Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: cagney on January 29, 2023, 08:04:16 PM
-
I find this incredibly interesting and hope you will too. The pattern is New England Glass Company's [ NEG co.]"BLAZE" c. 1866? The patent drawing of the mold is c.1847 by Joseph Magoun of the NEG co.The idea behind the patented mold was to eliminate most of the unsightly mold line in pressed glass stemware.
WORKING THE MOLD:
As "B" in the drawing is the only hinged two piece in the mold this is where the mold line would occur. The "plunger "H" would be lifted from the mold and "G" [top] lifted off, the hinged section "B" opened, then the "plug" "A" incorporating the cup shaped foot is pushed upward thus releasing the article from the mold.The article would be taken out the top of the mold and be subjected to the fire to form the foot thus polishing out most of the mold line there. Although the patent drawing shows a round baluster stem, the patent concept later refined for a multi-sided stem where the mold line would follow along two edges of the stem and be mostly hidden to the eye.
A more complete drawing of the patent can be seen here: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fa/87/6a/757236fccd1a69/US5302.pdf (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fa/87/6a/757236fccd1a69/US5302.pdf)
Finished pieces in this pattern and type of mold can be seen at; https://www.eapgs.net/pattern-details.php?idx=781 (https://www.eapgs.net/pattern-details.php?idx=781) The line drawings in the link are from a NEG co. catalogue c. 1868-1869.
-
That's so interesting to see the piece along with the description and designs and mold! Thanks for sharing.
What is happening with the foot please? is it supposed to be like that for a purpose? It's late here - my excuse for not recognising why it has a foot shaped like that :)
m
-
There are at least two reasons more or less agreed upon.
1. The area that shapes the bowl part of the article "G" just above "B"is a static part of the mold. In order for the article to be taken out the top, any part of the article below has to fit through the narrow of the bottom of "G" where it intersects with "B". Thus the small "ledge" created on the piece because the narrow at the bottom of "G" is a little wider than the top of "B".
2. The shape would allow easy exposer to the fire on what will become the top of the foot where the mold line occurs. Also probably a very easy to shape to start with for the Gaffer with tools at hand.
I think the "ledge" created in this type of mold on articles where the stem meets the pattern is a defining feature. I am sure this type mold was refined at a later date than the patent drawing. In what way unknown.
-
Thank you for the explanation. It's so interesting to see the produced piece and all the detail.
If I understood correctly, was the Blaze pattern introduced in 1866? does this mean they were using this method of molding and retrieving from the mold 20 plus years after it was designed/invented?
and how does this piece (25 years after the French pressed glass in the Launay Hautin catalogue for example) compare to the finish quality of the pressed French glass of the Launay Hautin of the earlier period 1830s and the 1840/1841 catalogue I wonder in terms of visible mold lines, quality of production etc.? Very interesting to consider the ramifications on perhaps French imports to the American market.
m
-
The date 1866 is the earliest documented mention of the Blaze pattern , not necessarily the first date of production. Were they still using this process 25 years after the invention? It seems so.
Of the 11 patterns in the catalogue that could be had in complete sets 3 have stemware pressed in this type of mold. The patterns are Blaze, Reeded A.K.A.[Fine Rib], and Ashburton.
https://www.eapgs.net/pattern-details.php?idx=3995 (https://www.eapgs.net/pattern-details.php?idx=3995)
https://ww.eapgs.net/pattern-details.php?idx=201 (https://ww.eapgs.net/pattern-details.php?idx=201)
The Ashburton stemware could be had in two different forms. The patented method or what I assume to be the conventional method.
You have probably noticed that the Ashburton pattern is problematic. The part of the mold that creates the semi-circles or punties in the upper part of the bowl will not allow the article to be taken out of the mold if that part of the mold is static. The answer to this problem is Joseph Magouns patent of a year later 1848.
google.comaipis/24/76/44/9463ab118a7f38/US5875.pdf (http://google.comaipis/24/76/44/9463ab118a7f38/US5875.pdf)
If you combine elements of his 1848 patent with the hinged part of his 1847 patent that formed the stem and foot, you end up with a hybrid mold that the goblet pictured was pressed in.In fact Magoun in his summary of the 1848 patent states "It is to be understood that my invention is particularly applicable to such molds as do not open in two parts or halves,and which do not produce the "mold marks" or impressions of the usual side-seam or seams. I do not however confine it to such, as it may be often used to advantage in other molds".
This goblet is made of an excellent grade of metal and has been fire-polished as evidenced by the small polished pontil on the bottom of the foot. In regards to French pressed glass I give most of it high marks this goblet would come in a very close second
A little more information can be had at:https://books.google.com/books?id=JW9yDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA140&lpg=1848+joseph+magoun+patent&source=bl&ots (https://books.google.com/books?id=JW9yDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA140&lpg=1848+joseph+magoun+patent&source=bl&ots)
-
The correct link to the Ashburton pattern.https://www.eapgs.net/pattern-details.php?idx=201 (https://www.eapgs.net/pattern-details.php?idx=201)
For the 1848 patent.https://patentimages.storage.googleaipis/24/76/44/9463ab118a7f38/US5875.pdf (https://patentimages.storage.googleaipis/24/76/44/9463ab118a7f38/US5875.pdf)
-
1848 patenthttps://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/24/76/44/9463ab118a7f38/US5875.pdf (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/24/76/44/9463ab118a7f38/US5875.pdf)
-
Thanks so much for the amazing and detailed information. It's really interesting to see the lengths they've gone to to produce complex patterned glass in molds. I was curious about the quality as I remember researching Bakewell Pears (?) goblets in reference to a pink overlay clear goblet I own and thinking the quality looked fantastic.
The more I read descriptions of the designers of the molds and the making of the molds, the more I'm incredulous at how contemporary the thought processes were to today despite it being nearly 200 years ago. And how sophisticated the designs were. If they were still using them 25 years later then they worked well.
Thanks for the book link. Those uranium glass carafes (dating c.1850) are very interesting in a date context and with reference my thread on the GMB re Queen Victoria Uranium glass bowl in the V&A. V&A has it made by Davenports in England in 1837.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JW9yDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA140&source=bl&ots=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
(ref thread on GMB - Queen Victoria uranium glass bowl in V&A c.1837/8
https://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/museum-life/seeing-more-glow-in-the-dark-glass
m
-
During my research I read that Mr. Magoun was a machinist before becoming involved in the glass business, a very good knowledge base to start with.
I am familiar with your thread concerning the Queen Victoria uranium bowl, quite interesting.
The google book link seems to be a bit ephemeral. I think they rotate different selections from the book at any given time. Possibly my outdated browser. Anyway no. 65 page 127 the uranium large lacy compote I found extremely informative. Specifically, the letter [1845] from William Leighton Sr. to a Scottish colleague concerning the recipe for uranium glass.
-
Oh I'll go and try and find that letter again! and attach the reference to my thread this time - I found that whilst researching the QV bowl. A good refresh. Thank you.
The Uranium glass carafes are on page 72 and 73 - They're dated c.1850 and 'Probably East Cambridge or possibly Sandwich'
Magoun being a machinist is relevant and interesting - his interest in precision and design. I always quietly marvel at the incredible technical skills of that period, and earlier obviously, but then have to remind myself that, despite it being centuries past, they were just like us in requiring precision designs for specific purposes, and also in their thought processes. So why shouldn't they be amazing? I think I marvel because it was all done with logs and books and measuring tools and no computers and yet is still so utterly precise. I'm not that old but my dad was an engineer and I remember as a small child him trying to show me how to use a slide rule calculator! It was an extension of him,always on hand, bit like an iphone now!
-
I have the date incorrect and the wrong Leighton [my bad]. Should be Thomas Leighton c. 1839. Lots of Leighton's in the glass business in this period [all related].
The "carafes" are very nice. I do not know why the author uses that term. For forever and a day the have been called a bar bottle or "decanter with bar lip" and that is how they are listed in the catalogue. Not ground for a stopper. A metal pourer would be fitted to the top, cork lined to stay to the bottle. Some involved a type of vertical cage with a small marble inside, on the shelf the marble would cover the opening inside the pourer, when tilted to pour the marble would fall forward to the top of the cage and allow the goods to come out.The fancier the pour, the better the goods? East Cambridge is a colloquial term for N.E.G.co. A bit of poor editing I think.
I get the slide rule iphone analogy completely and will remember it.
-
Thanks for that information on the name of the bottle and the way it works. I've seen that kind of lip before and wondered about it because to me it looks an unusual design. I'm now wondering if what I'd been looking at was American :-\ made for the kind of stopper you describe.
-
Two of many types.
-
Fantastic thanks so much. I've never seen anything like the one with the marble. Very interesting.
m
-
During my research I read that Mr. Magoun was a machinist before becoming involved in the glass business, a very good knowledge base to start with.
I am familiar with your thread concerning the Queen Victoria uranium bowl, quite interesting.
The google book link seems to be a bit ephemeral. I think they rotate different selections from the book at any given time. Possibly my outdated browser. Anyway no. 65 page 127 the uranium large lacy compote I found extremely informative. Specifically, the letter [1845] from William Leighton Sr. to a Scottish colleague concerning the recipe for uranium glass.
I can't see this on my google search. It throws up very little in that book for me. However in another search I see a ' canary yellow lacy compote in Princess Feather design identified as Boston and Sandwich Glass company between 1830 and 1850'. That was in Magazine Antiques Volume 125 1984 page 770. Is that the same one you mention?
I wondered if you knew a specific date American companies might have been known to have started producing uranium glass please? Just curious, given that letter, as I assume it would be after the letter (I had the letter as dated 1839?).
Actually this just came up on a second search: - 'Canary-yellow compote in Princess Feather design'- sold by Sotheby's as Sandwich Glass 1835-1840 (just in case the link disappears, for future reading/research it's a pressed glass piece in quite pale lemon yellow):
https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2022/property-from-the-collection-of-dr-larry-mccallister-2/a-large-princess-feather-pattern-canary-yellow
m
-
Thanks for that information on the name of the bottle and the way it works. I've seen that kind of lip before and wondered about it because to me it looks an unusual design. I'm now wondering if what I'd been looking at was American :-\ made for the kind of stopper you describe.
McConnell says the bar-lip bottles were largely American but also shows an 1880 catalogue page from Ford Rankin, Holyrood, Glasgow, that shows a bar-lip bottle with a caged marble stopper like those Cagney showed.
-
Sounds like the same compote. Princess Feather being the collector name for the lacy pattern in the bowl {the Sotheby's link did not load the picture for me}??
As I read parts of your thread on the Queen Victoria bowl, I ask myself the exact same question. When did uranium begin here? I could not find a definitive date. The book in the link is the most up to date information on the subject I could find. In the summary included with the picture of the compote. They quote portions of the letter from Thomas Leighton to a Scottish colleague {Ford] c.1839 as follows:
" You likewise informed me that to make your canary metal you used nothing but oxid[e] of uranium to your flint batch. You did not give me any quantity, but that I can find out by small experiments. If you please to give me your proportions it will save me a lot of trouble". Also stated in the summary is that Boston & Sandwich Co. opened there "canary" furnace Feb. 1844
If I had to bet, Would say Mr. Leighton and the N.E.G. co. beat B&S by a few years. He is also credited for the recipe for gold ruby to N.E.G. co. Prior to that they imported from England.
-
I'm very curious about the gold ruby information as well :)
This is from the Corning. It's a history of gold ruby glass. For more contemporary or recent development scroll down to the section headed 'Later Years' and then to the paragraph that begins 'In the 19th century, a more general interest in gold ruby glass was revived....'
Within that paragraph it states that in the later years the first to achieve success with re-discovering gold ruby glass was Johann Pohl of Harrach in 1835. It does state that the knowledge spread but that gold ruby remained incredibly difficult to make. It goes on to say that in 1851 the Great Exhibition 'featured displays of ruby glass from English companies such as G. Bacchus and Sons of Birmingham, the Falcon Glassworks of Apsley Pellatt, and W. H., B. and J. Richardson of Wordsley, and from the Baccarat firm in France (ibid., p. 132).'
There isn't any mention of American gold ruby makers.
https://www.cmog.org/article/gold-ruby-glass
-
However, from the way Leighton has written that request (In 1839) it does appear that the receiver (Ford?) had some uranium glass on view.
That is still 2 years after the 1837 Victoria bowls though. And there is no proof that the recipient of Leighton's letter had actually made the uranium glass on view either. Is that a fair comment or am I just overly suspicious ;D ?
I mean, the recipient could have shared his recipe with Leighton ... but we don't know that. The recipient seems to have told Leighton that he just mixed uranium oxide in with his flint glass. Leighton seems to have been pressing for exact quantities and a recipe. Odd. If it was so easy then he could have just experimented surely? Although to be fair, I suspect uranium oxide was expensive and presumably not that easy to get hold of so experimenting might have been costly. A known recipe would have saved money and time and been far more productive I guess.
I've just read that Thomas Leighton retired in 1843? I don't know how to link the Journal of Glass Studies but it states it here:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24188443
-
Some information here that John Ford took on Holyrood Glassworks in 1839:
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2887234
There appears to have been some gap between the death in 1818 of Wm Ford, who originally had the glassworks, and John Ford his nephew, taking it on it 1839.
So the correspondence in 1839 seems to have been at time when John Ford took over the glassworks. (he wasn't appointed glassmaker to QV until 1855).
This is an interesting digitisation from the Toledo Museum - the New England Glass company 1818-1888 (digitised in 2012)
https://archive.org/stream/newenglandglassc00tole/newenglandglassc00tole_djvu.txt
m
-
There is no mention of Canary or uranium that I could find on word search (searching ref Leighton to Ford (?) letter 1839 and dating on the QV thread).
Page 27 there is a mention of what might be a gold ruby recipe? but no specific date although prior to that it discusses recipes dating to 1846 and 1848.
Page 16 mentions Bohemian glass imports in reference to the visitor's observation in 1852 in Gleason's Pictorial (we discussed this briefly on another thread):
Quote
'Certainly examples of Bohemian glass were imported before 1852,
and some pieces in this style attributed to the Company must be European models brought
in to copy or study. '
-
In the book, the sentence previous to the quoted part of the letter states "Leighton was inquiring about canary metal he had seen there". In my mind it certainly implies Ford was making uranium glass. What do you make of the phrase in the letter 'to make your canary metal"? The letters have discussed in an article in THE ACORN:Journal of the Sandwich Glass Museum, vol. 3[1992] by Jane Shadel Spillman "The Leighton-Ford correspondence ". John Ford being the nephew of William Ford who Leighton had worked for at the Caledonian Glass Works, Edinburgh. As of 1994 [the publication date of my source] the actual letters resided at the Huntly House Museum,Edinburgh.
-
On the subject of gold ruby I should be more clear. The importation of gold ruby by N.E.G.co. was not in finished goods, but rather small cylinders {sausages} for re-melt. The earliest documented piece of American gold ruby is a newel post knob double plated in gold ruby over white and cut to clear c.1846, engraved on the metal foot/stand that is attached to it is "To Thomas Leighton. In appreciation by his fellow workers. The New England Glass Co". Likely marking his 20th year with the co. The new formula for gold ruby seems was perfected by his son John H.Leighton probably in 1848. John Became Superintendent of N.E.G.co. after his fathers death in 1849 by all accounts I have read.
Uranium oxide not difficult to get here [U.S.A.] during this period. Many advertisements by druggist/apothecaries at that time.
The earliest letter to John Ford is dated 1828 and the footnote says John Ford was then at Midlothian Glass Works in Edinburgh.
Some photographs of a few pieces gold ruby in my collection. Probably post 1860.
-
no 25. under page 62 on this link mentions a pitcher 5 inches in height, blown, ruby body with round foot and applied clear handle - about 1850-1855. What height is yours?:
https://archive.org/stream/newenglandglassc00tole/newenglandglassc00tole_djvu.txt
That's a lovely jug btw. I love that shape and the circular foot.
-
In the book, the sentence previous to the quoted part of the letter states "Leighton was inquiring about canary metal he had seen there". In my mind it certainly implies Ford was making uranium glass. What do you make of the phrase in the letter 'to make your canary metal"? The letters have discussed in an article in THE ACORN:Journal of the Sandwich Glass Museum, vol. 3[1992] by Jane Shadel Spillman "The Leighton-Ford correspondence ". John Ford being the nephew of William Ford who Leighton had worked for at the Caledonian Glass Works, Edinburgh. As of 1994 [the publication date of my source] the actual letters resided at the Huntly House Museum,Edinburgh.
I think the wording implies there was uranium glass seen there by Leighton on a visit to John Ford. Leighton calls it canary glass and then mentioned uranium oxide so it must be uranium glass. I think Leighton's wording implies Leighton thought it was made by Ford and (if I remember correctly as this might have come from some other source I'd read) other wording mentions Ford told him he just put some uranium oxide in the flint batch to make it (I need to find where I read that). So the wording seems to imply Ford made the glass that Leighton called 'canary'. But do we know this is true?
Also, why would Leighton have called it 'canary glass'? Did that term 'canary' exist for uranium glass in 1839?
Also, the making of glass colours was/is difficult. (see page 71 of the link below this para - Antonin Langhamer, The Legend of Bohemian Glass, where it is referred to as 'the secret' of making uranium glass ) so why would a glassmaker share their recipes with a competitor? Isn't that a bit of an odd request?
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Legend_of_Bohemian_Glass/UwLCa_h3hTEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+glass+1839&pg=PA79&printsec=frontcover
See also page 79 for info on Harrach development of uranium glass:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Legend_of_Bohemian_Glass/UwLCa_h3hTEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+glass+1839&pg=PA79&printsec=frontcover
Food for thought on why there are no examples of this Ford Holyrood canary glass around or if there are, where are they?
I'm also still curious as to how the glass excise tax would have affected the making of expensive coloured glass in Britain in 1839:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_tax
On a separate thought regarding the Queen Victoria 'topaz' finger bowls in the list of those items (listed in newspaper articles of the time e.g. The Mirror) for the Coronation banquet at Guildhall London in 1837 - I'm now not sure that the topaz colour of the finger bowls was a uranium coloured glass colour. :-\
(p.s. I'm going to be very embarrassed if the V&A suddenly produce evidence that Davenport Longport made that uranium glass finger bowl in 1837)
-
With reference to your question in your reply #16 on this thread, on when uranium glass production might have started in America:
I can't see much of the book in this link, just a few small pages however on a search, a 'snippet' of page 127 threw up the information that 'Uranium or "canary" glass 'was introduced in the mid 1840s. I don't know whether that information is general for American glass or specific to a factory though as I can't see any more than the snippet info.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/American_Glass/JW9yDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+glass+1830&pg=PA127&printsec=frontcover
-
In the book, the sentence previous to the quoted part of the letter states "Leighton was inquiring about canary metal he had seen there". In my mind it certainly implies Ford was making uranium glass. What do you make of the phrase in the letter 'to make your canary metal"? The letters have discussed in an article in THE ACORN:Journal of the Sandwich Glass Museum, vol. 3[1992] by Jane Shadel Spillman "The Leighton-Ford correspondence ". John Ford being the nephew of William Ford who Leighton had worked for at the Caledonian Glass Works, Edinburgh. As of 1994 [the publication date of my source] the actual letters resided at the Huntly House Museum,Edinburgh.
Just to add to my previous comments, another reason I'm curious about this is that in the report in the Art Journal of the Birmingham Exhibition in 1849, the critics mentioned that both Rice, Harris and Bacchus showed glass 'stained by uranium'. So we know in 1849 those two factories were producing uranium glass. But this is 17 years after the Queen Victoria bowls were apparently produced. And the article talks at some length about the advancements in glass production and also the colours now being produced (in 1849) and how they 'rival in beauty those which have been so long admired in the Bohemian glass'.
-
The ruby pitcher is full size at 8/12 in. tall if Remember correctly [packed away right now].
The relationship between Thomas and John was ongoing and I think reciprocal. In the letter Thomas sent John in April, 1828 he mentions sending him "a few of our moulded articles " which are made " the same as you make the square feet"."The mould lifts with two handles and opens at the corners". John get access to innovations happening in the U.S.A. Thomas get something to further his enterprise.
I think the date for uranium glass in America can at least be documented to Boston&Sandwich in 1844.
I bought the book in question through Alibris and have it in my possession. I have read about and seen examples of American Lacy glass with a silver stain that produces a bright amber, never heard anything about uranium stain.
-
Presume because Thomas Leighton worked with John Ford at Midlothian and then moved to the States? Then John Ford took over Holyrood Glass works. So I guess that was how they knew each other.
I still wonder about that term 'canary' glass being used in 1839 letter though and whether it was specific to uranium glass? It's not a term I've seen used here. I wonder if it was being used in the States to describe uranium coloured glass in 1839 despite them not producing uranium glass until the 1840s.
With reference the Art Union using the expression 'stained with uranium' I think they just meant 'coloured' with. The sentence was '... glass stained by uranium, silver, copper and cobalt'. This was 1849 and these were critics writing about Art so I'm not sure if the terminology used was how we would think of it today if you see what I mean.
-
In the book, the sentence previous to the quoted part of the letter states "Leighton was inquiring about canary metal he had seen there". In my mind it certainly implies Ford was making uranium glass. What do you make of the phrase in the letter 'to make your canary metal"? The letters have discussed in an article in THE ACORN:Journal of the Sandwich Glass Museum, vol. 3[1992] by Jane Shadel Spillman "The Leighton-Ford correspondence ". John Ford being the nephew of William Ford who Leighton had worked for at the Caledonian Glass Works, Edinburgh. As of 1994 [the publication date of my source] the actual letters resided at the Huntly House Museum,Edinburgh.
About the letter dated 1839 that Leighton sent to Ford asking about uranium glass and reference your question above, it seems Holyrood was making uranium glass in May 1841:
Source: Jill Turnbull, The Magic and Misery of Glassmaking: Researching the history of the Scottish Glass Industry
https://booksfromscotland.com/2017/09/magic-misery-glassmaking-scotland/
'...One early venture was the production of uranium glass, called canary or topaz. In May 1841, pot number one (of eight) in the furnace was charged with 545lbs of their clear ‘flint’ (lead) glass[1] to which 6lbs of ‘oxide of uranium’ was added. It ‘turned out very good’. '
I don't know why it's referred to as 'called canary or topaz'. I don't have the book and do not know whether that is her interpretation of the colour name of uranium glass. It seems strange for a glassmaker to name their glass colour as 'canary or topaz'.
-
I believe "canary" relates to a particularly bright and vivd yellow color. A descriptive term. Analogous to a canary's brightly colored feathers. Still used over here c.1960s-70s to describe a very bright and deep yellow automobile paint for American custom cars [hot rods]. Canary yellow, candy apple red, etc. Topaz purely a English term? Relating to the gemstone? Come to think of it, gold ruby is a descriptive term for a certain TYPE of red.
The quote from Jill Trumbull's book documents an event in 1841. Not necessarily the first ?
Pictured is a English glass circa about 1860. Pattern molded [dip mold] bowl and cut stem, very heavy for it's size and a darker shade of color than usually seen over here. Topaz?
-
I believe...apple red, etc. Topaz purely a English term? Relating to the gemstone? Come to think of it, gold ruby is a descriptive term for a certain TYPE of red. ...
... Pictured is a English glass circa about 1860. Pattern molded [dip mold] bowl and cut stem, very heavy for it's size and a darker shade of color than usually seen over here. Topaz?
No not purely an English term. From 1835 in the report from the Vienna Exhibition (source, Farbenglas I Neuwirth pp 255) 'The following color glasses were listed under the Harrach exhibits: "table candelabra in gold topaz composition;" ...'
And further in that paragraph:
"toilet bottles... of gold topaz composition, chrysoprase composition....;"
Spiegl also says from 1829:
From Walter Spiegl
Farbige Gläser
http://www.glas-forschung.info/pageone/pdf/farbglas.pdf
Scroll down to page 30 under the Heading 'Rosa Rubin und Topas-glas
'Mit dem Goldrubin verwandt ist das »Topasglas«, das man in Neuwelt schon 1829
herstellen konnte und bei Lötz und Schmidt in der Goldbrunnhütte etwa seit 1830.
Neben der Goldauflösung wurde der Schmelze eine kleine Menge Antimonoxid
beigegeben, das dem Glas eine rötlich gelbe Färbung verleiht.'
using google translate this says:
'Related to the gold ruby is the »topaz glass«, which was found in Neuwelt as early as 1829
could produce and at Lötz and Schmidt in the Goldbrunnhütte since about 1830.
In addition to dissolving the gold, a small amount of antimony oxide was added to the melt
added, which gives the glass a reddish-yellow color.'
I think it's a pale browny/reddy amber colour going by a Jiri Suhajek vase shown for Moser in The Legend of Bohemian Glass (Antonin Langhamer pp 273 plate 298:
it's this vase shown and described as having a 'topaz layer'
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/vase-jiri-suhajek-moser-glassworks-hi-307770001
Spiegl describes how the 'topaz glass' was made as above. I read that as, in addition to the gold ruby recipe a small amount of antimony oxide was added to make the 'Topasglas'.
So it's curious how Pellatt seems to describe topaz glass as being made with uranium oxide. See also info hereon this point:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,70066.msg391983.html#msg391983
Your goblet is lovely btw. It's a little more green than I would have pictured in my mind's eye for topaz colour. Do you know where it's from? Is it a Powell goblet?
-
Two other sources on topaz.
1. From "An Illustrated Dictionary of Glass" Harold Newman, Thames and Hudson 1977. URANIUM: A metallic agent used in coloring glass, producing a fluorescent yellowish-green or greenish-yellow colour. When it is mixed with antimony, topaz and amber colours result.
2. "Encarta World English Dictionary" TOPAZ: no.4 COLORS:" Yellowish brown color, a light brown color tinged with yellow"
This definition seems to approximate Steubens version of topaz.
The English glass is interesting in, the combination of pattern molding and cutting in the same piece. I am not aware of this nexus in American glassware in this period, possibly later in the 19th century. I cannot recall seeing any. The only place I have seen this nexus is in Jacksons book on Whitefriars page 21 fig. 49 a diamond moulded decanter c.1855 with a cut fluted neck. The word designation on the photo is just a reminder to myself of that fact. Attribution to a certain maker unknown.
-
It's really pretty especially with the mold pattern and the faceted stem and beautifully cut merese/knop. A really lovely piece and beautifully done.
I'm stumped. I've never seen anything like it to be honest.
Thank you for the information on the topaz colour from Newman and Encarta. Interesting.
m
-
...
Also, the making of glass colours was/is difficult. (see page 71 of the link below this para - Antonin Langhamer, The Legend of Bohemian Glass, where it is referred to as 'the secret' of making uranium glass ) so why would a glassmaker share their recipes with a competitor? Isn't that a bit of an odd request?
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Legend_of_Bohemian_Glass/UwLCa_h3hTEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+glass+1839&pg=PA79&printsec=frontcover
See also page 79 for info on Harrach development of uranium glass:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Legend_of_Bohemian_Glass/UwLCa_h3hTEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+glass+1839&pg=PA79&printsec=frontcover
Food for thought on why there are no examples of this Ford Holyrood canary glass around or if there are, where are they?
I'm also still curious as to how the glass excise tax would have affected the making of expensive coloured glass in Britain in 1839:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_tax ...
In relation to my bolded comment above, Page 63 of Charles Hajdamach's British Glass 1800-1914 describes an industry in trouble in the 1830s:
'At a time when the ownership of a glassworks was a perilous undertaking which could lead quickly to bankruptcy, most glass producers were intent on survival rather than producing publicity material which might have been saved for posterity'.
and
'...in 1830 when most Dudley works were already complaining of financial problems due to the Glass Excise, which seems to have eventually forced the closure of the most important factories'.
and on page 70:
'Throughout most of its life the Hawkes factory was hampered by the Glass Excise. Prices were increased in 1825 as a result of the changes in the way the tax was charged and in 1835 the evidence Hawkes gave to the Commission of Inquiry clearly outlined the effect of the tax:
'I was out of business for a short time, for three years; I gave it over to my brothers, and they were so disgusted with it that they retired. I renewed the business with the hope that some alteration would take place, and I carry it on for one of my younger sons, to whom I thought I was doing an act of justice.'
From my reading of what CH has written, it appears Thomas Hawkes was the most important glassworks in Dudley(see page 63).
If this is what he is writing about the Tax Excise then I guess other factories must have been under similar pressures.
I think Hawkes closed in 1842 (see page 69 of the same book) where discussing a worker it says ' In 1842 his disappearance from the directories coincides with the closure of the Hawkes firm and...'
Does this indicate an industry that could in 1837 have used expensive oxides to produce a newly developed colour glass?
-
Very hard times over here for glassmakers for very different reasons. A general contraction in the economy beginning with the "panic of 1837". This seems to have lasted some years and then a gradual climb out of recession/depression.
Color being all the rage then I would think to stay competitive they would have to produce colored glass and capitalize on the current fashion. Considering the large amounts of other ingredients in a glass formula, the coloring agents were I think a small measure. One formula for "canary" c.1880 is simply "Batch 200 lbs. Uranium 1 lbs. As mentioned earlier in this thread uranium oxide not difficult to get over here. Cost unknown.
-
You may find this interesting.https://www.chataboutdg.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=2329 (https://www.chataboutdg.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=2329) https://www.chataboutdg.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=2340 (https://www.chataboutdg.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=2340)
Heisey's marigold color using uranium. Made for only 1 year c.1929 as it was a very unstable formula. Prone to crizzling and eventually flaking. At least two versions known. Probably ongoing experimentation trying to stabilize the glass. Documentation that it had a tendency to "spit" when working with the hot glass. Discontinued c. 1930 given the problems. Heisey perfected a really nice even shade of yellow in lead glass without uranium in their"Sahara" color c. 1930.
-
Thank you Cagney.
I will have a read of that link. Unfortunately it's not working for me. It says site can't be reached.
In relation to that issue of crizzling uranium glass, the issue that Pellatt had written about and publicised in his book 1847 was that he'd sent out shipments of uranium glass and within three months it had crizzled and it all had to be replaced with the cost to Falcon Glassworks. So he was talking about his own factory. Unfortunately he doesn't give the date for when that had happened but prior to 1847 due to the date of the lectures and the book based on those lectures.
I think also if I recall correctly he mentioned adjusting quantities dependent on how much ? (lead? maybe) in the batch. From what I read I don't think it was as simple as ... make a batch, put some uranium in, and there you go. I presume from the info you've given above, that Heisey also found it difficult to make it work.
From the link a few posts ago I gave on this thread to recent research by Jill Turnbull , it seems in May 1841 Holyrood made a huge batch of uranium glass and said it was good. They may have had a recipe they knew worked with their batch. I'm not a glass maker so I've no idea if that means it would work with any makers batch. There is no follow up comment on that recipe she discusses, so I do wonder if the outcome was successful longer term i.e. no crizzling. If that was the case I wonder why it's thought to be years later before the first American uranium glass was made when Leighton had asked the question in 1839. I'm thinking it's not as easy as the reply from John Ford made it out to be.
(I've been looking recently at French glass. The shape of the Queen Victoria bowls and the everted rim reminds me a lot of the Saint Louis Medici vases for some reason: http://lecoindesmerveilles.com/produit/vase-medicis-saint-louis/ , which led me to thinking about Baccarat.
m
-
Re being competitive. I have read in Charles Hajdamach's British Glass that British glassmakers were making coloured glass in that pre 1851 period.
However the Queen Victoria bowls were said to have been made for 1837 coronation. I think the industry was hampered by the Excise tax so development of coloured glass I assume will have been hampered by that as well? Also the reports from the Birmingham Exhibition in 1849 and the Great Exhibition in 1851 both remark on how great the colour was from the Bohemian glassmakers and to me the way they're written implied British glass was 'getting there' but still not there on coloured glass comparatively.
See page 294 where the report on Glass starts in the middle of the centre column:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_art_journal_London/65BCAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=art+journal+1849+uranium&pg=PA137&printsec=frontcover
The impression I get is that the industry here in Britain could not compete with the coloured glass developed in France and that of Bohemia in the 1830s. But I could be wrong. Certainly reports from the Vienna Exhibition discuss the incredibly wide range of colours on show from Bohemian makers. And I've seen the range of coloured opalines from the 1810/20/30s in France and they're beautiful (see Baguiers et Verres a Boire, Leon Darnis) I've not found anything similar here in either the V&A or the Broadfield House museum from that period of pre 1850 but perhaps they just don't exist any more? That's also possible.
And I'm still wondering where all this uranium glass from Holyrood glassworks has gone. Along with all the Apsley Pellatt uranium glass.
Art Journal 1849 report mentions Apsley Pellatt's recipe for Gold Topaz as 6 cwt. of batch with 3 lb of oxide of uranium
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_art_journal_London/65BCAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=art+journal+1849+uranium&pg=PA137&printsec=frontcover
I think experimentation will have been necessary. And who knows whether those experiments were actually successful really?
m
-
Going back to your Topaz glass
I spotted this - similar mold type decoration device on the bowl. Obviously not facet cut stem or honeycomb cut knop. (don't want to stick my neck out but when I saw your goblet my first thought on the faceted stem and knop was a glass c. 1850 by Saint Louis, in a book I have. That said, I discounted that thought because of the colour as I don't know if they made that colour. I'm going to dig out the book to see if there is some similarity)
https://ancientglass.wordpress.com/2016/07/03/english-green-wine-glass/
updated: I've dug out the book Baguiers et Verre a Boire, Leon Darnis.
Page 109 shows a goblet with a faceted knop and it appears to be a molded patterned bowl. It's clear glass with solely a green opaline knop. The stem is not straight facet cut like yours but Saint Louis did do stems like that so those two things combined are probably what made me think of Saint Louis when I saw your glass. Probably a complete red herring though as I've no idea if they ever made topaz coloured glass.
-
Wow, the English green hock could almost be the [fraternal] twin to my glass. Amazing, thanks.
In relation to uranium glass I think the problem here is the usual problem, a lack of documented examples of a specific date. No shortage of other colors being produced in this and earlier periods blues,amethyst, green, etc. Certainly, it was not a simple endeaver in the 1840's as it probably became in the 1880's. As to where is this uranium glass of the 1840's from Holyrood, Pellatt. I would think that some examples do exist. Maybe un-attributed, mis-attributed as to where and when. My understanding of Bohemian glass generally is that it was based mostly/not always on a non lead glass formula. whether this applies to their uranium glass I do not know.
The links to Heisey's marigold do seem to be down as is the site generally. Possibly maintenance. Worth a try later. Heisey did have a workable formula for uranium glass prior to 1929. Marigold is an attempt at a different shade. A bit orange shade in my opinion. Supposedly as the flower, thus the name.
-
Wow, the English green hock could almost be the [fraternal] twin to my glass. Amazing, thanks.
Do you know when I found that green glass I was looking at it thinking it looked oddly chunky in stem and knop. Not very refined in the knop and stem compared to the bowl. I'm now wondering if it was made like that to be cut at some point? But was never cut, if you see what I mean?
-
Taking a second look at the green hock I could almost imagine it. I think a blown blank to be cut would look way chunkier considering how much glass would have to cut away to turn a round stem into a hexagonal stem. It would be awesome to see a blown blank and the finished product next to each other. I cannot recall seeing a blown blank for cut glass.
The Heisey links are working now. What do you think of the color?
-
It's a nice 'honey' type colour. Very dark compared to the V&A bowl for example.
Perhaps they were experimenting to try and get a different variation on the yellow then and the experiments didn't work?
m
-
From what I have read on the color it was to create a novel yellow to differentiate it from the cheaper yellow then in vogue. Your question very much to the point. A green at the edges as you look into and through the glass was commented on at the in a trade journal. A quality I associate with much uranium glass. Marigold comes across to me as a sort of intense color, unlike their non uranium yellow color sahara.
-
Cagney for your green glass See also here - page 163. Different period but a similar vein design wise in terms of the dimpled bowl - early 18th century, verres pivettes. French.
I don't know if this type of design with the molded bowl is a solely French type design though. And not sure how helpful this is because I think from what I've read (little) that these were lightweight glasses. However I suppose I was just thinking that perhaps the style was typically French maybe?
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Beyond_Venice/K4yIWBD05qEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=haynes+glass&pg=PA318&printsec=frontcover
Source: Beyond Venice,Glass in Venetian Style 1500-1750, Jutta-Annette Page, The Corning Museum of Glass
See also here:
https://ancientglass.wordpress.com/2021/03/10/three-facon-de-venise-wine-glasses-from-france-2/