Topic: A Thomas Kidd Compilation

[davwd1]

I have read with interest the various comments about Thomas Kidd, but unless Im mistaken no-one has come up with a definitive response to Neil's earlier request for information about swans and fish.  Could I offer a provocative suggestion.
Thomas Kidd was situated at Holt Town, from which we may deduce that they were not part of the Ancoats group of manufacturers: Molineaux Webb, Percival Vickers, Burtles Tate, and Andrew Ker. However the distance between Holt Town and Ancoats is only a few hundred meters. We also know that Joseph Kidd, the son of Thomas and Ann Kidd was company secretary at Percival Vickers in the late 1870's. Consequent upon his father's death Joseph seems to have transferred his allegiance to the family business and assumed a greater role over the following years. Thomas Kidd therefore would have had access to the working practices, supplier base and also skilled workforce enjoyed by their illustrious neighbours.
One of Molineaux Webb's iconic items is the flower trough in the form of a pike. This was registered on 14 July 1885, #29781. Normally seen in an opalescent blue or yellow the pike is less common found in a deep blue or green colour. It measures c26cms. Less common are two similar models of pike that are smaller: 14 and 18cms.
The two smaller sizes are unmarked and do not, to my knowledge appear in the opalescent colourways of their larger partners. Whilst the larger one of the two unmarked versions has fish scales that look identical to the large model, the smaller one is less detailed, although it is very well modelled. This latter point may not be significant as the close proximity of the two factories would have meant that they both had access to the same mould makers who would have had their own style and detail.
Could it be that one if not both of the smaller pike were actually made not by Molineaux Webb, but by Thomas Kidd?
nb I also have a couple of small swans that look for all the world like Burtles Tate's well known family. Could these also be made by Thomas Kidd?

[neilh]

That's an interesting idea. There was a thread on the Glass board some years ago where someone had a dead ringer for a Burtles Tate swan but there was no registration number on it. We struggled to find an explanation at the time - I'm not sure if the thread still exists as the questioner was incredibly rude, rude enough to get deleted!

Anyway the idea that Burtles Tate swans without a number might actually be Thomas Kidd knockoffs is a good one. Does anyone else out there have a swan which they assured themselves was a Burtles Tate example even though they couldn't find the reg number?

[MHT]

I have this opaque white and pink swan which is unmarked. Comparing it with 3 other marked examples, looking at size (medium size swan), weight, pattern of feathers I would say they are are all the same. If not it is a very good copy. I have another unmarked swan which is a bigger size, between the normal medium and large sizes, this has the same 'feather' layout and I would say this is also B&T.
The opaque white/pink swan was bought in France, did B&T export? if so maybe they used moulds without marks for export glass.

[neilh]

Burtles Tate advertised their glass "for home and export trade".

So another interesting idea - registered designs may have been produced for export, minus registration markings, hmm!

[Paul S.]

hi Neil  -  my own opinion would be that I don't see these factories having two sets of moulds  -  one carrying the Reg. No., and the other without.
What would be the practical point of producing some pieces without the No., even with the knowledge they wouldn't remain in the U.K.                 Don't I seem to recall those Davidson's designs which went to Oz as carrying in fact two separate Nos. ?

[flying free]

Neil this is the thread with the swan and the questionable owner:

http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,37842.msg207880.html#msg207880

It's just that at that time I had a B & T swan and so remember reading this post (and the shock reading it).
However unfortunately it seems the owners links are no longer working (externally added photographs  - and that's why I don't answer threads anymore unless photos are uploaded directly to the board).

That said, I think Christine mentioned something on the thread about the grinding on the base of it so that might mark it out as something different?
m

[Paul S.]

I don't know if we've ever had a copy of the original MW factory drawing for the pike - but if not, it's now attached.                Looking at the black example above, compared to the factory drawing, there seem to be substantial differences around the hind portions  -  have to say I've never owned one of these things so rather clueless as to whether the larger examples - in the flesh - are all the same in proportion and shape, or not.
Having said that even the drawing seems at odds with itself  -  the top fin at the rear seems absent on the 'plan' drawing.

[flying free]

Mine is not exactly the same as the black one and neither is it the same as the top view on the drawing.

It is very similar to the side view but missing 'nostrils' or whatever those circle bits on the nose are called and the circles around the mouth and the mouth is a different shape.
The top view inset where flowers would go is not oval, it's a completely different shape at the back and squared.

I'm really busy right now, but will take a photo later so comparisons can be made.

[Anne]

Several years ago we had a topic about moulds and RD nos, and someone said that not all were marked with the no. Let me see if i can find that topic to reference here.

[flying free]

http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,42969.msg239310.html#msg239310

Some reference here to them not all being marked.