Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: agincourt17 on August 31, 2013, 04:30:22 PM
-
A hand-blown clear glass claret jug / flask, just over 9 inches tall. The body is of oval section with a flattened spherical body, a loop handle and a drip ring to the neck which is set at an angle with the lowest point at the handle end. At it lowest point there is a hole drilled into the body. The reason for the hole is that any drops of wine which spill from the lip when pouring will be channelled back into the body. Unmarked, but the base has a polished pontil.
(Permission for the re-use of this image on the GMB granted by cynthia2o11).
The amount of claret saved would be exceptionally small, though it may well have helped prevent any drops from marking polished serving surfaces. However, this design is a great talking point over a dinner table, even if it has comparatively little practical value.
A similar piece (but with a solid, facetted, ball stopper (apparently a replacement) is shown at
http://www.butlersantiques.com/item/5037-plain-oval-claret-flask
Another example (with a plain, hollow, ball stopper) is shown at
http://www.antiques-now.co.uk/ad_detail.php?id=59471&category=antique-glass
None of the examples is marked, though the suggestion is that all were to a design registered on 20 May 1874.
The only glass design registered on that day was registered design number 282496, registered by Philip Pargeter, Stourbridge and Percival Jones, Dublin, described in the registration details as "The drip cup claret jug".
Does anyone have an example of a similar claret jug bearing the lozenge for 20 May 1874 Parcel 10 in confirmation that these claret jugs are, indeed, to the Pargeter & Jones design, please?
Fred.
-
It may well be that claret would be more of a problem on white linen table cloths, rather than the table - or perhaps even the butler's gloves. ;)
The image in The National Archives at Kew, for Rd. 282496 dated 20th May 1874, is described as a design for 'The drip cup claret Jug', and does match the three examples shown here - and a record of the Rd. No. can be seen in Thompson, for example, as Parcel 10.
None of the examples shown here includes a stopper that matches the drawing from 1874 - it seems there should be a small nipple like protrusion on the very top of what I assume was originally a hollow ball stopper - difficult to tell from drawings, but probably hollow.
The original drawing includes the names of...........Percival Jones, China & Glass Merchants, 15 Westmorland Street, Dublin..............and Philip Pargeter, Glass Manufacturer of Stourbridge.......................for some reason both names and addresses have pencil crosses through them.
I've had a look but can't see this design in Andy McConnell's book under the heading of Claret Jugs. The original Registration details include both names, and although it may well be that this was a Pargeter & Jones design, the records don't specifically say this.
I notice that Mark West states that this jug is from the 'Red House Glass Works', which seems to fit in with the the fact that Philip Pargeter departed from the company of Hodgetts, Richardson & Pargeter at the Wordsley Glass Works around 1869, to run the Red House cone which he started some time in 1871, presumably with someone called Mr. Jones.
If it's true that there aren't any examples which include a lozenge, then someone somewhere has done their homework in locating the design from the Kew records - so well done someone.
Hope this is of interest.
-
Thank you, Paul.
Fred.
-
is it possible the stopper should have looked like this one perhaps?
http://www.antiques-now.co.uk/ad_detail.php?id=93612&category=antique-glass&this_company_name=Mark%20J%20West-Cobb%20Antiques%20Ltd
m
-
Thank you, m.
The registered design representation is shown on page 24 of Jenny Thompson's 'Suppllement to The Identification of English Pressed Glass 1842-1908) and it does indeed have a stopper that resembles the one in your link.
Oddly, though, the handle on 'your' claret jug is longitudinally 'grooved' and splayed at the lower end (rather like the handles more commonly found on contemporary pieces from designs by Thomas Webb and Boulton & Mills) whereas the other examples shown are plain (as shown in the design representation).
Still no example bearing a lozenge though.
It may well be that there were several plagiarised versions of the drip cup claret jug produced at the time, all having a drip ring and hole, but each version differing slightly in detail to deflect accusations of copyright infringement - or perhaps the individual glassworkers at the Red House glass works were given some latitude in their interpretation of the registered design in order to express their their personalise their work.
Fred.
-
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?assetId=938875&objectId=3331851&partId=1
This one appeared in a group of objects one of which is Richardson. However, it might just be me, but it seems that it was just included as a 'group' shot and that there is no identification on it. I just thought you might like to see it as the shape seems familiar, the handle similar and it also has it's stopper.
m
-
Thank you for the link, m.
Just like the design representation (apart from the superb engraving, of course). A shame that there is no precise attribution.
Fred.
-
not quite sure why I hadn't attached images of the Kew Archive drawings for this Rd. No. - but to put matters right, two pictures now attached.
Obviously Jenny Thompson must have used this National Archive drawing from which to copy the image shown in her Supplement - both images appear identical.
Looking in McConnell, it would seem that lightweight hollow stoppers with nipple-like finials, can be seen on pieces that have a date range of the 1850's through to c. 1920, and the shell ribbing on the handle, which appears on the piece in m's first link is a decorative feature from that period.
P.S. I'd started this reply some time earlier this morning, and been interupted umpteen times - so regret it's being posted rather late.
Rather meagre info from the B.M. re m's second link - have I missed something, or do the museum not wish to share their ideas of date and/or country of origin??? ;)
Attributions are so much easier in the C20 - thank heaven for backstamps. ;)
-
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=3331855&partId=1&people=23090&peoA=23090-3-5&page=1
ooh found the reference finally :)
Inscription on the base apparently
Can I take a bow? :)
m
-
Thank you for the design representations, Paul.
Brilliant detective work, m. Certainly the engraving appears to be of the highest quality. Odd about the ribbed handle on the example in your first link, but the cupid engraving is also of very high quality here too.
All very interesting and desirable pieces.
Fred.
-
I should take several m - and then some. ;D Obviously I was maligning the museum's info. a bit too quick. :-[
I'm a little confused though - Fred has commented about engraving, although there seem to be other comments about etching?
Barbara Morris - sadly no longer with us - was a very big cheese at the V. & A. post 1945, and it seems from the blurb in the link that the lady bequeathed these pieces to the museum, and very choice pieces they are.
-
The comments at the B M say the patent was for the drip ring - at least as I understand it. Therefore might there have been design variations i.e. the handle for example?
m
-
Paul, are you referring to the comment 'acid etched' next to 'Inscription'? I think that means the mark is acid etched. If you are not, I apologise.
m
-
I would imagine that embellishments to a customers requirements were easily accommodated for such prestigious pieces (for an appropriately increased price, of course), and I think the ribbed shell handle sits well with the beautiful body decoration. (which looks like fine, and expensive, copper wheel engraving to me).
Fred.
-
nope - I think you're right m ..... the pix aren't too clear at that magnification, but looking again it does appear that the decoaration is engraved, so it must refer to the mark.