Glass Society Glass Matters_No.2, Jul 2018

M A T

AMP
–

10111IMIN

SAW

JOINT PUBLICATION OF THE GLASS ASSOCIATION AND THE GLASS CIRCLE

July 2018
Issue No. 2

1SSN2516-1555

Contents

Editorial

Chairmen’s message
Keller bottle

Silvered bowl goblet

Ends & beginings
Commemorative paperweight

The Field Cup

John Northwood

Memories of Jo Marshall

Whitefriars:
Headstone Manor & Museum

Royal Brierley Studioware

Glass capacity changes 1700-1800

A Stourbridge glass craftsman
Memories of Ulrica Vallien

Events & News

GLASS
ISSN 2516 – 1555

Issue 2 June 2018
Jointly published by

The Glass Circle and

The Glass Association.
© Contributors, The Glass Association and

The Glass Circle

Editor
Brian J Clarke

[email protected]

Design & layout
Athelny Townshend

athelnygraphics@aolcom

Printed by

Warners Midlands plc

www.warners.co.uk

Next copy date: 30 September 2018

E-mail news & events to

[email protected]

‘Neither the Gals Circle’s nor the Glare Assexiarion’s committee members beer any
responsibility for the views espressedin this publication. which are those of the
contnburor in

each case. Copyright is acknowledged fn. the photographs Amman g articles, though neither
the Ediror nor the committees or e responsible for inadvertent infringements. Ail photographs

are copyright the nothni. unless otherwise credited.”
I

n Glass Matters

we’ve

put together a wealth of

articles with varied inter-

est, reaching out to all of our
members. Research can lead

to the understanding of less

known glassmaking process-
es and the times and history

of the glass workers involved.
Collecting is often inspired by

this accumulation of accurate

information. We are thus for-
tunate to have two in-depth

articles from accepted author-
ities in their fields: by Dwight
Lanmon and Bill Gudenrath

on the silvered bowl goblet

and by Simon Cottle on the

Field Cup, the former attrib-

uting the goblet to a later date

and the latter as an authentic
antiquity. Sharing his years

of
experience, John Smith

invites us in to view five en-

graved glasses from his collec-
tion, along with memories of
his years as chairman of the
GC and his continuing inter-

est and activity in the glass

world, in particular with the
White House Cone museum of
glass (WHCmog). Stourbridge
provides two articles in this
issue: James Measell has con-
tinued his historical research,

filling in the gaps in written
knowledge on the early years

of John Northwood and the

story on Reg Everton links
the older days of glass crafts-

men in Stourbridge to the
techniques of cutting and en-

graving today. Other than the
well-known story of the 18th
century gentleman who was

advised to drink only one glass
of wine a day to stay healthy

and then had a massive balus-
ter goblet made for him, the

bowl easily containing a bot-
tle of wine (!) the bowl sizes
of glasses through the i800s

have been wide-ranging; Si-
mon Wain-Hobson sheds

light into their variety. An-
other member absorbs our

attention with a 19th century

bottle from his collection, ex-
ceptionally engraved, posing

whether it was made by Keller.
Richard Giles describes a com-

memorative paperweight and
Hailey Baxter at Headstone
Manor & Museum informs us

how the history of Whitefriars
is being used to excite a new

generation into the ‘wonders
of glass’. Lastly, two personali-
ties in the glass world, Jo Mar-

shall and Ulrica Vallien have
recently passed away; memo-

ries of both are included.

FRONT COVER:
Detail of iridescence on a broken late 16th or early
18th century Dutch or German romer recovered from

a canal during an archaelogical ‘dig. Fragment 70

x38mm suggesting an original height of approximately

160mm.
Athelny Townshend
THE GLASS ASSOCIATON COMMITEE MEMBERS:

The Glass

Association Registered as a Charity No.326602: Website: www.glassassociation.org.uk:

Charles Hajdamach:
Life President;
[email protected]:

David Willars:
Chairman:

[email protected]:
Judith Gower:

Hon.

Secretary:
Maurice Wimpory,
Membership Secretary & Treasurer:

membership@

glassassociation.org.uk: 150 Braemar Road, Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands,
B73 6LZ:
Nigel Benson: Paul Bishop:
Vice-Chairman:

Brian Clarke:

Publications Editor:
[email protected]:

Christina Glover: Alan

Gower: Bob Wilcock

THE GLASS CIRCLE COMMITEE MEMBERS:
Website: www.

glasscircle.org.uk:
Simon Cottle:

Honorary President:
Susan Newell:
Chairman:

[email protected]:
Laurence Maxfield:

Honorary Treasurer:
treasurer@

glasscircle.org:
Shaun Kiddell:
Honorary Secretary:
[email protected]:

Vernon Cowdy:
Website Manager:
[email protected]:
Geoffrey Laventhall:

Anne Lutyens-Stobbs:
Meetings Organiser:

James Peake: John P Smith:

[email protected]:
Athelny Townshend:
Graphic Design:
designer@

glasscircle.org:
Anne Towse: Graham Vivian

GLASS MATTERS EDITORIAL SUB-COMMITEE MEMBERS:
Nigel Benson:
GA;

Brian Clarke:
GA;
Susan Newell:
GC;
AthelnyTownshend:

GC;
Simon Wain-Hobso:
GC;
Bob Wilcock:

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

Susan Newell,

Chairman of The
Glass Circle

David Willars,

Chairman of The

Glass Association
CHAIRMEN’S LETTER

chairmedf
MESSAGE

Dear Members,

Welcome to Glass Matters
No.2

We are delighted to say the

Glass Circle and the Glass

Association, the joint bodies

responsible for Glass Matters,

are now fully engaged in the
process of becoming one

bigger and better society
dedicated to the appreciation

and study of glass.
Members know that the two

organisations have been shar-

ing activities and meetings

over the last couple of years,

and this joint publication is
the most important tangible

sign that it is beneficial for

us to work as one body. We

now need to form a single

administrative and financial

framework and choose an ap-

propriate name. Both com-

mittees support the proposed

merger, and we can now look

forward with optimism to
operating as a single society

during the coming transition-

al year and beyond. Each so-

ciety has its own governing

principles (The Glass Circle’s

Constitution and the Glass As-

sociation’s Rules) and you will

have been contacted with de-

tailed information about the

merger. We urge Glass Circle

members to attend the Ex-

traordinary General Meeting

to vote on the motion about

the merger at the Art Workers

Guild on Thursday 28th June

at 7pm, prior to Sylvie L’Her-
mite-King’s lecture.

One significant issue is

choosing the name of the

merged group. Several sugges-

tions have already been made,

although currently there is

no outstanding favourite. For
convenience in the short term,

we will be known as ‘The Glass

Society’, although this will not
necessarily be the name adopt-

ed on a permanent basis. It is

very important for the chosen
name to be internet friendly.
We welcome your suggestions

for a name for the new society,
the main contenders being:

1 ‘The Glass Guild’
2 ‘The Glass Society’

3 ‘Glass Matters

To return to Glass Matters, we

were encouraged by the posi-

tive response to our first issue

from members, and we hope
to maintain this high standard

with issue no
2,
by covering a

broad range of subjects, re-

flecting the interests of our

members. Please remember
however, that this is your mag-

azine and the content should

very largely be driven by you

and indeed, contributed by

you. The edit-orial team is

there in part to interpret your

suggestions for regular articles
or features, but they need you

to provide the content. If you

have a glass-related subject

about which you are knowl-

edgeable, maybe a particular

maker or collection, or indeed

your own collection, please get

in touch with the Editor. We
are happy to provide guidance

on writing up the material and

assist as required.

Individual collections are

a major topic of interest for

members, and we reported

last time on the Eila Grahame

collection that arrived recently

in Stourbridge via the Arts

Council. Similar work is

now being undertaken on

another important bequest,

again at Stourbridge, known

as the Pilkington collection.

Likewise, a part of the

Batchelor bequest is being

prepared for an exhibition at

the Fitzwilliam Museum in

Cambridge later this year. In

fact, a few of us were privileged

to attend a joint event at the
Fitzwilliam in April when we

had a glass-themed tour of
the galleries and were allowed

to handle glass under the
curator’s supervision. Once

again this shows how such

an event can bring mutual

benefits as not only did we
get a taste of the Fitzwilliam’s

magnificent collection but the

museum has now enlisted our

help and expertise in providing
more information about

specific items. Collecting is,
however, a very personal

pursuit that grips people in

different ways. Recently we’ve

had the pleasure of visiting

a member’s collection in

Lancashire featuring some

spectacular pressed glass,

and later this month we will

visit another collection at the

wonderful West Stow Hall in

Suffolk. Looking and learning

from other people’s collections
can lead to re-appraising the

items many of us have on our

own shelves — some may even

go on to weed out a few early
purchases or `learning pieces’

in an attempt to refine or
rationalise their collections.
Plans are in hand to focus

upon members’ collections in

forthcoming issues.
In conclusion, this is your

society and the contents of

the magazine, the number

and location of our activities

are driven very largely by you.

Running any group takes a lot

of enthusiasm, time and effort

and the work of all committee
members in this regard is very

much appreciated. In order

to maintain our national, if

not international identity, as

well as featuring glass of all

periods, we need your help.
Please, if you have anything

to contribute, get in touch via

the Editor. We look forward to

hearing from you.

Susan Newell
&

David Willars

Chairmen of The Glass Circle

and The Glass Association

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

ENGRAVED FLIGHTS OF FANCY

THE
Keller
BOTTLE

by A Collector

I
bought this bottle several

years ago and it holds pride
of place in my collection.

This article is intended to

share my pleasure with you.
Arthur Churchill offered the

bottle for sale in his
1957

sell-

ing “Exhibition of Engraved

Glasses”. Lot 4o of the cata-

logue includes a photo of the
bottle, so there can be no mis-

taking its identity. The entry
reads:
`40. A Wine Bottle. 9
1
/4″, in dear

fine quality glass with the usual

kick in base: engraved all over

with an almost forest scene
showing animals, birds, flow-

ers, grapes, and cupids, scale

cut on neck. Perhaps by Keller.

Third qr. 19th century.
Superb work in fine condition.”
£20

Firstly, a price of
£20

appears

ridiculously cheap. An online

application suggests that to-

day’s equivalent is
£459.54.

Not quite so ridiculous but

still very little for a unique
piece of such high quality.
The bottle is continental

chalk glass and could be earlier
than the 3rd quarter 19th cen-

tury although the engraving

is undoubtedly of that period.
The
mixture of subjects en-

graved on the bottle is bizarre,

with wild animals, birds, flow-
ers, grape vines and cherubs
jostling each other for space.

There is barely a square centi-
metre which has not felt the
engraver’s wheel. The scale of
the various items is inconsis-
tent as you will see in the four

photographs, Figs. 1 to
4.

Starting at the bottom in

Fig.i. there is a swan swimming

on a pond, with its wings raised

like sails. The most remarkable
RIGHT: Fig.i

The angry swan
and the giant
tulip

RIGHT Fig.2

The ferocious wolf

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

ENGRAVED FLIGHTS OF FANCY

LEFT:
Fig.3

The putto and

the tiger

LEFT:
Fig.4

Columbine and

the heron
detail of the swan is that it has

a pointed beak, which gives

it a very angry look. Surely
the engraver must have seen

a swan in life or had he sim-

ply copied an early engraving

which showed such a creature.
The swan is looking behind it-

self, probably in amazement at
the enormous tulip behind it.

The flower of the tulip is larger
than the swan. Above the tulip

is a cherub or a putto which is

only slightly larger than the

tulip. However, having nev-

er seen a live cherub, it is not

possible to say whether or
not there is a problem of scale

here! The putto is reaching for

a bunch of grapes on a vine

which effectively provides the
background to this side of the

bottle. Each bunch of grapes is

approximately one tenth the
size of the tulip flower. Just

beyond the reach of the put-
to is a chrysanthemum flower

on much the same scale as the

tulip. The upper section of the

bottle is smothered in the vine

and other leaves. The top
sec-

tion
of the neck has the scale

cutting described by Arthur

Churchill.

The wolf at the bottom of

Fig.2 is the most frightening

depiction imaginable. It is ex-
tremely muscular and with its

bristling mane, ears back, eye

bright and large exposed teeth
it is a thing of nightmares or

possibly an escapee from one

of Grimm’s fairy-tales. Did the

wolf inhabit the same book

of illustrations as the swan?
Immediately above the wolf

are chrysanthemum leaves

and some buds. To the right

is a narcissus flower in a scale

similar to the tulip in Fig.i and
roughly equal to the height of

the wolf. Moving upwards we

come to the chrysanthemum

flower already seen in Fig.i.

The neck of the bottle is cov-

ered with an as yet unidenti-

fied flower with fruits.

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

ENGRAVED FLIGHTS OF FANCY

BELOW:

An enlargement

of fig. i to show
more detail

At the base of Fig.3 is a tiger,

possibly the least effective of

all the creatures on the bot-
tle. The front legs are stubby

and the proportions are just

wrong. The tiger is about two
thirds the size of the wolf in
Fig.z. Moving upwards there

are 3 narcissus flowers and a

briar with
2
buds and a rose

in flower. Above that another
putto, grape vines and an ‘ex-
otic’ bird. The vine, along with
the chrysanthemum flower

mentioned at Fig.2, cover the

neck of the bottle.
In Fig.4 the lowest level is

decorated with a species of

heron taking off from the
pond inhabited by the swan

at Fig.i. Above and behind the
heron are the leaves of the tu-

lip seen in Fig.i with the flow-
er just visible to the right. To

the left is the rose briar seen in
Fig.3. Immediately above the

heron’s head is a nondescript
flower. Above all of this is the

vine with grapes and the first

putto. The neck of the bottle is
covered with columbine flow-

ers and leaves on a scale sim-

ilar to the other flowers.
A capricious mix of subjects

where the animals and birds
are very loosely to one scale

and the plant life to another.
The quality of the engraving

is outstanding; only the tiger
is problematic. Arthur Chur-

chill clearly thought the qual-
ity was good enough to be by

an engraver of the standard of

Joseph Keller.
That the bottle is unique

cannot be questioned but why

was it produced? The bottle
itself is clearly of continental
origin which would point to

a continental engraver. Could

it be an apprentice piece? It

would be an exceptional ap-
prentice who could produce

work of this standard at that

stage of his career. Had it been
standard practice for appren-

tices to produce such items

surely there would be others
of its ilk. As an example of an
experienced engraver’s skill it

would have had a direct bear-
ing on his employability.
During the second half of

the i9th century, engraved
glass became very popular in

Britain. However, the British

glass industry did not have
sufficient home-grown talent
to meet the demand. So large

numbers of both glassmakers

and engravers were sought
from Bohemia. Few of these

immigrants would have been

able to speak English and even
if they could, what would be
more likely to ensure immedi-

ate employment than a practi-
cal example of their skill such

as this bottle? I like to think of
its creator, probably a young

glass engraver, making the
long journey across Europe to
find work in Britain. Would he
have carried this bottle as one

of the most precious items in
his knapsack? Perhaps he even

had to use it for drinking wa-

ter on his journey. When he

got to a British glassmaker

such as Thomas Webb, a fellow
countryman might have intro-

duced him to the engraving

shop manager and he would
have offered the bottle for ex-

amination and possibly been

offered work.
This bottle, which is basical-

ly Bohemian, tells the story
of glass engraving in Britain
during the second half of the
i9th century: how the de-
mand for engraved glass could

only be met with the help of

immigrant labour; how their

skill and expertise was essen-
tial to make and engrave the

glass and how animals, plants
and flowers became common
subjects on ‘British’ engraved

glass.
Finally, could it have been

engraved by Keller? or was it

any one of half a dozen tal-
ented immigrants? Short of

comparing the engraving on
the bottle with known work

we will never know. And quite

honestly I do not find it of

great importance. Knowing
who engraved it would not in-
crease my enjoyment one iota.

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

he Corning Museum of

Glass recently acquired

an unusual goblet (Fig.1)

whose age and manufacturing

source have been debated for
nearly 7o years’. The goblet is
of a non-lead composition of

pale greenish tint, and it has

a remarkable feature: the bowl
is double-layered and encases
metallic silver leaf between

two fused layers of glass. The

goblet has a slightly iridescent

surface. We will refer to it as
the “Corning goblet.”
The goblet has a fitted, silk-

lined, leather-covered wooden

box, which is of late 19th or
early loth-century date and

is probably of English origin

(Fig.2). There are no marks or
inscriptions on the case iden-

tifying its maker, date, or pur-

pose.

HISTORY

The earliest known reference
to the goblet was in 1948,

when E. B. Haynes illustrat-
ed and discussed it in Glass
through the Ages, where it was

identified as a “chalice, dou-

ble-blown bowl with silver foil
inserted. Mansell period, c.

1642.” Haynes also added: “The

LEFT:

Fig.i

The Corning

goblet. H. 18.1
cm; D. (bowl,
rim)
9.0
cm,

(foot) 7.6 cm.

The Corning

Museum of Glass

(2035.3.9a), gift

of Dwight and
Lorri Lanmon.

RIGHT:

Fig.2.
The fitted

box with the

Corning goblet.
L. 23.5 cm,

W. 13.2 cm,

H. 12.0 cm.

The Coming Museum
of Glass (2o15.3.9b)
DATING GLASS

A REMARKABLE
fr idescent goblet

WITH A
double-walled, silvered bold

17TH OR 19TH CENTURY?

Dwight P. Lanmon and William Gudenrath

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

DATING GLASS

metal is neither Venetian nor
Netherlandish, and it is tinged

on the foot with an iridescence

not due to burial or decompo-
sition.” The last statement is

disquieting, and it should have

been a warning flag to Haynes
and to those who catalogued

the glass later.
The goblet was acquired by

Walter F. Smith Jr. of Tren-
ton, New Jersey. Sotheby’s

dispersed the Smith Collection
in 1967 and 1968; the goblet

was catalogued as “‘Fawn-
de-Venise,’ probably Nether-

landish, late 17th century.
3

”

It brought a modest £40. The

goblet was again offered by

Christie’s (London) on July
9,
1997, where the Sotheby’s

attribution was repeated. The
glass sold for £3,680 to the late

London antique glass dealer
Christopher Sheppard, who

sold it to John H. Bryan of
Lake Bluff, Illinois. In his in-

voice, Sheppard identified the
glass as “… English from one
of the Mansell Glass Houses,

c. 1640. This glass was recov-
ered from a site in the City of

London that was destroyed

in 1642…” Most recently, the

glass was offered for sale at
Bonhams (London) on May
20,

2015.
It was catalogued as “an

exceptional early silvered gob-

let or chalice, 17th century.” The
glass was withdrawn before the

sale after doubts were raised as
to its authenticity.
Fig.3.

Underside

of the foot of the
Corning goblet,

showing allover
iridescence,

except on the
pontil mark

Fig.4.
View inside

the bowl of the

Corning goblet,
showing a tiny

pontil mark in the
bottom, overlap-
ping areas of the
sheets of silver

leaf, and a rippled
interior surface

THE IRIDESCENCE
Recent close examination

of the goblet confirms that

Haynes’s observation was cor-

rect: the iridescence was not a

product of “burial or decom-
position.” Proof that the iri-
descence is incontrovertibly of

late 19th-century date at the
earliest—not mid-17th centu-
ry—is threefold:
1. There is no iridescence on

the pontil mark on the bottom
of the foot, proving that the
iridescent coating was added

while the glass was still at-
tached to a pontil (Fig.3).
4

2.
X-ray fluorescence (XRF)

analysis of the surface of the

glass detected the presence of
tin and trace amounts of cop-
per, iron and arsenic, which

indicates that the iridescence

was probably produced using

a spray of stannous chloride in
solution.
,

3.
The process of spraying or

fuming an iridescence-produc-
ing material onto glass was de-

veloped in the mid-i800s.

THE GOBLET’S CONSTRUCTION
The construction of the gob-

let raises further doubt that
it could be of 17th-century
date. Most significantly, there

is a tiny rough pontil mark

inside the bowl (Fig.4). This is
evidence that the object was
made in two sections—the

bowl separately from the stem

and foot—using a technique
developed in Venice, which be-

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

DATING GLASS

LEFT: Fig.5a

interior

& BELOW: Fig.5b

exterior

of
a ribbon glass

cup, made in
imitation of a
first-century

Roman prototype.

Italy, Venice,

Salviati and Co.,

about 1879. H.

17.3 cm, D. (rim)
9.2
OM
The Corning

Museum of Glass

(8
2
.3.54).

came common practice there

in the late i800s.

MAKING THE GOBLET’S BOWL
Close inspection of the bowl-

reveals that the silver lining

was produced using silver leaf,
not powdered silver) and that

it was not expanded signifi-

cantly in the process of form-
ing it, resulting in its metallic

appearance. To construct the

bowl, a tube of colourless glass

was covered on the interior
with silver leaf, perhaps using

water with gum arabic as an

adhesive. The tube was heated

and attached to a blowpipe.

A small, thin bubble of glass
was carefully lowered into the
tube and rapidly inflated, thus

thinly lining the tube’s interi-

or and trapping the silver leaf.

The Venetian term for this still

widely used process of thin-

ly lining one bubble of glass

with another is
sbruffo.
After

reheating, the outer end of the

tube was closed, and the sides

were tapered. Throughout this

process, care was taken only to

diminish the diameter of the
tube, thereby avoiding any ex-

pansion that would cause the

silver leaf to break up and be-

come dispersed.

IRIDESCENCE

A significant aspect of the his-
torical revivalism that dom-

inated the decorative arts in
Europe and America during

the late 1800s was an interest

in replicating many types of

ancient glass. The brilliant-

ly colored, iridescent surface
found on some excavated glass

appealed to glassmakers who
endeavored to replicate the vi-

sual effect chemically. At least
three different processes to

produce iridescent surfaces on

glass were developed, but the

one used on the Corning gob-

let was by spraying or fuming

with metallic vapours during
the final stage of production.

A Hungarian physician and

chemist, Dr. Le6 Valentin
Pantocsek (1812-1893), who

worked at the Zlatn6, Hungary
(now Slovakia) glassworks of

Janos Gjorgy Zahn, is credited

with the invention of a process
for iridising glass by fuming in

the 185os.
6

The Corning goblet

could not, therefore, date from

before the late 185os.

WHO MADE THE GOBLET?

The manufacture of glass ves-

sels incorporating metal leaf
within their walls was not
uncommon in Europe during

the late 19th century. The

earliest date that the authors

found in which the technique

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

DATING GLASS

BELOW:
Fig.6

Filigrana
goblet

with silver leaf

encapsulated
within the bowl.
Italy, Venice,

Salviati and
Co. or Artisti
Barovier,

attributed
to Giuseppe
Barovier, about

1870-1890. H.
20.2
cm, D. (rim)

i.o.6 cm.
The Corning Museum
of Glass (79.3.1126,
bequest of
Jerome Strauss)

was observed was at the 1867

Exposition Universelle in Par-

is, where Salviati of Venice

showed vessels with “gold me-
tallic particles floating, so to

speak, in the glass.”
7

The pro-

cess had been disseminated

widely by 1878, when several
English and Continental glass-

makers exhibited encased-leaf

glass at the world’s fair in Par-

is.
Among them, the Aurora

Glass Company in London
produced a wide variety of

metal-encrusted

glassware

in the late 187os and patent-
ed techniques for decorating

glass with metal leaf encased

within the walls of a vessel in

1876 and 1878.
8

Those patents

describe a technique similar
to that used to produce the

bowl of the Corning goblet,

but observers of the Aurora
products consistently

noted that the
thin gold,

silver,

and

platinum leaf in
the glass…. has

the appearance
of fine metallic

dust, incorporated
throughout the en-

tire substance of it.”

Likewise, all of the de-

scriptions of metal-en-
crusted glass from other
factories mentioned the

same feature: the leaf was

burst, through blowing, to cre-
ate an uneven distribution of

the metal.
Venice is another obvious

place to search for the iden-

tity of the maker of the Corn-

ing goblet. The two most likely

suspects are the Salviati firm
and the follow-on Venice and

Murano company.
Salviati was very familiar

with the process of en-

casing metal leaf

between layers
of glass because

of his reproduc-
tions of mosaic gold-glass tes-

serae. He described the tech-
nique in 1865: “On a ground of
thick glass or enamel . . . there

is laid a leaf of gold or silver

which is attached principally

by the action of fire; then a
film of purest glass is spread

over it, and this may either be
perfectly colorless or of any

tint that may be required.”
1

While encasing metal foils

within the walls of a blown
glass vessel was technically the

same as producing mosaic tes-

serae, keeping the leaf intact

presented a very different and
difficult challenge. The process

was perfected in the produc-
tion of imitation ancient Ro-

man gold glass decorated with
Christian and other Roman

symbols in gilding between
two layers of glass. It was in-

troduced at the Venice and
Murano Company in

1874.
An example of

Salviati’s imitation

of a Roman gold-

band glass shown in

Figs.5a and 5b (pre-

vious page) is also sig-

nificant; its importance

to this study is the pres-

ence of a continuous lay-

er of silver foil behind the

coloured exterior bands,

which is further encased

with an inner layer of colorless

glass. The silver foil inside the
bowl has not been expanded,
and the interior of the bowl

and the foot are iridized.
The remarkable goblet

shown in Fig.6 also shares
important features with the
Corning goblet, and it has a

Salviati connection. It is close-

ly related in both decoration
and form to a goblet which is
owned by Rosa Barovier Men-

tasti, great-granddaugh-
ter of the maker; it
was made about 1890
by the maestro Gi-

useppe Barovier (1853-
1942) at Artisti Barovier. The

bowl has silver foil encased

between two layers of glass—
in this case, with a tartan-like
design (filigrana) of crisscross-

ing transparent colored glass
threads. The same goblet form

was made at the Salviati facto-

ry as early as the late 186os.”

While the molded lion-mask
knop on the goblet is different

from the simple egg-shaped
knop on the Corning goblet,

the avolio structures above

and below are similar on the
two glasses. This feature, in

addition to the use of silver

foil within the bowl, further
relates the two goblets to each

other.
In addition, the stem of an

enamelled goblet (Fig.7) made

by the Salviati company about

1868, in the collection of The

Metropolitan Museum of Art

in New York City, is essentially

identical to that on the Corn-

ing goblet, and there is also a
pontil mark inside the bow1.
12

CONCLUSIONS
1.
The Corning goblet is not

a rare survival from a mid-i7th
century London glasshouse.

2.
The Corning goblet was

made to look old by iridising

its surface. We believe that

it was made when there was

widespread interest in reviv-

ing earlier glassmaking tech-
niques and reproducing earlier

styles of glass – that is, during
the late 19th century.

3.
We believe that the goblet

was produced by the Salvia-
ti company of Venice in the

187os.
4.
By the time the glass was

published in Glass through
the Ages in 1948, it may have

acquired a fabricated “history”
of having been found in a

house destroyed in 1642 at

the outset of the English Civil

War.
5.
The goblet is an important

and possibly unique example

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

DATING GLASS

of highly sophisticated glass-

making skills introduced and

perfected in Venice in the late
i800s.

AUTHORS
Dwight Lanmon is the For-

mer Director, The Corning
Museum of Glass, Director

Emeritus, Winterthur Muse-

um and Honorary Vice-Presi-

dent, The Glass Circle.
Bill Gudenrath is the Resi-

dent Advisor at the Studio of

The Corning Museum of Glass.

ENDNOTES

1. This article is a significantly re-
duced version of a paper of the

same title published in Volume 59
(2017) of the
Journal of Glass Stud-

ies.

2. E. Barrington Haynes,
Glass

through the Ages,
Harmondsworth,

Middlesex, U.K.: Penguin, [1948],

pp. 119-12o and pl. 31a.

3.
The Walter F. Smith Collection: Cat-

alogue of an Important Collection of
Glass,
London: Sotheby’s, July 8,

1968, p. 15, lot
8

94.

4. A suggestion that a genuine

17th-century glass might be gradu-
ally heated and then reattached to

a pontil, with iridescence sprayed
on, is without merit. First, there

is significant danger that the glass
would shatter in doing this; sec-

ond, there would be no purpose,

since most intact glasses dating

from the 17th century are not ir-

idescent; and third, the spraying

would have to have been done be-
fore the stem was broken, which

predated the first publication of
the goblet in 1948. There would

have been little potential financial

gain if it had been done before the

glass was broken.

5. The chemistry of this iridescence

was confirmed by XRF analysis
(personal communications, Ste-

phen P. Koob to Dwight Lanmon,

June 29 and July
2,
2015).

6. David Whitehouse,
Reflecting An-

tiquity: Modern Glass Inspired by

Ancient Rome,
Corning: The Corn-

ing Museum of Glass, 2007, p. 207;

Vera Varga,
Glass and Radiance: Ir-

idescent and Lustered Glasses from

the Second Half of the Nineteenth
Century to the 1910’s in the Collec-

tion of the Museum of Applied Arts,

Budapest,
Budapest: the museum,

2000,
pp. 53-67.

7.
The Illustrated Catalogue of the Uni-

versal Exhibition, Published with the

Art Journal, v. 2, London and New
York: Virtue, [1868],

p. 106.

8.
English Letters Patent, no. 4217,

“Glass and Pottery (Improvements
in the Manufacture and Orna-
mentation of Articles of Glass and

Pottery),” issued to Paul Raoul de
Faucheux d’Humy, October 31, 1876;

sealed December
21,

1876, Specifica-

tion, pp. 2-3. English Letters Patent,
no.
600,
“Manufacture and Orna-

mentation of Articles Formed of
Glass, Pottery, and Metals, &c. (Im-

provements in the Manufacture and

Ornamentation of Articles Formed

of Glass, Pottery, and Metals, and of
Combinations Thereof, and in Means

or Apparatus Employed Therein),”

issued to Paul Raoul de Faucheux

d’Humy, February 13, 1878; sealed

April 9,1878, Specification, p.
7.

9.
“British Glass at the Paris Exhibi-

tion,”
The Pottery & Glass Trades’

Journal, v.
1,
no. 8, August 1878,
p. 116.

Antonio Salviati, On
Mosaics (Gen-

erally) and the Superior Advantages,

Adaptability and General Use in the
Past and Present Age, in Architectur-

al and Other Decorations, of Enamel
Mosaics: Being a Paper Read before

the Leeds Philosophical and Literary

Society on February 21st,
1865, Lon-

don: Wertheimer and Co., 1865, p.

A goblet of this form was acquired

by the Victoria and Albert Muse-
um in 1868. See also Salviati gob-

lets in the same form, made be-

tween 1869 and 1872, in the Museo

del Vetro, Murano (acc. nos. 03371

and 03372).

12.
A Salviati enamelled and gilded

colorless goblet of related form, ac-
quired in 1868, is also in the collec-
tion of the Victoria and Albert Mu-

seum, London (acc. no. 895-1868).

ABOVE:

Fig.7

Transparent blue

10.

glass goblet with

the enamelled
portrait and arms

of Nicole da Pon-

te (1491-1585).
Italy, Venice,

Salviati and Co.,

decorated by
Leopoldo Bear-

zotti, about 1868.

11.

H. 21.3 cm.

The Metropolitan Mu-
seum of Art (81.8.240,

g
ift of James Jackson

Jarves, 1881)

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

LEFT:

Fig.i

Apothecary

vessel

BELOW:
Fig.2

Biggar decanter

ENDS & BEGINNINGS

FIvE
engraved glasses
AND A

lucky man

John Smith

I
ast

November I retired

from the Chairmanship

of The Glass Circle after

fourteen happy years. The
Circle was solvent, I was

extremely happy with my

successor and discussions
with The Glass Association

were proceeding slowly

but amicably. Also during

my tenure, the
Glass Circle

News
became a wonderful

magazine of reference under

the editorship of Jane Dorner,

the design and photography of

Athelny Townshend and the

proofreading of Anne Towse

and others.
We visited Scotland and I

also led several expeditions

abroad, widening our mem-
bers’ understanding of glass

beyond the British Isles.
Memorable moments include
the trip to the Czech Republic

with 92 travellers, members
of the Glass Circle and the
Glass Association, where, in

addition to viewing glass, we

were entertained to a show by
local school children and had

our own concert in the Novy
Bor church. We went on a trip
to Cologne during Fasching,

when it was announced two
weeks before we left that
all the museums would be
closed; we found plenty else

to do! Also, during our visit
to the USA we nearly had no

bus in Detroit, and actually
ended up in a school bus, a

very American experience.

Soon after retiring, I was
rushed off to the Chelsea and

Westminster Hospital where
I remained for 19 days. The
operation was successful and

my current chemotherapy

seems to be working.
I have since visited Maast-

richt to vet the TEFAF fair, and

also Prague, for a conference of
`The European society for Light

and Glass’. We had a day trip
to Pilzen where not only is the

beer good, but they also have a
wonderful museum. Fig.i is of
an early glass in the museum,
concerning an apothecary

subject about removing a

worm from a vein; members’
thoughts on its origin will be

most welcome. (You can reach

me at johnpsmith@globalnet.

co.uk.)
These of you who visited my

Suffolk home in September

will have seen my rather
eclectic collection. When I

was working at Mallett I was
not allowed to collect glasses

similar to those we sold –
largely neither could I afford
them; my reputation would

have been harmed if it was
thought that I was taking the

best items home. Not that that

stopped Eila Grahame, who
owned her own business, as
reported in the last edition of

this new magazine.
I have chosen a few mem-

orable engraved glasses from the

18th, i9th and 2oth centuries.
The half-pint decanter,

c176o (Fig.2), I imagine for

whisky, depicts a house in
Biggar, Scotland which is
I believe, still standing. It

would be nice if this went to

the Biggar museum. On the
reverse is engraved ‘Rev John

Low, Biggar, Ordained 1761’.
The goblet (Fig.3), is French

ci86o, probably by Baccarat,

or possibly by St. Louis, with

a colour twist stem, cased in

red glass, and engraved with

Chateau Pierrefonds, showing

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

LEFT: Fig.3

Chateau Pierre-
fonds

ABOVE:
Fig.4

by Eestmir Cejnar

RIGHT: Fig.5

Vase by Peter

Dreiser
ENDS & BEGINNINGS

ABOVE:
Fig.6

A
Plaque by

Jane Webster

it in its ruined state before it

was rebuilt by Napoleon III.
The straw-coloured slab of

glass (Fig.4) is engraved on
the reverse with a very strong

image signed by Eestmir
Cejnar, who worked in The

Czech Republic during the
communist era.

The vase (Fig.5) is by our

late member Peter Dreiser,
engraved in the 197os; I

bought it at auction and when
I showed it to Peter he said

that he had wondered where it

had gone.
I commissioned the plaque

(Fig.6), engraved with a

Wagnerian subject, from Jane

Webster, another late member.
Lastly, there’s the wonderful

old goblet, engraved by Lesley
Pyke and illustrated in the last

Glass Matters, which you all

kindly gave me, together with
the smaller one which I use

regularly.

I am now very much involved

with the new White House
Cone project as a trustee of

The British Glass Foundation.

The project has at last been
awarded quite a large tranche

of money from the Heritage
Lottery Fund, and so can plan

ahead. The museum is unlikely
to be fully open before 2019 or

2020,
but is occasionally open

for special events such as the

Glass Association’s AGM back

in 2016.

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

ROYAL PAPERWEIGHT

Queen Elizabeth
HPLATINUM
WEDDI G

ANNIVERSARY
Paperweights

Richard Giles

RIGHT:

A detail of the
EP and 7o
canes

BELOW:
A
general view

of the whole
paper weight

he list of milestones in the

Queen’s reign as monarch

continues to grow. Hot

on the heels of becoming the

longest-reigning monarch in

our history in September
2015

and reaching her 9oth birth-
day in 2016, she achieved her

loth or platinum wedding an-
niversary in November 2017.

For the first two events Mi-

chael Hunter of Twists Glass
in Selkirk, Scotland produced
a small number of paper-

weights for Goviers, the gift

shop in Sidmouth, Devon and
these were documented in my

articles in Cones 109 and
111.

For the latest milestone he

was again persuaded to make

a small number of
weights to commemorate the

event which all feature special
EP and 7o canes.
The number of weights pro-

duced this time is even smaller
than for the previous events,

with just five one-off concen-
tric millefiori weights, five
closepack millefiori weights

and five scrambled or end-

of-day weights. Two of the
concentric weights feature a

central EP cane surrounded by

differing patterns of 7o canes,
two feature central 7o canes

with differing patterns of 7o
canes, and the last one has two
EP and two 7o canes around a

central complex millefiori cane.

Both the closepack and scram-
bled weights feature a

single example of
the EP and
7o canes.
As our examples of the two

previous weights featured
concentric and closepack
millefiori we decided this time

to go for one of the scrambled
or end-of-day weights and the

attached pictures give a gen-
eral view of the whole weight

plus an enlargement of the EP

and 7o feature canes.
Goviers also commissioned

Caithness Glass to make some

weights to commemorate the
event. The first, a large mul-
tifaceted weight featuring

a white flower form and 7o
canes in a limited edition of

7o, and the second, a weight

with one large front facet en-
graved with portraits of the
Queen and Prince Philip and
the dates November
1

947
–

2017, was produced in a limit-

ed edition of
200.

Whether there are any

more milestones to be marked

in the future remains to be

seen. The royal wedding in

May this year is the latest roy-

al event to be celebrated and it
will be interesting to see if the
tradition of marking the event

with souvenir items will be

continued.

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

THE FIELD CUP

The
FIELD

Cup

A Venetian glass
MASTERPIECE
of the late 15th
CENTURY

Simon Cottle

T
he sale

at auc-
tion

London in
2000

by Christie’s of the
fabulous collection of
early Renaissance and Is-

lamic glass belonging to Bar-
oness Batsheva Rothschild

was a momentous occasion.
Originally the bankers to the

French state, the Rothschild

family, with their enormous

wealth, built up great collec-
tions of art, particularly from

the Renaissance period. In

the 19th century, Baron Al-

phonse James de Rothschild

assembled a vast collection of
objects reflective of the Medi-

aeval Kunstkammer or trea-

suries which were purchased
directly from antique dealers,

some of whom were unscru-
pulous in their presentation
to the family of fake copies.

Although there are
magnificent existing
collections formed

by the family, such as
the Waddesdon Bequest at
Fig.i

The Field Cup

(part, close-up)
Courtesy of

Bonhams, London

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

THE FIELD CUP

the British Museum from the
estate of Baron Ferdinand de
Rothschild, there is an aware-

ness today amongst connois-

seurs that they were fair game
to crooked dealers in the 19th

century and as a result a small

percentage of their collec-

tions may not be as they first

seemed. Against this back-
ground, the collection of the

Baroness, inherited from her

grandfather Baron Alphonse
James de Rothschild, was
therefore naturally treated

with some caution by the auc-
tioneers. Part of the collection
comprised fabulous Renais-

sance jeweller, some of which

at the time of cataloguing the
Christie’s specialists found to
be 19th century copies. Sadly,
this finding tarnished other

parts of the collection which
included the Venetian and Is-
lamic glass. The auctioneers
had grave concerns about the

authenticity of several of the
pieces, especially the Venetian

enamelled glass of the late

15th and early 16th centuries.
A number of the early enam-

elled Venetian pieces were

thought to be 19th century
copies, as indeed were one or
two of the 13th/14th century

Islamic glass mosque lamps.

Although there were some ex-

ceptional prices paid for three
pieces of 13th century Islamic

glass at the auction, the pric-
es for the remaining glasses

reflected the belief that they

were probably either of 19th
century manufacture or from

a later period than the Re-
naissance. However, the later

appearance of at least two of
the suspected 19th century Is-

lamic glasses at other auction

houses in London, reattribut-
ed to the earlier period, pro-

duced some surprising results

with at least one achieving a
seven-figure price.
One of the suspect Vene-

tian pieces, acquired by the
late Christopher Sheppard

as a probable 19th century
re-production, is now in the
collections of the Chicago Art
Institute and convincingly at-
tributed to the late 15th cen-

tury. Christopher strongly be-

lieved that the piece was of an
early date though his claims

were treated with initial scep-
ticism. Following new research
undertaken by Christopher

and myself, it was subsequent-
ly offered by Bonhams at auc-
tion in London on 3 June 2009

as a late 15th century example.
Despite this new research con-

cluding that it was a Renais-

sance piece, potential buyers
were still sceptical of an early
attribution and it was bought-
in by the auctioneers. Howev-
er, my research, encouraged

by Christopher’s strong belief
in its early origins, has now

been endorsed by its addition
to the collections in Chicago

and through its acquisition

and public display has hope-

fully erased any doubts to its
authenticity.
On a visit to the Art Insti-

tute in 2017 I therefore had the

pleasure of seeing the bowl in
its proper context in the newly

opened Deering Family Galler-
ies of Mediaeval and Renais-

sance Art, Arms and Armour.
Nonetheless, fuller research

on the bowl’s background has
not been made public, there-

fore I feel that now is the time
to reveal my findings.
My research into Christo-

pher Sheppard’s bowl pro-
duced some surprising in-

formation which was not

available to Christie’s in
2000.

This is published in its entirety

below.
Of 16.5cm high by 20.8cm

diameter, the bowl was de-

scribed in the catalogue as a

Venetian enamelled and gilt

blue-tinted standing bowl, late

15th century. It is of rounded
form with a folded rim, and is
painted with pairs of winged

sphinxes opposing a cherub’s
head emerging from a vase

alternating with pairs of cher-
ubs seated on gilt urns, on a

grassy sward and reserved on a

ground of gilt scrolling foliage.

A gilt band inscribed TEN-
PORE FELICI MVLTI NOMI-

NANTVR AMICI, (translated

as ‘In times of abundance one
has lots of friends’) sits below
the rim and the cup is set over

a high trumpet foot with fold-
ed rim brushed with gilding.
The provenance was set out

as follows: George Field Baron

Alphonse de Rothschild (1827-

1905), Paris Baron Edouard de
Rothschild (1868-1949), Paris

Baroness Batsheva de Roth-

schild (1914-1999), Tel Aviv
Rothschild Inv.nos.P.48 and

E.de R.261(?) Sold at Christie’s,

The Collection of The Late Bar-
oness Batsheva de Rothschild,

14 December
2000, lot 23. It

is known to have been exhib-
ited at the Art Treasures of

the United Kingdom in Man-
chester in 1857 where it was

illustrated by J.B.Waring,
Cat-

alogue of the Art Treasures of
the United Kingdom collected

at Manchester in 1857,
in the

section headed ‘The Museum
of Ornamental Art’, London
(1858), chromolithograph, p1.2.
The sphinx motif (see Fig.2

opposite right)appears on a

green beaker attributed to

Venice, circa 1500, formerly in
the Kunstgewerbe Museum,

Berlin (see R.Schmidt,
Das

Glas,
Berlin, 1912, p.93, p1.56

and F.A.Dreier,

vene-

zianischer Emailglas-Pokal,

Aus der Sammlmig Lady Ba-
got’,
Kunst & Antiquitaten,

Zeitschrift far Kunstfreunde

Sammler and Museen,
Heft III,

1986, p.56, p1.5). Although the
beaker was probably destroyed

during the Second World War
Schmidt describes it,
op rit,

as decorated with sphinxes,
cherub’s heads and putti. The

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

THE FIELD CUP

putti on the present exam-

ple bear a close resemblance
to those on a blue-tinted

standing bowl in the Cleve-
land Museum of Art, Ohio

(ex. collections Charles Stein,

Paris, and Maurice de Roth-

schild, Geneva) (see R.Barovi-
er-Mentasti
et al.,

exhibition

catalogue,
Mille anni di arte

del vetro a Venezia,
1982, p.81,

nos.7 1 a-c, and R.von Strass-

er and W.Spiegl,
Dekoriertes

Glas,
1989, p.28, p1.27).

No other blue-tinted Vene-

tian standing bowl with a gilt

band etched with an inscrip-
tion is recorded in the litera-

ture. A part-coloured shallow

bowl, however, in the Museo

Ala Ponzone, Cremona, with
a partial gilt amethyst-tint-
ed trumpet-shaped foot, is

also inscribed within a gilt
border below the rim. This
example was recorded in the

museum’s collection at least

as early as 184o (see R.Barovi-

er Mentasti et al,
Les Ages du

Verre,
p.176, no.51). Similar

inscriptions also appear on five

clear glass bowls from the late
15th century. See the example

exhibited in the Musee Ari-

ana, Geneva, 1995 (illustrated
Ernesto Wolf Collection,

see

B.Klesse,
European Glass from

1500-1800,
no.8) and another

in the Louvre Museum, Paris

(Inv.0Aii19). Four of the

bowls mentioned all have their
Latin inscriptions engraved in

capital letters in the old Latin

style on a gilt band applied to

the exterior.
George W. Field was born on

13 November 1798 and lived
at Ashurst Park, a large house

set in its own grounds close to
Tunbridge Wells, Kent. When
he assembled his art collec-
tion is unrecorded but Field

appears to have been well
known to some of the leading
connoisseurs of the day as a

collector of Renaissance and
Mediaeval art. On 17 Septem-

ber 1856, he was invited to

lend items to the exhibition
of the Art Treasures of the
United Kingdom to be held in

Manchester in 1857. The crite-

ria for the choice of exhibits

were largely based on the wide
personal knowledge of Brit-

ish private collections by the
noted German art historian

Gustav Waagen. Amongst the

Erwin Baumgartner,

Verre de

Venise,
pp.31 and 91, no.172),

one in the Victoria and Al-

bert Museum
(see
W.B.Hon-

ey,
Handbook of the Collec-

tions,
1964, p1.32C), another in

the British Museum, London

(see Hugh
Tait, The Golden Age

of Venetian Glass,
1979, p.38,

no.28), a fourth in the Wiirt-

tembergisches Landesmuse-
urn, Stuttgart (formerly in the
ABOVE:

Fig.3

Field Cup detail

of putti
Courtesy of Bonhams,

London.

BELOW;
Fig.2

A copy of the
J.B.Waring litho-

graph illustrating

the bowl in the

catalogue of the

exhibition of Art
Treasures of the

United Kingdom,
Manchester, 1857

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018
17

THE FIELD CUP

numerous items inspected by

J.B. Waring, the organiser of
the Works of Art section, the

bowl was selected for display.
Further 16th century items,

including ivories, bronzes

and wood carvings were also
selected. From the extensive

list of his exhibits found in the
City of Manchester archives,
Field’s collection was both

eclectic and diverse (M6/2/21).
They included ‘Queen Eliza-

beth’s Prayer Book, silver gilt

and enamelled, very rare and
fine work’ (p.206), ‘A very fine
crystal cup formerly part of
the Crown Jewels of France,

lately the property of Lou-
is Philippe’, ‘2 carved ebony
chairs from Strawberry Hill’
(p.140) and some fine Dutch

17th century oil paintings by
several of the leading masters
(M6/2/32). Of the glass that

was returned to him after
the closure of the exhibition
`i opal cup, i Venetian bowl,

blue and finely enamelled, 3
cups of Ruby glass and 2 Ve-

netian glass vases mounted’

are recorded. In the introduc-
tion to the section of the ex-

hibition catalogue devoted to
`The Museum of Ornamental

Art’, Waring acknowledged the
contributions of Earl Cado-

gan, Lord de Tabley, Mr. Field
and the Duke of Buccleuch as
`amongst the most remarkable

examples’ (Catalogue, 1857,

p.149). Field’s glass was exhib-

ited alongside that lent by Fe-
lix Slade who subsequently do-
nated his extensive collection

to the British Museum.
Blue-tinted glasses and espe-

cially footed bowls of this type

are well known in the corpus

of Venetian production of the

15th and early 16th centuries.
Indeed, Henry VIII of England

is known to have had ‘hi stand-

ing Cuppes of blewe glasses wt

covers to theym paynted and

guilte’ (see D.Battie and S.Cot-

tle,
Sotheby’s Concise Encyclope-
dia of Glass,

p.60). In shape and

form, one of the closest related

examples to the present lot is
the famous blue glass marriage

bowl, commonly known as
`The Angelo Barovier Cup’ (in

the Museo Vetrario, Murano –
see Barovier (1982), pp.74-78,
no.70). Angelo Barovier was
until recently credited with
the fine enamel decoration. He

was widely praised as one ‘who
knew the whole of the art of

glass’ and had won the respect
of Alphonse, King of Naples,
the French court and the Duke
of Milan. The Barovier Cup is

however now thought to date
from 1470-148o, some ten

years after Angelo’s death in
1460. As Hugh Tait has com-
mented, almost nothing is

known about the Venetians
who decorated these chefs
d’oeuvres of the Renaissance
and not one single glass can

be identified as the work of a

particular artist.
In recent years the dating of

Venetian enamelled and gilt

blue-tinted glass has been as-
sisted by excavations of burial
mounds in the Russian Cau-
casus. An area originally un-

der the control of the Mongol

khans of the Golden Horde
(1226-1502), the archaeological

evidence indicates that such

glass was produced in Venice

and traded via Italian colonies
established along the Silk Road

in the 14th and 15th centuries.

They include complete exam-

ples of purple, green and blue
glass decorated with scale and
dot and lozenge and flower

ornament typical of much of

the existing material (see the

article by Mark Kramarovsky,
`The import and manufacture
of glass in the territories of

the Golden Horde’, published

by Rachel Ward (ed.),
Gild-

ed and Enamelled Glass from
the Middle East,
British

Museum, 1998, pp.96-100).
Kramarovsky, a curator at
the Hermitage Museum, St.

Petersburg, refers to sever-

al coloured Venetian glasses
from the excavations now in

the museum’s collection in-
cluding a blue glass tankard

(fig.22.5) decorated in enamels
and gilding with flowers in di-

amond-shaped frames, found

in Digoria (Northern Ossetia,
Caucasus).
This

tankard is very

similar to an example former-

ly in the Rothschild Collection

attributed to the 19th century

(Christie’s, 14 December 2000,

lot 34).
For similar figurative deco-

ration, The Weoley Cup, a late

15th century Venetian clear
glass goblet, has a provenance

as early as
1547.
Presented to

The Worshipful Company of
Founders in London by its

Master, Richard Weoley, in

1642-43, this goblet is crucial
in the early dating of such
glass. According to Weoley, the
cup had been purchased from

a family whose ancestors had

brought it back from Boulogne
at the time it surrendered to
Henry VIII in 1546. This sto-

ry is given credibility through
the London hallmarks on the

silver-gilt foot, which can be

dated to
1547
and thus provide

the glass with an exceptionally
early provenance (see the exhi-

bition catalogue,
Gothic: Art for

England
1400-1547,
Victoria &

Albert Museum, 2003, p.208).
The date of the acquisition

by the Rothschilds of the ‘Field
Cup’ for their famed collec-

tion of Venetian and Islamic

enamelled glass is unknown.

Nonetheless, it may not be en-

tirely coincidental that Baron

Alphonse de Rothschild (1827-
1905) married his English
cousin Leonora in 1857. Her
uncle, Sir Anthony Rothschild,

was a major contributor to the
Manchester Art Treasures ex-

hibition in that same year, and
may have met George Field. It

is possible that Alphonse and

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

THE FIELD CUP

ABOVE:
Fig.4

The Field Cup
Courtesy of Bonhams,
London

Leonora visited the exhibition.

The above information was

the extent of the footnote to

the lot in the auction cata-

logue of 2009.
Just as with the Weoley Cup,

named after its last known

owner, Christopher’s bowl was

given the title ‘The Field Cup’
after George Field who was the
first to bring it to public atten-
tion. Sadly, neither the English

dealer who sold it recently
nor the Art Institute have ac-

knowledged this accreditation.

However, what was not

published in the Bonhams
catalogue, but which was dis-

covered just a few days before

the sale in 2009, was that a Ve-
netian enamelled and gilt blue

glass goblet, attributed to the
late 15th century, in the J. Paul
Getty Museum, bears an in-

cised gilt band inscribed with
Roman characters and scroll

identical to those on the Field
Cup. The goblet is illustrated

by Catherine Hess, ‘European
Glass in the J Paul Getty Mu-

seum’, published 1997, pp.84-

86. The form and other deco-
rative enamel features on this

goblet have been favourably
compared by the author to

other important vessels with a

15th century attribution in the
British Museum and the Kun-

stgewerbemuseum, Berlin.
An X-ray fluorescence anal-

ysis of the bowl, undertaken

in 2015 by Dr. Kelly Domoney

and Professor Andrew Short-

land, whose important project
on the chemical make-up of
enamels on porcelain and glass

has been supported by Bon-

hams since
2010,
concluded

that the results were consis-

tent with data obtained from

other Renaissance Venetian

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

Cour
tesy
o
f Simon
Co
t
t
le

(3
,

Vic
tor
ia
a
n
d
A
lber

THE FIELD CUP

glass and with traditional Re-
naissance Venetian glass reci-
pes dating to the 15th and 16th

centuries. Evidence of later

pigments and opacifiers avail-

able to 19th century decora-
tors but not to their forebears,

such as chromium green, calci-
um antimonite and lead arse-
nate, were not found. Further

examination in
2009
by Wil-

liam Gudenrath at Corning

Museum of Glass established

that the techniques of manu-

facture and the peculiarities
displayed in the glass, such as

the bubble between the foot
and the bowl, were consistent

with methods employed by Ve-

netian craftsmen.
The second and perhaps

most important finding was

that of similar decoration

which appears on Italian tin-

glazed earthenware (maiolica)
tiles made for the Palazzo del
Magnifico (Palazzo Petruc-

ci) in Siena, circa 1509. The

tiles formed part of a mai-

olica pavement designed for

a room in the palace of Pan-
dolfo Petrucci, ruler or tyrant

of Siena (1452-1512).
For a

full

discussion of the origin of the

ornament and a further his-

tory of these tiles, see Eliz-

abeth Miller & Alun Graves,
`Rethinking the Petrucci Pave-

ment’, pp. 94-118,
Journal of

Renaissance Studies,
Vol.24,

issue
1
(Feb. 2010). One of

the tiles from this set is dated

1509. The designs on the tiles,

several of which are now in
the Victoria and Albert Mu-

seum, included cherub heads

on stylised pedestal goblet

forms, animals with elongated
necks and opposing sphinxes

with tails which curl into acan-
thus leaf adornment on a blue

ground. There are also scat-
tered pairs of putti and vase

forms within the decoration

just as on the Field Cup. This

discovery was not available to
me when initially cataloguing

the bowl but was released as

a saleroom notice two days
before the sale in 2009. When
the Art Institute acquired the

bowl from an English deal-
er
2
years ago, Bonhams’ full

cataloguing appeared in the

dealer’s exclusive brochure.

Since it had not been formally

published, this important in-

formation was not known to
the dealer. Quite apart from

the fact that it establishes a

previously unknown compari-

son with maiolica and a design

source of provenance, that the

pavement was made in Siena,

a city close to Florence, intro-
duces the exciting prospect of

the bowl being of Florentine
rather than of Venetian ori-

gin. It may also place the bowl

within the first decade of the

16 th century rather than that
of the late 15th. However, just

as in
2000
when the methods

of analysis offered to us today

were not available to the spe-

cialists at Christie’s, research
into the Florentine glass in-

dustry is progressing and un-
til further more precise tech-

niques of identification are
developed we may not have

answers to this question for

some time to come.

Importantly today though,

the Field Cup has taken pride

of place in the spectacular set-
ting of the new galleries of one

of the leading art museums in

the world, a lasting tribute to

the late Christopher Sheppard

who never doubted the vessel’s
authenticity and a reminder to
me of the fast and ever chang-

ing advances in scholarship.

THE AUTHOR
Simon Cottle is the Managing
Director (European and US Re-

gions) of Bonhams, Chairman

European Board and UK Di-

rector, European Ceramics and

Glass. He is also well known in

the glass world as a previous

chairman of the Glass Circle,

currently and for many years

past, its Honorary President.

ABOVE: Fig.5

Petruzzi Palace

tile

BELOW: Fig.6
Petruzzi Palace

tiles
2

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

JOHN

NORTHWOOD EARLY YEARS

JohnNorthwoodiN
THE
R

L40S-L,50S

James Measell

ABOVE:
Fig.i

Photograph of

John Northwood

i taken by George
Woodall. Printed
from Woodall’s

original glass

plate negative.

With permission of

the Dudley Glass
Collection.

he extraordinary life of

John Northwood is, to

a great extent, an open

book. The pages of the North-

wood biography,
John North-

wood: His Contributions to the
Stourbridge Flint Glass Industry

1850-1902
written by his son

John Northwood II in
1958,

provide many details, and D.
R. Guttery’s
From Broad Glass
to Cut Crystal
and G. W. Beard’s

Nineteenth Century Cameo

Glass
are useful sources. Both

Charles Hajdamach’s
British

Glass
1800-1914

and Jason El-

lis’s
Glassmakers of Stourbridge

and Dudley
1612-2002
add

greatly to our understanding

of Northwood’s work. Most
recently, Hajdamach’s succinct

synopsis of John Northwood’s
career for the
Dictionary of

National Biography
and David

Williams-Thomas’s
The Dy-

nasty Builder
offer interest-

ing facts about Northwood.

There is, however, a yet to be

finished chapter in a full ac-

count of John Northwood’s

life, namely, the time from his

birth to the founding of the
J. & J. Northwood glass dec-

orating enterprise in the late

18508.

According to handwritten

notes by eldest son Harry

Northwood
(1860-1919),
John

Northwood was born in Word-

sley, Kingswinford, Stafford-

shire, on
19

October
1836.
Ellis

records that John Northwood,

son of Frederick and Maria
Northwood, was baptised in

Kingswinford on
17
November

1836.
The Public Record Office

(PRO) Census for
1841
lists the

entire Northwood family then

living in Wordsley: parents
Frederick (occupation: carpen-
ter) and Maria, both

35;
sons

William,
12,
John,
4,
and Jo-

seph,
2;

daughters Maria,

Eliza,
9,
and Mary,

So, John Northwood was

growing up during the ‘Hun-

gry Forties,’ a time of great

social and political change in
Britain. The first several de-

cades of the nineteenth cen-
tury were replete with legisla-

tion that reflected economic,

political and social forces that

impacted British life for many

decades.

Industrialisation,

characterised by steam power

and new technological process-
es, increased British economic

strength. Government policies

shifted from
laissez-faire
in

economic and social matters
to a climate in which politi-

cians advocated Government

intervention (financial sup-
port or legal restrictions), and

the populace welcomed such
activity. These political actions

were paramount: Reform Act
(1832);
Factory Act
(1833);
Poor

Law reforms
(1834);
formation

of the Committee of Council

on Education
(1839);

Gram-

mar Schools Act
(1840);

pro-

posed legislation in Graham’s

Factory Bill
(1843);

Factory

Acts
(1844
and

1847);
Muse-

ums Act
(1845);
repeal of Corn

Laws
(1846);
Public Health Act

(1848);
and the Public Librar-

ies Act
(1850).

The
1851

PRO Census has

William, Eliza, Mary, John

and Joseph Northwood resid-

ing with both parents Freder-

ick and Maria Northwood in

Wordsley. Father Frederick’s
occupation is listed as ‘car-

penter,’ and son William is

a ‘joiner.’ John Northwood’s

occupation m
1851 is

given as

`glass painter’ and the North-

wood biography credits his
`great drawing ability’ as the

key reason for his employ-

ment at such a young age. A

few years earlier in
1848,
at

age
12,
John Northwood had

been apprenticed to the glass-
making firm of W. H., B. and

J. Richardson in Wordsley. El-

lis characterises the Richard-

son decorating department

as a ‘hotbed of creativity’ and
notes that the Richardson

firm had registered numerous

designs and was the recipient

of various awards for its in-
novations in glass decorating.

Young John Northwood would
have been learning about

gilding and painting on glass
for a few years until, unfor-
tunately, the Richardson firm

was bankrupted and North-

wood joined his older brother
William in the building trade.

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

The Northwood biography re-

lates that John Northwood
did ‘paintings on wood panels’
during this hiatus from the

glass trade. Fortunately, the
Richardson enterprise was re-

started within a year or so, and
John Northwood returned to

its employ along with Josiah
Muckley, W. J. Muckley and

Thomas Bott, who later rose
to fame as a designer and dec-

orator of porcelain made in

Worcester by Kerr and Binns.
The Northwood biography

contains a photo of a page
from Northwood’s records of
his ‘piece work’ income from a

brief period in 1853.
Both John Northwood and

his younger brother Joseph

attended the Stourbridge

School of Art in the 1850s. A
drawing class had been offered

at the Mechanics’ Institute in
Stourbridge as early as 1848,

and John Northwood may
have attended this class with
the encouragement of his em-

ployer, the Richardson firm. In

1849, the House of Commons
empowered a Select Commit-

tee to look into the progress
of those schools teaching
drawing and design, and the
committee sent enquiries to

manufacturers of all sorts, in-
cluding Richardson and other

glassmaking establishments.
In its reply, Richardson stated

that ‘a school of design should
be established at Stourbridge

on purpose to instruct the
makers and cutters that are

employed in the Flint Glass

Works there. We have a small
school for general purposes,

and which we encourage as
much as we can.’
The Stourbridge Gov-

ernment School of Art was
founded in 1851, and glass
manufacturer Benjamin Rich-

ardson was a member of the
first governing council of the

school. Records from the De-
partment of Science and Art

and a local newspaper, the Bri-
erley Hill Advertiser, provide
details regarding John North-

wood’s time at the Stourbridge
School. After his workday,
he would have made his way
to Stourbridge to attend the
General Evening Class, which

met from 7 to 9:30
on
Mon-

days, Wednesdays and Fri-

days. The course of study was

the twenty three stage South
Kensington curriculum, which

was developed by artist Rich-
ard Redgrave. This curriculum
progressed from basic drawing
(with instruments or free-

hand) and shading with pencil

or charcoal to advanced draw-
ing of flowers and foliage from

nature or of the human fig-

ure. Exercises in painting and

modelling were preliminary to

the final stages of the curricu-

lum that dealt with design.
The art masters at the

Stourbridge School during
Northwood’s time were An-
drew MacCallum in 1852-

1854 and George Yeats, who
served from September 1854

to October 1863. Educated in
Nottingham and at the Head

School, Andrew MacCallum
(1821-1902) was assistant art

master at Manchester before
coming to Stourbridge in late

summer 1852. He remained
for about two years, until the
Department of Science and

Art awarded him a scholarship
for study in Italy. MacCallum
returned to Stourbridge as the

guest speaker at annual meet-
ings and prize-givings (Coun-
ty Express, 12 January 1884

and 15 January 1887). George

Yeats (1824-1901) came to the
Stourbridge School as classes

began in the fall of 1854. Born
in Scotland, he was a student

at the Government School of

Art in Glasgow in 1850-1852,
receiving prizes for drawing

from the antique and for draw-

ings from the life model. Yeats

was a sculptor and painter,
and the Advertiser praised his
bust of a Stourbridge benefac-
tor (the late Robert Scott) in

March 1856 and mentioned
that a class in modelling with

clay had been started.
Whilst at the Stourbridge

School of Art, John North-

wood’s achievements were

BELOW LEFT: Fig.2

This Department

of Science and Art
medal (45 mm

diameter) was

awarded during

1852-1855. The
reverse has these

embossed letters:
STUDENTS
PRIZE

BELOW:
Fig.3
This Department

of Science and
Art medal (55 mm
diameter) was

awarded during

1856-1896

BELOW RIGHT:
Fig.4
Reverse side of

the 1856-1896
medal.

Medals shown actual size

JOHN NORTHWOOD EARLY YEARS

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

A portrait of John

Northwood painted

by his son, John
Northwood ii

JOHN

NORTHWOOD EARLY YEARS

recognized at the institu-

tion’s annual meetings and

prize-givings. In autumn 1854,

Northwood gained a Gov-

ernment medal from the De-

partment of Science and Art

for work at Stage 4b (Fig.2),

shading ornament from a flat
example or copy, and, a year

later, he had a medal for shad-

ing the human figure or ani-

mal form (Stage 6a). In 1856,

his medal (Fig.3 and Fig.4),

was for colour painting of or-
nament from the flat or copy
(Stage ub). In 1858, the
Ad-

vertiser
(18 December 1858) re-

corded that John Northwood

had passed ‘all the subjects of
examinations of the second

grade’ (advanced free-hand
outline drawing, practical ge-

ometry, perspective model
drawing, and drawing from
memory) and that he was

awarded a Government certif-
icate and was entitled to con-

tinue at the school as a ‘prize

student’ whose fees would
be paid by the Government.

Along with his brother Jo-
seph Northwood, John North-
wood’s classmates in the 185os
included Thomas Bott, Edwin
Grice, Richard Guest, Thomas

Guest, Josiah Muckley, W. J.

Muckley and George Woodall.
In 1858, the Department of

Science and Art organized an
exhibition of manufactured

items that were designed by

students from the Head School
or the various provincial

schools that operated under
the aegis of the Department.

Introductory remarks by Spe-

cial Superintendent George

Wallis in the catalogue indi-
cated that the purpose of ‘the
Exhibition of Works of Orna-

mental Art [is] to illustrate

the action of the Schools of

Art throughout the country in
relation to manufacturing in-

dustry.’ The
Art-Journal
(July

1858) noted that the articles
in this exhibition are ‘the re-
sult of the instruction given to

the pupils, either as designers
or artisans.’ Nearly 700 works

were organised and set forth
in twelve divisions. More than

200
items comprised Division

2,
Ceramic Manufactures, and

other areas featured works in

metal, jewellery, lace and lin-

en, or carpets and tapestry, to

name just a few. Division 1 of

the exhibition was ‘Glass’ and

some of the articles described
in the catalogue are great trib-
utes to John Northwood per-

sonally and to the Stourbridge
School of Art generally. Exam-
ples of flint glass with cuttings

by Richard Guest and Thomas
Guest were on display, as were
decorated flint glass articles

designed and executed by Jo-

siah Muckley. In the Ceramic
Manufactures division, four

articles manufactured by Kerr

and Binns of Worcester and
painted in the ‘style of the old
enamels of Limoges’ by Thom-

as Bott were on exhibit.
One section of the Glass

Division exhibit was devoted

entirely to glassware credit-

ed to the design talents and

glass decorating skills of John
Northwood. According to the

catalogue prepared by George

Wallis, the eleven flint glass

items were ‘manufactured by
B. Richardson, Wordsley, near

Stourbridge’ and ‘designed
and executed by John North-

wood, Stourbridge: These ar-
ticles are listed as contained

within the display: flower
vase, champaigne [sic] glass,
finger basin, water jug, flower

vase, globe for a moderator

lamp, toilet bottle, decanter,
decanter, champaigne [sic]

glass, and wine glass. Unfortu-

nately, the catalogue contains

no illustrations of any kind

and no further descriptions of
John Northwood’s glassware

are given. These were likely
items that were gilded and/or

painted, and it is important
to note that the articles were

`designed and
executed
[em-

phasis added]’ by Northwood,

an indication that those peo-
ple who viewed the exhibition

were seeing John Northwood’s

handiwork. One wonders if

any of the items mentioned in
the exhibition catalogue can

be located and fully described
today.

The Northwood biography

includes an illustration (Fig.5

see next page) of an elaborate-
ly decorated crystal goblet at-
tributed to John Northwood

that dates c. 1854. The intri-

cately gilded scrollwork frames
the hand-painted portraits of

a group of three women. There
may be other hand-painted el-

ements that are not visible in
this photo. The ownership of

this decorated goblet is cred-

ited to the ‘C. Squires’ family,

and the PRO Census for 1851

lists a Charles Squires, who
is a maker of clay pots then
residing in Brettle Lane, Am-

blecote, a location populated

by many who were employed
in the glass industry and quite

near John Northwood’s home

and workplace. This decorated

goblet may bear some similari-
ties to the Northwood articles

in the 1858 exhibition.
In 1859, John Northwood

and his brother Joseph North-

wood decided to have their
own glass-decorating busi-

ness, as they were interested

in recently developed process-
es for etching glass. They were
joined in this endeavour by

two other young men, Stour-

bridge School classmate Thom-

as Guest and Henry Gething
Richardson, the son of glass-

maker Benjamin Richardson.

This arrangement among the
four men lasted about a year

until Thomas Guest left to

start a glass-decorating busi-
ness with his brothers Edward
Guest and Richard Guest.

John Northwood and Joseph

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

JOHN NORTHWOOD EARLY YEARS

ABOVE:
Fig.5

Photo of goblet

from Northwood

biography

Northwood continued the

business under the name J. &
J. Northwood.’
The 1861 PRO Census finds

John Northwood with wife
Elizabeth (nee Duggins) living

in Enville Street, Kingswin-

ford. The couple had married

in February 1859, and son Har-
ry Northwood was born on 3o

June 1860. John Northwood’s
occupation is listed as ‘Glass

ornamenter and Engraver.’

Brother Joseph Northwood

was still at home with both of
his parents, and his occupa-
tion is given as ‘Glass Engrav-

er.’ John Northwood and his

brother were embarking on
their business endeavor, J. &

J. Northwood, and the 184os

and 185os were behind them.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

James Measell is an Honor-

ary Research Fellow at the
University of Birmingham.
His article on the Stourbridge

School of Art appeared in
The

Journal of the Glass Association,

vol.
10

(2014), pp. 6-17. James

welcomes contacts via email:

[email protected]

The Art-Journal
(1858), pp. 223

and 251-252.

Beard, Geoffrey W
Nineteenth

Century Cameo Glass
(New-

port: Ceramic Book Company,

1956).

Ellis, Jason.
Glassmakers of

Stourbridge and Dudley 1612-

2002
(Harrowgate: privately

published, 2002).

Guttery, D. R.
From Broad-

Glass to Cut Crystal: A His-

tory of the Stourbridge Glass

Industry
(London: Leonard

Hill, 1956).

Hajdamach, Charles.
British

Glass 1800-1914
(Suffolk: An-

tique Collectors’ Club, 1991)

Northwood, Harry. Handwrit-

ten notebook (Rakow Library,

Corning, New York, USA).

Northwood, John II.
John

Northwood: His Contributions

to the Stourbridge Flint Glass

Industry
1850
–

1902
(Stour-

bridge: Mark and Moody,

1958).

Report from the Select Com-

mittee on the School of Design

(London: HMSO, 1849).

ukcensusonline.org

Wallis, George.
Catalogue of the

Exhibition of Works of Art-Man-

ufacture designed or executed by
Students of the Schools of Art

(London: HMSO, 1858).

Williams-Thomas, David.
The

Dynasty Builder: The Hidden

Diaries of Samuel Cox Williams
(Bath: Brown Dog Books,

2016).
REFERENCES

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

JO MARSHALL

In Memory

Jo (hid Joyce) Marshall
1
9
26 – 2018

i
4i

iving in retirement in the

West Country, near her
eldest daughter, Jo Mar-

shall passed away on 24th Feb-
ruary this year, she was 91.
A glass and ceramics special-

ist, Jo had been a long serving
member of The Glass Circle

committee and its Honorary

Secretary for many of those
years. Simon Cottle, who fol-

lowed Jo as head of the glass
department at Bonhams,
notes that she was a person-

ality in the auction world and

above all, a good friend to
many over the years.
Peter Kaellgren recalls: Born

of Irish and English descent,
Jo was greatly influenced by

her English grandmother. Ear-

ly in her marriage, Jo worked

with her husband, running a
successful business manufac-

turing cardboard box packag-

ing. I first met Jo Marshall in

1975, when I was a young cu-
ratorial assistant in the Euro-

pean Department of the Royal
Ontario Museum. Jo and Rob-

ert Charleston then visited the
museum in 1977 at the time

of my exhibition ‘A
Gather of

Glass’.
They were the ones who

encouraged me to become a

member of The Glass Circle;

attend its lectures and read its
publications.
Jo had a very diverse career;

her early experience in the auc-
tion world was with Sotheby’s,
London, where while learning

the trade under the revered

ceramics specialist, Jim Kid-

dell, she was secretary to Tim

Clarke. In those days, London

auction houses sold whatever
came their way and in the pro-

cess attracted a loyal clientele

and new collectors. Jo was giv-
en the responsibility and hon-

our of showing a collection of
elephants to Queen Mary, one

of the most formidable collec-

tors of the early loth century.

What we will all miss most

about Jo was her ability to be a
friend and her instinctive em-

pathy and understanding of a

situation. She brought people

together.
John Sandon and Fergus

Gambon, department heads

at Bonhams share memories:
in the early 197os, during the
time that Christopher Weston

(CJ), was chief executive of
Philips and Jo had parted

from Sotheby’s, CJ took her
on and gave her responsibili-
ty for the glass sales at Philips

in New Bond Street for more
than thirty years. John then
joined Philips, was mentored

by Jo and remembers that she

had a great relationship with
the London trade and ‘kept

the dealers in their place’. Jo

instilled within her colleagues
a special appreciation of glass
of all kinds and of drinking

glasses in particular. She un-
derstood the correct way to

classify glasses by shape, style

and stem type, the way a glass
felt in the hand, and even the
`ring’ sound when carefully

tapped.
Simon Cottle reminds us of

Jo’s auctioneering debut. In

January 1976, Sotheby’s Peter

Wilson announced that his

feminist protégé Libby (How-

ie) would be their first woman
Jo Marshall on

the auctioneer’s

stand at Philips

in January

3.976, during

her inaugural

glass auction as
the first female
auctioneer. (The
photo is a copy of

the picture used

on the front of the

`Order of Service’
celebration book-

let used at Yeovil
Crematorium)

EDITOR’S NOTE

The Glass Circle

has sent a
donation in Jo’s
memory to Great
Ormond Street
Hospital, the
London hospital

specialising in

children’s health
and wellbeing.
This article,

written in
memory of the life

of Jo Marshall,

was contributed
to by her many

colleagues, friends
and family and

was compiled by
the Editor.
auctioneer to take a New Bond

Street sale. It appeared in the
newspapers a few days earlier.

So CJ told Jo she was taking a

sale the day before Libby. Thus

Philips and Jo stole Sotheby’s

thunder, Jo becoming the first

female glass auctioneer.
The ceremony was held at

Yeovil Crematorium, where
Jo’s daughters and grandsons

spoke of her passion for travel
and adventure, having been to

Africa, India, China, the Ant-

arctic and the Americas. They
remembered the children’s

parties, heaped with food and
the Guy Fawkes celebrations

for both young and old. Jo had

a lifelong interest in learning

and working hard to encour-

age her family’s interest in
knowledge. Trips to muse-

ums with Jo filled them with
enthusiasm about the world

and they summed her up, ‘She

was one of the most generous
people I’ve ever known but if

something wasn’t right or was
unfair you’d hear about it!’
Jo’s generosity completed

the day, when we were all in-

vited to a memorable lunch at

a country home, funded by Jo.

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

White fiats.’

BEHIND THE GLASS

Hailey Baxter and Alison Torbitt

WHITEFRIARS YOUNG ROOTS PROJECT

I
n July

2016
Headstone

Manor & Museum received

a grant of £49,500 from the

Heritage Lottery Fund for a

Young Roots Project, ‘White-
friars: Behind the Glass’. The
project aimed to engage lo-

cal students, aged 14 to 24,

with the history of Harrow’s
iconic glassworks. Over three
phases, young volunteers were

involved in collecting oral his-
tories and making a film and

a stained glass window while

also enhancing the museum’s
collection through research.
By integrating this project

with a major refurbishment of
Headstone Manor & Museum,
The 16th-century

Great Barn at

Headstone Manor

and Museum

BELOW:
Fig.i

Hailey Baxter

explaining stained

glass to students
at Harrow College
we were able to make it possi-

ble for our visitors – both real
and virtual – to learn about

the heritage of Harrow in new,

informative and engaging

ways: told from the perspec-
tive of local young people.
The Whitefriars Glass Fac

tory will always be at the

heart of Harrow’s industrial

heritage but was in danger of

being forgotten amongst the
modern community. It was

therefore an obvious choice

to include it as a major exhibit

in the new museum. Within a
century, Harrow has seen the

development, heyday and de-
cline of its industrial heritage.

Whitefriars was one of sever-

al factories that relocated to

Harrow because of good trans-

port links to London and the

availability of affordable land.
It opened in 1923, under the

name ‘James Powell & Sons’,

when a lit brazier was carried
from the old furnaces in Fleet
Street to ignite the new fur-
naces in the Wealdstone fac-
tory. Thus it was said that the

Whitefriars furnaces had been
continuously alight since the

foundation of the glassworks

in 1680. It brought new hous-

ing to Harrow, and a wealth of
talent and skills into the com-

munity. When Whitefriars
closed in 198o, it was an unex-

pected blow for many people.

Traditional skills that had of-
ten been passed down within

families were put at risk, as

former employees left to find

work elsewhere. Capturing
these memories and skills has

been at the forefront of this
project, to ensure we don’t

lose them forever.
Almost 4o years after the

closure, we worked with over

100 local students and our

partner, Harrow College, to
find out more about the histo-
ry of Whitefriars (Fig.1). Our

aim was for everyone involved
to take inspiration from their
own heritage, and to bring the

Whitefriars traditions to life

once again within the local

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June

2018

WHITEFRIARS YOUNG ROOTS PROJECT

community. The project deep-
ened our understanding of the
museum’s collection, which

includes approximately i,000
objects relating to Whitefri-

ars. The young people’s work
throughout the project has

also furthered our knowledge
of the social history of White-

friars. These volunteers under-
took their own research, and

met former Whitefriars em-

ployees. They were also taught

some of the traditional heri-
tage skills used at the Factory.
Over two years, more than

6o students from local high

schools have taken part in this

Young Roots Project, giving
over
1,200
hours of their time.

New volunteer roles were cre-

ated to help them engage with
the history of Whitefriars and

working alongside existing
collections’ volunteers allowed

them to share knowledge be-

tween generations. Volunteers

approached the project from

different angles, depending

on their own interests. We
developed a research role so

that students could go out

to other institutions, such as

the National Archives and the
Museum of London. History

students found this role par-
ticularly attractive because it

allowed them to apply their

academic skill-set to a local
subject. These students con-
tributed to our knowledge of

the factory’s history, the peo-

ple who worked there, and
our own collection. They also
developed their own research

skills. Collecting oral histories

about life in the factory was

an integral part of the project,

and we surpassed our expec-
tation of talking to six former

workers, eventually engag-
ing with twenty seven. These
ex-employees had worked

in a range of roles including

glass-blowers, tour guides,

glass cutters and a chemist,
which meant we were able to

get a complete overview of life

behind the glass. All of the for-
mer Whitefriars workers in-

volved in the project have been

vital to its success, and their
contributions have enabled

us to better understand what

it meant to work at Whitefri-

ars. Meeting ex-employees has
been valuable to the museum

staff, as well as to the young
people involved, who have ad-
mired the loyalty of the glass

workers and seen how starting
at a young age enabled them to
become masters of their craft.

One of these meetings with

an ex-employee, Edward King,

led to an invitation to visit the

Adam Aaronson Studio where
he currently works, to watch

glass being blown and have a
hands-on experience. After

almost a year of researching

Whitefriars and glass-making
techniques, it was a fantas-

tic opportunity to finally see

some glass being made at first
hand. Young volunteers had a

go at making a paperweight of
their own and even the muse-
um staff were given the chance

to create their own pieces!
(Figs.
2 &
3).

Digitisation was also a sig-

nificant part of the project,

and it was split into three

strands. Firstly, we had to digi-
tise the oral histories and have

them transcribed. These tran-

scriptions now form a vital
part of our Whitefriars archive

at the museum. Secondly, we

wanted to increase access to

Fig.2

Adam Aaronson
in his studio,

guiding a student
working with hot

glass to make a
paperweight

Fig.3

Alison Torbitt’s
first paperweight,

made with Adam

Aaronson in his

studio

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

WHITEFRIARS YOUNG ROOTS PROJECT

Fig.4

Alf Fisher

instructing young
students in mak-
ing the Whitefri-
ars stained glass

window panel for
the Headstone

Manor & Museum

Fig.5

Students making
the stained glass

panel for the
museum

our Whitefriars collection. By

digitising this collection, we
can provide access to the hid-

den parts through our online
catalogue. The final part of our

digitisation programme was to
create a website to link White-

friars stained glass across the
country. Our goal is to con-

nect the institutions that hold

Whitefriars archives, such as
production drawings and car-

toons, to the places where vis-

itors can see the glass in situ.
This is an ongoing aspect of
the project that we hope will

grow over time as we build up
our network and knowledge.
Headstone Manor & Mu-

seum worked with Special
Educational Needs (SEN)

students at Harrow College
as part of this project. Over
the course of a year project

leaders delivered sessions

based around the history and
production methods used at

Whitefriars including stained

glass, millefiori paperweights
and the iconic Whitefriars ta-
bleware. Forty SEN students

were given the chance to han-
dle Whitefriars objects and to

meet a former employee, Alf
Fisher MBE. Alf was the last

Chief Designer and Manager
of the Stained Glass Studio at

Whitefriars. Inspired by this

history, the students produced

a variety of creative respons-
es to retell the Soo-year story

of the glassworks. Their work

was digitised by students from
local high schools, and then

sent to an animator, who used
it to create a film. This film

is shown in our Whitefriars
room at Headstone Manor for

visitors to
see
and learn.

In June 2016 Alf trained

five local students in the
traditional heritage craft of

stained glass production, so

they could create an exclusive

window for the museum

(Fig.4). This unique opportuni-

ty was offered to students with
a passion for learning a new

art form. Over a two-week pe-

riod the students designed a

window based on the history
of Harrow. They had a chance

to visit Chapel Studio which

was founded by Alf Fisher and
Peter Archer after the closure

of Whitefriars Stained Glass

Studio in 1973. Here students

saw a working studio and met
people for whom working with

stained glass is a career. Chap-
el Studio is full of wonderful

glass made by Bossanyi and
Kempe as well as pieces made

by the founders of the studio.
These were a great inspiration

for the students when making
their own pieces and the final

museum window.
Alf then took the students

step by step through the

stained-glass making process
to make a panel of their own

design, which the students
took home with them. They

learnt about composition,
best shapes and colours to use

for a successful design, how to
cut and paint glass and final-

ly how to lead and glaze their
panel, all before starting on
the main window.
The students were involved

in the whole design and mak-

ing process of the
2′ x
3.5′

museum window. Under Alf’s

guidance the students worked
together on the final design,
then drew the cartoon and cut

lines (Fig.5). The students next

selected the pieces of glass for
the final window (some piec-

es being original Whitefriars

glass saved by Alf), then cut
the glass pieces before paint-

ing and firing them. The next

step was to piece the window
together and insert the lead-

ing. The final piece was un-

veiled and now resides perma-
nently in Headstone Manor’s

Visitor Centre, able to be ad-
mired by all (Fig.6 opposite).
This window is a culmina-

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

Fig.6

Completed White friars stained glass window panel,

made and designed by Alf Fisher, working with Harrow

College students. On show at the Headstone Manor &

Museum visitor centre

Whitefriars label, post 1963. The
mage IS of a stylised
friar

WHITEFRIARS YOUNG ROOTS PROJECT

tion of our project and is a

meaningful and lasting con-
tribution by our young volun-

teers to the heritage of their

community.

The completed exhibition

in the museum was an ide-

al opportunity to celebrate
our `Whitefriars: Behind the
Glass’ project. We invited back

all of those who had taken
part, including students and

ex-Whitefriars employees. It

was a wonderful evening with
more memories shared and

friendships rekindled. It has

been evident that the young
people made a connection

with Whitefriars glass and

they brought friends and fami-

lies to show their involvement.

They talk confidently about

what they have learnt and how

their passions have been ig-
nited in glass art and craft, an

area in which they might never

have shown an interest. We are
confident that we’ve created a

new generation of collectors of
Whitefriars glass!

This project has been a suc-

cess in many ways for the
Headstone Manor & Muse-

um but most importantly the

friendships we have made with
the former employees and the

young people. Although this

project has now come to an
end, this connection will live

on and will be a lasting legacy

of the people behind the glass.

THE AUTHOR & NOTES
Halley Baxter is the Youth &

Families Engagement Officer

at Headstone Manor & Mu-

seum, Harrow. Alison Torbitt

is the Museum’s Curator and

Manager.
The Young Roots Project Ex-

hibition was on show until 1st

April, though the Whitefriars

room is permanent and can be

seen during museum opening

times.
Headstone Manor & Museum

can be viewed online.

www,headstonemanor.org.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE
Whitefriars
LOGO

Whitefriars logo, pre 1963

Whitefriars label, post 1963 on a glass object

The following has been contributed by Alf Fisher MBE
The logo in the ‘proper’ habit (minus surround) seems to have been introduced in the early 1920s and is on many

stained glass windows from then on. It seems to have been on all windows of the Hogan era in the 1930s and was
perpetuated through the forties and fifties. The ‘hatchet’ design appeared in 1963 and was the subject of a derisory

article in the ‘Daily Express, ridiculing the fact that it was supposed to be a friar. I thought this was very bad publici-
ty and asked William Wilson about it but he believed any publicity was good!

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

ROYAL BRIERLEY

1?oyalkierley
STUDIOWARE

Keith Fenton

INTRODUCTION
In November 2016, the Na-

tional Glass Fair featured an

exhibition showcasing glass

manufactured by Royal Brier-

ley Crystal, focussing on the
Studio range they produced

towards the end of the loth
century. The exhibition was

curated by Keith Fenton — this

is his collecting story, with ad-
ditional notes on Keith and

Royal Brierley from Paul Bish-

op and Christina Glover.
The history of Royal Brier-

ley Crystal dates as far back as

1776, tracing its origins to the

Moor Lane Glassworks at ‘Bri-

ar Lea Hill’; this factory would

later go on to become the
home to the renowned glass

works of Stevens & Williams.
In the 1930s, following a visit

from King Edward VII, Ste-

vens & Williams were granted

a Royal Charter and the com-
pany then became known as
Royal Brierley Crystal.

Keith Fenton’s interest in

glass is partly inspired by fam-

ily connections in the glass
industry; both his grandfa-

ther and great uncle worked at

Chance Brothers.

KEITH CONTINUES

I’ve been collecting glass for

over 25 years and about six

years ago I was attracted to a
large unmarked vase. After a

little research I discovered it to

be a Royal Brierley Studio vase
from the ‘Shadows’ range. The

fascination with this vase led
to further discoveries of glass

made by Royal Brierley Crystal

and their brief foray into the

world of studio glass. Royal
Brierley had connections with
studio glass going back to the

196os, when they employed
George Elliott, who intro-

duced new designs for light-
ing and tableware. However,
the market was not yet ready

for this ‘new glass’. Several

conversations were held with
Richard Golding of Okra glass

but nothing was forthcoming
from these meetings.
In the early 198os David Wil-

liams-Thomas, chairman and
managing director of Stevens

& Williams, decided that the
company should produce their

own Studioware range; a team

of designers were brought in,

including Lindsay Till, Susan
Potter, Wilf Paddock, Will Cort

and a young lady straight out
of the Royal College of Art by
the name of Gwyneth New-

land. She had been approached
by David Williams-Thomas to

create initial designs for the

new ‘Studio’ range. Gwyneth
Newland’s (now Ashcroft) ear-

ly work tended to be of clean,

simple forms in clear or frost-

ed glass going by such names

as ‘Neon’, ‘Samba’ and ‘Rio’.

She also produced a coloured
range, ‘Decor’ and ‘Terrazzo’.

This new glassware was re-
ceived well and sold well.
Gwyneth spoke to me

about her time at Royal
Brierley saying “It was David

(Williams-Thomas) who com-

missioned me to design this
new range at their Tipton fac-
tory; he allowed me to have all

of my sketch designs made up

and to have time with the glass
blowers to experiment with

the techniques and finishes.

This resulted in a very mod-
ern, low-priced range for the

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

ROYAL BRIERLEY

1980s. For a young designer
straight out of Art College, it
was a wonderful opportunity”.

Around 1984 Gwyneth moved
on and has her own design

company near the south coast.
In 1986, Stevens & Williams,

wanting to expand the range,
approached Michael Harris
of Isle of Wight glass, already

known in the glass world for

his work at Chance Brothers
and Mdina glass, Malta. Mi-
chael and one of his sons, Tim-

othy, produced a prototype iri-
descent vase based on an Isle of

Wight design known as ‘Ribbon

& Lace’; this vase is marked on
the base ‘M & T Harris ’86’ and

is now in the Isle of Wight glass
museum. The Harris family
had nothing further to do with

the company, but Royal Brier-

ley continued making varia-
tions on both Gwyneth’s and
Michael’s designs; as David

Williams-Thomas said to me
‘Every morning as we came

into the factory I would say

what shapes and colours shall

we do today ?
The Studio range was not

Royal Brierley’s only foray into

the world of studio glass. In

1985 David Williams-Thom-
as and Arlon Bayliss set up a
small studio in a disused fur-
nace close to the works, us-

ing equipment from the old
Stevens & Williams factory.
He hired it out to various art-

ists such as Catherine Hough,

Jane Beebe and Jill Devine,

who ran the studio until 1990.

Vases and paperweights can

still be found bearing the

marks ‘The Foundry’ and dat-

ed ’86-’87.
During the glass fair in 2016,

I spoke with Patricia Coccoris,

author of ‘The Curious History
of the Bulb Vase’. She gave me

some interesting information:
in 1989 just before Christmas,

Aspreys of London had a sale
of bulb vases, which sold out
rapidly, so they contacted Roy-

al Brierley and commissioned
them to produce a limited
range of bulb / hyacinth vas-
es in two colours, ‘Midnight
Black’ and

Dawn White’.

Only
100
of each colour were

made and then only sold
through Aspreys at £28.75. I

often wonder how many have

survived and how many oth-
er pieces are still out there.

Apart from vases and bowls,
they produced dressing table

sets, lampshades, atomizers,

paperweights, cologne bot-
tles and table lamps with such
names as ‘Tong’, ‘Ming’ and

‘Kyoto’. Starting prices for the

lamps were then £105 going up
to £165. Current prices for the

studio range vary widely and
identification can also cause

problems as many pieces are
PICTURES

FROM TOP LEFT

ANTICLOCKWISE:

Fig.1

An ‘Amphora’ vase
and a small pot
from a dressing

table set, both with

silver-plated rim

and lid.

Fig.2

Two of the largest

pieces I’ve seen, the

pink vase is 13.25

inches tall and the
pale blue ‘Terrazzo’

Amphora’ vase in

12.25 inches tall.

Fig.3
A pair of rare

Hyacinth vases in

Midnight Black’

and ‘Dawn White’

Fig.4

Rare colours this

time, an orange
Balloon’ vase, a

, a large indigo
Amphora’ with

zig-zag pattern, a

deep blue ‘Twig’

vase with white
streaks and a

‘Black on Black’
short ‘Amphora’

vase.

Fig.5

A ‘Neon’ decanter,

a lidded ‘Rio’
pot and a small

‘Samba’ bud vase,
all by Gwyneth
Ashcroft.

Fig.6

A ‘Midnight Black’

‘Shoulder’ vase

table lamp and an

Amphora’ vase

with transfer

flower design.
unmarked and some just have

paper labels.

A thank you for the help

I’ve received in putting this

history together, from the on-

line forum ‘The Glass Message
Board’, David Williams-Thom-

as, Arlon Bayliss, David Encill,
Patricia Coccoris, Nigel Ben-

son and Charles Hajdamach.
Most of my early research has

come from Gwyneth Ashcroft

who sent me old retail price
catalogues, newspaper cut-
tings and copies of her orig-

inal drawings and art work,
for which I was most grateful.
Thanks also to Tim Westbrook
for stating the final part of
Royal Brierley’s history. He

sent me the following: “The
Brierley Hill factory went into

receivership in early 1999, I

and a business partner bought
the assets and intellectual
property rights from the re-

ceiver and we moved all to

the Tipton Road site during

2000.
I ran the business until

it was sold to Dartington Crys-
tal in mid-2005, we were not

producing any ‘studio’ glass

during our period of owner-

ship”. Therefore Royal Bri-

erley’s Studioware range ran

from 1982-1999.
The pictures in this article,

from my collection of over 160
pieces, are the rare and more

unknown studioware pieces.

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

Table I

Wine glass bowl capacity from 1700 to 1780.
Each dot corresponds to one of the 158 glasses.

600

1745

Excise

Act

400

4
.
”

•
.—• 300

C_) 200
•

0
1690
1700 1710 1720 1730 1740 1750 1760 1770 1780 1790

Circa

•

500

•

•
•

100
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

IN MY MEASURED OPINION

Speaking
VOLUMES

Simon Wain-Hobson

written about Geor-
ian drinking glasses,

few authors mention the ca-

pacity of these glorious glass-
es as though the height and a

single qualifier like wine or ale

was enough to define a glass.
Barrington Haynes was the

exception and in
Glass Through

The Ages
he gave indications

as to the capacities of Geor-
gian drinking glasses. Wine

glasses contained between 2-3
fluid ounces (fl.oz.) or around
6o-90 millilitres (ml) while

the capacity of goblets was 4

fl.oz. (approximately
120
ml)

or more. Charleston picked up

on Haynes’ remarks and added

that
a little elementary experi-

mentation shows that it can go

as low as 42 ml (1.5 fl.oz.)
2

.
It

sounds as though Charleston

was referring to the small ogee

bowled opaque or colour twist

glasses that have a capacity of
between 45-6o ml. And that’s

about it.

So, it was a surprise to read

in the Christmas 2017 issue of
the British Medical Journal a

study of the capacity of wine

glasses through the ages, or
more precisely, English glasses

from the baluster period to the

present
3
. The study was from

the Behaviour and Health Re-

search Unit, Institute of Pub-
lic Health at the University of
Cambridge and picked up by

the Guardian (14 Dec 2017).

The authors study alcoholism

and anything that impinges
on that is fair game, including

drinking glasses. What was in-

teresting for those of us with

an eye on the past, is that they
measured the capacity of 43

glasses from the Ashmolean
BELOW AND

OPPOSITE:

A
brief

history of
English drinking

glasses
c.1700-1790

C.1710-20
.4
e;1
116.

C.1715-20

c.1730
–
50
Museum in Oxford covering

the period 1700-1800 — it must

have been a treat handling
them – and 24 from the Royal
Household spanning 18o8-

1947 — apparently every time

there is a new monarch, a new

set of glassware is commis-

sioned! Post-ww2 glasses were

easier to get hold of and were
more numerous.

A total of 411 glasses were

studied. They found that the
capacity increased almost lin-

early from 1700 where the

average for a wine glass was

around 47 ml, 105 ml by 1800,

147 ml by 1900 and up to
around
200
ml by 1980. From

then on there was a sharp in-
crease with the average vol-

ume coming in at 463 ml by

2016. This recent surge is no
doubt driven by US fashion for

larger glasses folded slightly
inwards at the mouth to pre-

serve the bouquet, much like
the timeless cognac glasses.

These findings led to a discus-

sion as to whether the shape
of the glass was contributing

to greater wine consumption.
No obvious conclusion was

forthcoming.
The study contained the

premise that glasses were
filled to the brim, which of

course is unheard of. We know

the Georgian penchant was to

fill the glass two-thirds full. By
contrast, if you order a glass

of wine today it may well be

125-150 ml served in a glass
2-3 times this volume. Many

an 18C picture shows bottles
on the table, so topping up,

or more likely refilling, was

something frequently done
which limits consideration of
just the glass — drinking habits
count. The study didn’t detect

any impact of the 1745 Excise

Act that taxed glass by weight.

As the average size of the
glasses dated 1700 was only
47 ml, it appears that they ex-
cluded baluster goblets. Many

authors agree that the size of
the bowl was becoming small-

er
before
imposition of the

1745 Act which was also not
caught in the study.
With these thoughts in

mind I examined the capacity
of 158 wine glasses including

goblets in my own collection.

All were of lead metal. Ales,

cordials, ratafias and deceptive

glasses were excluded for obvi-

ous reasons. Only one example

of wine glasses in a suite was
counted. The capacity was de-

Glass Matters Issue no.
2 t

une 2018

C.1740-50

C.1745
–
1755

C.1755-65

c.1760
–
80

C.1765-90

Table 2
Weight of the same wine glasses
Each dot corresponds to one of the 158 glasses.

700
1745

600
Excise

• •

Act

orp
500

•

400
•

S
SA

cu
300
•

•

1720 1730 1740 1750 1760 1770 1780 1790
Circa

200

100

0
1690 1700 1710
•

•
•

i
il

ii
•

•
IN MY MEASURED OPINION

termined using an electronic

weighing scale (see footnote).
The capacity of Georgian

wine glasses varied consid-
erably at first, due to small

glasses coexisting with heavy

baluster goblets and decreas-
ing towards the 174os (Table

1). Thereafter the capacity re-
mained within a range. Over-

all, the capacities of 93% of

the wine glasses studied were

between 40-160 ml, which
encompasses both Haynes’
remarks on wine glasses and

goblets as well as Charleston’s
observation. There are few

goblets in the period 1750+
compared to their relative

abundance in the heavy bal-

uster period, a point already

noted by Haynes
4
. Table 1 cap-

tures the decrease of bowl ca-

pacity prior to the Excise Act

of 1745 already noted by oth-

er authors. The fact that bowl

capacity didn’t change follow-
ing
1745
shows that the Act

had no effect whatsoever on
design or form. A counter ar-

gument could be that the Act

taxed glass by weight and not

by bowl capacity so any impact
might be lost. A fair point.
If the weights of the same

158 glasses are plotted as a
function of period, a very sim-

ilar pattern emerges (Table 2),

with weight declining steadi-

ly from the heavy balusters
to around mid-century plain

stemmed glasses and thereaf-
ter remaining within a range.

As Elville showed that the

specific gravity (dominated

by lead content) of Georgian
glasses differed by no more
than 1% throughout the eigh-

teenth century, the data in

Table
2
has nothing to do with

the composition of the metal
over time.
As the trend towards small-

er gatherings predates the

1745
Excise Act other forces

must have been operative.

Perhaps with an ever-increas-

ing demand for lead crystal,

glasshouses opted to make
more and smaller glasses

while maintaining the same
infrastructure — the supply

and demand issue once again.

Alternatively, there could be a

collector bias — collectors tend
to go for
collectable
glasses,

top-end glasses which were

invariably made for the gen-
try who were rarely bothered

by such taxes! Vast quantities
of alcohol were consumed

in clubs and taverns and the
glasses used were for smaller

purses and much less collect-

able. It is possible that the Ex-

cise Act did have an effect on
the form of such glasses.

The capacity of wine glasses

wasn’t enough to prevent our

gentrified forefathers from
slipping under the table at any

point in the century, for they

were great drinkers. Looking

at Table 1 it is clear that this

small selection of glasses is

not enough — some decades

are rather sparse reflecting

the nature of my collection,

while the 19C is totally absent.
It would be interesting to see

if 19C glasses were indeed

larger than 18C glasses and

when the change started. The

idea that wine glasses for the

wealthy were larger in austere
Victorian England than during
the merrier Georgian period
2

may seem a trifle odd, but

there again it could be that

social norms around drinking

habits were more important.
This is an area where fellow
collectors could join up

and generate a larger data

base which could help our
understanding of Georgian

and Victorian glasses and the
foibles of their patrons.

REFERENCES

1.
Haynes EB,
Glass Through The Ages,

Penguin Books, (2nd ed., 1959)

p197-200.

2.
Charleston RJ,
English Glass,

Allen

& Unwin, London (1984) p157.

3.
Zupan Z, et al.,
British Medical

Journal
(2017) 359:j5623.

4.
Haynes EB,

Glass Through The Ages,

Penguin Books, (2nd ed., 1959) p211.

5.
Elville EM,
English Tableglass,

Country Life Limited,
New York

(1951) p259.

ENDNOTE

A small plastic spray bottle

was used to fill the bowl to

give a flat brim. The number of

grams of water added equals
the capacity of the bowl as

gram of water is the equivalent

of 1 millilitre.

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

REG EVERTON

Reg Everson: Guess
Craftsman

Brian Clarke

RIGHT: Fig.i.

Dawn Crystal
shopfront at

3, High Street,
Stourbridge

BELOW: Fig.2

Reg at his work

bench in the back
room of the shop

‘d passed by the shopfront

of Dawn Crystal many times

on my visits to Broadfield

House, the Ruskin Centre,
Red House Cone and the new

White House Cone. The win-
dow, filled with cut and en-

graved glass in reds and blues
and clear, sung the invitation
`come and see me’. Time had

come to enter and view what
transpired in its mysterious

interior.

Reg Everton left his work-

bench in the back room, came
forward and with a broad

smile, introduced himself.
These are his memories:-
Reg joined Stuart Crystal

in 1956 at the age of 15. He’d

commenced with a five-year

apprenticeship, the working
hours being from lam to 5pm

for a five-day week and includ-

ed the odd Saturday. The hours

were poorly paid, arranged
by a ‘piece-work’ agreement,

yet he stayed with them un-
til 1974, saying that he could
have made more money mak-

ing cardboard boxes! In older
times, before WWII, the glass
craftsmen were paid by ‘clay-

work% the worker could spend
a whole day working on one

vase for his agreed day pay.
Then, postwar, ‘piece-work’

became the pay scheme, this
persuaded the craftsmen to

speed up and to do the previ-
ous day job in a few hours!

Through time, he learnt the

craft of cutter, engraver and

maker. Following his appren-
ticed years at Stuart Crystal,

he was in a gang of three men

as a ‘rougher’. This involved
trimming the edges of the

glass pieces using a carborun-
dum wheel, before the piece

moved on to the ‘smoothers’,
using a natural stone smooth-
ing wheel. The pieces were

then polished, turning them

in an acid bath. This used a

mixture of sulphuric and hy-

drochloric acid and was dirty

and dangerous. Reg would

wear rubber gauntlets up
to his forearms, covered by

thick gloves reaching to his

shoulders. The choking acid

fumes were minimized just
using a small nose and mouth

mask. Each item needed 5
– 10
minutes’ treatment, and the

acid was replenished every 3

minutes. The ‘gang of three’

would rough and polish
120

sherry glasses or
20
fruit

bowls in the day.
From the roughers and

smoothers, the glass piec-
es moved on to a ‘cleaning

department’. Showing the
changing times, Reg told me

that this department was

`run by the ladies’. They used

a ‘brine’ solution to remove

dust, remaining debris and the

design markings before wash-

ing them in hot water. An 8″ x

6″ magnifying glass was then
used to check for imperfec-

tions and carborundum bits

and pieces left on the glass

after the roughing, smoothing

and polishing processes. Of

the Stourbridge glass houses,

it was only Stuarts that used

this system.
Reg was ambitious and

when apprenticed, also went
to night school to train on cut-

ting glass. He learnt the ‘cob-

web style’, shown on the bowl
in Fig.4. He’d visit the storage

area at Stuarts and choose a

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

REG EVERTON

LEFT: Fig.6
Cut and engraved

glass stacked

inside the Dawn
Crystal shop

`blank% this would then be

weighed and he’d pay for it

by its weight. This allowed

him to keep the finished item
for himself. Once the cutting

was completed, he’d take it to
the factory for ‘acid polishing’

and then show it to his ‘gaffer’
(work boss), who’d comple-

ment or criticize the work.
Diamond cutting was often

used by other factories, using
diamond-impregnated wheels,
in a range of sizes from 6″

toio”. This was much quicker

than using carborundum, but

left edges that were rougher,

so they required much longer
for polishing in the acid bath.
Instead of 5
– 10
minutes, 15

minutes of dipping and pol-

ishing were needed to remove

all the imperfections. This

length of time in the acid bath
also had the effect of rounding
off the cut edges, so they no

longer appeared cleanly and

sharply cut. These days, Reg
also uses diamond wheels, but
doesn’t finish with acid pol-

ishing: he uses natural stone

smoothing wheels, completed
with pumice powder and `jew-

eller’s rouge’, leaving a smooth

but sharp finish.

Mike Davis, a fellow crafts=

man at Stuart Crystal, left
in 1974 to open up Bridge
Crystal. Mike asked Reg to go

with him. Taking a chance, Reg
accepted the offer and they

stayed together until 1984.
Then Mike packed up again,

sold out and started a new
factory called Kimber Crystal.
This was when Reg decided to
`go on his own’ and opened

up his present shop, ‘Dawn

Crystal’.
Fig.3 shows the last ‘blank’

that Reg still had stored away.

This is made of two layers of

glass, clear cased in ruby. The
ruby glass colour was made by

Webb Corbett in the 1940’s and

1950’s, using gold sovereigns.
Stuarts would make to bowl
blanks a day, but there was a

very high rejection rate, often

around 5o% were scrapped as

imperfect. The problems were
`blisters’ and ‘bricks’ from the

clay pots. These rejected pieces

couldn’t be used again in the
glass metal melt as they had

two colours — so they just went

to waste.
To make the fruit bowl

from a blank, Reg would

have to cut away the sections
that were not needed. At

Dawn Crystal, he uses a large

cutting machine that came

from Thomas Webb; it’s about

7o years old and came from

Poland, is well engineered

and as Reg says, it’s ‘smooth

and quiet’. He maintains it,

as well as hand-making small

instruments. The bowls’ cased

glass came 1.25cm thick, and
to cut through this depth of

glass and remove sections,

he finds it necessary to use a
diamond saw. Reg uses thin

diamond wheels of 6″, 8″ or

10″
diameter for the cutting,

removing sections of the cased

colour to show the clear glass.

When all the cutting, finishing

and polishing is completed,

the glass thickness is left at
icm, as in the blue cased fruit

bowl in Fig.4.

This was a privilege to talk

with Reg and learn from a

disappearing generation how

glass pieces were made in the

Stourbridge glass industry

and the pride that still shines
through from their achieve-

ments. He is currently in his

shop and has been joined by
his son, John.

REG EVERTON
can be contacted

at Dawn Crystal, 3 High Street,
Stourbridge, DY8 4BX
Tel: 01384 397 524

Website:

[email protected]

ABOVE, LEFT TO

RIGHT:

Fig.3

The ruby blank

for the fruit bowl,

with a section cut

away

Fig.4

A finished fruit

bowl, cased in

blue alongside the
ruby blank

Fig.5
Reg at the

counter in the
front of his

shop

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

OBITUARY

In memory

Ulrica Hydman Vallien,
1938-2018

Andy McConnell

U
lrica Hydman Vallien

was prominent amongst
a group of post-war de-

signers who transformed pre-
viously restrained Swedish

glass styles into a vibrant force
that conquered the globe. In

doing so, they forged a new

design template that remains
internationally ubiquitous in

interior design.

At its peak, between the

195os and ‘8os, Swedish
fine glassmaking achieved

such a critical mass of de-

sign diversity and craft
excellence that

it ranks as a
Golden Age of

Glass, along-

side

those

previously wit-
nessed only in
the Middle East

under the Ro-

man Empire, in

Renaissance Ven-

ice and Victorian
Stourbridge.
The roots of this

phenomenon lay at

Konstfack, Stock-

holm’s College of

Arts, Crafts and De-
sign, which trained

an entire generation
of designers, includ-

ing Ulrica Hydman, all
united in an aesthetic

allegiance with Pablo
Picasso. Together, they

became the stylists to the
ensuing boom.

Born in Stock-

holm in 1938,
Ulrica’s style

was defined

by bold, naïve

brush strokes in

paint and enam-

els. She certainly

never played

it safe with her

in-your-face de-

signs. Her inspi-

ration lay in tradi-

tional Swedish folk

arts blended with

her idiosyncratic

brew of raw, erotic,

maternal primitiv-

ism. Snakes (Fig.2)

and wolves ranked

amongst her favoured

motifs, alongside flow-

ers and hearts.
Working across sever-

al media, Ulrica emerged

as one of Sweden’s leading
product designers and a re-

spected fine artist. Sponta-
neity lay at her core: once

she had conceived her ideas
Ulrica could knock them
out. ‘I’m an incredibly fast

worker,’ she explained. ‘I
hate finishing touches. I’m

not patient enough for

that. And I don’t want any

problems’.
Her oeuvre ranged

through glass, ceramics,

textiles and graphics. She

designed ceramics for Ror-

strand and Duka, phones
for Ericsson, fire extin-

guishers, bottles for Ab-

solut vodka, watch faces,
paper for Esselte and fa-

mously in Sweden, a chip-

board coffin. Yes, she said,

she wanted to be cremated
in one.
Ulrica hit British head-

lines in 1997 when she was

amongst leading interna-

RIGHT:

Ulrica

Hydman
Vallien,

c.2005

BELOW: Fig.2
Wosta Boda

Ulrica’

2001

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

OBITUARY

tional artists invited to dec-
orate the tail fins of British

Airways jets (Fig.3). Her
personally painted [for the

cameras at least] floral in-

terpretation of the Swedish

flag was amongst those that
provoked Margaret Thatch-

er’s famous condemnation:

“We fly the British flag, not
these awful things!”
Whilst studying at Kon-

stfak under the renowned

ceramicist, Stig Lindberg,
Ulrica met fellow student

Bertil Vallien. He would

later emerge as the world’s
most influential glass de-

signer in everyday and con-
temporary art glass, and

her life-long partner of 6o

years.
Ulrica and Bertil, both

driven workaholics, main-
tained separate careers and

rarely collaborated. As a

mother of young children,
Ulrica supported Bertil’s

early career at Boda Glas-

bruk. As their sons grew

up, however, she began to

spread her artistic wings,
initially restricting herself
to home studio ceramics.
Bertil’s employer, Eric

Rosen, CEO of Boda, was

a gifted talent spotter and

inevitably caught Ulrica

in his sights. She was re-

luctant to take on glass, a
new medium to her, but his
relentless bamboozling fi-

nally succeeded. The result

was
Optikon,

1972,
a series

in soft pastels that enjoyed

encouraging sales.
When Rosen pushed

again, however, Ulrica
RIGHT:

Fig.4

Boda Unik
669

Ulrica. 25CM.
1977

BELOW:
Fig.3

Ulrica paint-

ing British
Airways jet.

1
997

demonstrated her resis-

tance with
Rat Bowl,

a range

crawling with painted black

vermin (Fig.4). Predictably,

it sank commercially. Ulrica

still giggled at the memory
decades later. Of course,

they all remained friends

and Ulrica ultimately con-

tributed loo+ ranges and

thousands of unique pieces

to Boda/Kosta Boda over

40-years. Indeed, her great-
est commercial success, the

centrifuge-formed

Mine

series,
2002,

was for Kosta

Boda, with total sales to

date of 5oomSEK [E5om].
Young, glamorous and

successful, Bertil and Ulrica
were a marketing depart-
ment’s dream. They were

beautiful Bohemians, living
in a lakeside log cabin in ru-
ral Smaland. They were also

exotic: for example, as own-

er-pilots of Scandinavia’s

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

OBITUARY

Fig.5

Open Minds.

18.6cm. 1986

first hot-air balloon, they

travelled the region demon-

strating their flying skills

and, occasionally, a lack
of them. Their friends and

near-neighbours included

most of their contemporar-

ies in Swedish glass design,

including celebrities like
Erik Hoglund, Goran Warff

and Monica Backstrom.
This

Bloomsbury-style

group of glass designers
proved perfect for the

glossy press and TV. Ulrica
and Bertil not only invited
the cameras into their

homes but were also happy
to pose for them naked,
even when into middle-

age. They understood the
power of the press and,

fuelled by success, felt
they had literally nothing

to hide. They were how

young Swedes wanted to

see themselves and they
bought into their idyllic
dream.
As a group, they produced

hundreds of new designs

between the 196os and
‘9os, and they sold (Fig.5).
Swedish fine glass industry
employment more than

doubled between
1

945
–

70. Kosta Boda opened

galleries in Tokyo and Paris.
Bertil proudly boasted

that in one year during the

198os, the combined value
of exports from Sweden of

his and Ulrica’s designs was
greater than that of Volvo
and second-only to ABBA.

But all Golden Ages come

to an end. Ironically, the

seeds of the destruction of

Swedish fine glassmaking

were sown locally, in
Smaland, in 1943 when
Ingvar Kamprad, founded
IKEA in neighbouring

Almhult.
Kamprad noted the com-

mercial appeal of locally

made glass, ceramics and

furniture and commis-

sioned generic copies of it
from lesser makers. Initial-

ly, these were Swedish-made
but out-sourcing soon fol-

lowed, causing retail prices

to dive. As the trend became
established, its consequenc-

es were inevitable. In 2013,
Orrefors, Sweden’s flagship

glassmaker, followed its
former local rivals to the

grave. Only Kosta, found-

ed in 1742, now remains of

a once-proud industry. But
most of its output is now

outsourced to Estonia, Slo-

vakia and Thailand, and its
employment roll collapsed
from 90o to under i.00 in

two decades.
The members of the

`Smaland Group’ are also

passing on, but their legacy

still resonates, from Stock-
holm to Sydney, in the form
of cheap, generally Chi-

nese-made copies of their

prototypes. Their forms and

colours remain the inter-

national epitome of good

taste, as witnessed in every

IKEA catalogue.
Ulrica was a formidable

woman. She could scare
strangers on first meeting
with her direct manner and
penetrating, mascara-framed

sky-blue eyes. In reality, she

was warm-hearted, witty and
friendly.
With her unfailingly

flame-red hair & distinc-
tive beauty, Ulrica was one

of Sweden’s most recognis-

able faces. The nation also
understood her and Bertil’s
enduring grief at the loss of

a young son to an accident

at their home. They had

bought her designs, were
proud of her achievements

and came to regard her as a
National Treasure. Publicly,

she was a star, but led her
life with her boots on the

ground, unfazed by celebri-

ty and loved walking in the

woods.

She died on March
21,

three days before her 8oth

birthday. She and Bertil had
taken their daily swim in

the lake followed by a sauna

when she suddenly wilted,

fell into Bertil’s arms and

was gone.

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

Fig.2

EVENTS

Events
MOON LANDING

To all our members

– a question
July 2019 marks the 5oth

anniversary of the first

moon landing; Maurice

Wimpory is preparing an
article on commemorative

glass pieces made for
that occasion. He has two

pieces in his collection,

a piece of engraved

cullet (see inside front

cover and p.412 in Charles
Hajdamach’s Book,
`20th

Century British Glass’)
and

a tankard by Stromberg.

He thinks that there are

not many moon landing

commemoratives because

they had to be made after

the event: but do any

of you collectors have a
piece? Maurice would like

to hear from you at

[email protected]

GC EGM
AND MEETING

28th June 7pm

At the Artworkers’ Guild.
GC members – you will

have had an email for this

important Extraordinary

General Meeting for the

future of the GC.

Please do come along.

The EGM is followed

by a presentation on

lampwork given by Sylvie

Lhermite-King, coming

from Paris.
Lampwork,
the art of

glass flame working,
may be traced back to

antiquity. The technique,
consisting of fusing dear

and coloured glass canes
to fashion beads, jewels,
objects and figurines

with the aid of pincers
and tongs, has essentially
remained unchanged over

millennia. From 16th to

19th century, the most

important centres of
production were Venice,

Innsbruck, Nevers, Sau-

mur, Paris and Dresden. A

catalogue illustrating the

talk will be available.

GA
MEMBER’S PRIVATE SALE

4th August
Margaret Docherty is

holding a sale of her

extensive personal

collection of contem-

porary glass (Fig.1 – an
example by Ulrica Vallien)

in Frome, Somerset.

This will feature several
hundred pieces of mainly

loth Century glass,

from:- Orrefors, Kosta
Soda, Holmegaard,

Murano, WMF, Schnei-

der, Moser, Stevens and

Williams, Webb, White-
friars, Monart , Vasart,

Strathearn, Graystan, as

well as several Scottish
paperweights.

Location details to be pro-

vided on application to
[email protected]

GLASS FAIR

at Ickworth House
23 September
–

This is a new autumn

home for the glass fair.
Ickworth House is a

country house near Bury

St Edmunds, Suffolk,

IP29 5QE. The Italianate

palace and gardens, the

building with an 18th

century ‘classical rotun-

da’, was the residence of

the Marquess of Bristol

before being sold to the

National Trust (NT) in

1998. (Fig.2)

For NT members, entries

to the house, garden and

fair are FREE. For non NT

members, entry to the

glass fair is FREE, though
there is an £8.10 charge

for parking and the gar-

dens. The fair will attract

up to 4o dealers over 45

stands and will be held

on the first floor, which is

serviced by lifts as well as
a staircase.

Fig.2
GA

MEETING

Friday 26 and Saturday
27

October

at Clare, Suffolk

Arranged by the GA for
GC &
GA members, arts

societies and local U3A

groups.

Andy McConnell will
present the Friday
evening fundraiser, which

he is calling
‘Beyond the

Roadshow’.
It will take

place in Clare Town Hall,
iIncluded in the price will

be a glass of wine and

light refreshments. Funds
raised will be shared be-

tween the Glass Associa-

tion and the East Anglian
Children’s Hospice.

On Saturday morning,

the husband and wife

team of Stewart Hearn,

a highly respected Cam-
bridgeshire glassmaker

(London Glassworks) and

his wife Kathryn Hearn,

a nationally renowned
potter who has recently
retired from her post as

Head of Ceramics at Cen-

tral St.Martins will each

be giving a lecture in their
own fields. After a buffet

lunch, the afternoon will

condude with a lecture

from Andy McConnell

and a glass identification

session.

TRAVELS TO ITALY
and the Diageo Glass
Collection

September 6 –
10
2018

These are the dates for
the September visit to

north Italy. The hotel

accommodation and the

cost are currently being

finalised. But travelling is

independent, so if you are
travelling by air, the soon-

er you book your flights

to Malpensa airport,

Milan and the return
from Turin, the less

expensive they will be.
The provisional itinerary

is:-

Day 1 Thursday 6th.

Afternoon arrival & own

transfer, dinner & over-
night in Milan

Day 2 Friday 7th. Visit

private collections in
Milan. Lunch + late

afternoon departure to

Varenna on Lake Como.

Overnight in Varenna
Day 3 Saturday 8th. Visit

Villa Monastero, Varenna

with a collection of Vene-
tian glass. Overnight in

same hotel in Varenna

Day 4 Sunday 9th. De-

parture to Turin – visits,
Lunch & Dinner and

overnight in Turin
Day 5 Monday loth Visit

the Diageo collection.
Lunch, then transfer to

Turin & Turin Airport

THE CINZANO
GLASS COLLECTION
reborn as
DIAGEO

In 1971 Count Alberto

Marone Cinzano, of

the famous Cinzano

Vermouth family, decided

to collect fine examples

of ancient and antique

glass. The collection of
125 pieces was catalogued
and published in 1974 and

1978 under the title The
Cinzano Glass Collection,

edited by Peter Lazarus.

Today, the collection
has additional glasses.

These were added by the
Marone family before

the sale of the Vermouth

business in 1992, which

was then acquired in 1997

by the British company
Diageo. The sale included

the glass collection, which

is now known as the

Diageo Glass Collec-

tion. The catalogue was
published again in 2005

(now available only sec-

ond-hand), edited by Rosa
Barovier Mentasti:G/ass

Collection Della Diageo

a
Santa Vittoria
d’Alba’,

and lists 144 glasses.

There are ancient glasses

of Roman, Frankish and
Islamic origin and then

Venetian, Dutch, German

and English glasses. The
collection is kept at the

Diageo meeting centre

in Villa Storica a Santa

Vittoria d’Alba

AGMs’
For the GA.

Saturday 13th October

The date is fixed – please

keep the day free. Venue
to be in London, and pro-

gramme to be announced,
but the arrangements are
presently not completed.

For the GC.

It may be held on the

same day as the GA AGM.
This will be announced

as soon as the progress
of our two organisations
coming together is taken

further forward. The GC

AGM is presently set for
22nd November.

NATIONAL GLASS FAIR

Sunday November 4th,
2018. At its well-known

venue, held over many

years at The National Mo-
torcycle Musem, Solihull,

at the junction of the A45

and the M42 Birmingham
ring road.

GC
MEETING

Thursday 6th December

Andy McConnell’s

December talk will be
Bottoms Up! The Story

of Wine, its Rituals and
Glasses:
“a light-hearted

talk that traces the story

of wine: from its humble

beginnings in rotting

grapes, before the Bronze

Age to the present, when

single bottles can change

hands for thousands,
even tens of thousands of

pounds. The talk visits the

ancient societies of Egypt,
Greece and Rome, travels

through the middle ages,

the Renaissance and

18th century Britain. It
culminates in the present

day, when more wine is

being consumed than

ever before, with its world

market now worth over
£100 billion”.

Glass Matters Issue no. 2 June 2018

An unique flask by Ulrica Vallien, made in 1978 at Kosta Boda. 29CM high. ‘Boda Ulrica Unik

34’.

GLASS

1\4 A, T
.

7′ E R S

The joint magazine of

THE GLASS CIRCLE
and

THE GLASS ASSOCIATION

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

Glass Society Glass Matters_No.2, Jul 2018

Recent Posts

Address

Email

Instagram