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.