Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: mikenott on December 20, 2016, 04:49:11 PM
-
I recently bought a flint glass rummer with a clear design lozenge (no other marks). But I am having trouble deciphering it as it doesn't seem to fit either of the protocols for pre and post 1867/68 lozenges. It is the right Class (III). Any help to interpret appreciated!!
Not sure if this one has appeared on here before, but didn't turn up anything with a search.
Michael
-
A glass goblet with the same 'anomolous' lozenge has already been discussed on the GMB at http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,55007.10.html
From my re-reading of the topic, the goblet would seem to be from RD 198277 registered by James Derbyshire & Brother, Hulme, on 16 June 1866.
See also
https://sites.google.com/site/molwebbhistory/Home/registered-designs/derbyshire-brothers-designs-by-date/derbyshire-brothers-1866-1869
and
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,53689.msg304690.html#msg304690
Fred.
-
Thanks Fred! Guess my search skills are not as good as I think......
Michael.
-
would agree it does look to be a match for 198277 ............. just to satisfy my curiosity Michael, will you please provide another side shot showing the whole of the pressed pattern more fully. The large 'teardrop' shape is repeated with each consecutive repeat turned through 180 degrees. and it's this one way up and then the other that I'm not really seeing.
Fred - have I not previously provided the Kew image for 198277 ? - I do have this, and will arrange to post if I've not done so before. :-\
Assuming this one is 198277, I notice that the original factory drawing uses the description of 'goblet' rather than rummer.
-
Thank you for your input, Paul.
Although I already have reference photos for the goblet itself (including the 'anomolous' lozenge), I don't seem to have the design representation for RD 198277 and would, therefore, be delighted to see it posted here in due course.
Fred.
-
My rummer/goblet does not have an up/down repeated pattern. It is a single upright pattern as per the attached photo
Michael
-
thanks Michael - now that I can see the pattern more clearly it doesn't in my opinion represent Derbyshire Rd. 198277 from 16th June 1866 - which as you can see from the attached National Archive picture, does have a alternating repeat pattern. The bulbous lower end of the stem also seems to be at odds with the original factory drawing.
Back to the drawing board then. :)
Having now looked at all of my National Archive pix I have for tumblers/rummers/goblets, regret to say I'm unable to find this pattern.
-
I found the Derbyshire goblet in my glass cabinet so here are the two goblets side by side for comparison of size/shape etc.
M.
-
thanks, and think I can see the alternating pattern on the left hand piece, but the background in this picture Michael is too busy and with different colours/shades for an easy id on the screen only, although appreciate that for you there isn't a problem.
Details on clear glass can be difficult to see at times, and a plain darkish background with some form of light to pick up patterns, will make all the difference. Perhaps if you lay the glasses down, on the dark sheet, it might improve the contrast.
-
Try this.
-
thanks Michael - big improvement. :) Sorry we've been unable to help with the first glass at the beginning of this thread.
-
Paul - thank you for showing the design representation for RD 198277.
Michael - your photos quite clearly show the differences between your rummer with the 'anomolous' lozenge and James Derbyshire & Brother's RD 198277 goblet. The chief perpetrator of 'anomolous' lozenges at this period seems to have been Henry Greener, but Greener designs tend to have much fussier or extravagant decoration. I think it is quite interesting, though, that both pieces have several points of similarity - the shape of the stem and foot, and the broadly stylistic type of pattern on the bowl - but for the moment it would seem that the "anomolous [8-2-4-1 / I]" rummer must continue to languish amongst the host of unattributed Victorian designs.
Fred
-
perhaps I'm being a tad picky, but believe that the vast majority of 'rummers/goblets' that are discussed here are free blown and made in parts, as is standard practice with hand blown/made drinking glasses.
My opinion is that - for this thread - it could be of some benefit if the subject heading includes the word 'pressed' - just a thought. :)
As to whether we follow the wording of the factory drawing and call this pair goblets, as opposed to rummers, is debatable - but since it's true that the majority of rummer shapes will fit into ......... ovoid, ogee, bucket, cylinder and barrel, and possess a capstan or knopped stem - then this pair would probably not be described as rummers.
Although there probably shouldn't be confusion, there can on occasions appear to be a lack of easy distinction between goblet and rummer shapes, and this is compounded by those many folk who refer to all largish cup shaped bowls as 'rummers' .......... these people probably don't have Tim Mills book - a very good read and worth every penny........... a must if you have an interest in C19 rummers, whether pub/tavern or the posh end of the spectrum. ;)
Fred - unfortunately, believe you're right, and it seems we are still in the dark over this non-Rd. 198277 piece. I've been through all of the National Archive pix I have for tumblers/rummers/goblets during the diamond period of 1842 - 1884, and I've not been able to find this single teardrop pattern :)