EDITORS
David Watts
27 Raydean Road
BARNET, Herts. EN5
A;;
G-LeLl..SS
CARCI
N EW S
RVAII.11111MMINIMI.
John Towse
25-27 Curtain Road
London, EC2A 3PH,
No. 33. January 1986
TASTE AND TECHNIQUE: Crisis in the Glass Industry of the 17th Century
By R. J. Charleston
The rise of the Venetian glass industry, conventionally accepted as occurring
in the mid-15th century, is particularly associated with, among many able
glass-makers, Angelo Barovier.
He Was an outstanding personality, patronized by
the Court of Milan, and a friend of the ducal architect, Filarete, who envisaged a
palace in the Utopian city of Sforzinda with walls lined with jasper – a
calcedenio invented by Barovier in addition to his more important “cristallo”.
Cristallo, a surrogate rock crystal, was a soda-lime- silica glass made of pure
siliceous pebbles and purified ash from the Levant.
Other members of the Barovier family were important in the development of
millefiori and enamelling; Angelo’s grandson, Anzoleto, received commissions from
Isabelle d’Este in 1505, 1512 and 1527.
Isabelle was one of the great collectors
and connoisseurs of her age, as was her son Federigo II Gonzaga who, in 1536,
commissioned a crystal vase to a wooden pattern supplied by him – a not uncommon
practice at that time.
Church patronage was also prominent.
These facts show
that Muranese glass-makers of this period were no mere artisans but were
recognized well beyond Venetian boundaries as artistic personalities in their own
right.
By 1500 Venetian glass was at its zenith and the nobility abroad coveted this
prestigious and profitane industry.
In spite of attempts (by the Signoria) to
stem the emigration, long established, of Venetian glass-workers, factories were
set up in Vienna
in 1428 by Onossorius de Biondi°, and elsewhere in Austria – the most important
being at Hall, near Innsbruck.
Antwerp, another important centre, is associated
with Bernard Swerts (or Schwartz, 1537) and Jean de Lame (1549).
In 1567 Jean
Carre brought the Venetian glass-making tradition from Antwerp to London; he was
succeeded by Giacomo Verzelini, father figure of English glass-making, also from
Antwerp.
Similar events in Sweden, Denmark and Germany established a network of “facon
de Venise” glasshouses throughout northern Europe during the second half of th
16th century; two examples illustrated this.
First was the glasshouse at
Beauwels, founded by Engelbert Colinet (1506), from which a pattern book, dated
about 1550-55, survives.
This illustrates two prestigeous pieces presented to
the Emperor Charles V and his son Philip II in 1549; then comes an illustrated
section beginning “here follow
glasses
in the Venetian style as beautiful as those
made in Italy, for our master craftsmen are all from Murano (and thereabouts)…,
and these glasses are
made
nowhere
else in the
country, for the masters have come
expressly to work in the furnaces of Messieurs de Colinet”.
Some of the designs
recall the glasses decorated with tiny pearls of turquoise glass long associated
with Antwerp.
The second example is England itself, where the facon de Venise
glasses of the late 16th century characteristically have inscriptions in English
and are associated with Verzelini.
In 1592 Sir Jerome Bowes took over the patent
but only one intact glass survives from his period; this foreshadows a phase in
English glass-making when wine
glass
stems became exaggeratedly tall.
Important
subsequent developments in England were the change to coal as fuel, following the
royal proclamation in 1615, and the consequent invention of the
glasshouse cone, first recorded in Dublin in 1696 but certainly
introduced earlier. .
Venetian styles always exploited the characteristics of
“cristallo” although the metal often had a green-, blue- or
greyish tinge. The French essayist Michel de Montaigne used a
pane of it to reduce glate from white paper, so eating eye
strain!
During the 16th century the pure lines of 3-piece
wine glasses gave way to various types of decoration – ribbing
and pincered wings. Glasses of “extraordinary fashions”
ushered in the era of pincered “dragon stems”, often
incorporating opaque white and coloured (commonly, opaque red)
threads. The Netherlands specialized in dragon stems while
the Italian preference was f6r flowers and. leaves. In
addition to these “verres de parade” the more bread-and-butter
lines are illustrated by the orders of John Greene between 1667
and 1672 to Alvise Morelli in MUrane. His scale drawings
combine simplicity of design with normally short, stems,
explicitly ordered in “very good white and clear cristall,.
mettall% Shortcomings in the quality led Greene to warn that
“it will,not be in my interest to send to Venice…. we now
make new very good drinking glasses in England”. This
sentiment was
.
echoed by, John. Evelyn who said,
in
1673, that
th
–
,t
English crystal Was “offiner mettall than that of Muran…”
and by thaconcern
the Venetian ambassador at the growing
home competition.
George Ravenseroft’setUp
–
a furnace at the Savoy, London,
and ‘in March 1674 petitioned for a patent to make ” a sort of
crystalline glass resembling rock crystal”, granted to hith
in
May.
Problems of crizzling were overcome by June 1676 and
by
the following year the metal had been “brought to better
perfection” and the raven’s head seal introduced. On the
continent the invention of chalk-glass and the trend towards
thick vessels to receive the new decorative engraving all
contributed to the decline in the Venetian influence abroad.
From this time onwards, glass-makers had to.follow the new
trends and flourish, ‘
–
or stay in the Venetian tradition and
go
downhill.
The meeting, held on 20th June 1985, was kindly arranged
by
Mrs Barbara Morris at the Sotheby Works of Art
,
Course building
by the kind invitation of Sotheby’s.
The co-hosts were Mrs M.
Boydell, Mrs J. Dillistone and Mr G.F. Watts.
Line drawings of flower (above)’and dragon stem glasses.
AGM AND SPECIMENS MEETING
As always, the specimens meeting proved a very popular event. The official business
over, votes of thanks were given to the Honorary Officers and members of the
Committee for
all their work on-behalf of the Circle during the past year. Mr Charleston was then
joined
on the platform by Mrs Bell and Barbara Morris whose combined expertise competently
spanned
the diverse array of glassware brought by members for our interest and enlightenment.
A preliminary sorting had arranged them – the glassware not:the experts – in
roughly
chronological order. The earliest pieces were Roman and included a mould-blown
‘date’
flask and an opaque red flask randomly decorated with trails of yellow.
A big jump in
time
then took us to the early Ravenscroft period represented by a wrythen ale with
pincered
-3
wings to the stem and a folded foot, c. 1690; a fine but ‘ennaial
–
baluater featured a
prominent triple knop over the baluster stem.
Decorative blown moulding was exemplified by
another rare wine glass with a diamond pattern matching onboth bowl and foot, c, 1735,
while an attractive jelly glass had similar moulding to the bowl but this time over a plain
domed foot.
Dated a little later were a miniature desert glass and a large jelly, more in
the style of a sweetmeat but with a thick flat foot.. Yet another jelly, with a
distinguished provenance from the Henry Brown and Horridge collections, featured Jacobite
engraving above an air-beaded stem.
The engraver, ‘B’ in Dr Seddon’s classification, had,
unusually, combined two identical closed buds with a completely separate spray of foliage,
on the interpretation of which neither the owner nor our experts could-shed light.
Some pieces apparently belied their appearance.
A candlestick with Silesian stem, in
spite of its elegance, was felt to have come from a•.gaffer at least a century later than the
style suggested. A flat-footed baluster, a tall ale with opaque twist stem and a ‘Lynn’
decanter all displayed features indicative of a nineteenth century origin, or later. This
may not matter if you nevertheless like the. piece and the price was right. But it is
becoming increasingly important to learn to distinguishethe fine details of form, metal and
craftsmanship in identifying old glass.
Fine examples of cut glass were two jugs with the step cutting and deep pillar cutting
so characteristic of,the-early nineteenth century.
A-problem piece from the’Same period
was a mould-blown spirit decanter; the pattern
.
suggested an American origin but the matching
stopper
was
distinctly Irish. Typical of later in the century were a jar by Stevens and
Williams decorated with three pale yellow bosses and polished engraving, a slag-glass
press-moulded sphinx and a good example of Mary Gregory white enamelling on a green convex
plaque.
Early continental glass was not represented apart from a small sweetmeat, c. 1780; of
perhaps Dutch origin.
A champfered-corner blue spirit bottle decorated with feathered
white trailing, 18/19th Century; had all the hallmarks of Bohemia, and from the same region
came a delightful small beaker enclosing three dice and engraved with two barrels.
From the present century came two Whitefriars goblets while an Orrefors bowl, designed
by Held and magnificently engraved with three mothers and their children picking grapes off
trellised vine, was, unusually, signed by the engraver (T.L. for Thure Loftgren).
Works by
living artists belied the still prevalent belief that Glass Circle interests remain steeped
in the eighteenth century.
These included a dish finely enamelled in the Islamic taste, a
rose bowl engraved using stone wheels on a flexible drive by Rildalutherford, and
tour-de-force creations from Murano, particularly memorable being a convex bowl with deeply
slashed decoration rocking gently on a mirror base by Pino Signoretto.
Finally, from, the sublime to the truly amazing, we are still wondering whether an
extraordinary vessel about the size of a rugby ball but with a hollow concavity in one side
was, as claimed by the owner, a glass bee-swarm gatherer!!!
The meeting, held at the Westminster Hospital on 22nd October, 1985„ was arranged by Dr
Kersley; the hosts were Mr and Mrs Bell, Miss Frazer, Miss Haywood and Miss Toynbee Clark
A NEW LOOK AT THE BEILBYS – I. The Beilbys as drawing masters
By R.J. Charleston
Both of the brothers William and Thomas Beilby became Drawing ?Masters; more is known
about William although the evidence indicates that Thomas may have been just as proficient
an artist. Their father was a jeweller and silversmith and William, the third son (born
1740) was educated in Durham and apprenticed in Birmingham to John Hazeldine, an enameller
and painter, at a time when enamelling on copper was in its heyday; noeevidence has been
produced for the idea that he learnt the craft in Bilston!
From a portrait miniature,
his appearance seems supercilious – a view apparently held by his apprentice, Thomas
Bewick, who was articled to his brother Ralph, the engraver, after the Beilby family had
moved to Newcastle about 1760.
1762 is the earliest date on William’s signed enamelled
glasses.
He taught Ralph and Mary, Ralph becoming Bewick’s partner.
In 1767 William advertised in a Newcastle newspaper that he “proposes teaching young
ladies and gentlemen in the several branches of the art of drawing”; an exhibition of work
of pupils from the “academy” was held in 1778.
His father died in 1765 and his mother in
1778. By then, Thomas had moved to Sheffield. Bewick had gone to London in 1776 and
William followed in 1779, when a new Academy was set up in Battersea Square next to the
workhouse; the cost of A year’s board and tuition was £30! The building is shown in a
delightful print signed by William as draughtsman, as part of an advertisement.
In 1785
he married Miss Eliza Murton of Putney Heath. In 1788 William and Eliza (and possibly
also Mary)
.
moved to Scotland, where William presumably continued to teach drawing in
Ceres, a small village near to Cupar and St Andrews. He also acted as an agent for
Bewick’s prints, receiving copies of his “Quadrupeds” in 1790 (in London) and the “History
of British Birds” in 1804. Eliza died in 1808 and William finished his days in Hull
where his son (William III) had prospered as a Customs Clerk.
•
Thomas, the youngest son, was born in 1747 and a silhouette portrait.survives.
He was
probably taught by William on whom his style is modelled. The Leeds Mercury tells us
that in 1769 he proposed opening a drawing school but by 1772/3 he had moved to Sheffield
where he acted as an agent for the Beilby/Bewick workshop. In August 1775 he paid a bill
for 2cwt of glass, but the nature of it is unknown.
His drawing interests continued;
although the latest dated drawing known is dated 1780 – the year he married Elizabeth Fell
– he was apparently still teaching drawing, in an Academy in the village of Drumfield, in
1784′.
By 1786 he had moved to Birmingham where his interests diversified as he became a
partner in a firm purveying brass inkpots!
He died in 1826 leaving paintings, prints and
sketches from nature.
Drawings and watercolours from the Paul Mellon collection in Yale; the Alnwick Castle
collection and two private collections, show that William and Thorne’s often drew the same
view with slight variations in the use of detail.
William, particularly, favoured the
inclusion of a shepherd leaning against-a tree. . A view of the Old Tyne Bridge. in . •
Newcastle, by WilliaM, was engraved by Ralph; this and other prints indicate that he was
not
a
very sensitive engraver.
In addition to castles, such as Bothal and Ravensworth, and stately homes, the Beilbvs
painted flowers and insects signed ‘Beilby’; the insects may also be found on enamelled
glass.. The flowers and cartouches found in the paintings are echoed on the
white-enamelled glasses, and are found again in a group of opaque-white scent flasks with
dates between 1776 and 1787. The dates and inscriptions ressemble those on the white
enamelled glasses. Particularly diagnostic was a group of three overlapping flowers
found also on a tumbler inscribed “Success to the Coal Trade”, on a decanter in the V &
A., and on other pieces.
Two
dozen such scent flasks had now been identified, although
on some the painting on the reverse was of poor quality, suggesting that this might hays
been done by another hand. Opaque white glass from Sunderland was available in Newcastle
in 1776 and William could have continued this activity after his move to London.
This meeting was held at the Royal Entomological Society by the kind invitation of
Broadfield House Museum, Kingswinford.
WELCOME TO NEW MEMBERS
We are pleased to welcome the following new members:
Sir Paul Hackforth Jones,
Forrest, ACT, AUSTRALIA
Dr Jack Martin
Corning Museum of Art, USA
Mrs J.M. Martin
Orpington, Kent
John Sandon Esq.
Phillips Auctioneers, London
The Hon. Mrs M. Gibson
.
London, SW3
Mr D.G.U. de B. Wilmot
Alton, Hants.
M. Fairbank Esq.
. Maidstone, Kent
M. Wallis Esq.
Bournemouth, Hants.
Miss Kate Crowe
London, NI
Mr D. Hughes
London, W.14
Miss Christine Jones
Museum of London
Mrs John Newgas
London, N6
Miss Christina Nelson
The.St.. Louis Art Museum,
Missouri, USA
Miss. Anne Towse
London, NW8
Mr J.D. Butler
Walkington, Beverley,
N. Humberside
Mrs Rosalind de Wesselow
Fittleworth, Sussex
Mr David Buck
London
Ms Leslie Greene Bowman
Los Angeles County Museum
of Arts, California, USA
CIIMMON
n
GLASS AT THE FAIRS
One’of the numerous pleasures to be encountered when_visiting antique fairs is meeting
old friends, both living and antique. Two such occasions were the Burlington House Fair
and the Chelsea’ Antiques Fair. ‘ Familiar faces associated with never-to-be-forgotten
glasses always gladden one’s heart.
Still, graceful shapes, beautiful pioportions,
possibly embellished by cutting, engraving or stippling do make the heart beat faster.
question of affordability only enhances the joy of hopeful anticipation. Even lack of
succese or the
.
absence of worthwhile pieces does leaVe one somehow richer after a hantfote’
something to put: on the shelf or fill a gap lathe cabinet.
The Burlington House Fair, held from the 11th to the 22nd September, more than lived up
to. the highest eXpectations. The magnificentrsetting’of the Royal Academy of Arts itself
established the tone for the fair. The inclusion Of several dealers from abroad, notably
from Paris, has given a remarkable sophistication to the occasion. The falrAS now a
elegant show, displaying the best avialable in the fine and applied arts.
,
Unfortunately,
glass was not represented to any great extent. Spink’s had a good group
–
of French glass
paperweights from the three principal factories but only Delosmosne displayed any quantit
y
of glass. ‘A good Beilby decorated mallet decanter and One or two interesting glasses from
the same workshop were displayed on their stand. Several pieces of French opaline,
including an exceptional clock in ‘bleu lavande’, and the usual selection of 18th century
drinking glasses in all the main groups were on show; mention must also be made of some good
English and Irish cut glass
Perhaps the rarest piece was an elegant Newcastle glass,
engraved with a merchant ship and a shield bearing the monogram of the Dutch East India
Company, VOC.
The 61st Chelsea Antiques Fair at the Chelsea Old Town Hall was a much more modest, yet
equally stimulating affair..
Somervale Antiques had a truly comprehensive display of 18th .
and 19th century drinking glasses, both coloured andecolourless.
Several green, blue and
amethyst glasses, decanters coolers and decorative pieces were on offer. A firing glass of
drawn trumpet shape in blue, green and white, and a baluster with a semi-bell bowl with
pouring spout and, outward folded rim, on a domed and folded foot were generally admired. An
early Ellzi.ish butter dish, the cover and stand deCorated with radially ribbed moulding and
with air-beaded finials to the cover seemed to attract special attenton.
Jeeeette Hayhurst, in a prominent corner position
n was exhibiting fine English and
Contineutaleglass. Our attenton was dean to a winenglasstWith pan-topped bowl, engraved
with trailing vines over a double-knoeeedeair-twiatetem, and a rare Jacobite engraved
cordial of drawn trumpet shape en a stem with a mercury twist. By way of contrast were a
number of Venetian or facon de Venise drinking glasses of the 17th century as well as an
early Nuremberg goblet.
All in all a most enjoyable display of discriminating taste.(J.T.)
-0-o-
0
WILFUL
DESTRUCTTON OF THE
CFLEr7ATED P077TAND VASE
We must all have been subject to rare mom nts Of excitement. The impact of the
original retort which apecared in The Tiaecs en February 8th, 1843, and was recently
reprinted, was such, that it is worth.sharing.
“Our readers and the public generally will be much grieved to learn that the splendid
specimen of Greek art known as the Portland Vase (formerly the Barberini vase) which adorned
the centre of the ante-room adjoining the apartments containing the collection of Sir W.
Hamilton, has been irrepaeably broken by a miscreant who visited the Museum yesterday
afternoon.
It appears from the information we have been enabled to obtain through the courtesy of
Sir Henry Ellis, the principal librarian, that the museum was open to the public yesterday
as usual. About a quarter before 4 o’clock several persons were in the Hamiltonian-room as
well as in the ante-room viewing the various specimens Of ancient art. – The’attention of
the visitors was, abaiit the tiae specified, attracted from their agreeable persuit by
hearing a loud crash
on hastening to ascertain the cause, they found that which was the
“admired of all adMirere in that department of the museum scattered in’ fragments about the
floor. The consternation was great, everyone fearing lest he might be considered a
6
participator in the demoliton.
No one attempted to leave the. apartments; and if they ad
they would have been frustrated, for no sooner was the sound heard on the outside of the
room than the doors were immediately closed. Mr Hawkins, who has the superintendence of
that department, then questioned the persons in the apartments, all 0 whom gave
satisfactory answers until the delinquent himself was taxed, when he at once acknowledged
that he had done the mischief. He was immediately given into custody, and conveyed to Bow
Street Station, and afterwards underwent a partial examination before Mr ‘Jardine. He
refused to give his name, or any account of himself; but it
was
subsequently ascertained
that he had been living at a coffee house in Long-acre and that his name is William Loyd
(sic) a native of Dublin.
When taken into custody the prisoner was found to have only 9d. in his possession; and
it is therefore assumed that his only motive for committing the wanton destruction of this
ancient and national relic was a morbid desire for notoriety, strengthened, no doubt, by
straitened circumstances.
In this, however, the delinquent is too likely to be
disappointed; for it is a question whether a magistrate has the power to do more han inflict
a fine of 5/-, or three months imprisonment.
The loss to the Museum and to the world generally it is impossible to supply. The
was valued at £1000 by the authorities of the establishment, but of course this sum is
merely nominal. It was deposited in the British-Museum in the year 1810 bylis Grace the
Duke of Portland, and has always been considered to be his property, hence the name of the
“Pottland Vase”.
It was found about the middle of the 16th century about two miles and
half from Rome, in the road leading from Frascati. At the time of its discovery-(so-says
the synopsis) it was enclosed in a marble sarcophagus within a sepulchral
–
Chamber, under the
Mount called Monte di Grano. The material of which the vase was formed was glass; the
figures, whiohwere in relief,
–
wereóf
,
a beautiful• opaque white, and the ground was in
perfect harmony with the figures, and was of a beautiful dark transparent blue. The
subject of the figures has hitherto remained in obscurity, but. the design and sculpture were
truly admirable. This unique ornament was for more than two centuries the principal
subject of admiration in the Barberini Palace. It was purchased about 30 years ago by the
Duchess of Portland from Sir William Hamilton, and in the year above stated was deposited in
the British Museum for the gratification of the public.”
Fortunately the damage was not “irreparable” and the vase was eventually restored with
consumate skill. The culprit was identified as a William Lloyd, but he denied this name,
refusing to say what it was.
He admitted guilt, claiming, “I was suffering at the time
from a kind of nervous’excitement”. – In thAnlagistrate’s court, Lloyd could only be charAed
with breaking the glass case – the property of the Museum – in which the vase was enclosed.
He was sentenced to a fine of £3 or two months’ hard labour; the fine was paid.
In 1945
the British Museum purchased the vase from the Duke of Portland.
BOOR REVIEWS
APERcUS DE L’HISTOIRE DE LA VERRERIE ANCIENNE D’APRES LES DONNEES DE LA VALLEE DU NIL, DET
LA PROCHE-ORIENT ET DE L’EUROPE
BY Julia L. Scapova.
200 pp., 48 line drawings, 19 diagrams. Published by the University
of Moscow, 1983.
Mme Julia Scapova will be known to serious students of ancient glass from her
contributions at recent Congresses of the International Association of the History of Glass,
In Berlin in 1977 she discussed the fragment of a beaker of the “Hedwig” group excavated
at Novogrouduk in 1962, and in London in 1979 she read a paper on “Les origines
–
du verve”.
In the book under review she has made it her expressed aim to make .a coherent pattern of
development of glass within the limits of time and place, she. has set herself. She is ft:417
aware that many of her conclusions must remain theories and open to discussion as
scholarship unrolls new facts4
–
One interesting proposition is that glass existed as a man-made material 500-600 yea
.
rs
before it was utilized as such for glazes and for vessels.
Its earliest emergence she sees
as cloSely interwoven with that of faience (in the sense of quartz frit-ware, or powdered
quartz, shaped by moulding and eventually glazed).
She quotes many western scholars, and
naturally even more Russian ones, and it is tantalizing that so little of Russian
scholarship is available to us, as her book is in Russian throughout (the present reviewer
7
–
had to rely on a
7-page typed resume in French).
Here
she mentions three Russian finds of ancient” glass-hoase sites by name
(Baktchissarai, end of 2nd c.
AD.;
Driestre, 3rd c. AD. and Khersones, 4-5th c. AD.; also a
fourth at Thanais, which is uncertain). Apparently they all come within the range of Roman
glass. These finds are not illustrated or localized on maps.
Many of her arguements are
apparently based on analyses of chemistry and technology, and are explained by diagrams and
tables, but
here again
the language barrier makes understanding difficult. We
:
can only
wish that Mme Scapova could
find some way of sharing
her learning with non-Russian readers
in real depth.
Ada Polak.
PORTRATGLASER. DAS GLASERNE MINIS AUS DREI JAHRHUNDERTEN
By S. Baumggrtner, 280 pp., 403 b/w & col. figs., 1981,. Price DM 98.
The first book entirely devoted to portrait glasses is the one by E. Schenk zu
Schweinsberg, 1970, Bildnisglgser der Sammlung
.
Heine in ‘Karlsruhe; a fine publication of 111
pp. and 43 figures. Now, likewise at the instigation of Herr Heine, or Sabine Baumggrtner
has produced
a
much larger work on the same theme, based on glasses not only from the Heine
collection but also internationally from 42 private collections – not from public ones.
6
This is valuable because a number of these privately
owned
pieces had not been published
previously (although not knowingatheit,whereabouts can be frustrating !).
For many’ of the effigies-On-glass the original source examples were found, such as
painted portraits, prints; medals and coins; these are also shown in the book. Among the
profuse illustrations.are’enlargements of a number of engravings and especially stunning.is
a whole-page blow-up of a Wolff stippled double portrait
.
of Prince Willem V and’his wife.
Most of the persons portrayed have been identified and the text gives useful particulars
about them. • Because the art of portraiture On glass flourished especially in central
Europe, it is understandable that as regards choice
:
there is a strong. Germanic dominance:
103 Germanic persons against 50 of other nationalities'(13 French, 10 Russian, 6 Dutch, 6
English, 4 Czech, 3 Polish, 2 American, and one each of Belgian, Danish, Swedish, Italian,
Icelandic and Ethiopian). One could wish for some more work of recent date (such as
Laurence Whistler’s portrait of Pope Johannes XXIII). Techniques represented are: wheel
engraving (132 portraits), lithophanic engraving (13), stipple (2), line (2), etching:(1),
colour (64), pressed glass (13), encrusted paste (44) and moulded busts (10).
The most
successful portraits are the coloured ones, including lithophanic engraving (who will ever
revive that extraordinary technique which produces a photographic likeness?). Menzel and
Samuel Mohn played safe by using silhouettes while wheel-engraved portraits do not always
come off. .
An admirable book. Never mind the absence of Bonnie Prince Charlie – he never looked
handsome on glass. And never mind that this informative book is in German (if you do: why
not learn some German which, after all, is the second language for any glass-minded person).
Frans Smit.
GLASS CIRCLE FINANCES
Tim Udall, acting
Hon.
Treasurer,
describes, for the many members who are unable
to attend the AGM, how the Glass Circle uses
your subscriptions.
In the year ending 30.9.1985 the total
income (excluding some advance advertising
revenue for Glass Circle 5) was £3130. Of
this, £2700 came from subscriptions and £430
from donations, sale of publications,
advertising circulars’and interest.
The
total expenditure was £700 of which £450 went
on the printing and dispatch of Glass Circle
News and the Secretary’s circulars which all
members receive; the net cost of meetings was
£150 and other expenses amounted to £100.
The surplus for the year was £2430.
Most of the costs involved in running our
meetings are covered by members who act as
co-hosts, and by charges to visitors; the
shortfall amounts to no more than 5.5% of
subscription income.
It is, of course, the
papers read at meetings that provide the
original material for Glass Circle
publications. The speakers who so generously
give their time receive out-of-pocket expenses
but no fee.
it i4 important to stress that
the subscription does NOT, and is not intended
to, cover the cost of meetings.
So please
come forward and offer yourself
as
a co-host
from time to time and remember that all guests
must be paid for by those who invite them!
The policy of the Committee is thac as little
as possible of the financial burden of running
a meeting should fall on the Circle.
What, then, happens to the profit?
The
surplus goes towards the printing and, now
very considerable, distribution costs of our
Glass Circle publication. This, every member
receives as part of his fully paid-up
membership. On the 15th December 1985 about
one quarter of the 1985/86 subscriptions were
still outstanding.
Please check that you
have paid yours for the sooner the subs roll
in the sooner will it be possible to get
moving on Glass Circle 6.
Glass Citcle 5 is
expected shortly from the printers.
A copy of the*balance sheet is available
from Tim Udall,’:Forge Corner, Troston, Bury St
Edmunds, Suffolk, IP31 IEW.
UK members send
SAE.
FREDERICK
CARDER
CORNING COMMENT
lour comments on out catalog, Er
___;ec
___I-5-1.c1t.s:_
r
t
____St—a–91-a
ss
e_S.,
t
t.t
ate most apprecated. Thete is one passage which I do fer.I needs some
further
elplaaation. The 1933 “smashiag
of
Steubea was not “apparently
wanton vaadalism,” but simply the aestructioa of unsaleable glass and
seconds. In 1928, a memorandum was written. exprescing conceta over the
large excess stock
kit
Corning composed of obsolete and cutteat desigas
which is as
to move. We cannot dispose of it at redut.ca prices to
any of our tegular customers to
conduct
a special sale as it would tend
to distupt the gad
–
in
Steubea matket. A solution might be to lease one
of the smallet stotes in the Baton Steuben ‘dotal and sell at retail to the
City of Cotaing and to tourists.” la fact in the fitSt yeats
of elle
1910s,
the entite stock was offetea at greatly reduced ptices locally. -Many
families 1104 remeMber stocking up said voren of wedding present of
Steuben glass at prices that
,
art
a
to have reached as low as 25
ceats
e.r
When sales stopped (oa their ovn), “the design department picked out places
to be kept for design purposes and the remainder was coas1deted to be
cullet and vas br.pken up.” Some 1,500 of these pieces vete moved re
Agate
d1
over the next 0 yeats, survived the flood of 1912, alTa s
ere
given to :he
objec
t.
The same atc of “smashing” is going on (presumably) in
eve
glasshous
e
.
in
the world toaay: seconds which ao not meet the staadaraa of the
cot
of
Museum of Class in 1973.’
manufacturer ate broken and discarded. or
are
used as culet. While we
may be stattled vhea we witness it,
art
setiously decry the act. It is
oaly because we, today, value these
ique “…sinle
odd
candIestici6.s
ead ware that woula not sell.” that we view the Steubea story with suoh
alarm. It ts a story that has been blown fat out of propottioni we hops
to se_e_it_71:7
into the fog of 01/61:5.
——..—_,—….e.
4i4 %c)t. 1:e:t17::::1:tt5,
CeaSe
V
Yae
1931, “IV::ne
amethys ,
vatlable
” ,e.k.sloe
In
tle ”11:
lioveMbet .
-‘3 bet.”‘
. city
a
t
‘ T:
T°:
. Steubes
14ovember 8, 19E5
Dt. D. C. Watts, D. Sc.
Guy’s llospatal Medical School (D.M.D.S)
Depattment of Biochemistry
London SE1 9BT
Engl
and
Dear DT. Watts:
fi3’ets gi-ot
Babe,
ete mentioseu
pi TTrutsey±i=Coal.
3ust one f.uthet tift.32.
glass instantly a.
loped by Cataet) vas nPt
e
ze
d pva•~Y~of
si!
,1;ci.sts,,4aas, aysttnil
,.
the Steurs1104t°°1716
;few
%