Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: flying free on April 27, 2012, 01:07:55 PM
-
Question that has always puzzled me.
Can anyone say what significance the numbering system on stoppers and decanters for example, has,apart from that they match? I've had a piece with a 2 on both, other pieces I've looked at have a 1 for example, I have another piece with a 5 on both....I'm just wondering do they relate to the number of pieces going out that day? or...what....thinking that I only see low numbers so presumably if you had a decanter with a 2 on it, it is feasible to find a stopper with a 2 on if they repeated the numbers daily if you see what I mean.
I presume it means the neck of the piece was ground to fit that numbered stopper but I never hear or see high numbers as I would expect if, say, they were producing 100 of them in total, where I would think we might hear of one with 48 engraved on the stopper and decanter. Or were these small run pieces basically?
m
-
Maybe it just means they were checked by No 5, as in the QC labels you get on clothes. They wouldn't leave the factory separately.
-
That's very plausible :) I'm going to do a quick surf around the net and see what I can find.
m
-
the highest No. I can lay my hands on this evening is 28, but would agree with you, it's usually the lower figures. I'd never reall thought about the significance of which particular digit - aside possibly from perhaps a run of Nos. for one particular pattern of decanter. The reason being that evey individual stopper has to be matched to an individual body - and if you were knocking out, say a dozen or so of the same pattern, you couldn't afford to get the two parts mixed up :) I've just looked at half a dozen FT's, and it seems Dartington didn't bother with matching Nos. Let us know what the real answer is m - when you find out.
-
Hi, numbering decanters and their stoppers started in early Victorian times and was used to match the two together in the days when manufacturing techniques were not as exact as they are today. Production runs could be in many tens of units (the highest number I have in stock today is a stopper with 52 on it - unfortunately matched with a decanter with a number 12 on it!) and the small vagaries in the sizes of the necks of the decanters produced meant that stoppers had to be individually ground to fit. They numbered them after grinding to make sure that the right stopper ended up in the right decanter. Modern manufacturing techniques are so exact as to not require it. Hope this helps.
-
Thanks :) I was just wondering whether or not the number pertained to the number of items produced in that design iyswim? So a bit like the numbering system on a limited edition print as it were. i.e. if one has a decanter numbered 3 on the stopper and decanter, does that mean it was the third one of that design produced, or was it just the third one numbered on that particular day, and the following day might again produce another number 3?
It's not a particularly burning question :) but I've been curious as to whether or not one would ever find another number 7 stopper for example if one had the decanter but the stopper was missing.
m
-
Hi, my understanding was always that the numbering was for the particular production run and was for the benefit of the factory in matching the right stopper to the right decanter before it went out of the door that day. Considering the output of some of the Victorian glasshouses I would be amazed if it was a numbering system for the design. Interesting thought though!
-
Hi again, just one other thought that might be relevant. The same stopper design was used for a large number of decanter designs, especially during the 19th century. The same radially cut mushroom stoppers, for instance, were used on all manner of Prussian style decanters. On the basis that the stoppers were made separately and then ground to fit the individual decanter, it makes sense that the numbers were used for matching individual decanters to stoppers rather than styles.
-
When Allister Malcolm made my claret jug, he told me that the stopper had to be made first - then the bottle neck is adjusted to fit the stopper - he said that's the easiest way to achieve a good fit.
However, I also know that at IowSG, they've got a sort of "boring" machine to get the inside neck of a bottle correct, to match the stopper size that is made - presumably that is ground to the correct size with a grinding machine too - so there should be a match between all stoppers and bottles.
-
Sue funnily enough I watched Allister doing that very thing whilst I was chatting to him at Broadfield house ;D
My contemporary pieces do not have any numbers on and I was told by a current maker that if I sent a perfume bottle back to them, they would make a stopper to fit but they were specific that they needed the bottle back to do so.
I suppose my curiosity is more on the Victorian pieces that have numbered stoppers and matching numbers on the neck or base of the decanter or bottle.
m
-
Many years ago in the very early days of collecting glass I bought a Stuart Decanter (vintage c. 1950) from a pawnbroker here in Melbourne. Both the stopper and the bottle section were scatch marked with a diamond point in matching numbers. I enquired why that was so, having never seen it before. His response was that he screatched them in so that the right stopper went with the right bottle section.
Ross
-
so either a pawnbroker with a sense of humour.....or there are decanters out there that may or may not have their original stoppers but were numbered by pawnbrokers anyway ;D
m
-
When you press gently and give a little twist to a stopper in the bottle, you should be able to lift the empty bottle a few cms off the table by the stopper.
That's the standard "test" I've been using over the years to determine whether a stopper is, or isn't, a perfect match.
-
:o
As a general rule I avoid twisting stoppers if at all possible. Pull them straight out, twisting a stopper that is not a perfect fit can result in them jamming in the neck, occasionally making them next to impossible to remove.
John
-
I did stress "very gently". ;D
Only enough to feel if it would "catch" if you went a bit further, then only enough further to achieve the "catch". The bottle should drop if you try to lift it further.
Perhaps, having spent years working in a lab with delicate and temperamental equipment, I may have the "very gentle" bit down to a fine art - kind of like an experienced lockpicker. :P
-
A very simple but effective way to prevent problems with sticking - especially if the decanter is for show, rather than use, is to put a very light smear of vaseline on the stopper. I remember from first year Uni Physics calculating the force to "break" the surface tension on two flat blocks of glass stuck together with a little water was ENORMOUS and trying to pull them apart would have smashed the glass. So what one needs is a substance that does not "stick to" glass as water does.
Ross
-
Pulling them apart, yes the force is enormous.
But they'll slide apart quite happily. ;D
The vaseline thing is ok as long as you aren't going to use it.
To create a seal in a glass lab bottle, I used to give the thing a wee shake, so the liquid did capillary up inbetween the surfaces of ground glass, then twisted it gently to finalise it.
No vaseline - it would contaminate everything to the point it was pointless!
-
Just a comment on Chopin's point about matching stoppers by twisting and using them to lift the decanter off a table. Any decent fitting stopper will do that, not just the original. I know at least one trader with a large box of stoppers who uses that test to work out which replacement stopper he will use.
-
So you also need to be careful that the stem of the stopper is at the correct height (not sticking up above or sunk below the rim) - and that it actually matches the bottle too.
However, even with a very big box of spare stoppers, it's still unlikely one will fit an old bottle well enough to pass the "lift test".
I have tried, when I helped out in Oxfam. I collected a big box of spare stoppers and none of them ever fitted anything.
-
Often when one passes on to the glass house in the sky two siblings fight over a pair of decanters :(... as one does at a time of grief ;D they decide one each ,,,, never to speak to each other again , alas two decanters with wrong stoppers are let loose on the public... when they sell their precious inheritance a couple of weeks later the buyers are wondering why the stoppers look right but dont fit . . cynical moi non . :'(
-
if one is a glass collector, one's siblings should be taught not to decamp without first checking that said decanters have their correct stoppers.
Best answer is to flog the lot before you shuffle off this mortal glass house - or at least make sure you've drunk the contents ;)
-
Just read the excellent Charles R. Hajdamach's book on British Glass 1800-1914 which has the following to say about fitting stoppers to decanters:
"The process of stoppering the decanter was a distinct, separate trade performed by the stopperer who worked at his lathe, usually in the cutting shop where the decanters and stoppers could be passed directly to him after they had been decorated. The job was performed in two stages: firstly the inside of the neck was ground and then the stopper was ground to match the neck.
The inside of the neck needed to be perfectly round in order to take the stopper and ensure an exact fit. To do the grinding, the stopperer used a wooden plug about 6 in. (15.25 cm) long, fixed into the stoppering lathe and fitted with a tapered tin ferrule which corresponded to the required diameter of the neck. A mixture of water and emery powder was dribbled on to the revolving plug as the stopperer held the decanter with the inside of the neck pressing against the plug until it was ground to the correct size.
The next stage was to grind the peg of the stopper to match the neck. The pegs were made slightly thicker than required to allow the stopperer a little lee-way in the fitting stages. On a lathe similar to those used by the glasscutters the stopperer ground the peg to a size just a little thicker than would allow it to fit properly. The final stage was to grind the stopper directly into the neck. The head of the stopper was fixed in a wooden chuck and fixed into the same lathe which had held the wooden plug. The stopper spun in the lathe and water and emery mixture was used again as the grinding agent while the decanter was pressed against the peg. The glass to glass grinding ensured an absolutely perfect fit.
When a large batch was processed, each decanter and stopper was scratched with a corresponding number, to prevent the wrong stoppers being placed in decanters when they were passed tio the warehouse to be cleaned before being sent off for sale."
Hope this clears up my point about the matching numbers being batch based rather than for a particular design.
Neil
-
Thank you Neil. That's excellent reading. Therefore potentially one could find a number of decanters in the same design with the same number. Admittedly highly unlikely given the length of time passed now since this system was in place, but still it is possible.
m
-
quote from Neil.................."Just read the excellent Charles R. Hajdamach's book on British Glass 1800-1914"............in that case Neil, you get this week's prize for stamina - if only for holding such a heavy book for so long ;D
In a slightly lighter vein, but nonetheless relevant.............. in Phelps Warren's 'Irish Glass' - he tells a story which came, apparently, from the early C19 letter writer Elizabeth Walpole, who relates a tale about a decanter and stopper from Waterford glass.
Her letter is dated 1834, and she relates how she is enclosing with her letter an account in settlement on behalf of one Sarah Wilson. Apparently, Sarah had deducted 10d. (a pre decimal amount equivalent to Sterling £0.05p) - when settling her account - for a stopper, which was charged (to Sarah) by mistake in Waterford, as in fact the stopper had actually come from Sarah in the first place. She had sent it to Waterford to have a decanter made for it!
Bet that doesn't happen very often. :)
-
how very decadent....
m
-
ok, I know this has been discussed on more than one occasion, but I have two pieces both of which I think could date to the 1820s (could be totally wrong here and 100 years out lol, but everything about at least one piece is saying that early to me).
They are not decanters, but both are enamelled, and I believe at least one is Bohemian, but unsure whether the other is French. Both have enamelled numbers on their tops and bottoms, presumably done by the person who painted the pieces. One has a stopper.
The other set has two numbers that don't match, but I can't believe it's not a match looking at the bottom (not a stopper but a lid).
So, my question is, do we know how early they started numbering tops and bottoms?
I can conceive of it being at least as far back as 1850s as I know Richardson enamel signed some of their pieces and I think iirc I had a piece of pink opaline signed in enamel that was from Josephinenhutte and probably dated to around 1860. So they were using 'signatures' in enamel, but is it conceivable that enamelled numbered matches go back to the 1820s?
m
-
as I began re-reading this thread, I found myself unable to support Neil's comment - somewhere near the beginning - where Neil commented that 'matching Nos.' started in the "early Victorian period" - so we're talking here of c. 1840 ish -- I can only say that, having seen zillions of these things, this is not my experience at all.
I honestly don't think I've ever seen these Nos. on a bottle older than c. 1880 - 1890.
Many years back, whilst on hols. in north Wales, I encountered a decanter collector - who was about to make a purchase of a bottle - and rather flippantly I said "don't forget to check the matching Nos." - for which I was criticized heavily. His reply was that in the earlier part of the C19 they didn't go in for such things.
From memory Andy McConnell's book doesn't give any useful dating on this practice of matching Nos.
On the other hand the digits or initials of someone's name, enamelled on the stopper and base of a bottle, may have a much older history, and probably do only refer to the pattern of the piece, or simply indicate the signature of the decorator - and is likely to have been more common on pieces from eastern Europe than elsewhere. On the few pieces I've bothered to look at, I seemed to get the impression that stoppers for bottles with enamelled matching Nos. etc. didn't fit very well. Perhaps it was just me looking at cheap Bohemian bottles ;)
I'll have another look at Andy McConnell's book to see if it helps at all with this question.
-
'I'll have another look at Andy McConnell's book to see if it helps at all with this question.'
thank you :)
It's entirely possible I'm completely out on my dating and that both 'could' be c. 1880 ish. But both the glass and the enamelling decoration and style are good for the 1820s. It's not important, both were bought for decoration in my dining room ;D so are not for sale. But I'm curious.
m
-
I've found an opaline decanter with stopper and enamelled numbers that dates to I think c.1860.
Paul, in the case of my piece that has a stopper, it fits immaculately :) and is enamelled and made immaculately :) but appears to me to come from c.1820s,maybe 1830s.
As I say,I could be years out in my dating though (it was a 'surprise turn-up' buy, bought for it's colour for decorating purposes, so I was pleased as punch when it arrived and I realised it was probably quite old).
m
-
ok,I'm not entirely sure how old this piece might be but the stopper appears to have a number 30 gilded on it
My first thoughts are 'quite old' i.e. at least early 1800s ... but ... I could be wrong.
http://www.ebay.at/itm/SELTENES-HANDBEMALTES-BIEDERMEIER-MILCHGLAS-KNOCHENGLAS-PARFUM-FLAKON-/291962543388?hash=item43fa52dd1c:g:KVwAAOSwA3dYNyxG
I think what's throwing me is that my piece is in extremely good condition. There appears to be missing gilding as there are little flecks of it on close inspection, but apart from that none is showing on it at all, however everything else is immaculate really although looks old in the hand.
The pontil is snapped off and showing black around the pontil mark but then is beautifully enamelled with a number '15.' on it.
I'll post a pic once I've exhausted all avenues ;D
m
-
this coupling of matching Nos. on stopper and body (neck usually), is mostly a C20 habit, but does occur in the second half of the C19, and is probably a bit older than I'd imagined.
In the entire five hundred and seventy odd pages of Andy McConnell's book - 'The Decanter' - there appears to be extremely little comment on the subject of 'matching Nos. - at least those that are diamond point or stylus engraved into the glass' (as opposed to the enamelled sort), and which was the original subject of this thread.
Page 84 includes the sentence............. "With every stopper-decanter match unique, some 19th century stopperers engraved numerical match marks on the neck of each decanter and its stopper to assist their reunion."
With the greatest respect to Mr. McConnell who doubtless has forgotten more about glass than I shall ever know, this information is perhaps uncharacteristic of his usually more accurate and precise evaluation regarding a given specific detail of glass history. The implication may have been that it occurred during the entire century, or that it has been found on bottles made during the second half only - but it lacks sufficient detail to be of real use.
I don't now collect C19 bottles, so have perhaps lost track a little of their features - and we don't seem to have Board members who indulge currently, so lack their accurate input. I'm still sceptical that engraved matching Nos. on decanters go back further than the last third of the C19 - but am dying to be proven wrong - so if Neil is able to let us have some confirmation, or anyone else come to that - then we can all breath a sigh of relief, and say "well, that PaulS was wrong, again". ;) ;)
-
It's not a question of right or wrong ;D it's about stirring debate and eventually being able to provide evidence for an assertion/identification - brainstorming is what leads to that :)
and btw - thank you so much for all your work at Kew. I really appreciate seeing those primary sources.
m
-
gee - shucks - I bet you say that to all the boys here................... :-* glad you find them interesting.
-
;D
Paul, here's one for the record then :
an enamelled dark blue decanter identified as Russian, dating according to Bukowski's to c.1800. I would more or less concur with that but perhaps going up to c1830 as a possible timeframe referencing Das Bohmische Glas Band II pages 30-35 and specifically plate II.28 page 33. There is a dark blue one in DBG Band II page 33 that is enamelled with white enamel detail - it has no base shot (sigghhh) and is said to have been made 'Umgebung Haida' (surroundings of Haida). i.e. there is no identified maker.
It has a cracked off pontil mark and an enamelled number 4 (?) on the base - possibly a 4 but perhaps a letter?
https://www.bukowskis.com/en/auctions/571/954-a-russian-blue-glass-bottle-circa-1800
m
-
thanks m. I'll admit freely that I have virtually no knowledge of Continental bottles, and in particular decorated coloured ones with matching Nos. applied by means of enamelling - so certainly wouldn't presume to disagree with Ms. Cecilia Nordstrom (apologies for the missing accent mark) :)
I suspect we've digressed a little from the original subject of 'engraved numbers' - and quite happy to accept that for whatever reasons there are different chronologies at work here regarding whether the applied Nos. are enamelled, engraved and/or country of origin.
It's also worth remembering that most of us here, for whom English is a first language, have a tendency to think automatically of features of British made bottles - such an easy trap to fall into when discussing almost anything historical.
Think I said a long time back, that to some extent it's possible to suggest a rough estimation of period of manufacture from the type of script or font of the engraved matching No. Certainly in the U.K., the Victorians were very keen on their Nos. being largish and slightly florid,
a habit that went hand in hand with their copperplate script and a leaning toward alphabet letters with substantial serifs - features that remained popular until well into the C20 until the advent of fonts such as Gill Sans.
As these things progressed through into the C20, our writing habits leave behind much of this C19 embellishment, both in size and decoration, and appear more plain.
Still waiting for someone/anyone to provide pictorial assistance - do I recall a certain Moderator who has a substantial collection of bottles ;) ;)
-
yes, we have digressed from engraved matching numbers on stoppers and bases/necks, but thank you for your observations about the style of scripts - that's interesting.
However, I think enamelled matching numbers fit in there as well and since there appears to be a dearth of discussion over this feature in books, then it's no bad thing it is being discussed here :)
Another important feature of that decanter is the pontil mark finish - it's not dissimilar to the finish on my piece ...hence my interest in it in the first place. Also very interesting that Bukowski's appear to have put base shots on quite a few of their sales items. I wish that all sellers and auction houses would do this. I'm sure there's a reason for not doing it (like keeping their hard earned and costly information for id'ing to themselves) and I understand that completely, but it's very frustrating. (infuriating actually when you've spent nearly £200 on a book and not a single base shot to be seen!)
m