Glass Message Board

Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: Heidimin on October 11, 2008, 11:55:00 AM

Title: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: Heidimin on October 11, 2008, 11:55:00 AM
I've been going through the material David and I collected during our visit to the Alexander Hardie Williamson collection at Broadfield House earlier this year, and I think I can shed some new light on the connections between Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen and United Glass/ Sherdley mentioned in previous threads here (search on Clayton Mayers) and in Chris Stewart's excellent article on Davidson and Clayton Mayers: http://www.cloudglass.com/ClaytonMayers.htm (http://www.cloudglass.com/ClaytonMayers.htm).

Clayton Mayers were a firm of importers and distributors. One of their best known and most successful ranges was Jacobean, produced in what is now the Czech Republic by Vienna-based company Josef Inwald, which they started importing to the UK in 1923. In 1932, when currency fluctuations and new tariffs made imported glass unsustainably expensive, Clayton Mayers commissioned Davidson to make Jacobean in the UK. More detail in Chris's article and also in Glen's article here: http://www.geocities.com/carni_glass_uk_2000/Jacob2.html (http://www.geocities.com/carni_glass_uk_2000/Jacob2.html). Chris says that:

Quote
In 1962 big changes occurred at Clayton Mayers. H. G. Mayers retired as chairman at the age of 76. Johnsen & Jorgensen, another wholesale supplier of glass (founded 1906), bought a substantial stake in Clayton Mayers. Johnsen & Jorgensen sold a wide range of glassware including Sherdley. It the early years of the century they were best known for making jars and decanters; some of their designs were registered ... The company announced that it was to expand into the new field of high quality decoration of domestic glassware ... New lehrs were also introduced to improve the enamelling process of decorating glass.

Intriguingly, there are some Jacobean items in the AHW collection: photos of jug, tumblers, bowls and sundaes among a set of photos of AHW designs for Sherdley and Ravenhead (see below), plus some items of glassware and some design work.

There is also another connection. A March 1963 article in PGGTR on Revolutionary production methods at Clayton Mayers' factory shows a picture of two goblets decorated with screen-printed stars captioned 'Stardust' in the new 'Monarch' range, as well as some pictures of the glasses being decorated using a new and very advanced lehr. The distinctive shape is identical to Sherdley's Merrymaker range, almost certainly designed by AHW and produced from 1960 - 1962, both plain and screen-printed with fleur de lys and later vine motifs: pics at http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-9312 (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-9312), http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-7324 (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-7324), http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-9271 (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-9271) and http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-9213 (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-9213). Although Merrymaker was marketed by Sherdley and the decoration most likely applied at the Sherdley factory, the blanks were almost certainly produced by United Glass' other subsidiary Ravenhead, which was set up after WWII to produce stemware.

The text of the Clayton Mayers article says that:

Quote
New designs of tumblers and wine glasses have been devised by Mr. A.H. Williamson, A.R.C.A., M.S.I.A., and will be produced exclusively for the company by United Glass Ltd. It is these high quality lines which will mostly be used as blanks in the decorating shops.

So it sounds like J&J used their stake in CM to establish a link between CM and AHW (who was actually employed by J&J rather than United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead until the late 1960s) and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead.

One question this raises is whether after 1962 United Glass also produced Jacobean and possibly other glassware for CM? Any views from the Davidson experts?
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: Anne on October 11, 2008, 02:22:53 PM
Fascinating Heidi, it all helps build up a picture of who did what and when.  :clap:

I'm just wondering if the Jacobean in the images you included is the later machine-made glassware, as it looks quite different from the earlier stuff I have? I seem to recall someone telling me that there are quite big differences between the earlier hand-pressed and later machine-made Jacobean items. Perhaps that's where UG came in?
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: Heidimin on October 11, 2008, 03:18:01 PM
Thanks, Anne. It's all so fascinating...

According to Chris's article, the move from hand-pressing to automated production came at the start of WWII:

Quote
Part of the success of Jacobean was its low price and high quality. Clayton Mayers were always looking for ways to keep the price down and at the start of the war they turned to making machine-made Jacobean glassware. The switch to machine-made Jacobean meant that there had to be some small changes to the design. A side effect was that the machine made glassware was lighter and, they said, of a higher quality than the hand pressed kind.

Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhe
Post by: Sklounion on October 11, 2008, 05:19:19 PM
Hi Heidi,
Chris's comment above is a little misleading, as Clayton Mayers, were for the most part wholesalers. Thus the decision to change to machine-made would have been made by Davidsons, in response to requests for lower production costs from Clayton Mayers. As Davidsons by then employed the grandson of Josef Inwald, they would have had some-one to hand, J.K. Inwald, Edler von Waldtrau, to help with making changes to the mould design.
Regards,
Marcus
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhe
Post by: ChrisStewart on October 11, 2008, 06:16:58 PM
Hi Marcus

Chris's comment above is a little misleading, as Clayton Mayers, were for the most part wholesalers. Thus the decision to change to machine-made would have been made by Davidsons, in response to requests for lower production costs from Clayton Mayers. As Davidsons by then employed the grandson of Josef Inwald, they would have had some-one to hand, J.K. Inwald, Edler von Waldtrau, to help with making changes to the mould design.
Regards,
Marcus

My comment is not misleading and is correct. The descision to go to machine made Jacobean was made by Clayton Mayers, not Davidson. As Davidson only made handmade pressed glass, the move to machine made glass cost them the business.

The source of this information was a from a lengthy Pottery Gazette article where Clayton Mayers talked about the difficulties and length of time taken to get a new machine made line up and running. I'm afraid I do not have the reference to hand, but I think it is April 1957.

Altough Clayton Mayers were a wholesaler they also commisioned their own designs. For example Eric Mayers started the design of the Claymer range in 1953 and it took until 1957 for the first design to role of the production line. A tumbler in this range won a Council of Industrial Design award.

We must not forget that Clayton Mayers were an innovative company and introduced many new marketing techniques and ideas as well as new ranges in glass and pottery. They even patented new packaging technology!

Regards

Chris
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: Heidimin on October 11, 2008, 08:28:51 PM
Quote
As Davidson only made handmade pressed glass, the move to machine made glass cost them the business.

Oh that's interesting, Chris. Do you know who took it over?
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhe
Post by: Sklounion on October 11, 2008, 09:59:03 PM
Hi Chris,
I am not being argumentative. :)

I was making a serious point, in that Clayton Mayers themselves had no production capacity.
So any decisions made by CM, refers to production from other companies, not their own production units.

Ok, Clayton Mayers commissioned glass, but that does not imply that they had production capability. The same could be said of Wuidart.

Quote
Clayton Mayers talked about the difficulties and length of time taken to get a new machine made line up and running
. Does this actually refer to their own production facilities, or the units from which they were purchasing glass?

Imho, we need to be certain that we do not attribute, via loose interpretation, a role that goes beyond what a company actually did.

Respectfully,

Marcus
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: ChrisStewart on October 12, 2008, 11:00:02 AM
Hi Marcus

Imho, we need to be certain that we do not attribute, via loose interpretation, a role that goes beyond what a company actually did.

Isn’t that what you were doing when you said:

Thus the decision to change to machine-made would have been made by Davidsons, in response to requests for lower production costs from Clayton Mayers. As Davidsons by then employed the grandson of Josef Inwald, they would have had some-one to hand, J.K. Inwald, Edler von Waldtrau, to help with making changes to the mould design.

You were making assumptions about the relationship between Clayton Mayers and Davison and also the capabilities of Davidson. Clayton Mayers owned the moulds and presumably they felt that making the range machine-made would cut costs. As Davidson did not then have any capability to make machine made glass then naturally they would have looked elsewhere. Davidson did not feel the investment in automatic glass machinery was worthwhile or they did not have the money to invest. We do know that when Claude Fraser died in 1959, Davidson was loosing money. Perhaps Adam could comment on this?

Interestingly, although Jacobean production moved elsewhere, Davidson must still have been making some pieces of Jacobean as a few Jacobean moulds did go to the Pricing Committee in the early 1950s.

The Pottery Gazette article did not make it clear whether Eric Mayers commissioned the design of ‘Claymer’ or designed it himself. I would not be surprised to learn that he did the design himself.

When talking about the difficulties of setting up a new line, I think they must have been talking about the glasshouse that was making the line for them. I do not believe they had their own glass making facilities, although they did have a small furnace at the North London headquarters for experimentation.

In my research I have not found out who made the machine made Jacobean line or how to tell it from Davidson or Inwald Jacobean glass. Intriguingly Clayton Mayers did say in the article that they had to make some slight changes to the design for an automated production line. If we new what these changes were then perhaps the machine made Jacobean could be easily identified.

Regards

Chris
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: Anne on October 12, 2008, 11:38:21 AM
Cross-referencing to Tony's earlier discussion on CM and Davidson:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,1800.0.html
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: Frank on October 12, 2008, 02:30:15 PM
Website is running now http://www.jjpack.com/our_pedigree.htm gives 1884 as their start date beside the Thames.

oops meant to tag that on to the other thread. Perhaps the two threads can be merged...
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: Heidimin on October 12, 2008, 03:50:53 PM
As regards who took over making Jacobean, United Glass (Sherdley and from 1964 Ravenhead) have to be a candidate - they certainly had the machinery. I only managed to go through a fraction of the design work in the AHW collection, so there may be more clues there. I'll keep a sharp eye out next time I manage to get up there.
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: ChrisStewart on October 12, 2008, 04:56:13 PM
Hi again,

In my previous post I mentioned that some Jacobean moulds were put to the pricing committe in the 1950s. Here is the list:

Style Number   Description                   Date
      
7268                Dish 4 1/2 to 10 1/2      1951
7273                Honey                         1952
7276                Tomato dish                 1952
7279                cream                         1952
7280                Sugar                         1952
7354                Jar 4 inches                 1952
7711                Ash Tray                     1954
8121                Salad Plate                  1953
8560                Mustard                      1952
8747                Candlestick                  1953
9051                Biscuit                        1952
9055                Tray Triple                   1952
9140                cruet                          1952
9360                Cream                         1952

Regards

Chris
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhe
Post by: Sklounion on October 13, 2008, 06:31:40 AM
Hi,
The probability is that many of the answers and much of the information is in this archive:
United Glass company records etc 1856-1976, GB/NNAF/B25085, held at Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies, Hertford.
Although flagged up on GMB, some three years ago, I have not the best geographical location to visit it easily.
Regards,
Marcus
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: Glen on October 13, 2008, 06:46:20 AM
My knowledge of 'Jacobean' is focused on the earlier production, so I can't add much to this discourse. I can, however, say how interesting it is. Thanks to all involved.

Glen
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: Adam on October 13, 2008, 08:42:00 PM
Chris - You asked for my comments re the situation at Davidsons when Claude Fraser died.  I knew even less about their overall financial situation than I did about that at Sowerbys, which wasn't much.  However, they were certainly hard up and, at the sharp end, there were critical repairs in the factory not being done.  I would be astonished if there were any capital available for anything, and most certainly not for anything like auto production.

Re Clayton Meyers, at that time and for the following couple of years until I left, considerable numbers of toughened tumblers were still being made but nothing else.  I assumed all the tumblers went to CM, but I could be wrong on that.

Adam D.
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: Heidimin on October 13, 2008, 09:03:44 PM
Quote
The probability is that many of the answers and much of the information is in this archive:
United Glass company records etc 1856-1976, GB/NNAF/B25085, held at Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies, Hertford.

Hi, Marcus.

Yes, it's been on my hit-list for a while too. Your post inspired me to check on-line, but I can't find anything via their search facility (either company name or catalogue reference). Before I contact them direct, can you tell me where you got the information from? (I tried A2A and didn't get any relevant hits either.)

The good news is that I've discovered that Hertfordshire Archives are open on Saturday mornings. So that destroys one excuse for not going up there...
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhe
Post by: Sklounion on October 13, 2008, 09:23:06 PM
Hi Heidi,
I think that when I posted this on the board, I had been checking acquisitions made by the National Archives and the Historic Manuscripts Commission. The thread in question was this one:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,2415.msg17729.html#msg17729
Regards,
Marcus
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhe
Post by: Sklounion on October 13, 2008, 09:37:02 PM
Adam wrote:
Quote
Re Clayton Meyers, at that time and for the following couple of years until I left, considerable numbers of toughened tumblers were still being made but nothing else.  I assumed all the tumblers went to CM,
That would be much as expected, Adam, as this would have been a licensing issue, negotiated by CM and Davidsons, early in 1940. Crystolac toughened tumblers distribution was exclusively a Clayton Mayers issue.
Regards,
Marcus
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: Anne on October 13, 2008, 10:04:01 PM
Adam, can you add anything about how the tumblers were made please? If this was a big wartime contract for the NAAFI the numbers would have been immense, were they really all produced by hand-pressing?   :o  What sort of daily production would there be and how many people would it take to produce so many?
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhe
Post by: Sklounion on October 13, 2008, 10:54:50 PM
Quote
Clayton Mayers were always looking for ways to keep the price down and at the start of the war they turned to making machine-made Jacobean glassware.

Asking for a time out here....

definitions are not clear....

So define what we understand/they meant by machine-made....

The changes in the Czech industry of the period, was between presses such as the manual Kutzer press in use since 1909 or earlier, to hydraulic presses, which occurred @ 40-50 years later...
Automatic lines appeared in the mid-1950s.

Definitions, and accuracy is essential to our understanding, and this requires that we cannot assume automatic or semi-automatic production lines, came into use, and I remain to be convinced that this change came in the early years of WWII. I would be surprised if major new technological developments for the production of domestic/utility glass would have been allowed, when military production was given precedence.

Regards,

Marcus
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhe
Post by: Frank on October 13, 2008, 11:20:10 PM
... I would be surprised if major new technological developments for the production of domestic/utility glass would have been allowed, when military production was given precedence.

It would make sense for production of wartime essentials, machines freed up able men!
Quote from: Glen
...the pressed glass team could turn out between 5000 and 7000 tumblers in the same time that the blowers could produce 500.

From her article on Thomas Graham (http://www.scotlandsglass.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=35). Bear in mind that rate also includes the impact of a c1970 development in moulds.
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: Adam on October 17, 2008, 02:14:14 PM
Anne - Been off the board all week - just seen your question.  Reply in a day or two.

Adam D.
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: Adam on October 18, 2008, 06:56:02 PM
Anne - First, I confirm that there was never, at Sowerbys or Davidsons, any pressing other than by hand up to "my" time and I would be 99% sure about later too.

Toughening (aka tempering) can perhaps be looked on as the opposite of annealing.  Instead of removing most stresses high stresses are deliberately introduced by suddenly cooling the slightly soft glass.  Cooling can be done by jets of air (e.g. Jobling and vehicle side and rear windows) or by dropping into a bath of hot oil, which is what Davidsons did.

A normal "melted" shop did the job.  (Anne, for any new members interested, I've forgotten how to do a link to my posts on the subject in Nov/Dec 2004 - help, please!).  The melter used a normal chair, raised slightly, and the bath of hot oil was adjacent.  When he had finished the tumbler he simply tapped the punty to drop the tumbler into the oil bath.  If there wasn't a loud click it was probably still in one piece!  Baskets in the bath could be lifted out, drained and taken away.

Toxic, and now illegal, solvents cleaned off the oil.  First rinse with, I think, xylene followed by vapour bath treatment with trichlorethylene.  They were then quarantined in a warehouse for x days (about two weeks I think) by which time all those about to explode had, hopefully, done so.  Someone in the past, perhaps J K Inwald, must have worked this out.    At some stage they would have been inspected and very lightly ground on the bottom to remove punty scale.  I'm a bit vague here as my day-to-day responsibility was only for the hot parts of production.

We only had one oil bath, and I saw no sign that there had ever been more although there could have been. We therefore only used one shop, who specialised in toughened tumblers although not full time. and therefore the maximum possible output at the time would have been 5 3/4 shifts, a week's work.  I couldn't guess how many weeks p.a. we did.  Now the tricky bit.  I think (getting a bit vague now) that 1000 per shift at the press would not be far off, a little less for bigger sizes.  Nothing anywhere near a pint at that time.  I haven't a clue what the loss rate after that was.

So far as number of people goes, at my end there were seven, the (lehr) taker-in being replaced by the oil basket man.  All subsequent work would be done in bits and pieces by the normal finishing staff of women and I couldn't guess on that one.  Hopefully someone had it all costed but, as I'm sure you all know by now, I knew even less about that side of things at Davidsons than at Sowerbys.

No, Anne, I can't understand either how a profit could have been made at a sensible price - it probably wasn't!

Any follow-up questions welcome - I'll do my best.

Adam D.
 
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: Anne on October 19, 2008, 03:02:24 AM
Adam, thank you. :clap: That's really helpful to being able to understand more of how things happened. I shall mull it over and see if I have any more follow-up questions I can tax you with.  ;)

Meanwhile, these are the links to your previous posts Press Moulds and Unmelted, melted & double melted as requested, for anyone who missed them first time around:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,570.0.html
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,579.0.html
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: ChrisStewart on October 19, 2008, 11:24:36 AM
Hi Anne

Adam, can you add anything about how the tumblers were made please? If this was a big wartime contract for the NAAFI the numbers would have been immense, were they really all produced by hand-pressing?   :o  What sort of daily production would there be and how many people would it take to produce so many?

During the 1940s Hughes, one of Davidson's men could produce 1800 tumblers in a turn (source Davidson production records).

The Sunderland weights and measures office stamped 26,500,00 tumblers between 1939 and 1945 (source Pottery Gazette)

During the war Jobling had a large NAAFI contract. As they did not have the men to meet the contract they tried to poach Davidson workers by going to the Board of Trade and arguing that they needed workers more than Davidson. Fortunately for Davidson they were unsuccessful! (Source: Davidson company minute book).

Regards

Chris
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhe
Post by: ChrisStewart on October 19, 2008, 01:29:07 PM
Hi Marcus,
Quote
Clayton Mayers were always looking for ways to keep the price down and at the start of the war they turned to making machine-made Jacobean glassware.

Asking for a time out here....

definitions are not clear....

So define what we understand/they meant by machine-made....

The changes in the Czech industry of the period, was between presses such as the manual Kutzer press in use since 1909 or earlier, to hydraulic presses, which occurred @ 40-50 years later...
Automatic lines appeared in the mid-1950s.

Definitions, and accuracy is essential to our understanding, and this requires that we cannot assume automatic or semi-automatic production lines, came into use, and I remain to be convinced that this change came in the early years of WWII. I would be surprised if major new technological developments for the production of domestic/utility glass would have been allowed, when military production was given precedence.

Regards,

Marcus

The article in the PG does not defined what is meant by machine made glass. The exact quote is:


.. The Jacobean range grew and grew into 250 different articles up to the beginning of the war. At that time, although supplies were becoming difficult, the company began to introduce machine-made Jacobean glassware, and this side of their activities is now predominant.

As the target audience for the article was the glass trade, they would have known exactly what was meant by machine made. The article goes on to say:

…. the Jacobean designs have not altered very much in that time, although the ware re-designed for automatic production is a good deal lighter than the older version. The principal alterations in this pattern have been in mould-making techniques, and in the quality of the glass.

Taking the two quotes together machine made seems to mean some form of automatic production line and indeed the change started to take place around the start of the war. The quote says that machine made Jacobean is now predominant, which supports my earlier post where I show that some moulds were still going before the pricing committee and so presumably were still being made by Davidson.

It is not really possible to say from Davidson’s production records when this transfer occurred as Davidson’s production changed due to the war. What is interesting is that Davidson production records list over 200 different Jacobean moulds, but they only actually made about 80 of these designs and in the early years of Jacobean production it was as low as 40.

You also said in your post ‘when military production was given precedence’, but don’t forget that foreign currency was equally important to enable us to buy food and armaments. Therefore goods for export had priority over goods for the home market and so increased production of a popular line like Jacobean would have been a good source of foreign currency.

Regards

Chris
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: Frank on October 19, 2008, 02:50:52 PM
There were some fully automated systems in the 20s, but most of the container industry used hand or semi-automatic presses. Developments really started in the 1890s and there was a steady trail of progress. While container production was the initial driver of machine development, it was the light bulb that became the main driving force in innovation - without it there would not have been sufficient glassblowers in the world to meet the rapid growth in demand of the 1920s.

As far as the industry would have been concerned, at any point, there was a simple distinction of hand blown and machine blown. Probably got complicated when the use of hand-made was applied in marketing for almost any level of machine made apart from full automation.

There have been some historical studies written but within the confines of SGT and similar organisations as, for the most part, there has been little interest in the collecting world in such details.
Title: Re: Clayton Mayers, Johnsen & Jorgensen, AHW and United Glass/ Sherdley/ Ravenhead
Post by: Anne on June 30, 2010, 03:01:50 AM
Hi,
The probability is that many of the answers and much of the information is in this archive:
United Glass company records etc 1856-1976, GB/NNAF/B25085, held at Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies, Hertford.

This reference has now been changed and the new ref is GB/NNAF/C116999.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/nra/searches/subjectView.asp?ID=B25085