Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: oldglassman on December 06, 2011, 05:48:37 PM
-
HI ,
Having recently liberated a few glasses from the famous Hubbard 17th and 18th c Glass Collection which was auctioned last week at Bonhams London ,some may be interrested in 1 or 2 ,
First we have an early airtwist ale glass,c 1740/50 ,for the moment I wont say much about it ,some features of this glass may generate some discussion,I will say that it is English ,full lead and as it was made. Bernard!, you may be interrested in the proportions, Height is 18.8cm or 7 3/8th inches , for those of us whose brains are still steam driven (like mine) , bowl width is 3 1/16th ins or 7.8cm the foot is 3 ins 7.6cm , the foot is quite original at that size for those who still believe that a Georgian drinking glass always has to have a foot wider than it's bowl, this is a good general rule but not hard and fast , as the many folded foot examples i also have with feet smaller than bowls, anyway a lovely glass in my opinion ,
lets hope some find it interresting,
Cheers ,
Peter.
-
HI ,
A press release on the sale ,
http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=52193
Cheers ,
Peter.
-
Very interesting Peter - I've not seen one before - particularly not *definitely* that old!
What have you used it for, so far?
-
It's lovely Peter. I love the way the bowl echoes the twist.
-
Peter, it looks like a good sturdy glass to drink from and a beautiful design. Would you use it? and a bizarre question, but how much does it weigh please?
Thanks also for the press release - incredible price for the Beilby piece :thud:
Obviously I have no knowledge of this type of glass.
m
-
So far it has not been used,but it will be,every glass that comes here is used once at least , some favourites regularly, the weight ? I dint find bizarre at all , and this ones comes in at 235 grams or 8.3 British ounces,(just in case there are some different ones),
Cheers,
Peter.
-
As for Peter's glass, well what can we say other than :mrgreen:, and what a daft question to ask whether he will drink from it - of course he will.
The stem I would describe as MSAT - multiple spiral air twist, and I might suggest the bowl is a wrythen trumpet pattern, and the knop is an inverted baluster shape. Below the bowl is what appears to be a conjoined merese and collar. The foot looks conical and I think Peter is saying it is without a fold, but I'm not entirely sure.
So far so good - there are acres of examples with air twists on wines, cordials and engraved ales - BUT Nowhere in Bickerton can I find a single glass with this complete combination of characteristics.
There are pieces from the very beginning of the C18 with wrythen decorated bowls - some with and some without flammiform fringes - but these appear to always be on short knopped stems and certainly without any air twist decoration, and nothing like the example here with the tall air twist stem. These are called short ales or just ales, and are always under 6" in height.
The same sort of bowl decoration appears to have continued well into the mid C18, but it seems they became more miserly, and these later examples are on what are described as rudimentary stems, and again are described as ales.
There are a couple of examples of air twist in Crompton which begin to get a little nearer to Peter's glass, but they don't go all the way, and are in fact described as wines.
Nothing of comparable design in Elville that I can see, and drawn a blank in Ward Lloyd (have you yet spoken to Ward Lloyd, Peter??)
So, it would appear that this combination of the height, air twist and wrythen decoration, is suggesting to Peter that he has something of a rarity, and may well make the process of dating this example more difficult. Of course I could be just getting carried away with imagination, but it does seem that this is a special piece, and please forgive the fact that despite seeming intelligent on C18 drinking glasses, I'm really very thick, and have just been indulging a bit of sneaky plagiarism, and filching from the aforesaid books :)
-
Hi ,
Paul gets the coconut :hiclp:
The bowl on this glass is the very rare feature , it is not merely wrythened ,which is how it was catalogued(wrongly), it is double gathered,'gadrooned', this along with the flare to the bowl rim is usually associated with late 17thc ale glasses,it is accurately described in the Hubbard collection book written by Ward Lloyd, it is also unrecorded in any other literature and to date appears to be a unique example of air twist with this form of bowl.
I saw Ward a few months ago and will be seeing him again in the New Year,blind as a bat and almost deaf but still loves the feel of a good glass and a good chin wag.
Cheers ,
Peter
-
Peter,
Congratulations for the fine stemmed glass acquisition
you made.
-
HI ,
Thanks to all for the comments ,
Here is glass N# 2
No surprises with this one, small but perfectly formed i would say, c 1770, a colour twist Firing glass,beautifully made and in pristine condition,Height is 4 1/8th ins (10.5cm) bowl is 1 11/16ths (4.9cm) thick firing foot is 2 7/16th ins (6.2cm), weight is 162grms or 5.7 oz .
Cheers,
Peter.
(more to come!!!)
-
thanks for sharing Peter. Firing glasses, in comparison with wines, ales, cordials are always much thinner on the ground, and I guess this may have had something to do with their dangerous life style, or that simply they were commercially less popular, so were not made in numbers. For those who may not be aware of the reason for the name....it comes, apparently, from the habit of using them for occasions of toasting when, in unison, they were physically banged hard on the table thus producing a sound resembling the 'firing' of a gun - or so the story goes.
You seem to have another winner here, insofar as Bickerton seems not to have seen one with this precise stem decoration which might be described as...........
SSCOWT i.e. single series colour and opaque white twist with 14-ply spiral band outside - which is a big mouthful for a small glass, but please correct me Peter if that is complete rubbish.
In Bickerton there are two firing glasses only (in the in the mixed and colour twist stem section) - both with green and white twists, but no mention of a red example - and I assume you are dating your glass solely on the date the author provides for his examples. Could yours possibly be an earlier date? Height wise it is more or less on the button.
Firing glasses are rather special at the best of times, and to have one with an almost unique stem decoration (including red) and in perfect condition, is well............just remember, please, if you do drink form this one, not to bang it on the table afterwards.
Anyway, congratulations, and again I think this is a rather special example. :)
-
Hi Paul ,
It would be described as a double series colour twist , the inner white corkscrew backed with red is 1 series the other is the 14 ply around , therefor a double series,
Bickerton unfortunately only illustrates a fraction of the variation of twist stems , see Barrington haynes for a more in depth breakdown of recorded twist forms , there are almost 200 i think ,red is not that uncommon but in this form quite unusual ,
Its generally accepted that Colour twists came later in the series of opaque twists and for convenience are usually dated to 1770 ish , though of course some could have been made a little earlier , and of course later ,but no later than 1780 ish I suspect ,
lol no banging on the table with this 1 , I have seen it done and the sad result lol lots of little bits of glass all over the table ,
Cheers,
Peter.
-
Keep sharing please :clap:
-
:hi:
Seconded - it seems as if you have acquired some serious treasures Peter - and I can't think of a better person to be their custodian. :sun:
-
I can............me for example ;)
apologies for getting the description of the twist wrong. I had thought that.... 'double' or 'single' twist series refered to whether the main opaque corkscrew (in your case the red and white opaque spiral), was formed as one thick combined thread (i.e. single series), or split into two separate threads (i.e. double series) - in my mind nothing to do with the 14 ply thinner strands. However, never mind, I got it wrong and I'm now confused anyway.
Hope you don't object too much to me adding pictures of my one and only firing glass..........and is there a particular significance to this hollow 'pedestal' type of foot - is it a ships firing glass possibly? - you can see the snapped pontil quite clearly, and the fact that I have dated it to c.1770 (?)
I wonder if the Mods. would prefer that your glasses are submitted as separate posts, it would certainly help future searches, and anyway......I always get told off if I put more than one piece in the same post ;)
Now looking forward to your next offering :)
-
Hi Paul,
Your foot type in known as a flanged foot , another type of firing foot , though not specifically a ships firing glass , Ships Glasses usually have exceptionally wide feet for stability in the high seas ,
Single Series twists are those that contain only one type of twist,ie a spiral gauze on its own or a multiple of identical twists , a pair of spiral gauzes or four spiral gauzes, a double series contains 2 types of twist ,ie a corkscrew with 2 threads around it, or a gauze with a multi ply band around it , 2 distinct elements to the twist , and occasionally you will come across a triple twist, once again though thought has moved on from both Haynes and Bickerton so some of the glasses which are described as single series twists in those publications are wrong.
you can see an almost identical dram to mine in Haynes ,plate 90 d ,with green as the colour , but i think more than likely from the same chair as mine .
I had thought of each glass being shown in a new post and if this is preferred I will do that for the next 1 ,if so could the mods change the title of this post to , Ex AC Hubbard etc glasses 1 and 2
Cheers ,
Peter.
-
... I had thought of each glass being shown in a new post and if this is preferred I will do that for the next 1 ,if so could the mods change the title of this post to , Ex AC Hubbard etc glasses 1 and 2 ...
Peter — I like the way this topic is proceeding, particularly as members are being disciplined about only discussing the latest glass to be posted. It is creating a most useful single knowledge resource on an important and readily identifiable small group of glasses. And it's both readable and fresh. I would like you to continue with your approach and for members to keep to the discipline they have shown so far by just discussing your latest glass. I can help create and insert an index at the beginning to allow readers to link to the discussion on any one glass, perhaps by just clicking on the glass they want in a panorama of the complete set.
If it goes awry we can always split it up later.
I will bring this up with my colleagues on the GMB Committee and seek their acquiescence.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Thank you Bernard, :thup:
Sounds like a very good idea,if you think there is enough interrest.
Cheers ,
Peter.
-
sincere thanks for all the guidance and help Peter.
-
dewibbled :)
-
Hi ,
Glass 3,
A C Hubbard like me is particularly fond of giant goblets,those of you who have already viewed my on line Goblet Collection which was exhibited at the Cambridge Glass Fair a couple of years ago will of course know this,so when the chance came to possibly acquire a couple of his monsters I was very pleased indeed , the hammer came down twice in my favour,so here is the first one ,
no great surprises for this 1 except the size and weight ,there is still much speculation as to the original use of very large goblets , some say they were for club use or even perhaps for ceremonial occasions like weddings etc where the goblet was passed from person to person to make a toast ,or the version I like ,they were for folks who liked a proper drink from a decent sized glass instead of the fashionable tiddly things that were most commonly used in the 18thc,
Credit must be given to the glass blowers who made these things,all that weight on the end of a punty rod and they still kept there shape.
It is a Heavy baluster Goblet c 1720 with a waisted cup bowl over a teared inverted baluster knop, basal knop,and a folded foot .
Height is 26cm 10 1/4 ins bowl width is 14cm 5 1/2 ins the folded foot is 16cm 6 5/16th ins weighing in at 1 kilo 462 grams or 3 lbs 3 1/2 Oz's with a capacity of 2 3/4 pints.,
it has a few light scratches to the bowl but otherwise is in perfect original condition. (it's not the biggest one i brought home)
Cheers ,
Peter.
-
It's huge but beautifully proportioned ;D
-
might be risky holding a full one of these if inebriation had already set in! - and I thought my one pint example was big.
According to Harold Newman (dictionary) these things are known to have been made up to a height of 45 cms. - and as you say a true feat for the glass blower.
Apparently the French have a custom of passing round what they call a 'wedding pot' or large wine glass at the wedding cerermony - which again relates to the suggestion that not perhaps just for individual consumption. There's reference on the internet presently to examples of 12 inches in height, and holding a staggering 115 fluid ounces - and you just have to hope that not too many people turn up for the reception (isn't the volume of a litre about 20 fluid ounces) - so that's nearly six bottles per 'pot'. :ho:
I would imagine Peter that this example is a lovely soft lead colour, or is it slightly greenish.
Anyway, go careful with this at Christmas, but I reckon that quite a few of us GMB members could imbibe from a single filling - where do we meet up ;)
thanks again for sharing. :)
-
... (isn't the volume of a litre about 20 fluid ounces) ...
Paul — not quite. ;D
When we are discussing capacity, it's best to keep to ounces (fluid ounces), as they're almost the same worldwide. That's why all British glassworks used ounces when possible in their published material. For example Whitefriars described their Garland whisky glasses as 10oz on their box here (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,43273.0.html). Actually the US ounce is slightly different to the avoirdupois ounce, about 4% larger, as it's based on the old English measures of capacity before we in Britain standardised on the avoirdupois system in 1824, but as that difference is often less than the variation in capacity of individual hand made or hand pressed glasses in a set, it can be ignored in this context.
Pints are quite noticeably different as there are 16 ounces in a US pint and 20 in a British pint.
I don't know whether the capacity of old continental European glasses was measured in ounces or litres (introduced in France in 1795) — I can't find anything on this in Haanstra. Anything other than avoirdupois ounces would have caused difficulties for international marketing. Perhaps some kind soul would provide enlightenment.
Bernard C. 8)
-
apologies Bernard, I didn't check my facts prior to posting, and was going from memory only.
-
HI,
yes Paul a lovely bluey grey colour , green tints tend to be found on earlier glasses , 1680s or so when problems were still being encountered with colour with the increase is quantity of lead oxide used,by the 1690s i think this was all but fixed ,though a few slightly later glasses can still show a touch of green , I do have a little sweetmeat glass from c 1670 which is quite greeny in the tint ,
Sorry I cant beat the 45cm you noted but if you look here , http://www.glassassociation.org.uk/Cone/goblets-gallery.html the second glass in the continental section this little thing is 40 cm including its lid, c 1680 and holding just over 2 litres :thud:
Bernard , an interresting thought as to whether older glasses , ie 18th British and Continental glasses were made with an exact capacity in mind or were they made to general excepted forms and sizes for the day which were always approximately the same capacity, for example for an 18thc glass to be a cordial has to have a capacity of no more than 2 fluid ozs, it has to be a tall glass though , if smaller with the same capacity it would be a dram or firing glass type .
Cheers ,
Peter.
-
Hi ,
Now for something completely different,
The smallest and the Cheapest glass in the 'Hubbard' sale,these are known by various names , Bonnet glasses , Dessert glasses , salts, they are found with many varieties of moulded bowls and feet,this is the first example of 1 with Lynn rings(which i understand to be tooled and not moulded) that i have encountered,many items are found which are given the title 'Lynn Glass',wine glasses,tankards,decanters,tazzas etc,all having tooled rings, thought to have originated in Kings Lynn Norfolk UK , though no archaeological evidence has been found to support this .
This little thing is 3 ins or 7.6cm tall the bowl is 2 5/16th ins or 5.8cm and the plain conical foot is 2 5/16ths or 5.8 cm. and very nice for a little single malt :thup:
Cheers ,
Peter ,
(still more to come )
-
HI,
Oh well not much said about the last 1 so lets continue with the biggest beast to come home with me.
A heavy baluster Goblet c 1720,having a large cup bowl on a true baluster stem with a large cushion knop over a domed plain conical foot .Height 11 1/2 ins Bowl 5 7/8th ins foot 6 3/16th ins ,weight is a massive 2240 grams or 4lb 15 oz, with a capacity of 4 British pints or 80 fluid oz.
Not everyones 1/2 gallon of tea ,but if you collect Goblets it was a must have.
Cheers,
Peter.
-
not quite Peter - sometimes it takes a day or so to get the little grey cells working - the delayed resonse is no indication of apathy. ;) Coincidentally, I had just finished typing the following - went to post - and discovered you had submitted the next glass. Anyway, here is an offering on the Lynn example, sorry it's a bit wordy - and if you're looking Emmi, it's not my fault, just the nature of the beast. ;)
thanks again Peter, great piece - and hope you won't think my contribution impertinent - perhaps some folk might find it interesting if we flesh out the historical context slightly.
I lost a blue 'bonnet' glass recently, on ebay, and am still miffed - however, I'm inclined to call these things deserts/jellies (which you suggest), they seem too deep - plus I feel the outline shape is wrong - for a salt, but who knows, any port in a storm perhaps. However, what we must not call it, apparently, is a Monteith, and using it for a single malt is perhaps the best use (not that I would drink from mine - and I don't yet have a Lynn example).
I notice that Ward Lloyd described this horizontal banding feature as 'moulded', which you say is now considered to have be tooled - a view shared by Newman, who suggested that the effect was produced by the pucellas (the tongs which prior to about 1830 was the tool which produced the striation marks on bowls, and which would be the obvious candidate for the horizontal bands on these so called Lynn glasses - Wilkinson). One leg of the tool is placed inside the bowl and the other outside, thus forming the shape required.
Apparently, during the period of manufacture of Lynn glasses (middle third of the C18), the pucellas was still made of metal (Ash), and more inclined/useful for leaving marks on bowls - and it's possible that this trademark banding ceased for just the reason that wooden pucellas were inadequate for creating the banding effeciently. This is pure speculation on my part, however.
The name Lynn refers to Kings Lynn (Norfolk - U.K.).
Hartshorne is quoted as having said (c. 1897), he knew of specific reasons for assigning these things to Lynn, but apparently never expained what these were and went to his grave without divulging details. It seems unlikely that he would have made that claim based solely on the generalisation that there were glass houses in Norfolk, which of course obviously, there were, and apparently, this entire concept of glasses with horizontal banding being called Lynn pieces, sprang solely from Hartshorne's comments in the late C19.
You're the expert Peter, and I take it that it still remains correct that glasses with this banding remain unaccounted for (archeoligically speaking) from the Kings Lynn area.
As for the location of glass houses in that part of Norfolk, there is evidence of Roman glass workings at Caistor-by-Norwich (Kenyon), but subsequent to that period it appears that Norwich remains inactive as far as glass making is concerned.
There is good evidence that there was a glass house at Yarmouth - date wise somewhere from the end of C17 to the middle of the C18 - and Buckley has suggested that these Lynn pieces might have originated in Yarmouth somewhere around 1725 - 1758, although presumably this again was his peculation only.
Thorpe cites Mansell as having started, or absorbed, glass houses in a variety of places including Kings Lynn, but the best of entries for Lynn glass that I have, comes from Elville.
Some of the best glass making sand has been extracted from the Lynn area since the C18, so a very good place to be if you want to make glass, and it's a matter of record that there was a glass house operating at Lynn from c.1693, and still apparently fully working c.1747 - although probably killed off not too long after that date by the dreaded Glass Excise Act which had been implemented only a year or two earlier in 1745.
I'd like to think it really was Lynn - sounds a little romantic.
Anyway, don't drop it, and thanks again for sharing. Next one please :)
-
Lynn would be a good place to make glass simply because of its long-term status as a trade centre. The comprehensive Wikipedia article says that a glassmaking industry began in the late 17th century. I would imagine there are records in the town; it wasn't too badly bombed, unlike much of the rest of Norfolk.
-
I take your word for it that these comments are accurate Christine :) In point of fact I did not refer to Wiki whatsoever when compiling my brief note, although I do understand that, as I commented, sand was exported from Lynn to many places in Britain over perhaps many centuries - so yes, as you say, proabably a busy trade centre.
I wonder who compiled the Wiki note? and if they were expert on the C17 and C18 glass industry ;D
I haven't had the remotest chance to look in detail at Peter's most recent offering, but what struck me at a quick glance was that the bowl shape looked like something I've seen before, and which from memory I thought was called a mead bowl. I will look better tomorrow. :)
In truth I never really know whether I should be commenting in this fashion - as I've said previously, I possess very few of these higher end glasses, and my information comes from books only - and any idiot can quote from books or Wiki. However, I guess that it is useful, possibly, to bring together a quantity of related data, and there may be some use in that.
-
I'm still watching - just scared to say anything as all I can do is wibble!
-
Perhaps watching a Scots lass wibble might be exciting.... ;) However, might be good if someone else were also able to drop in a word or two apart from me. I did have a thought that possibly the expression 'Lynn' might have been a little akin to the term 'Bristol Blue' - i.e. not necessarily made in Kings Lynn, but because the name stuck it was assumed they could come only from that place. Probably not remotely true, but sounded good. :)
-
The trouble with attaching any place to the production of a particular form of glass made in the 17th and 18thc centuries is wide spread,the problem being that many like opaque twists, air twists and many of the other popular designs were made all over the country , some say that opaque twists with bucket bowls may have been made in Bristol , why?? some bucket bowled opaque twists are found engraved with Privateer ships and captains names which operated out of bristol,but this is not 100% proof,glass was a countrywide huge business and new ideas re shapes forms etc when found to be popular with the buying public were soon adopted all over , in the early years of the balusters it it said that the finest glass probably came from the London glass houses ,London being at the forefront of innovation, but as with ceramics,pottery and furniture the ideas soon travelled to the provinces,there are some loud voices now expressing the opinion that 'Newcastle' Light balusters were NOT made in Newcastle but are all continental,I do agree that some light Balusters were made in other countries ,Holland being the main candidate,but I also believe they are stylistically different in subtle ways,and the Dutch dealers and scholars I know agree,this alone could develop into a very long discussion !!!!!
unfortunately unlike the 19thc and onwards pattern books(Greens pattern books for Venetian imports in the late 17thc being the exception) did not seem to be kept by drinking glass makers so very few of the huge variety of late 17th and 18th glass from the Golden Age of English glass making can be attributed with any certainty to a particular glass house,only when archaeological evidence is found on glass house sites is a tentative attribution possible ,the problem being there was a huge trade in Cullet,many many poorer families feeding themselves by collecting up all the broken glasses they could find and weighing them in at the local glass house for cash,lead cullet attracted a lower tax than the ingredients for new lead glass ,(or something like that) ,so a fragment of a particular stem form or bowl form found at a dig could have arrived there as cullet,the original object could have been made elsewere,in the 18thc there were many hundreds of glass houses all over the country,I remember reading that from tax records of 18thc glass houses,who were taxed by the weight of glass they sold, probably produced in excess of 10 million items in all kinds of glass in 1 year,for home and export ,so 100yrs 1680 to 1780 the Golden age ,thats a lot of glass.
Members of the Glass Association will soon be able to read in the next 'Cone', research done by Colin Brain on Johan Formica,and believes the evidence found for a glass with a particular stem form , my 'Dublin' glass ,is pretty sound ,mine being 1 of the only 2 whole examples known to date.
I know of several Lynn collectors who live in the area and to date nothing concrete has appeared so maybe old Albert knew something we never will.
Paul ,
I think you will find that serving and drinking mead by the 1/2 gallon was quite rare,the glasses you refer to I know well and have 1 here somewere , they too have encurved cup bowls ,many are plain though some are gadrooned with Baluster/Balustroid type stem ,around 5 to 5 1/2 ins tall they were for as long as I remember referred to as mead glasses then somebody thought they could have been for champagne so they became mead/champagnes, but now Dwight lanmon in his new book suggests as the form of bowl seems to match up nicely to continental wines of the same period that were known to have been used for white wine , meads are now white wine glasses , I am not convinced!!
and from 1 Scot to another I do enjoy a good wibble but prefer a wee tipple lol .
Cheers ,
Peter.
ps photo of Mead/Champagne/white wine !!!!
-
thanks very much for the in depth comments,Peter will digest later.............trouble is that after too many tipples you need to do lots of wibbles - or is that dribbles. ;)
-
Hi everyone !
Apologies for resurrecting a long-neglected thread, but I've been browsing your forum for info for some pieces I have been asked to write and - being a geographical pedant - was intrigued by the whole "Lynn glass" thing and the lack of any real provenance for items being manufactured there. Well, I've done a bit of digging and turned up the following from Glass-Making in England by H J Powell:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2dsoi7s.jpg)
However, what I have found is - with just this one example of a local glasshouse being documented - that far and away the most common occurrences of Lynn in any glass-related context is as a source of high quality white sand as one of the constituent parts; it is mentioned on numerous occasions as being the finest available, better than the Alum Bay or Maidstone varieties which were deemed to be the next best. It even appears in French writing of 1824 as being of exceptionally high quality. Specific mention is made of the sand being send to glasshouses in Newcastle and Leith - I wonder if any of you are able to tie these sources in with being responsible for the so called Lynn glass pieces - does it match any known styles from either ?
It should be noted that in NONE of the pieces which I found detailing the use of Lynn sand were there any mentions of it being utilised at source in local glasshouses, so the name would appear to refer to glass made pretty much anywhere, but using Lynn sand (which in one instance is said to come from the specific location of Dersingham).
To reinforce the point, the marvellously entitled Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge; Vol 13-14 (1838) includes a lengthy piece about every aspect of Lynn, it's topography, industries and so on, which makes the specific point that one of the town's principal exports is the fine sand but which - again - makes no mention at all of a locally based manufacturing industry, which I cannot countenance being omitted had it actually existed.
There is one source which I would love to track down which would certainly shed some more light on this matter - an article by the inestimable L M Bickerton which appeared in Country Life in June 1969 entitled Glassmaking Traditions in King's Lynn, and which alludes to a far more local process than any other material which I have found.
However, I'm going to leave the last word to Nathaniel Whittock, author of The Decorative Painters' and Glaziers' Guide (I T Hinton 1828) who asserts, fairly unequivocally that:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/f37r53.jpg)
...and until I track down Bickerton's article and find anything to the contrary, I think that - Jackson and Straw's 17th century efforts aside - we can pretty much dismiss the notion of any sort of meaningful glass manufacture on the banks of the Great Ouse.
Apologies for hijacking your board for such inconsequential wittering, but I found it fascinating !
;)
-
Interesting stuff, thanks Gabriel
-
Yes, thanks Gabriel, good to have an input from someone interested in such things :)
Always possible that the publishers of Country Life will have their own copy still - failing which the British Library may well have a copy, but..............
When the guys at Delomosne where compiling their article to accompany the sale of the Wilmot collection of Lynn glass in 1995, they said..........
""NOTE: An article by L. M. Bickerton Glass Making Traditions in King's Lynn, Country Life, 12th June, 1969 has little to add to the material collected here, nor have Ivan Napiers' two papers written for the Circle of Glass Collectors (The Glass Circle), No. 29, August 1942 and No. 34, December 1942.
The same has to be said for a further Glass Circle paper written by John Bacon in August 1942, (No. 29a) entitled A Note on Kings Lynn Glass"".
This Delomosne article also comments..........
""There remains no proof that glass continued to be made in Lynn within the date bracket set by the styles in which Lynn glass appears"".
The feeling seems to be that, as is not uncommon with historic attributions, earlier books have been responsible for keeping alive the suggestion that this particular horizontally ribbed style was a product of that part of Norfolk.
If you can get a copy of the Delomosne catalogue Gabriel, then the article on Lynn glass, plus comments on the sand from that part of the world makes for very interesting reading - even if we're no further forward on a definitive answer :)
-
Thank you for adding this information :)
I was just about to add that the Corning Museum of Glass have a copy of the Country Life article I believe, however Paul has given more details in the post above so you may not now need the article.
m
-
sorry for being a bit of a kill-joy. ;) The catalogue for the Wilmot collection really is a gem if you're into this kind of glass (and even if you're not) - and quite possibly is still available from Delomosne & Son (the auctioneers), in Chipenham, Wiltshire - despite the 1995 sale date. Unfortunately, a lot of the pieces are now out of circulation (perhaps Peter has them all ;)), and in any event are expensive - with perhaps tumblers being the least costly.
-
I'm not really into 'this kind of thing' but I do like the ones that are engraved :-X
m
-
Gabriel, welcome to the board. You've raised an interesting topic with the Lynn question. I think we may need to split off the Lynn sand posts into a separate topic for future reference. 8)
I also had a poke around to see what I could find, and came across a book titled A Dictionary of Art, Manufactures, and Mines, by Andrew Ure, M.D., (published by D. Appleton & Company, 1856) in which is stated a little about the sand from Lynn. Here is the link to the : BOOK (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mLoIAAAAIAAJ&dq=lynn%20sand%20in%20glassmaking&pg=PA910#v=onepage&q=lynn%20sand%20in%20glassmaking&f=false). The whole section on Glass and Glassmaking is fascinating, it starts at page 899 and ends on page 932.
There is also a snippet in Treatise on the Art of Glass Making ... To which is added, a treatise on the alkalis, oxides, silex, &c., used in the mixing and colouring of glass, etc by William GILLINDER (published W. Gillinder, 1851), where he explains the difference between Lynn sand and Alum Bay sand and how to test it! BOOK (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fhldAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false)