Glass Circle News_No.134, Mar 2014

GLASS C

Vol. 37 No. 1
ISSN 2942-652

Issue 134 March 2014

•
Ship’s decanters

•
Varnish Et Co

•
Filigrana techniques

•
Admiral Mansell

•
Hookahs

•
Reports

reviews

Chairman’s report

Letters
Ship’s decanters
Varnish & Co

Admiral Mansell
Vetro a retortoli: part 2

Cut glass and hookahs

Reports
Reviews
Diary

Glass Circle News
ISSN 2043-6572

Vol. 37 No. 1
Issue
134

March
2014

published by The Glass Circle

Editor

Jane
Dorner

[email protected]

9
Collinewood Avenue, N10 3E11

Design and layout
Athelny Townshend

[email protected]

Neither the Glass Circle nor any of its officers or committee
members bear any responsibility for she 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

photographs illustrating articles. The Editor asks contributors to
clear permissions and neither the Editor nor the Glass Circle is

responsible for inadvertent infringements. All photographs are

Printed by
Micropress Printers Ltd

www.micropress.co.uk

Next copy date:

15
May

2014 for
the July edition.

COVER ILLUSTRATION:

`Still Life with a Parrot’ by Gabriele Salci, 1716.

Detail. © Liechtenstein: The
Princely
Collections,

Vaduz-Vienna (See page 23)
CONTENTS

EDITORIAL

Chairman’s report

he committee has
decided that in order to

improve and maintain

our budget balance

members attending meetings will be

charged £10 per meeting and guests

little more. Put simply, our expenditure

is exceeding our income and we must
balance our books. Following on from

this, and, bearing in mind it is some time

since subscriptions have increased, there
will need to be an increase in annual
subscriptions. This figure is still to be
decided. Our lectures are expensive to

run and we feel it reasonable to charge

those who attend. We also consider

the charge fair when compared to, for
example, the cost of sandwiches and cake
with tea or coffee in a central London
hotel venue or the cost of a cinema ticket.
Both of these would cost at least £10.

However, we are looking for a cheaper

venue and if we find one the charge may
be reduced.
Last November I was in Amsterdam,

vetting the Amsterdam Antiques and
Fine Art Fair. The next day I met Johan

Soetens, a retired senior executive in
the European glass industry, who is

also editor
of De Oude Flesch,

a Dutch

magazine for bottle collectors. He

told me that Peter Korf de Gidts had
recently written about Dutch thinking

on the development of lead glass for his

magazine. With Peter’s permission a

summary of this article is printed below:

The invention of lead glass
—

presentation by Peter Korf de Gidts,

glass antique dealer in Amsterdam.
It is generally presumed that George
Ravenscroft (1632-1693) invented lead glass, but

although the process was improved and further
developed in the glass house that he installed

in 1673, it is doubtful that he could have been
the inventor. An educated businessman and

entrepreneur, rather than a scientist and

certainly not a glassblower, he relied solely on

the art of the altarist and master glassblower
Baptista da Costa who had been working in the

Low Countries, in a glasshouse in Nijmegen.

There he got to know Sebastiaen Maistre
(master Bastiano) who had been working in

the famous Amsterdam glasshouse
The Two

Roses
during the time that the alchemist Johann

Glauber did his experiments with gold ruby

glass and lead glass. It is more than likely that
he took the recipes with him to Nijmegen and

communicated them to his fellow altarists. In

1672, when the French King Louis XIV declared
war on the Netherlands, Baptista da Costa came

to England, bringing along all the secrets of his

trade.
In London he met George Ravenscroft, a

successful importer of custom-made Venetian
glass and started in association with him a

glasshouse where he started to produce lead

glass. Likewise his former fellow glassmaker
from Nijmegen, Jor Adacio, went to Dublin

where several rich Irish businessmen became
interested in staring the production of lead

glass. A third glassmaker, the altarist Scapitta,

also a former glassblower from the Amsterdam
glasshouse, started the production of lead

glass in Stockholm, so there is every reason to

presume that, thanks to the ingenuity of Johann
Glauber, Amsterdam was the birth place of lead

glass instead of London.
This is very much in line with current

thinking. There is no doubt that Ravenscroft,

and his followers, using this new, heavy, high
refractive index glass, with its different working

characteristics from soda glass, developed a

new aesthetic in glass making, leading to the

baluster wine glass, the most sublime of all wine

glass forms, but inventing lead glass for vessel

manufacture.

In the last issue I wrote up the visit to

Vienna and Budapest and I neglected

to mention that this trip had been
organised by the Glass Association, and

for this I apologise.
John P. Smith

Editor’s letter

eg
–

n this edition, we have

a mixed bag — the final

word on hookahs; when a

decanter is meant to be on

board a ship; how filigrana glass is made;

on trying to track down Lord Eldon’s

vase; various notes on lead glass; reports,
reviews and another full email-bag of

letters.
In the next edition, the curator of
the Cecil Higgins Museum in Bedford

(which has recently reopened after

having been closed for several years) will
describe the remarkable collection of

glass. There’s a Circle visit planned for

12
April (not
21
April as reported in the

Diary last time) so come and experience

them for yourself if you are able.

Jane Dorner

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

alma,

ea:
LETTERS

Letters to the Editor

Favourite
glass

I
read the piece by Tony Wigg

on his Italian vase with

considerable interest. I have no

more information about the

origin of it, unfortunately, but I do
possess what I suspect is another

piece from the same series. One

of my bowls is pictured. Perhaps

Mr Wigg would be interested in

seeing it. I bought my little bowl in

South London about 10 years ago.
It measures about 4.5 cm high and

is 10.5 cm across.

Sharon Butler

South London

Cost savings
A s
a contribution to cost

Msavings, I would be quite
happy to receive my magazine

by the internet which would save

publishing and postage costs.

There are two advantages: one, the

magazine can be easily stored and
referred to, and secondly, I would

get it earlier!

No doubt this has been

considered.

Bill Davis

Melbourne

What is this ship?
ssue no. 131 page 29 shows an en-

graved ship on the Fitzwilliam’s

Crawford glass. This ship sailed

on 24 October 1769, 23 Novem-
ber 1770, 25 September 1771 and

16th October 1772 from Rotter-

dam via Cowes to Philadelphia

with Charles Smith as her Master.

She was an emigrant ship carrying
passengers from Germany. Many

were escaping the Protestant &
Lutheran v. Catholic wars around
the city of Amberg, Bavaria. This

website has a complete passen-

ger list at http://www.searchfo-

rancestors.com/passengerlists/

crawford1772.html for one of

the trips. See also http://freep-

ages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.
com/ pagermanpioneers /index.

html.

David
C.

Watts

London

The November magazine

T
he November issue of

Glass

Circle News
is one of the

best. I was first drawn to Hans

van Rossum’s article as we have a

common interest in Roman glass

collecting. Knowing his expertise

it was exciting to follow the

parallels he mentioned of glass

workers incorporating ancient

styles. Mr van Rossum has an

enviable glass collection and it

is nice to
see
his fine pieces so

beautifully illustrated.

Dating filigrana glass is quite

difficult for many of us so Kitty

Lameris’s article was most

welcome. She is certainly a top

scholar on this subject and we all

will benefit from her advanced
knowledge. I learned many facts

and details which will be helpful
in studying these objects which

are on view in many of the major

museums we visit.

Carole Allaire
New Jersey
Lobmeyr responds

T
hank you for sending us the

November issue in which

we are mentioned. It has had
an important influence on us. It

arrived just as we were about to

hold one of our regular family

meetings and it was particularly
useful for us to discuss John

Smith’s report on the interesting
(possibly exhausting) trip to

Vienna and Hungary, as well

as Ulrike Scholda’s article
`Viennese glass in Greek Style’

which features our glass.
We are planning Lobmeyr’s
20
o-

year anniversary in 2,023 which

will celebrate six generations of
our family involvement in the
company. The Circle’s visit to

us made us re-evaluate our own

treasures by listening to the
reactions from connoisseurs like

your readers. The articles made
us realise that we have a duty to

make our archives more accessible

to glass collectors and scholars and

as a result we have more or less

decided to enlarge the space for

guests to
see

our collections.

All of us admire the artistic

layout of the issue too. The
magazine will be a valued item in

our archives and we would like to

subscribe to it.

Peter Rath
Vienna

Density
measurements of glass

I n response to David Giles’s

request for more information

on density measurements (page

3), when I first became interested

in glass the question being asked

was whether the lead content of
tableware reduced as a result of

the 1745 Excise Act. The problem

was posed by a comment in
Robert Dossie’s
Handmaid to the

Arts
(1746). If so, this could be

a useful guide to distinguishing

earlier and later 17th century

glass, particularly twists and
cut glass. I had acquired an old

laboratory balance and set out to
test the theory which, incidentally,

Editor’s note

All letters

about a
previous

edition of

the magazine
refer to Vol.

36 No. 3
Issue no.

133 unless
otherwise

stated.

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

LETTERS

t-womotia
n
A

determined my collection
interests. About the same time

E.M. Elville published a piece on

the subject in
English Table Glass

(1960). My results showed that
for the examples I examined (70 in

all) there was no diminution of the

amount of lead in the glass.

The measurement itself is easy,

the weight (density) of the object
is measured first in air (as normal)

and then suspended freely in
water. It does, however, require a

fairly sensitive balance to about
o.i%, or better, of the weight of the

object. My old balance served the
role admirably. Today, it is more

of a problem: electronic scales are

not sensitive enough.
To make the measurement in

water I drilled a hole through the
base of the balance and the board

on which it rested. A thread then
carried the glass from the balance

arm into a large plastic bucket of
water. An old towel was placed in
the bottom of the bucket in case of

a thread breakage although it never
happened. It is important that the

glass is completely immersed and

does not touch the side of the
bucket. Weights are then added

to the other pan of the balance
until the swings of the balance are
equal. The weight in air divided

by the lesser weight in water

gives the density (specific gravity)
of the glass. For perfect results

the density of the water, which
changes with temperature, should

also be taken into account. But I
always used tap water at about
21°C and ignored the correction
which is small anyway.
My results were in reasonable

agreement with those given by
Elville. A density of 2.75 notionally

represents about 5% lead in the

glass, increasing by about
1%
lead

for every 0.02% density linearly
up to 3.3 indicating 36% lead.

All of the 18th century glasses I
measured from balusters to cut

stems came out with a density
equal to or above a lead content

of about 31.3%. The
air in an air
twist is much smaller than

looks from the outside and did
not significantly affect the result.

Glasses from the Ravenscroft

period show a wide range of
densities from around io% up to

40% by my measurements.
Peter Plesch was also interested

in Chinese glasses and there was
a question as to whether these
contained barium rather than

lead to increase the weight. This
brings in a second test, use of

the UV lamp. Far UV, and often

the near UV of cheap lamps,

fluoresces blue with 18th century,

and earlier, lead glass, Non-lead

glass gives a greenish yellow due
to manganese as decoloriser.

Glass without either usually has
no fluorescence. Chinese glass

is frequently coloured and the
fluorescence of coloured glasses

can be difficult anyway. So the

density measurement was a useful

alternative. I do not know if Plesch

published any results.
When we move into the 19th

century, lead glass does not always

give a blue fluorescence. Non-lead

glass, particularly press-moulded
glass may have various additives

such as barium or zinc which

affect the density which may vary

from about
2.2

up to about 2.5,

although it is not an area I have
particularly studied. Density

may also help in the analysis of

archaeological samples. I found
that a suspected late 16th century

chunk of green glass, thought to

have come from the Bear Garden

glasshouse in Southwark turned

out to have a density similar to
that of
normal lead glass. I suggest
it reflected a solution to making

both crystal and ordinary glass in
the same furnace without having

to alter the furnace conditions.
Except for these rather special

investigations

the

density

difference between i8th century
lead and non-lead glasses, of

which I have a couple, is very clear

even with a relatively insensitive

balance and can be great fun (and

sometimes produce nasty shocks)

in exploring the properties of one’s

own collection.
David
C.
Watts

London

Why Henley-on-Thames?

I
was doing a bit of research into

why George Ravenscroft set up a

furnace in Henley-on-Thames to
develop his new crystal and found

a few facts perhaps of interest
to members of the Glass Circle
interested in that period of glass

making.
His venture was financed by the

Worshipful Company of Glass

Sellers and Looking Glass Makers
of London founded in 1664.
His family were staunch

Catholics even though he is

buried in the family chapel in
St John the Baptist,

Chipping Barnet,
Hertfordshire.
Henley-

on-Thames
may have

had

connection

with a senior

glass

seller

as the local
Stonor family,
headed by Lord
Camoys, were staunch Roman
Catholics (they even have a priest

hole at Stonor Park, their stately
home, still in the family after 85o

years) and are known to have
sheltered many Roman Catholics

in fear of their lives.
Here is what the family archivist

told me:
The furnace was not at Stonor

Soda glass

Height 17.9 mm,
c.1745 or earlier,

probably English

RIGHT:
George

Ravenscroft by John
Yeo, stained glass

artist of Somerset.

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

Harvey Littleton

vase 1965
OBITUARY

Harvey Littleton

Park itself. However the family

owned a great deal of land around
the area and also built parts of

Henley. The first furnace was

behind what is now the Bell
Bookshop and there was another

behind was is now the Kenton

Theatre. Once there was a road

called Glasshouse Lane which led

down behind the Kenton Theatre

but that no longer exists and now

leads to new flats. There also was a

pub which became The Bull, now

offices, which is where the family

lived. If you go down an alley

behind the Bell Bookshop you

will see a name on the wall which

is thought to be his son-in-law. If
visiting Henley you need to be in/

off Bell Street and New Street.

The only other bit of

information I have is that a
certain sand came from Nettlebed

which is just outside Henley.
Perhaps this is why they came to

the area. See their website www.

nettlebedhistory.org.uk. This ties

in with the Glass Sellers’ records

of providing Ravenscroft with two
teams of glass makers about eight

to ten men.

Stonor Park, being in

Oxfordshire, meant that Dr

Robert Plot, first Professor of

Chemistry at Oxford University,

heard about Ravenscroft and his

experiments and sent his assistant
Dr Ludlow to see him.

Stephen Pollock-Hill
Nazeing

Glass books

I
have two duplicate books that I

am willing to send (from Israel)

to any interested party. Contact

me at stephen.pohlmann@gmail.

corn to arrange postage.They are:

+ Sheppard, Christopher (199o)
A collection of fine glass from

the Restoration to the Regency

Mallet & Son

•
Sheppard, Christopher (199o)

Engraved Glass – Masterpieces

from Holland
Mallet & Son

Stephen Pohlmann

Israel
The end of an era

W
ith the death of Harvey

Littleton on 13 December

2013, at the age of 92, the global

Studio Glass Movement which

started in 1962 in Toledo, Ohio,
has lost its founding father.

Littleton, whose own father was

Director of Research at Corning

Glassworks and was instrumental

in the development of Pyrex,
had `glass in his blood’. Although

trained originally as a designer,

he soon realised that he could

never work as freely as he desired

in an industrial context. Instead,

he became a successful studio

potter, and subsequently Head

of the Ceramics Department

at the University of Wisconsin,

where he also established the

country’s first university course in

glassblowing.

Littleton’s vision was that glass

could be used as a medium for

artistic self expression, and he
dedicated himself to breaking

down the traditional prejudices
that limited its use to factory

production. He pursued this goal

with true pioneering spirit, helped

significantly by his vital encounter

in the early 196os with another

great pioneer, the young German

artist Erwin Eisch, and the life-

long friendship that ensued. At
the time Littleton was touring
Europe, gathering evidence and

linformation to prove

t that hot glass could

be worked alone

lby an individual
in much the

same way

as a studio

potter might
use clay. In

Murano,

where

techniques

Were kept

h
ighly secret, he

Was made to
feel less than welcome,

particularly at Fratelli Toso,

where he was marched out of
the factory. Fortunately not

so at Venini. When later he
encountered Eisch’s freeblown

artifacts in Bavaria, he

immediately responded to their

organic, non-functional, even

anti-functional qualities. So

began a lifelong friendship, one

which was to initiate a steady flow
of European designers to America

and vice versa, in a mutually
beneficial cross-pollination of

glassmaking skills, energy and
enthusiasm.

With evangelistic zeal,

Littleton and his followers,

Marvin Lipofsky, Dale Chihuly,

Sam Herman and many others

(I count myself among them)

have created a flourishing art

movement that explores glass

as its primary medium. The

sharing of information, ideas and
know how, through international

symposia and exhibitions, and

latterly via the internet, has

created a truly global community

of glass artists.

Littleton’s singular contribution

cannot be underestimated. His
rallying call that

cheap’ underlined both a denial

of function and the supremacy

of ideas, igniting original and

exciting new realities with this
uniquely malleable

and transparent
medium.
His own

work, which
continually

pushed the

boundaries,

is held

in public

and private

collections

throughout the

world.

Peter Layton

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

124…7/476st17 Seen-condeard an easdrainonan, .51gona lie.

effects of a kcal

SHIP’S DECANTERS

AU at sea with ship’s decanters

0a
ecanters — those

with very wide
bases, today known

as ‘ship’s decanters’,

or if you live west of the Atlantic

Ocean, occasionally as ‘captain’s

decanters’, have been popular for

well over 200 years. In recent
times, almost all well-known

glass manufacturers have made
decanters, with very wide bases,
even if they have not been

called by this name. Indeed, the

expression ‘ship’s decanter’ or

its alternatives, appears to be

missing from the Oxford English
Dictionary, Chambers’, Collins,

Webster’s and others. Despite

this, the expression seems to be in
common parlance both in the UK

and US and ‘ship’s decanter’ seems

to be widely recognised around
the English-speaking world (see

eBay, auctioneers catalogues,

dealers’ descriptions, etc.) since at
least the 1920s. So perhaps the
first issue to address is when did

the term’ship’s decanter’ come into
use and what was it called before
that
A great many names for objects

which have been referred to as

antiques’ (but that, too, is a word

that has shifted its meaning
considerably over the years)

were acquired early in the zoth

century when the antiques trade
established itself. ‘Grandfather

clocks, ‘bachelor chests, ‘cotton
twist glasses’ and many more items

were given names they never had

when they were made; it was all

part of a trend to label things with
easy-to-remember, romanticised

tags for a new buying public as
antiques became fashionable. The
problem is that such haphazard

nomenclature has blurred the

history of these things. And once

the name of an object like `ship’s
decanter’ is accepted, it is hard
to reverse. However, everyone

now seems to know what a ship’s

decanter is.
Their crucial attribute is

stability, but they offer more than
that: they allow wine to ‘breathe’

better than standard decanters,

and for this reason they are
promoted by the modern wine

accessory business as ideal for
serious wine aficionados.
The precise date when ship’s

decanters made their first

appearance is not known, but

what is known, is that they were
called Rodneys’ in the 178os. It
was fashionable at the time for
decanters of different shapes to be

called after naval heroes —Nelson

gave his name to decanters with

cylindrical bodies after his famous

battle of Trafalgar in 1805; and
Admiral Rodney was feted for
his success over the French and

Spanish fleets at the Battle of the

Saintes (April :782). ‘Rodney’ is a
term still occasionally used, but

apparently now confined only to

dealers and collectors.
Ship’s decanters pose several

questions to anyone who has an
inquisitive mind. Perhaps the first

to address should be ‘were they
really intended for use at sea?:

The most obvious observation

has to be that having a broad base

lends stability to any decanter, but

even a very broad-based decanter

would not be safe in a gale, or
even a mild wind in a sailing ship

without some form of support or
restriction to prevent it sliding

over the edge of a table. Anyone
who has been anywhere in a sailing

ship will know that stowage is very
important on board. Tables have

galleried edges, and all stowage
areas have means of keeping
bottles, and other containers

secure.
There is a well-known cartoon

of 1818 by George Cruikshank
(fig.i) which shows a decanter and

glasses suspended from the ceiling

of the captain’s cabin of an East
Indiaman.They are on a small tray,

while the many occupants are in a

state of pandemonium resulting
from the precarious angle of the

deck. No doubt, as a cartoon,

there is a considerable amount of
artistic licence, but the principle of

maintaining horizontality is clearly
demonstrated. There appear to

be no extant drawings, prints or
paintings of ship’s decanters in use

at sea during the late 18th or early

19th centuries and very few in use
in a domestic situation.
There is a small number of

ship’s decanters with firm naval

connections. For example the
Berkeley magnum ship’s decanter’
.8.14

Robin

Butler

BELOW:
Fig.1

George Cruikshank’s

cartoon of 1818

showing a ‘prussian’
decanter, not a ship’s

decanter, suspended

from the ceiling with

glasses.

OPPOSITE RIGHT:

Fig. 2 The lack of an

everted lip
and

the

incised neck rings

suggest an early date
of c.1780-85. The

stopper, like those in
almost all pre-1830
decanters, may not

be original to this
decanter.

OPPOSITE

BOTTOM:
Fig. 3

from left to right:

a ship’s decanter

probably engraved

by John Richardson

of Newcastle and
Sunderland, c.

1806-10; a large

magnum
with a

broad base, but a

ship’s decanter?
c.1805; a plain

prussian’ decanter –

not a ship’s decanter,
c.1795; a plain

taper decanter — not

a ship’s decanter,
c.1775-90.

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

SHIP’S DECANTERS

and another engraved R and G
flanking an anchor — referring

to the Royal George lost at

Spithead in August 1782. These
two decanters indicate their naval

origins and might suggest that

they may have been made for
use at sea, but this is far from

conclusive evidence that they

were. Moreover, there are several

documented cases of landlubbers
buying them when they were new’.
From extant examples and

written evidence, it can be

deduced that ship’s decanters were
first made in the 177os or possibly

the early 178os. A comparison

between them and other decanters
made at the same time is useful.

The quality of the ‘metal’ is

generally better in ship’s decanters

than that found in other models.

Writing on the subject, the

prolific, mid-loth century writer

on antiques,
G. Bernard Hughes
is quoted as saying that they were

often made in ‘double flint’ that

was ‘extra strong metal prepared
in small pots and heated for longer
than normal’ and that in
17_
Ft
0 such

glass was described as ‘fairer and
more nice metal, fit for the nicest

world’ (fig. a).

A more compelling argument

is decanter weights. Compared

with those of other models, ship’s
decanters tend to be twice as heavy

as standard models. At a time

when glass was sold by weight it

is clear that ship’s decanters were

considered by glass-makers to be
their best. This can be construed

as a neat confirmation of Hughes’s

argument.

In a recent small survey, eight

decanters dating from between

c.1775 and c.182o of standard
forms (taper, ‘Indian club’, ‘Nelson’

and ‘Prussian) had an average

weight of just over 75o gm (1lb
II

oz), while the average weight of

nine ship’s decanters of a similar

date range was nearly 1.4 kg (over

31b). Each was of full-bottle size.
Indeed one ship’s decanter in the

survey weighed 1.6 kg while one of
the others weighed only 491 gm.
Presumably it was felt that heavier

decanters, that is those made
from thicker glass, were more

robust than other models and

thus more likely to survive a fall.

It is certainly indicative of higher

quality particularly at a time when

materials were a higher percentage

of overall cost than the labour to

make them and decanters were

originally sold by weight. Also the

very shape of a ship’s decanter gives

a higher ratio of surface to volume,

and hence a greater weight.
The question of when a ship’s

decanter ceases to fall into that
category and becomes simply ‘a

decanter’ is one that has exercised

the minds of many (fig. 3). There

is a certain cachet to the name

‘ship’s decanter’ which has a ring

of romanticism and the antiques
trade has been very keen to ascribe

the epithet wherever possible,
because it gives added value.

There is no empirical formula

which dictates that one decanter
passes the ship’s decanter test,

while another fails; there is no
ratio of height to width forming a

boundary line although some have

been attempted.

There are a good many decanters

which fall into a group somewhere

between what definitely are, and

what are probably not, ship’s

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

SHIP’S DECANTERS

decanters. The antiques trade has
termed the in-between category

as `semi-ship’s’ decanters. This
vague approach to nomenclature

is not helpful: while it may satisfy

some to put all decanters into neat
categories, it blurs the distinction
between them.
Decanters which can definitely

be called ship’s decanters share

several attributes. First, the

general overall shape is conical,
with or without a neck added.
The lowest inch (or z-3 cm) can

vary considerably. Some have a

very small inward curvature at the
base which softens the line as the

body touches the table on which

the decanter is resting; others have

a pronounced ‘tuck-in’, some have
short vertical sections, but the

majority are within these limits.

The bodies of some decanters are
concave giving a ‘trumpet-bell’

outline, while others are more or

less convex.
Even the earliest ship’s decanters
were given neck rings as an aid to

providing a good grip for the user.

The earliest were cut into the glass
— a form I have always termed

‘incised’ neck rings because they
are cut from thick glass to create

rings that stand away from the

overall shape (fig. a). However,

some call such neck rings ‘integral’
or ‘integral-cue. Either way, they

are a variety of neck ring which

affords a good grip, but which was
not practiced after
c.x800

(fig. 4).

For much of the 19th century, neck

rings, plain or cut, were applied to

the decanter. However, towards

the end of the century, neck rings

were mould-blown, whether or

not subsequently decorated with
cutting. This late constructional
method can be determined by

inserting a finger into the neck of a

decanter when the neck rings will

be easily felt. Incised or applied

neck rings cannot be felt in this

way.
With most decanters, the

ABOVE:
Fig. 4 An

early ship’s decanter

of
magnum
capacity

— a
rare
feature.

LEFT:
Fig. 5 Probably

everyone’s idea of

a ship’s decanter

– except that this

one has two neck
rings, but this does
not mean it was

necessarily made in
Rottl,t
standard number of neck rings

from c.1780-1820 is three, although
two or four rings are occasionally

seen (fig. 5). Two rings are said to
have been favoured in Belfast and

by some makers elsewhere, but
over 90% of decanters had three,

and very few had four or even
five. With ship’s decanters, four

or five rings are more frequently

seen although there seems to be
no logical or aesthetic reason for

this (fig. 6).There are, after all,

only three gaps between the four
fingers of a human hand.

Ship’s decanters have stoppers

like standard models, but ship’s

carafes are very rare, whether
or not because they might spill

at sea. The stoppers are worthy

of mention in that they all are
designed to be stable and not to
roll off a table. As a result very

few, if any, were originally fitted
with ‘mushroom’ stoppers, nor

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

ABOVE:

Fig 7 A pair of early 20th century ship’s decanters engraved ‘outward bound’
and
‘homeward bound’

corresponding to drawings in Hill Ouston’s catalogue of the 1930s.

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No.
1
SHIP’S DECANTERS

indeed with globular ones, either

of which might roll. The standard
pattern seems to have been the

target or bull’s-eye stopper, but

some are flat, inverted pear-

shaped ones with bevelled edges,
particularly early examples. It is

impossible to be categorical about

this, as stoppers were frequently

mixed up by servants at a later

date. A few globular stoppers have

been recorded which appear to

be original to their decanters, but

they have facetted or panel-cut

sides which would stabilise them.
Glass is a fragile substance,

and decanters are susceptible to
breakage. It is possible that despite

being made with thicker glass than

other models, a fair proportion
have been subsequently broken.

However, it seems very likely that

the percentage of ship’s decanters

to others when they were made

was quite low — perhaps as little as

2-5%. What we can say for certain

is that ship’s decanters of the

period 1780-1820 which survive
today account for considerably less

than i% of extant decanters of that

period.

Ship’s decanters have never

really disappeared from fashion,

although the very broad-based
decanters made today seldom,

if ever, refer to their maritime

origins by their manufacturing

companies. Also, it seems that

very few were made from about

183o-189o, although there was
an explosion in their popularity
thereafter. Throughout the 20th

century, ship’s decanters were
made in profusion, usually more

or less copying old designs.

Later ship’s decanters usually

have mushroom stoppers,

whether star-cut or plain, and

both the stopper peg and the

inside of the neck of the decanter
will be polished. The 18th and very

early 19th century decanters had

coarsely ground stoppers which

were not polished smooth. It seems
that the polishing of stoppers and

inside the necks of decanters was a

practice introduced by 181o, (as in

the Perrin Geddes decanters made

for the Prince Regent and by 1820-
30
it became the norm.
Some late 19th and early

20th century ship’s decanters

were made from blue, or more
commonly green glass, but these

invariably have ‘blown neck rings’

(see above) and are usually quite
heavily decorated with shallow

cutting. Another often-seen zoth

century decanter form can be

seen in Hill-Ouston’s catalogue4
of the 193os being a pair of ship’s

decanters of broad conical outline

and having over-all step-cut
bodies (fig.
7).

However, each has

an oval left uncut and engraved

with a galleon within the legend,

one reading ‘outward bound, the

other ‘homeward bound’. They

have star-cut mushroom stoppers

as have the green examples. They

also made a decanter of the same

pattern without the oval panel

and the engraving, and while the

engraved pair sold for 90/- (E4.5o)

the plainer ones were
60/-
(L3) a

pair. They sell for considerably

more today.

While British glassmakers were

responsible for the introduction

of the ship’s decanter, other
countries have perpetuated the

BELOW:

Fig. 6

A ship’s decanter

of c.1790 with 4
neck rings and of

uncommon
form.

ABOVE:
Fig

ship’s decan

`homeward
in
Hill Ousi

SHIP’S DECANTERS

concept more closely following

18th century patterns than the
British in recent times. Danish

Holmegaard and American

Steuben versions can look quite
convincing, but a British Royal
Brierley example although it has

an almost-authentic-looking body,
has a stopper which is too large

and ‘misses the mark’ in shape, too

(fig. 8).
The fact that there are many

times more reproduction or

other later examples of the genre
than originals, is testament to the
ongoing popularity of the model.

The more recent manifestations,

by companies such as Riedel

and Schott Zwiesel are an
indication that those whose

prime consideration is flavour and
bouquet enhancement, feel that

what the antiques trade call ‘ship’s

decanters’ are also best for our
wine. Like so many artifacts, those
made zoo or so years ago were as
practical as they were aesthetically

attractive.
It is worth considering where

the idea of a ship’s decanter may
have started and what other
patterns may be thought of as

ship’s decanters. Bottles from the

17th century have globular bodies

with tall cylindrical necks and
the similarly-shaped ‘shaft and

globe’ shape decanter was popular

during the first half of the 18th
century. However, these shapes

were not as stable as the ship’s

decanter, because of their narrow
footprint. When the shaft and
globe pattern was re-established

in the middle of the 19th century
a similar argument pertains, but as

the century progressed, the globe
became progressively compressed.

No doubt, the evolved shape

was somewhat more stable
than its predecessor, but such

decanters cannot be said to be

ship’s decanters; they are often

lightweight (by comparison) and
they have stoppers which would
roll.
An aspect of ship’s decanters

which appears not to have drawn
attention among collectors, is the

fact that they are among the earliest

decanters to have star-cut bases:
what purpose did this feature

provide? The earliest decanters

with star-cut bases appear to have
been made in the opening years of

the 19th century — certainly before

1820. But let us consider how all
this came about. Were decanters

cut only for aesthetic purposes or
to display the glassmaker’s skill?
Many wine aficionados say

they like their decanters to be

completely plain so that they

can see the wine inside with

absolute clarity. This is a flawed

argument and seems not to have
been challenged, but it is relevant

particularly when the wine is a

ABOVE:

Fig. 8 A

ship’s decanter, the

base of which is
marked
Brierley:

Note the out-of-
proportion stopper.

Fig. 9 A selection of ship’s decanters from c.1780 -1860

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

SHIP’S DECANTERS

deep, dark red as many finest

wines are. If a decanter is tilted
to an angle to allow the wine’s

meniscus to be enlarged, this can
help the observer. The depth and

colour of many wines is such that

they can be very difficult to assess
unless there is very shallow depth

to observe. This is why those

tasting wine often tilt their glasses

to minimise the distance through

which light must travel to
see

the

colour and clarity of the wine.

A glass decanter which is

cut refracts light very helpfully.

Although some decanters were
decorated with shallow lunate

andlollow diamond’ cutting from
the mid-18th century, the fashion

for deeper-cut glass came about at

much the same time that domestic

lighting was much improved, early

in the 19th century. This was the

time that star-cut bases appeared

and there is a sound reason for it.

Argand lamps — oil lamps which
used colza, whale or olive oil,

were invented in the 177os and

gave
6-8

times as much light as
candles’. By the early years of the

19th century they were produced
in large numbers and were joined

by chandeliers using the same
oils. It seems very probable that

with better lighting the refractive

qualities of glass, already fully

understood in chandelier making,

could be put to good use for

decanters too.

A decanter with a star-

cut base refracts light coming

from an overhead source back

and upwards. If wine is in the

decanter, the facets of the star

cutting will glint brightly through
the wine. This phenomenon is

further enhanced if the decanter

is fluted on the lower portion of

its body (fig.io). In fact light will
be refracted through wine even if

the star-cutting is absent, but will

be considerably enhanced if it is

present. Other forms of cutting,

prismatic, step, hobnail, etc. will

all, more or less, refract light in

the way mentioned. However,

star-cutting, because it is on the
underside of the decanter seems to

be the most efficient in this respect
(fig. ii).

To conclude, ship’s decanters

quite aside from their being

decorative, perform the function

of allowing wine to ‘breathe more

effectively than standard models,

are generally made of higher
quality glass (and coincidentally
the quality of manufacture is

seldom less than excellent), they
are more stable and their thicker

walls are better equipped to

withstand damage. In short, they

are superior to other decanters of
the period 1780-1830 from every

perspective.

Robin Butler’s article is a shortened

version of the lecture he gave to The

Circle on io November
2013.
He is

a dealer specialising in antique wine

accessories.

Notes

5. Butler, R & Wallding, G (5986)
The Book of Wine Antiques,
Antique

Collectors Club, plates
132 & 133

2.
McConnell, A (2004)

The Decanter,

an Illustrated History of Glass 1650
–
1950,

Antique Collectors Club, pp
254
–
255

3.
McConnell op cit p 256

4.
McConnell op cit p 265

5.
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James

Madison, 55 November
1

784.

‘There is a new lamp invented here

[Paris] lately which with a very small

consumption of oil (of olives) is
thought to give a light equal to six or

eight candles. The wick is hollow in the

middle in the form of a hollow cylinder,

and permits the air to pass up thro it.
It requires no snuffing Letter from

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 55
November
1784.
‘There is a new lamp

invented here [Paris] lately which with a

very small consumption of oil (of olives)

is thought to give a light equal to six or

eight candles. The wick is hollow in the
middle in the form of a hollow cylinder,

and permits the air to pass up thro it. It
requires no snuffing

RIGHT:

Fig. 10

Note the refractive
properties of the

star-cut base and

fluted decoration to
this ship’s decanter

which enhance the
ability to assess

colour and clarity
of the wine.

Fig. 11 This

magnum carafe is

not a ship’s carafe;

the shape was very

popular in hotels

and clubs in the late

19th and early 20th

centuries

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

VARNISH & CO

E. Varnish
Et
Co 1849-1851) and the

Lord Eldon vase

or many years I
have known of a

vase presented
to Lord Eldon

and have been trying to locate it.
One contender is a vase I have

not myself seen, but by tracing
the history of the company whose
name is known to be stamped on

it, I thought I might have located

the original, illustrated as object
212 in ‘Palace to Parlour’ — the

catalogue by Martine Newby
for an exhibition at The Wallace

Collection in 2003 (see fig. 1).

My quest proved interesting, but
not for the reasons I originally

thought.
In 1843, Thomas Drayton’

was granted British Patent

Number 9,968 for the silvering
of mirrors. His invention proved
a failure in practice because his
mirrors became spotted over

time. He met with Frederick

Hale Thomson (1799-1860)’ and
modified his process, using grape

sugar (dextrose) and alcohol in the reducing fluid and working
at i6o°F. A new British Patent
Number 12358 was granted in 1848

for the formula. Frederick Hale

Thomson stated:
I made an agreement to carry out the

patent with a man Thomas Drayton,

about October 1848. I had commenced
working the patent and had silvered a

great many things.”

During 1849, Frederick Hale

Thomson met Edward Varnish,
by then an elderly gentleman. He
invested capital in a new firm to
manufacture the silvering of glass.

They were joined later by a third

partner, a James Thomas Cookney.

The firm was called E. Varnish &

Co., trading as the Patent Silvering

Glass Company.
Sometime during that summer

a Thomas Robert Mellish, who
was to become the driving force
behind the success of the firm, was

employed. He started working first
under a verbal agreement and then

two written agreements dated 15
October
184-
9 and renegotiated on
Fig. i Bohemian

glass goblet and

cover, 40.011;
rim
12.2CM.
The

catalogue considers

this
goblet to be of

Bohemian design

c.1849. But James

Powell & Sons
(Whitefriars) was

thought possible. The

inside of the bowl

has been silvered
with an internal
metal casting turned

over at the
rim.
The

metal rim has been

stamped three times

with
E. Varnish &

Co Patent London.
26 December. He was to be paid

six guineas a week. He left the firm

in May 1851. He was originally

employed as the superintendent
of the firm’s manufacturing

business described by
Frederick Hale Thomson

in 1852 as:
The business is that of silvering

glass — the process is depositing
pure silver by a chemical process upon

glass;
the glass is blown double hollow

— the silver is put in between the two

surfaces and hermetically sealed, and
that makes it permanent and perfect, not

to be injured either by the atmosphere,

erasure, or by any other means, except

by destroying the glass.’
-2

On joining the firm,

Mellish took complete

control of the business as

Varnish had no knowledge

of the glass trade and
Thomson was a surgeon

by profession. The other partner

in the business, James Thomas

Cookney, was a lawyer. Before the
arrival of Thomas Robert Mellish,

Thomas
Joyce

I 2

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

LEFT & BELOW

LEFT:

Fig. 2 a &

b Asilvered double

wall glass tumbler

sealed with a metal
disc and coated

with varnish, and

a detail of its base.

E.
Varnish & Co

Patent London

who was recommended to the firm
by Mr Powell of the Whitefriars

glass works, the firm was not

selling any glass. According to
Varnish, he and Thomson were

planning and designing and it was
Mellish, who was instrumental in

the invention of the double hollow

design for the silvering of glass.

Thomson stated: ‘I have been in

the habit of silvering glass but not

enclosing it in the glass’;;.

Thomas Robert Mellish knew

of Frederick Hale Thomson as

in early 1849 he had silvered ‘the

inside of a few standard ink wells’
for his employer, William Lund

of Fleet Street. The silvering was

a failure because the ink removed
the silver when poured into the

wells. A patent was applied for on
the 19 December 1849 for a newly-

invented double hollow design

glass for the silvering of ink wells
and other related products such

as mustard pots’. It is interesting

that the silvering’ is effected by

introducing into the hollow glass

a composition consisting of a

solution of grape sugar, mixed
with the following ingredients:
f

oz ammonia;
2

oz nitrate of silver;

3
oz water; and 3oz spirit of wine.

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1
VARNISH & CO

The glass is kept at a temperature
of i6o°F until the mixture is dried

and the silver deposited, after

which it is sealed with a metal
disk (fig.
2)
and coated with any

suitable varnish to protect it from

damp.

By the start of 185o, Thomas

Robert Mellish had organised

the company to carry out the

producing of the silvering of glass.
He had his own pattern book, and

according to Edward Varnish he

was using Whitefriars glass works

to produce blanks which were

designed to his specifications.
Varnish says:

He was constantly employed for us, from
morning till late at night frequently…

In the evening he would go down to

Messrs. Powell’s glass works, and be

there perhaps half the night, getting

thing made under his own inspection –

they were things which he had designed

made drawing of, and carried out … that

was perhaps three of four times a week

In the spring of 1850, E. Varnish

& Co. sanctioned Mellish to open

a shop at 134 Regent Street to be

kept by his wife. According to

Thomson:

A considerable quantity of goods were

send to the shop to be disposed by Mrs.
Mellish on my account: I think more

than Li000 worth of goods. I believe

Mellish entirely fixed the cost and

selling price of these goods and they

were invoiced to his wife by us at his

price”’.

E. Varnish & Co had an internal

average workforce of about 3o and

they also employed about eight

outdoor workers. The working

day at the firm was io hours.

All the workers involved in the

production were answerable to

Thomas Robert Mellish and not

the partners involved in the firm.

The main production unit for
the glass cutting, glass engraving,

glass polishing and silvering

of the glass was done at Wells
Mews. The counting house and

warehouse department was in 48
Berners Street. Edward Varnish

VARNISH Sk CO

said of Mellish: `He was obliged
to examine every article which had
been made under his direction by

the outdoor workers3
–

3′

The majority of the glass blanks

were purchased from Whitefriars

glass works, though they also
bought in Paris as it was cheaper

to import glass blanks from
France. Edward Varnish’s main

job was the commercial side of the
business liaising with places such

as Paris, Belgium, Stourbridge and
York. In 1851, Thomson became

concerned that Mellish’s glass

designs were not artistic enough
and needed improvement. This

probably came about because

of Thomson’s friendship with

George Foord of Wardour Street
6

He was a carver and gilder and

picture frame maker and knew all
the local London artists.
Frederick Hale Thomson and

George Foord were granted a

patent on 25 September 1851

for improvements in forming

and annealing glass. Thomson
employed a few British artists to

produce designs for what he called

‘a higher grade of art: These British
artists account for the Moorish

and Bohemian influences in the
more ornate designs produced by

the firm (fig. 3). Some of these

new designs were displayed at the
Crystal Palace Exhibition of 1851.
In the exhibition, the firm’s

stand was located in the central
north-west gallery. The following

glass is listed as being on display
Plateaux, centre dish. Vase, green and

white glass, silvered. Salver, ruby and

white; and table blue and white, silvered.

Glass goblets and vases in a variety
of colours. Silvered glass reflector,

applicable to all purposes of artificial
illumination. Glass globes mounted on

eagles. Provisionally registered.’

E. Varnish & Co. had relocated

its retail shop to 148 Regent
Street and also had specimens of

glass silvered globes on display at
Soyer’s, Gore House’ – a mass-
catering establishment for visitors

to the
1851 Great Exhibition.
Fig 3 This vase

demonstrates
the

flair for design in

the firm of Edward
Varnish & Co. The

arched decoration

suggests the Moorish

architecture of Spain

and north Africa

and the colouring
and cutting is in

the Bohemian

manner. It was

probably designed

by a British artists

employed at the
company. The blank

may be Parisian or

manufactured by
Whitefriars.
A second patent was granted

on
22
August 185o to Frederick

Hale Thomson, and Thomas
Robert Mellish (glasscutter) was

a joint patentee, much to the
disappointment of Thomson who

stated:
I asked him to fulfil the engagement

he had made and he declined to

resign his interest in the patent. I may
perhaps state that the patent was never
completed, for the machinery to carry it

out had never been made”’.

This is
British Patent Number
13,229 which consists of five parts.

The vase in fig. 1 is probably an experimental work in relation to
this patent as it incorporates all
the design specifications. Different

references give long and short

description of the patent. The

patent was registered with an
engraving9 which I have not been

able to trace.
I have only seen the vase in the

exhibition catalogue
From Palace

to Parlouta°
which says that it is

`heavily cut and engraved with
a panel’ It is probable that the

engraved panel is done on two

pieces of glass that have been

curved: the back piece of glass,
engraved and stained. The front

piece, which has the outline of
the engraving cut-out, is stained
to give the effect and to present

to the viewer the appearance of

a coloured object, in relief, on a

silver ground when fused to the
back part. Then the two pieces are

adhered to the inside of the glass
vase. The metal casting is then

inserted and sealed to the vase

with a clip.
The
Civil Engineer and

Architect’s Journal
says of part 1 of

the patent : that it is a method of

sawing or cutting out figures from

or in a sheet of glass, by means of

a metal wire stretched in a suitable
frame. In cutting out the figures in
the sheet of glass a hole is drilled

through which one end of the wire
is passed, and then secured to the
frame. The plate is to be kept in

contact with the wire according to
the figure or pattern to be cut.”
The same reference states of

part
2
that ‘the patentees propose

to cut out the surface of the glass,

then to colour the cut-away parts,

and lastly to silver the back; so

as to present the appearance of
coloured objects, in relief, on a

silver ground: This vase certainly

fits part
2

of the patent description.

Part
3
of the patent describes a

process:
to cut away portions of the glass already

stained, or partially stained, and to

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

VARNISH & CO

silver the back. The silvering is effected
by mixing together i oz ammonia; z oz

nitrate of silver; 3 oz spirits of wine; and

3 oz. of water. The solution is filtered,

and some saccharine substance added,

say
1

/2-oz of grape sugar dissolved in

spirits of wine and water, a pint of each.

The solution is kept in contact with the

surface of the glass for two or three days.

In part
4
of the patent, ‘the

surfaces of two pieces of glass,

silvered as described, are to be

united by means of melted white

wax being placed between them,

which, when cold, will cause them
to adhere: Part
5

of the patent is

about ‘an instrument suitable to be

used, to act as a clip, to retain the

edge of any article of glass to any

other surface:

This evidence seems to establish

that fig. I is an experimental blank

vase used by E. Varnish to register
British Patent Number 13,229. It

is interesting that a vase matching
this image was presented to Lord
Eldon in 1829 or 183o, described

thus:

The Bank Quay Glass Company,

at Warrington, have presented the

venerable, the Earl of Eldon with a
magnificent glass vase, in testimony

of the high sense they entertain of
his Lordship’s manly and energetic

resistance to the ‘breaking up of the

Constitution: It is particularly worthy

of record, that when the workmen
employed upon the vase were made

acquainted with the purpose for which
it was designed, they requested that

they might be allowed to contribute

‘their labour gratuitously to the work,
as a mark of their veneration and regard
for the noble Earl: The vase, which is.

valued at 4o guineas, is of an elegant

form; the cover is surmounted by the

royal crown, and the whole tastefully

and elegantly cut.”

Fig. I bears an uncanny

resemblance to this description” .

It may be a blank copy of the vase

that was presented to Lord Eldon.
When I began my researches, I had

hoped it might be the original, but

it turns out to be nearly identical
to lot
23

in the Bonhams
sale of
II

December 2013 (fig.
4
and see

report on page 33) and therefore

bought in Bohemia.

The crown-shaped covers were

a speciality of the Harrachov

glassworks’3. The bowl would have
been silvered on the inside, and a
metal cup made to fit inside the

bowl. This was unusual as a glass

liner was normally used, and the
two sealed at the rim and signed

on the sealing band.

So this goblet or vase was

probably not made in Warrington

after all, and although the Eldon
vase remains elusive, the hunt has

yielded a lot of information, much
of it unpublished, and of great

interest to glass scholars. We also
now know why the metal rim is

stamped E. Varnish & Co Patent
London in three places. It no

longer remains a mystery.

Thomas Joyce is
a mature

student in

Inchicore College Dublin, studying

for a FETAC Certification in
Media Production and is interested

in the social history of English Glass

1780-1980.

Notes

1.
A Discussion on
‘The Making of

Reflecting Surfaces’
held on 26 November

1920 at Imperial College of Science and

Technology.

2.
The London Lancet

1860/Vo1/1. See

obituary, p 361

3.
The Proceedings of the Old Bailey,

1674-1913.Available on line.
3-1.
Old Bailey Proceedings
24
November

1851. Reference Number:
t18511124-60.

3.2
Old Bailey Proceedings, SApril 1852.

Reference Number:
t18520405-382.

3-3
Old Bailey Proceedings, 5 April 1852.

Reference Number:
t18520510-502.

4.
British patent number 12,905.

5.
The
Mechanic’s Magazine

Vol. LII 1850.

See page 518.The magazine states that the

temperature is 130°F. This is probably an

error by the printer.

6.
A George Foord seems to have been a

frame-maker to the Society of Painters

in Water-Colour, c.1830-50, according

to Jane Bayard at the National Portrait
Gallery.

7.
The Official Description and Illustrated

Catalogue Vo1,11,
published by Spicer

Brothers and the
Official Catalogue of the

Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of

All Nations
p 126

8.
The Quarterly Review,
No. CLXXVII.

June 1851.

9.
The Repertory of Patent Inventions,

Enlarged Series
VOL,
XVIL

January-June,

1851. p 222

10.
From

Palace to Parlour: A Celebration

of 19th century British Glass.
2003.

Exhibition at The Wallace Collection in

association with the Glass Circle.

11.
Testimonial to Lord Eldon. The Sydney

Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser

(NSW: 1803-1842), Saturday 20 March

1830, p 2

I wish to thank the following people for
their assistance while I was researching

this paper: Kathryn Kane, John Slater,

John P. Smith and Jane Dorner.

Fig. 4 An

exceptional
Bohemian amber-

stained goblet and

crown cover, 41 cm

c.1850-70 which

sold for £22,500
as Lot
23 in
the

Bonhams Sale
11

December 2013.

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

ADMIRAL MANSELL

Admiral Sir Robert Mansell

Tp
henever you

read

about

the history of
British glass-

making of the ,7th century,

two names keep reappearing:
George Ravenscroft (1632-1683)

and Sir Robert Mansell, MP (1573-

1656). Neither had been known to
have been painted, but I recently
uncovered a neglected portrait

of the latter by an unknown

artist in a family home in Wales

and thanks to Thomas Methuen

Campbell, owner of the portrait,

we can see what he looked like
(fig. I). He is carrying an Admiral’s

baton. The Ravenscroft portrait

(see p 4) is modern, based on his

father and grandfather’s likenesses
in Barnet Church, Ravenscroft

family chapel.
Mansell’s role in developing

glass making in Britain should be
examined more closely, as he led

an extraordinary life, and in a way
was responsible for the invention

of lead crystal by Ravenscroft, if
indirectly, because it might be said
that his actions caused it to be

discovered.
While dozens of pages have

been written about Ravenscroft,
Mansell, (sometimes spelled

Maunsell, or Mansel) deserves

perhaps a better known role in
the history of the development

of British crystal glass, but first a
short summary of his naval career

gives us the measure of the man.
He was born the fourth son

of Sir Edward Mansell of Pierce

and Margam, Carmarthenshire
in Wales and Lady Jane Somerset,

youngest daughter of Henry,
Earl of Worcester. He was also
related as a nephew to Admiral
Lord Charles Howard, Earl of

Nottingham, and it is likely that
he took part as a very young lad at

the battle commanded by his uncle

against the Spanish Armada, in

1588- aged 15, (remember that Sir
Francis Drake aged 13 was aboard

a small trading ship thanks to his
uncle Sir John Hawkins). The
first recorded mention of Mansell

at sea is in 1596 where he played

an heroic part in the battle of
Cadiz under Howard and Robert

Devereux 2nd Earl of Essex, (8th

creation), Elizabeth I’s beau. He

commanded the 36-gun man-of-
war Vanguard, so was a captain
at the age of 23. For his part in

that action, he was knighted by a

grateful queen, and made a Rear-
Admiral, at under 25.
Having entered Cadiz harbour

like a fox in a hen house and

stopped the enemy escaping

through a canal, he caused such

devastation, that later the Spanish
burnt their ships themselves

rather than have them captured

and used against them.
Mansell subsequently took part

in Essex’s voyage to the Azores

(1597), then held commands off
the Irish coast during Essex’s
campaign in Ireland. In October

16o2 he was fitted out with a fleet
and, with the Dutch, he helped
defeat six Spanish galleys under

Frederico Spinola at the Battle
of the Narrow Seas. As a result

Mansell was named Vice-Admiral

of the Narrow Seas in 1603.
Described as ‘openhearted,

valiant and honest’, he had

married Elizabeth, daughter of

Sir Nicholas Bacon, Keeper of
the Great Seal of England and

in 1604, he became Treasurer of
the Navy. Between 1601 and 1612

he was successively also an MP

for Norfolk, Camarthenshire,
Glamorgan and Losthwithiel in

Cornwall: a very busy man.
It was as Naval Treasurer

that he noticed the need for new

ships and how much the cost
of timber had risen. The cause,

he discovered, was the demand

by glassmakers for good quality
timber delivered to the growing
number of glasshouses along the

Thames. Now a courtier of James

I, in 1615, Mansell petitioned the

king for a monopoly for the right

to collect all the coal washed
ashore. Having obtained this, he

then applied for a ban on the use

of timber by glasshouses. The wily

King James, who was the first to

discover how lucrative the granting

of royal monopolies could be
told Mansell, ‘we do wonder that

someone who has won so much
fame at sea, should now meddle

with fire’. A Royal proclamation of

1615 directed that
of late years the waste of Wood and
Timber bath been exceeding great

and intolerable by the Glasse-Houses
therefore we doe ordaine that no person

shall make, melt or cause to be melted
or made any Glasses whatsoever with

Timber, wood within our Kingdom of
England and Dominion of Wales’ (sic) .

The same year Mansell joined the

board of Sir Edward Zouche at
the Vauxhall Plate Glass Works,
(Fig. 2) later circa 166o owned

by George Villiers, 2nd Duke
of Buckingham, where George

Ravenscroft was employed as

consultant for the last three years

of his life, 1680-1683. One wonders
if he allowed them a favourable

rate for coal, being a director.

Stephen
Pollock-

Hill

BELOW:
Fig. 1 Sir

Robert Mansel (sic)
(reproduced by

kind
permission of

Thomas Methuen-

Campbell of Penrice

Castle, Gower,

Wales)

OPPOSITE:
Fig. 2

The Vauxhall Glass

Works
(in
1674)

in which Sir Robert
Mansell had an
interest with Sir

Edward Zouche, a
fellow courtier of

James 1.

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

ADMIRAL MANSELL

The author, Stephen

Pollock-Hill
runs

Nazeing Glass

and would like

to point out that

any similarity to
the portrait of
Sir

Robert Mansell is

purely co-incidental,

both being large,

bearded and glass

manufacturers.

So British glassmakers were not

only forced to use coal instead of

timber, but also forced to buy it

from Sir Roberts agents, which

increased their costs considerably.

They had no alternative because
he strictly enforced his monopoly

(as proved by several legal cases

of the time). Added to that, the
coal was of poor quality being sea

coal, with a lot of sulphur and did
not reach such a great heat as fine

pure oak timber, and so the glass

quality dropped both in quality

and in colour during its fluxing.
Glass needs around 1400
°
C for

12 hours to melt properly even

today, and this later persuaded the
Worshipful Company of Glass

Sellers of London, founded in 1664,

to finance George Ravenscroft and

his brother Francis around 167o in
Henley-on-Thames to develop a

better metal that could melt at a

lower temperature and eventually
to add lead to the mixture, which

was patented in
16
74.

The outcome of the high

fuel price meant that many

glassmakers could not pay their
debts. The result was that at his

death, Mansell owned 16 glass
factories, a greater number than

any other British glassmaker

before or since. Not just in

London either. According to

Thorpe ,
‘

between 1615-56 Mansell

started or absorbed glass works

at London, Greenwich, Lambeth,

Newcastle upon Tyne, Swansea,

Milford Haven, Newnham on

Severn, Stourbridge, King
‘
s Lynn,

Purbeck Island, the Trent valley

and Wemyss in Flintshire:
There are reports of more than

one glass factory in the Midlands

and the north under the Mansell
name, especially in Newcastle

where window glass was made for

the London market. He personally

claimed in 1634 to have nine

broad-glass furnaces (flat glass

for windows and mirrors made
by blowing tubes and splitting

and flattening them) in England
under
his control. Mansell
‘
s
monopoly seems to have survived

until around 1640. He was also

an investor in the province of
Virginia. He once had his hat

stolen in Madrid as it carried
‘
a

very rich jewel, and he chased the

thief into the house of a magistrate

who offered to judge the case, but
Mansell,
‘
forcibly recovered his

property despite the protest of the
magistrate
‘

. Very much a man of

action.

After Mansell
‘
s death in 1656

aged 83, his second wife, Anne,

daughter of Sir John Roper,
continued the business. He
married her in 1617 (she died in

1668). His first wife had continued
his business interests, when

Mansell was away at sea or in

prison, between 1613 and 1621. In

1601 he had been criticised for

holding a duel where he cut off the

hand of his Norfolk neighbour
Sir John Heydon, now on view

in mummified form in Norwich
Museum. He also was imprisoned

in 1613 in the Marshalsea for a few
months for
‘

political disaffection
‘

Maybe he forgot to pay King

James his annual patent fees!

He died childless and is buried

in St Alfege
‘
s churchyard, East

Greenwich, named after an early

Archbishop of Canterbury killed

by the Vikings in 1012. The church

was rebuilt in 1712-14 to plans
by Nicholas Hawksmoor. Both

the composer Thomas Tallis and

General James Wolfe are buried

there as well .
There is no doubt that Sir Robert

Mansell played a remarkable and

key role in developing glass making

and forcing the discovery of lead

crystal glass to the benefit of the
British Glass industry for over 300

years. It was not until 1816 when a
French chemist, working for The

Baccarat Glass Works, in Moselle

( founded in 1734) discovered it

was lead oxide that gave British
Crystal its remarkable clarity,

colour and sparkle.

Paul Tyzack built the first

glasshouse

Stourbridge,
in Staffordshire, (now West

Midlands). His father was

probably John Tyzack whom we
found in Kirdford, Sussex. We

know this because of a reference

to
him made by his uncle Isaac

Bungar. On 20 February 1585,

John Tyzack married Mary

Bungar. The record says she was

‘a
spinster of the City of London
‘
.

Mary Bungar was the sister of

Isaac Bungar, a Norman, who was

also making glass at the time. Isaac

appealed against the patent of Sir
Robert Mansell. In this patent

Sir Robert claimed that he or his

servants had been first to use stone
coal for the heating of furnaces.

Isaac claimed that his sister
‘
s

son, had invented the process
earlier than Sir Robert. Now Paul

Tyzack is certainly credited with

This invention by D.R.Guttery

in
his book
From Broad-glass to

Cut
Crystal.

When Isaac Bungar

was trying to oppose the Mansell

patent with some collaborators,

they made a deposition. In it they

stated:
‘
a sister
‘

s sone of Isaack

Bungard, glassmaker, betrayed

by faire promises, brought the
art of makinge glass with Coale

to the patentees, who were never

the Inventors of the same: Mary

Bungar was Isaac
‘

s sister and

that makes Paul Tyzack, her son.

However, one can assume that

Mansell, being a successful and

powerful man fought off this claim
as he was able to claim royalties

and even ended up owning many

glass factories when their owners
could not pay him for the sea coal

Notes

s. See http://battleshiphmsvanguard.
homestead.com/Vans.html for more

details.

2.
Robert Charleston English Glass

George Allen and Unwin 1984
p.75.

3.
W.A. Thorpe English Glass A & C

Black 1961 (3rd Edition)

4.
Further reading www.

historyofparliamentonline.org/

volume/ 16

5.
David Reginald Guttery (1956) From

broad-glass to cut crystal: A history of the
Stourbridge .glass industry, Leonard

Glass Circle News
Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

Fig.

Waste of

vetro a fi

glass, ma
century g

Amsterth

Kitty

Lameris

FILIGRANA

Vetro a retortoli:
the techniques

Part 2

—

….._.

art 1 (November,

Issue no. 133,

pp 16-21) was

about dating
vetro

a retortoli:
Part 2 considers the

techniques of making it. Three

glassblowers helped me discover
several things that were helpful
in dating filigrana glass. I am
indebted to them for sharing

their knowledge, experience and

expertise with me. They are: Bill

Gudenrath, a glassblower who
studies old glass techniques at

the Corning Museum of Glass;

Davide Salvadore, a glass artist

from Murano whose family has
been working in glass since the

16th century; and Marc Barreda,
an American glass artist who

works in The Netherlands.
Marc Barreda demonstrates the
techniques in the illustrations to
this article.
From a technical point of view it

is possible to divide
vetro a retortoli
in two groups: glasses consisting

of two layers, and those with

one. As I said in Part i,
filigrana

glass is made with canes. The
glasses consisting of two layers
have a layer made of
cristallo
glass

and a layer of canes. The glasses
consisting of a single layer are only

made with canes.
There are several different ways

of making glass in two layers.
It’s still not clear (and a much

debated issue) what method

Fig. 1. Two layers: picking up canes on a bubble

Fig.
la.
Measured canes are put in the desired

pattern
next to one another
on

a
pastorale
(an

Italian term for the metal tool that picks up the
plate
on
which canes are laid out) and fused.
Fig. lb. The glassblower blows a glass bubble and

rolls it over the fused group of canes
(la piera),

picking them up.
Fig. lc. By repeated heating in the glory hole and

shaping on the
marver,
the bubble with the canes

around it is made homogeneous. The bubble has a

clear base and striped (in this case diagonal) sides.
Fig.

Id. To
be able to

of
vetro a filigrana,
it

the clear base. While t
master squeezes the ca

clear base and
then
cu

Fig. 2. One layer: picking up canes on a collar

Fig. 2a. Measured canes are put in the desired pattern next

to one another on a
pastorale.
Pig. 2k.

This
group of canes is fused. The glassblower takes

them up on a collar, a clear circle of glass on the end of a
blowpipe, by rolling up the canes on the edge of the collar.
Fig. 2c. Now there is

an
open cylinder of canes on the

blowpipe.

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

FILIGRANA

17th

se in
of manufacture was

used in the early

days. Demonstrated

by glassblower Marc

Barreda, one of the

techniques of making

a glass with two layers, is

shown in the sequence in fig. I.

The technique of making glasses

with one layer is shown in fig.
2.

The difference between a glass

made with two layers or in a single

layer is visible. It is not easy to
spot, but a trained eye can see the

difference (fig. 3a). It is easier to
feel. The ribs of the canes of a glass

made with two layers are on the

outside, while the
cristallo

layer on

the inside is smooth. A glass made

out of one layer of canes has the
ribs of the canes on both sides.

Until recently, it was thought

that both techniques were used

alongside one another throughout
the i6th and 17th centuries’.

But comparing the glasses of
Fig. 3 Detail of the edge of a wineglass (see fig. 4), made with two layers:

a fili canes on the outside and
cristallo
on the inside.

lass entirely out

Fig. le. This leaves a large ball of glass and a

Figs. if and 1g. Now the bubble can be handled like any other bubble to make a glass.

ary to get rid of

bubble. Archaeologists often find these balls in the

ant is blowing, the

waste material from 17th century glass houses (see

ther just above the

fig. lh above).

. 2d. To make a bubble, the glassblower closes the open
! and cuts off the excess glass.
Figs. 2e & 2f Now the bubble can be handled I

ke any other bubble to make a glass.

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

FILIGRANA
© Co

lle
c
t
io

n
Hen
k Germ
s

LEFT:
Fig. 4.

Wineglass with

filigrana a fili
with

diagonal canes on
the outside and

cristallo
on the

inside (see detail

fig. 3), Venice or a
la facon de Venise,

second half of the
sixteenth century.

Height:
13.2 cm.

RIGHT:
Fig. 5.

Carl Andersen

‘The glass room in

Rosenborg Castle:
woodcut, 1867
the Germs collection with one

another, it turns out that the early

glasses, made in the 16th and most
of the 17th century, all consisted of

two layers (see Part I: fig. 3a, fig. 6,
p. 19, fig. to & II, p. 20). Only the

glasses made around 1700 were
made in a single layer (fig. 9).
These are glasses of a special

kind, that I call ‘the Rosenborg

Castle type’. In 1709 a fine

collection of this type of
filigrana

glass was presented to King
Frederick IV (1671-173o) of

Denmark, when he visited Venice.

Back in Copenhagen, the king

Fig. 6 During the Renaissance
a fili
canes were made with three layers:
cristallo/lattimo/cristallo

Fig. 6a.
To make
an

a fili
cane, a glassblower takes

a gather of clear glass on a gathering iron. It is
marvered into a cylinder and covered evenly with

white glass.
Fig. 6b. The white glass is then covered with

colourless glass again.
Fig. 6c.

This
is marvered into a cylinder. In the

meantime an assistant prepares the post, a punty

with clear glass to attach to the other end of the

cylinder with cased white glass.

Fig. 6d.
The
glassblower attaches the post to the other

end of the glass cylinder, pulls it as far as he can and

gives the
iron
back to the assistant.
Fig. 6e. Now they pull the glass until it is a long thin

cane with a white thread in the middle. They put it
on wooden paddles that are laid out on the floor. The
irons are broken off the cane.
Fig. 6f Once the cane has cooled it is ready and can

be broken in several pieces of the same length to work

with.

AVIMIIMMONMOMMONSB4

.010

nnnnnnnnn
612011610WSMIROMBINISMIVIIMMOVAINVOMMUNIA

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

Fig. 7 Canes with external decoration

FI LIGRANA

had a special glass room made in

the Rosenborg Castle for all his
new glass (fig. 5). They are still

on show, in a glass room that has
remained unchanged since the

early 18th century. A date around

1700 is generally accepted for this
type of glass’.

If these glasses also consisted

of one layer, it proved that this

technique was used around 5700.

I was allowed to study the glasses

in the glassroom in Copenhagen

and discovered that the
filigrana a

retortoli
glasses there were indeed

made out of a single layer, which
confirmed my theory.

Later I spoke to the Dutch

archaeologist Jaap Kottman, who

specialises in i6th and i7th century

pits and who regularly finds shards
belonging to
filigrana

glasses. I

told him about my findings and he

confirmed them. He was surprised
to hear that some
filigrana
glasses

were made from a single layer, for

the shards he knows comprise two

layers. Since he works only with

16th and 17th century glass, this
is as expected, and further proof

that the early glasses were made in

two layers.
This provides us with a tool for

dating
filigrana

glass. If a glass is

made with two layers, canes and

cristallo,
it may be 16th or i7th

century. If it comprises a single

layer of canes only, then it was
probably not made earlier than

around 1700.

Let us look at the detail of the

canes. There are many variations:
in the Henk Germs collection

alone no fewer than 27 different
canes have been used’. When I

talked with Davide Salvadore,

he mentioned that there are two

basic types of canes,
‘canne con una

Fig. 7a. To make a cane with an external decoration

the glassblower puts several
a fili
canes on a cane

marver. They are warmed in the glory-hole.
Fig. 7b. The glassblower measures the width of

the

group of canes. He takes a gather of clear glass,

marvers it to a cylinder of the correct diameter and

picks up the canes by rolling it across them from one

end to the other, where they meet.
Fig. 7c. Then the canes are marvered into the core of

clear glass and the whole piece of glass is thus shaped

into a cylinder.

Fig 7d. In the meantime the assistant prepares the

post. The glassblower attaches the post to the other

end of the cylinder of glass and twists and pulls it as

far as he can.
Fig. 7e. The glassblower gives the post back to the

assistant and they pull and twist the glass to form a

long thin cane with twisted threads on the surface.
Fig. 7f This type of cane is called

canna a rete,
a rete

cane. Crete’ means ‘net).

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

Fig. 8 Canes with internal decoration:

canna a ballottini
Instead of twisting around the exterior of a cane, the threads of

canes with internal decoration twist around their own centre inside

the cane. They are called
canne a ballottini,
which means ‘canes

with little balls’ because of the decoration that looks like a row of

little balls (See fig. 8h).

Fig. 8a. To
make

ballottini
some
a

fill
canes are
put

together on a fiat

surface.

Fig. 8b. The canes

are fused in the

furnace.

Fig. 8c. The fused

canes are taken

on a punty with
a flattened broad

piece of glass.

Fig. 8d. The canes
are then covered
with clear glass.
4

Vt%’i ..
Ha,

Cl

Th

IL

e

mthi Chart

I
fa

li:ae;a1;

,
•orku,,

”
ran

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

29

-a

0:1

REPORTS

Glass Circle meetings

Ian Roger Douglas
ilkington (1925-

1969), as his name

suggests, was connected
to the Lancashire family

of glass manufacturers,

although the connection
was somewhat distant

and he never had any
professional involve-
ment with the glass

industry. Nonetheless
this family glass link may

have sparked his urge

to collect antique glass,

and having decided to go

down that route, Roger
(as he was known) paid
heed to advice, as true

today as then: I would

suggest’Great care

should be taken in buy-

ing old glass and it is ad-
visable to seek the advice

of a specialist since it is a
highly intricate subject”.

He formed his

collection in a com-
paratively short time,

1961-68, buying almost
exclusively through the

intermediary of glass

dealer, Aubrey Burton

of Stow-in-the-Wold,

less than 4o miles from
his home in Wiltshire.

On his death in 1969, the
collection was stored and

only saw the light of day

recently on the death of

his widow.
It comprises a few late

17th
–
century Venetian

and
facon de Venise

items, English 18th-

century baluster wine

glasses and some with
cut, engraved or enam-

elled decoration; Jacobite

glass; a good group of

candlesticks (fig. I) and
for social gatherings.

Other items relating to
Friendly Societies can be

seen at Broadfield House
and further research will

hopefully shed light on

this remarkable goblet’s
origins. It was illustrated

by Davis in 1964 and

later, R.J. Charleston

published details of it’,

citing the Art Journal’s

Illustrated Catalogue

to the Great Exhibition

of 1851 which singled

out Connis engraving

for praise. Apart from

the
tour de force

of the

Friendly Society goblet,
no other signed examples

of his work are known to

me however.
Roger Pilkington

was a private individual;
nonetheless, the growth

of his collection can be

observed through the

pages of his notebook.
Like many collectors he

listed his purchases as he
bought them, recording

whatever information

was known. Occasionally
therefore, we know the

auction when and where

a glass was bought or

another earlier prov-
enance, a reference to a

publication where the

actual glass or a compa-
rable one was illustrated.

An example of this is the

small mid 18th-century
wine glass with a facet-

cut stem engraved with a
hunting scene and’Tom

Shorter’, photographed
and discussed by Percy

Bate’.
It is generally agreed

that the 196os was a

great decade for glass
collectors. Glasses from

those major collections

formed in the first half
of the zoth century such

as C. Kirkby Mason,
Hamilton Clements, and

Grant Francis regularly
re-appeared with dealers

or at auction. Then as

Fig. 1

candlesticks
salvers; some coloured

glass, and Regency and
Irish tablewares. Within

these groups there are

some real

often

rare, large or unusual

items which stand out

within the display.
Given the 18th-century

emphasis of the collec-

tion, the most curious of

these perhaps is the foot-
high commemorative

Glassmakers Friendly
Society Goblet engraved

and signed by Augustin
Conne in about 1850-59
(fig. a). Finely engraved

with a scene of glassmak-

ers blowing wine glasses

and decanters, this goblet

would seem to sum up
the whole collection.
Friendly Societies were

the precursors of unions
and, as the engraved

motto states, were

‘United to Relieve, Not
Combined to Injure’.

They provided support
for glassmakers and their

families in times of sick-

ness, injury or in old age,

as well as being a focus
Fig. 2f

Glassmakers’

Friendly
Society

goblet

There was a double bill

in November. Robin
Butler’s talk is given in

full on page
6.

14 November
The Roger Pilkington

Collection

30

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

REPORTS
CO

Simon

Bru
n
tne
ll

Fig. 41)

Prince of
Wales flask

now, pieces with such

provenances com-

manded a premium,

and these details were

religiously preserved in

the notebook. Roger also
bought at contemporary

big name sales such as

Ronald Beves (of The

Fitzwilliam fame), Sir

Harrison Hughes or

Walter Smith of New

Jersey. Other collections,

less well-known today,

such as Dr E. S. Ver-

gette, Captain Horridge
and Roy Dunstan, pro-

vided some outstanding

glasses for the collection.
On visiting the display

at Broadfield House it is
© Simon Brimmelli
m,

mediately clear where
Roger Pilkington’s glass

preferences lay. He had

a passion for balusters

and had a fine group of

examples with differ-

ent stems, including a

rare baluster ale with

an acorn knop, as well

as many others. In

1928 the scholar W. A.
Thorpe wrote an article

for
Apollo Magazine

on the Henry Brown

collection entitled ‘A
Preference for Balusters

which would definitely
have struck a chord with

Roger. According to

Thorpe, the stem is the

most important factor

in the total design of a
wine glass. Apart from

its private form and its
business of providing the

drinker with a handle, it

is the key to proportion;

its diplomatic mission is
to bring the bowl-form

and the foot-form into
harmony without any

loss of its own character:
Many private collec-

tions of 18th century

British glass contain
Jacobite glasses and

Roger’s collection

is no exception.
Unusually however,

his Jacobite group

includes one of the

few ‘Amen’ glasses

still in private

hands: `The Peech’

(fig. 3), formerly

in the collection

of Henry Peech,

first illustrated by

Joseph Bles in 1925

and more recently

featured as no. 23 in

Seddon 2005
5
. It was

bought at Sotheby’s

sale of the Sir Harrison
Hughes collection in
1963 for £85o. There is

also a rather less obvious

Jacobite glass: a beauti-

fully simple baluster

wine glass with a round-

ed funnel bowl engraved

with the inscription
‘To

ye glorious and immortal

memory of Queen Anne’

In his seminal article

of
1994,Some
English

glasses with diamond-

point decoration: the

‘Calligraphic Master’. R.J.
Charleston elucidated

the connection between

this rare group of glasses

commemorating Queen

Anne (the last Stuart
monarch) and the Jaco-

bite cause. He illustrated
this glass as one of the

group, using the photo
from the Kirby Mason

catalogue of 1929, as

its whereabouts were
unknown at the time.

Among the

coloured glass items
is another royal

commemorative; a
rare ‘Bristol blue flat

scent bottle gilded with
classical-style heads of a

couple crowned with lau-
rel wreaths, the reverse

with the Prince of Wales’

feathers (figs. 4a & 4b).

Stylistically unlikely to

date from the Prince’s

birth in 1762, it perhaps

commemorates his ill-

starred wedding in 1792

to his cousin, Caroline of

Brunswick.
While touching on

many interesting glass

types, the main theme

of Roger’s collection

is undoubtedly the

development of English

wine glasses. It is not

surprising therefore to
learn that in 1962 he

bought an extremely
rare glass fragment: the

stem and foot of a lead

glass roemer bearing

George Ravenscroft’s
raven’s head seal, dating

to about 1676-80. This
item, however, is not on

display at Broadfield

House as it was given to
the V & A ‘in memory

of A.R.D. Pilkington’ by

his widow, and can be

seen in the Glass Gallery
there today.

Susan Newell

If any member knows of

other signed examples

of Conne’s engraving I
would be grateful if you

would contact me at
secretaryglasscircle@
gmail.com.

Hosts for the
November

meeting were
Anne Towse,

Tim Udall,
Gordon Baker
and Patrick
Hagglund.

Congratula-

tions and

special thanks

to co-host and

Honorary Mem-

ber, Tim Udall

on the occasion of

his recent Both birth-

day. Despite being un-

able to attend lectures

in person now, Tim acts

as co-host on a regular

basis, continuing over four

decades’ involvement with

the Glass Circle.

Notes

1.
Derek C. Davis, (1964)

English and Irish Antique

Glass
Arthur Baker

2.
The Glass Circle Journal

(1982)

3.
Percy Bate (1913)

English

Table Glass,
Batsford

4.
Assistant Keeper at the

V & A and author of
A

History of English and Irish

Glass
(George Newnes,

1905)

5.
Geoffrey Seddon (2005)

The Jacobites and Their

Drinking Glasses
Antique

Collectors Club, and

edition

At
the Broadfield House

Glass Museum until
so
August 2014

Fig. 3 Peech

Amen

Fig. 4a

Prince of
Wales flask

detail

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

31

REPORTS

10 December 2013

`They went to larn
how four British glassmak-

ers helped to modernise

Japan’s glass industry,
1874-1883

I n my lecture about
the modernisation of

Japanese glassmaking
in the late 19th century,

I described how four

British glassmakers were

invited to Japan to help

establish the country’s
first fully western-style

industrial glass factory

at Shinagawa, Tokyo,
between 1874 and 1883.

For about 250 years

the country’s feudal rul-

ers had severely restrict-

ed Japan’s contact with
the outside world. Just

in the centuries when
European glassmaking

was blossoming and the

Industrial Revolution

was transforming the
West, many craft skills in

Japan were at a stand-
still or in decline. Since

earliest times the great
majority of produce had

been glass beads, for

spiritual or high status
use. Glass was thought

of as too precious for

ordinary purposes,

windows were almost

unknown and just a very

small trickle of western
glass was coming into
the country — through

the only doorway to the

West, the Dutch trading
post at Nagasaki.

Suddenly made aware

of western might by the

forceful intervention of
Commander Perry on

behalf of America in

1
853
–
54,
the Japanese de-

cided upon a programme
of industrialisation.

They were determined

to become equal to the

West.
The first endeavour

in glassmaking was
window-glass. A factory
was initiated in 1873-74

at Shinagawa with the
assistance of Thomas

Walton, a flint glass

manufacturer from

Manchester. Upon
nationalisation in 5876,

it expanded into flint

glass and the training of

Japanese glassmakers in
the large-scale produc-

tion of all types of glass,
using western materials,

methods and machinery.

James Speed — a Scottish

glassworks manager and
my own ancestor (fig.

— replaced Walton

in 1879, and pot-maker
Elijah Skidmore and Bo-

hemian glass engraver/
cutter Emanuel Haupt-

mann (fig. z) were also
hired from Britain, all to

advise and instruct.
Apprentices were

taught how to use the
oxides, moulds, presses,

and cutting/engraving
equipment which were

specially imported.

The glass-melting pots

and direct combustion
furnaces were larger

than any previously used

in Japan; coal replaced

charcoal; soda-lime glass

replaced potash-lead

glass; and western-style

annealing was intro-
duced. Thanks to these,

the country had durable,
cheap glass for the first
time.

Unfortunately

window-glass continu-

ally failed at Shinagawa,
because it was a difficult

and expensive technology

to introduce so far from
its roots in the West. In
fact it had no success in

Japan until the opening
years of the zoth century.

Other glass fared better,
including red signal glass
for ships and all kinds of

flint ware (fig. 3).
Nevertheless, the

glassworks was sold off
into private Japanese
ownership in 1884

because of financial

problems, whereupon

British influence at Shi-
nagawa ceased. Under

subsequent owners and

with a Siemans tank, the
factory had its first prof-

its — from the manufac-
ture of beer bottles — and

later attempted window

glass again. Since 1908,
the owner of the site has

been Sankyo Pharma-
ceuticals.

Hauptmann, and

earlier Walton, re-
turned straight home

to England where they

continued their own

businesses. In contrast

Speed and Skidmore dis-

persed to Osaka where

they had been invited,
together with several

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

Fig.1

James Speed

(1834-
1908).

Photograph
retained by
Shimada

Magoichi,
one of his

trainees.

With thanks

to the

Shimada

family.

32
Fig.2

Emanuel

Hauptmann

(1849-

1924).
Bohemain

glass
engraver

and

naturalised

British

subject,

standing

between
his
two

brothers on

a visit to his
homeland.

With thanks

to Diane

Harmon, a

Hauptmann

descendant.

Fig.3
Brush

holders in
lead glass,

148mm and

168mm.
Exhibited in

japan’s ‘Sec-
ond National
Exposition

for the En-
couragement

of Industry;

together
with

268
pieces

of tableware,
scientific

apparatus,
chimneys,

lamps and
bottles, all

made at

Shinagawa.

With thanks

to Tokyo
National

Museum

REPORTS

of their apprentices, to

work for Ito Keishin in a
private factory so similar

to Shinagawa that it

was generally known as

‘Little Shinagawi. They
continued training and

advising there until their

return home about
1884

or 1885.

The re-integration of

these British men back

into their families and

work cannot have been

easy. They enjoyed high

wages and had many
responsibilities and

challenges in Japan, but

their experience would

have been beyond the
ken of those at home and

hard to explain. At least

one of them must have

been marked by strain:

Thomas Walton tragi-

cally lost his wife and

five young children in a

shipwreck as they sailed

out to join him. Along

with most of the thou-

sands of foreigners who
were similarly employed

to help modernise Japan,

they received no official
recognition from Japan
for their contribution,

nor from their own

country.

The Shinagawa glass-

works pioneered modern
western-style industrial

glassmaking, not only in
its introduction of meth-

ods to Japan but also in

the instruction given to
numerous Japanese glass-

makers, many of whom

went on to establish

successful enterprises
elsewhere. Amongst

them were Shimada

Magoichi, who retained
the portrait of Speed,

his teacher, and bought

‘Little Shinagawa in

1893, and Iwaki Takijiro,
who developed a factory

in Tokyo. From these

seeds grew two of today’s
flourishing Japanese glass

companies, Toyo-Sasaki

Glass and Asahi Glass

respectively. The fact that

Nippon Sheet Glass is

a global leader in
21st

century glass, even own-

ing Pilkington’s, shows

just how far Japan’s

glassmaking has come in

14o years.

For further informa-

tion contact haden.

[email protected]

Sally Haden

Hosts for the December

meeting were Anne
Horne, Tim Udall,

Katharine Coleman and
Andy McConnell.

Fig.4 The

Shinagawa

glassworks is

commemo-

rated today

by a memo-
rial on the

original site.

With thanks
to Michael

Stevens, a

descendant

ofJames
Speed.

LEFT:
Bohemian

bottle vase

sold for

£33,750

11 December

Masterpieces of Bohemian

Glass

Bonhams sale

T
wo huge Bohemian

glass goblets made in

Carlsbad in the mid 19th

century sold for £47,500

the pair. The clear glass

goblets, complete with
covers, were part of a pri-

vate collection of work

from the golden age of

engraved glass.
Many of the pieces

sold for well over their

estimates. A massive
ruby-stained bottle

vase (est Lio,000-

15,00o) was bought for
£.33,750. An

excep-

tional amber-stained

goblet and crown cover

(£7,000-1o,000) sold

for £22,500 as did a pair

of part-amber-stained

goblets and covers prob-

ably made by August
Bohm in Meistersdorf

around 184o-5o. They
had been estimated at

£6,000-8,000.

Bohemian glass is the

epitome of the Bieder-

meier taste which

flourished
in Central

Europe in

the first half

of the 19th

century and
these goblets and covers

were made during that

period and for a time

shortly afterwards. The

stark, strong shapes are

decorated with the finest
craftsmanship using the

technique known as
Ti-

efschnitt,
which involves

carving away layers of

glass to create entire

scenes in intaglio.

Deer hunting was a

favourite theme, reflect-

ing the main sporting

pursuit in the region.

In the 19th century, as

part of`The Season:

Europe’s wealthy flocked

to the spas of Bohemia

— an historical kingdom
which today is part of

the Czech Republic — to

take the waters and hunt.

Many of the pieces in
the sale would have been

presented as trophies by

aristocratic hosts to suc-
cessful hunters.

Sadly, the craftsmen

who made these beauti-
ful objects did not always

enjoy the recognition and
respect they command

today. August Bohm, for

example, who excelled

at carving figures on

horseback, left his wife

and family at home to

seek his fortune abroad

only to return unsuccess-
ful and die in penury.

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

33

Reflections — The Art

of Alison Kinnaird

94
pp, with DVD of

films and audio tracks

ISBN 978-0-9540160
Kinmor Music, 2013

from www.

alisonkinnaird.co.uk,

£12.00 +
p&p

REVIEWS

Book reviews

Drinking Glass: A
Toast to the Drinking

Glass in History and

in Life
Suntory Museum of

Art: 2013

192 pp full colour

throughout

T
his is a catalogue of

an exhibition held

at the Suntory Museum

of Art in Tokyo from
September to November
2013 and is remarkable

for the fine collection of

ancient, medieval and

European Renaissance

glass illustrated in

its pages. Some zoo

drinking glasses from

private collections and

museums in Toko,

Chiba, Ehime, Shiga

together with Japanese

items influenced by
western tradition are

shown. The glass from
Egypt, Iran, Bohemia,

and Venice is as fine as

anything in a European
collection, but what
makes this interesting

is the third (roughly) of

the items that are either

Japanese imitations

of European styles
or modern artists’
interpretations. The

two pictures show

(above) an opaque-

twist and (below) a

sake pot made in Japan
in the 18th century

— both illustrating

craftsmanship that

has not yet reached

European standards and

a Japanese take on the

styles being imitated.
The exhibition

was structured in an
interesting way that I
have not come across

before. There were five
scenarios: Offerings

(vessels used in ancient

times to present offerings

to gods); Conversations
(for drinking and talking
together); Vows (glasses

used in weddings and

the swearing of oaths);

Glorifications (gorgeous

goblets to assert
power or status); and

Celebration (cups and

glasses used on convivial
social occasions).

Captions are all

helpfully in English as

well as Japanese, but only

some of the discursive

text is translated.
The catalogue is

supported by (inter
alia) the Association
for Art Glass Studies in

Japan which I could not
find on the internet. A

connection to be made

with them if anyone can

put us in touch, perhaps?
Jane Dorner

A
s a glass

fr%engraver myself,

I wholeheartedly

concur with James
Holloway, Director of

The Scottish National
Portrait Gallery, who

introduces this excellent
book with the words:

Alison Kinnaird is one
of the world’s leading

glass engravers. She
has developed the
medium by perfecting

old and pioneering
new techniques: Alison

certainly has been brave
to move on from her

successful and sought
after classic works on
perfect Steuben crystal

to master window and
panel work, sandblasting

and portraiture
(where formerly

she eschewed facial
features on her figures)

and, furthermore,
to circumvent the

deplorably unreliable

lighting of her work by

exhibition and museum

curators (for engraved

glass, we know, is like

a woman of a certain

age and prefers careful

lighting from behind)
by cleverly pioneering

an original method of

integral lighting in her
work, both perfectly
displaying the engraving

and also colouring the

same through small

shards of dichroic

glass, placed over LED
lights secreted in the

supporting stand. The
large new Patrons’
Window in the Scottish

National Portrait Gallery

is her most impressive

work to date.
In Alison’s own words:

‘Glass is a sublimely

surprising medium…
it has a purity and a

spiritual quality quite
unlike any other’.

This book is a worthy
record of both Alison’s

earlier and more recent

work, beautifully
photographed by Robin

Morton, her husband.
Alison and Robin are

also accomplished
musicians. One can

listen to their music

which accompanies the
book which so amply

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

JOURNA I ‘,

THE CORNING MUSEUM OF GLASS
STUDIES
REVIEWS

illustrates Alison’s

significant contribution
to modern glass

engraving. Long may she
remain Britain’s most

respected and acclaimed

practitioner.

Katharine Coleman

Journal of Glass Studies
Volume 55, 2013

290 pages

ISBN 978-0-87290-

195-7
The Corning Museum

of Glass, $40

T
his volume has 12

articles, 8 notes ,

obituaries to David

Whitehouse and a

collector, Eric Martin

Wunsch, and lists of

Museum acquisitions

and publications. The

articles range from

an i8th Dynasty blue

glass face inlay of King
Akhenaten to an Art

Nouveau 1927 vase,

aux Its tigres,
by Daum.

I shall mention five

of possible interest to

Circle members.

The first is a

summary/assessment

of previous excavations

of glassmaking at

Glastonbury Abbey

by Hugh Willmott

and Kate Welham.

Four furnace sites were

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1
identified, dating to the

late 7th century, about
the same time as glazing

at Monkswearmouth.

The furnace outline –

oval — was determined

in only one, and

suggested to be of

possible Roman design.
Roman furnaces are

normally reverberatory

with a single glass pot.
However, the round
mini-experimental

furnace used by Taylor

and Hill is given as a

reconstruction. This

is apparently based on

9 pieces of pot found.
Examples of the glass

found and a piece of a

possible blowpipe are

illustrated.

The next article, by

John Smith and David
Whitehouse, is about

the sealed ‘spittoon

attributed to Ravenscroft

and recently acquired by
CMOG. The vessel is
briefly described. It is so

crizzled that it proved

difficult to determine

whether it fluoresced

blue under a far UV

lamp (which I happened

to witness) as reported.

Under near UV it was

inconclusively assessed

as yellow, indicating

manganese present, not

the blue colour found

with other Ravenscroft
pieces. The authors

suggest that it might
not have been made at a

Ravenscroft furnace. My

alternative offer is the

John Baker glasshouse in

Chelsea. Baker worked

with Ravenscroft from

1675. The damaged or

incompetently moulded

seal does look like a

ravens head but would

not fulfil its purpose of

convincing a customer as

the Glass Sellers decreed.
However, most of the

article is to establish by
means of illustrations
that the vessel is not a

spittoon but the bowl of

a hand-wash set as used

in the Middle East but

without its pitcher.

Students of painted

windows will appreciate
Ginza Maria Sicca’s 29

detailed pages on a folio

in the Rakow Library

of drawings in ink and

watercolour of painted

glass in Norfolk by

John Talmann (1677-

1726). Apart from their
exceptional detail and

accuracy some chart

windows that no longer

exist.

Paolo Zecchin

contributes (in Italian)

on the shenanigans

of the bead trade in
i8th century England

involving smuggling, war,

competition between

countries and the slave
trade.

Finally, I must

mention the 44-page

description of a machine,

in nut and bolt detail,
that cuts patterns on

glass. It was invented
c.

1850-1880 by Frenchman,

Jean-Pierre Colne. It

was used in America
particularly to decorate

footed bowls and

decanters, cut all over
in such exceptional

detail as to beggar belief.
I recall that Thomas

Webb tested a machine

in the mid 195os and

found it inadequate even

for simple work, not
because of the machine

but because the glass was

not truly symmetrical.

I wondered if this

could be achieved with
pressed glass but most

are described as mould-
blown.

CMOG acquisitions

in 20I2 of British interest

are two Henry Ricketts

& Co. (183o-184o)

invoices for bottles

sent to America, 17
copper-plate drawings

on Employment for the
Microscope by Henry

Baker (1698-1774), an

opaque twist Beilby with

chinoiserie decoration,

a pitcher with a deeply

engraved scene of the

Charge of the Light

Brigade (1870-1900) and,

of similar date, a claret

jug and stopper possibly
engraved by William
Fritsche for Thomas

Webb.

David
C.

Watts

Libby Horner
Patrick

Reyntiens: Catalogue of

Stained Glass

352 pages, full colour

ISBN 978-1-908326-

48-5

Sansom & Company,

£60

LIBBY HORNER
T
his is a gorgeous

I chunky book with

lots of succulent images

of stained glass windows

and panels. The author’s

enthusiasm for Patrick

Reyntien’s work has led
her to visit every known

site in England, Wales
and Ireland where his

work can be seen. She
has dug deep into the

background of each

35

PATRICK REYNTIENS

CATALOGUE OF STAINED GLASS

Abstract Composition of Biomorphic Forms, John Piper

and Patrick

Reyntiens,

Sanderson (Morgan’s Hotel Group), London, 1959.1960

REVIEWS & DIARY

•
commission and included an

impressive quantity of relevant

information. She has noted the
requests of the client, questions

of subject matter, problems
encountered by the artists and

response by the critics of the

day. Her background as an art
historian and lecturer, foremost

authority on the life and work
of Frank Brangwyn has made

Libby Homer a formidable

gatherer of relevant information,
rare indeed in the slightly

eccentric world of stained glass.

Sensibly the windows have

been grouped geographically.

Country first then clusters of
places to visit. This is entirely

as it should be. Stained glass

windows must be
seen
physically

in their own particular
architectural and spiritual

spaces. Nothing, not even the

most brilliant photograph can
be anything but a shadow of the

visible reality.
Libby Homer’s images

are really delicious. Exterior
views accompany the maps

while context shots and details
decorate each page. Every

entry begins with a brief but

enticing summary of the
building with descriptions

of each window according to
Tide, Date, Location, Size,

Cost, Faculty date, Dedication
date and Documentation.

With a true scholar’s insight

and determination, Homer
has added the titles of articles

and books in which references

to each scheme occur. She
concludes the text with Notes

in which (with scholarly tact)

the vision and gossip of the

window’s creation are laid bare.
Especially gripping were the

notes on Coventry Cathedral.

These included extracts from

a sharp letter written to the

Secretary of the Reconstruction

Committee revealing the
steel and professionalism

underpinning Reyntien’s
flamboyance and charm. Other

insights have been offered
here through the memories

of his students and assistants.

Australian artist Cedar Prest

and Canadian Ted Goodden
remind the reader of the

enormous contribution made
by Reyntiens at his inspirational

centre at Burleighfield.
The author has also made

space for several of Reyntiens
own memorable’sayings’ and has

been able through the family

archive to include enchanting
images of work in progress.

Sketches, paintings and details

of cartoons would also have
been wonderfully enriching if
only there were space. Where

these have been included (St

Mary’s, Stoke St Mary) there is

much to be learnt and enjoyed.
Indeed my only criticism

of this marvellously rich and
interesting book is the difficulty

of comfortably reading the solid
blocks of unrelieved text in

‘Notes’. The struggle is worth the
effort. The author has worked

hard and so should we.
Caroline Swash

Diary

Circle meetings
Held at the Art Workers Guild.

6 Queen Square, WCiN 3AT.

There is a charge dim per per-

son which includes refreshments

from 6.3o p.m. Meetings start at
7.15.
Guests welcome.

6
March

Professor Ian Freestone:

New Light on Medieval Stained

Glass

12
April

Circle visit to the newly re-

opened Cecil Higgins Museum,

Castle Lane, Bedford MK4o
3XD. Meet at the entrance at

it a.m. for a 1 hour 3o minutes
tour, cost £15. Please return your

booking slip to annelh6o@hot-
mail.com. The curator will write
an article about the collection

together with a report of the
visit for the next issue.

25
April

Messages in bottles

Association for the History of

Glass Spring Study Day
London Archaeological Archive

and Research Centre
Eagle Wharf Road, London Ni

7ED

13 May
John Smith on Julia Bathory

so June
details to follow

Until so August
Pilkington Collection
Broadfield House Museum (see
page 3o)

Kingswinford, DY6 9NS

www.dudley.gov.uk/see-and-do/

museums/glass-museum/

Simon Cottle
Honorary President

John P Smith
Chairman
&
Publications

Laurence Maxfield
Honorary Treasurer &

Membership Secretary

Susan Newell
Honorary Secretar

Vernon Cowdy
Web site manager
The exhibition has been ex-

tended to to August because the
International Festival of Glass
has been postponed until 2,055.

Shaun Kiddell
Geoffrey Laventhall
Anne Lutyens-Hobbs
Meetings Organiser

Marianne Scheer
Athelny Townshend
Publications Production and

Graphic Design

Anne Towse

Graham Vivian

The Glass Circle

committee members

36

Glass Circle News Issue 134 Vol. 37 No. 1

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

Glass Circle News_No.134, Mar 2014

Recent Posts

Address

Email

Instagram

Facebook