Glass Message Board

Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Paul S. on December 30, 2011, 04:26:25 PM

Title: Glass Registration No. 252274 - ID = Scotney & Earnshaw
Post by: Paul S. on December 30, 2011, 04:26:25 PM: Would people care to comment please as to the apparent absence of this No. from the list of Glass Registrations - I'm assuming it's British - and if correct then this would have been first registered somewhere between late March and early April 1895, although the pattern looks more like something from the C20 perhaps. The No. doesn't appear in either Thompson or Slack. Diameter is about 8.5"/215mm, and the unmarked metal bank around the rim may well once have been EPNS, or similar. There are three indistinct mould seams, and the underside of the foot has been ground flat for a large part of it's area. The No. is in relief on the bottom of the inside of the bowl.
The answer is probably that this Registration was simply missed during researches, but I'm really only guessing. Thanks for looking :)
Title: Re: Glass Registration No. 252274
Post by: Paul S. on January 03, 2012, 04:55:00 PM: underwhelmed by the response ;), I have now been to The National Archives in London and am able to conclude this matter as below:

My immediate reaction on seeing the image in the archive containing the Representations was disappointment - it looks nothing like my bowl - but it becomes apparent quickly that this registration is for the design on the surface of the glass only (the hobnail and ridged upright columns) - not the shape of the article. The small scallop edged dish/tray shown in the book of Represenations (pix. 1 and 2) was the original 1895 article on which this registration was based - and when copying the decoration for my bowl, which I believe was a much later production, the manufacturer used the same registration No. Whilst all of this solves issues regarding details of the manufacturer and confirms the origins of the decoration, it remains impossible to date my bowl without access to records of the manufacturer, and I have no information on Scotney & Earnshaw, and a quick Google doesn't seem to show anything for this company. The wording in the Register is meagre to say the least, and it appears that Class 4 has again been used in error - I'm assuming that the original 1895 registration depicts a glass article.
For those parts of the Register (pic. 3) that may be masked by my efforts at a watermark, it reads: Scotney & Earnshaw - 55 Farringdon Street - London - Manufacturers.

I have permission from The National Archives, to use these images publicly, with the proviso that I include a watermark of sorts - apparently it's not to do with original copyright (which has expired of course) but concerns the integrity of all archive images and their protection from improper commercial use.

Why is this Registration not included in the standard lists which are shown in several of the books on pressed glass? Part of the answer may be that this item is hidden away in a register which is very heavy and bulky and which is stored normally away from most of the more easily accessable records, and included amongst what appears to be mostly fabric designs, woodwork, metalwork, fireplaces and some of the most beautiful pieces of calico and lace.

252274 may now be included in the list, and dated to 1st April 1895.
Title: Re: Glass Registration No. 252274
Post by: Sid on January 03, 2012, 05:36:13 PM: Paul

Thank you for tracking down the registration! As soon as I saw the dish in the registration, I knew you had found the answer for the question I raised concerning that very dish in this discussion:

http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,33315.0.html (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,33315.0.html)

I will post a link to this topic in it now.

Again, thank you for the diligence!

Sid
Title: Re: Glass Registration No. 252274
Post by: Paul S. on January 03, 2012, 05:57:17 PM: glad it was of help Sid - always good to get a result, even if it's a long time coming :)
Title: Re: Glass Registration No. 252274 - ID = Scotney & Earnshaw
Post by: Anne on January 04, 2012, 09:59:17 PM: Well found Paul, that's wonderful! 8)
Title: Re: Glass Registration No. 252274 - ID = Scotney & Earnshaw
Post by: Frank on January 05, 2012, 12:08:23 AM: Sorry to throw a spanner in the works but in 1888 Scotney & Earnshaw (22 Water Lane, London & 6 Thavies Inn, London, were agents for US glass companies; Rochester Tumbler Co. Campbell Jones & Co. and Bellaire Goblet Co.

They were not at those addresses in 1877 nor 1905.

Rochester were in Pennsylvania

Bellaire in Ohio (see also Measell, James and Smith, Don E. (1986), "Findlay Glass the Glass Tableware Manufacturers 1886-1902": 146 pages b/w colour.) possibly later 1950s as BELMONT TUMBLER CORP.

data courtesy www.glass-study.com n.b. partly not yet published on site
Title: Re: Glass Registration No. 252274 - ID = Scotney & Earnshaw
Post by: Frank on January 05, 2012, 01:32:15 AM: p.s. Copyrighting as National archives is totally invalid! You can copyright the image to yourself if you wished but considering your agreement it should be watermarked "Approved with restricted license for reproduction on glassmessages,com by courtesy of National Archive, UK." Sorry to be pedantic but copyright abuse is as as bad as abuse of copyright in my opinion. I am sure getting the images replaced with appropriate watermark would be achievable.
Title: Re: Glass Registration No. 252274 - ID = Scotney & Earnshaw
Post by: Sid on January 05, 2012, 02:17:47 AM: Frank

No spanner in the works at all, just more good information. Now it looks like we can add McKee to the list of firms Scotney & Earnshaw represented.

The question in my original inquiry was who registered the design which has been amply answered. It was fairly obvious that it was either an agent or the American glass company itself and it turns out to be the (likely) agent. Scottney & Earnshaw also registered one of Gillinder's designs in 1888.

Campbell, Jones were in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1865 to 1891
Rochester Tumbler were in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania 1872 to ~1909
Bellaire Goblet was in Bellaire, Ohio and later Findlay, Ohio. 1876-1892 There is no relation to Belmont Tumbler Corp which was located in Bellaire, Ohio but years later.
Gillinder was in Philadelphia, PA 1861 - 1912 when they moved to Port Jervis, NY. They also had another factory in Greensburg, PA 1888-1898
McKee (at the time of this registration) was in Jeanette, Pennsylvania (1888 - 1982?). Very long term operation with way too many name and ownership changes to try to summarize in a sentence.

Sid
Title: Re: Glass Registration No. 252274 - ID = Scotney & Earnshaw
Post by: jsmeasell on January 05, 2012, 03:12:47 AM: McKee was in Pittsburgh until the late 1890s, then moved to Jeannette (which was named after A. Hart McKee's wife).
Title: Re: Glass Registration No. 252274 - ID = Scotney & Earnshaw
Post by: Bernard C on January 05, 2012, 04:02:00 AM: Paul et al - The reason that the registration wasn't in any of the published lists is that the registration is under Class 4 - Earthenware, not Class 3 - Glass. Presumably Scotney & Earnshaw were keeping their options open should they have wished to have it made in pottery or china. Please ignore the old popular "error" explanation, as it happens too frequently.

The punch font is quite distinctive, particularly the R^D, so it might not be too difficult to identify the mouldmaker.

Paul, you will find a natty basic watermarker from a highly respected source here:
http://zippyhelp.com/imagetools/watermark/watermarker.htm

Here's one I did earlier (click image to enlarge):

(http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/albums/userpics/10318/normal_DSCF1298a.jpg) (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/albums/userpics/10318/DSCF1298a.jpg)

The Cock Hotel, Stony Stratford, Christmas 2011

This, along with The Bull, a few yards to the right, is the most famous Inn in the English speaking world.

Image max dimension (width?) must be 400, 500, 640, 800 or 1000 - I used 800. Size set at 10. Intensity set at 3. I did it twice, once for each line of the watermark.

Bernard C. 8)

ps - I've just noticed that I copied Frank's US spelling of licence - too late now! ;D
Title: Re: Glass Registration No. 252274 - ID = Scotney & Earnshaw
Post by: Frank on January 05, 2012, 04:30:56 AM: What a wonderful collaborative effort. A US manufactured piece with an English registration and the puzzles of many solved as well as a perfect example of reliance on even moulded marks for identification of origin.
Title: Re: Glass Registration No. 252274 - ID = Scotney & Earnshaw
Post by: Paul S. on January 05, 2012, 09:49:02 AM: It's a marvellous thing that we have some very knowledgable people looking in here. Just glad I was able to start the ball rolling, which then enabled a greater amount of information to be added. Pedantic is not a problem - always better to be accurate rather than seem clever.

Bernard - I will look in detail at your watermark download later - seems just the ticket for images from TNA. Apparently, they were worried that if I was entering too many high resolution images into the public domain, there might have been the risk of theft for commercial purposes. As you probably know, in the ordinary course of events when National Archive images are used in a professional sense, payment is required, understandably.
You're right of course regarding the reason for 252274 being absent from the lists - I forgot we had discussed previously that these items are missing simply because they are listed as Class 4, and not because the Registers are too heavy for lady authors to lift :)

As can be seen from the written details entered in the Register (my pic. No. 3) - two Nos. are shown on the one page as being registered on 1st April 1895 under the name of Scotney & Earnshaw. Since I was concentrating on 252274, I didn't take a picture of 252275 - which from memory is a circular shallow dish/tray of sorts (in glass). When I visit TNA next I'll take a photograph of that item - as this also will be missing from any lists. From memory, I seem to recall that it had some colour in the drawing -possibly yellow staining, but I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Glass Registration No. 252274 - ID = Scotney & Earnshaw
Post by: Bernard C on January 05, 2012, 11:00:08 AM: Paul et al — While a US manufacturer is most likely, Scotney & Earnshaw were just as capable as anyone of taking what looks like a US design and getting a mould made and the glass manufactured in Europe. Also there is the possibility of their obtaining a US mould and having that used on this side of the pond.

It's worth keeping in mind the Fostoria American pattern cube sugar / preserve indisputably made by Davidson in jade and flint. We still don't know whether it was made with a modified Fostoria mould or a completely new mould made by Davidson, as there is a very close match to the shape and size in Fostoria's range.

Bernard C. 8)
Title: Re: Glass Registration No. 252274 - ID = Scotney & Earnshaw
Post by: Anne on January 11, 2012, 09:47:19 PM: Images with copyright watermark updated. :) Thanks to Paul and Bernard for getting this sorted between you. :)
Title: Re: Glass Registration No. 252274 - ID = Scotney & Earnshaw
Post by: Paul S. on January 11, 2012, 10:23:38 PM: thanks to Bernard for posting the link which enabled me to create a professional watermark - it really is a simple process, and if someone as generally computer illiterate as me can produce a good result, it must be good. I have used the highest contrast for the wording i.e. set to level 5 to produce maximum visual strength - and would appreciate comments from people as to whether it is considered to be excessive in relation to the image of the glass, or whether it stands out well and in fact doesn't overpower those parts we all really want to look at :)
Title: Re: Glass Registration No. 252274 - ID = Scotney & Earnshaw
Post by: Bernard C on January 12, 2012, 04:37:44 AM: Paul — Your watermarking is fine apart from the watermark on the Register, the third image, where I think the watermarker intensity level of 5 is a little overpowering. Nevertheless you can see all you need. Please would you leave it unchanged so that others can see that you need to consider adjusting the watermarker intensity to suit the contrast of the underlying image.

Bernard C. 8)