Glass Society Glass Matters_No.13, Feb 2022

CLASS

THE MAGAZINE OF THE GLASS SOCIETY

•
426*”

Id*

,
..Asm_

ausomerimme

February 2022

Issue No. 13

1SSN2516-1555
GLASS

SOCIETY

GLASS

SOCIETY

Contents

Chairman’s message

Royal Jubilees
Venetian Glass Revue

Eye Baths

Woolley &Wallis
–

Auction

Uranium Glass

Elephant Glass

Churchill & Haynes

Cyphers & Monograms

Cottier Book Revue

Bruce of Cowden
Selling your collection

News
3

Andy Middleton
4

Keith King
7

George Sturrock
11

Clare Durham
16

Simon Cook
20

DavidWillars
21

Simon
Wain-Hoson

Bill Millar
29

Anee Lutyens-Stobbs
32

Lyon &Turnbull
35

Jim
Peake &

Nigel
Benson
38

Editorial
A
thank you to all the members. There has been an

unexpected response to my request for stories on your

collections and collecting practice. What period? which

glass? why? how have you gone about it? We keep to forty
pages, so there is not always space to publish your research

and findings in the very next issue. In print this time is
Simon Cook’s story on following through a look-alike of one

of John Frith’s uranium glasses, and George Sturrock has
contributed a comprehensive article on glass eye-baths
Your contributions are always welcomed, whether in reply

to an article, for a collection piece that needs identifying, or

glasses in your collection that you would wish to share with
other likeminded collectors. We will always offer help in

writing and assist you in taking good photographic images.
As we are coming out of the covid pandemic, the time

has come to restore that one human need we have all been
missing — ‘getting together’ — and if that means starting by

talking to each other through the pages of
Glass Matters

and

discussing our collections, that can lead on to meeting up.
I look forward to hearing from you.

Glass Matters Issue no. 1 3 February 2021

2
ISSN 2516-1555

Issue 13, February 2022

Published by the Glass Society,

©Contributors and The Glass Society

Editor:
Brian J Clarke

[email protected]

Design & layout:
Emma Nelly Morgan

[email protected]

Printed by:
Warners Midlands plc

www.wlrncrs.co.uk

Next copy date:
First week May 2022

E-mail news & events to
[email protected]

The Glass Society Committee do not bear any responsibility for the

views expressed in this publication, which are those of the contributor
in each case. Copyright is acknowledged for the photographs

illustrating articles, though neither the Editor nor the committees

are responsible for inadvertent infringements. All photographs are

THE GLASS SOCIETY
Charity Number 1185397

Website:
www.theglasssociety.org

Honorary Presidents:
Charles Hajdamach;
[email protected]

Simon Cottle;
[email protected]

Honorary Vice-President:
Dwight Lanmon;
[email protected]

Chairman:

David Willars;
[email protected]

Vice-Chairman:
Paul Bishop;
[email protected]

Membership Secretary & Treasurer:
Maurice Wimpory;
[email protected]

Meetings Organiser:

Anne Lutyens-Stobbs;
[email protected]

Publications Editor:
Brian Clarke;
[email protected]

Trustees of The Glass Society:
Paul Bishop; Brian Clarke; Susan Newell; Jim Peake;

David Willars
(Chairman);
Robert Wilcock; Maurice Wimpory

Committee Members:

The above trustees, along with; Nigel Benson;

Peter Cookson; Anne Lutyens-Stobbs

GLASS MATTERS EDITORIAL COMMITEE:
Nigel Benson; Susan Newell; Simon Wain-Hobson;

Bob (Robert) Wilcock; James Measell

FRONT COVER:
Pomona, By Daniel Cottier, fitted in the

staircase window in Ingliston House, Midlothian, by Cottier &
Co., London, c.1870-5. Stained glass (article on pages 32-34).
Photograph © Colin McLean

BACK COVER:
The Burtles Tate elephant, registered 28

December 1886 (article on pages 21-23).

Photograph © David Willars

CHAIRMAN’S MESSAGE

Chairman’s
Message

Time to Reflect and Look Forward

0
ne of the pleasures of

being involved with the
Glass Society is the fre-

quent contact it brings with out-

siders who just want to know
more about a particular type of

glass. Quite often, enquiries can

be quickly answered by referring
to a particular book or website,

allowing the question to be set-
tled in full. However, just occa-

sionally, a little more research is
required, as was demonstrated

recently when I was asked “how

did they achieve the colours in
carnival glass?” In fact, the ques-

tion was answered quickly, but the

tangential wandering or surfing

that followed is worthy of recall.

We are all familiar with carni-

val glass. Indeed, we may marvel

at the consistently high quality
of the pressing, the cleverly con-
ceived designs, or the many and

varied colours. Over the years
these features have been report-

ed on, most recently in
Glass

Matters
1 and 4.

Glass Matters
4

also refers to the large Notley-

Lerpiniere collection of carnival

glass, currently held in storage

at Himley Hall. I am familiar

with this benchmark collection.
However, part of my own reading

on the subject led me back to a
talk given by Raymond Notley to

the Glass Circle in March 1988.

The talk, summarised by David

Watts and reported in Glass Circle
News #41, revealed new facts I

hadn’t previously come across.
Firstly, in 1910 the Imperial Glass

Company of Bellaire, Ohio, along

with two other companies, the
Dugan Company, run by Harry

Northwood’s cousin, Thomas

Dugan, and the Millersburg

Company of Ohio began to
exploit the growing lucrative

market of carnival glass. Based in

the Ohio valley, with its natural

gas production, available freely
once the wells were opened up,
made this an ideal location to

make cheap glass – free energy!
Secondly, the introduction of

carnival glass killed the art glass

market, although I suspect that
others may dispute this. Not only

that, but its introduction also

killed a more modest output of
mould-blown and press-mould-

ed glass, with the decoration

enhanced by painting or spray-

ing by hand, known as Goofus

glass. Goofus glass, a new term
to me, was cold painted, with the

inherent problem that the paint
tended to chip or flake off. It

seems that quite rapidly, Goofus
glass was replaced by the tech-
nically superior carnival glass. A
quick web search demonstrates

the difference between Goofus

glass and conventional carni-

val glass, although I’m sure that
connoisseurs would argue over

various aspects of attribution.
This long and rambling story

demonstrates two key things. One,

the Glass Society has a wealth of

latent knowledge that has been
built up over many decades. Much

of that knowledge has been doc-
umented in the various publica-

tions of The Glass Circle and The
Glass Association. Contributors to

that pool of knowledge are genu-

inely consummate experts in their
field, however large or small that
may be. Secondly, knowledge can

be acquired from books, visits to
museums, auctions, fairs or oth-
er private collections as well as

trolling the internet. In all cases,

however, there is no substitute
David Willars, Chairman of The Glass Society

for hunting down, handling and

feeling objects. Acquiring experi-

ence takes time; you don’t become

an instant expert overnight.
Continuing the collecting

theme, this edition contains a

paper by Nigel Benson and Jim
Peake on how to go about organ-

ising trading and the eventual

sale of your collection. Alongside
this we have two reports of recent

auctions; this, in fact, is partially

in response to a member request-

ing more sale reports. Two spe-
cialist collections are also being

discussed: George Sturrock has

what must be a very rare collec-
tion of eye baths – we all see them

for sale at auctions and fairs, but
making a study of them must

surely be a very niche area; then

Andrew Middleton is a hugely
knowledgeable collector, who,

along with our editor in this

Platinum Jubilee year, reveals

his knowledge of royal jubilees

and glass commemoratives.
Lastly, our usual thanks to Brian

for pulling everything together.

Glass Matters Issue no. 13 February 2022

LEFT Fig. la

Perfume Bottle recto.

Queen Victoria’s
Golden Jubilee.

Private collection

RIGHT Fig. lb

Perfume Bottle verso.
Queen Victoria’s

Golden Jubilee.
Private collection

GOLD, DIAMOND & PLATINUM

ROYAL
Jubilees

Andy Middleton andBrian Clarke

0
n 6 February 2022, Queen

Elizabeth II will have

remained on the throne

for 70 years, having devoted her-

self to service for this country and
the Commonwealth. This is the

first time that a British monarch
has celebrated a Platinum Jubilee.
The following list of tradi-

tional names for anniversary

years is often used for marriage
celebrations. The Royal Jubilee

Anniversary years are highlighted.

10
Tin
20
China

25
Silver
30
Pearl

35
Coral
40
Ruby

45
Sapphire
50

Golden

55
Emerald
60
Diamond

65
Blue Sapphire
70
Platinum

The first Silver Jubilee cele-

bration in history of any British
monarch was for George V.

Celebrated on 6 May 1935, it

marked 25 years of King George V as

the King of the United Kingdom and
the British Dominions, Emperor of

India. Numerous pieces of com-
memorative glass were produced

for the occasion, in production runs

as well as individual items, partic-
ularly from Stevens & Williams.
The first Ruby Jubilee was in

1992, marking the 40th anniver-
sary of Queen Elizabeth II’s acces-
sion to the thrones of the United
Kingdom and other Commonwealth

realms. Unlike other jubilees, the
event was a low-key celebration.
The first British monarch to

mark 50 years on the throne in

a significant way was George
III, his Golden Jubilee having

been celebrated in Wokingham.
It was held on 25th October
1809, the day of the beginning

of the fiftieth year of his reign.
The Golden Jubilee of Queen

Victoria was celebrated on 20 June

1887, the fiftieth anniversary of
her accession on 20 June 1837, ten

years later, her Diamond Jubilee
was celebrated on Sunday, 20 June

1897, the 60th anniversary of her
accession to the throne; this com-
memorated the first Diamond
Jubilee of any British monarch.
Celebrations to honour the grand
occasion showcased the Queen’s
role as ‘mother’ of the British
Empire and its Dominions. Stevens

& Williams had recognised the
value of commemorative glass and
produced small numbers of well-de-
signed items for both jubilees.
Queen Elizabeth II had signifi-

cant jubilee celebrations in 1977 for

her Silver Jubilee, in 2002 for her

Glass Matters Issue no.I 3 February 2022

GOLD, DIAMOND & PLATINUM

Fig. 2

The Coat of Arms of The Grocers’ Company,

Fig. 3

engraved on the perfume bottle

The Worshipful Company of Grocers Coat of Arms, Stamp 2

Golden Jubilee and in 2012 for her
Diamond Jubilee. Amongst other

producers, Whitefriars and Stevens

& Williams produced many com-

memoratives for these occasions.

The only Diamond Jubilee cele-

bration for any of her predecessors
had been that of Queen Victoria’s.

QUEEN VICTORIA

GOLDEN JUBILEE
PERFUME BOTTLE

(Figs.la & lb).
The height of the

perfume bottle is 100.5 mm, the

stopper adding another 55 mm;

width 100mm. The base is star cut

with 24 sections. The stopper is
not original but is of a similar style.

In plain glass cartouches, one side

displays the Armorial Crest of The
Grocers’ Company
(Fig.2),
the oth-

er is inscribed V R with crown and

JUBILEE 1887. David Williams-

Thomas, the last owner of Royal
Brierley / Stevens & Williams, has

suggested that S&W might have

supplied this bottle to the Grocers’
Company in an edition of 200,

for use as a gift for ladies at a din-
ner. The Grocers’ may have then

Fig. 4

Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee Sulphide Bottle,

by Stephens & Williams.
Courtesy of Dudley

Museums Collection
approached Thomas Goode & Co. or

Asprey to arrange the engraving as
it is not recognised as being by S&W.

ARMORIAL CREST OF
THE GROCERS’ COMPANY

Three stamps of The Grocers’
Company are recorded in
British

Armorial Bindings ©
University of

Toronto.
(Under the sponsorship of
The Bibliographical Society of London

in conjunction with the University

of Toronto Library).
Stamp 2 is

shown in
Fig.3.

The perfume

bottle is engraved with Stamp

2, 70mm x 94mm. Description:

A chevron gules between nine
cloves; Supporters, two grif-
fins; Crest, a camel saddled and

bridled; Helmet of an Esquire;

Motto GOD GRANT GRACE.

Glass Matters Issue no.I3 February 2022

GOLD, DIAMOND & PLATINUM

QUEEN VICTORIA

GOLDEN JUBILEE

SULPHIDE BOTTLE

Fig.4
shows a small sulphide

bottle, originally displayed at
Broadfield House, now part of

The Dudley Museum Services
collection. It was made by
Stevens & Williams and is of

a similar style to the perfume

bottle. David Williams-Thomas

informs us that the hobnail
design was not pressed, it was
cut from the start. This was

previously shown on the front
cover of Glass Cone 97,2012.
Victoria was queen of The

United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Ireland (1837-1901) and
empress of India (1876-1901).

Figs.5 &
6 show two examples

of glassware made to celebrate

her Diamond Jubilee. Her reign

was one of the longest in British
history, and the Victorian Age

was named after her. It was a

period of industrial, political,

scientific, and military change

within the United Kingdom, and

marked by a great expansion of

the British Empire. In was in

1876, that the British Parliament
voted to grant her the addition-
al title of Empress of India.
Queen Elizabeth’s reign has

also covered an immense his-
torical change. The arrival of

computers, highspeed air trans-

port with jet engines, the end of
Empire and the inauguration of

the Commonwealth, the start

of space travel, mobile phones,
cold war, climate change, elec-

tric cars, and the world wide

web and Smart phones connect-
ing people around the planet.
We join in congratulating her

on her life and wish her well.

ABOVE Fig. 5
A gilt flask by
Stephens & Williams,
to celebrate Queen

Victoria’s Diamond
Jubilee.
Private

collection

RIGHT Fig. 6

A claret jug in the
manner of Christopher

Dresser, to celebrate

Queen Victoria’s
Golden Jubilee.
Maker and engraver

unknown.
Private

collection

Glass Matters Issue no.I 3 February 2022

REALLY VENETIAN?

Emailler le Verre
la Renaissance

Keith King

T
he Musee national de la

Renaissance, about half an

hour’s drive west of Charles de

Gaulle airport, houses important col-

lections of Italian majolica, Limoges
enamels, Isnik ceramics, Palissy

pottery, tapestries, objets d’art and
more pertinently for readers of
Glass

Matters, it
is home to France’s finest

collection of 16th and 17th century

Venetian and
facon de Denise
glass.

The museum recently inaugurat-

ed an exhibition,
Emailler le Verre

a
la Renaissance,

showing over 100

enamelled glasses loaned from muse-

ums in Italy, France, England and the

United States, accompanied by a 250-

page illustrated catalogue raisonne.
The exhibition presents the

results of a 10-year research pro-

gramme seeking to identify authentic

Venetian Renaissance glass, primari-
ly by analysis of the composition of

the base glass and the enamel deco-
ration. The three principal research-
ers, Isabelle Biron of the Centre de

recherche et de restauration des

musees de France, Francoise Barbe

of Le Louvre and Aurelie Gerbier of
the Château d’Ecouen, freely con-

cede theirs is neither a definitive

nor a conclusive study. Rather, it

is a staging post along a long and
tortuous road of investigation.
For the better part of the 20th

century, the genuineness of pieces

described as Venetian Renaissance

glass was rarely questioned, but
there were nagging doubts and

these came to a head with the sale

of the Batsheva de Rothschild col-

lection at Christie’s, London, in
2000. The catalogue reassigned all

11 ‘Venetian Renaissance’ glass lots
to the 19th century. As no scientific

analysis was undertaken, Christie’s
relied purely upon a visual appreci-

ation of the pieces. The sale caused

some unease – an understatement!
– in museum circles and among

private collectors. The Le Louvre’s

own collection of cobalt-blue glass

bequeathed by the French branch
of the Rothschild family came

under close scrutiny, as indeed did
the ‘Venetian Renaissance’ glass

in the Musee de la Renaissance.
This then was the background

to the research project, baptized

Cristallo,
designed to detect authen-

tic pieces and hopefully separate the

wheat from the chaff. A noble ambi-
tion that soon ran into difficulties,

because the `wrong’uns’ include

innocent imitations and copies,
hybrids and forgeries, as well as

genuine original objects thought to
have been enhanced at a later date

with enamel decoration and gilding.

As we shall see, the complexities

of the subject do not end there.
While art historians, conserva-

tors and restorers contributed to

the research, it is essentially a sci-

ence-based project narrowly focused

on the analysis of recipes for
Renaissance enamelled glass.

Compatibility with Renaissance peri-
od glass and enamels was based on

objects retrieved from archaeological

sites, and upon others whose prov-
enance and/or earliest mention in

archival sources are considered reli-

able. The team had at their disposal

the technical resources of Le Louvre

which permit non-destructive and
non-invasive analysis of the compo-

sition of the base glass and decora-
tive coloured enamels. The catalogue

presents tables classifying the types
of glass under study:
cristallo
for the

glass of greatest purity and transpar-
ency and
vitrum blancum
for common

glass – inevitably, many glass recipes

do not neatly fit either of these clas-

sifications, even allowing for a degree
of qualitative and quantitative lati-

tude. The ingredients of the coloured
enamels are also extensively studied.

One may question the validity

of this approach, as it leads to the

assumption that Venetian glass com-

positions remained unchanged over

a relatively long period and these rec-
ipes were not used beyond Venice.
Between 1450 and 1530, there were

25 to 40 glasshouses operating in
Murano, of which about 10 were

engaged in producing luxury glass.
Even over a comparatively short peri-

od, it is improbable that Venetian

glasshouses all worked with the same
recipes and sourced raw materials

from the same suppliers. Murano

glasshouse owners were at pains to

keep their manufacturing practices

and recipes secret – after all, their

livelihood depended on it. How suc-

cessfully they protected their secrets
from the prying eyes of competitors

on the small island of Murano is a

matter of speculation, but edicts

prohibiting Murano glassmakers

beyond Venice were demonstratively
ineffective and probably counterpro-

ductive. The emigrant glassmakers

brought not only their glass-blow-

ing skills, but, as importantly,
knowledge of the raw materials for

the composition of the batches.
Under a 1469 rule of the

Serenissima, glass enamellers were
obliged to work as employees and
provided the proprietors had their

own enamelling workshops, exclu-

sively for the owner. As opposed to

glassmakers, the enamellers had no
technical secrets to protect and for

this reason they had no trade corpo-
ration. So long as there was a mar-

ket for luxury Venetian glass, their
employment was assured, which may

explain why glass enamelling does

not appear to have been practised

beyond Venice at a time when the
city’s glass industry was at its height.
Venice’s undisputed reputation

Glass Matters Issue no. 13 February 2022

BELOW Fig.

Musee du Louvre. Covered blue

glass The Triumph of Chastity,
compatible with Venetian
Renaissance batch mix
RIGHT Fig. 2

Musee du Louvre. Covered

blue glass not compatible,

some but not all enamels

compatible

REALLY VENETIAN?

for luxury glass in the late 14th

and early 15th century, by which it

should be understood that what is
meant is glass decorated with enam-
els and gold gilding, commanded
the patronage of European courts

and elite society. These glasses

were highly prestigious items for
decorative display rather than use,

presented on dressers alongside
other valuable artefacts. Their fra-

gility attested to the owner’s afflu-
ence: the subliminal message was

breakage would not make a hole in

his pocket. One writer has joyously

described this ostentatious display

of wealth as ‘Renaissance chic’.
The publication in 1612 of

Antonio Neri’s Arte Vitrario book
of glass recipes let the cat out
of the bag as far as Venice was
concerned. Whether this contrib-

uted to the decline of Venice in

the 17th century as a glassmak-

ing centre is debatable, but the
rapid rise in the number of glass-

houses in Europe is indisputable.
The exhibition also explores

French Renaissance enamelled glass,

following up on Suzanne Higgott’s

seminal work published in the
Corning Journal of Glass Studies
(1991). The magnificent French chal-
ice loaned by the Wallace Collection,
unquestionably the finest surviving

French Renaissance glass, is one of

the highlights of this exhibition.
It is the first time in the history of
the museum that an object has been

out. Very few intact 16th-century
French enamelled wineglasses are

known and the objects exhibited
display their remarkable quality,

variety and originality. The testing

for compatibility with Venetian
Renaissance glass recipes is of little

value here because these glasses
were made in France and generally
by glassmakers from Altare who

made their own glass recipes.
Two objects, bearing the arms

of Catherine de Medici, hitherto
regarded as authentic and ten-
tatively attributed to the Saint

Germain-en-Laye glasshouse

established by Henri II in 1551, are
quite probably forgeries, or as the

researchers would prefer, incom-

patible with Renaissance recipes.

The
Cristallo

researchers faced

a number of material and techni-
cal constraints. By whittling down
the number of objects provably

Glass Matters Issue no. 1 3 February 2022

Fig. 4

Muses de la Renaissance. Standing bowl with arms of Catherine of Medici,

transparent glass body compatible, all enamels 19th century
REALLY VENETIAN?

Fig. 3
Musee de la Renaissance. Standing bowl with the Arms of

Anne of Brittany, body and enamels compatible

manufactured in the Renaissance

period, they took no chances when

seeking comparable glass compo-

sitions in other objects. And there
lies the rub. There is little evidence

that the reference samples reliably

reflect the diversity of Venetian glass
compositions. Lack of ‘compatibil-

ity’, the word employed through-

out the catalogue, to reference

batch compositions clearly does
not relegate a glass to another pro-

duction centre or provide evidence

of faking or copying. The conun-

drum remains unresolved: chem-

ical analysis may determine that a

glass cannot be of the Renaissance
period by the presence, for instance,

of elements not known at the time
(chromium, uranium, etc.), but
cannot prove it is of the period.
The scientific equipment, sophis-

ticated as it is, has its own limita-

tions. It can only analyse a convex

glass surface and hence it cannot
examine enamels decorating the cen-

tre of a bowl. For the same reason, it

was not possible to compare enamels
on the outer surface of a glass bowl

with those ornamenting the foot.
The number of glass compositions

produced by the research is bewilder-
ing, not to say startling. To take one

example among many, two identical
pilgrim bottles, one from the trea-

sure of the Cathedral Sainte Anne

d’Apt in the south of France with a

history dating back to the late 17th
century and another in Le Louvre

acquired in 1856, have very different
compositions. The Apt example is

compatible with Renaissance recipes,

while Le Louvre’s contains 11.5%
lead oxide, a massive percentage not

previously recorded in Renaissance

glass, but in both cases the enam-
els tested are compatible with
Renaissance chemical compositions.

In the second half of the 19th

century a number of unscrupulous

dealers, amongst whom the infa-

mous Parisian, Frederic Spitzer, fed

the market with fakes along with

genuine pieces thus giving an air of
legitimacy to their spurious trade.
The great private collections formed

in the 19th century testify to the
rivalry among wealthy buyers for

the finest and rarest Venetian glass

and many landed up with forgeries.

The invention in the 19th century

of low-fired enamels fusing at tem-

peratures of 520-580°C is believed
to have offered the means to embel-

lish authentic Renaissance glasses,
enhancing their market value. In

conversation with the project’s scien-

tific researcher, I was informed that

provided the glass itself is stable,
i.e. not crizzled, low-fired enamels

can be applied to old glass and some

authentic Renaissance objects are

suspected to have been redecorated
in this manner. The
Cristallo
project

did not put this to the test. A con-
trary opinion is found in a paper

published in the Journal of Glass
Studies, 1964 entitled ‘The Danger of
Heating Glass Objects’, in which the

British Museum’s Senior Scientific

Officer warned against heating old

glass even to temperatures well

below those required for fusing

low-fired enamels. In experimen-

tation with glass showing no incip-

ient crystallization, glass became

completely crizzled when heated.
In the words of the author, “glass

can react in a disastrous manner”.

Glass Matters Issue no.I3 February 2022

REALLY VENETIAN?

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Musee du Louvre. Goblet, base glass and blue and white enamels compatible

Musee du Louvre. Blue pilgrim flask, base glass and all

with Venetian Renaissance recipes, other enamel colours not analysed

enamels compatible with Venetian Renaissance recipes

••••
•

00000

0
s• • • • • • •

What conclusions can be drawn?

If the risks of re-enamelling genu-

ine Renaissance glass outweighed
the potential rewards, it is unlike-

ly forgers would have pursued this
line. Does this therefore suggest the

blanks, i.e. the base glass forms, were
produced in the 19th century in the
Renaissance style? Here, we are not

talking about obvious copies, but
rather of cleverly executed forger-

ies, designed to deceive right down

to faking age and wear. This opens

an entirely new field of enquiry.
No evidence has come to light

identifying the forgers. In Paris, tal-
ented restorers, such as Alfred Andre
(1839-1919), whose archives on the
restoration of Limoges enamels

only emerged in 2013, and several

years later a vast hoard of models of
Renaissance style jewellery was dis-

covered in his workshop. The Maison

Samson similarly produced copies

of Renaissance jewellery and other

works of art and perhaps glass as

well. Philippe-Joseph Brocard, who

commenced his career as a restorer

of objets d’art and antiques, later
rediscovering enamelling and gilding

techniques, made copies of 13th and

14th century Islamic glass, which
at times are difficult to distinguish
from the originals. One fine exam-
ple in the exhibition is a magnificent
Islamic 14th century enamelled

bottle standing on a replacement
foot fabricated by Brocard.
Fakes and forgeries have been

around since time immemorial.
Where, when and by whom these
dubious ‘Venetian Renaissance’ glass-

es were produced remains a mystery.
The researchers may be congrat-

ulated on the depth of the archival
research, particularly as regards
French glass, but a broader plu-

ri-disciplinary approach with spe-

cialists looking at the morphology,

iconography and patterns of orna-
mentation of these objects would
have been welcome. Confronting
expertise in the decorative arts of

the Renaissance period with sci-
entific data could perhaps have

filled in some of the gaps and cer-

tainly provided a wider narrative.
The authenticity and dating of
the exhibits are intentionally nei-

ther provided nor proposed. For the

neophyte as for the knowledgeable

visitor, this exhibition frustrat-
ingly raises more questions than

it answers. While the researchers’

prudence is arguably a legitimate
defense for caution, sitting on the

fence in matters of dating and attri-

bution left this writer perplexed.
The Venetian Maestro, Lino

Tagliapietra, once remarked about

his own work, “If someone tells you
it’s interesting, you know you’re in

trouble”, nicely summing up my
own feelings about this exhibition.
In spite of its shortcomings, it may

well be a once in a lifetime oppor-
tunity to view so many exception-

al and indeed beautiful objects.

The exhibition only ran to 14th

February 2022, though the cata-

logue may be ordered from the muse-
um, price 39 euros plus postage.

Keith King has been collect-

ing 16th to 18th-century glass for

over 50 years and looks forward
to another 50, just as enjoyable.

Glass Matters Issue no. I 3 February 2022

Fig. 2

Lighter, free
–
blown 3
–

piece eye baths, perhaps early 19th century

LEFT Fig. 3

Pucerla striae inside the bowl of a
free-blown eye bath

HEIGHTS OF GLASS

EYE BATHS

As a guide here are approximate
heights for the different eye baths:

English pedestals (Figs.1 & 2) 80 mm

Baccarat

Thuringian
Lampwork tall blue

Indian lampwork with crack

Composite, middle eye bath
70 mm

60 mm

75 mm

60 mm

80 mm

EYE BATHS

GLASS EYE BATHS

George Sturrock
Fig. 1

Heavy, English eye baths, perhaps pre
–
glass tax of 1745

T
he earliest eye baths were proba-

bly made of silver, were English

and dated from the late 16th

century, followed by glass eye baths

sometime in the 17th or early 18th
century. These were blown and hence

almost impossible to date, although

a number of substantial eye baths
made of lead glass may have predated

the Glass Excise Tax of 1745
(Fig.1).

Despite the small size and simplici-

ty of glass eye baths a surprising num-

ber of different methods were used to
fashion them. In all, five groups were

identified: free-blown, mould-formed,
Thuringian, lampworked and compos-

ite. Since most eye baths are utilitari-

an the various marks and blemishes
discussed below were probably con-

sidered to be of little consequence.

FREE-BLOWN

EYE BATHS

By definition, free-blown eye baths

never have mould lines or seams

and this distinguishes them from
the majority of mould-formed eye

baths. Most free-blown eye baths

are of three-piece construction,
consisting of a bowl, stem and foot

(Fig. 2).
After blowing the bowl

a stem was added (stuck shank),
then a gob of glass was attached to

the stem to form the foot. Finally,

an iron pontil rod was fused to the
foot and the eye bath cracked off the

blowing iron in order to fashion the

bowl lip. Later, probably in the mid-

19th century, the foot was grasped
in a gadget or spring punty thus

avoiding the need to use a pontil rod.
A few free-blown pedestal eye

baths were made in two stages rather

than three. This involved drawing

out glass from the bowl base to form

a drawn stem, to which a separate
gather of glass was added for the foot.

Glass Matters Issue no. I 3 February 2022

EYE BATHS

Fig. 4

Single pucella indents inside the bowl lip at each

end of a pressed eye bath. (Woods, Barnsley)

BOWL

The bowls of many of the heavy, old-
er free-blown eye baths are marked

with horizontal striae, more obvious
inside the bowl than on the outside
(Fig.
3). These result from the use of

pucellas (sprung metal forceps) to

shape the bowl. When the straight
arms of the pucellas are applied to a
curved bowl the contact is between
the sharp tip of the inside arm and

the blunt shaft of the outside arm.
Initially, after blowing, the bowl

orifice is circular and must be formed

into an oval, usually with the aid of

pucellas. This is achieved most simply

by allowing the pucella tips to spread
inside the bowl mouth, often leaving a

short, vertical indent inside the bowl
lip at each end
(Fig.4).
Sometimes, the

pucellas were used to grip opposite

sides of the bowl lip in turn, which was
then pulled into an oval: this resulted

in twin indents, one inside and one
outside, at each end of the bowl rim

(Fig.5).
Occasionally, the bowl appears

to have been squeezed oval using

wood-tipped pucellas (woods), leav-

ing broad, shallow, vertical impres-

sions either side of the bowl
(Fig.6 ).

When the bowl rim was trimmed

to shape using shears this could
result in a small lump or nodule on
Fig. 5

Double pucella °tweak indents” at each end of

the bowls of 2 free-blown eye baths

BELOW Fig. 6

Shallow °woods” impression on the bowl
ofa Portuguese eye bath. (Only visible in
front of a light-dark border)

the rim marking the start and finish
of the cut. Despite fire polishing to

smooth the rim, this nodule often
remains palpable, even if not readi-

ly visible
(Fig.7).
Alternatively, the

bowl rim may have been shaped by

grinding and polishing. If the bowl

Fig. 8
Capillary lumen running down inside the stem of a

drawn stem eye bath
sides are vertical this results in a pol-

ished edge 2 — 3 mm broad, but if the

sides have been rolled inwards, in the

belief that the eye bath will seal bet-
ter against the lids, the polished edge

will be oblique and up to 8 mm broad.
While the bowl floor is usually

Fig. 9

Baccarat eye bath with a knop-

like baluster stem

BELOW Fig.

Nodule after trimming the bowl rim with shears

Glass Matters Issue no. I 3 February 2022

EYE BATHS

Fig.10

Cut-off marks under the foot of a

French free-blown eye bath

flat, in some cases of free-blown
three piece eye baths a low mound

may be palpable, caused by attach-

ing the stem while the bowl is

still soft enough to be indented.
Conversely, in two-piece eye baths,

a low depression can form when

glass for the stem is drawn down
from the bowl base. In one drawn-

stem eye bath, a capillary lumen 0.4
mm in diameter starts in the fun-
nel-shaped depression in the bowl

base and runs down the middle of
the stem to reach the foot
(Fig.8).

STEM

Apart from the curiosity in Fig.8,
the stems of free-blown eye baths

are less interesting than the bowls
or feet. Many stems are simple cyl-

inders. Others have knops at the
top, the bottom, or both, or less

commonly, in the middle. The tall

pedestal eye baths made at Baccarat,

mostly for Maw in London from

1870 until the 1930s, have a globu-

lar baluster stem resembling a basal
knop
(Fig.9).
This stem shape is quite

characteristic of Baccarat eye baths.

FOOT

The marks left when a pontil rod was

used to hold the workpiece are well
known. The pontil scar was left rough

on early eye baths, but later it was

ground and polished smooth, though
occasionally the scar was ground but
not polished. When a gadget was

applied instead of a pontil, the Y or

T-shaped marks, caused when the

glass gather destined to form the foot

was sheared off, are preserved
(Fig.10).

These marks, often inaccurately called
Fig.11

Spun or cast foot on a
free-blown eye bath

gadget marks, are therefore cut-off
marks. Gadget marks are in fact typ-

ically C-shaped impressions found on
the upper surface of the foot if the gad-

get was applied too soon, while the foot
was still soft. Occasionally, there is nei-
ther a pontil mark, rough or polished,

nor any cut-off marks, but instead a

slightly raised 18 — 20 mm diameter
disc of concentric or spiral lines in

the centre of the foot
(Fig.11).
This

appearance is produced when the rod

applying the gather of glass for the foot
is twirled and whisked away without
the use of shears. A foot formed this

way is known as a spun or cast foot.

MOULD-FORMED
EYE BATHS

Eye baths shaped in a mould usu-

ally have two, rarely three or even
four, vertical mould seams. Further
mould seams are usually evident

around the bowl lip and, in the case
of pedestal eye baths, around the

circumference of the foot. Squat

eye baths, without a stem, were

usually made in one — piece moulds

and thus have no vertical seams.

Eye baths can be pressed into

a mould with a plunger, or blown

into a mould, usually with com-

pressed air rather than lung power.
The plunger used to press the

glass into the mould may leave sub-
tle vertical striae down the inner

wall of the eye bath, whereas the
inner surface of a mould-blown eye

bath has a smooth mirror finish.

Clearly the diameter of the plung-

er used to make a pressed eye bath

cannot be greater than the diameter

of the eye bath orifice. Exceptions to
this are some pedestal

eye
baths such

as the ‘Woods type 51’ (Barnsley) and
the ‘John Bull’ eye baths made by the
Canton Glass Company (Marion,
Indiana)
(Fig.12).

In these eye baths the

bowl opening was manipulated into a

narrow oval immediately after press-

ing, when the glass was still malleable.

The moulds used for pressed and

mould-blown eye baths were nearly

always made of iron which tended
to leave the outer surface of the eye

baths looking somewhat rough and
pitted. This was usually smoothed by
reheating or fire polishing the eye bath.
Lastly, eye baths embossed

with any form of inscription

will have been made in a mould.

THURINGIAN
EYE BATHS

Although no figures are available, it
is believed that more glass eye baths

were made in Thuringia than in any
other region in Germany. In the first

half of the 20th century large numbers
of quite distinctive glass eye baths

were made in this heavily forested

region close to the eastern border of

Germany. These eye baths are shown

in glasshouse catalogues from the

area but exactly how they were made
is not entirely dear. Typically, these eye

baths are pedestal-shaped but formed
from a single gather of glass, i.e. with

a drawn stem and foot. A few appear
to have been made in three pieces but

with the same characteristics as the
commoner one-piece model
(Fig.13).

The bowls are thick-walled with

polished rims, a mirror finish inside

and curious, very fine lines running
horizontally around the outside
(Fig.14).
On some there are also

short, diminutive ‘lick marks’ and on

others, the lower part of the bowl is
quite pitted. Obvious mould seams

are rare, although some of these eye

baths have a broad, poorly defined
low vertical ridge at the junction
of the bowl and stem at each end.

The under surface of the foot is

characteristic with a central disc of

pitted glass 15 — 20 mm in diameter

Glass Matters Issue no.I 3 February 2022

Fig. 13

Three pressed eye baths with tweaked, oval bowls. (brown – Woods, Barnsley;
flint & green – Canton Glass, Marion, USA)
Fig.15

Typical Thuringian “bmw” eye bath base

EYE BATHS

Fig. 12

Fig.14

Three pressed eye baths with tweaked, oval bowls. (brown – Woods, Barnsley;

Subtle “wipe marks” running around the bowl of a

flint & green – Canton Glass, Marion, USA)

Thuringian “bmw” eye bath

surrounded by fine concentric lines
rather like a very small gramophone

record
(Fig.15).
There are no traces of

a pontil mark, rough or polished, nor

any signs that a gadget was applied.
There is little doubt that

Thuringian eye baths started life on

a blowing iron whilst ensuring that
the glass at the apex of the bubble was

thick enough to be pulled out to form a

stem and foot using pucellas. This may
explain why some of these eye baths

have disproportionately thick bases

to the bowls
(Fig.13).

The eye bath

would then have been shaped with
a mould of some description. Next,
the eye baths appear to have been

`wiped’, perhaps with wet newspaper,
to smooth over the mould seams and

any other imperfections due to the

mould. Finally the eye bath would

have been cracked off the blowing iron

and the bowl rim ground to shape and
polished. This putative technique has

been called bmw, assuming it involved

blowing, moulding and wiping.
Several `bmw’ eye baths are known

with extensive cracks, probably due
to inadequate annealing and hence

failure to alleviate stresses in the

glass
(Fig.16).
Another characteristic

of many `bmw’ eye baths is the pres-
ence of numerous minute bubbles

(seeds) in the glass
(Figs.13 &

17).

These are the result of incomplete

fining of the glass mix (metal) when
the furnace temperature is not high

enough, possibly because many

Thuringian glasshouses used wood as
a fuel rather than hotter-burning coal.

Fig.16

Widespread cracks in the foot of a poorly annealed

Thuringian ‘bmw” eye bath
The cracks and seeds suggest that

some, at least, of the `bmw’ eye baths

were made in ‘Forest glasshouses.’
Interestingly, the press-mould-

ed pedestal eye baths, which were

also produced in large numbers
in Thuringia, are generally free of

seeds
(Fig.18).
These eye baths may

have been made in larger glass-

houses where coal was used as fuel.

Fig.17
Seeds in a “bmw eye bath. See also Fig.13

Glass Matters Issue no. 13 February 2022

EYE BATHS

Fig.18

Pressed pedestal eye bath embossed underneath

M.P.H. for the Meyer, Petri & Holland factory.

Fig.19

(Ilmenau,
Thuringia)

Three brown lampwork eye baths from Spain and a rare blue example from France

LAMPWORK EYE BATHS

Delicate, thin-walled glass eye baths
— pedestal-shaped, reservoir or squat,

were made using the technique of
lampworking. This involves heating
and manipulating preformed glass
tubes, usually soda glass, in a gas

flame at a bench. In France large
numbers of clear glass squat and

reservoir-type eye baths were made
`at the lamp’. Spanish lampwork eye

baths were made of dark brown glass
(Fig.19).
Some pedestal-shaped eye

baths made in India have parallel

Fig.20
Indian lampwork eye bath made from tube light

glass. Cracked due to unrelieved stress
bowl sides and a diameter of 37 mm,

corresponding to the width of some
fluorescent tube lights
(Fig.20).

Apparently, glass tubes destined for

the lighting industry were divert-

ed to become eye baths instead.

COMPOSITE
EYE BATHS

A small number of pedestal-shaped
clear glass eye baths, probably French,

appear to have been made by blowing
the bowl into a mould then adding

the stem and then the foot freehand

(Fig.21).
The bowls have a mirror

finish inside but the outer surfaces

are subtly irregular and uneven due
to contact with the mould. The bowl

rims were ground and polished and

some of these eye baths have cut

and polished facets around the bowl.
At least two composite eye baths

were sourced in the Auvergne,

in France, where there are, or
were, a number of glasshouses.

THE AUTHOR
Dr George Sturrock is a retired eye

surgeon, his professional life hav-

ing guided him into collecting and
researching Eye Baths. He has never

worked hot glass so asks for forbear-

ance if some of the technical details

he describes are not totally correct.

Fig.21

Composite eye baths with mould-blown bowls and free-hand stems and feet. All French,

those left and right from the Auvergne

Glass Matters Issue no. 13 February 2022

SALISBURY AUCTION

Review of
October 202 1
Auction

at WOOLLEY & WALLIS

Clare Durham

B
eing caught scrabbling around

in the recycling bin by one’s

colleagues when looking for

an empty wine bottle is never a good

look, but at least on this occasion
I had a good excuse. Two pairs of

exceptionally large Irish decanters

needed cataloguing, but I couldn’t

tell by sight just how many bottles
of wine they might hold. There was

only one way to find out and refill-
ing one empty bottle with water

seemed a less sackable offence
than being found with four or five
open bottles of claret at 11 o’clock

in the morning – unless you work
at Downing Street, of course

The decanters, all double magnums
as it turned out, were made for
Kilshannig House in Rathcormac –

the first pair in 1761 by Abraham
Devonsher, a former banker and MP
of Rathcormac. The second pair was

commissioned some 40 years later

by another Abraham Devonsher

who had inherited Kilshannig from
his father, John Newenham, who

had himself inherited it from the

first Abraham Devonsher and had
changed his name. The earlier pair,

lacking stoppers, sold for £1,500
(Fig.1 ),
and the later pair, despite

some chipping, fetched £1,000

(Fig.2).
Size, age and rarity does seem

to be everything where the market

for decanters is concerned these
days, and the later Georgian cut glass
examples that were once a staple of

everybody’s sideboard are sadly all

but unsaleable — often along with the
sideboard on which they sit. Other
exceptions exist however, and a mag-
num beer decanter and stopper from

around 1770 sold for £2,000
(Fig.3).
The October auction was blessed

with two sizeable collections of glass,
predominantly English but with

some Continental examples. That of
the late Paul Gregory had been put

together over several decades and

totalled some 350 glasses sold in

100 lots. A Dutch colour-twist
(Fig.4)

with a stem enclosing red, green,
yellow and blue threads caught the
attention of collectors and sold for

£1,750, while a soda glass baluster

goblet of c.1700 exceeded its esti-

mate at £1,060
(Fig.5).

Otherwise

the collection largely consisted of

good but ‘ordinary’ 18th century

glasses of the type that most long-
term collectors already have in

abundance. They sold well but not

spectacularly and the collection as
a whole totalled £36,300 (with only
two lots unsold) — sadly still below

the amount that had been spent in

building the collection, proving yet
again that the sensible collector buys

for love rather than investment.
The second collection – anony-

mous, this time – was arguably more
diverse and included a number of
rarities that drew some of the auc-

tion’s top prices. A rare, enamelled

wine glass decorated with a portrait
of Bonnie Prince Charlie was hot-

ly contested
(Fig.6),
especially by

Scottish buyers, and exceeded all
expectations, selling for £17,500. It

was supported by a number of other

Jacobite glasses in both collections,
the most notable engraved with the

standard rose spray and the motto

‘Turno Tempus Erit’
(`The Time Will

Come’),
possibly borrowed from

Virgil; it sold for £3,125
(Fig.7).

A large Beilby goblet
(Fig.8)

drew

much discussion among those who
viewed the sale, as despite being

Glass Matters Issue no. I 3 February 2022

SALISBURY AUCTION

perfectly proportioned, the bowl had

been reattached to a contemporary
stem and foot with an extremely
clean repair. Nonetheless, the quality

of the bowl and attractiveness of the

goblet was such that it still drew com-
petitive bidding and sold for £3,500 –
resulting in the obvious unanswered

question as to what it might have

made in perfect original condition.
A number of Dutch-engraved gob-

lets from the mid-18th century per-
formed well with the strongest prices

going to those that related to the
English market or had more unusual

decoration. The top performer had a

collector’s number for the Walter F

Smith Collection and was decorated

with the royal coat of arms and the
motto of the Order of the Garter

(Fig.9);
it exceeded its modest £400

starting price to sell for £1,875.

Another goblet
(Fig.10)
relating to

maritime trade was engraved with a

ship and the inscription ‘Het Lands

wel Vaaren aan de Caap’, roughly
translating to
‘Sailing the Lands on

the Cape’.
This may well have related

to the Dutch East India Company

whose route between the Cape of
Good Hope and Batavia was one of

the most crucial. It fetched £1,375.

There is – to practical minds at least

– a strange gulf of interest between
otherwise seemingly equal glasses

that were made on the Continent,

to those made in England. This was

ably demonstrated by three 18th
century glasses of Continental ori-

gin engraved for the English mar-
itime market. One
(Fig.11),
was a

privateer glass, inscribed ‘Ye London

Rob Yong of Pool’ probably relating

to a Robert Young who was granted

letters of marque in 1756 for a ship
called
Somerset
and again in 1757

for a ship called
St Kitts Planter.

Selling for £625, it showed a marked

discrepancy with privateer glasses
produced in England, not entirely

attributable to the inferior quality
of the engraving. A similar glass
(Fig.11),
inscribed `J Barton / Success

to the Unity’ was from a known

set and probably relates to one of
Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Glass Matters Issue no. 13 February 2022

SALISBURY AUCTION

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Fig. 10

Glass Matters Issue no.I3 February 2022

SALISBURY AUCTION

Fig. 11

Fig. 12

the ships bearing that name which

was involved in the American Wars
of Independence. It sold for £560.

Continental glass of the type seldom

or never produced in the UK continues

to catch the attention of collectors and

there were a couple of examples includ-

ed in the sale. A highly unusual facon

de Venise goblet
(Fig.12),

produced in

the Netherlands in the 17th century,

had a standard round funnel bowl over

a triple-knopped hollow stem. Some
time ago it had been given a replace-

ment metal foot, but its rarity was such

that it still fetched £1,125. Rather lat-

er in date but still desirable were two

lithyalin vases — one attributed to
the workshop of Friedrich Egermann

which sold for £930
(Fig.13),
while

another of unusual double-gourd
shape fetched £1,000
(Fig.14).

The next glass auction at

Woolley and Wallis is on 26th April

and will include a diverse range
of English and Continental glass.

Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Glass Matters Issue no.I 3 February 2022

Fig. 2

Pair of dear glasses

acquired by Simon
Cook. Height
16.5cm, bowl rim

diameter 11.4cm

`VtlAt

/WA’,

40
0
4
!
,

TRACKING URANIUM GLASS

Uranium Glass
Simon Cook

John Frith’s two recent artides on Uranium

Glass and a response from Dwight
Lanmon, have revealed a collector’s pas-

sion to track a lead – Simon Cook has added
a discovery and posed further questions:

0
n picking up

Glass Matters 11

of June 2021, it wasn’t long

before I read part 1 of the

artide by John Frith on the origins of
uranium glass. Although illustrated

by him, it was said that he was unable
to identify specific manufacturers or

dates. His Fig.4 illustrates
A uranium

yellow ‘sherry’ glass (perhaps a cordial).

The description suggested a rela-
tively small size for the glass
(Fig./)

A few days later when I was trawl-

ing through the internet on eBay, I
came across two identical-looking

glasses, albeit in clear glass. A price
with the vendor was agreed – he did
not know the manufacturer or date

– and they subsequently arrived.
The glasses are heavy, large, 16.5cm
high, with a bowl rim diameter of

11.4cm and are decorated with cut-
ting. The swags are reminiscent of
Irish glass from the first quarter of

the 19th century but the pair did not

have a Georgian feel to them
(Fig.2).

When I contacted John Frith he

told me that
“There are some very

slight differences between the two
glasses. The middle panel on the bowl

of mine is wider than on yours and the
knops are slightly different, it measures
13cm in height and 7.5cm diameter at

the lip of the bowl. It is deep yellow with
a slight amber tint, fluoresces bright

green under UV light as translucent
uranium glass, yellow or green, does.
Mine doesn’t look like the early 1830s to
1840s Bohemian uranium glass which

was a very bright yellow or green, so I

think it is later, and it can’t be earlier
as

the earliest record of uranium glass is by
Harrach of Bohemia in 1831. Certainly

by 1840, uranium glass was being made
in Bohemia, Germany, France, Belgium
and Britain, and by the 1840s in America.
I then sent a picture of my glasses

to several glass experts, referring to
John’s artide, in case any light could
be thrown on them. The consensus

was that they were not Georgian but

were most likely to be late 19th to early
20th century in date. One correspon-
dent thought that the pattern looked

familiar but he could not place it.
It seems almost certain that

the yellow uranium glass and my

pair are from the same source but

where that is and what the precise
date of manufacture is, currently
remains unknown. Can anyone help?
Simon Cook can be contacted at

Simon Cook [email protected]
Fig.

Yellow Uranium glass shown by John Frith

in Glass Matters 12. Height 13cm,
bowl rim diameter 7.5cm

John Frith added more information

on the Uranium glass Finger Bowl

Looking up Davenport uranium glass

on the Internet revealed quite a few
references to the V&A Museum’s

Uranium glass Finger Bowl. In par-
ticular was an illustrated article by
Rebecca Luffinanl, saying that it was

made by Davenport & Co, with a pic-

ture showing the piece fluorescing
under UV light. I also came across two
Glass Messages blogs
2
‘

3
provided by

Angela Bowey’s
Glass Museum & Glass

Encyclopedia
which have interesting

discussions about the bowl, James
Powell & Sons and Davenport. When

writing my article, I had difficulty in
tracking down the exact year that Josef
Riedel first made uranium glass, most

references say early 1830s or about

1835, Luffman says 1834, but it is
difficult to go past Langhamer (2002)

and Strahan (2001) documenting

Johann Pohl and Harrach as being the

first to produce uranium glass in 1831.

FOOTNOTES
1.
Luffman, Rebecca. Seeing more:

glow-in-the-dark glass. 16 April

2020. Available at https://www.

vam.ac.uk/blog/museum-life/

seeing-more-glow-in-the-dark-glass

2.
Glass Message Board http://www.glass-

messages.com/index.php?topic=70066.50

3.
Glass Message Board http://www.glassmes-

sages.com/index.php?topic=70066.100

Glass Matters Issue no. I 3 February 2022

The Iconic

Burtles Tate

Elephant

David Willars

I
n the last issue I mentioned the

mid-year survey of members in

2021 finding that just over 80%

of you are collectors. I would now

like to return to this theme with ref-
erence to a particular collection that
I have become familiar with over the

last few years. Helen and Winston
Turner had a large collection with

a significant proportion devoted to
the pressed glass of the Manchester
companies. Helen died in September

2020, Winston having predeceased

her by a few years. A large portion

of their collection is destined for

auction in the early part of 2022.
The Manchester Art Gallery has

a good selection of Victorian glass
made by all the local companies,

however, as with all of us there are

gaps. One such gap was the absence
of a Burtles Tate elephant
(Fig.1),

and during a routine conversation

with the gallery staff a couple of
years ago this was noted with the
eventual aim of resolving the issue.
We know that the three

Manchester companies, Molineaux

Webb & Co, Percival Yates & Vickers

and Burtles Tate & Co. all had deep
roots in Warrington. In fact all

three companies were related by

marriage. In October 1811 Thomas

Webb’s sister, Maria, married a

William Burtles, who had earlier

been apprenticed to William Geddes
in Warrington. Geddes was from the

Scottish dynasty of glassmakers.

William died within a year of mar-
riage, but a few months later Maria

gave birth to a son, also William, in

1813. Subsequently, Maria remar-
ried, this time to Thomas Percival in

1816, thus creating the link between
all three companies. From the late

1820s onwards, generations of
Webbs, Percivals and Burtles moved

from Warrington, travelling twenty
miles to the east in order to establish

the nascent glass industry in the rap-

idly growing industrial conurbation
of Manchester. The movements of

the Burtles dynasty are difficult to

establish as various census returns

ICONIC PRESSED GLASS

Glass Matters Issue no. 1 3 February 2022

ICONIC PRESSED GLASS

record the surname as Bartles or
Birtles. The company of Burtles

Tate was formed in the late1850s,

with family members having worked
alongside their compatriots during

the intervening years. Matthew

Tate acquired his glassmaking skills

in Newcastle, although attempts
to establish links with the major
NE companies of Sowerby and
Davidson have proved elusive. All

three companies had neighbouring

premises, built around the canal

network, just north of the city cen-
tre in the suburb of Ancoats. Given

these relationships it should come

as no surprise that there was some

sharing of recipes and techniques,
as well as a good deal of overlap
in products being manufactured.
Of the other Manchester com-

panies, the Derbyshire broth-
ers, James and especially John,

became more prominent in the

1860s and 1870s with the latter
having premises in nearby Salford.
The American, Deming Jarves,

of the Boston and Sandwich Glass
Company is often described as the

pioneer of pressed glass; although

he also pays tribute to early

attempts to develop the technique
in continental Europe. Development
of pressed glass in England began

in the 1830s, although take-up

was slow during the first two
decades as the technique became
industrialised and mould-making

skills developed. Earlier attempts
to manufacture pressed glass

focused upon the desire to mimic
cut glass and it was not until much

later, during the 1870s, that John
Derbyshire, free from the shackles

of working with his brother James,
registered his Landseer lion, one

of several significant figures to
emerge from Manchester. John

Derbyshire’s status was sealed

with the production of an Egyptian

winged sphinx, mainly found in a
black matte colour, registered in
March 1876
(Fig.2).
You can detect

here the competition between the

various companies as Molineaux
Webb produced a Greek sphinx,
of similar size and proportion to

John Derbyshire’s version, regis-

tered a few months earlier in July

1875. Likewise, Burtles Tate’s
swan appeared in January 1885,
followed by Molineaux Webb regis-
tering a very similar duck in August

of the same year
(Fig.3).
Other

animals and figures followed and

although there is some confusion
over the origin of certain pieces,

the Manchester companies were
dominant in producing this type of

figure during the 1870s and 1880s.
December 1886 saw the registra-

tion of Burtles Tate’s elephant which

has become established as their sig-
nature piece. Today the elephants
can be found in a variety of opal-
escent colours: green/yellow, blue/

white and pink being the more com-
mon. Anecdotally, there is a sugges-

tion that one reason for their rarity

is due to them being very difficult

to extract from the mould without
deforming the shape and balance of
the item. This is not an uncommon

problem: John Derbyshire produced

Glass Matters Issue no.I 3 February 2022

ICONIC PRESSED GLASS

Fig. 3

a seated Britannia that is often to be
found with the body lurching to one

side whilst Burtles Tate themselves

had problems with a tall, thin and
top-heavy ostrich. Quite possibly

these imperfections show that, fifty

years after the pressing technique

was first developed, glassmak-
ers were still perfecting their art.
Different thicknesses of glass with-

in the mould give rise to different

shrinkage rates leading to imperfec-
tions, most especially if the item is

extracted from the mould before the

glass has cooled down sufficiently.
Quite what was the inspira-

tion for these original and iconic

designs is open to conjecture. John
Derbyshire most probably looked

at the ceramic industry in nearby
Stoke and reasoned that whatev-

er could be modelled in clay was

worthy of at least a trial in glass.

Several subjects are common to

both glass and clay, including the

lion (available in two forms), the

sphinx, and also greyhound and
Labrador dogs. Equally it could also

be stated that these models caught
the mood of Victoria’s reign with
Landseer lions being installed at

the base of the column in Trafalgar

Square. Derbyshire’s original regis-
tration document even refers to the

lion after Landseer.
But none of this

explains the Burtles Tate elephant
which seems incongruous along-

side the other emblematic pieces.
It is possible that Queen

Victoria’s becoming Empress of
India caught the public’s imagina-

tion and most certainly the timing is
consistent with the elephant being

registered in 1886. Before I develop

this theme further I must state that

the jury is out as to whether this is

an Indian or an African elephant!
Or is it more likely a generic item?

Whichever, Queen Victoria was
granted the title ‘Empress of India’

in 1876 and this was seen at the
time as a way of cementing relation-

ships between the monarchy and the
British Empire. Victoria herself nev-

er visited India but, famously, her

son, the future Edward VII, did so
in late 1875 on a trip lasting several

months. To further demonstrate the

association between Queen Victoria

and India, Osborne House also fea-
tures several Indian connections,

including the dining room, which

is known as the Durbar Room.

Another suggestion is that the

inspiration for Burtles Tate’s ele-
phant relates to their business
roots. Prior to expanding and

eventually consolidating produc-

tion in the suburb of Ancoats,
Burtles Tate had a smaller facility,

The Albion Flint Glass Works, at
Parrott Street in nearby Bolton. To
further demonstrate the incestuous

nature of the glass industry, this
particular factory had previously

been owned by Percival Vickers &
Co. until around 1881. The Bolton

factory remained in Burtles Tate’s
control for the next decade, a time

period that encompasses early pro-

duction of the elephant. We cannot

assume the elephant was made in
Bolton, but there would most like-

ly have been some sharing of skills
between the sites during this period.
There is a longstanding link

between Bolton and elephants, the
creature featuring on the town’s coat

of arms. Although the reason for this

link is difficult to clarify, Bolton at

one point lay within the Diocese of
Mercia, linking it to Coventry which

also features an elephant on its coat
of arms. Certainly, the prevalence of

elephants in Bolton is notable, and it

would not take much imagination to
extrapolate this to a glass ornament.

The reasons for Burtles Tate

adopting the elephant as its signa-

ture piece must remain speculative.

What cannot be doubted is that the
elephant has achieved iconic status

within the orbit of pressed glass col-

lectors. We should therefore be grate-
ful that Mark, Judith and Claire,

Winston and Helen’s three children,
chose to donate their parents’ ele-

phant to the Manchester Art Gallery.

Glass Matters Issue no.I3 February 2022

CHURCHILL AND HAYNES

A tale
of

two
GEORGIAN

glass dealers

Simon Wain Hobson

T
here is no need to introduce

Arthur Churchill and E.
Barrington Haynes to Georgian

glass collectors. They were among the
pre-eminent Georgian glass dealers

in the first half of the 20th century

(Figs.1&2).
Drinking glasses with

Arthur Churchill Ltd. labels still

come onto the market
(Fig.3).
For

some glasses purchased from Arthur
Churchill himself see Martine Newby’s

small volume on the Captain Turnbull
Collection in Mompesson House “.

Yet, in answer to the question, who
were they? there is precious little infor-
mation readily at hand. We will find

out that they were very different men.
Arthur Charles Churchill was born

in Hastings in 1869, the second of 13

children of Arthur and Mary Churchill.
The father was a tailor. The son went

into the antique business at the age
of 14 and remained there for 52 years

until his death. He was an apprentice

with Mortlock’s china business in
Orchard Street not far from Marble

Arch, London. The 1891 census has
him in lodgings in Battersea as a
`China and Glass Salesman’. In the

1901 census he’s listed as a ‘buyer of
antique china.’ By 1908 he had set
up on his own, first working out of
Brook Street, Mayfair and then 48
Knightsbridge until July 1920
1

‘
2
.
The

British Antiques’ Dealers Association

3
was
founded just after the first world

war and in their 1919 lists Arthur
Churchill is noted for ‘Old Cut Glass,
Early Drinking Glasses, Old China

Services’
3
,
while an invoice of the day

mentions ‘OLD CHINA, GLASS, ETC.’
Perhaps branching out into antique

glass was a way of distinguishing
himself from Mortlock’s. Indeed, he

may well have been self-taught when

it came to glass. In mid-July 1920

he moved to the first floor premises
of 10 Dover Street, his ‘glass flat’
2

not far from Old Bond Street and
remained there until his death in

1936
(Fig.4).
Now his letterhead

merely read ‘Old Glass & Glasses’
1

He married Lilian Lawrence in 1896

and their son Lawrence Arthur was
born in 1897. Sadly, Lily died in 1906.
In the 1911 census his sister, Frances

Churchill, is down as housekeeper to
her widowed brother. Presumably she

helped bring up Lawrence. In 1912,

Churchill married Vernita Bowes-

Scott, a decorative artist and their

daughter Vernita was born in 1914.

Son Lawrence was an athlete, swim-
mer and member of the exclusive Otter
Club from 1921-36. While his 1921

home address was 28 Ashburnham
Mansions, Chelsea, interestingly

his business address was given as 10
Dover Street, that of his father
4

.
It

seems he befriended fellow swimmer
Wilfried Godfrey Thomas Burne, or

Tommy as he was known to everyone.

Tommy was born in Germany in 1903

of British parents

and became an ath-

lete and champion
diver participating

in the UK diving
team in the 1928

Summer Olympics
in Amsterdam. He
too was an Otter
Club member

and in their 1927
Members Register

he gives his busi-
ness address as

10 Dover Street

4
.
It appears that

through Churchill’s

son, Tommy Burne

ended up working

with the father.

Fig.1

A
seventeenth century

soda goblet with spiked

gadrooning
Burne effectively became the

manager and was considered to be

the dauphin. He was
‘meticulous and

made impeccable stock entries describ-

ing the bowl, stem and foot of glasses’

5
.
No doubt this was learnt from

Churchill himself as can be seen by

the descriptions of the glasses in

sales invoices — the bowl, all elements
of the twist and foot are covered.

Tommy helped Howard Phillips get

a job with Churchill giving support
and help. He might even have intro-
duced Barrington Haynes to AGC
5

What was Churchill like? We have

two portrayals, the first being an obit-
uary in the Antique Collector
6

dated

June 1936:
‘We much regret to announce

the death on Easter Monday, April 13,
of Mr. Arthur Churchill the expert and

dealer in early glass. He was aged 66,

and had been ill for some months pre-
vious to his death. Mr. Churchill, whose

white hair belied his youthful alertness,

Glass Matters Issue no.I 3 February 2022

CHURCHILL AND HAYNES

was a well-known figure and had been

a member of the antique trade for 52

years. He was apprenticed originally to
Messrs. Mortlock’s of Orchard Street,

and from that start he gradually made

himself a recognised authority on early

glass and on English porcelain and blue-
and-white. His Dover Street business

is being carried on as Messrs. Arthur

Churchill Ltd., by Mr. W.G.T. Burne,

who was with
Mr.

Churchill for a num-

ber of years, and by Miss Churchill.’

The second is a eulogy published in

1937:
‘If he had any regret, it was that

he had never recorded his knowledge

on paper. We are aware that he had the

intention of doing so: to some extent
the necessity for constant attention to
routine matters, and other much-loved

activities, left him without the leisure
to write. But he was always so strong-

ly impressed by the many gaps in and

imperfections of his knowledge that he
was perhaps never ready to begin. Any

work from his pen would have been large-

ly a dissertation on what he did not know,
rather than a record of what he did.’
7
.

Clearly, Tommy Burne and

Churchill’s daughter had set up Arthur

Churchill Ltd (ACL) by June 1936,
no doubt to capitalize on the name.

However, before the end of the year

Haynes had bought out the opera-

tion
3
and moved it to 34 Marylebone

High Street. The Directors were E.B.

Haynes, A.P. Godfrey & V. Churchill

while the secretary was R.R. Nash’.
The Arthur Churchill Ltd. that we
know so well was actually the creation

of Burne and Miss Churchill. It is
easy to overlook the “Ltd” so beget-

ting confusion. Arthur Churchill was

himself from 1908-36, while as we

will see, Arthur Churchill Ltd was run
by E. Barrington Haynes from 1936
until his death. As Burne wanted to

start out on his own, he seized the
occasion and set up shop at 27,
Davies

Street, Berkeley Square. Specialist, Old
English and Irish Glass, Chandeliers,

Candelabra, Porcelain
3

.
He did so for

the next 40 years and was succeed-

ed by his son Andrew. As Howard
Phillips stayed with ACL it could well

have been he who wrote the eulogy.
This brings us to the very different

and colourful character of Edward
Barrington Haynes, or E. Barrington

Haynes as he is best known. He was

born on 21 June 1889 in St Margaret’s
on Thames
8
‘
9
.
From 1902-07 he

went to school at Kelly College near
Taunton which was for
the sons of

naval officers and other gentlemen.

The 1911 census has Haynes living
in Wimbledon with his mother Rose

and three sisters – there were seven
children – while his business is listed

as “(Depository) Furniture”. This is a
reference to the fact that his grandfa-

ther William Haynes was a cofounder

and Director of Arthur G. Dixon Ltd,
the huge furniture depository built

on the Harrow Road near Paddington

in 1879. By 1914 his father T.
Herbert Haynes was a Director “.
Then all hell broke loose. Following

the declaration of war in August 1914

all men of less than 25 were called up.

As Haynes was just over 25 it is possible
that he volunteered. He enlisted with

the Honourable Artillery Regiment as

a private from September 1914 and

served in France and Flanders. He
was wounded in April 1915. By 1917

he was with the Royal Engineers as a
temporary lieutenant. He was awarded

the Military Cross following action as a
radio operator with the 25th Division

during the first day of the battle of
Messines (June 7-14, 1917), a small

Belgian town just south of Ypres
9
.

Following demobilization in

June 1919 he returned to the fur-
niture business and by 1936 had

become a Director of AG Dixon
Ltd. As mentioned, Haynes bought

out ACL and moved it to 34 High

Street, Marylebone
7
.
These premis-

es were those of ‘Edward Tilbury &

Company, Furniture removers and

Warehousemen. Art Packers. Second-

hand Furniture, Silver, Books and

other household effects’ that were

in the AG Dixon orbit’. The follow-

ing year saw the publication of two

well-crafted illustrated catalogues of
English glass from ACL
7
‘
11
,
yet ACL

is down in 1938 BADA documents as

selling
Glass (Old and ancient), China,

Furniture, Antiques in general
which is

broad to say the least
3
.

Despite this, in

a 1939 population census, he is living

in Paddington, sharing a house with a

solicitor and domestic servant where

he is down as a “furniture remover

and warehouseman”. Haynes mar-
ried and had at least one daughter.

Haynes and employees, like so

many in London, my parents includ-

ed, endured the London blitz of 1940-
41 followed by V1 doodlebugs from
June 1944 and then the V2 rockets.

From a remarkable study of where

the bombs exploded, neither ACL’s

34 Marylebone High Street premises

were directly hit nor were the Harrow
Road warehouses of AG Dixon Ltd.

Hardly surprisingly, bombs dropped

nearby
12
.
It would seem that very few

beautiful Georgian glasses were lost.

Fig.2

One of three

uncrizzled posset
pots with a

Ravenscroft seal

acquired by ACL

in late 1949 with

an aristocratic
provenance 23.

Glass Matters Issue no. 13 February 2022

CHURCHILL AND HAYNES

They were open for business through-
out the war. Indeed, Glass Notes 1-5,
the first numbers of ACL’s signature

publication, are dated June 1943
to January 1945. The first post war

issue started off
After a lapse of nearly

two years we are able to offer a further

issue of “Glass Notes” in good printers’

ink…’
13
;
this alludes to the fact that

the wartime copies of Glass Notes

1-5 were reproduced by a Gestetner

type process and difficult to read.
By 1951 the BADA register lists

only “Antique Glass” which suggests

some considerable specialization.
‘In

the autumn of 1956 the Company gave

up its premises in Marylebone, prem-

ises dictated thirty years ago by other

considerations, now non-existent. Our
new rooms at 22-32 Harrow Road,
Paddington, are part of the premises

of our parent company, and with all
the facilities for packing, transport and
storage of stock immediately at hand. …
parking… we can offer untaxed space in

our transport yard’
14
.
In fact, these were

the huge and historic premises of AG

Dixon Ltd. opened back in 1879 “.
What were ACL’s new premises

like in the Harrow Road? There are
two vignettes of interest: the first

comes from the notes of glass col-

lector Richard Emanuel published in
Delomosne’s catalogue,
A Gathering

of Glass
15
.
The timeline is rather pre-

cise, sometime between the autumn

of 1956 and Haynes’ death in June

1957:
“On the appointed day I made my

way to a warehouse in the Harrow Road,
then up rickety stairs to meet Barrington
Haynes in a room the untidiness ofwhich

defies description. He sat me down to a
large mug of over sweetened tea and talk-
ed about glass. My main memory of this
meeting was his advice to collect pedestal

stems ….I took his advice. I left our meet-

ing with three glasses — my first two ped-

estal stems and a baluster (subsequently
sold). The cost of the three glasses was
twenty-two pounds and ten shillings.”
The Harrow Road rooms and the

Marylebone premises are a far cry

from the chic antiques trade with

addresses like those of ACC himself
— Knightsbridge, then close to Old
Fig.3

Two Arthur

Churchill Ltd labels,

so Haynes era. The
composite MAST

glass (upper) is
mentioned in Glass

Notes No. 11,
December 1953,
p39. Allowing for

inflation, £8 would

Antiques (lower).

Bond Street. Indeed, compare this

with Jay Kaplan’s encounter with
antique glass dealer Derek Davies
18
.

It would seem that they didn’t have

a shop window. By the by, adjusting

for inflation that sum would be £569
today, a good price by modern stan-
dards for three fairly early Georgian

glasses. For some reason, ACL was
not registered with BADA after 1951.
The second glimpse inside

ACL’s premises comes from Martin
Mortimer who met Barrington Haynes

when he was very young while working
for Delomosne. His recollections go far

and wide (see boxed text). As Martin
mentions, Haynes’ book resulted in a
nomenclature that stuck, even though

it was observational and uncoupled
to the way the stems were made

On the back of the 1959 re-edition

of
Glass Through The Ages
8
we learn

that Haynes
`found interest in anything

out of doors. His activities included fish-

ing, entomology, and rifle shooting. He

found a liking for ancient glass, and gave

the national collections a few objects,
ranging from marked fragments of

ancient glass to a large sea elephant.’
I

had always thought that sea elephants

were large anyway, so a large sea ele-
phant must have been quite some-
thing. He sounds like an outdoors man

doseted in a furniture removals outfit.

A photo of Barrington Haynes can be
found on the back of the 1966 reprint

of
Glass Through The Ages (Fig.5).

Haynes died suddenly at his home

Glass Matters Issue no. I 3 February 2022

CHURCHILL AND HAYNES

near Guilford. The probate register

for 1957 records
“HAYNES Edward

Barrington of Kings Holt, Gomshall,

Surrey and of Messrs. Arthur G. Dixon

limited Harrow-road Paddington,
London, died 14 June 1957…”.
Haynes

was first and foremost a “furniture

remover and warehouseman”. This

shows up time and again: Haynes

was the 1953 President of the the
National Association of Furniture

Warehousemen and Removers
(NAFWR). As we have seen above, the

original Directors of ACL were Haynes,

AP Godfrey and Churchill’s daughter.

It turns out that Godfrey was the 1964
President of the NAFWR, meaning

that his expertise was not in vitreous

materials. Glass, for which we remem-

ber Haynes, may very well have been

his obsession or self-inflicted disease

as some collectors refer to their pas-

sion. It was not his bread and butter.
What happened to ACL following

Haynes’ death? Sidney Crompton

worked at ACL in its last years.
Richard Dennis, who was working at

Sotheby’s from 1957-65, recalls
18
that

the Crompton’s [Sidney and his broth-

er, R.A.] kept it going but were really

acting for old clients and dealing in a
very small way. Certainly, the business

was not registered with BADA
3
. The
ACL letterhead for June

1957 shows the directors
to have been HJ Dixon

and AP Godfrey with
DA Crompton stamped

below the former two,

22/32 Harrow Road spe-
cializing in Old English

– Irish and Continental glass
19
. HJ

Dixon is no doubt a descendent of

furniture remover Arthur Dixon.
The Harrow Road premises were

demolished in 1960 following a com-

pulsory purchase order. Knowing

how long it takes to get such things

through, it is unlikely that ACL con-

tinued for long there following Haynes’

death. It seems the Crompton brothers

kept ACL functioning out of 1 Chapel

Street, London, a stone’s throw from

ACL’s former Harrow Road premises,
as revealed by correspondence between
them and the celebrated American col-

lector Jerome Strauss in 1962 & 64
28
.

Brother Sydney Crompton didn’t

make much of his connection to

Arthur Churchill Ltd and Haynes
in his 1967 book entitled English

Glass, even though Haynes’ influ-

ence is there. From the book’s dust
jacket
20

we learn that the author

“devoted a large part of his life to glass

– buying specimens from the salerooms
for museums and private collectors”.
The last dear reference to ACL con-

cerns an appeal decision and acquittal

of a previous condemnation of ACL

for illegal export of an antique glass

vase – Garrett v Arthur Churchill
(Glass) Ltd: QBD 1969
22
.

“Ratio: The

respondent agreed to sell a significant
antique glass vase to a purchaser in the

US. The export would require an export

licence. The purchaser instructed the
defendant to hand the goblet to a third
party who would export it illegally. The

defendant appealed a conviction under
the Act. Held: A conviction required a
positive answer to one question, namely

whether the defendant was knowingly

concerned in the exportation of goods
with intent to evade the prohibition. The
magistrates had failed to do this and the

case was remitted.”
Richard Dennis

noted
18
that

‘the court case was most

unfortunate – poor old Sidney just acting

in ignorance for an American customer.’

Arthur C. Churchill was in the

Georgian glass business for at least

28 years (1908-36) while Arthur

Churchill Ltd, aka EB Haynes,

was active for 21 years (1936-57).
Churchill appears to have been a

careful, meticulous and modest gent

working from his ‘glass flat’. His rep-
utation is stamped across the field.
Haynes, who
‘was not as he complained,

highly informed about glass’
2
,
under-

stood the need to get the word out

in the form of illustrated catalogues

of which there were three, sixteen

signature
Glass Notes

full of informa-

tion and critiques, and of course his

book,
Glass,
and the revised edition,

Glass Through the Ages,
even though

it was Pelican who sought him out. In

this respect he was simply modern.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
These portrayals could not have been

attempted without the help and

LEFT Fig.4

Arthur Churchill worked from his
glass flat’ on the first floor of 10

Dover Street, London W1 from

1920 to 1936. Presumably he

RIGHT Fig.5

A photo of E. Barrington Haynes
taken from the back of the 1966
reprinting of
Glass Through

the Ages.

Glass Matters Issue no.I 3 February 2022

CHURCHILL AND HAYNES

invaluable time of a large number of
people. From the glass world, the

main contributors have been Peter

Anderson, Colin Brain, Andrew
Burne, Dwight Lanmon, Martin
Mortimer and Pat Townshend

backed up by Heather Ayling of
Kelly College, Richard Dennis

in London, Catherine Flynn of

Penguin Archives, Hannah Lowery

of the University of Bristol, Susan

and David Neave of Beverley for the

genealogy of Churchill, Anja Quant-

Epps of BADA, James Stewart and

Dr. Ian Gordon of the Otter Club,

Elaine Webster of Mompesson
House and Mark Westgarth

of the University of Leeds.

The Corning Museum of Glass

has recently acquired the Churchill
archive, a large collection of corre-

spondence and thousands of pho-
tos of glasses from both Arthur
Churchill and ACL, albeit disor-

ganized. Once curated it should
provide further insights into more
than 50 years of buying and sell-

ing by these two men. The boxed

letter from Martin Mortimer to

Simon Wain-Hobson are his recol-

lections of E Barrington Haynes,
sent in 2013 at the beginning of
Simon’s research into AC and EBH.

REFERENCES

1. Invoices from Arthur Churchill
to Captain Turnbull help by the

National Trust at Mompesson House,

Salisbury, UK
2.

WA Thorpe,
The origin of the Circle of

Glass collectors,
The Glass Cirde vol. 1

pp7-9, Oriel Press, 1972

3.
British Antique Dealers’ Association

(BADA) archive

4.
Otter Swimming Club record

5.
Andrew Burne, personnel

communication

6.
Antique Collector, Ltd. London, June

1936, p137

7.
Catalogue of Old English Glass,

2nd edition March 1937, Arthur

Churchill Ltd

8.
EB Haynes,

Glass through the Ages,

Pelican books, revised edition 1959

9.
Kelly College School Register, May1902

10.
Grace’s guide to British Industrial

History https://www.gracesguide.

co.uk/1914 Who%27s Who in

Business: Company D

11
History in Glass.
A coronation exhibi-

tion. 1937, Arthur Churchill Ltd

12.
http://bombsight.

org/#15/51.5050/-0.0900

13.
Glass Notes
No.6, p3, December 1946,

Arthur Churchill Ltd

14
Glass Notes
No.16, p3, December

1956, Arthur Churchill Ltd

15.15. Delomosne & Sons Ltd. A
Gathering of Glass,
the Richard

Emanuel collection of eighteenth cen-

tury English drinking glasses, 2010

16.
J Kaplan,

In Search of Beauty,
memoir

of an art collector, New Academic
Publishing, 2019, pp60-62

17.
S Wain-Hobson and A Townsend,

A critique of E. Barrington Haynes’

`series’ terms, Part 2.
Glass Circle

News no.133,
2013, pp22-25

18.
Richard Dennis, personnel

communication

19.
Letter from ACL to Sir Hugh Chance,

28 January 1958

20.
Dwight Lanmon, personnel

communication

21.
Crompton,
English Glass,

Ward Lock

& Co, London 1967

22.
https://swarb.co.uk/garrett-v-ar-

thur-churchill-glass-ltd-qbd-1969/

23.
Glass Notes No.9, pp11-16,

December 1949, Arthur Churchill Ltd

24 Martine Newby,
The Turnbull collec-

tion ofEnglish 18th-century drinking

glasses,
Mompesson House. The

National Trust, 2006

Simon Wain Hobson

Via E mail
29th October, 2013

Dear Mr Wain Hobson,
First, many apologies for long delay. I have plumbed my meagre memories of Haynes but can provide

little concrete. I was the boy and very much under the thumb of my irascible boss. But your letter made

me look through his book for the first time in many years.

E Barrington Haynes bought the business of Arthur G Churchill, incubator for at least two who later

established celebrated businesses in the same field, W G T Borne and Howard Phillips. The latter always
insisted he managed Churchill’s for Haynes for years. As so often is the case, a pinch of salt is required.

Haynes’ publication of his book
English Glass

in 1948, later
Glass Through the Ages,
produced a degree

of mockery amongst the few extant specialists. How could one compare, as he to a degree attempts, the
rarity or otherwise of varieties of 18th century drinking glasses from a single collection, no matter how

numerous? Nevertheless, my one visit to his premises in Harrow Road opened my eyes to a degree.

Haynes was Managing Director, possibly proprietor, of Arthur G Dixon, a removals business, and,

following the closure of Churchill it was here he amassed his research glasses. A large, plain room was

filled with shelves on every wall. On them were stacked hundreds of wineglasses, mostly simple. It was

from a study of these he attempted to establish the possible numbers made of each type. The success or

otherwise of this project is really not possible to assess, and doubt was universal.

But another aspect of Haynes’ acute interest in 18th century wineglasses gained almost immediate support.

He established a nomenclature for all the various designs of English drinking glasses. Previously,

collectors and dealers alike developed their own descriptive terms. Now, most fell in with Haynes’. Thus

we find MSAT (multi-spiral air twist); DSOT (double-series opaque twist) with its flanking SSOT and

(very rare) TSOT. The terms for the stem formations of balusters and their derivatives were firmly
categorised. His system, readily accepted, has lasted some 50 years. He illustrated many of the various

forms with line drawings provided by Howard Phillips: adequate, if naive.

Although I met Haynes only a few times, he seemed to me to be austere and very much an academic. His
interest in his subject must have been with him for years, but at the time of my arrival at Delomosne in

January 1948, it was Arthur Churchill who was still firmly in the memory of the glass world, In his last

years he was assisted by Sidney Crompton – who also published a book, under his name, in 1967.

Haynes was dry, perhaps shy but he left a mark on the study of English glass. For its date, the book is a

good review and it was bolstered by his subsequently published
Glass Notes,
still worth looking through

for discussions of oddities.

With best wishes.

Martin C F Mortimer

Glass Matters Issue no. 1 3 February 2022

Fig.1

Tumbler with the Royal Cypher of
King George VI
MONOGRAMS OR?

Monograms, Cyphers and Initials

BSMillar

O
nce

upon a time I would

have said that any glass with
initials on it was decorated

with a monogram. More recently I
discovered that some monograms

were actually cyphers and then
discovered that some others were

neither monograms nor cyphers

-lock-down and self-imposed isola-
tion may be responsible! Whether

you have also been a reclusive her-
mit or spent your time more sensibly,

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

Glass Society Glass Matters_No.13, Feb 2022

Recent Posts

Address

Email

Instagram