Topic: Nouveau decanter ID help

[JOK]

I am trying to find out more about this decanter and who might have made it. My thoughts are Walsh or Stevens and Williams. The silver is dated Birmingham 1901 and it is made by Thomas Latham and Ernest Morton.

Exactly the same moulded honeysuckle design appears in the Walsh book on p.13 and it would fit for the fact that the design and decanter are both dated 1901. However, I don't have enough experience with Walsh to know that they did moulded, colourless glass. The design seems to appear in the opaline glass. I am also not sure about the shape of the decanter. Does anyone know who made the silver parts for Walsh? On the other hand, if the registration (375896) is for the honeysuckle design, rather than the lampshade shape, then it is pretty likely that the decanter is by Walsh and not a copy by another Stourbridge factory; or was this a fairly common pattern used by all the factories? 

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg311/jok23/100_1618.jpg
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg311/jok23/100_1620.jpg
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg311/jok23/100_1609.jpg
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg311/jok23/scan0001.jpg
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg311/jok23/100_1612.jpg

[Paul S.]

hello JOK - nice decanter - hope you have the stopper
Referring to Reynold's book - 'The Glass of John Walsh Walsh', and the original drawing of the Honeysuckle design (page 13) to which you refer ........I notice that the book directs us also to page 42  -  to plate 7 (which happens to be a double picture plate), showing actual photographs of an Opaline vase and the lampshade from page 13 (albeit with slight differences in shape).          These two pieces are vastly different in shape, style/appearance/colour, and the only characteristic they share in common is the Honeysuckly decoration.            The caption to this double plate says.........."pl.7 Vase and lampshade, reg. des. 375896."
My suggestion would be, therefore, that by implication this registration refers to the Honeysuckly design only, and not the shape of the product at all, since the pieces are completely different.
Whether you consider this provides evidence that your decanter is from Walsh, I don't know - might other factories have produced a honeysuckle design - and regret I can't help with your questions re the suppliers of silver to Walsh.
Might suggest also that you try a darker background when photographing clear pieces  -  I know it's not easy with clear glass, but grey and black might provide better contrast.
Sorry I can't be of more help
P.S.  to Mods...........    Is it o.k. to post images from this publication?

[JOK]

Thanks for that info and photography advice. Here are some better photos on a dark background.

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg311/jok23/100_1640.jpg
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg311/jok23/100_1637.jpg
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg311/jok23/100_1642.jpg
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg311/jok23/100_1643.jpg

Sadly it didn't come with the original stopper, but I actually bought it because it came with a silver topped Powell decanter, and some other decanters:
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg311/jok23/100_1626.jpg
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg311/jok23/100_1616.jpg

[Paul S.]

yes, shame you don't have the stopper, but like your taste in decanters - and thanks for the improvement in picture quality.

[Anne]

Paul, not if it's in copyright.

[Paul S.]

Is the copyright for books still 70 years - I'm not sure - but can say that Reynold's book was published in 1999.    Assuming we need to remove the images posted by JOK, then the attached may be reasonable substitutes to aid future searches.

Had some idea that I might be able to clarify this 'Honeysuckle' issue today, after visiting The National Archives, but now not so sure.        Walsh seem to have been more than keen on this particular flower - they registered a naturalistic design for Honeysuckle (No. 36184) in October 1885  -  long before the matter in question.

The Representations Book (at Kew) shows a drawn image of this shade, which was obviously the source of Reynolds illustration (page 13), and posted here by JOK.

However, what is both interesting and seems to be new information (for the shade), is that in the Registers Book (at Kew) the No. 375896 is preceeded by 375895  -  and as you can see, it appears from the wording/description of these consecutive Registrations that both items are connected.    The Class is again shown wrongly as IV (for obscurity and to evade competitors eyes - possibly).    Regrettably, I have foregotten what the column of other Nos. means (these two show a figure 7) - and my pix didn't include the column headings :pb:
The image in the Representations Book (and Reynolds book) includes the name of Walsh on the drawing - but oddly that information appears not to have been included in the Registers Book, unless the No. 7 is a code for a company name.

It's possible that these consecutive Nos. may be an example of the fairly common practice whereby manufacturers registered, separately, both the shape and design of the same object.

Perhaps because of the period involved, when decanters were very fashionable, Walsh certainly seem to have made more than their fair share of shapes and designs, so this moulded example may well be one of theirs, simply because it is so similar in design to the Honeysuckle decoration on the shade  -  but, of course, we still can't be certain. :- JOK, have you been through all the patterns at the back of Reynolds, just in case your decanter is included in the book??
Anyway, if nothing else, my pix will take the place of those that now need to be removed, and hope people can read behind the watermark - I'm still practising.

 

[Anne]

Yes Paul, 70 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Historical_background

Re removing JOK's images, we can't do that as they are hosted on an external website. JOK would be well-advised to remove the infringing image as it could be a cause of a complaint, against him and the service he is using, by the copyright owner.

[Paul S.]

o.k. - let's hope he is still following this thread

[JOK]

Thanks for all that research. I have been through the Reynolds book and found similar shaped decanters, but with cut patterns. Interestingly many of the decanters seem to be specifically made to accommodate silver fittings.


RE copyright - it is my understanding of copyright law (and I happen to be a lawyer) that sections of copyrighted material may be reproduced for either non-commercial use or private study, and I am assuming this forum falls within one of those categories. Further, regarding the copyright attached to the Reynolds book in particular, it appears that the images are public records belonging to either the Public Records Office or the relevant state funded bodies acknowledged in the book (public museums). The copyright on this publication would therefore apply to the text, composition and personally produced images (photographs), rather than the publicly owned documents. However, if there is still an issue with the image I can remove it.

[Paul S.]

thanks JOK.........looks as though we are at a standstill on the decanter for the time being.

Re copyright, you may well be correct as far as honest people like ourselves are concerned.          However, and I'm only guessing, but it might be that GMB Moderators are concerned with the fact that this is a public forum, and information placed here could, arguably, be subject to theft, the possible illegal use of which might then be outside their control.
If it were permissable to use sections of copyright material, that would help us in some instances where there might be a need to quote sections from literature or reproduce an image - both of which might save time and convey a point far better than wordy descriptions            You'll have seen already, of course, that The National Archives do insist that the GMB watermark images originating from Kew.

Let's see what Anne decides.