Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Roobarb on July 16, 2021, 01:48:54 PM
-
Hello and hope you're all well :)
This glass swan seems to me to be identical to the Burtles & Tate ones. However, I've only seen examples which have the number 20086 on the base. Could this still be Burtles and Tate without the identifying number? Thank you!
-
the moulds apparently were made to include the Reg. No. within an oblong box, and it's this Rd. No. 20086, from 8th Jan. 1885 that appears - usually - on these swans. In Ray Slack's book, he gives a height of 2.5 inches and length of 3 inches, for both an opalescent example and one of the black ones that were destined for the Oz market. Always possible there were other moulds that didn't carry the Reg. No., and there may have been other sizes of swan too, from B. & T., and just to confuse matters there are many swans out there that probably had nothing to do with B. & T. Apparently designed as a posy vase rather than a salt, which is how some sellers promote them. How it can be shown that a swan without the Rd. No. is unquestionably B. & T. I'm not sure.
-
B&T made swans in at least four sizes, from memory each size has a slight variation in wing shape. You would need to match the feather pattern and wing shape exactly, suspect they do differ between makers.
John
-
Thank you both for your replies :) I will have a look at the 4 sizes and see if mine is an exact match. As you say Paul, I guess without the Rd it's impossible to say for sure. I'll also have a look at the posy vases you mentioned :)
-
My question is did B&T make swans in white, as that looks white to me rather than opalescent
-
the edges of this swan give a nod toward opalescent, and IMHO to say simply white glass as, for example, in Sowerby's white Vitro-porcelain or milk glass doesn't adequately describe its appearance, nor is it as translucent as Blanc-de-Lait, though it has to be said that it has a far greater opacity than Slack's opalescent B. & T. swan - shown in his book - which is a tad confusing - we need others who have a opalescent B & T. swans to share their pix. Neither do I think the swan has quite the opacity of Sowerby's 'Opal' Vitro-porcelain, though from memory that might have vaguely similar edge appearance. There have probably been a mountain of variables in this 'arsenic and re-heating/re-striking milky/opalescent look' over the years, and perhaps the more arsenic you chuck in the greater is the opacity - one of the criteria of opalescent glass is the 'sunset glow' - no idea if the B. & T. swans possess that property - possibly the higher the arsenic content the more beautiful the sunset. May we ask Roobarb to confirm please if there is any sign of sunset or fire colour - perhaps if there is nothing then we may have to revise our ideas. I'm going to stick with some form of variation on opalescent - until it's proven otherwise Christine, which may well happen :) The answer to your question is that I haven't the slightest idea - certainly Slack mentions opalescent and black only.
-
Some B&T swans (and more):
http://www.victorianpressedglass.com/gallery_other.htm
The four sizes in one photo:
http://www.victorianpressedglass.com/images/otherglass/burtles/burtles_8.jpg
-
I have two swans which are unmarked but have exactly the same wing markings as my marked B&T swans.
One was bought in France, I wonder if B&T may have used unmarked moulds for some export items?
Pictured here: http://www.victorianpressedglass.com/gallery_other.htm
In the picture with four swans, the one on the bottom right is unmarked.
Just to confuse matters, on the same page, the swan with the white bottom and the pink top, the white bottom is a solid white.
This is the other unmarked swan which was bought in France.
Edit: Great minds think at the same time :)
-
John - believe it or not, in a former life I had three of those u. canoes - now none. Of your opalescent swans, all are noticeably less opaque than the swan shown here, likewise the four sizes - I do see a little variation in surface patterning - not a lot, but definitely some. I was going to suggest that perhaps the black versions for the down under market may not have carried the Reg. No., since it would have meant little to the natives. Without going through the books I think Davidson used a different Set of Reg. Nos. for Oz, to those they would have been allocated for the U.K., and if correct this would give some support to the comment from MHT re 'unmarked moulds for some export items'. Is there any mileage in thinking that some B. & T. moulds might have wandered into the possession of another glass house at a later date?
-
Registrations were only valid for five years, so not all swans would have been marked if they were made for longer than five years. Can we have a better picture of the side of the white swan, as the feather pattern doesn't seem to match to me but it's hard to see
-
just to add a little to Lustrousstone's important comments about duration of Reg. protection in the C19. The Designs Act of 1842 provided for protection of a given shape or design for a period of three years, and this situation lasted from 1842 until late 1883 - in other words for the duration of the lozenge/diamond years. In their wisdom the guys who dictate such rules and regulations decided toward the end of that period that they would increase the three years to five - as Christine mentions - so five years became the norm and covers the 1885 period and date of this B. & T. swan Registration. It's a known fact that many moulds went on being used long after the date they were made - to such an extent on occasions that the outline of the diamond - or plain No. if Registered after 1883 - became worn and illegible. I don't recall ever seeing a discussion about the re-making of moulds due to the expiry of a given Registration period of protection - I think this period was important to makers and they were likely keen to continue to show - by means of a Reg. No. - to whom a given design belonged. Plagiarism of some of the best known shapes and designs was not uncommon, and for which - in the absence of a No. - cannot be attributed with certainty. IMHO I can't see moulds being re-made simply because the five year period had expired - it certainly wasn't the case as far as I know - plus there are many examples of Registrations in the Kew Register to show that successful designs and shapes were extended beyond their original five year term, sometimes once and even as many as three extended periods of five years. I can't think of a valid reason why a maker would want to omit showing a moulded No. on their wares.
-
The current thought on the Burtles Tate swan is that only the registered ones are Burtles Tate. Many companies made their own, some look very close to BT. With such a small item, it is inevitable.
-
I'm inclined to agree with that suggestion.
-
Can I repeat a comment I made on another topic back in 2015, about molds and registered design numbers, as it may be pertinent:
It's certainly an interesting read, Mike. It's also worth adding that David C Watts, author of the book on London Glasshouses, said some while ago when we were discussing moulds, that the norm for many glassworks was to have four moulds for each piece being made. That way the production would be continuous. He also mentioned slight variations between moulds, e.g. that 1 or 2 may carry a registered design number whilst the others of the same piece do not. There is, I am sure, still much we do not know about moulds, but my suspicion is that the variations noted in the article may be simply slight differences depending on the mould maker's interpretation of the pattern or when a damaged mould is replaced with a new one. I could, of course, be totally wrong, so please don't take this as gospel, it's just how I am interpreting what I am seeing. :)
-
agree, interesting comments - are we aware if the source of that information was verbal, or is there written provenance. Have to say I've never seen that suggestion in any of the pressed glass books I've owned. Multiple moulds would be a practicable approach when the demand was high, but then again the act of pressing a piece was over in a matter of seconds almost, and the piece might then have gone to the lehr leaving the mould free for the next gob. It could be that for more utilitarian wares that were the staple of a manufacturers wares and which were needed in greater quantity this situation was beneficial, but for novelty items required in small numbers then possibly not so important. I'd still come back to the issue that for a Registered design of which a company was careful to protect, why would they have some moulds with a Reg. No., or diamond, and some without - but then I'm guessing too, and would be good if we have something in writing to substantiate this idea. :)
-
Hi Paul, the info re the four moulds was in an email from the late David Watts to me as part of a conversation we had about trinket sets and the Century Glassworks.
-
thanks Anne - I was thinking more as to whether the information that David supplied to you had come verbally from a glasshouse or perhaps in writing from same. Many folk say many things, some of which is well founded, and some of which is perhaps less so - some info may have a more restricted use. I might speak to Ray Slack and see if he is aware of this situation, though have to say believe he was working more from an academic point of view rather than in contact with glasshouses.
-
Apologies, I just popped on to look back at what was said about this piece and noticed the responses to my last post. I must not have my notifications set up properly so will have a look at that! Thank you for your replies and sorry again for late response...
Here are some more photos as requested, it it quite transparent at edges and the beak...
-
thanks - if there is an absence of any opalescence, then with the appearance of the 'edges' we now see, I'd put head on block and suggest this has more the look of milk glass.
-
I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but there are swirls in the glass....
-
unlikely, since this is produced by pressing the glass into a mould. Will you please hold this up to good daylight please and tell us if you can see any degree of 'sunset glow' through the glass.
-
I don't believe it does. The swirls or variation in the glass can be seen here on the base...
-
I have over 20 pics of various Burtles Tate swans and none of them are opaque white / milk glass. There was a white opalescent one.
-
we don't seem to be getting any opalescence with this piece?