Glass Circle News_No.96, Sept 2003

r”)

Sept.

Z
1
0 0 3

Web site, www.glasscircle.org
E-mail, [email protected]
EDITORS David C. Watts

27 Raydean Rd,

Barnet, Herts. EN5 1AN.
F.
Peter Lole

5 Clayton Ave.

Didsbury, Manchester, M20
6BL.

NOTICES Henry Fox
20 Ockford Road,

Godalming, Surrey, GU7 1QY

No. 96

P/
David Peace
and the

Society

of Antiquaries’ Ballot Bowl.
by Hugh Tait F.S.A.

SOCIETIV LONDINIJiET AYFICWARHITVDIOSA
11/11.- A
‘
? nt) CC XVTII .

Above.
Bronze lamp adopted

by the Society of Antiquaries of

London as its emblem in 1718.

Right.
Ballot Bowl with deco-

ration designed and engraved

in diamond-point for the Society

of Antiquaries by the late David

Peace F.S.A.

Ht. 17 cm, Diam of rim, 21.8

cm, Diam. of foot, 14.5 cm.

GLASS CIRCLE NEWS

arlier this year,
the important and innovative English glass-

.’ engraver, David Peace, died at the age of 87. The revival of

the craft in Britain after World War II and, indeed, the formation of
a “Guild of Glass Engravers” owes much to him; he was to become

The Guild’s first chairman in 1975, and later its president.

As The Glass Circle gathers for its regular meetings and lectures
at No. 6 Queen Square, Bloomsbury, in the shadow of William
Morris, members may like to recall that, just thirty years ago in

that same historic hall, David Peace was chosen to be Master of

the Art Workers’ Guild. Four years later, in 1977, his paper on
`The Glass Engraver as Calligrapher’ was delivered to The Glass

Circle and, subsequently, his authoritative textbook
Glass

Engraving: Lettering and Design
(1985) was welcomed in Glass

Circle News, (no. 36, p. 6).

David Peace’s fascination with lettering grew out of his life-long

admiration of the work of Eric Gill (1882 — 1940), the last
survivor of the Arts and Crafts group started by William Morris.

Gill was not only a fine designer of type, but also a talented
wood-engraver and a rare sculptor who practised the art of

carving directly in stone — his best-known sculptures being on
the exterior of the BBC’s Broadcasting House (1932). Indeed,

David Peace finally published in the mid-1990’s a greatly

extended and fully illustrated revision of his earlier study of

Gill’s inscriptional works (done in 1972 in collaboration with

Evan Gill, the sculptor’s brother).

Both Gill and Peace valued the subtle choice of words, tending

to regard that skill as inseparable from both the art of designing
the inscription and the craft of cutting it. Over the years, David
Peace accumulated quite an impressive collection of phrases,

some poetic whilst others, for example, derived from mottoes;
these, together with many notes, tracings, sketches, drawings and
photographs of his own work — more than a thousand! — form a

valuable archive, now appropriately deposited at the V&A

Museum. Early evidence of his interest in heraldic devices and

armorial bearings lies alongside his love of lettering, at which

he excelled; indeed, one of his first publications was entitled

Engraved Glass: Lettering and Heraldry
(1968).

continued on page 4

Press moulded clear glass bowl.

(Design 46)

Stuart & Sons Ltd., 1946

Press moulded clear glass bowl.
(Design 46)

United Glass Bottle Manufacturers Ltd., 1946

GLASS CIRCLE NEWS No. 96

2003

Editorial
What the 19th Century Brought for Us?

rrhe new millennium brought antique respectability to every-
1 thing 19t
h

century and a year later to everything Victorian.

In a sense this mattered little for glass enthusiasts as the

achievements of this period were already well recognised. Now,
for the first time it brought into focus the parallel achievements

on both sides of the Atlantic. That many of the American
glassmakers had family origins in Europe did not stop them from

developing their own characteristic styles to meet the needs and
aspirations of the local populations. And, for the first time,
progress in America fed back to influence Europe. Most endur-
ing was the exploitation of press moulding for mass production,

irrespective of whether or not the idea first developed in

England. It produced cheap and cheerful tableware in quantity

and, no less important, it solved the labour problem arising from

the lack of skilled glassmakers. This combination of quantity
and diversity makes it an ideal area for today’s collector.

Nor should one neglect design and quality; by comparison with
the industry in England; with a few notable exceptions, the

superior flair and finish of many American designs have much

to be admired. The explanation reflects the question of attitude.
Press moulding in England was never much more than a second

rank industry aimed at the working class, even in the hands of

such North-Eastern giants as Sowerby, Davidson or Greener.

The matter was not helped by an endless flood of even lower

grade glassware from Czechoslovakia from towards the end of

the century and between the wars.

In 1945, at the end of World War II, the British glass industry,

restructuring its production to traditional glassware, discovered

there was an open market to exploit but a lack of skilled

craftsmen to do the work. For the first time in its history English

glassmakers found it necessary to send committees of top
management to Sweden and to America under the auspices of

the then Board of Trade to source out how best the industry

might be restored. Their report, published in 1947, revealed that

the Swedish glass industry, not surprisingly, was in a worse state

than in England, particularly from a lack or raw materials.

However, the delegation there noted how good financial savings

could be made by following their production methods although

it seemed doubtful if they could be introduced here. Nothing

helpful seemed to emerge in the way of products or product

design suitable for English manufacture.

The American delegation, on the other hand, reported great
insight into the care taken over press moulding in America:-

“All presses were hand-operated by a side lever, with hot moulds

oil-swabbed. For ordinary pressed ware a 4-man chair was used

— gatherer, presser, taker-out, taker-in. Where hand finishing was
used, the chair consisted of six persons — gatherer, presser,

transferrer, wanner-in, finisher or manipulator and taker-in.

Footed ware was being pressed with a capped foot which was

then opened out. For a pressed goblet a 7-man chair was
employed — gatherer, presser, fire-polisher for foot, foot finisher,

firepolisher for bowl, bowl-finisher, taker-in. Careful attention

is paid to the design of a mould for a pressed article which is

subsequently to be altered by manipulation. A cast iron “post”
or pontil is used for holding the article in the glory hole whilst

reheating after pressing, and during the subsequent

manipulation. A very important feature of the production of
pressed ware was the high finish and surface obtained, with

elimination of mould, etc., marks, by the hand and fire-finisher

employed. The shaping is carried out by the manipulator or

finisher on the same principle as for hand-made ware, except
that a broader tool is used.”

The committee felt that this more sophisticated process might

well be taken-up as the training time for the operatives would

be much shorter than for traditional glassmakers. In the event, I

think only Stuart of the crystal factories gave it serious
consideration; a Stuart press-moulded bowl (rare nowadays,
picture upper right) featured in the 1946
Design

46
catalogue of

the ‘Britain Can Make It’ exhibition held at the V&A. At the

same time United Glass Bottle Manufacture Ltd. launched two
press-moulded bowls, the scalloped version (picture below)

becoming an instant success.

An important consequence of press moulding was carnival glass.
Other than for collectors it has now passed into history.
However, it did introduce, or at least popularise, the idea of

iridised glass in Britain. As a treatment it has been vigorously

adopted for both commercial and studio glass decoration.

The other great 19th century American export that has to
be

mentioned was, of course, shaded ruby glass. What would

Victorian glass collectors do without it? First produced by

Thomas Webb under licence from the Mt. Washington Glass
Co., Stevens & Williams soon found a way round the patent.

Sadly, its life was cut short by the first world war and it never

recovered in the stylistically constrained days of Art Deco. In

America, shaded selenium ruby was developed but English

glassmakers seemed never to have progressed beyond a plain
selenium ruby, excellent as it is in its own rather limited way.

Bohemian coloured glass tableware and ornaments may have

become imports because that area could not compete with

British steam-powered deep-cut crystal. In spite of all that is

written about the ability of the continental glassmakers to make

glass facon d’Angleterre the fact remains that if they did so they

rarely achieved (or perhaps even desired) parity of quality with

the English product. With the repeal of the duty on glass in 1845,

Bohemian coloured glass certainly helped stimulate a competi-

tive response from Britain. We never took to making Egermann’s
stained ruby glass, and lithyalin was no more than a passing
fashion. His most enduring contribution was, without doubt,

copper ruby flashed window glass, the manufacture of which

was taken up by Chance in Birmingham; acres must have been

incorporated into our houses, a sprinkling of which remains to

this day. One should, no doubt, add to this his development of

uranium as colours, Annagrun and Annagelb. English “Canary”

benefited from the combination with lead glass and uranium was
soon found an addi-

tional role in the crea-

tion of sophisticated,
particularly opaque,

shades developed
from traditional

colours. In the hands

of John Northwood

and his devices such

as the pull-up ma-

chine the results were

truly magnificent. By

contrast, Walsh

Walsh adopted a

simple, very uncom-

plicated palate of

colours. Sadly, none

of this was of much

help to our struggling

factories immediately

after World War II.

Nevertheless, nine-

teenth century glass-
making, more than

any other, represents

a period about which
to ponder on the inter-
play of technologies

with those from foreign shores. In the 18th century England had
its own metal and was content to do its own thing. By 1851 The

Great Exhibition had changed this cosy world for ever. On pages

9 through 11 I have drawn up time-lines to highlight the more

important of these changes. We hope that when you come to see

our Exhibition at the Wallace Collection they will help you
appreciate the treasures selected for your enjoyment. 0

Page 2

Cut Monteith (Ht. 8.8cm) and goblet.
P

ic
tu
re

by
D.
C.

Wa
tts

2003

GLASS CIRCLE NEWS No. 96

The Fantastical Scot, Monsieur Monteigh.
by
F. Peter Lole

I
n two successive issues our editor has commented on the term

.Monteith’,
quoted in my note on the descriptive terms used

in C.18
111
Glass-sellers’ bills that was published in

GC News 94.

It
is perhaps worth re-emphasizing that
Monteiths’

was not a

term that I selected, but simply records its use by two different
Glass-sellers, between 1803 and 1807, to specify items on their

bills. Indeed, I was as surprised as David seems to be in his note

in
GC News 95,
to encounter the term used for what I would

have called
a ‘Rinser’.

David’s initial comment, following on from my piece, neatly
coupled his eulogy for the new Oxford English Dictionary CD
Rom with the oft quoted 1683 description by Antony a Wood,

of the silver vessel with a notched brim named after “a

fantastical Scot, Monsieur Monteigh,” whose cloak edge was

similarly notched. These silver vessels, of which the second note
illustrated a late Sheffield plate version, are indeed what one

normally thinks of
as Monteiths;

there are quite a number of

porcelain or creamware versions from the second half of the

C.18
th
, and I know of one Glass specimen, of oval section with

eight notches, displayed in the
Scottish National Trust

house of

Leith Hall, in Aberdeenshire. (I am convinced that I also have

a note of another example, but I cannot run it to earth.) The
earliest European porcelain versions seem to have been made at
Sevres, for Madame de Pompadour in 1753, for whom a dessert

service noted in the factory record book for that year contained

amongst many other items
“12 Seaux a verres”‘.
However, the

rather earlier painting of
The Oyster Feast’

of 1735, by Jean-

Francois de Troy (picture below, with computer enhance detail),

illustrates Glasses inverted in blue decorated china bowls. It

would have been nice to be able to record that in the Sevres

ambassadorial service presented to Lord Eden in 1787 one might

also have encountered individual wine coolers, but no; however

that service did contain
“2 Seaux Crenneles”,

a term that seems

to correspond well with
Monteiths
as usually understood today’.
Whilst the majority of French individual wine Glass coolers

were of porcelain or metal, there are Glass versions; unlike their

British equivalents they do not have spouts and normally have

a pair of handles, being variously known
as ‘RafraichIssoir’,

`Seaux
a

verres’, ‘Solitaires’
or

‘Verriere’
3
.

A pair of delightful

Derby porcelain eight notched
Monteiths,
with factory marks for

1784/5, are illustrated and described in the recently published

‘2002 Review’
of the
National Art-Collections Fund.

It is perhaps worth quoting in full the two Glass sellers’ entries
that set this hare running, to illustrate that they are indeed for

individual coolers:
1803: John Blades, London; to The Duke of Atholl.

14 Monteiths Cut @
36d. each.

1807: Davenport, Stoke; to The Prince of Wales.

48 Monteiths; Grecian Border (41 54d. each.

In each case the prices of some of the wine Glasses on the same

bill are quite close to those of the
Monteiths,
suggesting that the

latter cannot be large vessels, and incidentally high-

lighting how expensive ‘best’ wine Glasses had

suddenly become.

Terms used to describe a particular Glass type in the
C.18
th
, both in Britain and France, varied quite

widely and were seldom those that Collectors use
today; indeed, it is almost axiomatic that different

terms for the same thing were in use simultaneously.

Thus, the now universally used term
‘Finger Bowl’

does not occur until the second half of the C.19
th
, and

previously these vessels had been called
‘Water

Glasses’, ‘Water Cups’, ‘Water Bowls’, ‘Glasses for

washing hands at table’, ‘Wash Hand Glasses’,

`Wash Hand Basins’, ‘Finger Cups’
and

‘Finger

Glasses”’.
The earliest British reference to Rinsers

that I know of is in 1793 (long after the French were

using them,) when Parson Woodford’s diary records,

as a new fashion: “…
blue water glasses with wine

glasses in them …”.
Other British references during

the Regency period call them:
‘Coolers’, ‘Verriers’,

and of course,
‘Monteiths’,

although the term
‘Rin-

ser’
was not actually used in that period. The problem

with the term cooler, which was contemporary, is that

it can be used for so many different vessels that it

always needs qualifying.

Sources:
1. S. Eriksen & G.de Bellaigue “Sevres Porcelain”

(1987) pp. 72-75.
2 A. Dawson “The Eden Service; another diplomatic

gift”
Apollo Magazine,

April 1980.

3.
J.Bellanger “Verre d’usage et de prestige” (1988)

pp. 436-438, 492-493.

4.
F.P.Lole “The Royal Finger Bowls and Coolers

Mystery’ GC News 56; “Further Ablutions” GC News

58.

Page 3

“07at,If

ty
r

–
a.t Ln
j

0(1.4ty iet

co
–

(

z3.1

Voting at
the Ballot

Boxes

GLASS CIRCLE NEWS No. 96

2003

David Peace and the Society of
Antiquaries’ Ballot Bowl by Hugh Tait F.S.A.

continued from cover.

Sketch by David Peace of his proposed lettering for The Society of Antiquaries Ballot Bowl. Signed and dated 1980. Size of original 40cm x 13
7cm

Whether designing on a grand scale (as with screens and doors
in churches) or on a much smaller scale (as with goblets and

decanters), David Peace always sought to ensure that his final

solution had , in effect, been dictated by the object — by its shape

and size, by its function and setting. This highly sensitive

approach, which won acclaim for many of his well-known

public commissions, is equally traceable in obscure works, like

the Ballot Bowl of the Society of Antiquaries of London, which

is published here for the first time (cover picture).

This fine colourless glass was a replacement, purchased by the

Society in January, 1977, from Thomas Goode & Co. of South
Audley Street; as it was neither engraved nor decorated in any

way, its cost was a modest £8.65. The large circular bowl has
vertical sides and is supported on a spreading foot. Both its form

and its transparency make it an ideal Ballot Bowl for regular
use on the three occasions each year when ballots for the

election of new Fellows are held at the Society’s Rooms in

Burlington House, Piccadilly.

In an election an internally divided ballot box is provided for

each of the named candidates — just as depicted by J. Walter

Wilson, R.A. in his drawing of a ballot at The Athenaeum

(Illustrated London News,
March 11, 1893). Into each ballot

box, one cork ball (no bigger than a ping-pong ball) is dropped

by each voter; whether the ball is dropped into the left (YES)

half or into the right (NO) half of the ballot box cannot be
observed by any onlooker because the voter’s hand is com-

pletely hidden within the tubular opening (near the top). Then,

after the ballot has closed, the contents of both halves of each
ballot box are separately counted in full view of the Fellows

who, as they watch each counted ball fall into the transparent

glass Ballot Bowl, can challenge any mistake in the counting
process.

If a glass Ballot Bowl had, indeed, been introduced during the

early days of the Society (founded in 1707) no evidence of its

existence has yet been found. However, such practical details

would probably not have been entered into the Minutes of the
Society (unbroken since 1717), especially if it was common

practice among similar societies and clubs in London during the

18
1h
and 19

th
centuries. For this reason it would be most interest-

ing to learn of any early references to the making or selling of

these large glass “ballot bowls” — or, indeed, of their docu-

mented use in other institutions, such as the City Livery

Companies, one of which (the Saddlers’ Company) has pre-
served the ornately decorated ballot box made for the Court of

the East India Company in 1619.

The earliest relevant record in the Minutes of the Society of
Antiquaries dates from 1906, but the brief wording of this entry
fails to shed any light on the reason for this gift: was it a

replacement or was it a new solution (because of a disputed

ballot result)?
A member of The Athenaeum casts his

vote in one

of the
row of ballot boxes.

Above each is written the candidates curriculum vitae and, perhaps more
importantly, the names of the sponsors. A porter, left, holds a basket of cork
balls for voting and the whole process is carefully watched by a scrutineer.

” Ordinary Meeting, Thursday, 29 Nov; 1906:
The Director presented for use at this and future ballots a large

old glass goblet, on which he had caused to be engraved the
Society’s name.

Thanks were accorded to the Director for his useful gift.”

[Published in Joan Evans,
A history of the Society of Antiquaries

(O.U.P,. 1956), p. 361; the Society’s Director in 1906 was F.G.

Hilton Price Esq,. F.S.A.].
Whichever interpretation is correct, there can be no doubt that,

in 1906, the Society itself had not considered commissioning a

“Ballot Bowl” nor purchasing a capacious glass that might serve

the purpose — so, perhaps the practice was already well-
established. No further description of the “large old glass goblet”

has been found and, by 1961, its loss (unrecorded) led to the

acquisition of another glass, the “Ballot Goblet”, as it was

termed in the Minutes of 7′
h
Nov’, 1961.

Nothing is recorded about its age or appearance, nor its method
of acquisition. However, correspondence from David Peace
establishes that he submitted to the Society a design (dated 30

October, 1961). It was for an engraved inscription but, a week
later, it was decided to defer the matter on grounds of expense.

However, the question seems not to have been raised again, even
>>

Page 4

2003

GLASS CIRCLE NEWS No. 96

after 1″ May, 1975, when David Peace was elected a Fellow.

This was perhaps because his election had more to do with his
professional achievements as an architect and town planner,

particularly after 1961 when he did so much to save Cambridge

from all kinds of monstrous development.

In the event, it was truly fortunate that the 1961 “Ballot Goblet”

was never engraved because it, too, was lost and a replacement
had to be bought in January, 1977. This new “Ballot Bowl”

(cover picture) was to remain in its undecorated state until 1980.

In the letter (dated 19 FebY., 1980) addressed to the President,
A.R. Dufty C.B.E., which accompanied “the sketch for the
Antiquaries Bowl” (picture page 4, top), David Peace explains

that he is no longer intending “to do a flourished pseudo-17
th

/18
th

century treatment” but favours a “less obvious treatment . . .
Italics? Yes, in contrast to the square sides. It gives a nice

directional movement, too . . .”

He concludes by offering, as an alternative, “a bit of scholarly

copperplate”. Needless to say, his first proposal was warmly

welcomed and, in July, he collected the Ballot Bowl from the
Society. He decided to engrave the inscription on the exterior of

the bowl, but chose to do it in reverse. Consequently, it has to
be read from the inside of the bowl — precisely the way it would

be most frequently viewed.

Except for a few minor details, like the length of the tail of the

letter “Q”, the finished engraving corresponds closely with the
drawing (Height of lettering, 6 cm). True to his modest nature,

he has added to the underside of the base (close to the pontil

area) a minuscule signature and date, beneath a fleur-de-lys; all

this has been lightly done with a diamond-point and could easily

be missed (picture right).

In keeping with his love of heraldic devices, David Peace has

incorporated into the inscription “The Society’s Lamp”, de-

signed as the Symbol of the Society in 1718 by John Talman
F.S.A., who was Director from 1717 —1726 (cover picture). The

bronze lamp had been found during the previous year (1717) on
Signature by David Peace scratched in diamond point on the underside of

the Society of Antiquaries Ballot Bowl.

St. Leonard’s Hill, Windsor, and was thought to be of Roman

origin and of great rarity. It entered the collection of Sir Hans

Sloane but, in 1736, was given by him to the Society and,
therefore, did not enter the British Museum along with the rest

of Sloane’s collections in 1753. Ironically, this much-cherished

Symbol of the Society is now identified as a medieval Jewish

sabbath lamp — a nuance that would have appealed to David
Peace’s gentle sense of humour.

Acknowledgements:

I wish to thank Bernard Nurse F.S.A., Librarian of the Society, and David

Morgan Evans F.S.A., its General Secretary, for their generous help in
archival and photographic matters. All illustrations are courtesy of the

Society of Antiquaries of London except the drawing of the ballot boxes

which is courtesy of The Athenaeum.

This article, with its gracious appreciation of David Peace, is a sequal to
the original enquiry in G.C. News 93, page 14, from Mr. Raymond Slack
about the 1768 order from Williamsburg for a “sett of balloting glasses” and

about the modem use of cheap fish bowls for ballots at Guildhall in the City

of London. Ed.

Glass Circle Matters
Speakers and provisional titles for the 2003 – 2004 season of Glass Circle lectures.
All meetings to be held, as usual, at the Art Workers’ Guild, 6.30pm for 7.15pm. (Volunteer hosts required please)

Date
Speaker
Provisional Title

Thur.
October 16
th

Dr. Brian Clarke
British Royal Commemoratives, makers and users.

Tue. November 18
th

–
AGM and Specimens Meeting.

Tue. December 9th
Peter Layton

25 years of Studio Glassmaking.

Tue. February 10th
Roger Dodsworth
Designer cut glass from Stourbridge: 1920 – 1970.

Tue. March 9
th

Martin Mortimer
Factory-marked Irish decanters: the problems of attribution.

Tue. April 13
th

Dr. Peter Kaellgren
Glass and Rock Crystal in the collection of Lord Lee of Sareham.

(Charleston Memorial Lecture)

Tue. May 11th
Dr. David Watts
Cut glass and its development in the 18

th
century.

Tue. June 8th
Ian Wolfenden

British cut glass, the early19
th

century.

Welcome to New Members:
Mr. and Mrs. L. Bridges, Mr. J.W. Jones

and Mr. R. Tilson

Glass Circle News; copy deadlines.
No. 97 Sept./Nov. for publication in December/January

No. 98 Early March for publication in April 2003
LATE NEWS:

Ron Thomas M.B.E., Somervale Antiques, Retires.

Our member, Ron Thomas, is finally retiring from business after

many successful years as a dealer in top quality C.18th glasses

and glassware. His stock is coming up for sale on October 15th at

Drewitt Neate, Donnington Priory, Newbury, Berks.
Tel: 01635 553 553 for details.
Page 5

GLASS CIRCLE NEWS No. 96

2003

Another Scottish Inventory
by Jill Turnbull

T
he ‘Inventory of the Furniture in Newbattle House’, home

of the Marquess of Lothian, dated 29 May 1797, includes

lists of glass in the housekeeper’s room and the butler’s pantry’
While some of them are drinking glasses, most were for the table

and some of the descriptions may be of interest. The list contains
the following:

7 glass sewers(sic) of different sizes

2 large glass ice cream bowls
13 plain small glass plates for sweet meats

3 blistered ditto for ditto
12 sweetmeat and pickle dishes with one foot

7 pickle dishes of different sizes

33 jellies different patterns & sizes

3 large with a foot and stalk for sweetmeats
8 sweetmeat baskets different sizes

2 small glass cups
I butter dish and cover

3 butter dish covers
2 ground and cut crystal milkpots

2 small cylindrical glasses

a ground and cut pepper box tin plate top

a cut and ground sugar box tin top

a lemon pickle cruet
** * ** * * *** **

13 wash hand glasses

2 doz and 3 plates for ditto

16 small caraffes

4 large ditto

6 labell’d wine decanters

8 pint ditto

16 large wine glasses

9 sweet wine glasses – small

4 small cruets for ketchup &

7 glasses for silver salts
6 wine and water glasses

2 champaigne glasses
4 cyder glasses
11 flower’d strong beer glasses

a constable glass

4 tumbler glasses

3 castors mounted with silver and three spoons – silver

4 glass salts
5 flower glasses
12 large cooling glasses

Most of the list speaks for itself and reflects the status of the
Lothian household. The family home, Newbattle Abbey, had

been a wealthy monastery until 1587 when it was erected into

a temporal lordship in favour of Mark Kerr, who was created
first Earl of Lothian in 1606. It is no surprise, then, that his

descendant’s household should own a wide variety of glasses,
including salvers for jellies and sweetmeats, even if the compiler

of the inventory did not know the proper name for them. If, as

it seems reasonable to assume, the ‘large cooling glasses’ were

monteiths, the list would place them at an earlier date than any
in Peter Lole’s list of drinking vessels in glass-sellers bills
printed in GC News 94. One type of drinking vessel which

appears here but not in Peter’s list is the cider glass.

A ‘constable glass’ is described by Newman as ‘a very large
English goblet-shaped glass with a funnel-shaped bowl… used

as a loving cup on ceremonial occasions or for serving spirits to

be transferred into small… wine glasses.’ In a Scottish context
the former explanation seems more likely because of the custom

of after dinner toasts. A French geologist, Faujus de Saint Fond,

travelling in Scotland in 1784, described the Scottish way of

proposing toasts when he took four o’clock dinner at the house

of a minor laird, Mclean of Torloisk, on Mull. After a generous

meal, served by the hostess, St. Fond wrote:

There is no delay in drinking the first toast; it is again the
mistress who is charged with this ceremony. A large glass filled

with port-wine is presented to her; she drinks the first to the
health of all the company, and passes the glass to one of the

persons who sit next to her; and thus from one to another the

glass makes the round of the table. The side-board is furnished

with three large glasses, one for beer, another for wine, and the
third for water, when any one asks for it unmixed, which is not
often. These glasses are common to all at table; they are never

rinsed, but merely wiped with a fine linen cloth.

He went on to say that:
The cloth is removed after the dessert, and a table of well
polished mahogany appears in all its lustre. It is soon covered

with fine decanters of English glass, filled with port, sherry, or
Maderia, and with large bowls of punch. Small glasses are then

distributed in profusion to every one.’

Altogether a very congenial occasion and an excellent opportu-

nity to show off an array of glasses.

One change in the range of glasses used, indicated by the

absence of beer glasses and the emergence of ale glasses in the
last quarter of the 18th century, is commented on by Peter Lole.

However, the Lothian household appeared to be still drinking
beer in 1795 – and from ‘flowered’ glasses – presumably

referring to an engraved decoration. Shifts in fashion usually
took longer to filter through in Scotland, so this may not be too

surprising.

And one final puzzle – what was meant by ‘blistered’ glass plates
for sweetmeats. Any suggestions?

‘National Archives of Scotland, GD4O/8/447

‘Harold Newman
An Illustrated Dictionary of Glass,
Thames &

Hudson, (1987) 77.

3
Faujus de Saint Fond,
A Journey through England and Scotland

to the Hebrides in 1784,Glasgow
(1907) 71-2.

Could a Venetian reticello plate with air bubbles trapped between crossed
white filigree threads be what is meant by “blistered”? Such pieces would

certainly be expensive and explain why only three were ordered compared

with 13 plain plates. If the intention was to impress an honoured guest, such

opulence would certainly succeed. This particular plate, 10.5 ins. diameter,

from the Smith collection, sold for a bargain £20 in 1968. Ed.

Page 6

2003

GLASS CIRCLE NEWS No. 96

Notes from a Provincial Glass Collector:
The Glass Circle talk by Graham

Vivian, summarised in our last
Glass Circle News, has caused
considerable interest because it is

what collecting glass is all about
and brings what members would

like to know about glass to the fore.

This has stimulated Raymond
Chatfield to tell us here how he first

fell for glass. So please write and

tell us – professionals included –

about your own experiences and

how you first got hooked.

by Raymond Chatfield

T
he

g
lass which first stimulated my interest was an Edwardian

tumbler en
g
raved with fruitin

g
vine
;
a simple enou
g
h piece

but one which seemed to capture the essence of that period. I

have come to realise that
g
lass can do that in a way few other

objects can. It was a
g
ift from a friend to my wife for the

imbibin
g
of cider. A casual
g

lance, (at the
g
lass), became a

lin
g
erin
g g
aze, which lit a spark, which started a fire which is

still burnin
g
, encompasses a couple of centuries and is smoul-

derin
g
at the rest.

My initial foray was into the world of decanters. These were

mostly Victorian but, with my wife be
g
innin

g
to mutter about

the increase of “chimney pots” in our dinin
g

room, I turned my

attention to drinkin
g g
lasses. At first I went for the early

nineteenth century but later fell under the spell of the century

previous where I finally felt at home. (By now a prime candidate
for Glassaholics anonymous. There are no meetin
g
s in my home

town but was introduced to one in London called The Glass

Circle).

The first serious book I read on the subject was Thorpe-
English

Glass
and it remains my favourite chiefly because he writes as

an historian rather than as a collector. This is not surprisin
g

really when one has the V&A’s assets to play with. In his chapter

Notes for Private Collectors
he states “Clearances, demolitions,

excavations are well worth watchin
g

since fra
g
ments can inform

any fin
g
ers”. That phrase was uppermost in my mind a couple

of years a
g
o on The Glass Circle outin

to the depths of the

Museum of London. Alon
g
side the impressive Garton Collection

we were treated to tray upon tray of fra
g

ments excavated from

beneath London’s soil. It seemed to me that those morsels were
devoured with as much relish as the ban
q

uet in the cabinets

nearby. If a “do
gg
y ba

g
” had been offered I think that not a

member present would have declined a piece of colour twist

stem,
q
uatrefoil knop or God Save Kin
g

Geor
g

e! To me, the

most important reason for havin
g

a collection, fra
g
mentary or

otherwise lies in the permanent opportunity to handle
;

to use

Thorpe’s words a
g

ain, “allowin

g
the metal to soak into the eyes

and fin
g
ers…”. This nurtures an instinct, invaluable when

huntin
g
in places such as flea markets, junk shops, car boot sales,

charity shops and the like, especially in the absence of definin
g

labels. Occasionally, an early piece will turn up, seldom a
g

entry

g
lass but, maybe once in a lifetime a real treasure. This happened

to me a few years a
g
o at a local car boot sale where for fifty

pence I purchased a piece by a Frenchman of the Art Nouveau

period. Thanks to the expertise of Sotheby’s and two persons

keen to ac
q
uire said item I was furnished with the where-withall

to purchase a few
g
lasses normally out of reach.
Generally I follow no

ri
g
id pattern to my col-

lectin
g

and it very much

depends on what “turns
up”. My main interest lies

more with the place
g

lass

occupies alon
g

side the

other applied arts of the
period. Granted, a well-

fashioned piece of
g

lass is

undoubtedly an object of

beauty in its own ri
g
ht, bu it ri

g
htly belon
g
s in a lar

g
er picture.

After all
g
lass (tableware) is a product of its time, not the

reverse. Each piece ac
q
uired speaks a few more words about

that picture and so, with the invaluable aid of books, catalo
g

ues,

museums and fellow enthusiasts knowled
g

e inevitably
g
rows.

As to condition of the item, I personally would rather see a
g

lass

with a badly chipped foot than half the foot
g
round away.

Recently I was able to buy a double-knopped En
g

lish colour

twist. The bell bowl and stem were perfect but the foot – well!

let’s just say that it showed the si
g
ns of a hard life. I didn’t,

however, buy the
g

lass for its foot. I have several
g

lasses with

perfectly
g
ood feet so I know what one looks like. It was an

opportunity to add a relatively rare
g

lass that, in perfect state

would have been beyond my purse. Furthermore its historical

value remains totally unaffected.

Near my home there is a museum which houses, in a display
cabinet, a modest collection be
q
ueathed some years a

o by a

local
g
entleman. It represents his life’s
g

lass ac
q

uisitions. When

pointed out to me that
q
uite a number bore some de
g

ree of

dama
g
e my instinctive reply was “Yes and I’ll bet he loved

every one of them”. There to me was a person who, had he the

means, would probably have chosen to buy his
g

lasses in perfect

condition – who wouldn’t – but primarily he was driven by a

passion for his subject and that sufficed.

In conclusion, I would say that whatever branch of this multi-
limbed subject you follow, be curious and ask yourself

q
uestions. Most developments in
g
lass manufacture and style

are the result of, or reaction to, technolo
g

ical improvements, the

winds of fashion and other external factors. There are also

countless
q

uestions unanswered or waitin
g
to be asked. The

relatively youn
g

study of
g
lass is not always an exact science

and the approach to it is, thankfully, becomin
g

less ri
g
id. Finally,

beware of friends offerin
g

en
g
raved Edwardian tumblers for use

as cider
g
lasses. You don’t know where it will lead! 0

q/ass arnirgs by Henry fox
ANCIENT GLASS
An interestin
g

slim catalo
g
ue was recently received from

Charles Ede Ltd London,established in 1971. He is the leadin
g

London-based dealer in Classical and pre-Classical anti
q
uities

from Greece, E
g

ypt, Cyprus and the Near East. All items are

fully researched and are sold with an unconditional
g

uarantee of

authenticity. The pictures below (copyri
g
ht of Charles Ede) are
examples from his stock, 1st-5th century AD. Prices of those

shown ran
g
e from £875 to £12.500 for the cobalt blue bottle

with white spiral trailin
g
(far left). For further information Tel.

+44 (0) 20 7493 4944 or look him up on www.charlesede.com

NOT DEJA VU
Members may recall that I wrote a few

years a
g
o about an item stolen from the

stand of Leo Kaplan at the International
Ceramics & Glass Fair at Park Lane

Hotel, London. Ima
g
ine my surprise to

spot a similar unusual-shaped piece of

Thomas Webb cameo
g

lass advertised

for sale by Warner Auctions of Leicester
earlier this year (picture ri
g
ht). This lot

had a blue back
g
round and was contested to £3,300 (hammer

price). The stolen piece had a pale
g

reen back
g

round.

CAMBRIDGE GLASS FAIR

To be held on Sunday 14′ September 2003 at the Guildhall,

1 1 am to 4pm. The or
g
anisers promise to have stands displayin

g
lass from the 18th century to modern times. Admission is £2.50.

Page 7

GLASS CIRCLE NEWS No. 96

2003

State Drinking Glasses
by

Roy Bendrey

T
en years ago I uncovered a piece of glass history. I thought

it important but felt unable to make any case for it that would

not attract uncomplimentary criticism or, even worse, that it

would be ignored. Courage returned after receiving the April
2003 Glass Circle News, where Henry Fox commented on the

ascription given to the lead crystal covered goblet 45.5cm tall,
lot. 0052, in Sotheby s Bond Street sale of 19th December 2002.

My opinion is that the Sotheby goblet and many others gracing

museums and collections were made at the Falcon glasshouse at

Christchurch, Southwark. This Falcon glasshouse should not be

confused with Apsley Pellatt’s Falcon glasshouse and predates
it by more than a century.

The Jackson family had a very well known and established
London glassmaking business in the last decade of the 17th

century, when they made money hand over fist and began to pile

in the lead oxide.. . They had the only cone glasshouse in London

and possibly the first in the the country, that also towered above

the jumbled Southwark rooftops – clearly visible from

Westminster. They invented and supplied the huge globe lamps

for the best street-lighting company then in London, the Convex
Lights, in which they had a major shareholding. They advertised

all sorts of the best and finest drinking-glasses and curious
glasses for ornament, and parish records prove that they gathered

a team of glass artists that was the best that money could buy’.

Francis Jackson, the leading figure in the family firm, died in

April 1700, a young man, before being properly recognised as

one of England’s great glassmakers.

Jackson would have been known to King William III, not only

through the products of the Falcon Glasshouse, but also on
account of his vociferous lobbying, along with other glass

notaries of the day, for the removal of the Duty imposed on glass
in 1695; it was removed in August of 1699. The family business

continued and a few months later Edward, a brother, was

accorded the grant of arms bearing the charge
‘three State

Drinking Glasses covered’.
Following my enquiries, a letter of

6th July 1994 from Mrs. B. Pendley, Assistant to York Herald

at the College of Arms, in London, revealed that “On 16th

October 1700 the following arms and crest were granted to
Edward Jackson of Christchurch, Surrey, to be borne by him and

his descendants:-

Arms

Azure on a chevron between three State Drinking Glasses

covered Argent as many cinquefoils Gules.

Crest
A horse passant Argent spotted with cinquefoils Gules.”

Mrs. Pendley continued :- “It is interesting that Burke’s General
Armory got the blazon wrong and that, instead of cups, the main

charges are in fact glasses. The gross error of Sir Bernard Burke
in 1884 has led to a belief that glass

had no heraldic term.”
The Glass Sellers Company has no

registered arms.

Public consultation of College of

Arms records are not permitted, but,

following a personal visit and an im-
passioned plea, I was led to a grand

room where the opened vellum vol-
ume revealed the painted illustration

of the arms. I was allowed to make a
pencil sketch, from which I drew the arms shown above.

The running of the College of Arms is under the control of the

Garter Principal King of Arms, whose grants are given under a
power delegated to him by the Sovereign in whose name he acts.

The Sovereign then was King William III, more Dutch than
English. He was a King who spent much of each year in Holland,

so it is not surprising that many ceremonial English goblets

should have been imported and decorated there. The type of
State Drinking Glasses referred to in the grant of arms might

well have been produced at the Falcon glasshouse for the

Sovereign State, to be used as royal or ambassadorial gifts, for
important members of the aristocracy and officers of State.

Hence each vessel was important and uniquely different. W.A.

Thorpe wrote in 1934 of the 25.5 inches tall Garton Goblet (now
in the Museum of London):-

“Such vessels are the Greenwich Palaces and Castle Howards of

glass. Men of mean spirit will raise a functional whine, [but] no

one else will ask what they are for.”

The covered goblet sold at Sotheby’s, referred to above, ascribed
as Norwegian, was English with Venetian features’. The Brook- lyn Museum has a knop-stemmed covered goblet with the same

crown finial above a flattened knop, ascribed to Ravenscroft. I

wonder what is the attribution given to the Fitzwilliam goblet
referred to in Henry’s auction news?

1.
The Falcon glasshouses employed men with names such as Vizatilli,

Racket, Rego, Bazen, Sherry, Holland and Brittney, all sons and grandsons

of a highly skilled group of foreigners enticed to London in the 17th century,
whose influences are obvious on most of the grand English goblets of the

period.

2.
It has been pointed out by several members that although crown finials

were produced in Norway (illustrated in the end-papers of
Kongelige Glas,

1995) they can be found on Bohemian as well as English covered glasses

and probably have a Venetian origin or reflect Venetian influence. The

Nostetangen glasshouse is said to have had predominantly German

glassblowers. (Ed.)

From Palace to Parlour, Study Day,

Sat. 18th Oct. 2003

This study
day, Aspects of 19th-Century British Glass, aims

to complement our
From Palace to Parlour

exhibition.

Subjects covered
will include the glass collected by Sir Richard

Wallace; Regency glass services, the glass of William Collins;

engraved glass designs in the Holyrood pattern books; the role

of Stourbridge in the 19th-century glass industry; luxury glass

for rich Victorians and pressed glass for the people.

Speakers
Lucy Burniston,

C&L Burman;
Roger Dodsworth,

Broadfield House Glass Museum;
Nick Dolan,
National Trust;

Suzanne Higgott,
Wallace Collection;
Susan Newell,

Bonhams;

John P. Smith,
Malletts;
and Dr. Jill Turnbull,

Edinburgh.

Fees etc. as for a normal study day at the Wallace: £24.00. Students,

senior citizens and unemployed: £20.00.

N.B.
The Exhibition runs from 21st August to 26th October.

Page 8
New Glass Books

from Thomas

Heneage

42
Duke Street, St. James, London, SW1Y 6DJ.

Tel. +44 (0)20 7930 9223.
or email

[email protected]

Catalogue of Greek and Roman Glass in the British Museum:

Non Blown and Early Blown Glass vol. 2.

by
William Gudenrath and Veronica Tatton-Brown.

2003, pp. 272, 27 x 22 cm, 321 b/w and 249 line ills. cased. £90.00.
Iron Age to 1st century with 320 examples of non-blown glass. Includes

Portland vase and Canosa sandwich gold glass bowl.
Art Glass: Reflections of the Centuries
by

Helmut Ricke

2002, pp. 384, size 27.5 x 22 cm. 363 col.,89 b/w ills. £70.00

Catalogues the Glasmuseum Hentrich Collection in Dusseldorfs Museum

Kunst Palast. Pre-Roman to 1990s, In English.
Legras Verrier
by
Marie
–

Francoise Michel et al.

2002, pp. 256 with c. 1000 colour ills. cloth. £46.00 (no details)

Conservation and Restoration of Glass
by

Sandra Davidson

2003, pp.382, 25.2 x 19 cm, 19 col. and 232 b/w ills. £80.00.

Revised version of the original publication with Roy Newton but the
contribution of the latter on window glass now largely omitted.

Don’t forget:-
10% discount for Glass Circle Members Only.

2003

GLASS CIRCLE NEWS No. 96

TIMELINES FOR BRITISH GLASS OF THE 19
TH

CENTURY D.C. Watts

Glass making in the 19th century followed three main streams:-
1.
Cut and Engraved glass following on from the 18`
h
century with the introduction of carving and etching.

2.
Moulded glass from the last quarter of the le century and the new invention of press-moulded glass.

3.
Fancy glass continuing at first from the 18
t
h century but with explosions of innovation in

c.
1845 and mid-1870s.

Facilitating these changes were a sequence of inventions, some British (particularly by John Northwood), some rediscovered in

Britain and some imported from abroad. The following tables indicate the main developments during this period and list John

Northwood’s main achievements.

1.
Cut, Carved, Engraved and Etched glass

Aprox.
Date
Technique

Comment

up to

c.
1800
Flat cutting traditional to bowl, stem and foot.

Traditional copper wheel engraving.

1815 or
earlier
Deep steam cutting replaces flat cutting, Regency

styles; step and pillar cutting, star base on thick glass.
Commemorative engraving on rummers.

Expansion of Irish cut glass – jugs, bowls etc.

1830s
Coloured overlay cut through.

1850s
Flamboyant cutting, departing from old geometric

styles.
Pattern combined with matted glass

Greek Revival. Greek key pattern etc.

1853
Ruskin’s Stones of Venice — decreased popularity of

heavy cut glass.
Arts and Crafts movement, lighter blown vessels with

thin swirling cutting and engraved lines restricted to the

lower half of the vessel.
Move to floral and naturalistic decoration.

Introduction of Acid Etching

1860
Template and geometric etching machines.
Greek (Key, Acanthus etc), Classical and Renaissance

designs.
Renewed use of all available space on the vessel.

1870
Emergence of highly polished Rock Crystal — O’Fallon,

Kny, Fritche, Keller as exponents. Decoration initially

shallow compared with later Rock Crystal involving

intaglio work.
Introduction of Sand Blasting for badging.
Glassware in sets.

Fern pattern — Alexander Millar etc. Scottish glass

houses.

1873
Acid etching, use of white acid.
Adam influence;

Copeland Jug
Elgin Vase in clear glass (first carved vase)

1876
Cameo carved glass with small chisels on coloured

overlays.

1880
Rock Crystal with more three-dimensional shaping to

the vessel, incorporating bowl, stem and foot, achieved
on thick blanks using small stone wheels.
Partly acid etched and wheel engraved “commercial”

Cameo replaces slow carving with chisels.

1889
Intaglio — undercutting with small stone wheels
Replacing cameo and decreased market for cut glass.

1890
Acid treatment on a range of art glass for matting,

selective removal of overlays etc.

2.
Moulded and Press-moulded (Pm) Glass

Approx.
Date
Procedure / Event

Examples and Comments

1775-1830
Cast and moulded lemon squeezer feet in lead glass
Rummers, bowls etc. Irish canoe bowls with moulded fluted

feet.

1830 —
Press-moulding in lead glass — pieces characteristi-
1-piece moulds, Simple shapes, tumblers, plates — simulated

cally thick.
cut patterns. Heavy salts in 2-part and 3-part moulds.

Early pieces in Stourbridge?
Hand finishing:-

Pontil an indication of flame polishing.

Separately applied handles and other hand manipulation.

Large pieces from joined sections — Tazzas.

1842
–
Design Registration marks
Heavy cut patterns — Thomas Gammon, Rice Harris,

Bacchus, Birmingham and Richardson, Stourbridge.

Departure from “cut” decoration – floral motifs. Victoria

commemoratives. Cup plate styles with scolloped rims.

1850/60 –
Manchester, Press moulded glass in demi crystal.
New styles and increased diversity of tableware, footed

1870
Pieces still fairly thick and heavy. Mostly clear but
sugars, celery glasses etc. Greek key motif, characteristic

some coloured; introduction of uranium.
bands of brush-matting. Cast or pressed figures.

Molineaux Webb, Percival Vickers, John Derbyshire,

Thomas Kidd etc.

continued

Page 9

GLASS CIRCLE NEWS No. 96

2003

1870/80
–
Press moulding in the North East using low-lead or
Complex patterns and painterly decoration but standing less

lead-free glass. Thinner lighter pieces. Wide use of
proud from the glass. Sowerby. Vitrolite colours, nursery

colours, singly and slags. Shaded glass.
rhyme patterns. Patent Queen’s ware.

Davidson. Copper blue and uranium Pearline. Pillar
moulding.
Heppel. quaint designs — squid tableware.

Greener. dot patterns commems.
Edward Moore. latish use of lead glass, novelty glass.

1880/90 –
Birmingham
Walsh Walsh

Chance Bros. slimmer lightweight styles.

3. Coloured and Fancy Glass (difficult to date first occurrence with any precision)

Approx. Date
Procedures and Events
Examples and Comments

Up
to 1830
(Gold ruby and uranium glass)

Cobalt blue, some Manganese purple
(Imported from the Continent)

Decanters, condiment sets, some tableware .

1817
Sulphide inclusions
Apsley Pellatt

John Ford Edinburgh from c. 1880

Tassie, and, from 1801, John Henning medalions.

1830s
Enamelling and Gilding
Thomas Hawkes, Dudley

W.H., B. & J. Richardson prominent from 1840.

Later, Etruscan designs by many mfrs.

1837
First Uranium glass

Amber staining

Gold Ruby
V.R. fingerbowl (possibly Pellatt)

Thomas Webb

?Richardsons

From the mid
1830s
Blue, Green, White, Gold Ruby in pot metal

and casing over clear and cut or engraved.
brownish-red (Copper) staining
Stevens and Williams catalogue, Richardsons, Stourbridge

Rice Harris and Bacchus, B/ham.

?Richardsons

From 1845
Wide expansion of the use of colour with many

different shades.

Opaline glass
Davis, Greathead & Green

From 1845
Friggers and rolling pins etc., paperweights?
Sunderland and Alloa mementoes, painted and chipped.

1847
—
c.1850
Felix Summerly’s Art Manufactures
Richard Redgrave’s Well Spring design

1850/51
Emergence of the epergne.

Silvered glass.
Mirrors underside engraved before silvering.

Millefiori inclusions and paperweights.
Popular from 1860s on. Many in ruby glass.

E. Varnish and Co.
William Kidd, Poland St. Manchester, called “embroidered

glass”
Inkwells etc. Richardsons, Walsh Walsh, Bacchus, Rice

Harris, Whitefriars.

1870s
Whitefriars Venetian style glass
Opalescent, extensive use of uranium to vary colours.

1879
Richardson applied snakes revived
First used by them in the 50s.

1880s –
Thick gilding
Jules Barbe

1883
“Amberina” J. Locke (USA)
Licence to Sowerby (pressed Amberina) in 1884

1884
Stevens & Williams Matsu-No-Kee, satin glass
Applied floral decoration, copied by other Stourbridge

firms.

1885
Air—trap glass

Webb’s Peach Glass
Shaded red overlay on a cream base. Similar to “Crushed

Strawberry” introduced by Walsh Walsh in 1883

1886
Webb’s Queen’s Burmese Ware
New patent Fairy Lights

Later, Burtles & Tate “Sunrise” copy

1887
Webb’s Ivory Cameo

Stevens & Williams Alexandrite
Form of Amberina shading yellow/red/blue

1888
Stevens & Williams Moss Agate

Japenese influence on design
Invented by Carder, introduced by Northwood.

1894
First Richardson Amberina

1898
Richardson mould-blown Opaline
Figured bowls for lamp shades etc

continued

Page 10

Activities of, and Inventions by John Northwood (1836-1901) according to John Northwood II

Date
Activity or Invention
Comment

1859
Established own Decorating Works
With J. Northwood, H.G. Richardson and T. Guest

1860
Works renamed J. and J. Northwood
Etching and engraving

1860
Introduced acid etching
Hand decoration

1861
Template etching machine
Use of acid resist transfers as well

1865
Geometric etching machine
Circle and key patterns etc.

1867
White acid
Matt surface on the glass; eliminated use of the wheel;

prerequisite for cameo carving

1864-73
Carved the Elgin vase (Birmingham Museum)
Successful accomplishment led to carving cased cameo.

Achievement greatly underated; some consider it technically

more important than the copy of the Portland vase.

1873-80
Cameo glass from overlays made by Pargeter at

the Red House
Portland vase; Milton Vase, three tazzas. The Dennis vase for

Webbs — first carving of applied solid handles.

1880
Etched and engraved Wedgwood Rockingham

ware (like cameo)

1880s
Cameo vases with solid carved handles
Various animal heads

1881/2
Appointed Art Director and Works Manager of

Stevens and Williams
Worked with Mr. J.S. Williams-Thomas to make factory pre-

eminent.

1883
Acanthus decoration
First applied decoration beyond simple prunts, trailing etc.

1884
Crimping machine

1885
Pull-up machine

1885 on
Commercial cameo at J. & J. Northwoods
Extensive use of the wheel rather than carving

1885/6
Mat-Su-No-Ke decoration

Applied flower sprays over threading and cased

glass
Patented device for pinching flower shapes

1886
Acidised blacks to reuse glass from end of

blowing iron
Boiled glass in hydrochloric acid overnight plus brief

treatment with hydrofluoric acid — Patented.

1887
Glass Expansion testing Machine
To overcome breakage due to incompatible expansion of

cased glasses (cf Portland vase)

Undated
Introduction of the separate Glory Hole

First Furnace Heat Register
Patented

1880s
With Fred Carder, introduction of mould-blown

drinking glasses to compete with continental

products. (probably not the first but the first in

Stourbridge).
Up to this point all blown glasses made totally freehand. Cut

length of stem between mould-blown bowl and applied foot.

Development of the Cracking-off machine.

1889

Intaglio developed at J. & J. Northwoods in

conjunction with its manager W. 0. Bowen.

Development of Rock Crystal
Cutting with small stone wheels in the manner of copper

wheel engraving. Introduced to retain engravers during a

slump in commercial cameo and ordinary
engraved glass.

Nazeing Glass Exhibition gets off to a Warm Reception

L
owewood Museum, in Hoddeston in the Borough of

Broxbourne, is a typical small town jewel set up to cherish

local heritage. The Nazeing Glassworks moved there in 1928

and this exhibition, organised by Geoffrey Timberlake and Nigel
Benson, is a just celebration of its 75 years in Nazeing.
Expecting to arrive early to the launch in the afternoon heat

wave, I was lucky to get there in time to snatch a cooling glass
of wine; the motorist trap of the town centre is to be avoided at

all costs! The Mayor, nobly sweating it out in full regalia, made

his welcoming speech, was presented with a history book of the

glassworks (see below), and then declared the Exhibition open.

The exhibition, itself, displays about 200 items in a smallish
upstairs windowless room. Fortunately, the locals had arrived

early and were content to leave us outsiders ample space to move

around. Although I have some pieces of Nazeing glass and knew

a little of its history I was not prepared for the diversity of

glassware on show. The early glass from the Albert Glassworks,
Estb. 1874, in Lambeth, showed strong Venetian/Bohemian

influences and a couple of pieces might well have come from

Whitefriars. With the move to Southwark and then Nazeing the
styles changed to parallel the Monart factory, with some uncom-

plimentary thoughts about Mrs. Graydon Stannus! Indeed, some

pieces are almost impossible to distinguish in terms of colour
and the bubbly style of decoration within the glass.
The Pollock-Hill family took over the factory in 1928 and its

subsequent output reflects the opportunistic marketing necessary
for the survival of a modest but ambitious glasshouse. As well

as their own lines of, particularly cut, tableware (not very well

represented here) we find an intriguing hotch-potch of the glass
often seen in boot sales or antique shops and one wonders where

it all came from. There are items made for Babycham, Avon
and Nestle, as well as door stops, hall lanterns, paperweights,

laser-etched mementoes, commercial badged ashtrays and signal

lenses, the last two becoming important Nazeing specialities.

The firm’s handling of colour, notably selenium ruby, is without

reproach. The Bristol Blue range of glassware created for Bristol
Museum and Art Gallery is also particularly fine.

Mr. Timberlake has produced an 118-page, A4 spiral-bound

book outlining the firm’s history illustrated with 88 b/w figures.
An additional 18-page colour section depicts a good range of

the pieces on show. At £22 it must be essential study material

for those interested in later British glass (a copy has been

presented to the Glass Circle library). This exhibition will surely
ensure Nazeing gets its true place in glass history. In spite of its

modest size it is well worth a visit.

The Museum is open Wed. through Sat., 10am to 4pm.

D.C.W.

Tel. 01992 445596 for more information or to buy the book.

Page 11

GLASS CIRCLE NEWS No. 96

2003

449WCPI8 RS9456
4
79611-S
4 7.
Peas

O
nce one gets well past one’s allotted span of three score

years and ten, some activities become less attractive, or

even impossible. These include fixing gutters and pruning

wisteria at eaves height; furthermore, one’s inclination to attend
to awkward and demanding tasks diminishes. My sons, reflect-
ing on their aged P’s lack of attention to some of these matters,

recently very kindly gave up a weekend to remedy some of their

father’s omissions. One of the tasks that had slipped was the
provision of an adequate supply of book-shelves; I have to

confess that even I was becoming uncomfortably aware that the

piles of books on the floor of my study both inhibited movement,

made access to the existing shelves difficult and gave problems

in recovering a desired volume, even when one knew in

approximately which pile it resided. Thus it was, that accompa-
nying a son in his large estate car, we went off and purchased

three ‘flat-packs’ of quite good looking solid wood bookcases;

what is more, I did not have to assemble them, merely indicating

what should be moved, and where they should be affixed to the

wall, resulting in over fifty feet of new shelving. One result of
this kindness is that the long needed rearrangement of my Glass

Library has now taken place, and for the first time for many

years, all the books are together, occupying some twenty feet of

shelves. Some of the ephemera and catalogues continue to

reproach me, but control of the situation is dramatically
improved, although several of the other subjects are still in a

state of flux.

Inevitably, knowledge of what is where has been temporarily

impaired, and
I
continue to march into the study to find myself

facing the wrong wall, but time will overcome this. Equally

inevitably, the act of rearrangement, enjoyable as it is, leads one

to reflect both on the best arrangement within the general

category of ‘Glass’, and also on the worth of what is there. Even
if one confines one’s assessment to British Glass, there is plenty
to reflect upon. Perhaps one should consider the best and the

worst, for there is a mass in the middle that is more difficult to
categorise

As to the indispensables, Hartshorne must be well up amongst

them; one never fails to be amazed at the breadth of material he
considered and how comprehensive are the sources he noted. As

a pioneering book well over a century old, it is remarkable how
many of his conclusions remain valid. Charleston is perhaps the

first book one turns to for guidance, for his knowledge, judge-
ment and source references can hardly be equalled; but his rather

dry style and inadequate illustrations are well complemented by
Bernard Hughes, despite Hughes lack of source information and

occasional howlers. Bickerton’s book of illustrations is often in

demand and is particularly useful when discussing Glass over
the telephone. Newman’s dictionary is sometimes a fallback, and

Barrington Haynes I ought to use more, but my decrepit

paperback Penguin edition is so poorly produced compared with

other works that he does not get the use he deserves. Francis

Buckley, too, is valuable as by far the best repository of C.18′
h

Newspaper advertisements for decorated Glass. Then there are
the monographs; as you would expect from my True Blue

leanings, Seddon heads the list, but Barker, Hajdamach, Kelsall,
Mortimer, Turnbull and Westropp do not accumulate too much

dust.
“The Glass of the Caesars”,
too,
earns its
shelf space,

whilst Rush’s two books on the Beilbys are valued more for their

illustrations than the text. Perhaps the best exemplar of a

monograph is Willy van den Bossche’s book on Bottles, which
is comprehensive, authoritative and beautifully and thoughtfully

illustrated, although I have to admit to only an indirect interest

in the subject. We do indeed have much for which to thank the

Antique Collectors Club in the way of Glass monographs.

I confess that I cannot resist a nostalgic look over my shoulder

at Thorpe’s
‘English Glass’
of 1949, for this was my first Glass

book, and one that I have now owned for exactly fifty years.

The selection is emotional rather than rational, and it is to Thorpe
that
I
owe some of my prejudices about the ‘good’ and ‘bad’

periods for British Glass. Since so much of British Glass history

Page 12
and development has been driven by foreign influences and

craftsmen, one ought also to include one of the many books that

gives an overview of Glass throughout history and across the
continents; my choice would be Hugh Tait’s
‘5,000 Years of

Glass’,
a choice largely made because of the inclusion of the

section of marvellous photographs by Gudenrath, illustrating
how glassmakers may have achieved different effects.

Concerning the worst books, two feature on my British list;

Arnold Fleming’s
“Scottish and Jacobite Glass”
and Mrs.

Graydon Stannus’
“Old Irish Glass”.

Cheating slightly, for it

hardly concerns British Glass, David Heller’s
“In search of VoC

Glass”
must be one of the most misleading Glass books to have

been published. Paradoxically all three of them command quite

high prices from the second-hand Booksellers, presumably

because of short print runs. As for the large number of books on

British Glass that I have not mentioned, there are very few of

them I would willingly be without, despite the fact that they are
but seldom consulted; but all have been read before being placed

on the shelves. The only serious gap in my collection of British
Glass books is Joseph Bles’
Rare English Glasses of the 17th

and 18th Centuries (1925),
valuable not for his text (of which I

have a photocopy, anyhow) but for his photographs and partial
provenancing of a number of important Glasses. In addition,

there are, of course, a couple of shelves on Foreign Glass, and

some of these, especially the Rijksmuseum Catalogues, have
considerable bearing on British Glass.

Book Reviews.
Glassmakers of Stourbridge and

Dudley 1612-2002

By Jason Ellis

Published by the author, 2002. Soft covers, Size 216 x 140 mm. 601 pages.
ISBN 1-4010-6798-0 Price £18

This interesting and valuable book is by far the most compre-
hensive and systematic book on the Stourbridge Glass industry
yet to have appeared, and will surely remain the standard work

for many years to come. It is composed of seven introductory

chapters, followed by 48 chapters that consider individual

Glasshouses in chronological order, together with the rather

quirky addition of Waterford on the grounds that there was much
involvement there of Stourbridge people. The sub-title is
“A

Biographical History of a Once Great Industry”,
and whilst

organised by Glassworks, a few of which had long periods of
inactivity, the main theme is of the families involved. This can

be somewhat confusing and mind numbing, given the complex
relationships of the Henzeys, Titterys and Tyzacks in the C.17
th
,

and the Corbetts, Richardsons, Stuarts, Webbs and Williams in

the C.19
th
and C.20′

h
.

Inevitably, precise dates are often not available, but the first

glasshouse in the district was Colemans of around 1610. The

story clearly reflects Guttery’s title of nearly fifty years ago:
“From Broad Glass to Cut Crystal”.
Throughout the C.17
th
,

when 14 glasshouses are listed, the overwhelming emphasis was
on broad (window) glass produced by the Lorraine families. But

the accession of George I in 1714 coincided with a marked

decline in broad glass demand, with Crown glass, bottles and

table-wares becoming the mainstay, although it was not until the
19
th
century that table-wares and fancy glass achieved

prominence. Judged by the excise tax returns of 1833, Stour-

bridge was then producing 15% of English glass. The C.18′
h
and

C.19
th
each saw sixteen new glasshouses created, but there were

only two additions in the 20
th
century. The glasshouses were

remarkably long lived; three quarters of them survived for more

than fifty years, with seven, out of a total of forty-eight, lasting
for over two hundred years, and two of these, Coalbournhill and

Holloway End, quite amazingly running for 309 and 317 years

respectively. But, by 2002, Ellis noted only a single one of the

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

Glass Circle News_No.96, Sept 2003

Recent Posts

Address

Email

Instagram

Facebook