, in 2004, in my web pages, for a particular paperweight (http://www.btinternet.com/~kevh.glass/pages/VasartSpecial/MixedConcentric.htm) :"The terminology may or may not have already been used, but I have chosen to refer to this design pattern as a "Mixed Concentric".
I have seen the (possibly) new term "mixed concentric" used twice now by other folk!
-
Of course it should Kevin, from your stable!
-
New terminology would simply be ignored.
Hmmm, not entirely! I included, in 2004, in my web pages, for a particular paperweight (http://www.btinternet.com/~kevh.glass/pages/VasartSpecial/MixedConcentric.htm) :"The terminology may or may not have already been used, but I have chosen to refer to this design pattern as a "Mixed Concentric".
I have seen the (possibly) new term "mixed concentric" used twice now by other folk!
I think the point is that there was an obvious need for the new term, and the fact it has been used shows that it was useful and descriptive, and so filled the gap.
I do think that there is a need for some new extensions to the terms for some of the stem and bowl shapes.
-
... the fact it has been used shows that it was useful and descriptive, and so filled the gap
I take the point, Lynne, but with my pedantic hat on, I have to say that just because a particular terminolgy is used, does not mean it was necessarily useful and descriptive.
The collective noun "Flange" for Baboons, as mentioned above, is a case of something that has become accepted without regard to whether it was even true, let alone useful! It was just assumed to be ok because somebody else had said it! Baboons already had at least two "meaningful" collective nouns (*) in the words "Troop" and "Congress".
(*) three if we include "Tribe" as well - depends where we look for our research info.
-
These disagreements and misunderstandings are typical when you get a 'globule' of glass collectors
together ;)
-
I thought we were a gather of glass collectors, Andy? >:D
-
Jay,
I have been following a few threads in the Events section of the Board and, on scrolling down I found your entry in which you give a link to your site. My apologies for not visiting it before!
I now realise that the idea of Bickerton et al might well not entirely suit your purposes, although I am sure that you would glean useful terminology from them. I think some of that terminology could be adapted and extended to your needs.
Failing that you might find useful terminology, or descriptions, used by the manufacturers themselves in Trade magazines from pre and post war that could put you on the right track. Sadly, if it's like the UK, you will have to locate a museum with a good collection of these and plough through them since they don't come to the market often and when they do they're not cheap.
I do not believe what you require has been done for 20th century drinking glasses, so I suggest basing anything that you may consider introducing on existing terminology as it will give it continuity and help its validity through an associated 'familiarity'.
I have a suspicion that what you thought was a simple idea is about to turn into something quite complicated and potentially valuable to the glass world. I certainly recognise the symptoms from projects I have embarked upon myself :huh:
Nigel
-
Well there were three museums in NL with an interest in glass and they are all closed (one will re-open at the end of next year (perhaps).
I've spent years already tying to get any reader access to the collections, but just get ignored.
I've been told that much of the material was destroyed by fire.
To the best of my knowledge I have all the published works, anyway (except for the deceased and missing catalogues).
The material which has been published is all in Dutch, so of limited use for English. (Catalogues were usually just line drawings and cat. no's).
The Dutch vocabularly could be translated in some cases but would contradict the English terms all too easily, especially if I don't have a decent list of 'previously defined terms' to work from (avoid) at the beginning. (Dutch authors hadn't read Bickerton!)
Finally I'm just a bit niggled that the request for information has resulted in everyone talking about books which are not available online (actually, in practical terms for me, impossible to consider obtaining), but whose copyright is apparently still asserted if you want to decribe a 100 year-old object.
Personally, I very much doubt whether this part of information (in Bickerton) is liable to copyright (although the pictures might be), Likwise, quotation in review, with clear attribution to the source would seem to be enough? (Otherwise we're back in the realms of banning the word 'orange' because it's been copyrighted by a telephone company!; and I'm sure everybody is familiar with the 'Macjob' decision, saying a term that passes into common useage can no longer be protected by copyright!)
Does Bickerton assert copyright-ownership of 'barley-twist stem' I wonder?, does that means we can't use it anymore??
Or that we can only use it if we own his book????
My question was therefore 'what terms do people here recognise as being in GENERAL (and specific) use, and can we agree on a definition between the assembled members?'
Excessive dissemination through the GMB would potentially impact copyright. Unless the terms are quoted in response to particular questions and give the source.
I'm not sure why Frank suggests that the lack of 'specificity' in my question is a good reason not to answer it?!
I'm well aware that we all stand on the shoulders of giants!, but sometimes I feel it's like listening to the voice of God... and then, just at the end, he whispers "But of course you mustn't repeat this to anyone!' LOL!
(Thanks to all giants here present!)
P.S. Surely the collective noun is an 'epergne' of glassaholics!