Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Paul S. on March 13, 2014, 08:22:53 PM
-
We've spoken often on this issue, and it's seemed nigh on impossible to find a suitable example of the impression, adequate in definition, that will photograph clearly enough to reproduce and not leave any doubt as to it's cause.
If you look in Charles Hajdamach's 'British Glass 1800 - 1914', page 35 plate 17, a gadget can be seen which I'm assuming must have been very similar in design to the one that was used on the drinking glass showing here - possibly a port glass - about 4.25" (110 m/m tall).
Originally I'd looked at the example of a gadget in Wilkinson - 'The Hallmarks of Antique Glass' - page 25... but his gadget looks to have a collar that lacks the larger cut-out of the Hajdamach gadget. You can visualize the design of this larger opening example leaving the exact impression showing on this port glass.
So there we are - not very exciting really - but it just struck me as remarkable that it has taken to long to find a suitable drinking glass foot, showing the impression of a gadget, with which to illustrate this point. In fact this impression is good enough to be seen in the main picture.
This drinking glass lacks finesse - irregular foot, horizontal striations, mostly round the upper half of the bowl, and a Y shaped shears mark under the foot. Almost certainly a pub/tavern glass from the last quarter of the C19, in my opinion.
I shall now probably see them everywhere ;)
-
Nice one Paul ;D
-
HI ,
Congratulations,
could this be the first image captured of the ghostly Gadget mark, I have never seen one.
cheers ,
Peter.
-
Peter - could the reason that you've not seen one be due to the appearance of the gadget long after 'your' period :)
Presumably prior to c. 1860 all bowls and feet would have been shaped, whilst hot, by the pucellas???
-
HI ,
Yes long after my main period of interest though still high in interest regarding the method used especially as it has taken a long time to get the massage out there about the Y and T marks being shear marks and not gadget marks so I do when the occasion occurs look ,just for that. and so far as I said I had never seen one.
cheers ,
Peter.
-
I would expect gadgets go back further in time. But very odd to be leaving an impression which should not have happened. My Hajdamach is still in storage at the moment.
-
I'd agree that, since this impression is almost impossible to find ordinarily, then we have to assume that possibly some exceptional reason was responsible for it happening on this occasion - a defective gadget of some sort perhaps. I've seen large numbers of low grade pub glasses from the second half of the C19, those pieces on which you'd expect the mark to make an appearance, yet as I say this is the first time for me.
Although this looks exactly how you'd imagine the mark to appear, is it possible that this isn't the impression from a gadget - might it have been caused by some other means?
-
Why are there not more gadget impressions i wonder ???when you see a gadget and think about the process i can only imagine there polished off.
-
Depending upon which literature we look at, a gadget will leave "no mark" (as opposed to a "pontil mark") or "its own pressure mark" (as a result of the spring clip with which the foot is held).
Does that help? :)
-
Yes,that clears it up nicely Kevin ;) glass with a gadjet mark in theory should be very expensive.
-
Hi, I don't think gadget marks are that uncommon. Most penny licks and late 19th century rummers that come my way have a gadget mark on them. (Peter, I'll dig one out for you and bring it to Birmingham in May).
-
Rather than start a new topic, I thought I would add my glass here as it is very similar to the one in Paul's original post.
11.5cm high, 6.5cm rim and foot diameter. 192g. Fairly thick and almost flat base. T-shaped shears mark. Bubbles in glass and visible striations around the upper half of the ovoid body. Baluster stem with what appears to be an applied foot. Thick, grey tinged glass. Poorly finished rim.
Taking everything into consideration, especially the wear marks to the rim, I think this is a Victorian tavern glass 1860-1900. I believe glasses used to be stored on their rims in pubs.
I wondered if the colour tells us anything else? Pictured below beside a clear glass for comparison.
-
base
-
taking good pix of clear glass can be very difficult - regret I'm not seeing the gadget mark, but would agree with other comments. Suspect the colour is nothing untoward, and might simply be a result of the fact that the metal on this example is thick - as you'd expect on a pub glass - thereby making for rather more of a dull or grey tone, than had the glass been thin as with the drawn stem piece. On that one is the fluting moulded or cut?
my limited knowledge seems to recall that apart from drawn stem drinking glasses, where the stem is drawn down form the bowl material with the foot applied separately - making a two piece glass - almost all other traditional drinking glasses are made in three parts - bowl, stem and foot - with the bowl rim finished last, hence the pontil scar or polished depression where the foot has been held on the rod.
'Straw stems' might be an alternative name for drawn stems - I don't collect such pieces now so hope I have that correct. Put me right please if I'm wrong. :)
-
Paul, please confirm you whether you can see the big T on the second base shot......I took loads and really thought I'd nailed that one! It's a drawn stem, for sure. It is quite a dirty grey looking piece and stands out amongst the rest of the glasses I've unpacked so far. I wondered if it might be Flint glass, although I haven't looked into that yet.
I didn't comment on the fluted glass......it was just there for colour comparison. Will be posting some of those later for help.
Thanks as always for looking and commenting.
-
sure, I can see the big T (sounds like a ranch) - but shears marks are on the underside of the foot and not, as with gadget marks, on the top side - at least it's seen on the top of the foot on the piece I've shown here.
Are you using the word 'flint' to suggest that the silica for such a glass might have started life in the form of flints, rather than sand? I stand to be corrected, but would have thought that sand had been the source material for a very long time now.
John reminded me recently that W/Fs use of the word was part of the official description of the company's range of clear glass, and was associated mainly with their lead glass production - apparently also used for soda production - but wasn't used to imply that the source of the silica had been flint. There are many reasons for colour variation in glass, though I seem to recall reading that the Italians, who did used pebbles and flints, made glass of very good clarity.
Drawn stems are amongst some of the most elegant in appearance.
-
The big T is on the underside of the foot......so shears mark? It only matters in terms of it being potentially useful for dating purposes.
I should have looked into the term Flint glass sooner. CMOG has it as a "misnomer", following George Ravencroft's "use of calcined Flint as a source of silicate" in 1674. Apparently ithe term started being used in C18 and C19' for lead glass that did not even contain Flint. I must have seen it used inappropriately somewhere, and it stuck in the memory.
There are a lot of fine bubbles, particularly in the thicker stem and base (visible in some pictures), would this be indicative of soda glass. My whitefriars soda glass pieces are very light weight.
Just had a penny drop moment about your original post. The mark you refer to is on the top of the foot......hence a gadget mark, and less often seen. Wish we had a "forehead slap" emoji lol.
-
Hi, I think a little clarity is needed , the T mark you refer to is the shear mark , created when the blob of hot glass was applied to the bottom of the stem to make the foot ,after which it was probably held in a gadget ,(foot gripper) which enabled the blower to detach the glass at the bowl end from the blowing iron , the gripper on occasions can leave ghostly marks around the upper edges of the foot,
Flint glass is an archaic term which should really be abandoned though still used a lot in the US to refer to lead glass, the use of flints to make glass in England was primarily in the late 18th c and was a long difficult and expensive process, very quickly given up in preference to good quality sand.
Hope this helps ,
looks like you beat me to it !!!!!!
Cheers ,
Peter.
-
I can’t add anything on catshome’s glass but think I have an example of gadget marks from another form of gadget, other than the ‘C’ shaped type. I am sure I have read somewhere (but can’t remember where) that another form of gadget clamped the upper side of the foot on top of the glob of glass where the stem is attached to the foot (rather on the top surface of the foot itself).
I have a set of three small tavern rummers that have marks that I believe are from this type of gadget, as shown. The dimensions and locations of the marks are the same on all three glasses although it is more difficult to see on one, and easy to miss in any case. The marks look like a slight depression with a deeper divot at each end (indicated by the divider tips in the photograph). On the opposite side of the stem is another similar mark parallel to this, but slightly longer. You can just about see both marks when looking through the foot. It looks like these marks were made by clamps, one each side of the stem. The glass also has the ‘T’ shear mark.
-
Brilliant Ekimp! Although very hard to spot, I can see the two dents with a small bulge between them on one side, and barely perceptible two pin pricks with a longer space between on the opposite side. You'd really have to know what you were looking for, to realise what they are. Your description made it possible to spot them. Thank you!
-
Thanks Cat - not very easy to see or describe...even harder to photograph :) Seems likely that the marks are from a gadget.
It took me a while to appreciate that the ‘T’ type mark wasn’t actually a mark left by the gadget given all the information to the contrary. Even so, I am left wondering how closely associated is the presence of the ‘T’ type mark with the use of a gadget. As I understand it, if a pontil rod was used and snapped off then the ‘T’ mark would be obliterated. Then after the period of using a gadget came machine made glasses (what ever that is and if the chronology is correct) where there is no mark left on the foot.
So...although the ‘T’ type mark isn’t the mark left by the gadget itself, does it indicate a gadget was actually used, even if there is no other evidence/marking from a gadget on the top of the foot? Or to put it another way, would the ‘T’ type mark still be visible if a method of manufacture other than the use of a gadget was employed?
-
the best source for answering these questions, is 'The Hallmarks of Antique Glass' by R. Wilkinson published by Richard Madley. 1968 - it should answer all of the above - which are features occurring on glasses post c. 1830/40 An inexpensive book, and should be readily available somewhere like Abe Books.
Gadget marks and Y or T shaped shears marks are features found after the above date, so fall outside Peter's (oldglassman) period of collecting - so he gets it easy - only has foot scars and blips (thickening) on the rim to worry about. ;) ;)
-
Amazing what you can learn from such an unassuming little piece of glass. Thank you all for your input.