Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: flying free on February 16, 2017, 02:59:32 PM
-
This becher or goblet design appears in the Launay Hautin & Cie catalogue in 1841 made by Baccarat:
- Compagnie des Cristalleries de Baccarat uranium glass becher
Launary Hautin & Cie catalogue 2me Partie for 1841
Planche 80 bottom right hand of page
Gobelet a tulipe
2495 B (1)
M: a Larmes
http://www.glas-musterbuch.de/Launay-Hautin-1841.21+B6YmFja1BJRD0yMSZwcm9kdWN0SUQ9ODk0JmRldGFpbD0_.0.html
My goblet is green uranium glass.
From what I can work out Baccarat appear to have used uranium glass fairly sparsely and first used it in 1843 calling it ' Cristal Dichroide '.
I am not sure where that information originated from as a source, as it is repeated on many sites in the same format but can be found here:
http://www.theglassmuseum.com/uranium.htm
I have found a book from 1845 that specifically mentions Baccarat uranium glass:
This piece in the ‘Revue scientifique et industrielle’ dated September 1845
and mentions under Baccarat ‘les dichroides jaune et vert’ (uranium glass in green and yellow) pp 456
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rCkeOlWwimoC&pg=RA1-PA457&lpg=RA1-PA457&dq=baccarat+cristal+dichroide&source=bl&ots=RN1pSkLcR2&sig=dkdeU6AZFQsYOouehni0n_2I4V4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4yJXn2ZTSAhVlC8AKHRwEAQE4ChDoAQhHMAs#v=onepage&q=dichroide&f=false
Also in La Cristallerie de Clichy a uranium glass footed goblet in a similar design is pictured on page 101:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KEYMY4_ytuUC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=baccarat+launay+hautin&source=bl&ots=pUuPojDVZn&sig=9rXROezNGtrHnx4n82oU93qIzUQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdvN-K2ZTSAhXpB8AKHYhhBQI4ChDoAQgZMAA#v=snippet&q=%20ouraline&f=false
This goblet in a very similar version design, but with slight differences particulary in the foot shape, also appears in 1841 Launay Hautin catalogue 2em partie place 78
No 2426 Baccarat
http://www.glas-musterbuch.de/Launay-Hautin-1841.21+B6YmFja1BJRD0yMSZwcm9kdWN0SUQ9ODg2JmRldGFpbD0_.0.html
The becher shape of my becher goblet is very typical for the 1840s era in Bohemian glass (although it should be noted that bechers were, and continue to be, produced in many formats and designs from before the 1840s and up to the present day).
So in summary I believe this is an early, rare, piece of mould blown or pressed Baccarat uranium glass dating to around 1843.
It is heavy and the quality is good although there are some small bubbles in the glass and the odd crease mark (shown on picture).
There is no evidence of a mould although there is a curious mark on the base.
The base is indented like a bird bath footwell (as shown in the catalogue design pictures).
There is heavy wear on the base.
m
-
Nice piece M.
Just to add something, you can also try to search Baccarat cristal dichroique ... I know it's just a few letters that are different but it makes, perhaps, all the difference with finding search results on the net.
M = larmes, I think refers to the décor ... m = motif (applied décor) larmes = tears.
What height is it please? It mentions in the catalogue 'Gobelet à Tulipe' which literally translates as tulip goblet but I wonder whether this refers to te shape or use.
-
Thank you. I've been looking for a long time :)
à Tulipe refers to the shape I believe Anne - that is, it is shaped a bit like a tulip flower :) I have seen this description before. It is a becher size, not a vase size. Just a drinking glass definitely not a vase for tulips. I think from the catalogue that it appears to have only come in 1 size?
Yes, I realise now that 'larmes' are tears i.e. the motif on the side of the becher (gobelet).
Thank you for the hint on a different spelling. I will have another look to see if I can find more.
m
-
I wasn't sur about its use but now you mention it... it probably refers to its shape.
Size wise, perhaps there are more sizes or otherwise versions ... you might have to go through the catalogue, but it says (1) after its number, so there are more versions or sizes, one would think.
-
I think it's really tricky to claim a goblet or drinking glass is by a particular manufacturer.
For example there is this shape in the Molineaux Webb catalog
-
And this one in a Percival Vickers catalog (4 different sizes known)
-
;D aah, I was waiting for my bubble to be burst - :) but thought I might be told it could be American. I am a little bit circumspect about the colour of the green.
ok, tricky one. What are the bases of those pieces like please ? The base of mine matches the description in the Launay Hautin catalogue description. I'll do some more investigating then.
m
-
the link to Molineaux webb cat page is here
https://sites.google.com/site/molwebbhistory/Home/registered-designs/molineaux-webb-unregistered-pressed-glass/drinking
Neil I think the question you pose at the top of that page can be found in the 1841 Launay Hautin catalogues. i.e. the goblets could date as early as 1840s.
now, my tulip goblet. ....
how to work out whether Molineaux Webb, Percival Vickers or Baccarat made this green uranium glass in this tumbler?
Very annoying but I am more inclined to think possibly British given it was bought from here.
And how to find out what the base of the MW and PV tumblers looked like?
Looking at the drawings though comparing to the profile pic neither seem quite right:
The curve on the hips of the tumbler are more like the Molineaux Webb drawing but you definitely do not see as much of the three tears as in the drawing, only the front one and then a thin part of each of the one either side.
The shape doesn't seem right for the Percival Vickers piece though, so I'd veer towards MW to start with for comparisons.
m
-
In fact, doing a comparison of all three images I don't think the shape is right for either the Molineaux Webb or the Percival Vickers.
It isn't the same proportions or on the curves or the amount of motif visible.
It's very different at the top compared to the PV and very different at the bottom compared to the MW.
I'll go and take another look at the Launay Hautin comparisons as well.
Neil could I use your two pics to make a comparison picture please to show what I mean?
If not don't worry.
But ... it is identical to the Baccarat pic in the Launay Hautin catalogue. I am therefore satisfied it is Baccarat rather than Molineaux Webb or Percival Vickers on comparison :) phew...
Any further input thoughts very much appreciated though as that is just on a comparison of the three catalogue pictures.
m
-
I'm not familiar with the other houses mentioned but are sizes known at all?
Personally, I think that keeping an open mind is important and wherever an item's bought, it doesn't confirm its origin.
-
Anne see my reply above ,which I have just amended.
My piece appears to be identical on comparison, to the Baccarat shape in the LH catalogues,but very much not identical at all to the PV or MW catalogue shapes.
I'm happy it is still most likely to be Baccarat on that basis.
But I am happy to keep an open mind.
m
-
Yes, I understood what you meant. I'm only saying that it does not have to be British, because that's where it was picked up... but I'm keeping an open mind too ;)
-
That Lenay Hautin catalogue really does beg the question as to who produced the molds for these early pieces. I am more familiar with the early plates than goblets. The catalogue shows plate designs virtually identical to Molineaux Webb plates from the 1830s, which I suspect were centrally produced by Birmingham moulders. Were Birmingham moulders also behind the plates in Hautin - even if the glass was physically produced in the low countries? Or was there a centre of moldmaking in Belgium?
As to the UK, until recently I could say that the Manchester houses were producing early plate designs, with no evidence as yet from other glass houses. But recently I came across an early pressed plate design from Rice Harris in Birmingham dating to the 1840s, so we must add Birmingham manufacturers as potential producers for these early pieces.
Feel free to use the pics for comparison. The two PV pictures are both of size 1/3 of a quart (they are two variations on a design). They also produced it in 1/5 quart and 1/12 pint size, which was the smallest.
-
Neil, I don't know where Launay Hautin orginated but a store was opened in Paris by Baccarat and St Louis and Launay Hautin ran it. I believe Choisy-le-Roi and Bercy also joined forces with them originally and all their items were sold by LH in Paris. However in that catalogue, Launay Hautin marked both B and St. L for the Baccarat and Saint-Louis pieces.
Mine was marked B for Baccarat.
As to the mold makers - I don't know anything about pressed or mold made glass.
I've attached a photo I took of my laptop pic to show the shape differences - it's quite rubbish and I'll try and formulate a better pic to upload. Thank you Neil.
I can't include the Baccarat Launay Hautin catalogue pic but it really is the same as my goblet whereas neither of the PV or MW are.
m
-
Anne, something occurred to me. If it says only a number (1) in the catalogue, and there are other pieces in there with numbers such as 1,2,3,4 next to them, then I wonder if the number (1) indicates it was the first time the design was in the catalogue?
So there may be others in different sizes that came along later on perhaps, but that was the first time that m. Larmes appeared as a tulip shaped gobelet in the catalogue if you see what I mean?
m
-
Neil, I think the design is similar/same/copied maybe but the molds are different between the Baccarat,PV and MW.
I'm not sure how that ties in with who might have made the molds, but they don't look the same to me. Only the design.
Also,whilst the bechers were produced in Bohemia over a great length of time up to the current day, there are some familiarities in each time period ... sometimes ... not always, admittedly. But I would say this design is good for the 1840s in terms of the design of the motifs and the hoops around the base, and the tulip shape.
It's interesting that it might be the first time the design has appeared in the catalogue in 1841 for the tulip goblet.
I'm sure makers re used and re-produced these designs over a period of time, but some things must have had a 'fashion' if you like, so I don't think I'm out of date for the period.
Possibly that would mean the PV and MW molds were of a similar period?
m
-
Anne, something occurred to me. If it says only a number (1) in the catalogue, and there are other pieces in there with numbers such as 1,2,3,4 next to them, then I wonder if the number (1) indicates it was the first time the design was in the catalogue?
So there may be others in different sizes that came along later on perhaps, but that was the first time that m. Larmes appeared as a tulip shaped gobelet in the catalogue if you see what I mean?
m
Yes I understand what you're suggesting, but I wonder if that would have been clear to anyone consulting the catalogue as a potential buyer. I would think they'd had a category 'Nouveautés' for that, a presentation of new items.
-
Anne, I'm going to have another re read of the front pages of the catalogues and see if there is any indication there.
I looked at the 1840 pages and the design is not in there as a goblet but something similar with the teardrop shape is in there (maybe a footed sugar bowl or something iirc) I'll report back.
m
-
The start of part 2 of the catalogue (my tulip goblet falls under part 2 in the 1841 cat) says:
'The articles included in the second part are manufactured only in the numbers and dimensions indicated to each piece and they are exported under Paris.'
http://www.glas-musterbuch.de/Launay-Hautin-1841.21+B6YmFja1BJRD0yMSZwcm9kdWN0SUQ9ODM4JnBpZF9wcm9kdWN0PTIxJmRldGFpbD0_.0.html
I suspect that mine might have only been made in 1 size indicated by the (1) then ...so not that the (1) indicates it was the first time in the catalogue as Anne had queried.
Truthfully it is an odd shape to have in any other size, that chunky and that shape. It's very heavy and very thick. It's lead crystal I presume.
Ah, at the start of the catalogue what the numbers mean is indicated here
http://www.glas-musterbuch.de/Launay-Hautin-1841.21+B6YmFja1BJRD0yMSZwcm9kdWN0SUQ9ODE5JnBpZF9wcm9kdWN0PTIxJmRldGFpbD0_.0.html
-
Ah, at the start of the catalogue what the numbers mean is indicated here
http://www.glas-musterbuch.de/Launay-Hautin-1841.21+B6YmFja1BJRD0yMSZwcm9kdWN0SUQ9ODE5JnBpZF9wcm9kdWN0PTIxJmRldGFpbD0_.0.html
It's for water - Eau. ;D
-
But it would work for a nice Pimms ;D
Funny though, there don't seem to be that many other pieces in the catalogue that would work with it.
So I'm wondering if it was a fairly new design, and that perhaps later other shapes with that motif were added?
Neil, it's strange that yours come in the various sizes to be honest. Would they have been heavy crystal or would they have been just made of glass? ie. fairly lightweight.
I don't think mine is PV or MW but I am curious about the various sizes of that shape design and how it would function/handle as a useful item.
I have to say I am very excited to own this piece. It's chipped but I have never ever seen another in coloured glass. I have seen a few in clear glass in various motifs but not in coloured glass. And the fact it's uranium is special particularly.
m
-
There are five other pieces with the 'larmes' design in the 1841 catalogue.
-
ah, I could only spot three and none seemed to be a direct match with the hoops at the bottom or somewhere on the glass. They just appeared to have the Larmes motif on them on the upper body but the lower body was different. Nothing that seemed to make a table 'set' if you like of water, wine and red wine for example.
However I have noticed in part 3 that it appears to show the items with designs that could be 'sets'. So perhaps the Larmes was a motif that was a mix and match type thing.
Neil, the stem on the goblet you show here
https://sites.google.com/site/molwebbhistory/Home/registered-designs/molineaux-webb-unregistered-pressed-glass/drinking
seems to perhaps put the goblet into the 1850s but the everted rim and the plain faceted design might just put it into the 1840s.
There is the start of that shape here
http://www.glas-musterbuch.de/Launay-Hautin-1841.21+B6YmFja1BJRD0yMSZwcm9kdWN0SUQ9OTEwJmRldGFpbD0_.0.html
Unfortunately I can't find a later catalogue to search.
m
-
Thanks for your thoughts on the goblet. On the Hautin catalog, I was looking through my old conversations with a Canadian collector of over 20 years experience who had not seen the catalog before I pointed him at it. Rather like with UK pieces, he saw a number of designs virtually identical to some of his American collection.
My feeling is that in the 1830-1850 time period, there was an interleaving of pressed designs across USA / UK / Europe which we cannot fully untangle, after which everyone heads in their distinctive directions, perhaps because factories had access to moldmakers locally in later decades.
-
That is possibly the case. But I think you also have to look for the differences and detail on each and on the glass metal used and possibly production method.
Remember the design I showed in the Clichy book of the goblet? well there is one very similar in the Launay Hautin cat with a different foot that is Baccarat as I showed, and there is another very similar in the shape as a whole including the foot, but with the mold lens design just slightly different in shape in there as Saint-Louis.
In the case of my becher there is a similarity of design but difference of shape between all three. And it is very noticeable when you put the designs side by side that they are all different shapes.
In this instance mine matches the Baccarat design and shape but doesn't match PV or MW and if I am honest I was very surprised at how perceptible and visible the differences are when I put the designs and the shape of mine all side by side on a word doc.
Also some designs were produced over a long period.
In the case of my becher, the design is right for the 1840s and it seems to have appeared in the 1841 catalogue. But that's not to say they weren't producing them right through the 1840s and perhaps longer.
But in the case of other designs they may have been much less subject to 'fashion' and produced for many tens of years.
I am keeping an open mind in this case, because of the colour. Other French pieces I have found have been very yellow uranium glass for that period. Although in the 1845 link I gave it was specific that the colours from Baccarat in uranium glass were both yellow and green.
m
-
Playing devil's advocate here. You have to remember they are only drawings and very possibly not done from finished items but are drawings of drawings. It's also entirely possible that they were never sold by Launay Hautin if there were insufficient orders (old catalogues indicate what could be bought rather than what was available off the shelf). And who knows if they really were made by Baccarat. Your customers would never question that they weren't but the Napoleonic Wars were not long finished and there wasn't a lot of entente cordiale. I doubt business men let such scruples get in the way of cheap English imports, though.
Unless you find your glass in a Baccarat catalogue, I doubt you will pin it down M
-
Could this be an example of the M & W goblets? It seems that the rim at the top is a bit more 'present', if that makes sense, more than the Baccarat version anyway.
Item in the link's not attributed to anyone, just described as an art deco vase.
http://www.ebay.fr/itm/322417690237?rmvSB=true (http://www.ebay.fr/itm/322417690237?rmvSB=true)
-
There appears to be information here on the Pressglas Korrespondenz about having found original lithographs (?) or something for the Launay Hautin catalogues .
https://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2001-05-musterbuch-launay-hautin-1840.pdf
I'm not sure exactly what it says as translating such a huge body of text loses me.
It seems to me the Launay Hautin catalogues appear to have been drawn with architectural precision.
On page 10 of 39 on my link above it shows a green goblet and the matching design. I think it says the design boards were in life size and actually the green goblet appears to be a direct match for the design.
What I have is a tumbler that appears to match the shape in the LH catalogue.
But it definitely does not match the shape in the PV or MW catalogue at all.
So are you saying the PV and MW catalogues could be drawings of drawings and therefore not accurate, which might account for any difference in shape therefore indicating that on that basis mine still could be by PV or MW?
And did you mean 'Unless you find your glass in a Baccarat ( catalogue pattern book), I doubt you will pin it down '?
Because I think the LH catalogues were pretty specifically drawn from what can be seen on the PGK link. LH were chosen as the agents for initially a joint Baccarat/Saint-Louis sales outlet initiative in Paris - and then subsequently Bercy and Choisy-Le-Roi joined the consortium as far as I have been able to make out.
I take on board your points, but since the beaker doesn't match the PV or MW shapes but does match the LH catalogue design, I'm less dubious than I might have been had it been a match in shape for all three if you see what I mean.
I can see that PGK has done some other comparisons to the LH pattern book drawings of items produced by other makers (see page 9 of 39 specifically the Sandwich goblet and the possibly Rejmyre/Kosta footed bowl), but to my eye they don't even look remotely similar so I can't see why there would have been any confusion in the first place - bit confusing really but I might be misunderstanding the reason why they showed the comparison.
Anne, that's a great find. The shape is very different to mine and the glass quality appears to be extremely poor by comparison to mine as well. Interesting. I'll do some more digging.
m
-
I meant we have insufficient knowledge to know what source any of the catalogue drawings are based on, architectural precision to the drawing or or not. I can't see that that the PV or MW versions are that different to your glass.
I meant catalogue (manufacturers had catalogues for their wholesalers).
I'm saying you're wrong and that your glass is not Baccarat. I just don't we have enough evidence to say more that maybe as we don't know the veracity of the secondary source: the retailer.
-
This article copyright Simon Becker explains the Launay Hautin link to Baccarat and Saint-Louis
http://www.pressglas.de/English_Homepage/Texts/The_Beginnings/the_beginnings.html
This article explains the link between Baccarat and Saint-Louis
http://www.pressglas.de/English_Homepage/Explanations/Glassworks/glassworks.html
Well, I might be wrong as you say, but I am extremely happy with my chipped uranium glass becher ;D Been waiting a long time to find one and waiting for a green becher to add to my collection.
It will give me hours of happy searching in the future ;) There are definitely distinct differences between the shapes if you cut and paste them side by side compared to the LH shape and mine. A bit like if you look at the shape of that amethyst one and mine ... completely different and that amethyst one is much more the MW shape design.
One further question - I wonder what the mark in the indented base is from. It's curious. Other than that, no marks of mold lines or anything although there is the smallest faintest indent in the rim (not damage).
Percival Vickers glass recipe research here:
http://www.academia.edu/2445139/Glass_recipes_and_the_output_from_a_19th-century_glass_works_examples_from_Percival_Vickers_and_Co._Ltd._Jersey_Street_Manchester._Industrial_Archaeology_Review_34_1_51-64._2012_
Perhaps the only way to clarify definitively would be to chemically assess my glass - I'll add it to my growing list ;D
m
-
The amethyst one Anne linked to here must be a vase surely?
http://www.ebay.fr/itm/Ancien-vase-verre-epais-ART-DECO-mauve-violet-a-six-pans-bulle-very-thick-glass/322417690237?_trksid=p2045573.c100033.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140423084956%26meid%3D94cb3fe06a864135a5f4248911525233%26pid%3D100033%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D8%26sd%3D391699123921
at 9.6mm diameter at the rim it would be massive and uncomfortable to drink from - I've measured all my largest wine and beer glasses and none are anywhere near that.
comparison of sizes
Amethyst My green tumbler
. Hauteur : 12,5 cm 9,8 cm (about 3 7/8" ish)
. Diamètre à la base : 4,5 cm 4,0 cm (about 1 9/16")
. Diamètre col supérieur : 9,6 cm 7,8 cm (just under 3 2/16")
my scales are dodgy but mine appears to weigh 400grms or just under 1lb
With a drink in you'd be hard pressed to lift the amethyst version comfortably if it is made from the same glass density or weight, let alone drink from something that wide at the rim. So, it must be a vase I would think.
m
-
see above re size comparison to the Amethyst versions.
This the size comparison to Neil's PV version:
' The two PV pictures are both of size 1/3 of a quart (they are two variations on a design). They also produced it in 1/5 quart and 1/12 pint size, which was the smallest.'
A quart is 2 pints. so
- 1/3 quart is 2/3 of a pint or about 379ml
- 1/5 quart is 2/5 of a pint or about 227ml
- 1/12 pint is ... very small or about 47ml
mine holds 1/4 of a pint or 175ml, which is much smaller than the top two PV sizesand much larger than the bottom size.
That is filling it absolutely to the top, assuming that when PV says 1/3 quart for example, they mean filled to the top.
So it doesn't fit the PV sizes.
m
-
Interesting comparison on the volume, I wonder if that helps to ID, if standard measures varied in different countries?
-
I reckon that amethyst one holds at least 227ml or 2/5 pint.
crude measuring using a Sowerby? vase but still.
So mine doesn't meet the PV criteria for size but do you know the sizes of the Molineux Webb one please at all Neil?
The shape of mine and the amethyst one is very different including the upstanding inset rim. The amethyst lip/rim is upright whereas the rim on mine is everted.
Looking at the catalogue drawings the PV lip/rim is upright not everted.
It is everted on the MW drawing.
I don't think the amethyst one matches the MW drawing. The rim is wrong and the shoulders are too wide just before the upstanding indented rim.
Neither do I think it matches the PV drawing at all.
m
-
I don't know the size of the Molineaux Webb piece. The drawings in the Hautin catalog look precise but those in the Manchester catalogs are definitely rougher. I wouldn't get too hung up on if they match the Manchester drawings or not. The point is there are very few surviving catalogs which show pieces from this era. We are discussing 3, and they all show variations of quite a distinctive design. There could easily have been 20 or 30 glasshouses producing something like this. We will never know... "probably" is the best we can do for glass of this era. Personally I have given up identifying any goblet / ale glass as belonging to any particular glass house!
-
Shame there isn't a sizing reference for the MW pieces but thank you.
Are there lots of becher shapes on that MW page that match in shape and actual design (rather than just having one or other elements of the design) to those in the Launay Hautin catalogue pages then? And are there examples of PV or Molineaux Webb uranium glass from that period?
It probably wouldn't doesn't matter as it's just a piece of pressed glass, but you don't see many uranium pressed glass bechers that match a shape in an 1840s catalogue, so it's a fairly unusual piece. Therefore I'm loathe to give up the idea that it's from a maker whose design it actually matches and who was known to be making uranium glass items at that time, and to just say instead that it could be from anywhere ;D
I first saw these designs a long while ago whilst I was searching for a maker for an overlay goblet (that turned out to be Saint-Louis) and thought some of the becher designs were lovely. But the few I found appeared to be in clear glass which is not what I was looking for. So this was a great surprise to spot suddenly on ebay and sold as a vase.
m
-
sold as a vase.
In France glasses from this period and style, footed or not, are often presented as 'vase à violettes'.
-
In the Molineaux Webb catalog virtually all the lowest numbered pieces are from the earliest days of pressed glass, and a few are close to identical to various items seen in Hautin and indeed in Boston & Sandwich designs. The plates interest me the most, you can have a look at the MW plates and compare to Hautin:
https://sites.google.com/site/molwebbhistory/Home/registered-designs/molineaux-webb-unregistered-pressed-glass/plates
There are many Manchester uranium pieces from the 1850s, 1840s remains unproven. Earliest known use of uranium in British glass dates to mid 1830s and the Birmingham factories were using it circa 1840 AFAIK.
Have a look at some early salts and drinking vessels below, I suspect you will find something similar to Boston & Sandwich and Hautin for a few of them... I don't want to put you off your attribution at all, you may well be right... just not in a court of law! :) :)
-
Anne thank you for the pointer on the terminology. That's very helpful :)
Neil yes those were the four I'd been looking at :)
I did a cursory check and couldn't find the same shapes and designs in the Launay Hautin catalogue though.
But if I have time later I will do a proper cross check.
It only occurred to me because I have seen three or four times in the last few days, online comparisons where poster is showing a 'similar' item in a catalogue ... and to my eye the pieces don't look anything like the catalogue shapes or designs.
All that jumps out at me are the distinct differences ... none of the similarities.
The only one that worked for me was the green goblet on PGK where you can see that it is exactly the same as the design drawing in the Launay Hautin catalogue.
But on the basis of what we are discussing, then even on that goblet one could then say, 'well hey, it might be exactly the same but it could have been made anywhere'.
Extremely happy with my purchase but definitely going to continue to stick to blown glass ;D
m
-
I've checked the four 'bechers' (? we don't know what size they are and that could be a mitigating factor on what they are called given the size of the PV versions) from the MW catalogue that Neil put on the image above, against the Launay Hautin catalogues.
They are MW - 119., 104.,10/120 and 125. (125. on the right being the one similar in design and also similar in shape to my becher).
None of them feature in the 1840 or 1841 Launay Hautin catalogues in my opinion.
Certainly there is not a shape or design that is anything like 104. or 10/120. that I could see.
Becher 125. we have already discussed (the one similar to my becher)
With regard to 119. there is a similar becher in the Launay Hautin 1841 catalogue, which is no 2491 B on planche 80.
http://www.glas-musterbuch.de/Launay-Hautin-1841.21+B6YmFja1BJRD0yMSZwcm9kdWN0SUQ9ODk0JnBpZF9wcm9kdWN0PTIxJmRldGFpbD0_.0.html
However the differences are:
- the lenses are rounded ovals on the Baccarat version rather than the squared ovals seen on the MW version
- the shape appears to me to be slightly wider at the top and more flared at the rim on the MW picture than that on the Launay Hautin
Now, it could be argued I am nit-picking, but there are other items in the Launay Hautin 1841 and 1840 catalogues that do depict the squared oval lenses seen on the MW version. Just not on the becher 119.
There are examples of these on planche 77 in both catalogues and they are 2415, 2414, and 2417.
http://www.glas-musterbuch.de/Launay-Hautin-1841.21+B6YmFja1BJRD0yMSZwcm9kdWN0SUQ9ODg3JnBpZF9wcm9kdWN0PTIxJmRldGFpbD0_.0.html
i.e. there is a distinction in the Launay Hautin catalogue and some items have the rounded oval lenses and some have the squared oval lenses.
From the MW drawings, becher 119. has the squared oval lenses, whereas the one in the catalogue has the rounded oval lenses.
So none of the four MW 'bechers' in my opinion match in both shape and design.
btw, I am not at all bothered if mine is MW or Baccarat - admittedly I'd be a little bit perturbed if I found out it was made yesterday though :)
I did notice there was a query on the MW site about the odd numbering system of the MW Catalogue.
I wonder if it is because the molds have come from different sources? would that be relevant or is it equally random on the blown glass items?
m
-
Neil, on the question of the numbering in the catalogue, did you mean the 1/100 for example?
I wonder if it denotes that is the first time the shape and design has appeared in the catalogue, or... going back to the Launay Hautin catalogue, whether it indicates it only appears in specific sizes ... i.e. a size chart is missing for the catalogue.
There is a size chart on the front of the LH catalogues for example.
m
-
In France glasses from this period and style, footed or not, are often presented as 'vase à violettes'.
Anne - do you mean that manufacturer/wholesale catalogues listed these as "vase a violettes" or that current practice of the antique trade is to label these as such?
Thanks
Sid
-
A few notes for thought:
If Bernard was still with us he would be reminding us right around now that we should be measuring in the units that would have been used by the manufacturer. In other words, inches and ounces for UK made products and millimeters and milliliters for Continental. I miss that man!
My personal experience with manufacturer catalogs is that they are generally accurate with regards to proportions. Some wholesalers are very good and some not so good. The ones that are not so good are usually easy to tell though - details are soft or missing and proportions are all off.
Something I like to do when faced with multiple choices is to photograph the glass object at the same angle as the catalogue, then photo-shop it over the catalog image (1/2 and 1/2) to see if all the features line up. If they do, then you have a good match.
Sid
-
Anne - do you mean that manufacturer/wholesale catalogues listed these as "vase a violettes" or that current practice of the antique trade is to label these as such?
Thanks
Sid
No, nothing official Sid, it's just something that sneaked in with time, whether people confuse them with drinking glasses because they're a bit bigger and chunkier, or whether people are actually using them for violet flowers, I don't know and it doesn't really matter, but that's what they're called sometimes anyway.
-
Thanks Sid.
Bernard is the reason I put both ml and oz and same in mm and inches :)
Rather unfortunately mine measures both 1/4pt and 175ml in capacity. Which doesn't really give an indication of which might be right (imperial v metric).
If I'm honest, I am happy with the shape as a match for the Launay Hautin but the height of the base rim where the arches are is slightly off in that it is slightly too high.
I honestly don't believe it is a match to the PV or the MW.
-
What a lovely piece and an interesting mystery. The glass is gorgeous.
I agree with Sid that such drawings are amazingly well-proportioned, capturing the shape even in simple line drawings. They are often more useful than photos.
I agree that the becher looks more like Baccarat than like the other two. More than that it's hard to tell from a photo, but it seems like the teardrops in the Baccarat drawing are shaped differently. It looks like they are longer, and the horseshoes on the bottom look a little different, too. Easier for you to tell with it in hand. Pattern details may also be harder to represent with line drawings when what is raised is not clearly defined.
I wonder if they ever reworked the molds, and that made them slightly different from the drawings. Or mold sharing, with each company making the proportions just a little different? I don't think that's what was done in this case, I'm just hypothesizing generally.
-
Kristi agree
'... it seems like the teardrops in the Baccarat drawing are shaped differently. It looks like they are longer, and the horseshoes on the bottom look a little different, too.'
Having said that it's difficult to replicate in a drawing, which bits are the raised surfaces therefore looking narrower and reflecting the light and then also the bits that are the bevelled edges of the raised teardrops if you see what I mean. I'm sure you do.
Even despite that though, I don't think it's an exact match because of the height of the 'ridge' where the bottom bit with horseshoe design starts. Mine starts slightly higher up the becher than the Launay Hautin drawing.
So it's possibly in query anyway it being Baccarat.
With regards the age. I am pretty sure that whilst designs were repeated, there were 'fashions' for these things. Perhaps not as short as a year of course, but definitely a 'period'. Even with Bohemian bechers, the underside base changed over a decade and the shape changed - subliminally in some instances but it did. It's difficult because Bohemian bechers (in that type of style i.e biedermeier - not necessarily that design) have been produced from early 1800s up to now. But generally you can make a good guess as to era or thereabouts because of certain aspects of the glass. More difficult with a pressed/mold blown piece with no decorative features or anything on the base. Although of course, there will always be something that was reproduced in a style or similar with no defining features that help identify it as a much later period, which can stymie the id.
I think this is 1840s and may be up to 1850s but it certainly fits the 1840s. The base is the same as those on the Launay Hautin depictions as well. In fact the design reminds me most of Lithyalin/Steinglas/hyalith bechers and the one I've seen in a similar tulip shape as well as the ones I've seen with raised 'lenses' all appear around the 1835 mark:
Examples could probably be found for any era of course, but generally that is the era they date to:-
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/89/98/a4/8998a4feb27aadf4f53b3f97117120ec.jpg
http://www.auctions-fischer.de/kataloge/online-kataloge/196-i-europaeisches-glas-studioglass.html?kategorie=17&artikel=13052&L=&cHash=dd4e61efdc
example of shape above
raised lens examples here
https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-us/auction-catalogues/dr-fischer/catalogue-id-srdrf10001/lot-f8728908-8ad0-4cb2-a067-a3fc016ace8f
http://www.antiquitaeten-schlemmer.de/glas/assets/glas-agatin-dose_gr1.jpg
All dating to c.1835 ish.
I've not time to try and find more that have similar designs but there are plenty.
I'm curious about why it has that particular odd glass mark on the inside of the indented base.
m
I will keep looking. I'm sure it's not MW or PV. And I'll just keep Baccarat on the back burner for now.
-
Thank you, Anne
-
I need to do a bit more research on this but I have been aware that some footed goblets in a similar design to this becher, and similar to those I think I previously pointed out in the Launay Hautin catalogue, were produced in Russia.
Here is a green marked version but they are not uranium glass.
https://www.1stdibs.com/furniture/dining-entertaining/glass/russian-hexagonal-green-glass-water-goblets/id-f_4455263/#0
I wonder if they also produced tumblers/bechers?
I'll add if I find anything further.
Thread and links here about the goblet
http://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2005-3w-allen-pokal-russ.pdf
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,6130.msg52247.html#msg52247
Obviously mine is not marked in any way. But just adding in case it becomes relevant somehow in future.
Those in the link are uranium glass but a much more yellow version than mine.
m
-
I've just bought another one of these.
Mine is exactly 10cm in height and 7.9cm in diameter at rim.
The new one is the same rim diameter (owner says 3" so am guessing probably the same)
but says the height is 4 1/2" tall. So unless she's made a typo I think it will be taller than mine - mine would measure 3 7/8" tall in imperial.
I am pretty sure it's exactly the same pattern design but have no idea if it's uranium glass. I will photograph them both together when it arrives.
m
-
And this one in a Percival Vickers catalog (4 different sizes known)
I'm not familiar with the other houses mentioned but are sizes known at all?
Personally, I think that keeping an open mind is important and wherever an item's bought, it doesn't confirm its origin.
Referring back to these comments -
The one shown in the Launay Hautin 1841 catalogue is listed with a no 1. which if I read it correctly means two things - it was for water or water/beer and also that it only came in one size it seems.
If I've now bought another which is a bigger size (owner says it is 4 1/2 " tall whereas mine is 10cm) then if they are the same, either they are from different houses possibly OR Baccarat later produced more sizes, or they are from a house which produced more than one size.
We know Percival Vickers produced in 4 sizes (see Neil's comment), however the shape doesn't look like that one.
Will be interesting to see a comparison photo of them both together as I think they're identical from the photographs although owners photograph is truly awful and a shot taken from the top rim down. I wonder if the new one is uranium and the same colour?
-
Possible difference between seeing a catalogue drawing in Launay Hautin 1840 catalogue and the item in real life? I could be wrong as the bowl looks the shape of the item 1990 on the left of it but with the pattern of item no 1992:
2me Partie Planche 59
No 1992 (I think the S.L written above the picture means produced by Saint-Louis glass)
Bottom row second from right
https://www.glas-musterbuch.de/Launay-Hautin-1840.20+B6YmFja1BJRD0yMCZwcm9kdWN0SUQ9NzY1JmRldGFpbD0_.0.html
and this goblet in the V&A - does not say which item but refers to it being shown in the Launay Hautin catalogue 1840:
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O5605/goblet-launay-hautin-et/
-
ok, it's arrived :)
Shape
I still think the shape does not fit the Percival Vickers drawings.
I also think it is not the same shape as the Molineaux Webb drawing because neither the small one or my new one are as waisted in shape as the MW one.
However,the teardrop shapes on both are definitely more similar to the slightly pear shaped teardrop on the MW version v the more rounded-top version of Baccarat.
Colour
I do think they are from the same maker/same design however ... they are definitely not the same batch as they are very noticeably different colours in real life, although difficult to show the correct shades of green on camera.
The small one is bright green but has a slight yellow tinge to it. The large one is grass/emerald green with no yellow tinge.
I don't think it's anything to do with the thickness of the glass as the larger one still 'feels' similar in thickness although perhaps a teeny bit thicker.
Size
What could possibly have been drunk from the larger one though. beer/juice? It is easy to hold because of the shape but has a great heft where empty it weights 570gms. The smaller one weighs 400gms.
When you fill it up to the lip line just at the top where the pattern finishes (ie. without including the flat unpatterned lip part), the smaller one holds 150ml and the larger one holds 250ml.
The small one would be too small for ale but the larger one would probably be a good fit for a beer at table.
They are both gorgeous glasses to hold and drink from. If I found more I'd definitely use them on the table.
My photos don't do the colours justice. They are MUCH brighter green in real life. The top photo is the best colour match.
Maker?
So - I think they are the same design. Is it possible given I've bought both here, that they are from MW?
The shape doesn't appear to fit PV unless we take into account their drawings were a bit 'off'. However it's in two sizes at least and we know PV made four sizes.
I'll have to work out the quarts sizes again and see if they fit when filled only to the start of the plain unpatterned lip.
And have a look at any PV uranium glass piano insulators to see if the greens match at all.
It's coming up for 180 years old and was described as 'modern' ;D
-
Baccarat uranium glass for colour comparison (on my screen and copying it next to my photograph, this is the same or remarkably similar if not, colour to the larger glass)
This set linked is being sold as Baccarat and referenced to catalogue dated 1893 n°3571.
https://www.rouillac.com/ddoc-232717-cf2e0d69ba392e39a3aaa34efc13183e-273_1.jpg
https://www.rouillac.com/fr/lot-141-42718-encrier_cristal_vert_ouraline_baccarat
-
Some links to Baccarat pieces 19th century:
1) Baccarat uranglas (uranium green glass) dating to 1893 - pressed glass
https://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2013-3w-vogt-bacc-weihwasser-1893.pdf
This is a good match for the colour of the smaller glass.
2) Baccarat dark green pokal/glass 1840 Launay Hautin here seite 9/13 bottom right picture on page:
https://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2014-3w-jakob-bacc-pokale-gruen-1840.pdf
and here in Pressglas-korrespondenz there is a discussion around the similar shapes produced at different time periods/maker and also a good comparison of a dark green drinking glass from Baccarat with a picture of it in the Launay Hautin catalogue. Good to compare and contrast.
https://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2008-1w-vogt-bacc-becher-gruen.pdf
m
-
Right, I think there is leeway on the subtle difference in shape on the top of the teardrop. I'd describe mine as very slightly wider and pear drop rather than upside down teardrop.
However, this comparison on Pressglas-Korrespondenz shows an 1840 blue pressed Baccarat footed goblet with lenses and compares it to the Launay Hautin catalogue drawing and to my eye, the actual goblet lenses do not look as curved as they do on the Launay Hautin pattern drawing:
https://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2017-2w-mueller-pokal-kobalt-bacc-1840.pdf
And having once again copied the MW pattern and the PV patterns and compared them side by side with the glasses and then compared the Launay Hautin one on the other side, I definitely feel they fit the Launay Hautin shape. I don't feel they fit the MW or the PV shapes as shown in the patterns.
I do accept that I've bought both here in the UK. However I do wonder how much Launay Hautin 'catalogue' stuff was on sale here in England - given it was in a catalogue.
I can't imagine that Baccarat/Saint-Louis wouldn't have been trying to sell their stuff here. They had a massive Russian market so selling abroad was standard fare I think.
And remembering all the stuff I'd read when researching the E Varnish silvered glass, I think there was quite a trade and easy toings and froings between France and here at least by 1850.
There are only Launay Hautin catalogues for 1840 and 1841 on the link though so who knows how long they produced this for. It think it was only in the 1841 cat not the 1840 one.
-
Another good comparison here of a lidded dish and underplate.
Not the same design but it does come from the 1841 catalogue and has lenses. The lenses are very similar to those on mine in that they aren't very rounded and rain/teardrop shaped but have a v slightly squared off pear-shape to them as mine does. They definitely look different to the way they're portrayed in the catalogue.
https://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2013-3w-vogt-baccarat-1841-1842.pdf
Unless I find out Baccarat were not doing uranium glass in 1841 ish, I am pretty sure mine match the Baccarat shape in the LH catalogue.
m
-
One thing you are missing here is that very few catalogues from the days of early pressed glass survive, and this shape appears in most or all of them. It is a familiar story with moulded tumblers and goblets. If every catalogue has survived you would be comparing your piece to 10, 20, 30 catalogues showing a variation of the shape in the UK, US and Europe. In the Manchester glass group we've been having similar debates recently about a plain piece with the same upper body as yours but with a clawed foot, which is close to a catalogue image. I did have a piece of luck recently in finding a Manchester tumbler with the pattern number stamped on the base, which is the only way you can be totally sure, unfortunately.
-
I don't think it's the shape of the MW catalogue and neither the PV catalogue unless they are badly drawn items of their own products.
Put side by side I do feel it matches the shape in the LH catalogue for Baccarat (page 80).
Are there differences between the numbered tumbler you found and the drawing in their catalogue ?
Subtle differences can be seen in catalogue pictures and the example of the Baccarat religious cross item v. the Bohemian version can be seen in one of the links I gave. However it is very easy to 'spot the difference' and I would not have thought in that instance that one could be confused with the other.
My only hesitance is that I bought both from the UK, however is it impossible that there would have been some form of trade in French pressed glass during the period?
In addition to which we also had the tax on glass production problems here up until 1845 didn't we (can't remember what they were called) which stifled production development I thought?
Need to look into that again to see what impact that had but iirc it was being cited as a reason at the Great Exhibition that the Bohemian coloured glass was so advanced by comparison.
I will keep an eye out for other items exactly the same though. I would be more than happy to have a set of these to drink from. They're amazing.
Do you know which other catalogues I should be looking into please?
-
The only catalogue which I haven't seen and may be of use is the 1870 Edward Moore catalogue. Joseph Webb is another contender and you can see he was doing fancy tumblers from the moulds bought by Moore later on. As for my marked tumbler, there was a little extrapolation required because it was in a different size to the catalogue image. There were also virtually identical designs in two other catalogues. Some of the premium tumbler lines would have been made in a range of sizes, ten or more, from a small shot thimble to around 330ml, and catalogues might show the full size range, or only a few, or one. I'm pretty sure I saw a plain tumbler in the same or similar shape as yours for sale on eBay USA. Alas I didn't save the image off and it seems to have gone. Whatever the attribution, they are nice glasses to own and use. These mid-Victorian tumblers and goblets seem to be designed for the pattern to be a natural finger hold, very tactile.
-
Thank you Neil. I'll investigate further.
The designs of the shapes I am certain come from facet cut glass goblets designed in Bohemia in the 1830s by the way.
There is an excellent example in Farbenglas II Walthraud Neuwirth page 75 shown in a stunning sapphire blue glass. It's a lidded pokal and stands 24.2cm high however without the lid it is virtually identical to some of the goblets shown in the Launay Hautin catalogue 1841. It dates to before 1837.
(can't face trying to find an example to show you right now, but will do this morning and post later).
Also a triple cased becher shown on page 111 is most certainly extremely similar in design to my two green glasses including lenses. The difference being mine are tulip shaped of course whereas that is a more traditional Bohemian straighter shape. Certainly there will be something in the L&H catalogue that is almost identical in design idea.
The lenses and design of the tumbler were around for years before 1841 in Bohemia. Certainly before 1837.
It's a very Biedermeier style design.
-
Regarding Baccarat and selling abroad:
This from CMOG site (my bold) -
'Jane Shadel Spillman - This article was published in European Glass Furnishings for Eastern Palaces, 2006, pp. 116–127.'
https://www.cmog.org/article/baccarat
' In 1832, Baccarat and a rival glasshouse, the Compagnie des Cristalleries de St. Louis in Moselle, joined with Parisian wholesalers to create Launay, Hautin & Cie. This firm operated showrooms in Paris and was the exclusive outlet for the products of both glasshouses until 1857, when it was dissolved. From that time, Baccarat’s own warehouse and workshops were located at Launay’s former address. Maintaining impressive Parisian showrooms was vital to French glass manufacturers, especially those that wanted to expand their markets outside the country. In the 1830s, when colored glass and pressed glass were added to Baccarat’s product line, the company actively sought new customers in other parts of Europe and in North and South America. By then, the factory employed about 700 workers.'
-
Some more examples of green uranium glass from Saint-Louis c1840
https://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2007-1w-vogt-meyr-teller.pdf
This green is very similar to my smaller glass.
Neil, the knife rest on your site in green glass - do you recall if it's uranium glass and have you any idea what date it might be please?
It's a similar colour to my larger glass I think.
-
I haven't seen the knife rest myself but I believe it is uranium - one is illustrated in a Barrie Skelcher article. They will date from some time between 1850-70
-
Thank you.
The ones on Barrie Skelcher's picture aren't the same as the drawing and green version on your site and I'm not sure they are the same colour green as my larger glass, but the one on your site I think is a good colour match.
http://www.glassassociation.org.uk/sites/default/files/Uranium_Glass_sample_article.pdf
Good example of Bohemian cut faceted glass becher in a similar shape from an earlier decade:
https://www.cmog.org/artwork/beaker-614?search=collection%3A69f974fc03ba6c7b4462a27d7a51b6b5&page=465
(by the way if you click on the Corning photos and copy and paste onto a Word document they enlarge beautifully where all the detail can be seen)
-
Ironically I'm now the owner of a couple of Launay Hautin goblets myself from the 1840 catalogue, from a seller in Milton Keynes, so I guess these do drift across the channel from time to time. Mine are plain. They are heavy lead glass.
-
In that period Neil, I just get the impression from info I've read (have no special research to back it up) that there was trade between France and England. The development of coloured glass was a big deal. Chance employed a French specialist, Bontemps in 1848, but even earlier employed French and Belgian workers see under para '19th century':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_Brothers
and my research on Varnish and Hale Thomson 'mercury glass' or double walled silvered glass from 1849/1850 shows they were in France registering a patent for it.
I think there was more trade then than is written about potentially. So it's not necessarily that Launay products came here more recently.
-
With the exception of a few stippled plates known from Molineaux Webb, and the odd Royal commemorative, there appears to be very little evidence of lacy pressed glass from British factories prior to the mid 1840s. It would pop up more often if it was out there. I read something in an old Pottery Gazette saying that the first wave of British pressed glass, salts and so on, were already very rare and difficult to find by 1900.
-
yes from what I've read it seemed there was a lot more Bohemian glass and some French glass coming this way than going back the other during that period. But again, that's just my impression. I don't have tonnage of imports to back up that surmise, though I think they do exist. My impression from my readings over time is that it was a hay-day period for Bohemian glass and their exports (not pressed glass though). Pressed glass seemed to be in ascendancy from Baccarat and Saint-Louis.
I wondered when doing all my reading, whether the Hale Thomson patent was done because the technique was good for use on mirrors for example (that method was much more healthy as the previous method was poisoning the workers) and Belgium and France, where they registered their patent, was a big supplier/maker of mirrored glass. From reading the court reports on their case, it seemed they didn't have a problem popping across the channel to register their patent. There was no indication it was a difficulty. Also prior to 1850 they were using Bohemian glass and silvering the interiors and again there seemed to be no problem with supply.
I think glass trade into England during that time (early 1800s to 1850)was big. And part of that was possibly due to more attractive colour developments (certainly with Bohemian glass) but possibly also English development of coloured glass was restricted by the prohibitive tax up to the 1840s.
In the case of the Hale Thomson patented silvered glass there were lots of developments in that time for the use of mirrored glass for telescopes for example, so presumably they also wanted to register their patent to protect for a potential growth in that market.
-
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,68141.msg378974.html#msg378974
-
Thank you :)
-
Neil, is it possible that Molineaux Webb were selling pressed glass made in France from the Launay Hautin catalogue?
I ask because the similar shaped tumbler design to my two, appears in the MW catalogue is under 'unregistered pressed glass drinking vessels'. There is at least one other tumbler that I noticed in there that also appears in the Launay Hautin catalogue.
Not related but the detail in the LH catalogue appears to be more specific/defined that that in the MW catalogue for all items actually. The MW depictions look quite basic by comparison
I've also come across another interesting item. It's in the book Farbenglas .1 Waltraud Neuwirth on page 148.
It's a pressed glass vase in black in the Technical Museum Vienna. It (and it is identical to the catalogue) appears in the Launay Hautin 1840 catalogue as Saint Louis. (2me Partie Plance 26, No1400 (7) St.Louis.
The book says it is registered in the museum (Technical Museum Vienna) inv. no 7599 as Vase; probably French, prior to 1837; black pressed glass; label: "France 1837"; height 18cm (which is the 7inches denoted in the Launay Hautin catalogue).
So an item appearing in the Launay Hautin catalogue of 1840 is registered in the museum as 1837 and being made prior to 1837.
There is also some very interesting information (contemporary to that period) on the molds and selling arrangement of those pressed items from the French makers which has made me question whether they were sending out bulk sales to other manufacturers in other countries.
-
No, I suspect Molineaux Webb's output was similar to other UK producers. There appears to be no attempt by British glass firms to match the lacy tableware suites seen in Hautin, or the busy designs of early American pressed glass. I think the UK was very conservative and early patterns were largely an extension of Regency patterns for salts, whereas plates showed restrained geometric designs.
I have pondered this - is there a missing bunch of fancy early English pressed glass? If it exists the best place to look for it would be in Neal's 1962 book on early salts. It shows mainly American designs, but some have since been shown to be French or Belgian. I am not aware of any that are suspected to be British. Our salts seem to echo the early shapes but not the fancy designs.
The flow seems to be:
- an early wave of poor quality pressed salts and plates from the USA <1830
- a higher quality response from British factories to these imports
- separate development of early pressed glass in France and nearby c1829 - 1840
- shared mould makers between England and France
- but little sign of glass itself moving back and forth over the channel in this early period
Glass designed AND manufactured pre 1845 is tough to find.
I have about a dozen examples, half British, four French, two American from the early wave of pressed salts.
-
Could that lack of glass from England be because the tax laws inhibited production up to the mid/late 1840s(can't remember the date it was repealed)
I can't think it inhibited production of luxury glass and I feel I've read a recent document that supports this, but it possibly inhibited the production of large quantities of mass production. Perhaps there was a long tail effect of that and it continued for years after it was repealed.
So, my take of the contemporary to the time report from 1845 I've read is that the French makers ( did the unthinkable in terms of competition?) banded together as a group and commissioned high quality molds to be made, at enormous expense to them. They produced catalogues to support this effort and then went on to sell those mold made glass items in a hugely and wildly successful way.
(This is my 'interpretation' of what Neuwirth wrote in Farbenglas 1 page 275, directly from the report from Batka, 1845, pp.878,879)
Which is why I wondered whether they'd sent them in bulk across the channel to be distributed here.
-
I think early British moulds were made in Birmingham until individual glass houses set up their own moulding departments in the 1840s. Your point about the tax could well explain the limited amount of early English pressed glass. You can see in the design registrations, there was very little relating to glass until late 1846 when it takes off. I also think there was a significant jump in technical ability at the same time allowing for a larger range of items to be made. The first pressed suites seem to come in around the mid 1850s.
-
I've a funny feeling I read something many years ago about Baccarat developing a mass producing blowing technique machine or something. I can't remember the detail because it wasn't something I understood particularly well at the time I read it. Perhaps that spurred them onto producing the molds, in order to make most use of the machines/technique?
Need to look that info up again as it might go some way to explaining why they thought this route of making very expensive molds was a good bet.
-
I'm sure you know this but I didn't :)
According to this report from 1854, pressed glass was invented in America and it was only in 1837 that they started making pressed glass drinking glasses:
The World of Art and Industry published 1854 , no page numbers but is a comment directly below the start of Section III Manufactures of Glass
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_World_of_Science_Art_and_Industry_Il/Zjk_AAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hock+glass+1837&pg=PA220&printsec=frontcover
-
I think early British moulds were made in Birmingham until individual glass houses set up their own moulding departments in the 1840s. Your point about the tax could well explain the limited amount of early English pressed glass. You can see in the design registrations, there was very little relating to glass until late 1846 when it takes off. I also think there was a significant jump in technical ability at the same time allowing for a larger range of items to be made. The first pressed suites seem to come in around the mid 1850s.
Neil do you know what these molds were made from? Were they cast iron do you know? I'm asking because there is an interesting piece of info in Farbenglas that I've just come across regarding the French molds and how much they cost to model along with the sketches. I think that information could imply perhaps that economically it makes it much more likely that the glasses come from France and the conglomerate of St. Louis, Baccarat, Choisy and Bercey rather than elsewhere.
-
The Pottery Gazette refers to Iron Moulds in the mid Victorian period, whether they started off that way in the 1830s I don't know.
-
Thanks Neil.
In Farbenglas I Neuwirth refers to Batka's contemporary report of the time (page 275):
- Batka praises the way the factories St.Louis, Baccarat, Choisy and Bercey use the 'brass press molds' (my underlining) as joint property and how the factories worked together on this project.
and the Batka report also says:
- '....The costs for the sketches and the modeling of the brass molds for the pressed glasses are said to have cost more than 100,000 francs alone, and still their use has bought these companies more than ten time enough to cover the expense'.
So, if I'm right on conversion, from 1840 to now that's about c. 3,400,000 francs in today's money. To provide the sketches and the modeling of the brass molds. Very expensive.
On that basis, it's understandable why it was a joint effort by the 4 companies, but also understandable that their efforts to market and sell to the world (Launay Hautin catalogues with their designs for each piece that look to my eye almost architectural in their accuracy) to recoup that money must have been enormous I presume.
Therefore I think it's most likely my becher came from France rather than elsewhere.
m
-
yes from what I've read it seemed there was a lot more Bohemian glass and some French glass coming this way than going back the other during that period. But again, that's just my impression. I don't have tonnage of imports to back up that surmise, though I think they do exist. My impression from my readings over time is that it was a hay-day period for Bohemian glass and their exports (not pressed glass though). Pressed glass seemed to be in ascendancy from Baccarat and Saint-Louis.
I wondered when doing all my reading, whether the Hale Thomson patent was done because the technique was good for use on mirrors for example (that method was much more healthy as the previous method was poisoning the workers) and Belgium and France, where they registered their patent, was a big supplier/maker of mirrored glass. From reading the court reports on their case, it seemed they didn't have a problem popping across the channel to register their patent. There was no indication it was a difficulty. Also prior to 1850 they were using Bohemian glass and silvering the interiors and again there seemed to be no problem with supply.
I think glass trade into England during that time (early 1800s to 1850)was big. And part of that was possibly due to more attractive colour developments (certainly with Bohemian glass) but possibly also English development of coloured glass was restricted by the prohibitive tax up to the 1840s.
In the case of the Hale Thomson patented silvered glass there were lots of developments in that time for the use of mirrored glass for telescopes for example, so presumably they also wanted to register their patent to protect for a potential growth in that market.
A little bit of information found in this 1853/1854 report on Bohemian glass exports
The World of Science Art and Industry page 222
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_World_of_Science_Art_and_Industry_Il/Zjk_AAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hock+glass+1837&pg=PA220&printsec=frontcover
Under the Section Heading ' The Austrian Empire':
'The manufacture of glass is one of the oldest and most extensive branches of industry in Bohemia; this country supplies more than half of what is produced in the Austrian Empire, and has long carried on an extensive trade with all parts of the world. In 1847, there were exported of hollow and table glass, 102,119 cwt; of cut and crystal-glass and mirrors 23,075 cwt,; of beads, artificial gems, &c., 5,619 cwt; of this amount, in each class, Bohemia contributed 88%. The consumption of these articles at home is nearly equal to what is exported.'
[/color]
It then goes on to talk about the beauty and excellence of Bohemian glass ... as it did about German glass on the page previous.
That's a huge tonnage of exports. [/color]
-
Bohemian glass imported into U.S.A. in large quantities in the time period you mention. Many importers/dealers along the east coast in major cities. So popular with the buying public, American class companies took up the style and processes to stay competitive.
A newspaper account from the Philadelphia Bulletin June 16,1852 states:
"A recent visit to Boston gave us an opportunity to visit the New England Glassworks which for the extent and variety of their operations probably surpass all others in the country. We were repeatedly struck with the fact new to us that most of the exquisite richly colored and decorated glassware which is so much admired under the name of "Bohemian Glass" is manufactured here. The variety and beauty of the articles manufactured there would scarcely be credited for one not a visitor; but we assure our readers that we saw many works that could not be surpassed in Bohemia or anywhere else in Europe. The various processes by which the different colors and rich gilding are produced, we are not prepared to describe; but they are produced in these works in the utmost perfection.
-
Thanks Cagney for adding this interesting information.
For discussion, just my thoughts :) :
I can believe the report but, in the same way I am with the English critics reports in the Arts Journal of the 1840s and 50s, I'm always suspicious of how absolutely fabulous these colours and designs actually were and in how great a quantity they were produced. Where are these examples? I can understand that in sheer tonnage of Bohemian glass, there will be more around, however for example I remained mystified at the lack of identified coloured English 'Bohemian style glass' of this period. And when I see what is available in museum collections, even more so, as by comparison it mostly just doesn't stand up to what had been produced in Bohemia.
French glass of the early 19th is Gorge de Pigeon, amazing shades of blue and dichroic blue, turquoise, green, some rare yellow etc. and examples can be found and seen in museum collections.
I don't see these amazing shades of colour etc in English glass collections really. But that could just be me. I see quite a lot of clear glass, and white opaline glass that's been enamelled or decorated but apart from that not a lot else.
In the case of glass produced in England around that time, I do wonder if this is because of the tax laws up to the 1840s, which I think might have meant the development of coloured glass was held back by cost? And then, by the time the tax laws were repealed in the mid late 1840s, the Bohemian early 19th century fashionable cut coloured glass market was, what? something like 30 years old already and going out of fashion. Bohemian Biedermeier was out by 1850 and Rococo revival was back in. I know fashions persist, but by 1850 this stuff was out of fashion and times had moved on. So in the case of English glass I wonder if this is why there is so little around? That is probably simplifying it and possibly there is much more English and American 'Bohemian style' glass out there but it still seems to be an opaque area in terms of formal identification.
So in that report from 1852 I wonder exactly what style of glass they were producing that was 'Bohemian style'? 'Bohemian style' I tend to read in my head as cut faceted Biedermeier style glass as that is how it's been described in Great Exhibition reports and Arts Journal reports I think from memory. But perhaps that report meant something different in terms of style? It's so difficult to tell without engravings to accompany the report really.
-
As far as "Amero-Bohemian" glass , I think it relates to techniques rather than form. An influence if you will. Seems if it was overlayed [plated] and cut or engraved, gilded, or otherwise decorated in some technique associated with Bohemian glass that would suffice.The "style" had a longer life here in the states. A fair amount of kerosene lamp fonts [reservoirs] overlayed in one or more colors , cut and gilded still survive in numbers from the 1860s. Cologne bottles and other accessories in many semi-opaque and transparent colors c.1840-1870 got the full treatment as well.
The high praise given to the N.E.G. co. in the newspaper article is typical of the bias at the time toward American manufacturers.
I would be curious to know your FIRST impression of the articles pictured.
-
Absolute first impressions:
1) The box looks quite like the design of a melon shaped box and underplate from the book Farbenglas 1 (Neuwirth) page 209 which is attributed as 'Probably Bohemian, prior to 1840'.
However, the underplate is oddly shaped, too symmetric and looks a bit strange for some reason. The photograph makes the bowl look round but it's probably oval melon shaped I guess and that foot on the bowl caught my eye. All molded? No gilding which seems odd to me. A strange green opaque? glass - difficult to tell from the picture.
2) The second two bottles I have no idea. I don't like gilded amber glass and tend to associate it with the 1930s/40s rather than the 1800s though at earliest maybe 1870s? I wouldn't have thought Bohemian as I don't leap to that on seeing amber glass. Are the facets hand cut or are the bottles mold blown?
3) The last one looks like it should be Saint Louis however the pattern on the green doesn't look quite right to me (but on second look it seems ok), and the wavy rim also not right for Saint Louis c.1860 I don't think, nor the foot somehow (although on second look the foot looks ok), so I'd be looking elsewhere to start with and not Bohemia.
I'm quite happy to be miles out and totally wrong on all of them :) I guess thought processes do start somewhere ... there's always a beginning :)
And further to my question in the post above, this looks interesting:
https://www.historicnewengland.org/inside-conservation-lab-curing-diseased-uranium-glass/
-
...
The high praise given to the N.E.G. co. in the newspaper article is typical of the bias at the time toward American manufacturers.
...
This is what I come across in the Art Journal articles of the period and the Journal critics' comments about the wonderfulness of English glass - and by contrast (some of) their barbed comments about Bohemian glass - how clear glass is so much better, English clear glass can't be surpassed, the cutting around the rims of Bohemian glass oooh how awful, I mean who could possibly drink out of that?. Those type of comments. It's so blatant I feel the need to counteract it when I read these critiques.
-
Thank you for your honest FIRST impression. Of course I was bateing you a bit in fun.
1. The oval lidded bowl w/underplate is blown molded with applied stem on top. Ascribed to Sandwich in one of series of books "A GUIDE TO SANDWICH GLASS". Blue lead glass.It is stated in the book that one difference from the European version is that there is a pontil mark on the inside of the lid from when applying the stem. Very rare only two known c.1850-1870. Luckily, my cousin a longtime dealer/collector [the person who got me started in early American glass] took photos when he visited the Sandwich Glass Museum.
2. Blown molded cologne bottles with original stoppers in amber lead glass of a decided red tone in the thicker areas. Very much like Cambridges amber from the 1930s. Matching numbers in gilt on the stopper bottoms and bottle bottom. Polished pontil. Not documented, but I think very American . Formally my collection. C.1850-1870.
3. Vase blown molded center and applied free blown stem/foot and upper part. Many shards dug at the Sandwich site back in the day. Almost all examples are 2+ inches taller than this 5 1/2 in example [longer upper and lower part] . The molded center section usually in a oval hobnail or mitered diamond [sawtooth] pattern, this pattern a little scarce. Colors may be reversed. Some examples known in a dark semi-opaque sapphire color molded section. Lead glass. Rough pontil mark. C. 1850-1870. Formally my collection.
Some documented examples from N.E.G. glass co. in the Corning Museum showing a definite bohemian influence. If you type in Leighton in the search collection function a hand full of examples by one or another of this family that emigrated from England in 1826. Three became superentendant Of N.E.G.co.
-
I forgot to comment on your becher. I think it French in part do to the soft edges of the pattern, most common on French glass of the period in my experience. Even French lacy.
-
:)
Thanks for the sharing these lovely pieces. It's interesting to see the different influences and the different methods of construction.
I have two 'fruit' boxes, both I think are Bohemian and neither have a polished pontil mark where the stem is attached, although you can feel a raised area of glass inside the lid where the stem was attached. They both have cut and polished rims on the lid and on the base and no 'foot' to either of the boxes.
I know absolutely nothing about American glass. The only time I ever looked into it was when I was looking into a ruby overlay goblet. It always looks like a very difficult area to research to me regarding the mid 19th century pieces.
m
-
Bohemian glass imported into U.S.A. in large quantities in the time period you mention. Many importers/dealers along the east coast in major cities. So popular with the buying public, American class companies took up the style and processes to stay competitive.
A newspaper account from the Philadelphia Bulletin June 16,1852 states:
"A recent visit to Boston gave us an opportunity to visit the New England Glassworks which for the extent and variety of their operations probably surpass all others in the country. We were repeatedly struck with the fact new to us that most of the exquisite richly colored and decorated glassware which is so much admired under the name of "Bohemian Glass" is manufactured here. The variety and beauty of the articles manufactured there would scarcely be credited for one not a visitor; but we assure our readers that we saw many works that could not be surpassed in Bohemia or anywhere else in Europe. The various processes by which the different colors and rich gilding are produced, we are not prepared to describe; but they are produced in these works in the utmost perfection.
I'm not sure how old this article is ( I think 1983?) but has interesting time frame for American glass in Bohemian style starting in the 1840s:
https://www.botlman.com/pdf/NE_Glass_Co_v25_1983_JGS_CMG.pdf
-
Baccarat uranium glass for colour comparison (on my screen and copying it next to my photograph, this is the same or remarkably similar if not, colour to the larger glass)
This set linked is being sold as Baccarat and referenced to catalogue dated 1893 n°3571.
https://www.rouillac.com/ddoc-232717-cf2e0d69ba392e39a3aaa34efc13183e-273_1.jpg
https://www.rouillac.com/fr/lot-141-42718-encrier_cristal_vert_ouraline_baccarat
Just came across this yellow version- it looks very similar to the green. Perhaps they are both Baccarat?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/08/19/0f/08190f5c238d9441bf27e8ae61aa5a2c.jpg