Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Ohio on August 24, 2016, 03:48:12 AM
-
Quick question...today picked up Decorative Victorian Glass 1988 edition by Cyril Manley, mint condition. Are the attribution is the reference solid or are they shaky in this day & age? Thanks, Ken
-
A lot of them are shaky, but some are not. I just love the pictures
-
It's a lovely book, and I like owning it.
However, I don't use it as a reference source. I remember raising it in conversation with a museum curator, using it as a last double double check reference for a vase id, and their response was that it wasn't used as a reference source any more. There are too many incorrect identifications in it.
But it is still worth having and reading as long as it's not used as a reference source in my view. It was written before the days of the internet and of it's time was a great book.
A better book as a reference source is Mervyn Gulliver's Victorian Glass. However, in it he shows a huge amount of glass without identification. As I understand it, he would not put in an identification unless he was sure. So as far as I have found, it is accurate, but may not have as many id's in it as would have been liked :) :)
Another recommendation for British Glass would be Charles Hajdemach's books on British Glass (both of them). Massive tomes, but I have used mine so much they have been invaluable.
The last three books all worth every penny if you need a resource on British Glass.
m
-
I re-bound C.H's C20 glass book into two volumes - and it's till too heavy to read in the bath ;D
-
;D ;D
-
Thanks Christine, M & Paul. M I brought this up primarily because the Alabaster vases that feature the Roman type scenes are pictured & several are....well the book says "signed". A couple are Richardson's Stourbridge & he calls them "Vitrified enamel colored" yet another one is signed "M. W. & Co. Vitirfied", Mill, Walker & Co. Wordsley. I will give the author props on one piece, #430 which he say is a modern piece of Burmese made in Italy. This particular piece is a really excellent copy of a Mt. Washington Burmese Bowtie vase & what separates it from 98% of all Italian Burmese copies is that Uranium was used in the batch & this one is such a good copy that its extremely difficult to distinguish from the original. MW collectors are happy that this is so far the only one imported known to have used Uranium...98% of the Burmese copies will not react at all to a blacklight. Cryil got this one right. Book was only $5 & DW thought the pics are beautiful just to look at regardless of attribution so it came home with us.
-
It is lovely to own and many of the identifications are correct (well the ones I know).
However, I would never use it to identify something. There are too many incorrect id's.
But when Manley wrote it there just was not the information readily available to compare as this is now on the net. There were no glass message boards in any version so the cross fertilisation of ideas and information was nowhere near as available. That said, the information and pictures he managed to include in the absence of the internet, was great. To me it reads as though he wrote it as a start point for people to investigate more. Unfortunately as time and the net have moved on, incorrect id's have surfaced with regularity.
What I found interesting was the information he'd passed on from talking to people who worked in the industry. However, as Frank I think has mentioned, memories are not always accurate either.
That said, I do still read his text as a last check on things. Just in case there is a nugget of information there.
As Kev mentioned on a previous thread, I'm sure Mr Manley would have loved the GMB :) it is probably exactly the kind of thing he was looking for to exchange ideas and information on his glass collection.
-
Another point about Manley's Decorative Victorian Glass book is that it was preceded by an American publication (see this link for my reference to it (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,48149.msg276430.html#msg276430)) with a 1968 copyright date. That earlier book illustrates very many of the items shown in the later book. The earlier one has only brief descriptions but they do tie up (mostly) with the later versions.
So, many of Cyril Manley's attributions were set long before Decorative Victorian Glass was published.
-
I've very little experience of decorative C19 glass, so wouldn't presume to criticize, but one feature of his book that might perhaps have made it more useful would have been to have included more details of Registration Nos., especially the earlier ones.
Some are included, and to his credit Cyril Manley was astute enough to have been aware of the problem of CLASS III glass items being wrongly placed in CLASS IV, ceramics, but it does seem likely from reading his words that he didn't make use of the Board of Trade records with regard to the cross-referencing some of his images with the alleged Registration Nos. Of course his work was at a time prior to the advent of the National Archives, and so life was nowhere near as easy for researchers.
If you read the text, and realize the efforts he went to in his discussions with glass workers and factory people, it's not perhaps easy to comprehend the level of criticism levelled again him, and makes it more difficult to understand the apparent extent of errors. Perhaps he was simply too gullible.
If you read the final paragraph of his introduction, he does admit to a lack of certainty with many of his attributions ..."not all my opinions may be correct. "My research methods may not seem acceptable to many for they are based on the experience of myself and others, and my handling of glass".
But I like the book, but then I'm a big fan of coloured pictures - I rarely read the books........ my sons comment that I simply read dust jacket blub and then profess that I know all about the subject. ;)
Apropos of nothing mentioned here, I think I'm correct in saying that none of Manley's illustrations show examples of either of the Wittmann & Roth Registrations - 41925 (for the scale decoration) and 39086 (the hammered effect) - about which we've spilled not a little ink recently.
Is it likely that he simply didn't find examples - though he had some real gems that today you aren't going to find - or is there another reason he didn't include them?
Mod: The paragraph above has been retained here, but detailed discussion relating to the Wittmann & Roth registered items has been merged into another thread (Replies #37-39, Vase signed G.S.F. - American (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,63298.msg355601.html#msg355601)).
Over the next two or three days, I'll hopefully write a few words on some of the more famous of the Richardson pieces he shows, and include the corresponding National Archive Registration pictures.
-
Charles Hajdamach refers to the (British) Richardson output as a 'dynasty' - probably a fair description of a very successful family of mid C19 glass manufacturers - and in Manley's U.K. book that Ken mentions buying, the author includes a few of Richardson's more notable designs. Quite why Manley didn't provide the relevant British Registration Nos. for these early designs I've no idea - possibly because he didn't frequent the Board of Trade Archives - although in the main he does seem to have been aware of the years of Registration. So here are just a few thoughts on the very first of Richardson's Registrations.
Their very first Registration, of which Manley shows an example on page 54 - item 6 - is the famous jug/ewer, decorated with transfer printed scenes of Egyptian rustic life and described as Vitrified Enamel Colour, described by some folk as opaline.
For those interested, the Reg. No. is 42634, as shown on the attached pix, and I've followed Manley and included the matching goblet (item 7 in his book), which was allocated Registration No. 42635 - both pieces carry the same Registration date of 16th April 1847.
These pieces, with variations on the transfer printed subject matter - middle eastern scenes then later apparently English rural views and floral designs - can be found elsewhere in the literature (probably Wakefield and certainly Morris), although oddly I didn't see either piece in C.H., - but notice that pieces with identical transfer prints appeared for sale in Part Two of the Parkington Collection at Christie's in April 1998. I don't know the date of sale of the Manley collection, but wonder if Michael Parkington purchased the exact pieces showing in Manley's book.
There are prior dated designs from the Richardson pattern books, but as far as I'm aware none of those was Registered with the Board of Trade - so 42634 and 42635 appear to be the very first Registered designs from W. H. B. & J. Richardson, Stourbridge.
The exact shape/pattern of Reg. 42634, with its distinctive downward pulled scallop on either side of the handle - occurs again in the list of Richardson Registrations - namely Rd. 52328 dated 13th June 1848 - and can be found in clear glass painted with a floral design in coloured enamels and, yet again, in the Parkington sale, in clear glass with cut/frosted decoration of what appears to be convolvulus leaves (popular plant it seems at the time).
I've attached a National Archive picture of Rd. 52328, and although you can't be certain this was enamel painting on clear glass, I'm of the opinion it was, - as opposed to an opaline type.
Christie's show the Parkington clear cut glass jug, based on the shape of Rd. 42634, and state 'Richardson's c. 1850' - and refer us to Barbara Morris' book which shows unrelated shapes but similar cutting designs with frosted glass - in support of their claim as to date I've not a clue as to the actual time line of manufacture for some of these later versions of 42634, and like many attributions in books, these are given often without any provenance to support their claim. ..................... on the other hand I wouldn't dare argue with the writings of the late Barbara Morris.
The difficulty we have is trying to decide exactly what it was that Richardson were Registering and when, and whereas ordinarily this should be resolved by looking at the Archives Register - that part of the records where the Applicant's name and address are shown, plus details of what it is that's being protected - I have looked, and it's not helped.
In the Register, against 42634 there is a blank.......... against 42635 there is simply the word 'goblet' ................. and against 52328 it states simply 'water jug' - perhaps Richardson were playing hard and fast with the Board of Trade and being evasive, deliberately.
My own thoughts are that 42634 may well have Registered the newly invented 'Richardson Vitrified Enamel colors' only, (dropping the 'u' was apparently the factory's idea) - and not the shape at all .............. on the other hand 42634 may well have also Registered the shape - and the subsequent Rd. 52328 may simply have been to protect their coloured enamelled painting on clear glass of the same shape. ...... Manley isn't specific in his book as to what exactly he considered was being Registered against 42634 and 35, and comments in regard to a completely different Registration............. "I'm not sure what was Registered etc. etc. ....." so he too was occasionally in some doubt as to the details of that part of the design that was be Registered. There isn't an example of 52328 in Manley's book.
The answer may well be in the Richardson archives, but whatever the answer, it's obvious that an identical shape of jug occurs under both 42634 and 52328.
Of course, always possible that someone here may have a much better answer as to exactly what these two Reg. designs were protecting - would love to hear*:) happy
Bit of a ramble really, and not sure of much use, but if anyone still reading this far down, you deserve a medal.
-
Thank you for taking the time to research and share the information :)
I'm always interested in Richardson opaline items.
Particularly interested (in reference to my blue Etruscan vase) that they appear to be mostly (with one exception I found in the Black Country Museums site) transfer printed.
m
-
I think you'd know a lot me than me m as to whether this type of material can legitimately called opaline. :) For me, the frustration is not knowing what exactly was being Registered, and as I say, that information might only be sourced from the factory records.
This type of decorative illustration was definitely transfer printed, but I'm not so sure about those depicting Greek and Roman stylized figures - often shown in a sort of terracotta or cream colour. I can post those if of interest.
There is also another very well know surface decoration shown in Manley - the 'vermicelli or vermicular' decoration - it's the thread/worm like never ending wiggley line. It appears on at least two different shapes, one of them having the rope twist handle that Manley shows.
I don't really know that there is the interest so much in some of these things - mostly interest is in pieces we can find - and I'd imagine that most of these very early pieces are now as rare as hen's teeth :)
-
From Paul S, Reply #9:
These pieces, with variations on the transfer printed subject matter - middle eastern scenes then later apparently English rural views and floral designs - can be found elsewhere in the literature (probably Wakefield and certainly Morris), although oddly I didn't see either piece in C.H., - but notice that pieces with identical transfer prints appeared for sale in Part Two of the Parkington Collection at Christie's in April 1998. I don't know the date of sale of the Manley collection, but wonder if Michael Parkington purchased the exact pieces showing in Manley's book.
The Manley sale was 7/8 July 1986, so Parkinton could well have bought items from that sale.
However ... The Parkington jug / ewer and the Manley one (in his 1981 copyrighted book - 1988 edition ) have very similar but differing print decoration. In the Manley one, the elderly man pointing to his right has his arm well below the branches of the nearby palm. In the Parkington one, the man's arm is set with his hand between the lower two palm branches. Also, the ground around the palm differs in each case and in the Manley one there is a clear row of distant palms behind the elderly man but this feature is not at all obvious in the Parkington one.
The Manley example was also included in the 1968 American "British Glass" book (based on Manley's collection) as Item 251. Again, the "matching" goblet is identical in both books covering the Manley items but has a differing print from the Parkington example.
Incidentally, in the earlier American book, Manley's descriptions simply stated "c.1850". So it was after 1968 that he found evidence of the registration date.
Wakefield, Nineteenth Century British Glass, revised edition 1982, page 67 ref 59 shows a jug with the same shape but with a third differing print to the Manley & Parkington examples. The print is of the same general scene - elderly man and others at a well (?) with palms but details differ. It is described as "White opaline ... monochrome sepia painting. ... about 1850. Victoria and Albert Museum."
Also in Wakefield ... page 66 ref 58 shows a jug of the 42634 / 52328 shape. It is described as "White opaline ... about 1850", but it has an attractive band of foliage top and bottom of a wavy trellis-style band ... which is gilded, not printed (or "sepia painted"). Provenance to "Stourbridge Glass Collection".
Design 52328
And page 72 ref 67 in Wakefield. "Jug ... clear colorless glass with painted decoration ... registration mark for 1848. Victoria and Albert Museum." The decoration is all around the body depicting a flower and leaf display much like the one shown in the actual registration document.
-
thanks - yes, see what you mean now, obviously I need Specsavers again then. Very irritating there should this seemingly identical image but varying in such small detail. According to Manley, there were many different decorative images used on this 42634 'Vitrified' jug.
I get the impression that most, if not all, of the 'Vitrified Enamel Color' (Opaline) pieces (Regs. 42634 and 42635) look to be without a diamond lozenge, so more difficult for earlier authors to date these accurately - even down to the year - unless they had access to either the factory records or the National Archives.
I notice that the expression 'circa 1850' was used prolifically by Christie's - in the Parkington catalogues - when dating his Victorian pieces - and I would imagine that technically they would have been correct in using this expression for pieces made a few years either side of that date - we have to remember always the golden rule when trying to date shapes and patterns that were based on a Registered Design - although obviously they couldn't have been made earlier than the Registration Date - they may well have been made a few years later.
I don't know if there is a recognized maximum margin or period of years either side of a quoted 'circa date' - don't recall ever seeing reference to such.
For how many years the Vitrified/Opaline jug Rd. 42634 was in production we may never know, but it may have been popular and been produced for quite some time.
There is an example of 52328 (the apparently same shape as 42634). the clear glass jug painted with coloured enamels showing flowers etc. - shown in Barbara Morris, which in fact does have a diamond lozenge, although Manley doesn't shown an example of 52328.
I say these two Registrations are the same shape - I stand to be corrected, but to my eyes they look the same - and it's this possible confusion that makes for some of the mystery surrounding quite what aspect of each Registration No. was being protected.
As with 42634, there appears to have been variation in the style of painted enamel images depicted on 52328 - which you'd assume were hand painted, but can't be certain of that. Assuming hand painted then remaining examples of 52328 would probably be fewer.
Just to make matters more confusing, the factory Registered another jug/ewer No. 52329 on the same date as 52328 - with a slightly different design, in Vitrified/Opaline and decorated with those transfer prints of Greek/Roman dress.
-
I've a feeling the 'vitrified enamel' refers to the enamels used to decorate the piece rather than the glass body itself.
Just thought I'd add that - did someone ask about this? or is just that I recall finding out about this many moons ago.
And yes, I would call all these translucent glass pieces by Richardson 'opaline glass'.
Again, I seem to recall an odd comment in The Crystal Years (the S & W book) about Richardson's doing 'alabaster' glass (in the section about S & W alabaster range), so it's possible they called their opaline 'alabaster' hence the odd comment in the book. But they are opaline glass basically. There are a couple of early pieces in hospital green and pale custard yellow as well but mostly white pieces. Some are very translucent and others appear to be fairly opaque but it can be difficult to tell from photographs.
Not got Manley with me at mo - are the vermicelli pieces registered with rd numbers?
m
-
Cyril Manley includes a single 'vermicelli' jug in his book, shown with rope twist handle - and he comments that the jug is signed 'Richardson 1854', but doesn't include the Board of Trade Registration No., which is 96703 dated 24th August 1854. As with some of the other early Registered designs in his book, Manley admitted to being unsure as to exactly what aspects of this 'vermicelli' jug were being Registered, and I don't know that I'm a lot wiser either - it may well be that Gulliver is more specific - but I don't have that book, although doubtless the answer is in the factory records.
The 'vermicelli' jug Reg. 96703, showing in Manley (page 56 item 53) has a very pure baluster shape, and has design differences when compared with Reg. 42634, so the two bodies are quite different, and it's possible this new baluster shape was being Registered - but then again Richardson were knocking out so many classical ewer and jug shapes around this time it's difficult to tell what was going on.
Hopefully later today I will get time to post the National Archive pix for Regs. 96703 ('vermicelli') and 52329 - this latter is another jug/ewer body shape with quite distinctive pouring rim.
It's possible that the 'vermicelli' Registration 96703 is the original source of the protection for the rope twist handle, but if that's not the case and someone knows otherwise, I hope they will shout - equally, 96703 might protect the combined designs of body shape, surface decoration and the novelty handle. Richardson were market leaders with innovative designs and product materials, and you can't blame them for being over zealous in producing pieces showing combinations of their inventions.
The 'vermicelli' pattern is a real novelty - exactly what method was used to produce this I've no idea, although some combination of resist and acid is very likely, and Manley comments that ............ "It was a very time-consuming operation, all the pattern marks are hand-worked, and only girls with the right temperament could do the job." It always makes me think of pieces of a jig-saw puzzle.
Reg. 81613 on 18th November 1851 appears to have been the final Registration under the name of W. H. B. & J. Richardson, and after a gap of something like three years Registrations from the factory re-commence with 95056 on 14th February 1854 under the name of Benjamin Richardson, Stourbridge.
Apologies to folk who don't have access to images of these pieces - hopefully the National Archive pix will go someway to helping - alternatively it could be a good opportunity to buy some useful reference books ;) ;)
-
aside from the earlier posts providing literary critique ;) - the later words were intended to fill in some of the gaps in Cyril Manley's book, where his illustrations of Richardson glass lacked the corresponding Registration details etc., and attached are a few more National Archive images which hopefully will add interest and perhaps usability to Manley's work. Trust it's possible to marry up the attached pix with the following wording:
1......... another opaline jug Rd. 52329 - dated 13.06.1848, and transfer decorated with figures in classical dress. It's difficult with some of these jug shapes to know whether they occur in Manley or not - I don't think this one does, but that sort of uncertainty highlights the need in all books to provide as much info as possible so that future research can make accurate attributions.
2...........Rd. 96703 dated 24.08.1854 - this is the classic baluster shape showing in Manley - bottom line on page 56 - and agrees with the vermicelli decoration on his jug. However, as you can see (if you have a copy of Manley's book - and must take my word for it if not), the National Archive images parts company with Manley's when it comes to the handle - his having the more complex rope twist design against the Archives example of a simple C19 strap version. So ... Rd. 96703 appears NOT to have Registered the twist handle - and would be very good to discover under which Registration that invention was in fact protected - off hand I don't know........... over to you Kevin. :)
3..........Rd. 98170 dated 16.11.1854 - another baluster type of shape and another example decorated with vermicelli pattern - but lacks a handle and so not a jug or ewer - the wording reading 'This pattern for all kinds of lamps, globes or shades or pedestals etc.' I've not been aware of seeing this pattern/shape in the books.
4..........finally, and just for a little interest, some of the monochrome and polychrome Registrations Nos. 43924 - 27 dated 06.07.1847, which were applied often to the opaline pieces - perhaps typical of the Victorian's unrealistic approach to Roman life, but no doubt they sold well. Not quite sure about the apparent Christian winged angel passing the helmet to the soldier - I thought the Romans were pagans.
Would suggest that in view of the subject matter this thread should be in British?? Feel free to criticize on anything and everything.
Sorry, two pix will run over, again.
-
and the last two pix.
-
96703
... Manley admitted to being unsure as to exactly what aspects of this 'vermicelli' jug were being Registered, and I don't know that I'm a lot wiser either - it may well be that Gulliver is more specific - but I don't have that book, although doubtless the answer is in the factory records.
Gulliver quoted the words from the registered design detail and added a comment in parenthesis: "Pattern upon all kinds of table glass. (Vermicular pattern shown on a jug)"
-
thanks for checking Gulliver's book for me - and judging by the wording on the Registration drawing - plus Gulliver's own comments - it does appear to have been the vermicular pattern only that the factory were protecting - which in fact was Manley's suspicion.
Perhaps Richardson, for whatever reason, never Registered that rope twist handle, although they did Register a rope twist stem on a wine glass - Rd. 96004 - which obviously pre-dates 96703 - albeit not quite the same type of twist though. Perhaps we'll never know for sure.
-
I forgot to mention Gulliver's text for 98170 (the vase): "Pattern for all kinds of glass globes, or shades, or pedestals etc. (Vermicular pattern shown on a vase)"
Note that he stated "glass globes" rather than "lamps globes". My own reading of the registration text as provided by Paul above, is "lamps globes", so I guess Gulliver just made a simple error.
And I wonder whether the company made two registrations for what is basically the same "vermicular pattern" because in August 1854 they specified "pattern on table glass" and then realised the sales potential for other wares, hence the November 1854 registration.
-
Am not able to read this thoroughly at the mo, but just wanted to say thank you for adding the information to both Paul and Kev.
I will have more time next week. Paul, thanks for the pictures! None are anything like the three pieces I have. But as soon as you show them I immediately recognised some on some Richardson's pieces I've seen.
m
-
I bet Ken now wishes he'd never mentioned buying the book ;)