Topic: Sowerby Lozenge details help

[Keencollector]

I have a Sowerby piece which I think is shown on CD no. 3, page 53 of 1885 pattern book.

 It is under sugars and creamers continued and is pattern number 1728.  It is showing a lozenge under this illustration which has R for the month and maybe a K or L for the year.

Does anyone have a clearer copy of this lozenge mark.
Thanks, Margaret.

[agincourt17]

I've checked my reference photos but I'm afraid that I don't have Sowerby pattern 1728 at the moment.

Assuming that the pattern numbers in the 166xx  and 17xx series run more-or-less chronologically (an assumption that does not always hold true), pattern 1728 should have been allocated in 1882 (year letter L) or 1883 (year letter K), but I'm afraid that's no much help in this case.

Month letter R = August.

There were 3 Sowerby registrations in August 1882:
RD 384455 of 9 August 1882 - described in Thompson and Cottle as a sugar basin.
RD 384455 of 9 August 1882 - described in Thompson and Cottle as a photo frame (so that is not pattern 1728)
RD 385624 of 29 August 1882 - a butter dish (which I have referenced as pattern 1706, a covered butter dish).

There were no Sowerby registrations in August 1883.

So the most likely candidate for Sowerby pattern 1728 would be RD 384455 of 9 August 1882 (which should have a lozenge reading 9-L-R-14).

Perhaps Paul S. has the design representation for RD 384455 for comparison with your sugar.

Fred.

[Keencollector]

Thanks for that useful information.  Since  number 1728 is in the 1885 pattern book I thought it would be later than 1882.   

This sugar does also have a small jug matching.  Lozenge is inside on curve onto base of both and has never been impressed into the mould enough to show the two side points of the diamond, but dish has peacock mark also.  I didn't know Sowerby was making yellow pearline glass at this time or ever.  It sure looks more like a Davidson primrose pearline colour to me.

 My printed copy of 1885 pattern book hasn't many pages so I referred to CD and found it on page 53.

[agincourt17]

Two lovely items, especially in that yellow opalescent glass.

The sugar bowl is certainly a dead ringer for the Sowerby 1728 pattern shape, and the registry date lozenges are a definitive indicator of design registrations no later than early 1883.

As far as I am aware, the patent for Davidson's pearline glass was not approved until 1889, so Davidson primrose pearline pieces would be certainly be considerably later than a Sowerby 1882 registration date would suggest.

I do have some reference photos for some Sowerby pieces in opalescent glass (mostly from designs registered between 1877 and 1879), and a couple are in yellow opalescent glass, but the intensity of the yellow colour seems to be quite a bit paler than the yellow appears in your pattern 1728 sugar and creamer (with a vague green tinge to it, and with the opalescence not particularly pronounced but rather making the yellow a bit milky too) .

All the other yellow opalescent glass reference pieces that I have positive attributions for are marked with RD numbers (so, 1883 on), but Greener & Co. and Burtles, Tate & Co produced pieces from their registered designs in yellow opalescent glass (though the yellow never seems as intense as that of the Davidson primrose pearline).

Intriguing.

Fred.

[Lustrousstone]

Was it a mould sold to Davidson that never had the marks removed? It wouldn't matter to consumers

[Paul S.]

I agree that this piece does look like Sowerby pattern 1728 - although regret I'm unable to see this shape in Kew Representations books  -  of course it could be that I've missed seeing it.

If Margaret is saying that the lozenge details she quotes are those shown on the Sowerby CD pages, they some caution is necessary.    Think I've tried using that method before, and came to the conclusion it was unreliable - from memory most diamonds from that source seem to all have the same details         It seems that diamonds shown in the factory pattern books may well not have been given actual details  -  just some random figures.
Are there any details on the actual piece that can be read??

I think the first of the three items mentioned by Fred should read 384454  -   although if I'm not mistaken there are five Nos. in all for Sowerby for August 1882, and think we can discount all except the first one in Thompson, which is 384453 - and which is described by Cottle as a 'bowl'.

Most of Sowerby's sugars from that period are on stems  -  and it's just possible that someone looking at a piece such as the shape of Margaret's might be inclined to think it was a bowl rather than a sugar.                  Just my opinion of course, but it's worth checking the image of 384453 at Kew

Anyway, regret I don't have a picture of 384453  -  very annoying since I was at Kew earlier today  -  so will have to wait until next time  -  unless someone can come up with the answer in the meantime. 

 

[Paul S.]

sorry, am I losing the plot.............   the opalescent bowl doesn't look like pattern 1726??    Margaret's bowl does however.

[Paul S.]

sorry, that was supposed to say  1728.

[agincourt17]

Sorry, Paul - thank you for pointing out the errors in my reply #1 .

I had assumed that the lozenge details that Margaret had described were those on the actual bowl that she possessed rather than those shown on the lozenge alonside the pattern book image. Perhaps I misinterpreted Margaret’s initial posting in the topic. We have indeed previously discussed the generic lozenge that appears denoting registered examples of designs in the Sowerby pattern books, and come to the conclusion that it was probably meant as no more than a token symbol and should read as such . Presumably Margaret can clarify the situation.

Whatever the reading of the lozenge may be, my point still stands that Sowerby pattern 1728 is likely to have been allocated in 1882 or 1883.

I do, however, need to made some corrections and clarifications in my reply #1 to this topic to read as follows:
“There were 5 Sowerby registrations in August 1882:
RD 384453 of 9 August 1822 - described in Thompson and Cottle as a bowl;
RD 384454 of 9 August 1882 - described in Thompson and Cottle as a sugar basin;
RD 384455 of 9 August 1882 - described in Thompson and Cottle as a photo frame (so that is not pattern 1728);
RD 385624 of 29 August 1882 - a butter dish (which I have referenced as pattern 1706, a covered butter dish);
RD 285625 of 29 August 1882 - described in Thompson and Cottle as a sugar basin.

So the most likely candidates for Sowerby pattern 1728 would be RD 384453 or RD 384454, both of 9 August 1882 (which should each have lozenge reading 9-L-R-14), or RD 285625 of 29 August 1882 (which should have a lozenge reading 29-L-R-13).”


The 2 photos I attached to reply #3 were simply to show examples of Sowerby's yellow opalescent glass known to have been used in Sowerby-attributed  designs registered 1877-1879. The actual pattern of the pieces shown in the photos are - firstly, Sowerby pattern 1254˝, and secondly, Sowerby pattern 1437. The shapes of these are patterns is irrelevant – it the actual colour of the glass body in both cases which is pertinent in comparison with that of Davidson pearline primrose glass.

Fred.

[Paul S.]

I've looked at Archive pictures for 384454 and 385625, and both items are stemmed sugars, and very noticably different from Margarets stem-less and heavily lobed piece.                So this leaves 384453, and as I don't have a picture then this will have to wait until I next visit Kew.
Whatever the truth regarding which Rd. No. for Margaret's item, it does seem that the bowl is a close match for Sowerby pattern 1728 - although I do appreciate the comments made so far regarding the lack of known opaque rimmed primose material from Sowerby's own moulds 1728.             This one may yet turn out to be something that wasn't originally from Sowerby.           

It may be that Margaret is able to decypher something from the diamond on her bowl. 

P.S.   think you meant 385625 on your last Rd. reference No.