Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: agincourt17 on October 21, 2012, 02:43:19 PM
-
Recently sold on eBay, a frosted green uranium glass bottle in the shape of a stylised chrysanthemum head or spiders web, which would most probably have been a talcum powder bottle. It has a screw on brass lid with a nozzle shaped top, which rotates on the lid, presumably originally it would act as an opener. Possibly the metal lid should have a mesh inner and some sort of open/shut mechanism but unfortunately these are missing. There is also a wider thread on the neck of the bottle so it probably had another screw on lid which fitted over the existing one. It has the Registered Design no. 792836 relief moulded on the base. It measures 5.25" / 13.5cm high.
Not sure if it originally was a retail powder container which is now missing a label or whether it was simply an aftermarket container for other brands of loose talc.
The RD number is a bit of a mystery (though it would have been allocated sometime in May 1934). RD 792836 is not listed on http://www.great-glass.co.uk/glass%20notes/regnos09.htm , but I know the list is somewhat edited (especially for bottle and import agents registrations). Is RD 792836 in the Blue Book, please?
I suppose there is the possibility that the seller has misread the number RD 792736 was registered by Jules Lang & Son on 11 May 1934, and RD 792896 by Sowerby on 18 May 1934.
Comments or suggestions, please.
(Permission for the re-use of this image granted by bengeworth-crew)
-
Not in the Blue Book Fred. :( I can't find the RD number in any of the usual glass resources either. It's s shame the seller didn't show a picture of the number itself... is it worth asking if they do have one?
-
Fred and Anne,
... Not sure if it originally was a retail powder container which is now missing a label or whether it was simply an aftermarket container for other brands of loose talc. ...
Definitely missing its label, which would have had a lovely Art Deco design saying something like "Talc de Charlotte" or some other spidery name in bad French.
In my experience by far the most usual explanation for a missing registration in Thompson and the blue book (other than Thompson's elimination of obviously commercial registrations in the period 1884 to February 1908) is that the registration was not Class III (Glass).
Bernard C. 8)
-
Now an example of a similar bottle with the same RD number 792836. This example, however, still bears a printed pictorial paper label with the legend POTTER & MOORES SILK SIFTED TALC Printed in England.
(Permission for the re-use of the images on the GMB granted by marinapr9).
So, definitely a retail container for a British brand of talc rather than an aftermarket container.
Still no joy on the precise registration details, so I will add it to the GMB RD look-up list.
Fred
-
I notice that Barry Skelcher includes a uranium example of 792836 in the Schiffer volume 'The Big Book of Vaseline Glass' - page 156.
It's interesting to note that Skelcher when commenting on the label, says..........." Potter & Moore's etc, etc, ...Made in England", rather than printed in England - and he gives the date as 1934.
Fairly similar sort of date to the DuBarry talc bottles we've had on the Board previously, which from memory were something like 1930 ish.
I will check the Potter & Moore Rd. 792836 when next I visit Kew, and let you know the precise detials. :)
-
Thank you, Paul.
As you can see from my photo of the label that it definitely says "Printed in England".
I don't have a copy of Skelcher's book, but it may be that he has simply misread the label (most labels would be expected to read "Made in England, after all).
Fred.
-
expect you're right Fred - probably a Freudian slip. The phrase .........'Made in England' .. is such an iconic expression, and more so then I guess, that it just came to mind.
From memory I had thought we were still without a positive id on the Dubarry item - although someone did say it was definitly IBC - are Bagley still possible contenders?
I suspect that the same fate of a lack of factory may well befall 792836 - the Kew books may well simply show the Registrant but no maker.
For what they cost, I'd suggest that both of Skelcher's volumes are worth having - they do contain much reference to pressed glass, and there is some reasonable reference to factory pattern books and Rd. Nos.
-
As far as I am aware, Paul, nobody has yet managed to pin down a factory for any of the Dubarry-registered bottles (talc or perfume) discussed on the GMB.
I will certainly look into acquiring both the Skelcher volumes - thank you for the recommendation.
Fred.
-
a year or so back I posted an email onto an internet site populated by people from the Hove area, some of whom were ex employees of Dubarry - and asked if anyone had information as to the suppliers of the glass containers used by Dubarry..........regret to say that I'm still without any replies.
-
Kew references for this Registration are..........
Representations BT 52/1805........and for the Register it's BT 53/68. Hope the fact that the Register details being in two parts is o.k. - otherwise I'm always afraid of the text being too small to read. However, I do have that page on a single shot if you need it.
-
Thank you, Paul.
Slightly more complicated than usual:
15 May 1939, No 792836.
Then ....20 March 1940, No. 792836. In pursuance of an application made by Frank Kemp (British Subject) of Finsbury Pavement House, 120, Norgate, London EC2 registered as proprietors by virtue of a deed dated 20 February 1940 made between Walter Kay Limited liquidators of the first part, Harry Greenwood the liquidators thereof of the second part and Frank Kemp of the third part.
Frank Kemp was clearly in financial difficulty of some kind. I wonder if it was as a result of the London blitz? The design registration was presumably seen as being of sufficient value to be counted as an asset by the liquidators.
I will ask the moderators to remove the post from the GMB RD lookup list now.
Fred.
-
seems I should have added the other full page picture to show more details. I'll add one more pic tomorrow and you'll see the story more accuratelyl, I hope. :)
-
seems that these pix of the Register don't show adequate details - so have now added a wider view which shows what I hope is the complete story, and would appear this copyright ran for something like 15 years in total. Let me know Fred if this provides what you need.
-
Thank you for the extra info, Paul.
If I have the gist correct now:
RD 792836 first registered on 16 May 1934 by Walter Kay Limited, 224/5 Finsbury Pavement House, Moorgate, London, EC2.
Copyright renewed by Walter Kay Limited on 15 May 1939.
20 March 1940: Walter Kay Limited is in liquidation, and the liquidators (Henry Greenwood) have transferred the copyright to Frank Kemp as proprietor.
Fred.