Glass Circle News_No.130, Nov 2012

Issue 130 November 2012

Vol. 35 No. 3

ISSN 2942-652

•
Sang engraving

•
Waterford glass

•
50 years on

•
Flint revisited

•
Reports

•
News/diary

•
.- • • 4 Zir-Z4I-L2r731,

GLASS CIRCLE

Editorial

Letters

My favourite glass
A new Sang baluster

Waterford glass
Going for gold
Flint glass

Reports
Curiosity corner

Reviews

Diary/News

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

CONTENTS

Glass Circle News
ISSN 2043-6572

Vol. 35 No. 3 Issue 130 November

2012 published by The Glass Circle

www.glasscircle.org

Editor

Jane Dorner

glass @editor. net

9 Collingwood Avenue, NIO 3EH

Design and layout
Athelny Townshend

[email protected]

Neither the Glass Circle nor any of its officers or committee members bear
any responsibility for the views expressed in this publication, which are
those of the contributor in each case. Every effort has been made to trace and

acknowledge copyright in the photo
g
raphs illustratin
g
arrides. The Editor

asks contributors to dear permissions and neither the Editor nor the Glass

Circle is responsible for inadvertent infrin
g
ements. All photo
g
raphs are

copyri
g
ht the and, or(s) unless otherwise credited.

Printed by
Micropress Printers Ltd

www.micropress.co.uk

Next copy date:

15 January 2013 for the March edition.

COVER ILLUSTRATION:
Detail of a William & Mary verre eglomise pier

mirror
(full picture on page 28) © Christies Images

Ltd 2012

2
EDITORIAL

Editor’s letter

hat pleases me about

this issue is that it has

given me scope, as
Editor, to act as a bit

of a fixer. Not only have I brought people

together on the pages of the

magazine who have corresponded

or met afterwards to discuss some

Jane

fine point of glass, but while

editing one of the reports, I came
Dorner

across a remark that I thought

would interest the writer of the article on

Jacob Sang. Not only did it interest him
very much, but it set him off on a further

research path. The engraved goblet Bill

Davis describes turns out to be even more

of a rarity than the article in draft form

had posited. Bill Davis, who lives ‘Down
Under; corresponded in these pages

with Vic Rumble (on Dutch engraved

glass in Issue no. 127 p. 4) and they have
subsequently got together to have dinner
and share a somewhat uncommon interest
in such a large continent.
Another connection arose from Andy

McConnell’s query on Watford Crystal

in Curiosity Corner which is answered

in Letters to the Editor on page
4,
and

as a result of which I have approached
the last proprietor of the company to

write an article. That will appear in the
next edition. Meanwhile — and not to

be confused with — we have a piece

on Waterford Crystal and that too is a
result of connecting links: our Chairman
by

having visited Waterford to view and

authenticate the Penrose chandelier in

city hall. The result of that visit is the

article by Martin Hearne.
I love your letters — keep them coming

because I do follow them up. So

thanks to the letter on page 6 you

can look forward to an article on

the reopening of the Fitzwilliam
Museum’s glass collection by the

current Keeper, Victoria Avery

March issue. And another letter

came just as I was putting this edition to
bed, commenting on the item last time in

Collector’s Corner about Roman glass.
About time this magazine covered that

subject I thought, and asked the letter-
writer if he would oblige. Look out for

this one too.
But no linking hand was necessary for

the David Watts riposte to the last issue’s

article on flint glass — regular readers will

all have predicted that he would have a
view.
As for the Editor’s picture, I warned

you all I’d be showing my latest
installation unless someone stops me.

They didn’t and here it is. It shows two
of five giant seeds pods in steel and

glass commissioned by Birmingham

Children’s Hospital for the National
Memorial Arboretum in Alrewas to

honour children who die in hospitals,

and made in a joint project with the

sculptor Matthew Lane Sanderson.

in the

LETTERS

Chairman’s letter

our

last

tyi
committee

meeting we had

a long, searching

look at the future of the Circle,

as we do from time to time.

These are difficult times for all
collectors’ societies, with, at best,

static membership, and rapidly
increasing costs, in particular

postage and the hire of venues. The
income of the Circle is sufficient
to meet our current commitments
but insufficient to meet our future

costs. We discussed charging to

attend meetings, (probably fewer

would attend, defeating the object

of the exercise), having fewer

meetings, (that would be a pity),

less frequent publications, (also a
pity), having a membership drive,
raising subscriptions substantially

or possibly merging with another

society.

I meet with the Chairman of the

Glass Association fairly frequently

and the possibility of a merger
has been regularly discussed for

several years. Initially the Glass
Circle was founded in London

for those interested in 18th
century and earlier glass, and the

earliest meetings took place in

members’ drawing rooms. The

Glass Association was founded

later in the Midlands, and the
members, with exceptions, were

more interested in i9th and 20th

century glass, made in that area

and the North of England. Much
of this glass was pressed and

affordable at that time so they

had a wider opportunity to recruit

members.
Things have changed since

then. Our aims and interests have

become increasingly similar. It was

the Glass Circle who organised

the exhibition `Palace to Parlour’
at the Wallace Collection in
London. The Glass Association

has organised trips to both Europe

and America — and we both join

each other on such outings.
There is some sense in having a

unified society with meetings and
events in both the North and South

open to all, with a larger mailing

list. In the same way as American

societies have `Chapters; separate

groups could organise events in

different parts of the country, to
which all would be welcome. The

burden of producing high-quality
publications such as ours could be

shared with the costs spread over
a larger print run, and with the
possibility of taking advertising

for revenue. Also a unified society

will be of even more interest to

overseas members, particularly

in Europe where there is no
equivalent organisation.
This may be the time to merge,

but it will only happen with

the approval of the majority of

members of both societies after all

the implications have been worked
out. The time scale for this would

be the best part of a year. This

short letter is not the place to list
all the pros and cons of a merger

and the committee needs feedback

from members on all of the above,
particularly from members who

already belong to both societies.

Please feel free to contact me,

preferably by email at johnpsmi@

globalnet.co.uk or talk to any
member of the committee. Your

committee has only the interests of

our members at heart; members of

a society that was founded in
1937.

John P.
Smith

Letters to the Editor

On collecting

T
he article on Collecting by

Francis Golding (pp 6-8)

was most stimulating and a very

personal view of the habit with

which I am sure many Glass Circle

members could identify. As a

young boy I went through similar
phases of collecting, concentrating

especially on militaria, perhaps

influenced by my late father’s

wartime experiences and by

the abundance at that time of
regimental badges, buttons,

weaponry and other ephemera.

Exposure to the world of the fine

and decorative arts at university

brought greater delights and a
maturity which left the militaria

collecting far behind but also

allowed me to appreciate medals

and weaponry as wonderful items
of design.

Now, I serve, create and

encourage collectors in a field

which I have come to love and
am therefore at an even greater

advantage than most, especially

as I get to see and handle for a
brief time some of the treasures

which are avidly sought. So for me
the collecting habit is constantly

fuelled even though many of the

objects which fascinate me and
that I covet are far beyond the

reach of my humble pocket.
All letters

referring to

a previous

edition of the
magazine

refer to Vol.

35
No.
2 Issue

no. 129 unless

otherwise

stated.

RIGHT:
Early

baluster goblet,

circa 1690: one of

the finest glasses

the writer has been

privileged to handle
(sold in 2009 for

£36,000)

,00e.asosvoseez..1.avai

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3
3

LETTERS

Francis’s experience was

mapped out in a continuum over

his life, thus far, but for many
people collecting is a habit which

often emerges in one’s youth but

lies dormant until the pressures
of study, career development,

exposure to the world through
friendships, home building,

work, holidays and other time-
consuming factors settle down.

Often during these formative years

one seeks fashion statements,
punctuation marks in one’s life, to
display to others. These can be a

scattering of art objects, furniture,

motor vehicles, etc. which are the

trappings of such development.

The flight of children from the

nest and the relief financially that

it can bring provides individuals

and couples with the means to
reignite the passion of collecting.

And so it is that those potential

collectors between adolescence

and perhaps young middle age are
less evident than those of more

senior years.
Collecting and the learning

about a subject leads devotees to

a higher level of understanding

and appreciation. This is where
collector’s societies should not

panic at the lack of youth in

their ranks, but embrace those

returning to the fold in their

young middle age at a time when
they can devote more attention to

creating an environment around
them which is comfortable both

to the eye and to the other senses.

The collecting habit is never lost, it

just needs encouragement.
Simon Cottle

London

Onion bottles

The article on bottled beer

I in Issue no. 128 page 6

showing an onion-shaped bottle
(OB) reinforced that OBs were

transported and sold with contents
of beer or wine intact and sealed.

This insinuates that the OBs were

sufficiently uniform and secure

to make this exercise acceptable,
I then measured the capacity of a

‘perfect’, unrelated and later bottle,
like the one on page 6, which held
32 fl oz and weighed 2 lb 21/2 oz

(0.98 kg). I may be slow but
having collected glass
for 5o years, I realised

I had paid little heed
to my OBs, and I
am amazed that

such a utilitarian
object could be
so uniform and

accurate.
I know two

swallows do

not make a

summer, and

I am sure these

statistics are well

known, but I had

previously regarded the

OB as a sort of airtight storage

and pseudo decanter between
barrel and the table until bottles

and corks appeared. The skill

of the glass blower, if all OBs

are about the same weight and

capacity is incredible and almost
unbelievable.
Derek Whatmoor

Dorchester

White lion

W
ith

regard to Andy

McConnell’s pub glass,

illustrated in Curiosity Corner
(page 29), although there is no

certain provenance, it seems likely

that the public house, White Lion,

was trading in a notorious area of

Leeds called Quarry Hill in West

Yorkshire.

Quarry Hill, an area now

redeveloped and home to the

West Yorkshire Playhouse, was

one of the worst slums in the city

A quick check on local

records shows that at least two

of the landlords were cited for
bankruptcy; maybe too much
money was spent on engraving the

glasses!

Matt Burghardt
Ripon

n.b. AU uncredited

images are copyright
of the authors
profitable and trustworthy.

I enclose two photographs of

my squattest bottle with a kicked
base covering the width of the

base, 6 in high by 6.5 in across the

base (15.2 x 15.9 cm) and weighing

2
lb 2

1
/4 oz (0.97 kg). There

seemed little room for liquid at
all and I have always considered
it an accident at birth, but on
measuring the capacity to the

neck ring, I found it held 3o fl oz

(1.5 pints).

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

LETTERS

Our once-great industry

I
saw Andy McConnell’s letter on

page 30. I know about Watford

Crystal. It was owned by Faye
Peck, and operated until the early

1990s, but closed a year after Mrs
Peck (MBE) died. They only did

cutting so bought in blanks from

about eight companies, including
us at Nazeing Glass. We created

n
ep
two
rip ow

leasesermees.

estosto owe*
604.0″aolteg

Vooestseeet•
Igo 4.4r)0744

the Faye Suite and the Ruth Suite

for them, and must have supplied

over 100,000 blanks over thirty

years.
They had about twenty cutters

at their peak, did their own acid

and brush polishing and supplied

Chinacraft among other retailers.

Faye’s daughter, Gaby, and her

husband continued to run the

business after her death, though
Faye had been the powerhouse

behind the company.
Like Wordsley Crystal

(Bob Brittain, now down in

Torrington), they allowed
customers to have their own

cut suite, thus guaranteeing
replacements and continuity.

Apart from suites of glasses, they

cut bowls, ashtrays, candlesticks

and book ends. The Watford
Crystal label was their forte — cut

suites in silk-lined purple boxes.
They were sometimes confused

with Waterford Crystal, but were

an independent brand for over
fifty years.
Some replacements are

still available at hap://www.
replacements.com / crystal/ WT F.

htm
Stephen Pollock-Hill
Nazeing

Editor’s note: An article on Watford

Crystal written by Gaby Franklin
will appear in the next edition of the
magazine.

Postcards

I was amused by the glass-eater

I postcard (fig. 11 on page 12)
as it took me back to during
the war when I was evacuated

in Wiltshire. Most Saturdays
I cycled into Chippenham to

queue up at the pork butchers

for off-ration pig offal such as
trotters, a pig’s head and suchlike.
Occasionally, performers turned

up at the market and I particularly
remember a glass eater who I

watched eat an electric light bulb

apart from the metal cap and

sticking out his tongue with all the
chewed glass on it.
On another occasion I saw a

knife thrower who threw knives

all round a lady standing in front
of a board. He then offered a

shilling to anyone who would

stand in her place. A shilling was

a lot of money in those days and
I immediately offered my services,

but I was rejected on the grounds

that I was too small at only so or
is years old. I don’t think that they

had any other takers! A shilling

would have got me into the local
cinema twice.
David Watts
London

Canning Town Glass Works

I
would like to draw members’

I attention to a demolition order
granted in July 2012, for the

demolition of an old building in

Stephenson Street, London E16,

formerly the offices of the Canning
Town Glass Works
We do not have much heritage

left here in Canning Town and I for
one would like to
see
this building

remain. I like the architecture

and am amazed that Newham’s
design team have not taken into

account its heritage, either in
the architecture or the listed

LEFT:

A Watford

blank.
BELOW:
The

former
offices of

the Canning Town
Glassworks.

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3
5

possible.

christopher.

paggiahewham.gov.uk or write
to him c/o The Planning Dept.

London Borough of Newham,

10 oo Dockside, London, EI6

aDU.
Josephine Phillips
Canning Town

Beves and Higgins

A
t

h
long last the Fitzwilliam

as dispensed with its tiny

glass section on the mezzanine
floor, and has commenced the
re-installation of a substantial

part of the Beves collection etc.,

in the ground floor porcelain

galleries (no. 26 on their plan

and, I think, once known as the
Lower Marlay Gallery). Not all

the labelling has been finished

and there will probably be some
reshuffling still to be done, but it

is substantially, if not completely,

there for all to enjoy again. I am

sure many members will now be
able to overcome their withdrawal

symptoms.
It remains to be seen how well

Bedford will do with the Cecil

Higgins Collection when the
museum re-opens next year. Their

website says that it will be known
as The Higgins. Of course except

for glass collectors, many people

will recall My Fair
Lady

rather

than the true benefactor of the

collection. How much glass will

be shown? Just you wait Cecil
(Wiggins, just you wait!

Graham Slater
Cambridge

Editor’s note: an article on the new

displays will appear in the next issue.

Favourite glass

I
much enjoyed Graham Vivian’s

article on the Boosington Goblet

(page 5). It was well written and

demonstrated good taste. Having

acquired a large Newcastle

light baluster glass goblet with
its original cover (left), I have

sought out similar goblets in

museums. When I discovered the
Boosington Goblet, I too fell for it.

It is indeed a wonderful glass.

Julius Kaplan Washington
(Board of Management of

The Cosmos Club)

Ship’s glass

I
appreciated the comments of

Robin Wilson and Anthony

Lester concerning my alleged

ship’s glass. I bought this glass

some thirty years ago as a ship’s

glass. In my notes I see that my

first thought was that it was a

firing glass but the bowl shape and

high stem seemed unusual for a

firing glass. These features and the

heavy foot (for stability) convinced

me that the dealer could be correct.
Perhaps it is a rarer form of firing

glass.
Bill Davis

Melbourne, Australia

Roman Glass

mr
eye was drawn to the

etter from John and Carole

Allaire in your last issue of Glass
Circle News wherein they were

asking for help in identifying

collections of Roman Glass in

the UK. I have a fairly substantial

collection of my own and would

welcome being in contact.

David Giles
London

LETTERS

building being the last remnant of

Newham’s previous glass working

industry, a heritage in itself.
The planning documents ‘glaze
over this lovely building, so no one
picked up on it at the time and it

was only brought to my attention a

week or so after rubber stamping.

Why this cannot remain

as a viable building, I do not
understand. I do not think it

interferes with the rest of the plans

for the site. Also we already have

a number of empty warehouses on
this estate, so why demolish this

old building just to add a few more

’empty boxes’?

Please support me in my

campaign to save this building
by lodging an objection with

Newham Council as soon as

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

FAVOURITE GLASS

My favourite glass

tyi
s the daughter of

a Yorkshire struc-
tural engineer, I
have always liked

things which are simple, honest

and without fuss, while display-
ing a high standard of technical
virtuosity. In this, I mean that I

tend to prefer pieces with beauti-

ful proportions and clean lines
rather than those with overly

elaborate decoration. I first started
looking at glass thirty years ago

while an archaeology undergradu-

ate at Southampton University

and haven’t stopped since. But to

choose a ‘favourite’ glass proved
too much of a challenge.
From each project I have worked

on I have had my favourites, some
very well-known and others not,

all of which were contenders. They
include the 18th Dynasty Egyptian

core-formed blue fish with yellow

and white trails in the British

Museum; the large Hellenistic

cast-covered urn in Berlin of

superb craftsmanship that always
reminds me of a tea urn;

and the medieval 13th-
century Italian prunted

beakers and the large Farfa

Bowl (fig. 1) of
c.
1400

AD decorated with thick

blue zigzag trailing. It is with this

bowl that my love of glass started

when I played, initially without

permission, with the newly-
excavated fragments and arranged
them on a large sheet of paper as if

the bowl had been smashed from

above by a five-ton weight — the
ultimate 3D puzzle. For Islamic

glass, it is the blue, gilt and enamel
flaring bowl on a circular

King that was probably imported

into England from Venice by John
Greene in the 167os.

My favourite period, however, is

ancient Roman, and especially the
late 1st century BC to ist century
AD when they excelled in making

luxury cast tablewares made in rich

deep gem-like colours. It is also
the period when they discovered
ABOVE:

Fig. 3

Fragment of late
Roman cameo stb

century
AD

ABOVE:
Fig.

Detail of the Roman

Dionysian Cameo

Vase

LEFT:
Fig. 1 Farfa

Bowl C.
1400
AD
the technique of blowing and flew

with it, experimenting widely so

that by the end of the 1st century

they had discovered just about

every forming and decorative
technique used by a modern glass-
blower. Yet, out of all the Roman

pieces I have seen and handled,
there is only one that has literally

made the hairs on the back of my
neck stand up and that was when

I first saw photographs of the

Roman Dionysian Cameo Vase

(shown on the cover of Issue no.

121 and fig. z) and realised that far
from being a fake, it was genuine

and arguably the best ancient glass
vessel to have survived.

I am not a collector, however. If

a glass at home is intact, then it is
likely to be a fake and I do enjoy

a good fake. If real, they may be
described as having seen better

days and certainly never of the

quality to bring to a Specimens
Meeting. Indeed, a lot of my time

is spent looking at ancient fakes

and it is always pleasing when I

work out how they were made.
Somehow I have assembled a small

assorted collection of unimportant
fragments, some found while

wandering over ancient sites or

from excavation spoil heaps, and

of these my greatest joy is this

small fragment of a 4th-century

cameo glass cup or bowl with a
pale purple head against a pale

transparent green background
(fig. 3). It is as rare as hens’ teeth

— only a handful of late Roman

cameo vessels and fragments are

known — and it always brings a

smile to my face when I take it

out of my corner cabinet, hold it
up to the light, twist it so that I

can
see

the wheel-cut marks and

feel the raised decoration under

my fingertips while wondering if I

should after all mount it and wear

it as a jewel, now that I am the wife

of a jeweller still with a passion for

ancient glass.

Martine Newby is an independent

scholar in ancient and antique glass.

Cavour Vase with green phoenixes

and lush arabesque motifs, that

took me to Cairo, Damascus and

Stockholm in seeking out its story,

while pieces belonging to Chris
Fish from the glass service made

for Cardinal Lorenzo Pucci in c.

15zo had me one summer traveling

to Pistoia, Florence and Rome. In

the case of English 18th-

century glass, I especially

Martine
loved a large goblet with

Newby
knop and conical foot from

the collection of Keith

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

ENGRAVED GLASS

An unrecorded Sang baluster

Fig. i
Light baluster goblet, wheel engraved by Jacob Sang,177o
n 1986, William R. Johnston, a dealer in antiques

tg
–

in Melbourne and a collector of decorative and

fine arts, died. His house, with his collection

and estate, was bequeathed to the people of

Victoria as a place of historical and educational interest’. The

Johnston Collection is administered as a house museum by The

W.R. Johnston Trust.
Included in the Collection is a light baluster goblet’

engraved by Jacob Sang, the most notable of the Dutch wheel

engravers of the i8th century (fig. t). As Sang advertised in

the
Amsterdamsche Courant

in
1753
as an engraver of English

goblets, it is assumed that this goblet is of Newcastle rather
than of Dutch manufacture. It is of lead metal and comprises
a round funnel bowl, a composite stem with a multi-spiral air
twist dumb-bell over a plain inverted baluster section with a

basal knop, and a conical foot. The height of the goblet is zo3

mm (to in).
The goblet is finely wheel-engraved with a scene of a

plantation completely encircling the bowl comprising a manor
house with a number of plantation buildings, orchards, fields,

farm animals and plantation workers. The details of the

engraving are shown in fig.
3.

The bowl is inscribed:

HET GROEYEN EN BLOEYEN. VAN DE PLANTAGIE.

CORNELIAS BURG (Growing and blooming of the

plantation. Cornelias Burg).
The goblet is signed in diamond point on the pontil mark,

(J: SANG’ with the l’ and ‘S’ in script and the ANG’ in Roman
capitals which would seem to be unusual (fig. z). The date ‘Inc.’

occurs below the signature. Interestingly, the mark between the

T and the ‘S’ is a colon and not a full stop. There are only three
occurrences of the use of a colon in Sang’s signature in F.G.A.M.

Smit’s catalogue of glasses signed by Jacob Sang. Further, there

seem to be no incidences of a signature combining script and

Roman capitals.
Unfortunately, there is no provenance for the goblet in

the records of the Collection. We do know however that the

goblet was in Johnston’s own collection in
1975

when John

Rogan published his book,
Antiques in Australia from Private

Collections
3
.
Rogan noted that the goblet is signed F. SANG,

not J. SANG and therefore is certainly not the work of Jacob.

He suggested that it might have been engraved by Andreas
Friedrich Sang, court engraver at Weimar, who was believed to

be related to Jacob. As a result, the goblet was not thought to

have been engraved by Jacob Sang and was of lesser importance.
In z000, Hugh Tait came to Melbourne and visited the

Johnston Collection where he studied the goblet. In his

correspondence with the Director of the Collection following
his return to England, he stated that the signature should be
read as J. Sang, not F. Sang with which I agree. He felt that

the inscription contained the idiosyncrasies of Jacob Sang’s

hand and he was confident that the plantation scene was of his
creation. He thought that the date of the engraving, Ino, fitted

well with the date-span of the goblet itself with its distinctive
form of stem and may indeed, have been imported from

England specifically for decoration in Holland.

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

ENGRAVED GLASS

He also confirmed that the goblet was not recorded in the literature on

Jacob Sang and as such, it was an important discovery.
Anna Lameris
5

in 1998 noted that there are at least 90 glasses known

to be signed by Sang. She examined 38 of these in her study of the

characteristics and style of Jacob Sang in the preparation of her doctoral
thesis’. It is interesting to note that Anna Lameris commented on

suggestions that some signatures on pontil marks are possibly false. She
concluded from her studies that there is no reason to believe that that is

so.

I have corresponded with Anna Lameris’ and she has confirmed to me

that the goblet is unrecorded. She agrees that the mixture of script and
Roman capitals in the signature is very unusual and has seen this form

of signature on only one other glass. She believes, from the photographs,

that the signature is probably that of Jacob Sang.

Smit records only two Sang engravings of plantations in Surinam.

A search of The National Archives in The Hague did not show any
plantation in Surinam owned by Cornelias Burg. However, Eveline

Sint Nicolaas, Curator, Department of History at the Rijksmuseum,
has advised that Cornelias Burg should be read as one word and in the

Surinam almanac of
1793,

Corneliasburg is listed as a coffee plantation

on the Warappakreek in Paramaribo in Surinam’. Corneliasburg is a
combination of Cornelia and burg (meaning fortress in old Dutch). Often

plantations were named after the wife or daughter of the owner. This led

to further research. In the Surinam plantation records of 177o, Cornelia

is listed as a plantation on Warappakreek. It is concluded that the Sang

engraving is of the Cornelia

plantation in Surinam.
Little is known of Sang’s life.

Early references noted that he

came to live in Amsterdam in
the 174os with another wheel

engraver, Simon Jacob Sang who

was thought to be his brother.

However, Anna Lameris believes

that Jacob and Simon Jacob
are one and the same person’.

Assuming that this is so, he was

born in Erfurt, the capital of

Thuringia, in Central Germany

and died in Nigtevegt near

Amsterdam in 1786. The first

record of his work is three engraved glasses, dated 1752. The last known

reference to Sang was in the
Amsterdamsche Courant, 1

September 1785

when he advertised the sale of the contents of his glass shop suggesting

that he was closing his business°.
Sang was a prolific engraver. The subjects of his engravings covered

a wide field including portraits, armorials, classical and architectural

subjects, inscriptions, decorative designs and ships, which he depicted
in fine detail.

It has been a pleasure to study and to handle this unrecorded, fine

goblet which so excited Hugh Tait on his visit in 2000. It is to him that
we, at The Johnston Collection, owe our gratitude in identifying the

engraver as Jacob Sang.

Bill Davis is a glass collector and adviser on glass to The Johnston Collection,

Melbourne, Australia.
Notes

i. The Johnston Collection, (www.

johnstoncollection.org), catalogue
number A0410-1989.

2.
Smit, F.G.A.M., i992,’A Concise

Catalogue of Eighteenth-Century

WINE-GLASSES wheel engraved
and SIGNED BY Jacob Sang’.
Peterborough, England.

3.
Rogan, John P., 1975,

ANTIQUES

IN AUSTRALIA from Private

Collections. Jacaranda
Press, Brisbane.

4.
A letter dated 17 September z000,

from Hugh Tait to Ms Nina Stanton,
Director, The Johnston Collection, East

Melbourne. Hugh Tait was Deputy
Keeper of the Department of Medieval

and Later Antiquities at The British
Museum until he retired in 1992. He

was Honorary President of the Glass

5.
Lameris, Anna, 1998, Glas in het

Amsterdams Historisch museum en

Museum Willet-Holthuysen, Hubert

Vreeken and others, Amsterdam.

6.
Lameris, Anna, 1994;Pur Sang:

A Study of the Characteristics of
the Style of Jacob Sang, on the Basis

of his Signed Glasses: Ph.D thesis,
Kunsthistorisch Institute, Amsterdam.

7.
Correspondence with Anna Lameris,

Frides Lameris, September, 2012.

8.
Correspondence with Eveline Sint

Nicolaas, Curator, Department of
History, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam,

September, 2012

9.
Lameris, Anna, 1996, ‘Put Sang;

Annales du 13e Congres de lAssociation

Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre.

Lochem, The Netherlands: AIHV, pp.

463-470, ill.

10.

Acknowledgements

Ms Anna Lameris of Frides Lameris

and Ms Eveline Sint Nicolaas of the

Rijksmuseum have been most helpful

in identifying the Sang engraving and

its importance, and in establishing

the likely name of the plantation in
Surinam which is the subject of the

engraving. Ms Emily Davis of The

Corning Museum of Glass has been
very generous with her time in sourcing

and providing articles relating to Jacob

Sang.

All photographs © Jeremy Dillon, The
Photography Department, Melbourne

Bill

Davis

LEFT: Fig. 2

Signature ofJacob

Sang over the date,
5770, on the pontil

mark.

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

—
–:

E, CORN
E, I , iA

,
311
e
T R G
,

toosIO
r

R
G,

HET
G

ii41,-
rit
*A

i ma

\Ill’ G la

0 E,

–

ii
–
E. “N „ EN

B
I

0 ‘

1 t 4
0
HOD74 it),4Tol

ENGRAVED GLASS

Figs. 3-6
details of the four aspects of the plantation on the bowl shown in rotation order.

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

WATERFORD

Waterford glass

n 20 October 1851,

just five days after the

losure of the Great

Exhibition in London

where he had successfully
exhibited his glassware, George

Gatchell auctioned the entire

stock of glass from his glassworks.
It consisted of dinner and table

lamps, a gas chandelier, a crystal
chandelier for six lights and
beautiful specimens of Bohemian

[style] and Venetian [style] glass.

The Waterford Glassworks had
been closed for some weeks prior

to the auction, but this event made

such closure final. In February

1852, the seven-horse power

engine, along with office furniture

and other materials and tools, was
sold. After almost seventy years
of continuous manufacturing,

glassmaking in Waterford had
ceased’.

Glassmaking in County

Waterford can trace its origins to

the beginnings of glassmaking in

Ireland in the late 17th century.

Then, in 1783, the Quaker uncle
and nephew, George and William
Penrose, commenced glassmaking

in Waterford City. The Penroses

had acquired the services of

John Hill from Stourbridge
who brought with him a team of
highly skilled and experienced

glassmakers and cutters to

Waterford. More importantly,

he also brought his unique

glassmaking formulae that would
quickly establish Waterford as
the pre-eminent glassmakers in

Ireland. It had cost the Penroses

Elo,000 to commence their

business, an enterprise that would

prove to be highly profitable up
until the first quarter of the 18th
century. Political patronage also

played its part in this success.

In 1786, the firm received a

commission from the Lord
Lieutenant, the Duke of Rutland,

to manufacture a chandelier for

the Presence Chamber of the
newly refurbished Dublin Castle

(fig. i)
3
.
In 1787, another prestigious
commission was received for

two chandeliers for the Irish

parliament on College Green in Dublin. These were admired by
Prince William Henry, the future

King William IV, when he visited

Waterford in December of that

year4. Also in 1787, the Dublin
Chronicle remarked that

A very curious service of glass has been

sent over from Waterford to Milford for

his majesty’s use … where it has been

much admired and does much credit to

the manufacturers of this country’.

In 1788, it was reported that
The two glass lustres (the manufacture
of this city) that are now suspended in

the Great Coffee Room of Parliament

House, Dublin are justly esteemed the

most superb of their kind ever exhibited

in this Kingdom’.
Although by
1799
both Penroses

were already dead, Waterford

glass had acquired a reputation

for the quality of its produce.

The enterprise was then acquired
by a partnership that included

the Quaker, Jonathan Gatchell.

Following the death of one of

the partners and the bankruptcy
of the other, Gatchell assumed

sole control of the Waterford
Glassworks in 180

3
. During his

tenure the firm was averaging

£.2,000
in profits. But by the time

of his death in 1823, rising debts

and with the prospect of the excise

duties looming, it was clear that its
best days were in the past.
However, Jonathan Gatchell’s

will, which bequeathed the factory

to his youngest son, George, who

was only nine years old at the time,

would have serious implications

for the day-to-day operation of
the enterprise until he reached
his majority in 1835. Between 1823

and 183o the establishment was

operated in trust by his uncles. It

was they who introduced a steam-
powered cutting machine in 1825

and initiated the installation of
a new cone and furnace in 183o,
the year in which the last of the

trustees died.
It was then left to Gatchell’s in-

laws, the Wrights, to operate the
firm. To them must go the credit

for saving the firm from closure

as they managed to successfully
manoeuvre the glassworks through

the difficult post-excise duties

economic climate of the early

183os and preserve for Gatchell
his inheritance. But when George

did gain control of the Waterford

Glassworks in 1835, the Irish glass

industry was already in terminal

decline. Although the future for

glass production in Ireland was
bleak, the advanced technology

employed at Waterford offered

some degree of optimism for its
future. It was this technology that
Gatchell would use to highlight

the quality and enhance the

reputation of Waterford glass.
The method adopted was one

of concentrating on producing
quality specimens for exhibitions.
In 1835, Gatchell formed a short-

lived partnership with Isaac
Warren of Dublin who invested

£5oo
in the firm”’. Thereafter, the

focus of the firm became more
exhibition-orientated. While the

relationship with Warren only

lasted one year, the quality of the

John M.
Hearne

BELOW:
Fig. 1.

Penrose chandelier,

1716, with central

brass frame and

thirty-two lights. It

now hangs
in
the

Council Chamber,

Waterford City
Hall.

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

omm

il
l
11

0
14

11
1111
1
111

1
11)1

111′
1
;11/1m

WATERFORD

firm’s glassware had begun to be
recognised. In 1835 and 1837, the

firm exhibited at the Royal Dublin

Society Exhibitions, winning

silver medals at both. However, the
awards did not satisfy Gatchell.

By the latter date he had already

formed another partnership with

one of his sales agents, George

Saunders. Following the 1837
award they wrote a stinging

letter to the organisers criticising
their failure to acknowledge the

great efforts that had been made
in the face of serious economic

difficulties to keep the factory

operating. The letter observed that
On perusing your review of the

specimens of Irish Manufacture
exhibited before the Royal Dublin

Society, we agree in your remark that
the test of comparative economy in price

was most material to apply in adjudging

different premiums; but you omitted

noticing many specimens which would

bear the test, and among the rest, that
of the cut flint glass of the Waterford
establishment of flint glass works, which

on this, and on the former occasion

was adjudged the large silver medal. In
drawing your attention to the subject,

we beg to remark, that the Waterford
establishment … has successfully

competed with their English and

Scotch contemporaries for upwards
of half a century in the quality of the

metal, execution in workmanship and

economy in price…”

Indeed, this was no idle boast.

Since its establishment in 1783,
the Waterford Glassworks had

continually kept abreast of, and
employed the most experienced

workers and latest technology

when necessary. Initially, the
Perrot furnace was used to melt

the batch; in 18o2, this furnace

was replaced by the more
efficient Donaldson furnace; and

in 183o it was replaced by the
technologically more advanced

and more fuel-efficient Wiley
furnace. The latter furnace enabled
the production of better quality
metal as a result of melting at a

higher temperature. This allowed

a more crystalline appearance
to the glass and brought it into

line with the best quality glass

produced in England’. Thus, this
correspondence illustrates that the

proprietors were very aware of the
quality of their product and were

quick to protect its integrity.
In 185o, again at the Royal

Dublin Exhibition, Waterford’s
massive crystal centre bowl with

tripod was the main attraction.

More interestingly, the firm also

displayed enamelled glassware

‘all of opaque blue and white

crystal’ along with a variety of
table-glass(fig. 2)”. However, by
now the Waterford Glassworks

was seriously under-capitalised.
The excise duties — although

repealed in 1845 — had rendered

glassmaking in Ireland untenable.

As such, Gatchell’s attempts to

encourage investment capital

into a declining industry were
unsuccessful. In a letter to his

cousin, Jonathan Wright in
August 185o, he stated that if he

was to carry on, new capital would
be required and though he stated
that he was going to advertise in

English and Scottish newspapers

he went on to say,
I do not like to abandon the old concern

without a further struggle, although
suffering as regards remunerating power
from general depression and from want

of capital, is still in full vigour of activity
with a larger respectable and increasing

connection as ever I have known it. But
I must now either get a partner with

adequate capital — sell or stop work
finally in a few months”.
But by April 1851 Gatchell’s

attempts to keep his enterprise

afloat proved fruitless and he

decided to close. Even at this

stage he must have been aware

that the presence of his glassware
at the Great Exhibition, just a
few weeks away, would be its

last public appearance. At the

Crystal Palace, Waterford exhibits
included an étagère or ornamental

centre stand for a banqueting table

consisting of forty pieces of cut

glass so fitted to each other as to
require no connecting sockets or

other material (fig. 3), as well as

quart and pint decanters cut in
hollow prisms (fig. 4). A centre

vase or bowl on detached tripod

stand and an assortment of vases

and covers were also displayed”.

RIGHT:

Fig.
2.

Carafe
c.185o. Blue

and white enamel

on glass. Currently

on loan fron the

National Museum of
Ireland
(NMI

1910.401) Waterford
reference WMT

1999.1776

BELOW:
Fig.

3.
Waterford

exhibits in the

Great Exhibition

catalogue.

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

WATERFORD

While the star attraction at

the exhibition was undoubtedly

Osler’s crystal fountain, the

Waterford collection admired ‘as a

specimen of flint glass superior to
any in the exhibition’, nonetheless
had its critics. One Irish

correspondent complained that it

was a matter of serious regret
That our (Irish) exhibitors have not
taken more pains to have their goods

properly put forward, well placed and

duly labelled with such information as
would render the objects exhibited, or
the peculiar nature of their manufacture,

more intelligible to the general visitor.
As to the case containing the Waterford

glass, there is a great oversight, or want

of judgement, or both, in having so little
light thrown on the objects within …’
When the criticism went on to

compare the Waterford exhibits

with that of Ostler of Birmingham
which was, the correspondent
remarked:
… placed a few feet to the right,

containing the splendid candelabra,
and purchased by the Queen, we will
see
that no such carelessness is evinced

there. Being placed in juxtaposition with

so formidable a rival, the correspondent

felt that the Waterford product could

have been shown to better advantage”.
Irrespective of such criticism,

the London exhibition was to

showcase Waterford glass to an
international audience and would
be instrumental in reviving the

industry one hundred years later.
By the time the Great Exhibition

closed, the Waterford Glassworks

had also ceased manufacturing.

Some six years after the closure,
Gatchell’s

former

business

partner, George Saunders, wrote

nostalgically that ‘the old glass

works are yet standing and have
never been taken down since
George Gatchell forsook his old
establishment where thousands

were made in times gone by”.
The 66-foot cone was taken down

sometime between 1858 and 187o

without any mention in the local
media and with it all traces of a

once flourishing industry were
removed”. George Gatchell left

Waterford in December 1851 and

sailed for Bristol. He spent the
rest of his life in England and died

in Dawlish, Devon in November

1882″. It would be another one
hundred years before glassmaking

would again be manufactured in
Waterford.

John Hearne is an associate lecturer in the
School of Business at Waterford Institute

of Technology and teaches Economics and
History at St. Paul’s Community College,

Waterford.
Acknowledgements

All images are courtesy of the Waterford
Museum of Treasures. My thanks to the

curator, Donnchadh O Cealleachain.

Endnotes

1.
Notice of the auction can be found in

editions of the
Waterford Chronicle

and

Waterford News
during October 1851.

2.
The origins of glassmaking in Ireland

and in Waterford can be found in

Hearne, John M., (ed.) zoto,
Glassmaking

in Ireland. From the Medieval to the

Contemporary,
Irish Academic Press,

Dublin.

3.
OCeallachain, Donnchadh, `The

Waterford Chandelier: An Elegant Lustre

of the WaterfordManufactory’ in Hearne,

John M (ed.), 2010,
Glassmaking in Ireland,

pp. 166-7.

4.
Ibid,
p.164.

5.
Westropp, M.S.D. 1920,
Irish Glass:

An Account of Glassmaking in Ireland

from the XVIth Century to the Present Day
[Hjenkins, London]; revised edition M.
Boyden (ed.) 8978, Allen Figgis, Dublin,

P.7
1
.

6.
Ramsey’s Waterford Chronicle,14

December 1787. This is also quoted

in OCealleachain; The Waterford
Chandelier:

7.
Journal of the Irish House of Commons,

vol. 82 (1786-8) p.224; vol.= (1783-85)
p.224 and vol. II (8785)
p.335.

8.
Waterford
Mirror, zo May 1811.

Jonathan Gatchell assumed control of the

glassworks on the previous day.

9.
Hearne, John M., 8998, `Quaker

Enterprise and the Waterford Glassworks,

1783-1854 journal
of the Waterford

Archaeological and Historical Society,
pp.

29-40.
to. National Museum of Ireland,
Gatchell

Letters,
Document 94, Art and Industry

Archive, Dublin.

11.
Waterford
Mirror, 8 June 1838.

iz.For a comprehensive account of the
technology used in Waterford during

this period see Hearne, John M., ‘Irish

Enterprise, English Alchemy and the

Creation of a Brand: The Waterford

Glassworks, 1783-1823;
pp.145
–
164,

Hearne, John M. (ed.) zo1o,
Glassmaking

in Ireland.

13. Waterford Crystal, 1968, Brown and
Nolan, Dublin, unpaginated.

14.Gatchell Letters, vol.z Document 125.

Letter of 6 August 185o.

15.
Waterford Crystal , 1968,
Waterford

Crystal.

16.
Waterford Chronicle,
zo September 1851.

87.
Ibid.

18. Waterford Crystal (1968),
Waterford

Crystal.

,9.The cone, which was standing in 1858,
was not identified on the Ordnance
Survey Map of 1871.

20. Certified Copy of an Entry of Death,
Newton Abbot, HD11849o. Gatchell died

on 84 November 1882. He was sixty-eight

year’s old.

BELOW:

Fig.
4

Penrose decanter

c.1789. A three-ring

decanter with
prismatic cutting on

the shoulder

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

TOLEDO-LONDON-STOURBRI DGE

Going for Gold

y
old is the flavour of

the year, and didn’t

we do well! Also

golden, is the 50th

anniversary of the

beginnings of the Studio Glass

Movement. Fifty years ago, in

March and June of 1962, two

experimental glass workshops,
led by Harvey Littleton (fig. 1)

and Dominic Labino were held at

the Toledo Museum of Art. Their

purpose was to explore a new idea,
which was to make glassworking

accessible to artists in a studio

environment. Since then, this has

spread to the extent that today

glassmaking is practised as an art

form in virtually every country in
the world.

Toledo
In June 2012, the Glass Art Society

held its annual conference in

Toledo, in order to celebrate this

anniversary in the place where the
modern glass movement began.
Toledo has a long and illustrious

history as a glassmaking centre

in that many revolutionary steps

in the development of glass

processing have taken place there.
In 1888 Edward Libbey, moving

his entire workforce from New

Jersey, established his glassworks
there, and in 1903, co-founded

the Owens Bottle Machine

Company, which revolutionised

bottlemaking throughout the

world. He donated vast amounts

to create the magnificent Toledo
Museum of Art, with historic and

exquisite collections in virtually

every type of art and particularly

in glass. Its highly acclaimed Glass
Pavilion opened in 2006, and is

the winner of many international

architectural awards. It houses a

large part of the extensive glass
collection as well as state of the

art hot, cold and flameworking

studios.

Almost 1,25o people from

2.5 countries attended this well

organised and hugely successful
conference.

Its

extensive

programme brought together
many pioneers such as Erwin

Eisch from Germany, Marvin

Lipofsky and Mark Peiser from

USA, Sam Herman from UK (fig.

a), and Klaus Moje from Australia

as well as academics, makers,
curators, collectors and students.
Indeed a highlight was the superb

international student exhibition.
The opening ceremonies

honoured Bertil Vallien (Sweden)

and Joel Philip Myers (USA) with
Lifetime Achievement Awards.

They made inspiring and often

poignant observations on their

lives in glass, and contact was

also made, by telephone, with
Harvey Littleton to mark his 9oth

birthday. Highly memorable were

‘Colour Ignited’ — a major survey

exhibition at Toledo Museum

(fig. 3), one among many in the

city; the Corning Museum of

Glass Hot Glass Roadshow

— an ingenious mobile studio;

the Technical Display (over 4o
suppliers of materials, equipment

and expertise); the Gallery Hop
of over 3o shows, some by local

galleries, others from further

afield; an exciting Collectors Tour

and the spectacular Glass Fashion
Catwalk show — an amazing

tribute to the ingenuity and

courage of both makers and their
models.

London

How can I encapsulate my own

involvement, in what has in

5o short years become a global
phenomenon, which is the
realisation of Harvey Littleton’s

vision; to use glass as a medium

for artistic expression. For many

of us who have worked with this
magical material and explored the

processes involved, it has been a

life changing experience and an
extraordinary journey.

These 5o years have flown by. In

1962 I was studying ceramics at the
Central School of Art and Design

in London, and a few years later

while teaching at the University
of Iowa I encountered hot glass
for the first time, introduced by

Tom McGlaughlin, one of the
participants in the original Toledo

workshop. I was hooked at once,

and although it took me nearly ten

years to switch from clay to glass, I

feel immensely lucky to have been

part of the evolution of studio

glass in Britain and internationally

almost from the start.
It’s been a fabulous, if at times

rough ride, but one of the great

ABOVE:

Fig. 1.

Harvey Littleton
vase 1963

BELOW:
Fig.
2. Sam

Herman
working at

The Royal College

of
Art
in the 197os

ABOVE RIGHT:

Fig. 3.
Paul
Seide

1986
by

Peter

Layton

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

TOLE DO-LON DON-STOU RBRI DGE

things about having been around

for so long is that over the years I
have got to know almost everybody

who was anybody in the studio

glass scene. I’ve met incredible
people at the fantastic symposia

and conferences we’ve had over the

years, all over the world — the glass
movement used to be more like a
huge family in the pioneering days.

Sadly some of them are no longer

with us — the ever gracious father
of Czech glass, Stanislav Libensky
(fig. 5); the fiery hard-drinking

Spaniard, Torres Esteban; Louis

Meriaux — the French priest who

changed his vocation to glass;

Roberto Neiderer, a Swiss/

Italian lampworker/industrialist

and visionary; and nearer home
George Elliott and John Smith

from Stourbridge; and most
recently John Cook, who ran

the glass department at De

Montford/Leicester, intitiated the
memorable ‘Working with Hot

Glass’ symposium at the RCA,

and helped create British Artists
in Glass (BAG) the forerunner of

the Contemporary Glass Society

(CGS).
For the most part it has been

a struggle, trying to arouse the
interest of the British public in

anything other than cut (lead)

crystal, or to change the historic

perception
that glass is fragile
about purchasing a piece of glass.

Stourbridge

The Contemporary Glass Society,

a thriving organisation of nearly
700 members, has been extremely

effective in developing public

awareness of glass art, as has the
British Glass Biennale, held in

Stourbridge over the past ten
years as part of their International
Festival of Glass (IFG). This

event is extremely well supported

at both a local and national

level, in particular by the Ruskin

Mill Trust, and the Worshipful

Company of Glass Sellers which
provides the major Biennale

awards, a substantial incentive to
makers throughout the country.

This year’s Festival also

celebrated 5o years of studio

glass, as well as 40o years of

glassmaking in Stourbridge, and

provided an enormous range

of exhibitions and events, with

activities from: ‘Trying your hand

at Glassblowing, Engraving or

Beadmalcing; to the Fun Auction,

which by offering pieces donated

and therefore should be cheap. At

last however, there is an evident

wind of change as people become

more aware of colour in their lives

and begin to recognise the many

dimensions of this expressive
medium. While it is still true that

many of our best glass artists sell

much of their work abroad in

order to survive, we at the Gallery

at London Glassblowing (fig. 4)

are noticing a growing excitement

at the expressive potential of

glass; its painterly, sculptural and
conceptual possibilities (figs. 6 &

7). Due, partly to our location in

very ‘trendy’ Bermondsey Street,

which is attracting people to its

excellent restaurants, the Fashion

and Textile Museum and the new
White Cube, we are experiencing

visitors who are open minded
LEFT:

Fig.

4.
The

Gallery at London

Glassblowing

BOTTOM LEFT:

Fig.
5.
Stanislav

Libensky and

Jaroslava Brychtova

early gos
BELOW:
Fig. 6. Peter

Layton, Memories

(detail)

BOTTOM:
Fig.
7.

Scott Benefield ‘Isola
Glass line’
1999

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

TOLE DO- LON DON-STOU RBRI DGE

BOTTOM LEFT:

Fig. 8. Portland vase

replica

ABOVE:
Fig. 9.

The Biennale

exhibition at the

Ruskin Centre
2012

BOTTOM RIGHT:

Fig. so. Louis

Thompson’s
prize-

winning
`Troupe:

Dance Composition’
exhibition (fig. 9) was particularly

splendid both in display and
content. Several of my colleagues

at London Glassblowing took
part and our Louis Thompson
was the overall winner of the

‘British Glass Biennale
2012

‘

prize for his large blown glass/

mixed media installation ‘Troupe:
Dance Composition’ (fig. to). The

Worshipful Company of Glass

Sellers ‘Art & Craft Award’ went
to Colin Reid for one of his new

`Colour Saturation pieces. The
‘Runner-Up Art & Craft Award’

went to Sally Fawkes & Richard

Jackson.
With the closure of the glass

factories, studio glass has become
the new industry. We hope the
next so years will be as productive

as the last 5o.
Peter Layton has been the Director

of London Glassblowing for the last

35
years. Illustrations are taken from

his new book:
Past and Present

(see

Reviews page 26).

by participants and demonstrators

at the Festival raised several

thousands of pounds for the
next phase of redevelopment at

the Ruskin Glass Centre. There

were ‘happenings’; like `Torcher

Tailor’, a dazzling performance

of flameworking combining fire,

glass, music and dance. ‘Virtually
the Portland Vases’ was a live

link up with Bill Gudenrath at
the Corning Museum of Glass,
and the completion of a brand

new replica of the Portland

Vase made by Richard Golding

and Terri Colledge (fig. 8). The
`Glass Heap Challenge’ initiated

by Matt Durran involved teams

of international artists creating

amazing, temporary art works
from recycled glass elements. They
received (chocolate) gold medals

for their extraordinary efforts.
Alongside all this was a first

class programme of lectures which

included excellent presentations

from the artist Antoine Lepelier
(the grandson of Decorchement);

John

Lewis

(hot-caster

extraordinaire from California);
Lani McGregor, the principal of

Bulls Eye Glass Fusing; Alison

Kinnaird, one of the world’s

leading engravers and myself

among others.
Certainly

the

Biennale

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

David

Watts

BELOW LEFT:

Fig. i. Charterhouse

Square showing

the old monastery

buildings.
BELOW RIGHT:

Fig. 2. Barbara

Potter glass
attributed on the

date i6o2 to Sir

Jerome Bowes’

glasshouse in
Blackfriars. Ht. 20.7

cm (8 in).

FLINT GLASS

Flint Glass:

Considering an alternative view

t
yilike Noble

has provided

us with an

interesting

overview of the events leading
up to Ravenscroft’s discovery

of English lead crystal (Issue

129 pp. 12-15). Anyone who
achieves a job that entails the free
consumption of strong liquor on

a Friday afternoon (as he reveals

in his letter on p. 3) commands
respect and I hope that the

following comments are accepted

in the same spirit.

His discovery of more

information on Edward Salter’s

glassmaking is a welcome addition
to our very limited knowledge of
events at this time. From the only

glass known to have survived from
Bowes’ Blackfriars glasshouse, the

Barbara Potter in the V&A, it is

evident that the colour of its metal

is poor compared with what we

know about Venetian glass at the
time. It is important to remember

that most of our information

about Venetian glass relates to

their cristallo glasshouses and

from my limited study of Luigi

Vecchin’s three research volumes,

Vetro e vetrai di Murano’ ,
the use

of crushed flints as silica source
appears to be the rule. The crushed
flint industry seems to have been

run on a commercial scale. So far,

I have found only one mention
of sand. But, by contrast, hardly

a mention is made of ordinary
glass for items such as bottles and
windows. I suspect that washed

sand, as first described by Dossie’
(p. 233) and later by Apsley Pellatt’

(p. 35) was commonly used for

these, and perhaps with partially

purified soda that would have

given a glass of a much better
colour than that found with the

Barbara Potter glass. Salter also

claimed that his straight-sided

beer glasses were not being made

by Bowes, so colour was not the

only consideration for such a
domestic item. As Mike Noble

says, Dossie (pp. 334-336) gives
us evidence that crushed flints

were used in London glassmaking
for a while and he describes how
they should be prepared. I tend

to the view that the terms single

and double flint relate to the
proportion of sand added giving a
colour to the glass that could easily

be distinguished by street criers.

In England, the total replacement
of flints by sand seems to
correlate with the development of

procedures for cleaning the sand
from contaminants as described
by Apsley Pellatt (pp. 35-36)

as well as improvements in the

quality of the potash.
Moving on, we come to the

question of patents. Mike misses

the crucial Act of 2.1 James I (1624)

which (citing Hartshorne p.185):

‘abolishes monopolies of the more

mischievous kind, established

a grant of Letters Patent for
fourteen years, or less, to the

actual inventor of a new process
or method of manufacture’. There
was no drift in patent law up

to the time of Ravenscroft as

Mike suggests. In one sentence
King James’s Act provided a

simple clear-cut definition that
established the basis of Patent

Law as it survives to the present

day. If James I is remembered
for nothing else it should be for
this. It was the challenge that

the Duke of Buckingham faced

when, in 166o, he decided to start
two new glasshouses for crystal

glassware and mirror plates as

made by others and, in order to

achieve a monopoly, required a
patent or patents for inventions

that clearly he had not made
himself. Its achievement involved a

complex legal fudge requiring the

participation of two accomplices,

Martin Clifford and Thomas

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

1 8

MI6
FLINT GLASS

Powlsden together with the
Duke’s (unlikely) claim that he had

been making glass at Greenwich as

well as: ‘that he had been at great
expenses in trials and experiments

to find out the art and mystery

of making looking glass plates’
(Hartshorne p. 221). Sitting in

judgement, the Attorney-General
had doubts about the legality of

the claims, too complex to describe
here, but let them go through.

Subsequently the Clifford/
Powlsden patent for cristal

glass was cancelled and replaced
without explanation by another
for looking-glass plates and cristal

given to a Thomas Tilston who
subsequently became the first

master of Buckingham’s Vauxhall
Plate Glasshouse. Buckingham

built his second glasshouse to

make
Christall de roche

or
Venice

Christall
at the Charterhouse

monastery (part of which is still
standing in north London) and it

was run by Clifford and Powlsden,
Clifford becoming master of
Charterhouse. Unfortunately, we

know nothing about what they

made although it probably became
one of the most important of the

London glasshouses at the time.

Glasses now attributed to the

Netherland or Greenwich (such

as the Four Seasons goblet [fig. 4]

in the BM) might have been made
there. What seems absolutely
certain is that, as is evidenced by

Charleston’ (pp. 98-Too), they
did not make English lead crystal,

nor did the Duke of Buckingham

build the Greenwich Venetian

glasshouse.
Turning to the focus of the article

I had hoped to find competition

against my own views but regret

that I could find nothing to
merit the description ‘alternative’.

However, I hope we can agree
that Ravenscroft discovered the

basis of English lead crystal as

a result of watching da Costa
make calcedonio and saw its

potential for commercial
success.

Calcedonio, as I have explained

elsewhere and on my website is a
molten colourless cristallo glass

into which a mixture of pigment

powders (metallic oxides) are

stirred to give the swirling colours.

The cristallo can be made without
or with the addition of Venetian-

type lead glass (essentially lead

silicate lacking any form of alkali
or flux). In Venetian glassmaking
the reducing conditions (or,

more properly, the lack of strong

oxidising conditions) in the melt
could result in the creation of
metallic lead which can destroy

the pot as described in the Watts/

Moretti’ translation and, more

dramatically, by Neri7 . The

cristallo glass itself, being made

BELOW LEFT:

Fig. 3.

Pair of straight-
sided beer glasses

with Germanic

enamelled
decoration, a style

thought to have
originated in Venice
but which found

great popularity
in the Germanic

countries as

‘Stangenglas’ where

they were probably

made by Venetian

workers operating

under licence
from

Venice’. Ht. 28.5

cm (it% in).

BELOW RIGHT:

Fig. 4. Four Seasons

goblet thinly blown

in
soda glass
in
a

Venetian style
and

diamond point

engraved with

representations of

the four seasons,

each within a

cartouche, and the

date August 18th

1663. Ht. 22.5 cm

(8
3

4
in).

yet never before discovered, of

extracting out of Flinte all sorts of

looking glass plates both Christall

and ordinary….
‘ These applications

are all based on Venetian practice
and the alchemical idea that the

glassy ‘component’ of flints and
rock crystal was an extractable

element. The all-pervading idea of

flints is reflected in its use by the

Glass Sellers Company as early as

18 September 1675 when it gave
Ravenscroft leave to transport .

. . his ffiint Glasses’. The logic of
adding lead was not obvious: it

only emerges from the recipe for
improving calcedonio and this was

a secret protected by the patent.

Realising this actually strengthens

the argument for the calcedonio
recipe being the inspiration for the

solution to the crizzling problem.
Ordinary glassmaking logic of the

time might otherwise have been

to add lime or some other source
of calcium. Indeed, Ravenscroft

might even have experimented

with this approach. As it emerged,
lead saved the day and the flints
got the credit.

So, in summary, I look on

the discovery (not invention) of

English lead crystal as a fortunate

consequence of Ravenscroft
employing da Costa to make

expensive Venetian-style coloured

ornaments to sell to his rich
clientele. Tradition has it that

credit usually goes to the boss

and it is true that had Ravenscroft

not persevered with solving

the crizzling problem over the

following two years then English

lead crystal might never have
become reality. But he was lucky

that he was blessed with a truly

outstanding glassmaker and it
would be unjust not to include
them both in any account of

this remarkable achievement.

The patent, nevertheless, was

exclusively given to Ravenscroft.
For a more extensive discussion

of the discovery of English lead

crystal go to my website www

glassmaking-in-london.co.uk and

click on the Ravenscroft button on
the sidebar.

David Watts was the Founder Editor of

Glass Circle News from 1977-2009. He

was formerly Reader in Biochemistry

at Guy’s Hospital Medical School (now

part of King’s College London).

Endnotes

1. Zecchin, L.1987,
Vetro e Vetrai di

Murano,
3
vols. Venice: Arsenale Editrice

z. Dossie, R.1764.
Handmaid to the Arts,

and edn. London: J. Nourse

3.
Pellatt, A.1849,

Curiosities of Glass

Making, London:
David Bogue

4.
Hartshorne, A.1897,

Old English

Glasses,
London: Edward Arnold

5.
Charleston, RJ. 1984.
English Glass

and the Glass used in England, c.
400

—I940. London: George Allen
&
Unwin

6.
Watts D.0 & Moretti C. 2011,

Glass Recipes of the Renaissance,
English

translation of Moretti C. & Toninato T.

2001,
Ricette vetraria del Rinascimento,

transcrizione da un manoscritto anonimo
Veneziano,
Marsilio. London: Watts

Publishing

7.
Neri, A.
LArte Vetraria (The Art of

Glass
Translated & annotated by Paul

Engle) Book
4,
Chapt. LXI. zoos Mass.:

Heiden & Engle

8.
Tait
H.1979,
The Golden Age of

Venetian Glass.
pp. II and

42
–
43.
British

Museum Publications.

ABOVE:

Fig. 5.

Ravenscroft period

roemer
in

lead

glass, the gadrooned
bowl with chain

decoration, on a

frilled collar
and

hollow stem with

raspberry prunts

and folded foot. Ht.

24.3 cm.
FLINT GLASS

with purified soda (or potash)
lacks stabilising calcium and tends
to crizzle without the addition of

the coloured pigments. Adding

the Venetian lead glass helps,

but in the amount given in the
recipe proves insufficient as has

subsequently been confirmed with

analyses by Colin Brain and David
Dungworth. I am inclined to think

that da Costa initially omitted

the lead glass because of the pot-
breakage problem. The revelation

came with the discovery that
metallic lead did not attack the pot

if saltpetre was present. Oxidising
conditions provided by saltpetre

keep the lead in solution with the
further benefit (mentioned by
Dossie ) that it also discharges

the yellow tinge produced in a

lead glass. Saltpetre was used in
English glassmaking from the days

of Mansell and the introduction

of the coal-fired furnace. It is

a relatively expensive chemical
much in demand for gunpowder.

It is not a component of any of
the Venetian glass recipes, nor,

it seems, of any of those used

on the continent — at least on a

regular basis although Colin Brain

has identified some Ravenscroft

period continental lead glasses.
Although we concentrate our

thoughts on the lead it is really the

addition of saltpetre that made
English lead crystal a commercial

proposition.
Why, Mike Noble asks, did

Ravenscroft’s glass come to be

called flint glass and not lead glass

as it usually is today? First, we
must note that there is no mention

of lead in the documented

accounts. In part summarising
Mike’s own account, Robert

Hooke, who watched da Costa at

work, records that he saw ‘calcined
flints as white as flower’. Also,

flints are the focus of attention

in the patent applications of
both Buckingham with Clifford

and Powlsden, and also at this
time by Brian Leigh et al. who

claimed that they had’found a way

n
•
nn
•

n
•
n
WWW

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

FLINT GLASS

Flint glass:
Some further thoughts

would like to

tg
–

thank David Watts

for taking the time

and trouble to

comment on what is certainly a

difficult subject and open to many
interpretations.
I feel there are a number of

points which I did not express
clearly enough. My ‘alternative’
view was to the generally

perceived idea that Ravenscroft
invented lead glass and obtained

a patent for its manufacture.
Many glass historians implied

that Ravenscroft did not invent it,

but without actually saying that

outright.
My own conclusion, taking

anecdotal evidence from the

likes of Plot and Hooks , and
more importantly documentary

evidence of the Glass Sellers

Company which actually referred

to the glass as flint glass, was that

flints were the basis of the new

glass — copying the Venetians to
achieve a much higher quality

product. This would have had to
be accompanied by a flux which

could very well have been saltpetre,

a well-documented material, and

a stabiliser which again could be
lead, not so common a material

and certainly not well documented

at the time. I am not sure that
the use of lime was appreciated,

which would probably have been
obtained via potash or soda ashes

or even shells contained in the

sand. W.E.S. Turner, in a 1956
SGT Journal!” ,comments ‘in 1689,
even J. Kunckel, foremost German

chemist of his day, could not bring

himself to admit the value of lime

in glass’. In the case of flint glass,

after the first lot of glass produced

started to crizzle they were
then forced to experiment with
modified recipes and seemingly

the one that worked best for them

was one containing an increase
in lead, which they pursued and

which finally resulted in the world
class lead crystal. At least that is
my take on the events.
by

Mike

Noble

RIGHT:
Fig. 6.

Robert Plot

Another supposition I had

taken for granted was that flints

had been used and that this was
normal practice for supplying

the silica element of good quality

crystalld glass in England at this
very early period. The depositions

in the Winchester House case
threw considerable doubt on this,

and on reflection it would seem
sensible for a practical glassmaker
to use sand, either washed or

unwashed, rather than go to the

trouble and expense of obtaining
and preparing flints, even if this
did not match up to the extremely

high quality of the Venetian glass.

I did question this hypothesis

when I read an article in the

`Transactions of the Woolhope
Naturalists’ Field Club’, 1922, in

which Mr B. P. Marmont found a
number of calcined flints together

with a fragment of ‘beautiful

clear glass’, at an old glasshouse

site at St Weonards which had
been dated to c.158o-162o. A later
more rigorous excavation carried

out by N. P. Bridgewater and
included in the same publication
of 1963, however, reported that

his investigations aid not reveal
either calcined flint or the clear

glass to be associated with its use’
as reported by Marmont.
Regarding the claim that I

missed ‘the crucial Act of 21

James I (1624); I would refer to
two books The English Patents

of Monopoly” , and Monopolies

and Patents” both of which give a

good account of the development
of the patent system. For a blow-

by-blow account of developments
of the abuse of patents under

James I the ‘Journal of the House
of Commons’ cannot be beaten,

which can easily be obtained

on the British History Online”

website.
The climax of the patent abuse

really came about in the early 162os

with a particular case involving

Sir Giles Mompesson accused

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

FLINT GLASS

of mixing lead to make gold and

silver thread which resulted in
the formation of a Committee

of Grievances. A comment from

one of the parliamentary sessions,

5
March 1621, stated that ‘these

blood-suckers of the Kingdom,

and vipers of the Commonwealth
mislead the King. That the

plague of his [Mompesson’s]

Corruption did exceedingly
poison the country…That the

Committee should name the
parties to each part, and present
them to the house. To have all the

patents called in and supressed:

This finally led to the ‘Statute of
Monopolies’ which laid down a

framework for patents from which
modern patent law derives.
The glass patent of Mansell

came through the process virtually
unscathed, a good account being

contained in
The Commons

Debates of 1621’4 .
An illustration

of the strength of Mansell’s
patent comes in a document in
the Parliamentary Archives”

concerning two glassmakers from

Stourbridge: ‘Jeremy Bagge’ and

‘Francis Bristowe’. They claimed
in 1641 that they were ‘very much
weakened by the great oppression

that Sir Robert Mansell hath from

time to time laid upon them’, and

that they were ‘very poor men
having a great family to support’.

In a meeting with Mansell they

also claimed that ‘he did fall upon
your petitioner in a most fearful

worded and evil accord, swearing

he would rip your petitioners guts

out of his belly’. The patent was

obviously in full effect at this time.
Turning now to the main point,

Ravenscroft must have had a

commercial reason for applying

for the patent and did not do so

just for the sake of altruism. David
Watts and I seem to agree that
Ravenscroft himself did not invent

lead glass, and that the inclusion

of lead came about as a discovery
during the development of the
new glass. I am not sure why David

thinks Ravenscroft applied for the

patent. I have already laid out my

proposition to the reason for this,
the opportunity to utilise flints not
being in common use in England at

the time, and this argument to my
mind still seems to hold.
I have to state my respect for

David and his long standing

interest and research into the

history of glassmaking, all
documented on his website. I
could be absolutely wrong, but
feel that unless I give voice to my

thoughts, as others have done, then

it will not take our understanding

of early glassmaking any further,
particularly with the paucity of
facts available.

Editor’s note: A better Editor than

this one might have let Dr Watts

have the last word — his 3o years

of study giving him the edge, but as
his views are in the public domain I

thought readers could follow up for

themselves. Neither of the authors

wish this to be seen as a slanging

match between them. They come at

the subject in different ways and in

the interests of glass-making knowl-
edge it is worth airing points of view.
If anyone other than these two inter-

ested parties has something to add

we would like to hear it; otherwise

this subject vein will come to an end.

Endnotes
Robert Plot, 1677, p.253,
The Natural

History of Oxfordshire.
Robert Hook (1635-

1703), natural philosopher and polymath.

1.
‘Journal of the Society of Glass

Technology; volume XL, 1956

2.
Price, W.H.1913 The English Patents

of Monopoly Harvard and Oxford
University Presses

3.
Fox, H. G. 5947
Monopolies and

Patents: A Study of the History and Future

of the Patent.
Toronto: University of Legal

Studies

4.
www.british-history.ac.uk

5.
Notestein, W, Relf, F. H. and

Simpson, H.1935
The
Commons

Debates

of
1621 Vols.
2,
3, 7. Yale and Oxford

University Presses, 1935.

6.
Parliamentary Archives HL/PO/

JO/m/i/120 13 April 1642, and HL/PO/

JO/m/1/22,16 May 1642

LEFT:

Fig. 7.
Robert Hook

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

REPORTS

The Glass Circle visit to the Netherlands

M
embers of the Glass

Circle and Glass

Association very much

enjoyed a successful con-
tinental trip organised
by our Chairman, John

Smith. He had appreci-
ated that we would not
be able to visit the glass

department of the Ri-

jksmuseum (which was
undergoing structural

works), and later learned
that the three other

major glass museums

on our itinerary — the

Museum Boijmans Van
Beuningen, the Maurit-

shaus and the Amster-
dam Historical Museum
— would not have their

glass on show during

our visit. A lesser person
might have called the

whole trip off. Not our
Chairman. Instead he

arranged for us to visit

the homes of four seri-

ous collectors of antique
BELOW:

Fig. i.
At the

Gemeente

Museum a

selection of

fabulously
engraved

glasses

by David
Wolff Frans

Greenwood,

Jacob Sang
and others.

BOTTOM:

Fig. 2. Detail

of stipple

engraving
by Frans

Greenwood

of a

canoodling
man and

woman (or

are they?)
and modern glass and

we are indebted to them
for their hospitality and

for allowing us into the

privacy of their homes

to see their wonderful

collections.
We stayed at the

Hotel Rotterdam near
the railway station. The

name and position of the

hotel might have been

drawn from a Graham

Greene novel, although

I am pleased to say our
trip did not prove to

have quite as much of

the drama.
On the morning of

our first day we trav-

elled to the Gemeente
Museum in the Hague.
We were shown the

reserve collection area

of the museum by the
charming curator Jet

Pijzel-Dommisse. She
had laid out a carefully

selected collection of rare
glasses for us to look at

(see figs. i & 2), and what

particularly caught my
eye
was a beautiful early

French coloured pot and

cover originally owned
by the Rothschild family

(see figs. 3 & 4). As space

was limited we had to

split into two groups.
The waiting half saw an

important collection of

works by Mondrian and
Alexander Calder who

is well known for his
mobiles. We saw an early

film of Calder bending

steel wire to make his

figurative human and

animal forms. Thereafter,
we were able to view the

result on display which

helped us to understand

his genius.
Our afternoon was

taken up with the visit
to three collectors who

by good luck all lived

within a few hundred
metres of each other in

a picturesque suburb of

Rotterdam.
We split into three

groups. My first stop was

at the home of a gentle-
man who had inherited

an exceptional collection

of Dutch engraved glass,

and was still adding

to it. The star of that

collection was a superb

dated and signed glass

engraved by the master

engraver Greenwood.
This glass is not illus-

trated in any book and

its owner declared that it

was his intention to keep

the collection private so

we were very privileged

to be allowed to view his

glass. Understanding the
difficulty of appreciating
the quality of the engrav-

ing without handling
and viewing the wine

glasses with a magnifying
glass, our host provided
enlarged images of the

engravings which was
most helpful. Also
ABOVE:

Figs. 3 & 4.
A French

facon de

Venise lidded
bowl of

mixed white

opaque, red,
blue
and

clear metal
with ornate

handles and

decorated
with

raspberry

prunts.
Circa
i600-

5o.
Height

19.6 cm
present was a talented

stipple engraver, Ronny

Bohre, who showed us

some of her work.
We then moved on

to a collector of modern

Leerdam glass, largely

This collector was an
artist in his own right.

Some of his drawings

were displayed in his

studio and many of his
fine bronze sculptures

of the human form were
positioned around his

house and garden. What

made the modern glass

displayed in the house

and garden so different
from the antique glass

that many of us collect,

was its size and the fact
that it formed a very ef-

fective part of the general

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

REPORTS

BELOW
LEFT:

Fig 8 Two

vases by
Copier of
Leerdam

of typically
austere form
BELOW

RIGHT:

Fig 9 Simon

van Gin

Museum in

Dordrecht

seen across

Nieuwe

Haven

decor of the home rather

than artefacts to be

viewed in serried ranks

through the locked glass
doors of a cabinet (fig.
5 )

Our last visit of that

day was to a collector of

a fine early and antique

English and continen-

tal glass. Within one

of the cabinets was a

large plain-stemmed

wine glass with a drawn
trumpet bowl which did

not appear to be rare or

unusual. It was not until

our host brought it out

that we saw it was an

Amen glass (fig. 6). The

diamond point engraving
RIGHT:

Fig. 5

The
Copier

influenced

sitting room
of one of
our

collector hosts

BELOW
LEFT:
Fig. 6

Large drawn

trumpet

Amen’

goblet with

diamond-
point

engraving
BOTTOM

LEFT:

Fig. 7
Detail of

Jacob Sang
engraving

on a light

baluster

goblet

was virtually indiscern-

ible when the glass was

viewed through the glass

doors of the cabinet. This

collector also showed us

the extraordinary skills
of the Dutch engraver,

Jacob Sang (fig. 7)
On the second day

we visited the Simon
van Gijn Museum in
Dordrecht (fig. 9). Simon

van Gin was a business-
man, lawyer and collector

who purchased the house

in which the Museum
is located in 1864. This

is not a so much glass

museum as an interest-
ing house of a successful

businessman who left his
period home and most

of his collections to the

Old Dordrecht Society
when he died in 1922;

it did, however, have a
very good collection of

engraved Dutch glass.
In the early afternoon

we went to the Leerdam

Museum which is next
to the Leerdam factory.

It was at the Leerdam

factory that AD Copier

1901-1991 started work

at the age of 13. He was
to become the most

influential designer of
modern Dutch glass and

the museum is largely

devoted to the produc-
tion of the factory of

glasses, vases and other
domestic glass vessels

from 1923 when his de-

signs were first produced.
(fig. 8)

Afterwards we went

to the Etienne Gallery

in Oisterwijk (see fig.
to overleaf). This is

the finest modern glass

gallery in Holland,
and possibly Europe,

displaying the work of

international glass artists

and, although we saw no

works by Dale Chihuly,

you would have needed
a large credit balance

in your bank account

to acquire any of the

striking pieces on display.

The third day was

spent in Amsterdam.

Our first stop was a visit
to the house of a collec-

tor with a distinguished

collection of English and

continental glass. In one

of his first floor rooms

all the walls had been
beautifully fitted with

cabinets and shelves to

accommodate his exten-

sive collection of glass
and books.

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3
23

REPORTS

Our host sought our

advice on several of his

glasses. One of these was

a green wine glass with

a bell bowl, beaded at its
base, with an air-twist

stem and a conical foot
(see fig. xi). The question

that naturally arose was

whether the glass, which

had been acquired in
Holland, was English or

continental. We could

not tell from the weight

whether it was soda or

lead glass and while the
ABOVE:

Fig. is

We had long

discussions

with one of
the collectors

over whether
some of his

glasses were
English or
Dutch:
style of the glass sug-

gested it might be Eng-

lish, without establishing
the nature of the metal it

was not possible to give a

definitive answer.
Our final destina-

tion on the glass circuit

was the Frides Lameris

Gallery in the heart

of the canal district

of Amsterdam. Since

their late father died the

Gallery has been run by
his daughters Anna and

Kitty with the help of

their brother Willem.

The Lameris family were

good enough to open

their gallery for us on

Sunday and provide us

with refreshments as

well as a chance to look

at their very fine collec-

tion of Dutch engraved

glasses. (fig. 7)
Anna gave us a talk on

Jacob Sang (see also the

article on page 8). Anna’s
research established that

the engraver Jacob Sang

is the same person as

Simon Jacob Sang who

was born in Germany
and was certainly living

in Amsterdam in 1748.
on which much of the

mid 18th century Dutch

engraving is to be found

was probably produced
in the Netherlands could

it be that cullet from

England was used to

provide the raw material?
Kitty’s talk concerned

her research in establish-

ing that the distinctive

engraving on a mirror in
the Gallery was the work
of Caspar Lehman 1563?-

1622 who is credited as

being one of the earliest

artists to apply the tech-
nique of wheel engraving

to glass. In June 1986
Christie’s sold a series of

six panels by Lehman,
one of which is now in

the Rijksmuseum.
Moving away from

glass our last day was

taken up with a visit to

the famous bulb gardens

of Keukenhof — a spec-
tacle not to be missed

whatever the weather.

Graham
Vivian

It was intriguing to learn

that Sang sold his glass

at the’English Glass

Shop’. Bearing in mind
that the current view

is that the lead glass
LEFT:

Fig. so One

of Philip

Baldwin

& Monica

Guggisberg’s
pieces

from their
exhibition,

On boats

and

journeys

BELOW:
Fig.

12 Anna
Lameris

giving her
talk on Jacob

Sang

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

CURIOSITY

Curiosity corner

What’s this?

r
an anyone suggest

‘…what this object
is It is 14 cm high (5

1
/2 in) and is facetted

all the way round (ten

facets). It has a small 2

mm hole at the top and

a larger one at the bot-

tom which is about 12

mm (
1

/2 in). There is an

upstand inside the hole

at the bottom which

may not be visible in the

photograph. The hole

at the bottom is well
formed, not chipped

out as seen in some

toddy lifters (used to

transfer hot toddy from

a larger mixing rummer

to a drinking glass). Any

suggestions would be
welcome.

Mike Wallis

Bournemouth

Even more curious

T
he item above

I came too late to

be included in the July

issue and was kept for

this one. However, Mike
Wallis has received three

emails identifying it as

a 19th century bitters
dispenser. What is going

on here? Neither of us

believes in thought trans-

ference. And how come
he has had
three
replies

to something that never

appeared, whereas your
Editor asks the member-

ship to pipe up on points

of interest and very few
people respond. If you

are moved to reply direct

to an author, please copy

me in as well at glass@

editor.net .

Editor

Pass the port

W
hen

Godfrey & Val

Sparks acquired

the Moat Hall, Bearsted,

Kent, in 1972, they

bought just slightly more
than they had bargained

for. The house, dating

from 17th century, was

derelict and due for

demolition to make way

for a housing estate. As
Godfrey recalled,’It was

a total mess, and perhaps
not entirely suitable for

a family with three small
children.
‘It contained no

personal effects, other
than some old bottles in

the cellar. All were empty

except this one, which

was lying on its side.
It was filthy dirty and

showed no signs of ever

having had a label, but it

did retain a thick blob of

grey sealing wax over its
mouth:
The bottle was duly

cleaned and put aside,

waiting for an appropri-

ate moment to open it.

Time passed, the Hall

was lovingly restored,
the children flew the nest

and, five years ago, God-

frey and Val downsized

to a smaller house, taking

the still unopened bottle

with them.
‘We didn’t have a clue

what it contained, but

it had become a sort of
unofficial member of

the family, albeit one

that lived in the garage;

Godfrey recalls.’We kept

saving it for a special

occasion, but in the

absence of a major lot-

tery win, we didn’t have

anything worth celebrat-
ing. Then we had a great

idea: if we celebrated
first, the Great Event

might follow!’

He pliered away the

wax, sieved the contents
through kitchen towel

and crossed fingers.

As it transpired, the

contents were port.

As Godfrey
tells the story:

‘It wasn’t an

anniver-

sary to start

with but as

we tasted
more, it

slowly be-
came one!’
Eager to

prove the
efficacy of

wax-sealed

bottles,

Godfrey felt
compelled

to visit
Glass Etc

with the

evidence: the

empty bottle

and a phial

of loo+
year-old

port.
Glass

Circle News’

ever-eager

Rye corre-

spondent is

delighted to
report that

the system

works: the

port was

delicious:

full, soft and

sweet and not
at all crusty.

Andy

McConnell

Rye
C)
An
dy
Mc
Conne
ll

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GLASS

Prom the Earliest Tunes to the Present

BIBLIOGRAPHIE DU VERRE

B1BLIOGRAPHIE UBER GLAS

BIBLIOGRAFIE OVER GLAS

Willy Van den

•
PAST PRESENT

REVIEWS

Book reviews

Bibliography of Glass:

From the Earliest
Times to the Present

Willy Van den

Bossche

The Antique
Collectors Club,
2012.

£65 $95 €82
ISBN 978-1-85149-

721-8

347 pages
www.antiquecollec-

torsclub.com

To order a copy for
the special price

of £45.50 (postage

and packaging not
included) please call

+44 (0)1394
389977

and quote

‘Glass Circle’.

This is a book without
I illustrations and

without a story, but

with an overwhelming
amount of information

Past and Present, Peter
Layton and London

Glassblowing

Peter Layton, ed

Halstar
2012 £25.

Special price to Circle

members £19 until

Christmas
ISBN: 978-1-906690-

4
2-
7

www.londonglassblo-

wing.co.uk

A
record of the studio

over the past 35

years in parallel with the

evolution of the Studio
Glass movement was

published in October
2012 to
coincide with an

exhibition of the same

name at London Glass-

blowing. It includes an

essay by Scott Benefield

on the 5o year old his-
tory of this exciting’new’

artform, and Andy Mc-
Connell, the Antiques

Roadshow glass expert,
that will be of value for

generations to come.

The
Bibliography of

Glass
is a compilation of

3,500 books and a few

important articles on

glass and glassmaking. It
is user friendly, thanks

to the many cross-
references that make it

whose essay,’You Don’t
Know What You’ve Got

Till It’s Gone’, describes

the current state of glass-

making and its future
viability. His contention

is that in a few years’
time with escalating
costs, stricter emission

controls and lost skills,

studio glassmaking will

no longer be viable in

the West. The team at
London Glassblowing,

will however continue to
make strenuous efforts

to prove him wrong.
easy to find book titles

and authors. In order to

place the books in their
time-frame, the years

of the authors’ births

and deaths have been
recorded. It contains

global information on

books that cannot easily

be found on the Internet,

such as those published
between 1600 and

1950, as well as those
published in a limited
edition or in uncommon

languages. Of course,
this is not a book to be

read serially, but the

content is fascinating all
the same. The catalogue,

comprising over 30 pages

of 450 museums world-

wide with a connection
to glass, alone will keep

you busy for quite a

while.

I know of no other

book that can compare

with this bibliography,
neither will there be one

published in the next
decades for I cannot

think of anyone dedicat-

ed enough to spend ten

years of his life compil-

ing it.

It is a must for

museums, universities,

libraries and everyone

seriously interested in

the history and evolution

of that wonderful mate-
rial that is created by

fusing dull and common

composites such as sand,
lime and soda ash. It has

always fascinated me

that out of such simple
materials something so

beautiful can emerge,

yielding to the hand of

the artist or the wish

of the consumer. What
causes this fascination

with glass? After ‘sixty
years in glass’ of which

42 were in the bottle-

making industry, I still

do not know the answer

to that question. Willy

Van den Bossche has
long inspired me with

the beauty and history of

antique glass, as well as
in the technical evolution

of its means of produc-
tion. From time to time,

I have been able to call

upon his knowledge of

the subject while writing

my own publications
although those never

reached the level of inter-

national appreciation as

his beautifully illustrated
Antique Glass Bottles

(Antique Collectors

Club, zoot).
Johan Soetens

(Formerly director of

Vereenigde Glasfabrieken
(United Glassworks),
The Netherlands

British Glass Biennale

Catalogue
2012

Michelle Keeling and

Jo Newman, eds

ISBN: 978-0-

9547573
–
4
-2

124
pp full colour

I t is clever and far-
sighted of the editors

to continue with the

same lavish design and

format of previous

catalogues. The last three

are stylishly designed by
Mytton Williams with

signature-tune full-page

blow-ups from details of

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

NEW TECHNOLOGIES I*

G L As

VANESSA CUTLER
REVIEWS

glass forming the section
dividers — and showing

how marvellous modern

glass is. As I wasn’t able

to go the the exhibition
myself (and had not

entered for it as I had
no good photographs)

I wondered whether I

would get a sense from

the catalogue of what

the exhibition had been

like. I think the answer

is, Yes. Though it is

different to be within

hand-touching distance

of so many dazzling
objects, the catalogue
— with its informative

introductory essays by

judges, organisers and
stalwarts of 50 years of
glassmaking — is a good

record of what hearsay

records as being the best

collection of British glass

since the first Biennale

in 2004. It seemed to me

that skill and craftsman-

ship was being honoured
this year above whacky

conceptual art (suf-

ficiently represented of

course) and I personally

found that something

to be applauded. Louis
Thompson’s ‘Troupe:

Dance Composition

demonstrates both skill

and conceptuality, wit-

tily presented: a worthy

winner.

Jane
Dorner

New Technologies in

Glass

Vanessa Cutler
A&C Black/Blooms-

bury 2012, £24.99

ISBN: 978-5-4081-

39543
–

tz8pp full colour

Gold
Leaf

Paint & Glass

Frances Federer

Thomas Publications
2012,

£
1
5.55

ISBN 978-0-9572694-0-8

82 pp
www.gilding.net (a video

showing the practical

section of the book is

online)

A
valuable new handbook on

he techniques and history

of reverse painted and gilded

glass, often referred to as verre

eglomise. Gold leaf is attached

to the reverse side of sheet

glass using water based gela-

tine size and then scratched

and rubbed away to form
decorations which are then

enhanced and fixed to the glass

with coloured shellacs and

paint, decoupage and other
materials. Such gilding remains

fragile and prone to damage

from damp. It is the technique

used with Zwischengoldglaser

and a few hollowware glass

vessels, though more gener-

ally associated with mirrors,
mirror frames, reverse glass

paintings and decorative glass

panel work.

Bill Gudentrath’s succinct

and useful Foreword, outlin-

ing the methods of gilding

glass using heat, sets the pace

and briefly alludes to the pit-
falls of cold gilding. So often
glass that has been gilded

using furnace techniques

appears at auctions described

as
verre eglomise
when it is

clearly nothing of the sort.

This book will be of par-

ticular interest to those inter-

ested in
Hinterglasmalerei
and

cold gilded glass panels. The
first chapter outlines the cur-

rent debate on what is truly

verre eglomise,
leading into

some vital reference material
on cold gilding techniques

on glass and its history, with

first an illustrated chapter

by the author, followed by a

scholarly gem from Simone
Bretz :’Historic Sources and

Recipes’ (chapter 3). Reverse

glass painting and gilding has

a long tradition in Northern
Italy, Bohemia and Central
Europe. It also enjoyed a brief

place in 18th and early 19th
century English glass history,

both for locally made mirror

frame decorations and for
reverse glass paintings made

in China on English mirror

panels that were subsequently
re-imported back to England

(sadly no illustrations of

these).

Subsequent chapters on

tools, practical exercises and

contemporary use of cold gild-

ing and painting are of greater

interest to those seeking to ex-
periment with the techniques
themselves. The book also has
an excellent index.

If one has to criticise, then

it would be for the confusion

in terminology and layout,
making much of the early text

unnecessarily complicated.
Original engravings could be

shown on the same page as
the reverse gilded versions.

The technique of steaming

and double gilding in the

practical section will remain a

total mystery unless and until

one attends a class with the

author. Nonetheless,

Gold Leaf, Paint and Glass

provides a useful addition to

our knowledge of glass and its
history.

Katharine Coleman
This isn’t an obvious

I book for the Glass

Circle member’s book-

shelf, but given the inter-
est in technologies of

glass — as demonstrated
in the passions raised

on flint glass
(see
pages

17-21) — it is certainly

an education in what
can be done nowadays

with laser engraving,

water-jet cutting, multi-
axis machining and

rapid prototyping not to

mention the intricacies

of computer numerical
control. The author is

both an engineer and an

artist and she really does
understand the mechan-

ics of what she is describ-

ing and transmits her

enthusiasm for this new

world of artistic potential

with great style. Is this

where collectors of the
future should be look-

ing for a new strand of

covetable items? One day

these early experiments

will gain the cachet of

quaint antiquity — and
many are very beauti-

ful, the author’s own

work not least among
them. The quality of the

photographs doesn’t do

justice to the fine effects

achievable through the

fusion of technology and

artistic vision.

Jane Dorner

Glass Circle News Issue 130 Vol. 35 No. 3

DIARY/NEWS

Diary dates

Circle meetings
All held at the ArtWorkers

Guild.
6

Queen Square, WCIN

3AT. 7.15. Sandwiches from 6.3o

p.m. Guests are welcome (there

is a charge of e7 per guest for

refreshments).

13 November
The Circle AGM

Juanita Navarro: Composite
411/1
n
Ist
glass objects: is that repair try-

ing to tell you something? How
to recognise composite glass

objects and what to look for.

II December

Alex Werner: Dickens
‘

s Christ-

mas in glass

A seasonal celebration of

Charles Dickens, glass and the

author
‘
s
‘
favourite beverages

‘
.
Spring outing

7
March 2013

Visit to Peter Layton
‘
s glass-

blowing studio and workshop.

National Glass Collectors Fair
II
November 10.3o – 4.00 pm

National Motorcycle Museum,
Solihull, West Midlands
B9z oEJ
Glass week

17-22 February 2013
West Dean College www.west-

dean.org.uk

A week of practical courses
themed around glass including

stained glass, enamelling, glass

engraving, layering imagery in

glass, glass gilding and painting,
beadwork and beadmaking.

News
Christie’s Sale
A William & Mary gilt

wood and verre eglomise

pier mirror and compan-
ion side-table, c.1706

sold at Christie
‘
s English

Collection sale in May
2012 for £103,250.

This magnificent

pier glass and compan-
ion table emblazoned

with the Churchill coat

of arms was con-
ceived around 1706-7

for General Charles

Churchill (d.1714), and
traditionally thought to

have been presented to

him, with two Brussels

tapestries, by the States

of Holland in recogni-

tion of his service as

Governor of Brussels.

General Churchill was

the younger brother

of John Churchill, 1st
Duke of Marlborough

(d.I722), and fought

alongside the Duke at

the battles of Blenheim

and Ramillies to great acclaim.

The ornately carved pier glass

is unusual because although

comparables exist with verre
eglomise borders, most lack
the original carved cresting.

The cresting on this pier glass

depicting a trophy of Cupid
‘
s

weapons, combined with mar-
tial weapons, is in the French

manner. It reflects the passion

of the age in which war and

military prowess were em-

braced, a concept echoed in the
architecture and furnishings at
Blenheim Palace. The compan-

ion table show Dutch inspira-
tion, in particular the supports,

and two comparable others
(later in date) exist in England.
Changes at Stourbridge

Two of the last stalwarts of the
Stourbridge area have suc-

cumbed to trading pressures

and have sold their companies.
After a 9o-year trading his-

tory as a glass manufacturer and
processor, Plowden
&
Thomp-

son and Tudor Crystal Design
have transferred their business

and assets to ET Enterprises

Ltd. All employees have trans-

ferred to the new company.
MRJ Furnaces and English

Antique Glass have also been

sold (for a peppercorn sum) to

Original BTC. The previous
businesses are also continuing

with the same staff, together

with a new emphasis on lighting
components as this is the new

company

‘
s stock in trade.

Valete
Charles Bray
(1922-2012) died

in July. He instigated the glass

and ceramics course at Sunder-
land Art College some 4o years

ago and laid the foundation for
one of the most prestigious glass
courses in the world at the Na-

tional Glass Centre. His book
Dictionary of Glass: Materials

and Techniques
(A&C Black,

2001) is a classic on the subject.

Gill Toynbee-Clark
(1927-2012)

died during the summer. With
her partner Frances Hayward,

who died a few years ago, she
had been a stalwart member of

the Circle. She lived in Cam-
bridge and regularly attended

meetings.

Peter Meyer
(1925-2012) died in

September. He was a very long-

standing member of the Glass

Circle who came to occasional

lectures until relatively recently.

Corning commission
The Corning Museum of Glass

has commissioned Katharine
Coleman to make a new piece
for its collection of modern

glass: Waterlily VI, consisting of
two separate pieces of glass — a

top and a base.
Both are engraved on blown,

colour overlaid, clear lead crystal

forms — in this case Potter
Morgan Glass blew the glass to

her design. The top surface of

the glass is later cut, ground and

polished, so that when subse-

quently engraved on the outside

surface, it is also possible to look

inside the piece, to see all the re-
fractions of the outside repeated

on the inner surface, creating

an illusion of one body floating
inside another.

French glass companies
to close
Faience et Cristal de France has

been put into liquidation by
the commercial section of the

High Court of Metz. The court

has allowed Faience et Cristal

to continue its activity for two

months in order to find a buyer.
Cristal de France includes the

glass companies Vallerysthal,

Portieux, Niderviller and St.

Clement, Luneville. Some of

the families affected have been

making glass for 3o generations.

The company was founded in

1735
and is based in Niderviller,

France.

Glass Circle News Issue

130 Vol. 35 No. 3

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

Glass Circle News_No.130, Nov 2012

Recent Posts

Address

Email

Instagram

Facebook