Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: cagney on December 03, 2023, 09:18:02 PM
-
Photos are selected entries from Geo. W. Leightons copy of William Leightons batch book with other notations. Available online from the Rakow Library at CMOG. Creative Commons, no copyright.
Seems to use topaz and canary as similar if not the same. Victoria maybe a little more green, all use approximately the same amount of uranium. A handful or more other recipes using uranium listed as well.
-
Thanks for posting this. I wonder which uranium compound they used.
-
Thanks Cagney.
Am I reading you correctly that it could be the terms canary and topaz were interchangeable? Therefore, if so, it could be that in certain descriptions/instances the use of the word topaz may not denote a particular colour of uranium glass but might simply be a term for uranium glass?
or it could mean that topaz and canary (in certain descriptions ) denote the same colour of uranium glass?
m
-
You are exactly where I am at. I have questions. George W Leighton sure seems to use the two terms interchangeably. Trying to find a second source to either discount or account for this topaz terminology. A bit obsessed to know if the English terminology is the same as the bohemian. No luck , need help. I seem to recall that Bohemian topaz had a certain gold matrix added . Am I correct in my recollection?
-
eeuggh - my laptop has crashed and I'm currently on a broken 15 year old one, so limited in what I can do hence being so quiet.
Also festivities planning getting in the way of doing lovely glass stuff. I will remember your question and go and have another look at the books (especially Farbenglas volumes) as soon as I get some time in the next week or so. It might throw some light on the conundrum.
I have big question marks over:
a) the Queen Victoria uranium glass bowl allegedly being produced in England ??? for her coronation banquet at Guildhall in 1837
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O2170/finger-bowl-davenport-co/finger-bowl-davenport--co/
b) And also over exactly how successful the uranium glass recipe was (Scotland maker - can't remember name now) although recent research has shown the maker saying 'successful' with his recipe. That was c. 1840 though so after the Queen Vic banquet bowls in any event.
As I always say, I may be wrong, but something not right about those bowls being produced a) at Davenport and b) in 1837 anywhere in England or Scotland. It's vexatious.
-
I think the Leighton - Ford correspondence c. 1839 intimates a slightly earlier date, " You likewise informed me that to make your Canary Metal you used nothing but the oxide of Uranium in your flint
batch". John Fords recipe works out to about 1 lb. of uranium per 91 lbs. of flint batch. Leighton seems to have refined it down to about 1 lb. of uranium per 133 lbs. of flint batch.
Concerning finger glasses/cups/bowls I can give you this tidbit from Jane Shadel Spillmans book on ' White House Glassware '. Among the glassware purchased through James P. Drummond "Importer and Dealer in China, Glass and Earthenware" by Presdent Van Buren for the White House in 1837 are 6 doz.green finger cups @$3.66 per dozen. Among the glassware ordered by President Tyler in 1841 are 1 doz. green finger bowls. One housewife's advice book of the period described there use, under the listing "finger glasses".
One other tidbit from the same book. Van Buren owned a personal set of English table glass, bought by his son in England in June 1839. According to the invoice for the set, there were two dozen each of six sizes of stemware, all engraved in Queens pattern.
-
I think your critiques of the VR bowl have some validity, especially the foot. As to the difficulty in the making of uranium/canary glass, I don't think it necessarily that difficult. My theory is that cullet used may interact negatively in the batch. Leightons advice to use flint batch No. 1 in his canary or topaz is telling, he literally makes his own cullet from the same flint glass recipe.
The timeline for completion of the set for the dinner is suspect as well. One example of a timeline for a large important order of cut and engraved glass could be the large set made by Bakewell, Page and Bakewell for the White House In 1829. It is not known exactly when it was ordered, but it is believed that it was soon after the inauguration of President Jackson on March 4. The order was pretty much complete in late July. A Pittsburgh newspaper account dated July 25, 1829 first sentence reads " That order is nearly complete". The order consisted of 435 pieces engraved with vintage and a coat of arms based on the Great Seal of the United States [ eagle, shield, ribbon,etc.]. This order would not have been a problem for Bakewell as they had French engravers already on hand that they had enticed to emigrate. Even if you discount the whole month of March this is a four month timeline.
Leightons recipe for flint glass No.1
-
The Corning Museum has a celery and wine rinser from the White House made at a later date [1850s] that pretty much mirrors the Jackson set with minor differences. The link is too long for me to address. Simply go to their site, click on Explore the collection and put Pierce in the search bar the examples will show up within the first results.
-
I will check those out and thank you :)
I suppose my problems are that I don't have the first clue about making glass. But some things make me query that QV bowl:
1) The timeline of producing it - days? as Davenports got together the china and glass for that 1837 banquet at short notice? I don't think it's possible
2) producing uranium glass with lead. The Bohemians were producing uranium glass in the 1830s. It was a big new thing/colour it seems to me. I don't know if Neuwelt or Riedel was using lead in the uranium glass. They might have been. So they might be contenders for the timing of 1837. The shape of the bowl makes me think 'Russia'. However I've not been able to find anything to match it so far.
Whilst I don't doubt everyone loved it and it's effect and were experimenting:
- I don't think it was that easy to produce given that Pellatt had an entire batch crumble after delivery to clients and had to re make the entire batch of goods at their own expense and re-ship.
- In 1839 Leighton was corresponding about how to make it. It had been made in Bohemia for years beforehand.
- If Ford's uranium batch was so successful where is it? Where are the items made by Ford? Nothing has surfaced in all this time.
- It was expensive rare component. I don't think it was being madly produced all over the world in 1837 for use in glassmaking. I get the feeling it was being produced in secret in Bohemia at the time and sold from there. But that's just a feeling so no evidence.
- Davenports don't seem to have produced other items that make me think they were an amazing top class glass maker at the time.
- There is no documentary evidence I can see in the Davenports book. Does the V&A have documentary evidence for their identification of this piece as being by Davenports? If they do why haven't they publicised this as a British maker making uranium glass in 1837 as it seems to be sooooo rare. And if so, why did the British Museum have it originally listed as Whitefriars?
3) I do wonder if the set was made for another much later banquet.
-
...
Concerning finger glasses/cups/bowls I can give you this tidbit from Jane Shadel Spillmans book on ' White House Glassware '. Among the glassware purchased through James P. Drummond "Importer and Dealer in China, Glass and Earthenware" by Presdent Van Buren for the White House in 1837 are 6 doz.green finger cups @$3.66 per dozen. Among the glassware ordered by President Tyler in 1841 are 1 doz. green finger bowls. One housewife's advice book of the period described there use, under the listing "finger glasses".
One other tidbit from the same book. Van Buren owned a personal set of English table glass, bought by his son in England in June 1839. According to the invoice for the set, there were two dozen each of six sizes of stemware, all engraved in Queens pattern.
1) See page 52 on this link for a description of what Queen's pattern might have been and some information on what the Davenports supplied glass might have been. Hint, I think this link page 52 is suggesting the glass decoration 'could be' that horrid Davenports method of fusing a matted pattern onto glass to make it look as though it was engraved? - it's horrid looking stuff in my opinion:
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/13434/lot/158/
and isn't comparable to the engraving on the uranium QV bowls so I'm not sure the 'Queen's pattern' is linked to the uranium bowls other than maybe that it could be a floral design incorporating her roses etc etc ?
see here for comparison of the above type of decoration and that on the uranium bowls:
https://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/Combined1.jpg
See also here for a Perrin and Geddes glassware that was commissioned by the Liverpool Council for the Prince of Wales in 1806. In my opinion much higher quality glass from 1806 than any of the Davenports in the Bonhams example?
https://www.lyonandturnbull.com/auctions/five-centuries-furniture-and-works-of-art-inc-property-of-the-earls-of-crawford-balcarres-609/lot/170
Also I thought that Davenport method patent was much earlier than perhaps this Van Buren order might have been to be honest. Would they still be supplying this type of thing at the end of the Van Buren presidency (1841?) This document seems to say the Davenports order was for personal use and towards the end of his Presidency:
Source: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site Historic Furnishings Report Addendum, Part 1: Historical Data Section
-Janice Hodson
Historic Furnishings Researcher 2019
http://npshistory.com/publications/mava/hfr-add1.pdf
2) Interestingly this Hodson document was dated 2019 and on page 52 it also states that very little Davenport glass has been identified and no pattern books survive.
Question: If no pattern books survive then on what information have the V&A based their assertion that Davenports, at very short notice, produced some fabulous but oddly engraved uranium glass finger bowls for the QV banquet held in 1837? The same bowls that the Museum of London had previously credited as Whitefriars?
I had been wondering about Apsley Pellatt and John Ford (Holyrood Glass) as possible contenders.
- Apsley Pellatt had the uranium crumbling disaster and had to resupply - which implies that he might have re-supplied successfully. Did he have a dozen finger bowls left over that could quickly be engraved? He talks about this in his book but there is no date I can recall.
- John Ford Holyrood Glass - I'm not sure there is any evidence he was successfully making uranium glass in 1837?
-
Issue arises:
In the link to the research I gave above, the source referenced, I think, for the acquisition of glass from Davenport was from Carol E Kohan's Historic Furnishings Report for Lindenwald (Reference 213 on page 52):
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Historic_Furnishings_Report_for_Lindenwa/RVRhp8ObPAIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=martin+van+buren+DAvenport+glass&dq=martin+van+buren+DAvenport+glass&printsec=frontcover
I have done a quick search in the Carol E Kohan Report but cannot access the Report. On the quick search searching the word 'Davenport' the Davenport that appears to come up is a ' William Davenport Liverpool' (see the reference snippet for page 79 attached).
Information here on the Davenport connection in Liverpool - possibly running under the name Davenports, Fynney & Co. in Liverpool at the time Van Buren ordered his glass:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/db071d3e-e56e-48f6-914e-fd7e66d751ed
Interestingly page 156 in the snippet link to the Report seems to indicate that Van Buren requested additional tumblers and glasses to go with decanters he already owned and that they were, quote, 'plain fine glass not cut'.
-
You are exactly where I am at. I have questions. George W Leighton sure seems to use the two terms interchangeably. Trying to find a second source to either discount or account for this topaz terminology. A bit obsessed to know if the English terminology is the same as the bohemian. No luck , need help. I seem to recall that Bohemian topaz had a certain gold matrix added . Am I correct in my recollection?
Re your question about the 'certain gold matrix' added to 'Bohemian topaz' -
Apsley Pellatt Curiosities of Glassmaking page 73
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Curiosities_of_Glass_Making/FCwGAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=apsley+pellatt+topaz+glass&pg=PA144&printsec=frontcover
'... light tinted glasses ... beautiful semi-opalescent yellowish-green colour; produced chiefly by the expensive oxide of uranium, mixed with a slight portion of copper, and appearing yellow or light green, just as the rays of light happen to fall...'
and
'... also produced by uranium alone, used as the colouring oxide for gold topaz: ...'
-
I think your critiques of the VR bowl have some validity, especially the foot. As to the difficulty in the making of uranium/canary glass, I don't think it necessarily that difficult. My theory is that cullet used may interact negatively in the batch. Leightons advice to use flint batch No. 1 in his canary or topaz is telling, he literally makes his own cullet from the same flint glass recipe.
re the difficulty of uranium glass
Apsley Pellatt Curiosities of Glassmaking - 1849
page 78
'Uranium is specially affected by an excess of alkali, the colour varying from deep gold topaz to light amber-like opalescent green, as the alkali predominates. The proportion of lead is diminished in either case; and although an excess of alkali extracts most colour from the oxide, it renders the Glass liable to become unhomogeneous, by the exudation of it's alkali'.
I can't find my reference to Pellatt's supplying an order of uranium glass and having it crumble and having to resupply it but I'm 100 percent certain I read this from him - either in a lecture he gave or perhaps something written for the Great Exhibition or maybe elsewhere in the book but I can't find it at the moment? But I definitely read it.
See bottom of page 71 and top of page 72 for a description of uranium glass cracking and having to be completely re-supplied 3 months after it was made and sent out from the Falcon Glassworks:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Curiosities_of_Glass_Making/FCwGAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=apsley+pellatt+topaz+glass&pg=PA144&printsec=frontcover
Which is what makes me wonder about the John Ford notes in his recipe book that I read from recent research where John Ford notes that his uranium glass was successful. If Apsley Pellatt thought his was so successful he cut an order from it and sent it out, and it then crumbled, who is to know whether John Ford's apparently successful batch failed at a later date after being supplied?
-
Note - I've amended my previous post to include the information regarding the cracking of a supply of uranium glass objects and them having to be resupplied.
-
I am currently working on two theories concerning both counts. The VA table set and Topaz. I find it hard to believe that one company makes this splendid array of table glass and does not insert their name into published accounts. Was it a joint effort and as a result no one would claim progeny. A sort of "for Queen and Country" thing. As far as topaz goes the term seems to change or morph the farther you get from the original source Bohemia.
-
- It seems Davenport was asked to 'supply' the goods. The question is where they 'gathered' the goods from at such short notice I think. As you seem to be saying I think, if they were the sole maker of this huge supply you'd think they'd have publicised it, accounted for it and shouted it from the rooftops.
If however the goods were gathered from British companies and companies from abroad, then there is a question were Davenport also a 'middleman' as well as a maker, or was it just for this particular Coronation Banquet that they acted in that way on behalf of 'the nation'?
Also, Davenport seems to have been a prodigious supplier of china so their standing as a company may be because of that, whereas it appears the glass seems to have been secondary and something they were not as famous for at the time.
- I've not had a chance to check the Farbenglas books yet but I think there is mention in there of the Neuwelt 'Gold Topaz'. I'll check it out over the weekend and post again.
-
The use of middlemen seems to have been a common practice. Successive administrations including the Jackson admin. in 1833 ordered glassware for the White House from third party dealers in china and glass to augment the original service made by Bakewell in 1829. Breakage and probably outright theft was considerable. At times large receptions would be held open to the general public {as one newspaper put it the "washed and unwashed"] involving hundreds. These third party orders were considerable, involving anywhere from 5 to 10 different articles bought per dozen or dozens.
19th century topaz or gold topaz in the bohemian sense seems to have not survived in any quantity. Perhaps it was unstable similar to Heisy's marigold.
George W. Leightons notes concerning different batches can be very informative I think. Two examples involving copper in the batch I find very interesting. Monkey is term he uses for a small furnace to do experiments.
-
Photos are selected entries from Geo. W. Leightons copy of William Leightons batch book with other notations. Available online from the Rakow Library at CMOG. Creative Commons, no copyright.
Seems to use topaz and canary as similar if not the same. Victoria maybe a little more green, all use approximately the same amount of uranium. A handful or more other recipes using uranium listed as well.
Thank you for the further info.
I wonder why William Leighton has a uranium glass recipe called Victoria?
Am I right in thinking these recipes are from post 1839 when Thomas Leighton had his discussions with John Ford?
-
I think the Leighton - Ford correspondence c. 1839 intimates a slightly earlier date, " You likewise informed me that to make your Canary Metal you used nothing but the oxide of Uranium in your flint
batch". John Fords recipe works out to about 1 lb. of uranium per 91 lbs. of flint batch. Leighton seems to have refined it down to about 1 lb. of uranium per 133 lbs. of flint batch.
Concerning finger glasses/cups/bowls I can give you this tidbit from Jane Shadel Spillmans book on ' White House Glassware '. Among the glassware purchased through James P. Drummond "Importer and Dealer in China, Glass and Earthenware" by Presdent Van Buren for the White House in 1837 are 6 doz.green finger cups @$3.66 per dozen. Among the glassware ordered by President Tyler in 1841 are 1 doz. green finger bowls. One housewife's advice book of the period described there use, under the listing "finger glasses".
One other tidbit from the same book. Van Buren owned a personal set of English table glass, bought by his son in England in June 1839. According to the invoice for the set, there were two dozen each of six sizes of stemware, all engraved in Queens pattern.
That date is good for their correspondence but whether the glass mix was successful is a question.
There is some information here that seems to imply 1841 for Holyrood uranium glass (my bold in the quote below) ?
Source: excerpt online from
The Magic and Misery of Glassmaking: Researching the History of the Scottish Glass Industry
By Jill Turnbull
Published by Society of Antiquaries of 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’.
https://booksfromscotland.com/2017/09/magic-misery-glassmaking-scotland/
-
I take the citation of May 1841 as documentation of a successful large batch of uranium glass, not necessarily the first. Although it seems to imply such. Wether Ford had made previous successful batches perhaps an open question? Leightons query about only the amount of uranium in Fords "Canary Metal" and the use of the of the term "to make your Canary Metal" in his letter seems to imply heavily that he was successful at this time. Wether in smaller batches unknown.
Victoria I think is a more green version of canary. The addition of brass filings in the recipe given at the beginning of this thread serves this purpose I think. In the less than handful of other recipes for Victoria "virtigris" or "blue vitriol" is substituted. These two ingredients are also used in various uranium based greens for special purposes, green for plating, etc.
Doubtful that any of these go back as far as 1839. George W. Leighton's reciept book is divided into sections according to his notes with some overlap. Pages 1-12 recipes made at Wheeling,West Virginia c. late 1880s.
Pages12-16 recipes made at NEAG 1858-1866. Pages 30-63 his fathers[grandfathers] recipes. No dates are given. Pages 64-75 various recipes collected from various sources.
-
I take the citation of May 1841 as documentation of a successful large batch of uranium glass, not necessarily the first. Although it seems to imply such. Wether Ford had made previous successful batches perhaps an open question? Leightons query about only the amount of uranium in Fords "Canary Metal" and the use of the of the term "to make your Canary Metal" in his letter seems to imply heavily that he was successful at this time. Wether in smaller batches unknown.
Yes, I think I agree. So as I think I said on the QV thread, this takes us back to potentially 1839 given the Leighton- Ford correspondence. However, it still leaves us with;
- no definitive evidence that what Ford was producing was in large enough quantities (as opposed to experimental) to make the QV bowls, which in any case were supposedly supplied 2 years earlier in 1837.
- no definitive evidence that the uranium glass Ford produced at Holyrood remained successful and didn't crumble.
The Ford Ranken documentation is in the Museum of Edinburgh. Surely, as we have previously commented regarding there being no evidence in publicising it/having it in accounts documentation that Davenport made the glass for the QV, if Holyrood had supplied the uranium glass bowls it would be somewhere in the documentation and would have been raised in that research or by the V&A?
https://booksfromscotland.com/2017/09/magic-misery-glassmaking-scotland/
The comments in this excerpt of the research are interesting:
a) they make clear the difficulties of mixing colour and ensuring the glass turned out fit for purpose (not just uranium other colours as well)
and
b) there is a curious comment about the 'magic' of gold ruby glass that apparently turned out clear but over the course of 8 weeks turned red. Seriously? is that for real or is it 'smoke and mirrors' stuff? I thought gold ruby was made by the inclusion of purple of Cassius and reheating the glass for the red to form?
Source:
https://www.cmog.org/article/gold-ruby-glass
'Purple of Cassius, as described by Kunckel (Kunckel 1716, pp. 382–383), was not invented by Cassius. Johann Rudolf Glauber had already described the process in principle in 1659 (see pages 64–65 in Glass of the Alchemists). This was the ideal raw material for gold ruby glass because it produces gold particles in the finest solution. When the finished product is reheated, the metallic gold forms nanoscale particles, which must be the right size and shape to convey a purple-ruby color through the absorption of light. If the gold colloids, as these particles are called, are too small, the glass remains colorless. If they are a bit too big and too much light is absorbed, the glass looks liverish (German, lebrig), or opaque brownish.'
-
Leighton devotes four pages to gold ruby, in detail. From the 250 grams of gold coin to the actual composition of the aqua regia he dissolves it in. In the end he forms them into [sausages] for remelt. It was customary at the time to heavily plate gold ruby over clear lead glass to conserve. There are other recipes for ruby involving gold in the mix relating to specific uses such as ruby enamel for jewelers, ruby for plating, etc.
The first two photos are a recipe for gold ruby and his notes.
The third photo are his notes on the composition of aqua regia, how to handle it and what to expect.
The fourth photo looking a little liverish? Probably caused by an over abundance of silver in the gold alloy. Can only be noticed in a very strong light at a certain angle.
As far as the 8 week miracle it just might be possible if left in direct sunlight. I doubt it would be a very strong coloring, similar to sun induced purpling in late soda lime glassware.
-
Some continental receipts [recipes] for gold ruby taken from a selected translation of Hermann E. Benraths book "DIE GLASFABRIKATION" c.1875 by Edward Drummond Libbey c.1885. A bit of a hard read for me [his cursive writing], perhaps you have more talent for this writing than I.
Further reading can be had on CMOG site. Click on RAKOW RESEARCH LIBRARY>DIGITAL COLLECTIONS>POPULAR TOPICS>GLASS RECIPES. It is no.10 of 199 [thankfully]. Although there is a search bar.
-
You are exactly where I am at. I have questions. George W Leighton sure seems to use the two terms interchangeably. Trying to find a second source to either discount or account for this topaz terminology. A bit obsessed to know if the English terminology is the same as the bohemian. No luck , need help. I seem to recall that Bohemian topaz had a certain gold matrix added . Am I correct in my recollection?
I put this in the QV bowl thread Cagney so it took me a little bit to find it again.
Link to the other thread regarding Gold topaz and topaz - Apsley Pellatt comments and Farbenglas information from the book:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php?topic=70066.msg391983#msg391983
Thank you so much for posting the recipe photographs and all the information about ruby/gold ruby glass. It's fascinating to read and really informative. Thank you!
-
There is another point I think might be considered. Apsley Pellatt discusses the peculiarity of the perception on the eye of uranium glass as the light hits the colour but goes on to say this is lost under candlelight.
I'd been 'allowing' for the fact that the QV bowls were goldy in colour hence fit for a table with plenty of gold stuff on it (crockery/cutlery? etc.). However, what would be the point of including these 12 finger bowls if the splendour of the colour is lost under candlelight? Why would they even be considered for a coronation banquet when, under candle light and gasoliers, clear glass glitters so much more spectacularly? And would complement the metal utensils (gold plated? etc) and the flat of the china with gilding. If I was designing that table I wouldn't be using topaz coloured glass.
Admittedly, I suppose it would distinguish the table of QV v the rest of the tables if the bowls were coloured rather than clear.
This point is rather negated by the description here of the gold plate on QV's top table:
See last paragraph of page 68 and first of page 69
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_First_Year_of_a_Silken_Reign_1837_8/_4_SAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=guildhall+banquet+1837+coronation&pg=PA273&printsec=frontcover
I'm not sure there is any glass in the world that could compete with that level of gold plate adornment across a banqueting table, or indeed stand out against it.
-
I put this in the QV bowl thread Cagney so it took me a little bit to find it again.
Link to the other thread regarding Gold topaz and topaz - Apsley Pellatt comments and Farbenglas information from the book:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php?topic=70066.msg391983#msg391983
Thank you so much for posting the recipe photographs and all the information about ruby/gold ruby glass. It's fascinating to read and really informative. Thank you!
I'm adding this link here for ease of comparison.
Source: Excerpt online from Farbenglas 1, Dr Waltraud Neuwirth
See page 185 for an example of Neuwelt produced 'Gold topaz' glass goblet from before 1839:
http://waltraudneuwirth.at/Buecher-Selbstverlag-Html/1993-Farbenglas%201-%20Farbenpaletten.html
-
The links to the Passua Glass Museum and the Neuwelt goblet w/cover informative and much appreciated. Thank you.
Generally cut glass falls into 1 of 3 categories for me.
!. CUT GLASS- some areas cut, some not [as blown]
2. RICH CUT GLASS- cut allover [except areas to be engraved] top to bottom.
3. SPARE NO EXPENCE CUT GLASS- the Prince Of Wales set by Perrin & Geddes a good example of this type.
The QV bowls I think rich cut bordering on spare no expence, if the rims cut, fully the latter. The step cutting and even the foot cutting O.K. for the period in England. According to Spillmans book WHITE HOUSE GLASSWARE it became fashionable in the mid 1830s for finger bowls to be colored, usually green. Hock glasses as well, frequently a light green. The color of the beverage or water not to be noticed?
I have re read portions of Hajdamach's book concerning the period 1800-1850. Of special interest is page 66 concerning The Dudley Glassworks of Thomas Hawkes. Specifically a quoted entry from the Worcestershire Directory of 1840, which described the works. The last sentence of this entry reads as follows: "The splendid gold enamel desert service, furnished to the Corporation of London on her Majesty's first visit to the Guildhall on the 9th November, 1837, was manufactured here.
As far as Pellatt's remarks on lighting and the effect on uranium glass, while the desired effect may be lost, I think color still there. The two photos here illustrate this quite well. The shaded foot and stem might as well be any yellow glass, while the directly lit top seems to glow.
-
Hi Cagney. Thank you for the further information from Hajdamach. I think Kev and I discussed what that set from Thomas Hawkes might have been - perhaps one piece in the V&A - I'll search now and link it if I find the one we thought it might be:
edited - I think it might be this that the report you noted is referring to:
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O4967/plate-thomas-hawkes/
Thank you for the pics of the lit uranium glass. I think they illustrate that under candlelight/gasoliers the pieces I suppose could have been plain amber without needing to be uranium really? Does the uranium really add anything spectacular under poor lighting I mean?
-
The probable Hawkes gold enamel of some interest certainly. The larger point to be made I think is that the entry in the Worcestershire Directory c.1840 gives evidence of a second glassworks, besides Davenport, is participating in production of glassware for the Queens banquet. This fact may imply a possible consortium of glass manufacturers suppling glassware to said banquet.
Your hypothesis concerning period lightings effect on uranium lead glass most probably correct.
My recent [just now] experiment with uranium lead glass on this cloudy day.
1. photo taken in indirect daylight from the window
2.photo taken in indirect daylight muted[shade down]
I firmly believe the type and intensity of light can affect dramatically the perception of color in uranium lead glass.
-
From
The Practical Mechanic and Engineer 1845:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Practical_Mechanic_and_Engineer_s_Ma/lbc5AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=neuwelt+topaz+glas&pg=PA219&printsec=frontcover
See pages 219 and 221.
'Charcoal colours glass of a topaz yellow, more or less dark, and sometimes reaching a purple ...' caused by furnaces which smoke or those heated by turf, lignite or bituminous coal. (Page 219)
This discusses Topaz glass and says it was caused 'if the furnace smokes' or if the wood in crackling throws small sparks of charcoal into it(page 221)
So 'topaz' glass is not caused by adding uranium to the batch according to this report.
On page 266 this report discusses uranium glass. No mention of the descriptor or word 'topaz' in those sections in conjunction with uranium glass.
-
The term topaz in this instance a bit misleading I think. I relate it to the common glass outlined further in the paragraph. A more brownish yellow or dark as he terms it.The use of soda or sulphate of soda necessitates the use of charcoal according to George W. Leightons batch book. Following several recipes for "cheap" glass he comments further on 'soda metal'. see first photo.
William T. Gillinders treatise on glassmaking c.1851 gives a handful of different recipes for yellow flint glass, one involves Crocus Martus as coloring agent, a second uses Naples yellow as coloring agent and the last Uranium for "Victoria Yellow or Topaz'. I think a true transparent yellow in flint glass hard to come by, as the huge popularity of Uranium based yellow might suggest.
Heisey's experiments c.1930 to create a lead based transparent yellow culminated in their successful Sahara color which uses non of the previous ingredients as a coloring agent. The main coloring agents in Sahara are cerium hydrate and titanium oxide. Seems to be a totally new formula. A nice yellow I think. Second photo.
-
That's a lovely yellow. Very like the citrine colour I associate with mid century Czech glass.
Yes, I understand what you mean about the colour they seem to be describing as compared to recipes quoting uranium and topaz or Victoria yellow glass.
I think I was just trying to go back as far as possible and as close as possible to 1837 to see what reports were actually calling or describing as 'topaz' glass at the time of the Queen Victoria banquet. Mainly because terms/colour names change over time it seems. For example one company might call something topaz and refer to uranium inclusion and suddenly that can become the 'new' term for it if you see what I mean?
If I recall correctly there is some reference to this problem written in the Farbenglas books whereby say, 1830s exhibition reports include things like 'Chameleon glass' but no one knows what that really looks like.
So for example we are calling this item on the thread linked below 'amber uranium' glass. It's an amber brown colour. It's completely different to the colour of the QV bowls which to me in real life looked like the yellow Walsh Walsh uranium glass I own.
Was this perhaps the colour of the 'topaz' glass referred to in the reports of the QV banquet? Or was it yellow like the Walsh Walsh uranium yellow of my glasses?
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,73683.msg409214.html#msg409214
m
-
Topaz I think represents an early term and an indication of what type of yellow you were liable to get using uranium, insofar as glass formulas anyway. A shorting of the term topasglas.
I am in complete sympathy with you on the various cryptic terms inserted here and there and then left buried. Chameleon glass does seem to have been a thing. From the "Report of the Committee on Exhibitions of the Franklin Institute" 1847 #638 glassware from the Union Glass Works. " The articles, consisting chiefly of cologne and toilet bottles,-opal,turquoise,green,chameleon &c., were made in an open or hollow ware furnace, of bottle glass. Many of the tints are as rich as would be expected in flint glass.The hock and toilet bottles, of colored opaque body, are considered as deserving a First Premium. A year later in a advertising circular put out by the same company amongst Druggist and other wares they list "Bohemian and colored glass" then go on to list colors "Ruby,Canary, Turquoise, Victoria Emerald" below this another listing "emeralds, blues,Greens,Ambers,Purples,Amethyst, Amarite,Black, White, Agate, and Chameleon . Also mentioned is "Enamels of every Colour'.
As to the QV bowl and your thread you seem to be ' between a rock and a hard place " as we say over here. On the one hand you the Powell/Whitefriars experimental formulas of 1833-1836, on the other hand you have Ford making Canary glass 1839. No actual documentation of any English glassworks producing such glass in 1837. I commend you on your fortitude, savy and determination. Your thread is is almost becoming a database on the subject.
NevB's gobleti interesting. From the photos I cannot tell what uranium brings to the glass color. Seems to look like a nice medium amber, probably should ask Nev.
I leave you with this tidbit from Deming Jarves agent [spy?] in Europe from a letter sent probably 1850 s
-
oooh thanks for that spy letter! sent possibly 1850s? So perhaps getting hold of uranium oxide wasn't that easy at that time if he was suggesting getting it from France?
'better than the English'? that's an interesting comment in the letter. What does it refer to I wonder - uranium oxide mined from English source (Cornwall?) or just uranium oxide available to buy in England? If it was just uranium oxide available to buy in England which may have come from Bohemia (?) why would it be different to that available in France.
I think France did have a mine for Uranium oxide (need to check that) so I wonder if it was just a piece of politics in the letter, 'whispering' that the French mined (if it was) uranium oxide was better than the Bohemian oxide. Certainly at the Great Exhibition in 1851 a major middleman of Bohemian uranium oxide (Can't remember his name now) was showing it there and I've found documents where he was selling it.
RE Chameleon Glass
see here for Bohemian Chameleon Glass :
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,70066.msg390747.html#msg390747
Quote
'Just going back to Apsley Pellatt's mention of chameleon glass in the book dated 1849:
In Farbenglass II, Neuwirth, pp276, there is a chapter titled 'Chameleon Glass where it says:
- Egermann exhibited a number of "chameleon beakers" in 1835. And
- 'The colour glass specialists at Adolfhutte succeeded with this creation prior to 1837' (a jug is shown and it is inventoried in the Technical Museum Wien along with date and the inventory 'speaks of "chameleon glass"'. And
- 'J.B. Eisner lists a group of "chameleon" glasses which contain uranium and chromium oxides (Blau,1940, p.17)''
So 'chameleon glass' as a descriptor seems to have been used before 1837 in Bohemia and mentioned by Pellatt in his book of 1849. I wonder was he referring to Bohemian glass? - Unquote
Yes I think the Queen Victoria bowl thread has become a book unfortunately. I talk too much!
I don't even own the bowl so I don't know why I care that much :)
I think it's because I find it really irksome when makers are noted but no definitive source for it. And the fact that bowl was originally promoted as by James Powell and Sons and miraculously became 'by Davenport' when it transferred museums piqued my curiosity.
-
...
'better than the English'? that's an interesting comment in the letter. What does it refer to I wonder - uranium oxide mined from English ... Certainly at the Great Exhibition in 1851 a major middleman of Bohemian uranium oxide (Can't remember his name now) was showing it there and I've found documents where he was selling it.
Wenzel Batka was the name of the person with uranium oxide at the Great Exhibition in 1851:
See page 1007 - no.9 - in the Official Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue part IV The Great Exhibition:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Official_Descriptive_and_Illustrated_Cat/wX9lTww80aAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+oxide+bohemia&pg=PA1007&printsec=frontcover
Spiegl seems to say here in Glasforschung page 10 and 11 that there were two perhaps three producers of uranium glass which could be bought in a chemically pure state by 1840
quote ' This means that since 1840 at the latest, the foundries were no longer dependent on producing coloring additives to the mixture themselves in all cases, but could buy them in a chemically pure state.'
Source: Spiegl W. , Farbige Gläser - Glas Forschung info
http://www.glas-forschung.info/pageone/pdf/farbglas.pdf
I've used google translate so I don't know if the translation is absolutely accurate but it seems to me to say that uranium oxide? could be bought ready made from 1840.
-
in the right hand column on page 11 Spiegl lists items shown by Neuwelt at the 1835 exhibition which include toilet bottles,stained green and gilded in chrysoprase composition and goldtopaz composition:
http://www.glas-forschung.info/pageone/pdf/farbglas.pdf
I have a toilet bottle in uranium glass I think dates to c.1840. On page 15 he shows two bechers in light and darker green opaline glass and the caption says they are 'Chrysopras-glas'.
There is a transparent yellowish uranium glass bowl shown just described as yellow uranium glass.
Page 17 talks about how difficult it was to produce yellow glass!
on page 18 he says
'During the 1840s, yellow uranium glass (“Annagelb”, “Eleonore yellow”) became a popular fashion colour. Not only souvenir and friendship glasses, but also, to a considerable extent, everyday objects such as bowls, bottles and decanters were made from it. The glasses appear yellow-green when viewed from above in daylight, and light yellow when viewed through. They display a peculiar, changing play of colors, particularly in striking sunlight, which is related to the dichroism of the glasses in ultraviolet radiation. The fluorescence effect is most beautiful in the glasses that have a yellow tint. In the types tinted green with copper oxide, the fluorescence in ultraviolet light is weaker or absent. "Isabell" was the name of a matt yellow opaque glass from the Harrach glassworks that was first produced in 1838 and is probably a uranium color, as was the "lemon yellow bone glass" from this glassworks from 1841. Both colors are very rare. The two terms do not appear in Vinzenz Pohl’s recipe booklet.'
But again, this was 1840s for the yellow uranium glass. Not 1837.
The Queen Victoria bowl in real life to me looked more like my Walsh Walsh tumbler in the pic below.
These were taken in the evening under LED light - rubbish lighting. I actually think the toilet bottle is maybe a lamp and is North Bohemian (source Das Bohmische Glas item with same enamelling) but I don't know which glashutten. It is also much zingier in colour in daylight whereas it bizarrely looks 'citrine' coloured in the photo on white, but all I have in the kitchen at the mo (night) is led lighting
-
and Correction -
Wenzel Batka was a producer of 'chemical products'.
Source . Spiegl Walter. http://www.glas-forschung.info/pageone/pdf/farbglas.pdf
1891 book says uranium glass was sometimes called Chameleon glass - see page 289;
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Popular_Lectures_and_Addresses_Constitut/W0QKAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Chameleon+Glass&pg=PA289&printsec=frontcover
-
Yes, the "better than the English" I think relates to purity. Reply#111 In your QV thread mentions pitchblendes "nature and prejudice to copper ore". GILLINDERS TREATISE in relation to Victoria yellow or Topaz states at the end [ page 107 ] "by adding the copper, the color may be made as green a tinge as you wish it". To get a good yellow I would think the copper would have to be refined out or at least kept to a minimum. Whitman mentioned in the letter probably a wholesaler and may be sourcing uraniumm from Bohemia.
The processing scheme being set up in Bohemia mentioned in your QV thread#127, makes perfect sense to me considering uranium is being used in a wide array of products usually as a pigment from fine china to wallpaper. Purity matters, there is money to be made here.
The information in your QV thread #146 stating that Harrachs normal output was lead based combined with the statement in THE PRACTICAL MECHANIC AND ENGINEER 1845 that there is only one glassworks in the region making lead glass tells me that Harrachs would be an obvious contender if indeed the QV bowl had a secret Bohemian lineage.
The Waiter Spiegl link has blown my mind on two counts. First is the Wintenburgh opaque yellow tumbler on page 17, this color is an excellent match to Steubens Mandarin Yellow, of which probably half of examples extant have spontaneously cracked, very rare. Second is the the flask in the violet section. The design elements of what we call Diamond and daisey and checkered diamond are known from two separate 18th century glassworks in America Stiegels and Amelungs respectively, to this day they still insist that there is no known correlation in Europe to the Stiegels diamond and daisey. These scholars or whatever should leave their bubbles more often.
Pictured is my candidate for Chameleon glass
-
Stiegel diamond daisey bottle attributed to American Flint Glass Manufactory 1764-74.
-
hmmm. That violet flask is so similar in colour and design one could almost say it came from the same source as this one in Walter Spiegl's publication - page 24:
http://www.glas-forschung.info/pageone/pdf/farbglas.pdf
-
Your amber fussbecher is cased amber over clear and is beautiful.
I think it's quite old/first half1800s given the cutting on the foot.
-
Yes, the "better than the English" I think relates to purity. Reply#111 In your QV thread mentions pitchblendes "nature and prejudice to copper ore". GILLINDERS TREATISE in relation to Victoria yellow or Topaz states at the end [ page 107 ] "by adding the copper, the color may be made as green a tinge as you wish it". To get a good yellow I would think the copper would have to be refined out or at least kept to a minimum. Whitman mentioned in the letter probably a wholesaler and may be sourcing uraniumm from Bohemia.
The processing scheme being set up in Bohemia mentioned in your QV thread#127, makes perfect sense to me considering uranium is being used in a wide array of products usually as a pigment from fine china to wallpaper. Purity matters, there is money to be made here.
The information in your QV thread #146 stating that Harrachs normal output was lead based combined with the statement in THE PRACTICAL MECHANIC AND ENGINEER 1845 that there is only one glassworks in the region making lead glass tells me that Harrachs would be an obvious contender if indeed the QV bowl had a secret Bohemian lineage.
The Waiter Spiegl link has blown my mind on two counts. First is the Wintenburgh opaque yellow tumbler on page 17, this color is an excellent match to Steubens Mandarin Yellow, of which probably half of examples extant have spontaneously cracked, very rare.
I am not a chemist and don't really understand all(any!) detail however I think Spiegl said there were two or three suppliers of Uranium oxide and that for some reason they were different to each other producing maybe different colours of uranium glass? Green and yellow?
I hope I was right on Harrach using lead glass but I'm not entirely sure!
REALLY interesting that the Steuben Mandarin yellow has examples spontaneously cracking. Is this an example of Pellatt's uranium glass batch that all fell to bits and had to be entirely replaced at the cost of the Falcon Glassworks? Or is Steuben Mandarin not uranium glass? It does seem that yellow glass was difficult to make from reading W. Spiegl or rather if I've understood it correctly (not a given).
-
Stiegel diamond daisey bottle attributed to American Flint Glass Manufactory 1764-74.
With reference my previous comment on the violet flask you show attributed as American, looking so remarkably similar to the one Spiegl shows, Spiegl also says this of violet glass (my bold):
'The use of transparent mass coloring (Fig. III.5) as well as violet-covered glasses could have largely corresponded to the »light violet« according to Hafenbrädl.
The difficulties in manufacturing seem to have been the main reason why Biedermeier glasses colored with manganese dioxide are rare,
although the violet, for example, looks very attractive in solid-colored violet alabaster glasses and looks very delicate and elegant as an external cover of colorless glasses with cut edges.'
So it is interesting if it's the case that in Bohemia and in America they were both producing a remarkably similar design in a remarkably similar difficult colourway.
-
Pictured is my candidate for Chameleon glass
The example Neuwirth W. gives in Farbenglas I of Chameleon glass page 179 is actually an almost citrine coloured oily looking (slightly opalescent looking although I don't think it is opalescent, but very transparent still) jug in a yellow transparent glass . It is from J. Meyr, Adolfshutte before 1837. It's actually described as yellowish green cut glass.
But it looks slightly oily slightly opalescent citrine colour in the photograph.
Very different to your goblet colour here:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73090.0;attach=262544;image
It is actually very like my little toilet bottle/lamp base here although perhaps looking a tiny bit more yellow than my bottle appears in my photo:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73090.0;attach=262542;image
Neuwirth gives a description on page 276 :
' The color glass specialists at Adolfshutte succeeded with this creation prior to 1837. J. B. Eisner lists a group of "chameleon" glasses which contain uranium and chromium oxides (Blau, 1940, p.17)'.
From my reading this is an actual documented example of what was called 'chameleon' glass.
-
Interestingly Neuwirth says on page 277 Farbenglas I:
'The history of uranium glass lies in obscurity'.
-
With reference my previous comment on the violet flask you show attributed as American, looking so remarkably similar to the one Spiegl shows, Spiegl also says this of violet glass (my bold):
'The use of transparent mass coloring (Fig. III.5) as well as violet-covered glasses could have largely corresponded to the »light violet« according to Hafenbrädl.
The difficulties in manufacturing seem to have been the main reason why Biedermeier glasses colored with manganese dioxide are rare,
although the violet, for example, looks very attractive in solid-colored violet alabaster glasses and looks very delicate and elegant as an external cover of colorless glasses with cut edges.'
So it is interesting if it's the case that in Bohemia and in America they were both producing a remarkably similar design in a remarkably similar difficult colourway.
Not the same pattern but Pressglas-korrespondenz shows a ' Plattflasche ' here (Glasfabrik Langerswald 1840) so using Plattflasche as a search term may throw up more comparisons?
https://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2018-1w-varl-vivat-annales-aihv-2015.pdf
-
Pictured is my candidate for Chameleon glass
Some similarities in colour and perhaps base of foot cutting and shoulder panel design with this one:
https://antikes-glas.de/products/Grosser-Fussbecher-mit-geschnittenen-Allegorien-Bohmen-um-1835-45-p581472605
They have it as c. 1835-1845 and probably Neuwelt.
-
and Correction -
Wenzel Batka was a producer of 'chemical products'.
Source . Spiegl Walter. http://www.glas-forschung.info/pageone/pdf/farbglas.pdf
1891 book says uranium glass was sometimes called Chameleon glass - see page 289;
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Popular_Lectures_and_Addresses_Constitut/W0QKAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Chameleon+Glass&pg=PA289&printsec=frontcover
Looking for something else as you do -
From Neuwelt to the Whole World, Mergl J. page 83
A double overlay becher in pink and white with an embedded paste portrait of Wenzel Batka. The caption reads
'In the 1840s Wenzel Batka was one of the main suppliers of raw materials (chemicals) to the Neuwelt glassworks.'
-
Considering Stiegel and the glassworkers brought over were all German it is not too much of a stretch to assign an American attribution. There was a large contingent of German/Dutch settlers in the Pennsylvania colony as well. Still, the similarities are Striking.
As for Mandarin Yellow, Paul V. Gardner in his book THE GLASS OF FREDERICK CARTER ,1971 uses the term, the "fugitive" quality of the glass as if some ingredient is breaking out [hostile] of the mix. This may have been Pellat's problem as well. I have mentioned this before and I think it deserves repeating, Leighton's recipe for Canary or Victoria first calls for the making of cullet to add to the batch from his no.1 flint glass. A form of quality control I think. CMOG has a handful of Mandarin Yellow examples.
Do have or have access to the book BOHEMIAN GLASS 1400-1989 ? By Syvia Petrova and Jean Luc Olivie, 1990.
-
Another advertisement for Bohemian glass c. 1852. The advertisement described in reply #32 in this thread is telling in one other aspect as the term Victoria Emerald is used as a color they make and somewhat confirms my thinking that Victoria is a green version of Canary. At least in America anyway.
-
Considering Stiegel and the glassworkers brought over were all German it is not too much of a stretch to assign an American attribution. There was a large contingent of German/Dutch settlers in the Pennsylvania colony as well. Still, the similarities are Striking.
REPLY - The similarities are so extreme that perhaps the providence warrants further investigation?
As for Mandarin Yellow, Paul V. Gardner in his book THE GLASS OF FREDERICK CARTER ,1971 uses the term, the "fugitive" quality of the glass as if some ingredient is breaking out [hostile] of the mix. This may have been Pellat's problem as well.
REPLY - I assumed Pellatt was referring to transparent uranium glass not an opaque or opaline yellow uranium glass, but that was an assumption as he doesn't elaborate (he might mention uranium and topaz as a description but would need to look that up again).
Interesting that you mentioned previously about the Steuben Mandarin Yellow being rare because
Spiegl mentioned on page 18 referring to the opaque and opaline yellow versions (my underlining):
'"Isabell" was the name of a matt yellow opaque glass from the Harrach glassworks that was first produced in 1838 and is probably a uranium color, as was the "lemon yellow bone glass" from this glassworks from 1841. Both colors are very rare. The two terms do not appear in Vinzenz Pohl’s recipe booklet.'
I wonder if they're all 'rare' examples because unstable long term?
I have mentioned this before and I think it deserves repeating, Leighton's recipe for Canary or Victoria first calls for the making of cullet to add to the batch from his no.1 flint glass. A form of quality control I think. CMOG has a handful of Mandarin Yellow examples.
REPLY - this is such a good point. So Ford at Holyrood telling Leighton, oh just chuck some uranium in the batch in this quantity, is not helpful if the batch or cullet is not ultimately workable when mixed with uranium oxide. Perhaps also the problem Pellatt had?
Whispers in ignorance of glassmaking technicalities - I'm beginning to wonder if lead in the glass batch was the problem?
Do have or have access to the book BOHEMIAN GLASS 1400-1989 ? By Syvia Petrova and Jean Luc Olivie, 1990.
REPLY - I don't unfortunately. I will have a look online to see what I can find as you've made me curious now. Correction - I've just checked my cupboard and I do have it. Is there something I could be looking up?
-
I have just realised (or perhaps I've put this on the Queen Victoria thread and completely forgotten about it)
Spiegl W. in Farbige Gläser has a description of what Topas-glas was:
Source - http://www.glas-forschung.info/pageone/pdf/farbglas.pdf
page 30. Chapter heading 'Rosa Rubin und Topas-glas'
He begins the chapter with a long description of gold ruby glass.
BTW - note to Cagney, Spiegl notes specifically that the Harrach pink glass was lead free (so I'm not sure whether other of their glass was lead glass or if I'm completely mistaken on that point):
'...The Harrach "pink glass", a pound of which cost 2 guilders 40 kreuzers to produce and was thus only slightly more expensive than the "special blue for overlay", as well as the "pink ruby according to M. E. Schmid"[6], were lead-free chalk glasses with gold dissolution. For a while...'
Then in the next paragraph goes on to say (google translated)
'Related to the gold ruby is the "topaz glass," which could be produced in Neuwelt as early as 1829 and by Lötz and Schmidt in the Goldbrunn glassworks from around 1830. In addition to the gold dissolution, a small amount of antimony oxide was added to the melt, which gave the glass a reddish-yellow color.'
'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.'
Sooooo, when contemporary reports talk of 'gold-topaz' glass, is it referring not to the colour gold but to the inclusion of gold in the melt in order to make the colour topaz?
He described topaz-glas as being a reddish yellow colour. The Queen Victoria bowls are transparent yellow uranium glass colour not at all a reddish yellow colour.
-
From Cagney:
[/quote]
As for Mandarin Yellow, Paul V. Gardner in his book THE GLASS OF FREDERICK CARTER ,1971 uses the term, the "fugitive" quality of the glass as if some ingredient is breaking out [hostile] of the mix. This may have been Pellat's problem as well.
My reply:
REPLY - I assumed Pellatt was referring to transparent uranium glass not an opaque or opaline yellow uranium glass, but that was an assumption as he doesn't elaborate (he might mention uranium and topaz as a description but would need to look that up again).
Interesting that you mentioned previously about the Steuben Mandarin Yellow being rare because
Spiegl mentioned on page 18 referring to the opaque and opaline yellow versions (my underlining):
'"Isabell" was the name of a matt yellow opaque glass from the Harrach glassworks that was first produced in 1838 and is probably a uranium color, as was the "lemon yellow bone glass" from this glassworks from 1841. Both colors are very rare. The two terms do not appear in Vinzenz Pohl’s recipe booklet.'
I wonder if they're all 'rare' examples because unstable long term?'
Apsley Pellatt says excess of alkali causes continual exudation and refers to the process as 'evil'.
See page 72
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Curiosities_of_Glass_Making/FCwGAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=gold+topaz+glass&pg=PA144&printsec=frontcover
-
This is a Record of the International Exhibition 1862.
The report on 2. Glass Manufactures, Staining and Painting by Sebastian Evans M.A.
reads to me as a damning report on glass manufacture in Great Britain at 1862. It's quite a shocking read actually. Especially reading pages 400 and 401. In parts it talks of no progress since 1851.
On page 400 and left hand column of page 401 it discusses the exudation of glass. It appears to have been a real problem.
On page 410 there is mention of Chance's lighthouse glass and it mentions that is liable to 'sweat'.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Record_of_the_International_Exhibiti/amwO8K7L9ksC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=powell+%26+sons+foreign+glass&pg=PA407&printsec=frontcover
On page 407 and 409 the report appears to become more positive about other aspects of the exhibition glass though.
But it's quite an eye opening report.
-
...
I hope I was right on Harrach using lead glass but I'm not entirely sure!
...
They started using lead glass in 1827. See their own website Timeline:
https://en.sklarnaharrachov.cz/glass-factory/timeline
-
Yes, the "better than the English" I think relates to purity. Reply#111 In your QV thread mentions pitchblendes "nature and prejudice to copper ore". GILLINDERS TREATISE in relation to Victoria yellow or Topaz states at the end [ page 107 ] "by adding the copper, the color may be made as green a tinge as you wish it". To get a good yellow I would think the copper would have to be refined out or at least kept to a minimum. Whitman mentioned in the letter probably a wholesaler and may be sourcing uraniumm from Bohemia.
The processing scheme being set up in Bohemia mentioned in your QV thread#127, makes perfect sense to me considering uranium is being used in a wide array of products usually as a pigment from fine china to wallpaper. Purity matters, there is money to be made here.
The information in your QV thread #146 stating that Harrachs normal output was lead based combined with the statement in THE PRACTICAL MECHANIC AND ENGINEER 1845 that there is only one glassworks in the region making lead glass tells me that Harrachs would be an obvious contender if indeed the QV bowl had a secret Bohemian lineage.
The Waiter Spiegl link has blown my mind on two counts. First is the Wintenburgh opaque yellow tumbler on page 17, this color is an excellent match to Steubens Mandarin Yellow, of which probably half of examples extant have spontaneously cracked, very rare. Second is the the flask in the violet section. The design elements of what we call Diamond and daisey and checkered diamond are known from two separate 18th century glassworks in America Stiegels and Amelungs respectively, to this day they still insist that there is no known correlation in Europe to the Stiegels diamond and daisey. These scholars or whatever should leave their bubbles more often.
Pictured is my candidate for Chameleon glass
A Blog from the Corning here on Steuben Mandarin Yellow and it's instability reasons. It isn't a uranium glass mix though I don't think?
https://blog.cmog.org/2023/fugitive-color-frederick-carders-mandarin-yellow
-
Photos are selected entries from Geo. W. Leightons copy of William Leightons batch book with other notations. Available online from the Rakow Library at CMOG. Creative Commons, no copyright.
Seems to use topaz and canary as similar if not the same. Victoria maybe a little more green, all use approximately the same amount of uranium. A handful or more other recipes using uranium listed as well.
I have just realised (or perhaps I've put this on the Queen Victoria thread and completely forgotten about it)
Spiegl W. in Farbige Gläser has a description of what Topas-glas was:
Source - http://www.glas-forschung.info/pageone/pdf/farbglas.pdf
page 30. Chapter heading 'Rosa Rubin und Topas-glas'
He begins the chapter with a long description of gold ruby glass.
BTW - note to Cagney, Spiegl notes specifically that the Harrach pink glass was lead free (so I'm not sure whether other of their glass was lead glass or if I'm completely mistaken on that point):
'...The Harrach "pink glass", a pound of which cost 2 guilders 40 kreuzers to produce and was thus only slightly more expensive than the "special blue for overlay", as well as the "pink ruby according to M. E. Schmid"[6], were lead-free chalk glasses with gold dissolution. For a while...'
Then in the next paragraph goes on to say (google translated)
'Related to the gold ruby is the "topaz glass," which could be produced in Neuwelt as early as 1829 and by Lötz and Schmidt in the Goldbrunn glassworks from around 1830. In addition to the gold dissolution, a small amount of antimony oxide was added to the melt, which gave the glass a reddish-yellow color.'
'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.'
Sooooo, when contemporary reports talk of 'gold-topaz' glass, is it referring not to the colour gold but to the inclusion of gold in the melt in order to make the colour topaz?
He described topaz-glas as being a reddish yellow colour. The Queen Victoria bowls are transparent yellow uranium glass colour not at all a reddish yellow colour.
An example of the colour of topas-coloured glass from Petersdorfer glassworks 1882:
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O34807/covered-jar-petersdorfer-glash%C3%BCtte/
-
There is a host of other convincing data to attribute these bottles to Stiegel. It is this notion: "that pocket bottles with overscale floral designs were made on the continent BUT THERE IS NO KNOWN COROLLARY FOR THE DIAMOND-DAISY MOTIF, AND IT APPEARS TO BE A UNIQUELY AMERICAN DECORATION". Now debunked? Absolutely new information. This bold statement has been glass gospel for the last thirty years and still propagated to this day. Someone is not doing their homework. You may be pleasantly surprised if you go to this link museumcollection.winterthur.org/ingex.php#.Y1cHFS2ZP1x (http://museumcollection.winterthur.org/ingex.php#.Y1cHFS2ZP1x) and enter Stiegel in the search bar in the glass section.
I think making your cullet as a separate batch unusual and a extra expenditure of time and materials. Possibly " fugitive" ingredients would be fired out or at least stabilized. Probably unnecessary if you have enough of your formula on hand as cullet [glass rejects, etc.]. It was customary to buy outside cullet in this country as they were not in the business of making cullet. By and large this seemed to have worked well in general practice. A large batch using an oxide somewhat difficult to attain you may not want to take the chance.
A footnote in a glass club bulletin from 2012 concerning dating of American canary glass contains this statement: "Bohemian glass scholar Olga Drahotova claims that "yellow and gold uranium glass was introduced both in the Reidel and Harrachs Glassworks in northern Bohemia, and in the Sumova mountains in southern Bohemia, almost simultaneously". BOHEMIAN GLASS,1400-1989, p. 69. The authors use of the term 'claims" in this instance seems to minimize Olga's statement. I was wondering what you think.
-
museumcollection.winterthur.org/index.php#.Y1cHFS2ZP1x (http://museumcollection.winterthur.org/index.php#.Y1cHFS2ZP1x) corrected link from above.Hopefully.
-
I think making your cullet as a separate batch unusual and a extra expenditure of time and materials. Possibly " fugitive" ingredients would be fired out or at least stabilized. Probably unnecessary if you have enough of your formula on hand as cullet [glass rejects, etc.]. It was customary to buy outside cullet in this country as they were not in the business of making cullet. By and large this seemed to have worked well in general practice. A large batch using an oxide somewhat difficult to attain you may not want to take the chance.
I'm probably misunderstanding or talking at cross purposes (because I don't have a grasp of chemistry for glass making so I probably shouldn't be discussing this at all to be honest ), but Pellatt mentions on page 78 (apologies I have realised the link I gave didn't go directly to this page in his book) within his discussion on how uranium glass is made, his regret that Klaproth doesn't give specific gravities in his analysis. Elsewhere in the book he mentions the uranium glass they made breaking and all having to be replaced. So it just doesn't sound that easy to make.
-
museumcollection.winterthur.org/index.php#.Y1cHFS2ZP1x (http://museumcollection.winterthur.org/index.php#.Y1cHFS2ZP1x) corrected link from above.Hopefully.
There are many violet glasses in that link - lovely colour.
I did note they say 'Stiegel - probable maker'. Is that what you meant?
There is also an interesting blog piece on Stiegel glass here, regarding the difficulty of identifying the glass from there v glass from abroad:
https://twipa.blogspot.com/2021/08/henry-william-stiegel-manheim-and.html
The Met says this:
'Henry William Stiegel, who operated the American Flint Glass Manufactory from 1765 to 1774, was the first successful producer of glass tableware that was the equal of European imports. The diamond-daisy pattern in this amethyst-colored pocket flask was probably made by Stiegel; the pattern was not used by European glassmakers. Many variations of this popular design exist, as seen in other pieces in the collection (see 1980.502.68 and 34.65).'
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/6635
The daisy is interesting - on this from Spiegl:
http://www.glas-forschung.info/pageone/pdf/farbglas.pdf
it looks the same as this one for example in the Winterthur it seems to me?
http://museumcollection.winterthur.org/single-record.php?resultsperpage=20&view=catalog&srchtype=advanced&hasImage=&ObjObjectName=&CreOrigin=&Earliest=&Latest=&CreCreatorLocal_tab=&materialsearch=&ObjObjectID=&ObjCategory=Glass&DesMaterial_tab=&DesTechnique_tab=&AccCreditLineLocal=&CreMarkSignature=&recid=1959.3095&srchfld=&srchtxt=stiegel&id=c49e&rownum=1&version=100&src=results-imagelink-only
-
A footnote in a glass club bulletin from 2012 concerning dating of American canary glass contains this statement: "Bohemian glass scholar Olga Drahotova claims that "yellow and gold uranium glass was introduced both in the Reidel and Harrachs Glassworks in northern Bohemia, and in the Sumova mountains in southern Bohemia, almost simultaneously". BOHEMIAN GLASS,1400-1989, p. 69. The authors use of the term 'claims" in this instance seems to minimize Olga's statement. I was wondering what you think.
It is a strange word for the glass club bulletin to choose :
Information here on Olga Drahotová (1932-2021) in the Journal of Glass Studies 2021:
https://www.proquest.com/openview/c9d29e91949b464e26fb0eac87e79913/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=49252
however, it's possible it wasn't used in a way meant to minimize Olga's statement in the book, but perhaps used because as far as I could see there were no reference sources given specifically for that comment by her, so nothing for them to reference to? Perhaps that's why they used the word.
- In the book Bohemian Glass 1990 English Text, Copyright Flammarion, the chapter written by Olga Drahotová page 69 says what you've mentioned above.
- Interestingly a few years later in Farbenglas 1, Neuwirth W, 1993, gives more detailed information (if I've understood it correctly) about developments of uranium glass:
page 277
Under the chapter heading 'On the History of Uranium Glass'
'In the Uranium Compounds in Industry' (glassmaking and porcelain painting) of 1963,Franz Kirchheimer devoted an illuminating chapter pointing to a large number of early sources connected with the subject (Kirchheimer, 1963, p. 274ff.). The ...'
Further on she says:
'...Some authors of specialised contemporary literature mention the use of uranium in glass-making on in passing or not at all. To draw the conclusion from this, that uranium was not used before 1840 to colour glass, would be incorrect. It can be proved that the 'composition glass factories' of Bohemia knew about uranium's power to color glass - already before 1835 - at Blaschka, as can be gathered from surviving accounts ...'
She then lists in detail numerous surviving accounts which include uranium.
at the end of the paragraph it says:
'... If we assume - and there appears to be no evidence to the contrary - that these terms came about at the same time as the "raw compositions," we find the term "Annagrun" already before 1835; can it therefore still be connected with Anna Riedel?'
Neuwirth also says on page 277 'The history of uranium glass lies in obscurity'.
-
Pellatt recounts one batch gone bad. Adulterants [too much alkali] probably entering his ingredient stream through his supply chain. Presumably he has made uranium batches before and after this episode. Peculiarities of using uranium in a glass batch may involve a much smaller window of error than a simple batch of lead glass. Considering the whole batch probably slightly radioactive it is a small wonder that the ingredients get along at all.
As to the Stiegel bottles, the term "attributed to Stiegel" was meant to imply probably. There is no "hard" evidence that Stiegel made these bottles it is pretty much circumstantial. Only one of these bottles has an actual history of even being in the country in the 18th century. They do differ from their Central European cousins in certain aspects such as composition [through spectrographic analysis], shape [ more rounded] and most of this family of bottles occur in the violet/amethyst color. Any other color including clear are rare. The bottle in Farbenglas is interesting in that it shows a design feature [diamond daisy] attributed to Stiegels glassworks and a design feature [checkered diamond] attributed to John Frederick Amelungs New Bremen Glass Manufactory 1784-94. Both glassworks started in this country by Germans employing German workmen.
The Met says:"this pattern" [diamond daisy] "was not used by European glass makers" is obviously in error if the bottle in Farbenglas be European. This same statement more or less is repeated in books/articles as recently as 2018. Thus my "glass gospel" comment earlier in this thread.
A photo of my favorite design of these "Stiegel type" bottles. Almost timeless pattern, could very well work in todays market I think.
-
Repeating this from the Queen Victoria thread just in case it is of interest:
The Chemistry of Pottery etc etc.
The chemistry of the several natural and artificial heterogenous compounds used in manufacturing porcelain, glass and pottery.
- Simeon Shaw, published 1837 , printed London W. Lewis & Sons Finch-Lane.
See pages 503 (Flint glass onwards) - 507
I'm not suggesting the glassmakers of the day turned to Simeon Shaw's book to work out how to produce their own glass, however, this was published in 1837 in London - and there does not seem to me (unless I have misunderstood or misread) to be any mention of uranium in any of the 'recipes' for glass colours.
Remember Queen Victoria's banquet at Guildhall was November 1837.
Uranium did seem to be mentioned in conjunction with enamelling pottery if I've read it correctly. But there didn't seem to be mention of using it to colour glass.
In the making of 'Topaz' glass it mentions including 'Gold-Colored'. Referring back up the page to 'Gold-color there is no mention of using uranium to produce it.
Referring back to my post #61 ,
'...Some authors of specialised contemporary literature mention the use of uranium in glass-making on in passing or not at all. To draw the conclusion from this, that uranium was not used before 1840 to colour glass, would be incorrect. It can be proved that the 'composition glass factories' of Bohemia knew about uranium's power to color glass - already before 1835 - at Blaschka, as can be gathered from surviving accounts ...'
She then lists in detail numerous surviving accounts which include uranium.
I wonder if it was known how to produce uranium glass in Bohemia prior to 1840 .... but not in England.
-
Your last sentence a very plausible statement I think. There does seem to be a trial and error period in England around this time period. Whether do to procurement of the ingredients of a certain purity or a interaction with something in their basic flint glass formula. Most if not all recipes for flint glass at this time contain a certain amount of manganese as a de colorizer, as the sand will still have some amount of iron no matter how many washings. Manganese also used to limit bubbles in the glass during the blowing process. Leighton mentions that if you leave out the manganese in the uranium batch " the color will be better". Gillinders treatise on glassmaking c. 1851 gives 20 or so recipes for flint glass, all call for some amount of manganese. Of the 4 recipes for Victoria yellow or Topaz three omit this ingredient.
Interestingly the Bohemian recipes for there clear glass does not seem to do well with a certain amount of manganese given the statement in bold letters in reply #42 of this thread. Their recipes possibly more amendable to the addition of uranium as compared to the English flint.
Of note concerning the the Stiegel bottles and their coloring. His seemingly very successful use of the violet color and the difficulties encountered by the German/Bohemians may be do to pure luck on Stiegels part. He omits a few ingredients used in central European recipes and Barium is present in all these bottles. As Barium was not even discovered as an element yet, it probably was naturally present in the local sands used.
-
Thank you so much for such interesting information.
The link to the Simeon Shaw publication 1837 on Glass is here - apologies for omitting it previously:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Chemistry_of_the_Several_Natural_and/W4EOAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=the+chemistry+of+glass+simeon+shaw&pg=PA499&printsec=frontcover
I thought I'd read something about sand used re Stiegel (Steigel as it's sometimes referred to in old documents) but I can't find what I came across the other day now irritatingly. It was some old report somewhere.
I did come across this report on glass (written by Anonymous) published 1883, which may be of interest/contain some interesting info on glass manufacture per se although I've no idea if the info is accurate - anyway, it might be interesting :) :
Page 80 mentions 'Steigel'
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=svTzEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1123&printsec=frontcover&dq=1837+glass+making&source=entity_page&newbks=0&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
On page 75 it reads:
'As is stated in the chapter on materials, sand is but seldom used in Bohemia, Quartz, which is quite abundant, being substituted for it.'
Perhaps this might link in with your explanation re the violet glass?
-
deleted. - remembered that Spiegl showed the diamond daisy design as being 18th century:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://www.glas-forschung.info/pageone/pdf/farbglas.pdf
I wonder where Stiegel had his molds made?
another of the diamond daisy bottles here - the glass looks as though it has other colours mixed in
https://live.pookandpook.com/online-auctions/pook/stiegel-glass-works-cologne-bottle-18th-c-5352337
-
The use of quartz as a silica base most interesting. I was not aware of this fact. Quartz being a highly pure form of silica there may be no need of a de-colorizer in the batch, thus their unfamiliarity with the properties of manganese. Much as the English unfamiliarity with the properties of uranium?
Stiegels former career as a ironmaster and eventual inheritor of a local ironworks [he married the owners daughter] would account for the molds being made. Careful study of each different pattern in this series of bottles involving the extensive holdings at Winterthur and holdings in the Philadelphia Museum of Art show consistent anomalies in the molding of each different pattern to heavily suggest that there was only one mold used for each pattern.
Regarding the bottle in the link [Pook & Pook Auction]; it is most likely blown from a gather taken from the top of the pot. This is where impurities would form and be ladled off before use, but of course not necessarily all of it. This especially true of open top pots, these may require more than one ladling during their given use of a batch. Early 19th century American price list this as"tale" [second quality] and sold it at a discount.
-
Report on Glass compiled by Jos D. Weeks Special Agent addressed to Hon. C. W .Seaton Superintendent of Census March 21st 1883 (This appears to be the document I was quoting previously I think?)
See page 25 for the information re quartz used in Bohemian glass:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Report_on_the_Manufacture_of_Glass/IKs6AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=is+bohemian+glass+quartz+different+to+sand&pg=PA1062&printsec=frontcover
small information on Stiegel on page 80
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Report_on_the_Manufacture_of_Glass/IKs6AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=is+bohemian+glass+quartz+different+to+sand&pg=PA1062&printsec=frontcover
-
Repeating this from the Queen Victoria thread just in case it is of interest:
The Chemistry of Pottery etc etc.
The chemistry of the several natural and artificial heterogenous compounds used in manufacturing porcelain, glass and pottery.
- Simeon Shaw, published 1837 , printed London W. Lewis & Sons Finch-Lane.
See pages 503 (Flint glass onwards) - 507
I'm not suggesting the glassmakers of the day turned to Simeon Shaw's book to work out how to produce their own glass, however, this was published in 1837 in London - and there does not seem to me (unless I have misunderstood or misread) to be any mention of uranium in any of the 'recipes' for glass colours.
Remember Queen Victoria's banquet at Guildhall was November 1837.
Uranium did seem to be mentioned in conjunction with enamelling pottery if I've read it correctly. But there didn't seem to be mention of using it to colour glass.
In the making of 'Topaz' glass it mentions including 'Gold-Colored'. Referring back up the page to 'Gold-color there is no mention of using uranium to produce it.
Referring back to my post #61 ,
'...Some authors of specialised contemporary literature mention the use of uranium in glass-making on in passing or not at all. To draw the conclusion from this, that uranium was not used before 1840 to colour glass, would be incorrect. It can be proved that the 'composition glass factories' of Bohemia knew about uranium's power to color glass - already before 1835 - at Blaschka, as can be gathered from surviving accounts ...'
She then lists in detail numerous surviving accounts which include uranium.
I wonder if it was known how to produce uranium glass in Bohemia prior to 1840 .... but not in England.
In this description of the Great Exhibition 1851 page 1007 under Austria, re Wenzel Batka's display of items it says
'Uranium is a very rare metal and occurs ...'
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Official_Descriptive_and_Illustrated_Cat/d5BZAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=uranium+oxide+very+rare+batka&pg=PA1007&printsec=frontcover
So in 1851 in a description of the Great Exhibition, uranium was described as 'very rare', although the description does mention using it in small quantities to colour glass by that point.
-
' I wonder if it was known how to produce uranium glass in Bohemia prior to 1840 .... but not in England.'
With reference the date Harrach started producing lead glass and also their production of uranium glass:
The Legend of Bohemian Glass, Antonin Langhamer, TIGRIS Czech Republic 2003
- page 79
re Harrach
'At a Prague Exhibition in 1828 the glassworks boasted the first lead - or "ringing" - crystal in Austria.'
and
'They imitated Egermann's ...., made uranium glass containing some alabaster under the name "Chrysopras" (1831), and later perfected a uranium yellow glass.'
-
Information given in the preceding post of much value I think, as it is some what specific to the yellow [canary] version of uranium glass v.s. the green version. This is exactly the type of information I have been looking for. Many thanks....The green version may have been a easier go, the opaques possibly more popular.
This link maybe of interest, if you haven't seen it already https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/glass-museum-passau-passau (https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/glass-museum-passau-passau)
-
Thanks Cagney :) - I have seen the image and have the Book Das Bohmische Glas Band II so some are in there in very close up which is great.
Here should be a better link where you can see more of the detail of some of that uranium display in the link:
Dated 1830-1850 which is difficult given I want to know what was produced 1830s :)
https://www.umdiewelt.de/photos/1392/8763/20/833595_d3.jpg
Main link to the photos here:
https://www.umdiewelt.de/t8763_20
As a complete aside, I have a mirror that appears to be very similar construction/design of the mirror photographed in that link.
https://www.umdiewelt.de/photos/1392/8763/20/833605_r3_d3.jpg
I've always wondered where ours might have been made. Although bought in a junk shop I assumed at the time it was fairly contemporary to when we bought it i.e. 1990s. and to be honest I'd assumed made in China for Laura Ashley or something.
Never looked at it that closely and it's very big and too heavy to get down to look at. Still think it's a newer piece but
I wonder if mine was made in Czechoslovakia. Would be nice if it was :)
There are plenty similar on Wayfair now:
https://www.wayfair.co.uk/home-decor/pdp/astoria-grand-falcone-makeupshaving-mirror-hjmf1041.html
-
This photo should give you the whole display case of uranium glass I think:
https://dynamic-media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-o/23/76/5e/d3/caption.jpg?w=900&h=500&s=1
-
Cagney you may (or may not) find this interesting.
It's about Gold coloured glass and Topaz coloured glass - comes from a publication dated 1816. No mention of uranium of course.
Encyclopaedia Perthensis Vol X 1816 Printed by John Brown
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Encyclopaedia_Perthensis_Or_Universal_Di/0wFQAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=gold+topaz+glass&pg=PA483&printsec=frontcover
See page 481 under No.12 Gold colour
and page 483 under No. 20 Topaz.
With reference the purple small flasks:
See page 482 under No. 16 Purple
-
Very interesting piece of glass here:
https://bentleypriorymuseum.org.uk/bentley-priory-collection/queen-adelaide-perfume-bottle/
The Bentley Priory museum says it was produced by Apsley Pellatt c. 1830 probably as King William came to the throne, for Queen Adelaide.
Interesting because it is, in their words 'yellow', cased glass.
It appears to me to be clear glass with a yellowish overlay (topaz?) cut to clear. i.e. cased glass. I think 1830 would be quite early for cased glass?
-
The complete showcase of uranium glass at Passau very illustrative of the depth and diversity of color to be had. I see how the terms canary, topaz, etc. can be subjective, interpretive and even interchangeable. As you sort of intimated at the beginning of this thread, one persons canary can very well be another persons topaz, I did come across some of Pellats recipes for colored glass collected by M. Drake sometime between 1851-1874. Of note is the last entry from the table of contents.
The crown if actually plated/cased with yellow glass a small ' Tour de Force'. I wonder if the yellow may be a silver stain [ not silver color, silver in the stain batch to get the yellow].
-
The crown if actually plated/cased with yellow glass a small ' Tour de Force'. I wonder if the yellow may be a silver stain [ not silver color, silver in the stain batch to get the yellow].
Well now ... funny you should say that. My absolute first thought on coming across it by accident was 'made by Neuwelt, stained either at Neuwelt or by Egermann'.
I investigated what I'd recalled in the book:
See page 109 of From Neuwelt to the Whole World, plate 115 - for a 'Flacon in the form of a crown' which indeed is very, very similar and has a Maltese cross for a stopper.
The 'turban' cutting around the foot is something Harrach used, seen on many items in the book, and iirc it's specifically mentioned in the book. I'll try and find the quote.
-
see my reply above and I've not yet found the 'turban' cut reference in the book but there is a specific reference to these crown shaped articles because not only did they make them in Flacons but also as lids for goblets. I wonder if I read the reference to that style of cutting somewhere else - maybe W. Spiegl.
Page 96 From Neuwelt to the Whole World - discussion of lidded goblet plate 89 with crown shaped lid
'... The most eleborate cut ornament is on the goblet lid, which is composed of two parts: the lower arched section, cut right through, and the removable handle in the form of a sphere and a cross. In cutting right through the glass (piercing of the exterior of objects also appear in flacons in the shape of a crown) - a technique that was one of the most difficult in glass-cutting - Neuwelt was a leader among European producers of decorated glass.'
-
I did come across some of Pellats recipes for colored glass collected by M. Drake sometime between 1851-1874. Of note is the last entry from the table of contents.
Thank you for this :)
I've seen the reference list in books of the period but I'm not sure where, and certainly not seen the original handwritten item.
-
Further to my two previous posts on the crown perfume bottle in the Bentley Priory collection - some thoughts:
The Queen Victoria uranium bowls thread on the board was started because there was reference to James Powell making the uranium glass bowls (from the Museum of London). The bowls are now in the V&A and are noted as by Davenports in the V&A caption.
In the early discussion on that thread, it was noted that apparently Powell's had made Queen Adelaide Candelabra with topaz drops (uranium?) given to her by Lord somebody (maybe Howe? can't remember his name)
see here:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,70066.msg390276.html#msg390276
According to this reference page 241:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,70066.msg394529.html#msg394529
Harrach showed Gold topaz table lights (candelabra?) in 1835 in gold topaz which I think is referred to as being Chrysopras composition (i.e. uranium glass?)
So - some potential for Harrach to have been the producer of the (uranium glass?) gold topaz drops candelabra given to Queen Adelaide?
And some potential for Harrach to have been the maker of the crown perfume flacon in the Bentley Priory collection apparently given to Queen Adelaide?
But then there is also this - sale by Bonhams of a crown perfume bottle with cross stopper sold as by Apsley Pellatt:
https://www.bonhams.com/auction/21728/lot/57/an-apsley-pellatt-crown-scent-flask-and-stopper-circa-1825/
It's interesting for it's similarities to items in the From Neuwelt to the Whole World book, specifically:
- the stopper cross is what appears to be almost identical to the stopper cross on the crown flacon on page 109 plate 115
- the cutting design of the bottom part of the body down to the foot is very similar to the design of a becher engraved by Dominik Biemann p 135 plt153
- the repetition of cut parallel lines close together down the bands of the crown is similar to that device used on a becher on page 97
However there were also these three sold via Christies:
https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-2016714
Terrible photograph so very hard to see details to compare.
But the Corning has this one which appears to be the same or very similar to the bottle in the middle of the Christie's sale photograph but with a different now cross shaped stopper - wow - this is confusing! :-X
Corning has it as possibly by Frederick Carder and says it was made by Stevens and Williams:
https://glasscollection.cmog.org/objects/32023/scent-bottle
And lastly this rather beautiful and fun piece:
https://delomosne.co.uk/index.php/product/p19-3-a-fine-and-rare-crown-scent-english-c-1820/
https://delomosne.co.uk/index.php/product/p19-3-a-fine-and-rare-crown-scent-english-c-1820/
This too reminds me of many items in the Harrach book. The stopper cross especially I think the same as the one on the bottle on page 109.
In fact it could be an optical illusion but there appears to be a triangle shape of cut pattern in the lateral band of small diamond cutting band above the foot. That design with the lateral band and the triangle is identical to the one shown in the book.
Perhaps they were all making very similar designs :-\
For comparison - this is a scent bottle in the V&A with Apsley Pellatt Patent marks on it apparently referring to the patent for the press moulding - has pressed medallions of King William and Queen Adelaide.
The marks on it are quote "'W.IV.R / Patent ADELAIDE / Pellatt & Co. PATENTEES' (Maker's mark referring to the press-moulding patent of 1831)":
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O249780/scent-bottle-and-apsley-pellatt/
Apologies - I fear this is a digression from the topic of the thread!
-
...
I leave you with this tidbit from Deming Jarves agent [spy?] in Europe from a letter sent probably 1850 s
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73090.0;attach=262532;image
Cagney I think Poulenc Wittman is this - this company seems to have started in 1852. However it seems the distribution of fine chemicals bit for glass came about from 1878/1880? So you might be able to date that recipe requesting buy from Wittman to c.1878 ish?:
https://stichtinghistorischemicroscopie.nl/en/category/poulenc-freres-en/
'Léon Wittman and his brother in law, Etienne Poulenc (1823-1878), began by retailing photographic products under the “P.W.” name around 1852 and then manufacturing them round the end of the decade. After Etienne’s death in 1878, his widow ran the company with her sons for a couple of years, and then the 2 brothers, Gaston and Emile took over under the name Poulenc Frères. They focused on the production and distribution of fine chemicals, photographic products and colours for glass and ceramics. Meanwhile, the youngest brother, Camille, qualified as a pharmacist and then fires and up to silence in 1893. After he joined the company, they added a research laboratory and a scientific library.
In 1900, the firm became a public limited company. In 1903, they opened a new establishment in Paris dedicated to photographic products and including a projection room in the basement. They continued making pharmaceuticals and other chemicals including, also in 1903, the synthetic anaesthetic stovaine which was used on the large-scale until 1940. In 1928, Rhône-Poulenc, a conglomerate of small chemical and pharmaceutical companies, was formed.'
-
There is a more detailed story possibly here on Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poulenc_Fr%C3%A8res
re Wittman Poulenc
So it may have been the 1850s perhaps according to the names involved in the business as Poulenc (son in law of Wittman, married Wittman's daughter) took over the business completely in 1858. No info on them selling uranium products at that time however Poulenc was a chemist and it reads as though they were distributing photographs supplies. Uranium oxides might have been involved in that.
page 166 here Great Exhibition 1851 - Johnson Matthey showing lots of stuff including Uranium Oxide ... and apparently exhibiting a glass vessel made of uranium glass (bit like the glass vessel of uranium glass apparently on display on the Powell stand? - wonder if they all had an example of the recent imports of uranium glass vessels from Germany?):
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Official_Descriptive_and_Illustrated_Cat/fb1AAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=johnson+matthey+great+exhibition+uranium+oxide&pg=RA1-PA166&printsec=frontcover
-
Most likely you are correct on Poulenc Wittman. I read it as Pauline Whitman, but somewhat difficult to read their writing.
The Priory Crown I think a good chance probably German. Silver nitrate stain very much in their tradition. Possibly a gift to commemorate her ascendence. From her aristocratic family back home? A bit different than the others structurally. The base rises up into the arches a little and is cut and decorated. The engraving well thought out, as the engraver leaves some stain to highlight the stem vein in the leaf and the pricklies on the round part of the thistles. The Cross Patee seems to be a popular motive for crowns in general [Wikipedia]. This particular version unknown.
Siver nitrate stain used in this country on some lacy bowsl/plates to highlight certain design features around 1840s and much later as well. English usage I really do not know.
-
(Thank you, I didn't know it was called a cross pattée)
RE the cross pattée crown perfume bottles and link to Harrach
Here is another possible link to Harrach in conjunction with the design links to the two crown items that are shown in the Harrach book - one a crown perfume bottle and the other a crown lid for a pokal:
Wikipedia says (amongst other descriptions of the cross pattée - this is just the one that was most relevant to this discussion)
'Iron Cross
In 1813, King Frederick William III of Prussia established the Iron Cross as a decoration for military valor, and it remained in use, in various forms, by Prussia and later Germany until 1945.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_patt%C3%A9e
Wikipedia says this of the link between King Frederick William III of Prussia and the House of Harrach:
'In 1824 Frederick William III married for the second time, to Countess Auguste von Harrach zu Rohrau und Thannhausen. At the time of their marriage, the House of Harrach was still not recognized as equal to other European royal families for dynastic purposes. The marriage was therefore morganatic and she was created Princess of Liegnitz. They had no children.[4]'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_William_III_of_Prussia
Harrach did use a stain - there is a candlestick in the book From Neuwelt to the Whole World - plate116 'colourless glass, partially stained yellow and engraved' and 'c.1835' and ' Museum of Decorative Arts, Prague inv. no. 17953'
Yellow and red staining very famous in Bohemian glass (see Friedrich Egermann)
So ... we know Harrach made stained yellow glass, we also know they made crown perfume flakons with cross stoppers and lids for goblets in the crown design with a cross for a stopper. We know there is a link between the House of Harrach and King Frederick William III of Prussia.
The bottom part of every crown perfume bottle, with the exception of the Adelaide stained bottle which has other similarities, is very similar in design device and cutting to the becher on page 135 of From Neuwelt to the Whole World - plate 153 engraving by Dominik Biemann 1828.
I cannot currently find a link between Queen Adelaide and King Frederick William III or his second wife Countess Auguste von Harrach.
Queen Adelaide was from Saxe-Meiningen. Her father and details here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_I,_Duke_of_Saxe-Meiningen
However, Queen Victoria's eldest child, her daughter Princess Victoria, was married to the German Emperor Frederick III at 17 (so 1857?) and became Queen of Prussia. She was named after Queen Adelaide (Adelaide married King William but had no surviving children so King William's niece became Queen Victoria):
'Victoria, Princess Royal (Victoria Adelaide Mary Louisa;[1] 21 November 1840 – 5 August 1901) was German Empress and Queen of Prussia as the wife of Frederick III, German Emperor. '
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_Princess_Royal
So the crown perfume bottle could have made it's way over here via a later date and as a present from the Queen of Prussia.
Re Apsley Pellatt and Falcon Glass Works query over whether they made crown pierced cut perfume bottles with cross stoppers
Currently I don't have any evidence for this. Does anyone know if there is a crown perfume bottle anywhere with a patent on it or with definitive id from Apsley Pellatt?
-
In 1841 Apsley Pellatt deposited a number of glass items ('Series of Articles') to the Royal Polytechnic Institution.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Royal_Polytechnic_Institution_Catalo/rihbAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=falcon+glass+works+medicean+shape&pg=PA93&printsec=frontcover
See page 93
Finishes on some of the articles included:
'amber'
'topaz'
'stained and engraved'
-
For Cagney:
I've come across a large collection of glass in the Currier Museum in the States. There are many 'canary' glass items in there and I've only been through a small amount of the collection so far. Just thought you might be interested or at may want to keep it as a reference point:
example page here with candle holders:
https://collections.currier.org/objects-1/portfolio?records=50&query=mfs%20all%20%22glass%22&sort=9&page=6
-
Much appreciated. A new [to me] online source to see the actual glass always of value. Seen some things I have not seen before. Although, some of their attributions or lack there of, could do with some updates.
-
Yes - I was going through it thinking they NEED a good glass researcher/curator :)