Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: mhgcgolfclub on February 14, 2017, 08:02:47 PM
-
Hi Fred
Not sure if you were still looking for confirmation.
Sowerby pattern 1407 registered 6th June 1879 fully marked on the base.
Roy
-
Thank you for the pictures, Roy - in IQW I presume.
The only photos I had were of just the side view of an IQW example and an 'Aesthetic Green' example, but apparently unmarked and with a query as to whether the design was unregistered.
Now we know that the design was indeed registered (and on 6 June 1879 - Parcel 10).
This particular registry date lozenge covered a bundle of 4 Sowerby designs:
RD 335969 'New vase'
RD 335970 'Butter'
RD 335971 'Flower pot'
RD 335972 described by Slack as a 'bowl' (correlated with Sowerby pattern #1411, shown on page 8 of pattern book IX, 1882), and by Thompson as a 'New bowl (sometimes found decorated to simulate carved ivory)'.
Thompson, page 32, also shows the design representation for Sowerby RD 335972, along with the description 'New bowl. Most often seen in Patent Ivory Queen's Ware with raised decoration of blossoms'. This design representation and description fits Roy's pattern 1407 bowl exactly.
Sowerby pattern 1407 is shown on page 8 of pattern book IX (1882). Just below it is shown Sowerby pattern 1411, a small 2-handled pot, which obviously does not fit Thomson's design representation or description for RD 335972 (in contradiction of Slack's assertion).
This would seem, therefore, to be another instance where Slack has mis-correlated a Sowerby RD number within a bundle with its Sowerby pattern number. I think there is a fair chance, though, that RD 335971 correlates instead with Sowerby pattern 1411 (the 'flower pot').
The mostly likely resolution of the confusion within the bundle for 6 June 1879 - Parcel 10 would be to compare the appropriate Sowerby design representations with the know illustrations of the pattern numbers shown in the Sowerby pattern books. I trust that if Paul S. sees this post that he may be able to show us the relevant design representations from the TNA in due course to help clarify the situation.
Fred.
-
I have this bowl in two sizes. The larger is 9inches between the 'combs', the smaller 6inches. Both have the same registration mark and (almost) exactly the same pattern inside and out. The patterns are very intricate, the person who made the metal mould was a real craftsman.
-
funny - thought I'd shown this particular design some years back - I certainly had examples, but long since parted with them.
I'd agree with Mike that the intricacy and sharpness of pattern detail is quite remarkable on the QPIW pieces, and it seems to be consistent with most of the designs in that range - perhaps that's what captivated HRH so much.
I'll post TNA Kew Registration pix later this morning - assuming I have them. ;)
P.S. Assume this was a 'Tuesday morning' find Roy? ;D
-
Thank you for posting your photo, Mike.
I hadn't realised that there was more than one size in this pattern.
Fred.
-
In seems prudent to point out that there is sometimes confusion between Sowerby pattern 1407 and two other Sowerby dish patterns with comb handles but with completely different decorative patterns:
Sowerby pattern 1375 - from Sowerby RD 332053 of 8 February 1879 - Parcel 8, This has 2 slots in the handle combs, a plain interior, and a narrow exterior top rim with a stylised linked foliar pattern atop vertical narrow gadroons. Both Thompson and Slack describe it as a 'butter dish'.
Sowerby pattern 1376 - from Sowerby RD 332195 of 12 February 1879 - Parcel 17. This has 3 slots in the handle combs, an oval panel (decorated with an 'oriental' pattern) to the centre of the interior with the sides of interior being radially ribbed, and a narrow exterior rim atop a series of panels (all decorated with a similar 'oriental' pattern to that in the centre of the interior). Both Thompson and Slack simply describe it as a 'dish'.
Both are illustrated on page 7 of Sowerby pattern book IX (1882).
Fred.
-
pix attached of TNA Kew original factory drawings for Sowerby Regs. 335969 - 72 incl. from 6th June 1879 - showing that Roy's 'New Bowl' is indeed Reg. 335972 - and like Fred, I was unaware of the two sizes in this 'New Bowl'. Am surprised though that there are known examples of this design that lack the lozenge - which is usually very pronounced and not the sort of thing that might be worn away, and since Sowerby were very protective of such patterns/designs that we should have to contemplate the fact that they allowed the use of moulds for this Registration without the lozenge.
I think to be fair, and to give Ray Slack the benefit of the doubt, I'm inclined to think his error in linking this Reg. to Sowerby factory pattern 1411 was one of being too trusting of Simon Cottle's research, which is where - originally - you will find 335972 linked to 1411, since Cottle was published about one year earlier, and very obvious I'd have thought that Ray Slack would have had a copy of Cottle's booklet. I'm sure that had Ray looked at page eight of Pattern Book IX he couldn't fail to have seen the obvious design differences between patterns 1407 and 1411.
Have to say that I'd assumed that we were all well aware that this shape/design of QPIW had been Registered - Slack confirms this fact on page 61 of his book, and Notley refers to items of QPIW being 'PODR' - Notley's way of referring to a design that had been the subject of 'Patent Office Design Registered'. Although QPIW was in fact Patented, I'm not quite sure why Notley uses the word 'Patent' in connection with Board of Trade Registration - and his description of the two pieces illustrated in his booklet could be said to be misleading........... "A Sowerby Aesthetic milk-and-sugar set in ivory glass" he says ...... we know why he uses the word 'aesthetic' (the Japanese influence in the design), but he must have known the mis-understanding that would result.
Misleading insofar as Sowerby produced what is now a very rare colour called 'Aesthetic Green', and which was unrelated to their uranium/arsenic coloured QPIW or the Registrations relating to that material. If you look at the colour of those pieces of 'Aesthetic Green' shown in Slack, Murray and Lattimore, then Notley's colour does seem to be standard QPIW colour, so he might have explained better that what he was referring to was the Oriental influence, and not the colour.
Sheilagh Murray also confirms that this design had 'diamond registration and Peacock mark' - see plate 25 - and speaking of QPIW goes on to say - pp. 28/29 - "Most of these pieces are marked and I have not seen an example which did not carry the Peacock's head." So, hands up those who don't read their books on pressed glass? ;D ;)
Murray spills more ink than most authors discussing Sowerby colours, but surprisingly you won't find the word 'aesthetic' in her index, and the lady seems to have been unaware of this word used to describe a certain yellowish green glass from Sowerby - in the same way other more recent authors have done. Murray does speak of a colour she called 'Pomona Green', and says it was a "green in which yellow predominates" - which could easily be a description of Sowerby's Aesthetic Green, but I'm really only making assumptions and I've no idea what the origin of the word Pomona means.
Lastly, just wanted to say that as some readers of this magazine will be aware, there was recent Board discussion regarding the well known late C19 artistic style referred to as 'The Aesthetic Movement' - a style which had its origins in Japanese art from the mid to latter part of the C19.
It appears more difficult to relate this fashion to glass than perhaps other forms of 'art work', and so much of what might be considered 'aesthetic' can, at the end of the day, be attributed to nothing more than varieties of art 'nouveau' - sinuous, natural shapes full of curves and women's bodies - but lacking the all important evidence of Japanese art.
But having this discussion does allow us to categorically draw attention to specific pieces of glass that may legitimately be referred to as 'aesthetic' (C19 art style and not a colour produced by Sowerby) - and Sowerby's 'New Bowl' Reg. No. 335972 is probably at the head of what is a very small and select group of pieces that qualify.
Notley's milk and sugar set shown in his booklet may well also qualify, and according to that author so might some of Walter Crane's glass nursery designs.
Before leaving Sheilagh Murray it's relevant to note that the lady refers us to the late Barbara Morris' 'Victorian Table Glass & Ornaments' for bit of an expose on 'Aesthetic Glass' - the style and not the colour - chapter 11 Pressed Glass'. Won't quote from Morris as it ticks on a bit, but would recommend reading this as it does sum up very well the qualifications of that style and good to know that our pressed glass is at the forefront of the 'Aesthetic Movement'
As always feel free to criticize in part or in whole.
-
Fred - I posted before realizing you were now discussing Sowerby variations - if you want separate Reg. No. images will you let me know please.
-
Thank you, Paul. I will look at the design representations in detail this evening.
As to the comb-handled variants - the design representations for RDs 332053 and 332195 would certainly tie up the topic thread nicely. I look forward to seeing them in due course.
Fred.
-
sorry, can't give you a decent image of 332053 - not only was my picture out of focus but the original factory drawing is abysmally faint, so as I'm intending to be a Kew next week I'll re-take this one and post what I hope will be a better picture than I have at present.
But can do 332195 - see attached two images - and hope adequate for our purposes. :)
-
Thank you for showing Sowerby RD 332195, Paul.
As to the RD 335969-335972 bundle:
Sowerby RD 335969 of 6 June 1879 - Parcel 10 is obviously correlated with Sowerby pattern 1411 on page 8 of Sowerby pattern book IX (1882).
Sowerby RD 335970 of 6 June 1879 - Parcel 10 is correlated with Sowerby covered butter pattern 1401 on page 7 of Sowerby pattern book XI (1885).
Sowerby RD 335971 of 6 June 1879 - Parcel 10 is correlated with Sowerby flower pot pattern 1405 on page 32 of Sowerby pattern book XI (1885).
Sowerby RD 335972 of 6 June 1879 - Parcel 10 is correlated with Sowerby bowl pattern 1407 on page 8 of Sowerby pattern book IX (1882).
My copies of Cottle, Slack and Thompson are annotated accordingly, and the GMB RD database and Glass Gallery Sowerby album will be updated in due course.
Now, does anyone have photos of actual examples of the Sowerby 1401 covered butter or the Sowerby pattern 1405 flower pot to show, please?
Fred.
-
Thanks Fred Paul and Mike for adding all the information.
Fred my example is IQW and Paul it was a Tuesday morning buy along with a IQW plate ;D
My example would be the smaller 6" size.
Thanks Roy
-
good job we're not both there fighting over the same pieces Roy - I tend to look only for f/pens now - what are the lozenge details on the plate - are they the same as the bowl? I've looked through most of the books on pressed glass, and as you know there are many pix of plates in opaque Vitro-Porcelain in a variety of colours, but I can't see a plate in QPIW - have I missed seeing one somewhere do you know??
Coming back to Sowerby colours, apparently Pomona was the Greek goddess of orchards and the apple was her favourite fruit. It was the Georgians who appear to have first used the word for a specific shade of apple green which was very fashionable during the Regency, used in clothing and domestic decor - a green colour which had the appearance of containing much yellow - so in essence a greenish yellow. By the sound of it this would be a good description of Sowerby's 'Aesthetic Green', and it sounds very possible that it was this special Sowerby colour that Sheilagh Murray was referring to when the lady used the word Pomona Green.
Ray Slack comments that "and an 'Aesthetic Green' was advertised extensively during the 1880s along with a very pleasant yellow called 'Giallo .." - so would appear that the use of these names for the green and yellow can be dated fairly accurately to that particular decade by the factory themselves, and were not later inventions. On the face of it simply unfortunate that Sheilagh Murray appears to have overlooked, or been unaware, that these terms were descriptions invented by the factory in the C19.
-
Thanks Paul
The plate is not a rare item and I have only seen it in IQW dated 30th August 1878. I will start a new post so not to confuse this post.
Roy