Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: Simba on August 26, 2015, 10:22:20 PM
-
Fred... I have another piece for your reg design page this one is by Edward Webb and dates 2nd Dec 1867 by Edward Webb design 214597
-
Than you, Angela.
This is a very rare, interesting and, indeed, significant piece of Stourbridge glass, especially being press-moulded. In other circumstances I think it would have been a prime candidate for the Broadfield House glass collection, but now..... ?
There was very little pressed glass produced in the Stourbridge area, and this is a really accomplished piece. It is also unusual in being made of coloured glass. Is the glass opaque or somewhat translucent, and does in react to UV light at all? Could you let me have its dimensions, Please?
In the meantime I will delve into the history of Edward Webb's glassworks and add a summary of my findings to the topic a.s.a.p.
Fred.
-
Abstracted from Jason Ellis’s “Glassmakers of Stourbridge & Dudley 1612-2002):
On 29 September 1844, Edward Webb of Wordsley and his cousin Joseph Webb of Amblecote formed a partnership and took over Hollway End Glassworks, Wordsley, to manufacture flint glass. Edward and Joseph were cousins of Thomas Webb who operated Platts Glassworks. Edward had previously been a farmer, and Joseph had previously worked as a packer for Webb and Richardson at the Wordsley Flint Glassworks and then as a clerk for his cousin Thomas at Platts Glassworks. They agreed that Joseph would make the metal and Edward would handle the commercial activities of the business.
In October 1850 Joseph and Edward dissolved their partnership. Edward’s interest in milling was causing some disagreement between him and his cousin Joseph. Joseph Webb left to take on Coalbournhill Glassworks [and there has been extensive discussion on the output of Joseph Webb and his executors on the GMB], leaving Edward Webb in sole control of Holloway End Glasshouse.
In 1851 Edward Webb lived with his wife and family at Wordsley and employed a hundred hands. In 1853 he left Holloway End and moved to join his brother William at the White House Glassworks [interestingly, the projected new home for the Broadfield House glass collections]. The two bothers also had a joint business as millers.
William Webb died at Wordsley in 1866, aged 65. Edward Webb brought his sons, William George and Edward junior into the business and the firm traded as Edward Webb and Sons. They exhibited at the Wolverhampton Exhibition of 1869 and received an accolade in the official report that included the following: “… this firm carried out the representation of decorated and table glass in a most effective manner. …the details of the decorations, whether engraved, cut or blown on, give evidence of the most perfect mastery of the material. … some of the specimens of ‘flashed’ glass were most delicate… in no previous exhibition has there been so perfect a display made by any one house. It is needless to remark on the quality of the metal or the purity of its colour, since in this respect it is all that can be desired.”
In 1871 Edward Webb lived at White House, Buckpool, Wordsley, ‘ a glassmaster, miller, hop seed and corn dealer’. He died at Wordsley in November 1872. The glassmaking business was carried on by his younger son Edward. His older son, William George, followed at military career and rose to become a colonel and Member of Parliament for the Kingswinford Divison from 1900 until his death in 1905. he was also chairman of North Worcestershire Breweries.
In 1876 the business was described as ‘Edward Webb, flint and coloured glass manufacturer and sole patentee of the improved process of printing on glass.’
In 1897, Edward Webb chose to cease glassmaking on his own behalf and leased out the glassworks, His tenants were his distant cousin, Thomas Ernest Webb and George Harry Corbett. They founded the firm of Thomas Webb and Corbett Ltd. The trademark Webb-Corbett was registered the same year and the new firm officially commenced trading in 1st January 1898.
There are some photographs of hand blown and decorated Edward Webb glass at http://theantiquarian.us/Hist.%20William%20Webb,%20Jr.%20&%20Edward%20Webb.htm
although no date is given (but I think that the pice shown probably dates from around the late 1880s). Note the hand-painted ‘spiderweb-E’ trademark (but no registered design number).
Apart from the covered pedestal bowl RD 214597, the only other Edward Webb design registrations I can find are much later:
Class 4(which includes glass); RD 4589 of 2 April 1884; ‘design applicable for pattern and shape’[but no further details]
Class 4 (which includes glass); RD 5442 of 19 April 1884; ‘shape – crimping and decoration of flower stand’
I think that it significant that there seems to be no mention of Edward Webb producing press-moulded glassware, emphasising again the scarcity of Stourbridge-produced pressed glass, and making this Edward Webb piece all the more interesting and desirable.
I know of no other mention or image of the RD 214597 piece (apart, presumably, from the original design representation), and even the design description is not shown in TNA online summary.
All in all, a fascinating and, to my mind, a very desirable piece.
Fred.
-
Another late (1880s) Edward Webb piece at
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,47106.msg264939.html#msg264939
Fred.
-
Having looked in the archives at the Representation for 214597 dated 02.12.1867, the image is of a wine glass with what looks like a cut pattern, and from what I can see it appears unrelated to this covered sugar (at least it looks like one) in a sort of milk glass colour. The wording on the original drawing reads....... 'The drawing represents the design as applied to a wine glass' - and the Registrant is shown as Edward Webb, Wordsley, Stourbridge.
I'll try and post a picture of the archive drawing later this afternoon. In the meantime is it possible for Angela to re-check details within the lozenge - regret although the picture of the diamond is quite good, I can't really make out some of the details. thanks :)
I think it should read............ T for the year....... A for the month......... 2 for the day........... 4 for the parcel.
Here's the National Archive image for Ed. Webb Rd. 214597 dated 02.12.1867 :)
-
This is all very interesting...I have tried hard to get a clearer image of the lozenge which is in the bottom of the bowl and the one in the lid is very small and even more indistinct All I can read clearly is T at top of diamond then A on left side 7 on right side and it looks like x at bottom of diamond...I attach a picture of an image with some blue tack so is in reverse....measurements... base without lid 6.5 inches high - 5.75 inches wide top of base - 9.25 inches complete with lid. I added some pictures of the base which is also patterned underneath the pedestal. It does not react under uv and is thinner in places especially the lid in the base there are patches of inconsistent colour.....
-
the presence of a lozenge would ordinarily mean this piece had been Registered between the early 1840's and January 1884 - and as we all know, this duration was split into two periods, with the arrangement of lozenge details differing for each period.
In the first period 1842 to 1867, the year code is indicated in the top segment - and in the remaining years to early 1884 it's shown on the right hand side, and throughout both periods the year is always indicated by an upper case letter.
Differentiating quickly and easily between the two periods should be easy ............. the first group of Registrations use an upper case letter for the month in the left hand box, with the later period using a number in this position. Again............. for the first period the bottom segment can only show numbers and not letters (I think Angela suggest an x here).
So............. should be obvious then that if we have a letter as Angela says, in the left hand box, our lozenge belongs to the earlier period up until 1867 - which is presumably why this was described as Rd. 214597 (perhaps a tad's worth of guesswork ;)) No image exists in the books with which to correspond this No. - and for that matter nothing I can find in the National Archives - yet.
I've tried the whole of 1867, but no good, and anyway Fred has confirmed he can't find Ed. Webb Rd's prior to April 1884. Unfortunately, I don't at present have Archive pix of either 4589 or 5442, so regret can't look to see what those two shapes etc. might be. However, Registrations dated April 1884 would be outside the lozenge/diamond period - so bit of a mystery there.
Occurs to me to wonder if the fact that the moulded decoration appears to be grape and vine (but could be wrong), then might this have been for holding or washing grapes........... just an off-the-wall thought, and probably wrong. ;D It does look though that such a naturalistic piece of decoration would have been uncommon for 1867, when most patterning seems to have been geometric.
I don't really do these early pressed pieces, but just wonder if this sort of milk glass effect was being used around the time of 1867 ish ??
Have also just realized that the central R appears without the lower case d - is this normal or should there be two letters for this period ??
-
This is really odd isn’t it?
There appear to be only 2 glass registrations in December 1867:
2 December 1867 – P4; RD 214597; Edward Webb, Stourbridge; Lozenge T-A-2- 4
21 December 1867 – P6; RD 215150; Edward Jackson Hollidge, London; Lozenge T-A-21-6
Angela’s lozenge T-A-7-X certainly seems to be an ‘inadmissible’ or ‘nonsensical’ combination (because the Parcel number signifier should be a number rather than a letter).
The Board has discussed ‘nonsensical’ lozenge marks (where the visible alphanumeric identifiers at the interior angles of the lozenge just don’t seem to conform to any of the ‘correct’ design registry systems) on several occasions:
The only pressed glass manufacturer that I know of that produced attributable glassware bearing ‘peculiar’, ‘nonsensical’, ‘anomalous’ ‘meaningless’ or ‘inadmissible’ lozenges was Henry Greener, who certainly produced pieces with the ‘meaningless’ registry date lozenge 0-X-A-Y (4 letters rather than 2 letters + 2 numbers) – see
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,52787.msg299677.html#msg299677
but many of the pieces also bear the Henry Greener ‘1st lion’ trademark.
Henry Greener is also known to have produced pieces with ‘wayward’ registry date lozenges – see
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,50579.msg286077.html#msg286077
where the plunger used has been intentionally or erroneously used bearing a ‘correct’ registry date lozenge but from another Henry Greener registered design
There has also been a discussion on the GMB at
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,55007.0.html
regarding a glass goblet bearing an ‘anomalous’ registry date lozenge where, perhaps significantly, the centre of the lozenge is simply marked ‘R’ (as in the case of Angela’s piece] rather than the usual ‘Rd’.
I think it is pretty clear, though, that Angela’s covered bowl in highly unlikely to be Edward Webb’s RD 214597 of 2 December 1867, though the actual design is not one that I have come across before (either registered or unregistered). Still a nice piece though, regardless.
Purely stylistically, assuming that the piece is actually British, I think that Henry Greener is a strong candidate for such a mis-marked piece (and Greener certainly produced quite a few designs during the late 1870s – including the Gladstsone, Disraeli, and Marquis of Lorne commemorative pedestal sugar bowls – in a white glass that is often quite translucent or ‘milky’ in places and often with a blueish tinge).
I suppose that it not impossible that some American or continental manufacturers made pieces with ‘meaningless’ registry date lozenges in an attempt to give the impression that the glassware was British-made or at least British-designed.
Fred.
-
what did you think Fred of the rather large R without the lower case d?? Does that increase the possibility of this one being a complete fraud do you think.
In fact I've looked through the entire National Archive Representation book - BT 43/61 - covering the period 14.04.1852 to 22.09.1870 without finding this shape and pattern, so highly suspicious and in my mind a completely erroneous Registration lozenge.
I'm not even sure that we can be certain of all of the digits in Angela's diamond. The States were at one time producing a lot of milk glass.
-
Well there was I thinking that a lozenge mark would make it easy to identify the mystery just deepens....I have taken wax impressions of the marks and the one in the lid seems to mean nothing at all just make out the large R in the middle and the 111 at the top of diamond and that's it.
-
ninety nine percent of the time lozenges are legit. and give us the right answer - fortunately it's only very rarely they go wrong like this, but even wrong ones have their use by reminding us to be cautious.
If you see lozenges as worn as these - and there are lots of them around - then you're probably going to struggle anyway with authenticating the details, and may never determine the factory. That's not to say all worn diamonds are frauds - quite the opposite - but it does make for frustration unless the design/pattern is recognizable, and worn marks can give rise to guesswork, potentially giving a false result, such as this one.
Keep these things coming Angela - it gives Fred and myself something to do. Big thanks also to Fred for all the work on posting Registration details on the Board's Gallery and in particular the history on Ed. Webb earlier in this thread. :)
The III in the top oval refers to the CLASS No. - CLASS III being solely for glass............ I think there were something like thirteen CLASSES in all.
-
Been reading up a little more on old glass and got a copy of Colin R Lattimore book 'English 19th Century Press Moulded Glass' and he shows an example of a Greener Lozenge mark which has a R rather than the usual Rd (curiously it is a design for a pattern of grapes & vine leaves reg 23 July 1876 shown on a milk glass plate)
-
Actually, Angela, Lattimore mis-read the Henry Greener lozenge, because the (rather indistinct) day identifier is actually 29 (not 23), giving a registration date of 29 July July 1876 – Parcel 6, corresponding to RD 302199. I have 2 reference photos of the mark and, as you say, both have an ‘R’ rather than the usual ‘Rd’, but both marks are also surmounted by Henry Greener's ‘1st lion’ trademark (used between c.1875 and c. 1885).
Lattimore also points out that the design was for the looped border rather than the shape, and although the grape and vine decoration appears on some of the RD 302199 shapes, it does not appear on all of them (see Lattimore's plate 54 on page 84, and my last photo). It is interesting, though, that Henry Greener pieces around this period are often found in opaque white glass (though normally the opacity is quite dense and uniform rather than milky), so it is not impossible that the covered pedestal bowl shown in your opening posts may turn out to be a Henry Greener piece.
Fred.
-
Thanks Fred for clarifying that, I am learning more every day :) Looking at the lozenge mark in the lid of mine under a strong magnifying glass it appears to be different to the one in the base.