Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: neilh on February 15, 2017, 07:19:34 PM
-
Recently with the help of other collectors I have tried to put together a page detailing the activity of the Holt Town Glass Works in Ancoats, ran by a number of people, but mainly Thomas Kidd and related family members.
I've updated the known and current set of likely attributions for Kidd pieces
https://sites.google.com/site/molwebbhistory/Home/registered-designs/minor-makers-unregistered-pressed-glass
In light of the current mania for inkwells on this board, I'm highlighting the Chinese Gordon commemorative design from the mid 1880s which several collectors think is a Thomas Kidd piece.
We've also had a go at nailing down what animal shapes he may have done. The list from an advert is dogs, cats, fish, and swans. We've got a fair guess on the dogs & cats, but we've yet to see any fish or swans which we could pin to them. If you have any unattributed late 19th century animal shapes, particularly in jet black, which seems to be their favourite colour, please append!
-
Thank you, Neil.
Here are some photos of an amber glass General Gordon ink bottle. The owner, Kevin Collins, has given his permission for you to re-use of any of them on your Manchester Glass site should you so wish - with due credit, of course.
Fred.
-
the first item listed as 'related to Kidd', under Neil's above link to his Mol/Webb reference site, is Reg. 235690 dated 3rd November 1869, allocated to A. Kenyon of Manchester.
Should it be of interest attached is a copy of the original factory drawing for a 'very simple vase design' - a plain baluster shape, of what size we will probably never know - if of no interest, it can be deleted, of course. :)
the following Reg., in Neil's link, No. 302912 from 26th August 1876 for Joseph Kidd, for a lamp chimney, regret I don't presently have.
-
Hi Paul, I do have the Joseph Kidd one, I just haven't figured out how to do watermarking on my paint program :-)
Actually it looks almost the same as the Kenyon piece.
What's more curious is that we think Joseph Kidd was secretary at Percival Vickers at the time of the registration, though it was just around the time the Kidds were taking over the Holt Town works, can't be sure. Which reminds me, if you are going back to the National Archives soon, there's a similar situation that I missed previously when collecting the Manchester registrations.
David Wilkinson was secretary at Percival Vickers in the 1840s before joining Molineaux Webb in the next decade. It appears he made two registrations in 1849 which would be interesting to see for early pressed glass fans
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_p=1800&_q=BT+glass+wilkinson
58852
61373
-
regret I'm ignorant of your 'paint programme' Neil - several years back Bernard Cavelot posted a link for what is a fairly simple watermarking programme, which I've used ever since, and it works o.k. with my Picasa editing and IrfanView - I suspect his link is still in the Board's archive if you do a search ................ anyway here are the two Registrations you requested. There aren't many pix - from 1842 to early 1884 that I don't now have on my own personal archive.
Descriptions for these two vary a little, between the Register and the text you see on the original factory drawings, as follows...........
Register for 58852 says........ "Double Square Pillar'd Sugar Basin" - as opposed to 'Double Square Pillar'd Caddy Basin' on the drawing.
Register for 61373 says........ "Butter Dish" - factory drawing says...... 'Bamboo Butter.'
I shall in fact be at Kew this Tuesday.
-
Link to Bernard's original how to do the watermark post: http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,45299.msg253589.html#msg253589
-
thanks Anne. Some of these threads regarding British pressed glass have a habit of rambling and diverting along the way to unrelated manufacturers and/or Registrations - perhaps unavoidable and maybe we can't do much about it - just the way our discussions evolve.
It won't prevent something being found when using the Board's 'search' facility, provided the correct details are entered - so in theory not a problem............. it's just that occasionally I think of our dictum that individual threads should stick to a single subject.
All a roundabout way of saying that if these two David Wilkinson items would be better if split into their own thread then leave it to you to decide. Suspect it probably doesn't really matter though.
Watermarking is a bore.............. it's tedious and time consuming, although I can now whistle through them fairly quickly. When I started using the programme, Bernard criticized me for making the watermark too obvious, so I try to keep the presence of the wording reasonably unobtrusive - if people think I'm still making the words too dark or the font size to large, say so, and I'll knock then back a notch or to in strength and size.
Regret it appears I can do nothing about the loss of some sharpness of image details which occurs in the process - or if there is a way of avoiding this then sorry to say I'm not clever enough to know how to avoid it.
It would be interesting to have others try the programme that Anne has linked - download and try a little experimenting and see what sort of results you get, couldn't be any worse than mine. ............. it's interesting and does help with learning a little more of how these things work. As I've said, you can still use Picasa and IrfanView with Bernard's particular version of Watermarking - the Picasa editing is almost essential with some of the Kew images, which benefit enormously from improvement in contrast etc.
-
Thank you for showing these 'divergent' design representations, Paul. I will add them to the GMB RD database in due course.
Fred.
-
Thanks Paul, the 1849 caddy looks quite like one PV registered in 1848, neither of the two appear in the 1881 catalog, though not a surprise as I think this shape of object had gone out of fashion by then. Bit more surprised the butter didn't make it to the 1881 catalog either, as a few from this era just creep in. Very interesting to see these.
Apologies for diverting my own thread, still interested in any Thomas Kidd possibles you may come across, someone must have a 19th century jet black (or other) fish... swan... out there somewhere...
-
looking again at the separate and slightly different text descriptions for Rd. 58852 - 'sugar basin' and 'caddy basin', the intended end use seemed a bit ambiguous.
I always think of caddies as being for tea mixing, and a sugar basin has an obvious intended use, although the shape is very much in the style of a C19 tea mixing bowl, which would fit into a tea poy or caddy - straight sides.
The container could be used for either, but having collected a number of tea mixing bowls over the years, the shape of this one certainly made me think of tea rather than sugar, as C19 examples of the latter tend to have rounded bowls and often have a stemmed undercarriage. ;D
-
I have read with interest the various comments about Thomas Kidd, but unless Im mistaken no-one has come up with a definitive response to Neil's earlier request for information about swans and fish. Could I offer a provocative suggestion.
Thomas Kidd was situated at Holt Town, from which we may deduce that they were not part of the Ancoats group of manufacturers: Molineaux Webb, Percival Vickers, Burtles Tate, and Andrew Ker. However the distance between Holt Town and Ancoats is only a few hundred meters. We also know that Joseph Kidd, the son of Thomas and Ann Kidd was company secretary at Percival Vickers in the late 1870's. Consequent upon his father's death Joseph seems to have transferred his allegiance to the family business and assumed a greater role over the following years. Thomas Kidd therefore would have had access to the working practices, supplier base and also skilled workforce enjoyed by their illustrious neighbours.
One of Molineaux Webb's iconic items is the flower trough in the form of a pike. This was registered on 14 July 1885, #29781. Normally seen in an opalescent blue or yellow the pike is less common found in a deep blue or green colour. It measures c26cms. Less common are two similar models of pike that are smaller: 14 and 18cms.
The two smaller sizes are unmarked and do not, to my knowledge appear in the opalescent colourways of their larger partners. Whilst the larger one of the two unmarked versions has fish scales that look identical to the large model, the smaller one is less detailed, although it is very well modelled. This latter point may not be significant as the close proximity of the two factories would have meant that they both had access to the same mould makers who would have had their own style and detail.
Could it be that one if not both of the smaller pike were actually made not by Molineaux Webb, but by Thomas Kidd?
nb I also have a couple of small swans that look for all the world like Burtles Tate's well known family. Could these also be made by Thomas Kidd?
-
That's an interesting idea. There was a thread on the Glass board some years ago where someone had a dead ringer for a Burtles Tate swan but there was no registration number on it. We struggled to find an explanation at the time - I'm not sure if the thread still exists as the questioner was incredibly rude, rude enough to get deleted!
Anyway the idea that Burtles Tate swans without a number might actually be Thomas Kidd knockoffs is a good one. Does anyone else out there have a swan which they assured themselves was a Burtles Tate example even though they couldn't find the reg number?
-
I have this opaque white and pink swan which is unmarked. Comparing it with 3 other marked examples, looking at size (medium size swan), weight, pattern of feathers I would say they are are all the same. If not it is a very good copy. I have another unmarked swan which is a bigger size, between the normal medium and large sizes, this has the same 'feather' layout and I would say this is also B&T.
The opaque white/pink swan was bought in France, did B&T export? if so maybe they used moulds without marks for export glass.
-
Burtles Tate advertised their glass "for home and export trade".
So another interesting idea - registered designs may have been produced for export, minus registration markings, hmm!
-
hi Neil - my own opinion would be that I don't see these factories having two sets of moulds - one carrying the Reg. No., and the other without.
What would be the practical point of producing some pieces without the No., even with the knowledge they wouldn't remain in the U.K. Don't I seem to recall those Davidson's designs which went to Oz as carrying in fact two separate Nos. ?
-
Neil this is the thread with the swan and the questionable owner:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,37842.msg207880.html#msg207880
It's just that at that time I had a B & T swan and so remember reading this post (and the shock reading it).
However unfortunately it seems the owners links are no longer working (externally added photographs >:( - and that's why I don't answer threads anymore unless photos are uploaded directly to the board).
That said, I think Christine mentioned something on the thread about the grinding on the base of it so that might mark it out as something different?
m
-
I don't know if we've ever had a copy of the original MW factory drawing for the pike - but if not, it's now attached. Looking at the black example above, compared to the factory drawing, there seem to be substantial differences around the hind portions - have to say I've never owned one of these things so rather clueless as to whether the larger examples - in the flesh - are all the same in proportion and shape, or not.
Having said that even the drawing seems at odds with itself - the top fin at the rear seems absent on the 'plan' drawing.
-
Mine is not exactly the same as the black one and neither is it the same as the top view on the drawing.
It is very similar to the side view but missing 'nostrils' or whatever those circle bits on the nose are called and the circles around the mouth and the mouth is a different shape.
The top view inset where flowers would go is not oval, it's a completely different shape at the back and squared.
I'm really busy right now, but will take a photo later so comparisons can be made.
-
Several years ago we had a topic about moulds and RD nos, and someone said that not all were marked with the no. Let me see if i can find that topic to reference here.
-
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,42969.msg239310.html#msg239310
Some reference here to them not all being marked.