Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: chloe on October 31, 2008, 11:48:48 PM
-
Hmm, no photo as of yet as battery is charging but I have a double sweetmeat dish with the Davidson Lion mark to the centre of each dish, and the pattern appears to be that named the 1895 Pattern. Yet, I also read that the lion mark wasnt used after 1890.
Have we an annomoly (sp?) here or could anyone offer an explanation?
Thanks
Chloe
-
Chloe — Don't believe everything you read.
It is quite natural for all commentators on what happened in the past to take a limited amount of evidence and use it to build general theories, which to many become fact. I am quite sure that the glassmakers of a century or more ago would be highly amused by many or even most of the conclusions about them and their work that we build today.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Very true, but both these 'facts' came from the Scotland Glass website, run by a member of this board whose comments seem very knowledgable
-
Why would Davidson Glass be covered on Scotland's glass website I wonder? Davidson were an English firm.
Chloe, how's the camera batts doing? If we can see a picture we may be able to add more. :)
-
sorry - brain freeze - I mean the Cloud Glass site!
-
Ok - here is a very rough photo - not sure if you'll see the lion mark - there is one in the centre of the 'star' of both sides
-
Chloe — I've just checked the two obvious sources, Thompson and Stewart & Stewart. Thompson gives 1880 – c.1890. Stewart & Stewart notes that the last Pottery Gazette ad showing the TM was October 1890, but that ad was the last in the PG for a long time, and that the TM was resurrected in the late 1960s after the takeover by Abrahams. So we don't really know when Davidson stopped using the TM the first time around, so your observation is interesting, and I've pencilled a note to that effect in my working copy of Thompson. Note that year suites may have been developed the previous year in time for Christmas.
My own observation is that the 1960s TM, possibly in two sizes, is a little spikier than the Victorian one, as though it had had a Prince of Wales dragon as one of its ancestors, and that it was only used on some moulds intended solely for the production of Marble glassware, launched in 1964 according to Stewart & Stewart, much of which was sold into the antiques trade.
Please would readers note that I am looking for a Jobling 2598 ash tray in Marble, complete with Jobling Reg No (800714) and Davidson/Abrahams lion. I had one years ago, didn't understand it, and sold it. Now I would very much like to check it for other reasons. I don't need to buy one, although it would be rather nice, but just to check it. A full clear set of photographs from every angle would be ideal (26 photographs in all — from top, angled down, side, angled up, and bottom of all four sides and corners).
Bernard C. 8)
-
Ahhhhh I have moments like that too Chloe! :cry: Cloud Glass makes more sense. ;D
It looks like the 1895 pattern for sure - hopefully Chris Stewart may pop along and be able to add more info for you about the date anomaly. 8)
-
Ampersand - Have you resized your pictures to make sure they aren't too big? I make mine 400 pixels as the maximum dimension (I think)
Bernard - re. your initial point, it reminds me of something I was musing about last night. I was looking at listings of items with 40 year circa time periods and thinking that in 100 years someone could be confusing items from the 1960s with the 1980s!
-
... It looks like the 1895 pattern for sure ...
Anne & Chloe — It doesn't to me. It doesn't look like any of the year suite patterns I've found, in the book and on the website.
I've erased my margin note.
... Bernard - re. your initial point, it reminds me of something I was musing about last night. I was looking at listings of items with 40 year circa time periods and thinking that in 100 years someone could be confusing items from the 1960s with the 1980s!
Why in 100 years? I have that difficulty right now! ;D
Bernard C. 8)
-
Apologies, 1896 not 1895 - Bernard, look on page 141 top right (Stewart and Stewart) , rd no 254027 - that looks like the same pattern on a different shaped item as Chloe has. Page 138 of the same book gives design no 254027 as the 1896 suite (5th item down in the table.)
-
aha - the corners are wrong for 1895 - I see now.
I do not have a copy of Stewart & Stewart - off to see if I can find an online picture
-
Anne & Chloe — See here (http://www.murrayam.supanet.com/davidson.html) for two examples of 1896 Suite/254027 which show the pattern rather more clearly than that Pearline cream, and you will see it's not that.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Hi,
Your dish is not the 1896 pattern (Rd 254027), but from a design which dates 1880 - 1890. It is a No 812 divided sweetmeat dish.
Regards
Chris
-
Fabulous! Thanks for everyones help :)
-
Hi Bernard,
My own observation is that the 1960s TM, possibly in two sizes, is a little spikier than the Victorian one, as though it had had a Prince of Wales dragon as one of its ancestors, and that it was only used on some moulds intended solely for the production of Marble glassware, launched in 1964 according to Stewart & Stewart, much of which was sold into the antiques trade.
As well as two sizes, sometimes the lion is facing the wrong way round on these 1960s marble items. Also I’m afraid you have misquoted us. In the book we did not say that much of the marble glass was sold to the antiques trade. We did quote the Pottery Gazette who said:
‘Antique dealers love it, laymen were not quite sure and Americans thought it great’
Regards
Chris
-
... Also I’m afraid you have misquoted us. ...
Chris — Thanks for the PG quote, which I had missed. Please note that I had not quoted you at all, and that I had sourced just the launch date from your book. In particular, my comment about the range being sold into the antiques trade was based on market place parallels I have found over the years between Davidson and Walsh deceptive reproduction ranges. I had thought that my precise punctuation had made that clear, but I could have worded it rather better, splitting those few words off into a separate sentence, and so my apologies for any distress I seem to have unwittingly caused you and Val.
Incidentally, by pure coincidence, I have on its way to me my first example of Walsh deceptive repro illustrated in the Hill Ouston catalogue pages shown in Hajdamach, although this example is acid-etched WALSH, and so this particular example cannot be classed as deceptive repro, if you see what I mean! It's the boat-shaped salt on a square foot shown in the third row down of Plate 369, and it's important as it provides a manufacturing attribution for all the glass illustrated on those two catalogue pages.
Regards,
Bernard C. 8)
-
Anne & Chloe — See here (http://www.murrayam.supanet.com/davidson.html) for two examples of 1896 Suite/254027 which show the pattern rather more clearly than that Pearline cream, and you will see it's not that.
Bernard C. 8)
Bernard thank you, that's so much clearer to see the difference - those corner mitres weren't evident in the other illustration hence my misconception.