Topic: tavern /pub glass..

[bat20]

Hi all,i found these the other day and it was the pink grey colour that drew me to them,on two  you could have missed the gadjet marks,but one of them has a T mark,still not as obvious as some i've come across,they have a little texture on the underside of the bowl with a kind of a flat fluting on the inside so i think their mould blown, lots of air bubbles and bits in them as well.The main reason for the post is because of the thickness of the bases are they "deceptives"or is it just a style thing,also at 5.5 wd and 11cm ht would they be a small wine glass,many thanks..

[Paul S.]

thickness of the base has nothing to do with criteria for being a 'deception glass'.           It's the thickness/depth of the bowl that determines whether a glass is of the deception sort or not.            These utility pub/tavern glasses tend to be made with an all over thickness and seem, usually, to hold a fairly honest capacity  - generally, their size is larger anyway than what is normally understood to be a deception/toastmasters glass.       
Regret I'm not sure as to which drink they'd have been used for  -  possibly too small for ales (although something like barley wine might be a contender), so you may be correct in suggesting wine/port as more likely beverages.           Ocassionaly, these are found where the bottom of the inside has been dulled and appears worn - this can be caused by using the glass for hot toddy............the dull effect being caused by the crushing of the sugar with a toddy stick.            I think the States equivalent is called a flip.

Re the gadget mark.............this always seems to give some cause for disagreement.............this T or Y mark is believed by many to be the result of the connection with the pontil being 'sheared' off (some form of scissors presumably).              However, the gadget does leave some impression where the collar of the tool presses on the top of the foot.             Unfortunately, this mark is far less easily detected.

These glassed can be found with quite sharp pontil scars, rather crude ground/polished depressions and as you show, gadget marks.
It's possibly those with gadget marks that can be dated more easily - since this method of holding the foot was probably used little after 1890, and not before 1860/65.

No idea as to the origin of your glasses, unfortunately.            The pink colour that you mention might just possibly be some small degree of sun purpling.         Forget quite the chemical action, but am sure there's much on the Board's search if you have a look.

[bat20]

Thanks Paul,packed with useful info as usual,so the T and Y marks don't necessarily mean a gadjet was used,if i'm getting you and i should be looking for marks on top that have held the foot.I've collected a few now of what i thought are tavern glasses including this one that has a ground pontil although not the colour i expect and i can't find any tell tail signs of a gadjet and just as a matter of interest i have some with the T and the Y mark looking very wobbly and blown, but without any sign of wear on the base

[neil53]

Hi, just to add to the comments on deceptive glasses of this type, although they are rare they do exist.  The image below is of one I sold on eBay earlier this year.

Neil

[Paul S.]

hi Neil  -  thanks very much for that information - have to admit I'd not seen a deception in that shape.           Just goes to show.          I see the ordinary sort quite commonly  -  will have to keep an eye out for your sort

I had in fact just typed some waffle and you pipped me to it, but I've amended slightly my comments, but will let the rest stand  -  if you have any further comments re these things please do share. 

""pix of some 'deception' glasses attached.....they seem to come in this wine/sherry/port shape rather than ale shapes (however, see Neil's enlightenment on this matter).
You can see the thickness of the walls, and the inside of the bottom of the bowl which almost always comes to a blunt point.                 The smallest one (at the front), is pressed as opposed to being blown like the others - but must admit I'm in two minds as to whether it might not even be a penny lick - although with licks the bottom of the bowls seem to be flat usually, not pointed.

The Y and T marks - being produced by the gadget - is supported by authors such as Charles Hajdamach, R. Wilkinson, John Brooks  -  it was just that some time back I referred to this fact and was told the effect was produced by 'shearing' the pontil attachment.           I'd suggest that not all these authors can be wrong, so perhaps we should go back to saying 'definitely the result of the gadget'.
Marks on the top of the foot seem very difficult to see, and probably even worse to photograph.

Colour of glass varies, and a pale almost straw tinge is found occasionally - might indicate soda glass, possibly.            This item is a drawn stem variety - a two piece glass where the bowl and stem are formed from one lump (as opposed to the more usual three separate parts of bowl, stem and foot).         The stem being drawn away from the bowl metal, then the foot made and added separately.
Sometimes known as drawn shank or straw stem, to separate them from a stuck shank glass (the three part job).

The occasional  lack of wear on a gadget marked glass might indicate that these have been taken from old stock that had perhaps been stored and hardly used - I've seen a few examples.

These glasses can be found without a Y or T mark, but with a period look, and at the underside of the foot show an almost spiral looking impression in the centre.............thought to be an improvement on the gadget or some variety of same  -  later than about 1870.""

[oldglassman]

Hi,
       quote " The Y and T marks - being produced by the gadget - is supported by authors such as Charles Hajdamach, R. Wilkinson, John Brooks  -  it was just that some time back I referred to this fact and was told the effect was produced by 'shearing' the pontil attachment.           I'd suggest that not all these authors can be wrong, so perhaps we should go back to saying 'definitely the result of the gadget'. "
Marks on the top of the foot seem very difficult to see, and probably even worse to photograph.

 I think you will find that these authors are saying that a glass with a Y or T mark were finished off with the use of a Gadget,not that the T or Y  marks were made by the gadget,the gadjet was a tool to hold the object for final fire polishing after the parts had been assembled,the foot having been delivered to the gaffer either as a pre made foot or a gob that was shaped after attachment to the base of the stem , this foot or gob having been gathered on a punty , this punty had to be removed which was done by shearing with 2 or 3 cuts with scissors to remove it from the rod,the gadget then was attached gently gripping the glass by the foot and the glass fire polished.
 Most current blowers of glass seem to confirm that this was how the Gadget was used and how the marks were produced , a call to "Georgian glassmakers" will supply you with there opinion  based on many years of research , and any of you who know Basil Loveredge should ask his thoughts , I believe he will agree .

cheers ,
              Peter.

[Paul S.]

thanks for that Peter...........I stand corrected, and appreciate your help.

It's perhaps unfortunate that Charles Hajdamach's words, in his tome on C19 glass, might be considered a little less than clear.
He discusses the use of the gadget, and speaks of the ghost impression left by the jaws, despite these being covered by asbestos string.      Without making any mention of shearing, he sates simply that "the mark left on the underside would resemble a letter T or Y".

[bat20]

Thanks to all,i'm enjoying learning about this subject very much,but i do realise i need to invest in some more books ,scuppered by kids birthdays and the like,the only one i have is 'old glass',by O.N Wilkinson(not sure he is a supporter of the current royal blood line )which i'm enjoying..