Topic: Sowerby 1234 Good Shepherd? vase

[Bernard C]

   

   

Click any image to enlarge.

H. 4" 10.3cm, top width 2" 5.3cm, base width 2" 4.9cm, weight 6½oz 189g.   Nice clear Sowerby TM in the centre of the base.   No registration lozenge in common with designs copied from other sources — Sowerby followed the rules.

See Cottle, Simon, Sowerby — Gateshead Glass, Tyne and Wear Museums Service, 1986, pp.64 and 108.

1. Is this colour, which doesn't react to my UV tester, Sowerby's Blanc de Lait?

2. This pattern, number 1234, is in the middle of a group of patterns copied from Walter Crane's An Alphabet of Old Friends, 1974 and Baby's Own Alphabet, 1875.   King Cole, No. 1232, is from the first, and Multiplication, No. 1235, is from the second.   So the 1234 Good Shepherd? design might well be from one of these two publications.   Unfortunately Simon Cottle tells us that two dozen or so designs have been attributed to Walter Crane, and then only tells us of about sixteen.   Frustrating, isn't it!   Of the missing eight or so, 1234 Good Shepherd? seems to be a highly likely contender.

Do you know?   Please tell us.

3. Is this design the biblical Good Shepherd (I thought it was a parable, but apparently it's not, it's a metaphor)?   If so, this is rather surprising, as J.G. Sowerby seems to have largely kept away from biblical designs except for his stained glass business.   Did Walter Crane write and/or illustrate a book of children's bible stories?   If so, that would provide an explanation.

4. Note that the opposite sides of the vase are similar, but not identical, and were individually sculpted.   The sequence of the above images is logical, i.e. the right side of any image is the left of the next image.

5. I think that this is the first time I've seen this pattern.   Why the apparent scarcity?

Bernard C.  

[Paul S.]

Sowerby's 'Blanc-de-Lait' (although I don't possess a single piece) has a very different appearance.        It has that typical translucent milky opalescent look (Lalique ish).
I might suggest that your flower vase/spill holder is simply Vitro-Porcelain.       Your pix appear very white on the screen, so probably not Sowerby's 'Opal'  -  maybe simply 'White'.         
Presumably neith Blanc-de-Lait or vitro-Porcelain will react to u.v.  -  it's only the Queens Patent Ivory Ware that does.
Slack's book gives some very usefu/amusing information on Blanc-de-Lait, in the section on Sowerby.

Have trawled you know where for references to Crane illustrating the Bible, but not joy  -  think he did everything except that.

Sorry it's of little use, but unable to contribute any more facts  -  although I suspect that scarcity may possible be due to low pressing numbers, or just plain bad luck that utillity items like this suffer from a short life due to breakage.

[mhgcgolfclub]

Bernard

I cannot answer your questions but have seen it a few times



Roy

[Paul S.]

Isn't there always something to come out of the woodwork and bite you as soon as pen has been put to paper, and reading Miller's 'Glass Antiques Checklist' (Consultant Mark West), there is a remark that would seem relevant to this thread.       
The entry covering British Pressed Glass (pp. 170-171) includes a short section on Sowerby and when discussing the colours used by that factory, states that one of these is.............'white (called "Opal")'   -  the implication being that opal and white are one and the same colour.       
Bernard's recent posts showing pictures of the 'The Good Shepherd' and 'Multiplication' vases would seem visually to be very white  -  not looking remotely like the cream coloured picture of the Opal 'Multiplication' vase in Raymond Slack's book (plate No. IX)  -  and this fact coupled with the rather off-hand way that we speak of Sowerby's 'white' Vitro-Porcelain, led me to believe that there were in fact two separate colours.

Having this morning spoken to Raymond Slack, he has confirmed to me that all of the Sowerby white looking Vitro-Porcelain should in fact be correctly described as 'Opal'  -  there is definitely not a white.
It is to be regretted that older colour photographic plates in books can be misleading and the plate refered to above does indeed have a slant towards cream - noting like the 'whites' in Bernards photographs.
Just to further confuse the issue, I notice that there are non-coloured photographs of Sowerby Vitro-Porcelain, in the author's book, which are depicted as being white, yet which according to the captions are in fact Turquoise.

All of which is a roundabout way of saying that I made a mistake when commenting that white and opal were different colours, and my apologies for the confusion.

Whilst I'm not usually that big a fan of the Miller's books, must admit that this pocket 'Checklist' is well worth the money, and although doubtless it may well contain errors, is packed full of facts that really help beginners like me, and gives just the right amount of information that can be remembered.              

[Lustrousstone]

Cottle (Sowerby: Gateshead Glass) says Opal is a milky semi-transparent glass and that Blanc du Lait is solid opaque white, and then there is Queen's Ivory, which is the uranium containing cream one

[Paul S.]

thanks Christine
Raymond Slack, quoting from the Pottery Gazette for 1st May 1880, shows beyond any doubt that Blanc-de-Lait was the end result of Sowerby's experiment with opalescent glass......"this new glass was a beautiful opalescent material" (Slack's words)............."three years have been spent in experiments on the opalescent product by Mr. Sowerby and his art workmen" (the Pottery Gazette).
In addition to the more common form of plain opalescent Blanc-de-Lait', Hajdamach shows a green stained example in his 'British Glass 1800 - 1914'.........'and within a very short time the added novelty of decorating it with opaque-staining  was to become a popular feature of production.' (Slack).
In addition to Slack and Hajdamach, Lattimore also identifies Blanc-de-Lait' correctly, as the opalescent production, but unfortunately then makes the mistake of adding the word 'opaline' to the description.

There appears to be no difficulty (for all authors) in distinguishing correctly 'Queens Patent Ivory Ware' - for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that for us (with u.v. torches) it glows green.

This leaves the Vitro-Porcelain only - and whilst Hajdamach and Slack have no problem with describing this correctly, Lattimore seems to have problems with terminology, and his descriptions are inadequate and insufficient to be relied on, although his accompanying photographs are what we know to be Vitro-Porcelain.
Quoting from Slack..........................."If on the other hand four parts of cryolite were used, an opaque mass closely resembling china or glazed earthenware in appearance was obtained.   This opaque substance...........etc. etc. and marketed under the name of Vitro-Porcelain by Sowerby's, and later under this and other names by most other manufacturers of pressed glass in the north east". (page 35).
I believe that white was the first of Sowerby's Vitro-Porcelain colours, to which they gave the commercial name of 'Opal', although subsequently other colours were produced, using the same original recipe.

The products discussed above are for uniformly coloured wares and, description wise, are not to be confused with other pressed products that Sowerby produced, for example  'Sorbini'/Malachite/slag or marble glass.

You could, with hindsight argue that Sowerby were perhaps lacking in foresight in calling an opaque Vitro-Porcelain ware 'Opal', since it gives rise to confusion with the word opalescent, and brings to mind a quite different looking fiery glowing appearance (as we know), but it's possible that with the newness and novelty of brand new products and zero history, plus a need for words that were commercially appealing, they went a little OTT.    Their choice of words has been our undoing.
Literally, of course, the colour opal can quite legitimately be described in Cottle's words........"Opal is a milky semi-transparent glass".............since that is what I guess an opal looks like, although Cottle appears to be at odds with original descriptions, historically, and has further confused the issue with his description.
According to Lustrousstone's quote of Cottle's description of Blanc-de-Lait (not 'du'), it would seem that his description does not match that of other authors, or the Pottery Gazette.

Must admit that I was surprised to see that Bernard was unsure of the correct description of Blanc-de-Lait, bearing in mind the length of time of his association with British pressed glass      

I hope that this might have helped, but if not, then apologies.

[Lustrousstone]

This of course assumes the Pottery Gazette is correct. The white (and indeed the other opaque colours) is vitro porcelain and is not opalescent. The semi-transparent is not vitro-porcelain but is opalescent. I need to look at this further but no time

[Lustrousstone]

The white is Blanc-de-lait because the 1882 pattern book IX cover states as the colours: Opal, Turquoise, Gold, Jet Venetian in several colours, Giallo, Blanc-de-lait, Malachite, Patent Ivory Queens [no apostrophe!] Ware, Decorated Opaque Stained Blanc-de-lait and new Tortoiseshell Ware. Blanc-de-lait also means white as milk and it is the white stuff that is found stained.

Pottery Gazette is a secondary source, not a primary one.

[Paul S.]

touche Christine    -  I also have a reprint copy of said pattern book  -  but please look at the heading on pages 1 through to 8  -  Slack and Hajdamach also use the apostrophe, I think the editor was trying to save ink on the front cover.

I won't argue with you regarding what the literal translation of Blanc-de-Lait might be, but can say for the benefit of those folk who may not have immediate access to this pattern book, that all illustrations shown are simply black outline drawings on a cream paper.   None of the wares is illustrated in colour, texture, or opacity or otherwise and whilst each is designated with a pattern No. there is no indication to which type of product these refer.       Whilst you and I can recognize certain shapes and patterns  - I see Bernard's 'Multiplication' vase is included on page 2  -  it is not possible to determine which of these items may or may not have been offered in B-de-L (just be looking at the booklet), although it's very probable to state which patterns were not.
If you look in Slack (page 44) you will see a B-de-L salt, and this corresponds to Sowerby design No. 1375 in your pattern book.
Surely, your...."white stuff stained" - is what we all know as simply Vitro-Porcelain, nothing remotely to do with opalescent glass??     The green stick in Hajdamach does not look like Vitro-Porcelain  - if it did it would look like the green Swan vase which stands next to it.

My opinion is that the Pattern book dated June 1882 is so lacking in product data, for the items shown, that aside from the Queen's Ivory Ware and perhaps the Nursery pieces, it is not possible to state accurately which were Vitro-Porcelain and which may have been intended to be seen as B-de-L or indeed any of the other specific products described on the front cover -  the above mentioned salt being a good example of ambiguity.
It's also my opinion that the white cannot be the B-de-L for the simple reason that the pattern book quotes 'Opal' as a separate colour from B-de-Lait  -  and as we all know Opal was Sowerby's name for white  -  therefore by deduction B-de-L is something other than white Vitro-Porcelain.

These are my opinions only, but am I reading into what you are saying that you believe Slack and Hajdamach to be wrong?    and I really must now go to bed.

[Lustrousstone]

My point is that Blanc-de-lait was available stained in colour and the items stained ("painted") are white and therefore Blanc-de-lait. Blanc-de-lait is the white vitro-porcelain not Opal, which is the opalescent. Bear in mind that the other colour names are very literal, so why would milk glass be called Opal and opalescent glass be called milk white (particularly in an era of full-fat opaque white milk rather than bluish skimmed milk). Yes I believe Hadjamach and Slack to be wrong and Cottle (who wrote THE book on Sowerby) to be right. Slack was not working from a primary source but a secondary one; I work in publishing and I know how can writers get it wrong, even in this day and age. Cottle starts his book by saying that date generally used (1760) for the start-up of Sowerby is probably wrong and the consequence of a misleading newspaper report of 1860ish!

Vitro-porcelain was not exclusive to Sowerby; it's merely (in the glass world) a descriptive term for glass, both white and coloured, that resembles glazed porcelain.

I'm also not convinced the candlestick in Hajdamach is stained.