Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: agincourt17 on March 02, 2016, 04:45:07 PM
-
A clear press-moulded pedestal bowl with registry date lozenge for 28 March 1872 – Parcel 7 to the base of the bowl interior which, according to the online summary at The National Archives at
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_hb=tna&_q=261532design+registered+glass
corresponds to registered design number 261532 – registrant W.J. Copeland & Sons, 160 New Bond Street, London.
The bowl is 13.25cm high, and has a bowl top diameter of 13.25cm
(Permission for the re-use of this image on the GMB granted by David Garrett).
There does, however, seem to be some ambiguity about the precise details of the registrant which leave me somewhat confused:
Although the online summary at TNA clearly states the registrant to be “W.J. Copeland & Sons”, Raymond Slack (page 159) gives the registrant as “W.T Copeland”. The copy of the original handwritten registry entry summary in Thompson (page 108) is sufficiently indistinct as to be ambiguous, so is there a transcription error somewhere [W.J.Copeland / W.T. Copeland]?
Googling “W.J. Copeland + glass” has generated an undated entry in a trade directory as of “Mr. Copeland, Bond Street London – English Crystal Glass”.
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O6259/the-copeland-vase-vase-jones-j/
lists an engraved glass vase made by “Copeland about 1872-1873”. This vase won a Bronze Medal at the Vienna Exhibition of 1873 where Sir Richard Wallace bought it. J. Jones, an artist employed by the COPELAND GLASSWORKS IN LONDON [my emphasis], made the original design, which consisted of intricate flowing lines known as arabesques. There is a copy of it in the V&A collections. The decoration on the finished piece shows that Paul Oppitz, who engraved the design on the vase, added some fine detail and the winged beasts to the original design.
The Copeland RD 231562 of 28 March 1872 is the only glass design registration I can find. Other W. [J or T] Copeland design registrations in the online summaries of TNA seem to be Class 4: Glass, earthenware etc. …, with addresses in Stoke on Trent (so presumably pottery or china rather than glass)..
There seems to be a link to the long line of Copelands associated with the family firm which produced Spode china in Staffordshire since the 19th century. William Copeland (1765-1826), a traveller in the tea trade became a partner in Josiah Spode's London warehouse and, by 1812, owned three quarters of the London business, comprising the warehouse and showroom that sold fine china to royalty and the aristocracy.
His son, William Taylor Copeland (1797-1868) capitalised on his father's efforts, buying the entire Spode business, including the pottery at Stoke-on-Trent, in 1833. The Copelands continued to run the enterprise, making Spode and Copeland china as W. T. Copeland & Sons, for the next four generations.
According to
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1820-1832/member/copeland-william-1797-1868
…In 1833 he [William T. Copeland] and his new partner Thomas Garrett acquired complete control of the London business for £21,500 and bought the Spode factory in Stoke for £44,000…becoming particularly celebrated for its parian groups and statuettes. He dissolved his partnership with Garrett in 1847 AND SHORTLY AFTERWARDS MOVED HIS LONDON PREMISES TO 160 NEW BOND STREET, subsequently bringing HIS FOUR SURVIVING SONS INTO THE BUSINESS. He died in April 1868 at his country residence at Russell Farm, Watford.
THUS, THE ADDRESS OF THE COPELAND SPODE LONDON PREMISES, 160 NEW BOND STREET, IS THE SAME AS THAT OF THE REGISTRANT FOR THE COPELAND RD 261352.
In 1866, Spode held a Royal Warrant as “Manufacturers of China and Glass to H.R.H. The Prince of Wales”, but all other Royal warrants held by Spode only mention them as manufacturers of pottery or china.
I have drawn a virtual blank regarding a “Copeland Glassworks” in London. Does anyone have any more detailed information about such a glass manufacturing enterprise, and/or the links between the various china and glass manufacturing Copelands, please?.
Fred.
-
Does this help Fred?
THE LONDON GAZETTE, JANUARY 17, 1868.
NOTICE is hereby given, that the Partnership lately subsisting between us the undersigned, William Taylor Copeland, an Alderman of the city of London, William Fowler Mountford Copeland, Edward Capper Copeland, Alfred James Copeland, and Richard Pirie Copeland, as Merchants and Dealers in China, Glass, Porcelain and Earthenware, at No. 160. New Bond-street, in the county of Middlesex, and also as Manufacturers of China, Porcelain, and Earthenware, at Stoke-upon-Trent, in Staffordshire, under the style or firm of W. T. Copeland and Sons, was, on the 31st day of December last, dissolved by mutual consent, so far as regards the said Alderman William Taylor Copeland, who on that day retired from the concern ; and that all debts due and owing to or by the late firm, will be received and paid by the said William Fowler Mountford Copeland, Edward Capper Copeland, Alfred James Copeland, and Richard Pirie Copeland.
—As witness our hands this 2nd day of January, 1868.
W. T. Copeland. Alfred J. Copeland. W. F. M. Copeland. Richd. P. Copeland. Edwd. C. Copeland.
THE LONDON GAZETTE, APRIL 9, 1875.
NOTICE is hereby given, that the Partnership heretofore subsisting between us the undersigned, William Fowler Mountford Copeland, Edward Capper Copeland, Alfred James Copeland, and Richard Pirie Copeland, as Merchants,. Manufacturers, and Dealers in China, Glass, and Earthenware, and carried on at 160, New Bond-street, London, in the county of Middlesex, and at Stoke-upon Trent, in the county of Stafford, under the style or firm of W. T. Copeland and Sons, was, as and from the 1st day of April instant, dissolved, by mutual consent, so far as relates to the said Edward Capper Copeland, and that the said business will as and from that date be carried on by the undersigned, William Fowler Mountford Copeland, Alfred James Copeland, and Richard Pirie Copeland only, and all monies due to and owing by the said partnership of W. T. Copeland and Sons will be received and paid by the said William Fowler Mountford Copeland, Alfred James Copeland, and Richard Pirie Copeland, who will still continue to trade at the same premises under the style or firm of W. T. Copeland and Sons.—Dated this 2nd day of April, 1875.
W. F. M. Copeland. Alfred J. Copeland. Ed. C. Copeland. Richd. P. Copeland
They attended the Vienna universal exhibition of 1873 and the 1878 Paris expo as below
Catalogue officiel de la section anglaise Exposition universelle (1878 : Paris, France)
Copeland, W. T., & Sons ; Fabricants de porcelaine, etc., et Inventeurs ; 160, New Bond Street, London. Fabrique a Stoke-upon-Trent, Staffordshire. Objets d'art en porcelaine, sculptures ceramiques, etc.
Link: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021898022
-
Incidentally, Fred, the Paul Oppitz mentioned in your post was an independent engraver who worked for various people, so my guess he was commissioned to decorate that 'engraved glass vase made by “Copeland about 1872-1873”.' Apparently it took him 243 days to execute the work on the vase! His work is superb and examples are in several museum collections.
He was Bohemian, a master engraver originally from Novy Bor or Haida, and came to the UK in 1845 where he later married and raised a family, he was naturalised British in 1853. The Ancestry genealogy site has a number of records of him and his family, including some super photos of the man himself.
In the 1868 Journal of the Royal Society of Arts Volume 16 he is given as follows: "76 Stamford Street, Blackfriars, S." when engraving a jug and 2 goblets "designed and arranged by Mr Jones in the employ of Messrs Copeland & Sons" followed by the 160 New Bond Street address. Interestingly, the entry in the Journal gives the price of the aforementioned jug and 2 goblets at £30, which in 1868 was a serious amount of money, the equivalent cost indexed by the percentage increase in the RPI from 1868 to today would be some £2411!
The Glass Circle 10 from 2005 has an article entitled, Paul Oppitz (1827-1894) by John P. Smith (Query: is this John Smith from Broadfield House Glass Museum?) Does anyone have a copy and can add more?
In "An introduction to English glassware to 1900" by Charles Truman he says,
"By 1873, the Bohemian Paul Oppitz was working for W. T. Copeland, and Frederick Kny and William Fritsche joined the staff of Thomas Webb in Stourbridge shortly afterwards." - it's unclear from that if he was freelance or employed permanently, though evidence from other sources indicate he remained freelance and lived in London until his death in 1894.
None of this tells us who made the RD 261532 glass for Copeland, though it does perhaps hint that their Mr Jones designed it and it was made by one of the big makers such as Webb, who they clearly had a relationship with, rather than running their own glassworks?
-
if this is wrong or confuses the issue then please feel free to delete
I found this photo where the caption says:
'SERVICE IN CUT GLASS BY MR ALDERMAN COPELAND, LONDON'
http://www.art.co.uk/products/p28106210252/poster.htm?awc=3830_1456997831_3eb5630fa81ff05bc68dc3e4542a5417&aw_affid=205115&aw_gid=0&aw_bid=0&aw_pid=3323242193&aw_cr=&aw_sitename=httpwwwlepricecouk&RFID=274305
I've no idea if Alderman Copeland is the photographer and no relation to the Copeland family you are discussing at all. But I suppose what triggered me to post was that in Anne's post above it refers to 'between us the undersigned, William Taylor Copeland, an Alderman of the city of London,'.
Then on here (see link below) I found one of the pieces with the caption
'Copeland cut decanter, unknown designer, 1862. Noted by Dresser in the Illustrated London News.'
http://www.christopherdresser.co.uk/collections/Glass/glass.html
So just thought I'd post this in case.
m
-
Thank you very much, Anne & m., for your work in researching such informative replies.
It would seem, therefore, that the ‘glass’ Copeland and the ‘china’ Copeland are one and the same. I still find it strange, though, that there are a number of references to “W.J.” Copeland and Sons rather than “W.T.” Copeland and Sons – is it really simply a matter of an error in transcribing handwritten uppercase letter “T”s into printed uppercase letter “J”s or (vice versa) ?
The Paul Oppitz engraved work on glass is certainly of superb quality, and obviously needed a high quality, hand-blown glass blank to showcase the engraved work, so I can see why a link to a manufacturer of high quality glassware (such as Webb) would be a virtual necessity to dealers in (and ‘manufacturers’ of) such high end, expensive items.
The Copeland cut glass service – the “Alderman” is almost certainly W.T. Copeland, and thus pre-1868 – and the Copeland Decanter of 1862 are wonderful examples of skilled cut decoration on hand-blown glassware. Interestingly, the cut service and decanter are stylistically very similar, especially with both having circular features with central raised circular ‘domes’ or prunts. Additionally the “Carafe with Gothic decoration, 9.5 ins, 1862. W & G Phillips, produced by T. Webb, unknown designer” shown to the right of the Copeland Decanter, also has central band of circular prunts – useful evidence in the proposition of a link between Copeland and Webb.
I think it still begs the question as to why W. [T or J - whatever] Copeland and Sons should have gone to the trouble of designing and manufacturing (or subcontracting the manufacture of) a piece of comparatively inexpensive, press-moulded glass tableware such as RD 261532, presumably aimed at a mass market. Perhaps they were testing out a potential foray into higher volume, lower price point selling. If so, the exercise seems to have proved commercially dubious as RD 261532 appears to have been their sole registered design for press-moulded glassware.
The subcontracting of the manufacture of press-moulded glassware would also probably have meant forging links with glassware manufacturers who had proven acumen in such techniques (which manufacturers of high quality hand-blown glassware, such as Webb, seem not to have had). In addition, substantial value could be more readily added to high quality china and glassware items by skilful application of decoration by hand, whereas merely ‘dealing’ as middlemen or retailers for domestic press-moulded glass tableware would probably have proved much less profitable, or may ultimately have not sat well with the Copeland’s chosen market image.
Fred.
-
Fred, did you mean to delete most of your post?
And how are you seeing a picture of the Paul Oppitz engraved glass - my screen keeps showing a blank on that one.
m
-
No, m, I didn't, but for some inexplicable reason the post has appeared formatted with lines through most of it.
I will see if I can modify the formatting or perhaps re-post it in a different format shortly .
I'm not seeing a picture of the Paul Oppitz engraved glass via your links, but there are lots of other pics of his engraved glass online.
Fred.
-
yes, this link would suggest Alderman Copeland is one and same selling glass and china
http://www.freeimages.com/premium/victorian-porcelain-vases-and-urns-by-alderman-copeland-16047
I agree that your hypothesis regarding testing the market and whether or not it would make commercial sense to sell pressed glass is one possible hypothesis. Pressed glass would have become quite the thing, and therefore it would be foolish to let a mass market opportunity pass by if it was going to generate a good income.
However, perhaps they decided they were not into pile it high sell em cheap? Maybe quality control was an issue?
m
-
I've tried reformatting and reposting my reply #4 (or even various bits of it) several times - but to no apparent avail.
I shall soon be out of 'modifying' time, but perhaps a kind moderator would be able remove the pesky 'crossed out' formatting with a press of a few 'magic keys' or even the threat of the Anne's fearsome 'poking stick'?
Fred.
-
Easy job for this moderator ... formatting looks ok to me ... nothing to do !!
-
Done for you Fred. (I did it hours ago Kev, and then didn't reply as I was working on the rest of this missive!) It's the S with the line through it in the editing pane that caused it, instead of having an open tag and a closing tag it had 2 opening tags, so formatted as strikethrough all the text. As I can't see where you'd have used the strikethrough anyhow in that post I'm guessing it's an accidental catch, perhaps instead of Italic or Bold formatting?
I am quite sure from what I found last night, that WT Copeland is correct and WJ Copeland is a transcription error which has been widely shared on without being checked. (Even some places that ought to know better!) This is why I went back to contemporary sources. Other RD nos. registered to Copeland in respect of their ceramic designs (in Class 4) are not consistent, some are shown as WT and others as WJ - it looks simply to be a matter of whoever is (mis)reading the handwritten script. (I have spent much time over the years reading old records and transcribing old handwritten Wills for our genealogy project, so it's something I am very familiar with.)
M, the service you found the image of by the Alderman is wonderful, thank you. Yes it's the same person as the one in the London Gazette notices, he was part of the 160 New Bond Street and Stoke business and it was probably a news/promo image for them. Wikipedia has a potted bio of W T Copeland (Alderman and Lord Mayor of London) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Taylor_Copeland which also details his pottery business and his sons as per the LG notices above.
Going back to the question of why Copeland made what appears to be a "sole registered design for press-moulded glassware", perhaps it was a toe in the water exercise, or perhaps the design copied something cut that they had exhibited and done well with, and thought there may be a market in "the cheap seats" for a pressed glass version? It's a puzzler surely.
As to which glassworks may have made for Copeland's, I've found that one of the Copeland family (a cousin named William Copeland Astbury), who worked at some time for the family business, kept a diary which is indexed online (http://www.astburydiary.org.uk/index.php?n=search-the-diary&p=diaryindex) (the whole text isn't freely online, it's available as a paid for download in 9 volumes). Searching the index brought no results for the term glass, but browsing it did! Just two entries - one for the expected Webb & Co (vol/page 2/154; 8/21) Glass, and the other for a glass manufacturer called John Blades of 5 Ludgate Hill (vol/page 1/301; 7/143) Glass manufacturer, d1829. Owner of Severndroog Castle. He was another big name in the City of London. Kent's Directory for the Year 1794. Cities of London and Westminster, & Borough of Southwark gives him as Blades John 5, Ludgate Hill Glass Manufactory, whilst http://www.glassmaking-in-london.co.uk/WorkingPremadeGlass (http://www.glassmaking-in-london.co.uk/WorkingPremadeGlass) gives him as
Blades (John.) & Jones (Francis.) (Early 19th century.) London.
Manufacturers & exporters of hand-blown & heavily-cut Georgian & Regency glassware. Royal Warrants to the British & Persian courts.
What caught my eye in the latter was the name Jones again, which was mentioned in Fred's original posthttp://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O6259/the-copeland-vase-vase-jones-j/
lists an engraved glass vase made by “Copeland about 1872-1873”. This vase won a Bronze Medal at the Vienna Exhibition of 1873 where Sir Richard Wallace bought it. J. Jones, an artist employed by the COPELAND GLASSWORKS IN LONDON [my emphasis], made the original design, which consisted of intricate flowing lines known as arabesques. There is a copy of it in the V&A collections. The decoration on the finished piece shows that Paul Oppitz, who engraved the design on the vase, added some fine detail and the winged beasts to the original design.
What also interested me was that after the death of John Blades in 1829, the company carried on business as Crook and Jones, and later as Jones and Sons. Is this a coincidence, or is the Jones "working" for Copeland one of the Jones of Jones and Sons? Is the term "working" used here in the same way as it appeared to be for Paul Oppitz "working" for Copeland, when he was clearly a freelance engraver who lived and worked in London from his immigration until his death?
PS in case anyone is further interested in Paul Oppitz trivia, the substantial house he built for himself at 24 Vardens Road, Battersea - named Paulinzell - is still there and looks pretty much the same as when built. Paul Oppitz also had a brother Ferdinand who lived in London, having come with him from Bohemia in 1845, and he too was a master glass engraver, as had been their father and grandfather, and their mother was a glass finisher of some kind - perhaps a painter or gilder?
-
Thank you, Anne and Kevin, for your magic touch with the formatting.
The 'transcription errors' trap illustrates well the problem of relying on secondary sources for research, unleashing the potential for a self-perpetuating 'Chinese Whispers' scenario.
What I find fascinating is that documenting a seemingly nondescript piece of mid-Victorian press-moulded domestic tableware can lead to so many different aspects of social and industrial history, and that even with the power of the internet for collecting and collating information from disparate sources, there are many avenues for research still unexplored.
Fred.
-
the pressed glass bowl doesn't sit well with this mirror executed by Alderman Copeland of Stoke and New Bond St for the palace of the Sultan on the Bosphorous though :-\
http://www.ebay.ie/itm/Print-1858-Stove-Mantelpiece-Looking-Glass-Sultan-Turkey-Alderman-Copel-075P133-/351657312361?hash=item51e068c069
source: Illustrated London News July 24th 1858.
Very curious diversity in manufacturing.
Frankly very strange to try and work out the target market for their business.
m
-
whilst ordinarily I'm a big fan of C19 copperplate script - this is one of those rare occasions when florid cursive script and heavy serifs doesn't do us any favours with legibility.
I've attached picture of part of the page, from the Kew records of Register BT 44.7 - the single book for the period 1842 - 1882 - which includes 28th March 1872, and covering the Copeland Rd. 261532.
Certainly the mystery upper case letter, in Copeland's name in the Register, doesn't look very much like the initial 'T' as in Burtles and Derbyshire's names on the same page, so is it possible this might indicate that the clerk who wrote in the Register in 1872 entered 'J' not realizing he was in fact wrong - that's assuming he was wrong. The more I look at the clerk's writing, the more the mystery letter looks less like an upper case 'T' - but this only my opinion.
Of course, I have my original camera pix on the screen, and when viewed after Picasa editing and without re-sizing they appear very large, bright, and very clear............. unfortunately the constraints of the GMB picture size, plus the need to watermark, means that the end result which you see is a vastly less than desirable image. About this I can do nothing other than apologise - however, I can offer to provide TNA address should anyone wish to visit and see this page in the flesh ;)
Regret this not conclusive.
-
Agree - however, it does look quite like the T initial before Derbyshire in the entry that falls right near the bottom behind your watermark doesn't it? Or is that actually supposed to be a J?
Perhaps the scribe was confused so did an approximation of either initial so couldn't be accused of getting it wrong?
m
-
Thank you for the photo of the registry entry, Paul.
Certainly clearer than the entry in Thompson (page 108) but the ambiguity regarding the transcription obviously remains unresolved.
Fred.