Glass Society Glass Matters_No.8, May 2020

LASS

Al _A T
FT
Ens

THE MAGAZINE OF THE GLASS SOCIETY

May 2020
Issue No. 8

ISSN25 I 6-1555

Chairmens’ message

Aryballoi Part 2

Aquatopia

Glass Photography

Henry Cole & glass design

White House Cone

museum of glass

Twists, Right or Left

Glass Commissions

Lampworker

Biennale GS winner

Himley Bottles Part 2

In Memoriam

Letters
Covid Cruise; Discussing Cordials
Glass on Stamps; Pope’s Fox-Hunt set

Queries and Updates
3

Hans van

Rossum

& Theo
Zandbergen

Katrin Spranger

Bill Millar

James
Measell

Graham Fisher
9

Simon Wain-Hobson

Colin Reid
Sally Scott

BobWikock

Jon Lewis
David Burton

Andrew
Seddon
19

29 32

34-

A Thread of Light: exhibition

GLASS

SOCIETY

Contents

ISSN 2516-1555

Issue 8, May 2020
Published by the Glass Society,

©Contributors and The Glass Society

Editor:
Brian J Clarke

[email protected]

Design & layout:
Emma Nelly Morgan

[email protected]

Printed by:
Warners Midlands plc

wwiv.warners.co.uk

Next copy date:
August 2020

E-mail news & events to [email protected]

“Neither the Glass Circle’s nor
the Glass Association’s
committee

members bear any responsibility for the views expressed in this

publication, which are those of the contributor in each case.

though neither the Editor nor the committees are responsible for

inadvertent infringements. All photographs are copyright the author
unless otherwise credited.”

GLASS SOCIETY COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

The Glass Association is registered as
Charity No.326602

The Glass Society is registered as
Charity No.1185397

Website:
www.glassassociation.org.uk

This is currently the website of The Glass Society

Honorary Presidents:

Charles Hajdamach;
[email protected]

Simon Cottle;
[email protected]

Honorary Life President:

Dwight Lanmon;
[email protected]

Joint Chairmen:

David Willars;
chair@glassassociation org uk

Susan Newell;
[email protected]

Vice-Chairman:
Paul Bishop:
[email protected]

Membership Secretary & Treasurer:

Maurice Wimpory;
[email protected]

Meetings Organiser:

Anne Lutyens-Stobbs;
[email protected]

Publications Editor:

Brian Clarke;
[email protected]

Committee Members:

Nigel Benson; Ian Goldsborough; Laurence Maxfield

Jim Peake; Ann Towse; Bob Wilcock

GLASS MATTERS EDITORIAL SUB-COMMITEE:
Nigel Benson; Susan Newell;

Simon Wain-Hobson; Bob Wilcock

FRONT COVER:
An aryballos, with all of its accoutrements still

attached. Eastern Mediterranean, probably Asia Minor; lst-2nd

century CE. Discussed on page
7.

Collection of Hans van Rossum

BACK COVER:
An elegant pair of elongated vases, steel

coated glass. 2019 by Jon Lewis. Details shown on page 28.
Private collection
Editorial

acking personal contact is affecting us all. Not being able

I
to discuss and handle glass from a dealer, auctioneer,

collector or museum is frustrating our wish to explore, find

and learn. All events have had to be re-scheduled. In their
place, a virtual experience has been organised by our chairmen

to bring us back together again. Our cancelled March meeting

at the AWG, a presentation by Katharine Coleman MBE on
Modern European Glass Engraving,
is now going to be given at

our
first GS Zoom meeting at 7pm on Tuesday 16 June.

Sue Newell will be sending an e-mail with simple instructions

on how to proceed from your computer, iPad or mobile phone

with a LINK to LOGIN to the meeting.

Katharine will give a guide to the 150 piece exhibition

Back on Tour,
transported from Finland to Coburg, Germany,

on show to this November, and the background to The Glass
Engraving Network, began in 2013. Lastly, a warm welcome

to the correspondence from our members in Holland,

Australia, Scotland and the USA.

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

CHAIRMEN’S MESSAGE

Chairmen ‘s
Message

Sue Newell, Joint Chairman
of The Glass Society

W
ith summer well and tru-

ly upon us, we hope that
your own health and

sense of wellbeing have not been
seriously affected by these difficult
times and the enforced lockdown.

Our planned meetings at the Art

Workers Guild and the Norwich
Museum Study Day have had to be
postponed. Similarly, it is unlike-

ly we can proceed with our embry-
onic plans for an AGM in Oxford
in the autumn. On the positive

side, as with many societies, we are

embracing available technology to
offer talks online. We are delight-
ed that our first will take place on

June 16, this is a lecture on interna-
tional contemporary engraved glass
by Katherine Coleman, originally
scheduled for March at the AWG.

We are hoping to arrange more
over the coming months and would
be delighted if you would join us.

Despite the inevitable limita-

tions to our activities, we have

been active in a number of direc-
tions. Firstly, earlier this year your

committee agreed that we should
embark on a digitisation project to

disseminate the publications of the

Glass Circle and Glass Association.

These represent a valuable legacy
for the new Society stretching back
over forty years. Despite their age,
the older journals are particularly

rare and contain research that has

not been superseded. Scanning this

material is now in progress and the

aim is to make articles freely avail-

able to members. For those inter-
ested in hard copies, many back
numbers of the journals are cur- rently in storage, do please con-

tact us via the Editor if interested.
In February a member’s book col-

lection was presented to the Soci-
ety, and seizing the opportunity
of lockdown, a priced catalogue of

over 300 titles was compiled and

circulated to the membership. The
response was excellent, raising sev-

eral hundred pounds for the Soci-

ety, and well over half have already

been despatched, even as far as

Australia! Our sincere thanks to all
those who purchased items. More
recently, we were thrilled that two

members collaborated on produc-
ing a glass quiz, achieving a bal-

ance of the familiar and obscure
that hopefully kept you enter-
tained for an hour. Likewise, one
of our committee members is put-

ting together an online Newsletter

— we would value your feedback on
both of these as more are planned.
This issue of our magazine is

notable (as ever), for its variety.

From his base close to Himley Hall,

the current home of the Broad-
field House collection, Bill Millar

has ample opportunity to hone

his glass photography skills. Bill, a

frequent contributor to
Glass Mat-

ters,
has taken the opportunity to

impart at least some of his secrets.

David Burton is
the

acknowledged

expert on sealed bottles and his arti-
cle in our first Glass Society Jour-

nal bears witness to his mastery
of the subject. Here, he follows on

with more insight into the bottle
collection at Himley Hall augment-
ed a couple of years ago by the Eila

Grahame bequest. Colin Reid is a
David Willars, Joint Chairman

of The Glass Society

glass artist working in Gloucester-

shire whose extraordinary sculp-
tures are an aesthetic and technical

tour de force.
Continuing themes are

represented by Simon Wain-Hob-

son who writes on twist stems,

while James Measell continues his

research with an article about Hen-

ry Cole. As founder of the South

Kensington Museum, Cole’s career

had important implications for
glass and collecting. On a different
note, there is even an update on two
of our members who were recent-

ly stranded on a cruise ship some-

where off the coast of Argentina.
We hope that your passion for

glass (in whatever form) has helped
to sustain you during this unprece-

dented period of lockdown. Some
may have continued working from
home, or be key workers, while oth-
ers will no doubt have taken the
opportunity to develop their inter-
est by researching or collecting

online. Whatever your preoccupa-
tion during lockdown, please share

any glass stories with us. Despite
everything that has happened to

shake our lives this year, we hope
we can become a stronger commu-
nity of glass enthusiasts of all kinds.

Susan Newell and David Willars

Joint Chairmen, The Glass Society

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

BATH OIL AND PERFUME

ARYBALLOI and the bath rituals in
Roman times

Part 2

Author• Hans van Rosman

English translation: Theo Zandbergen

CHANGED SHAPES AND SIZES

T
he colour of the used glass

was not the only thing that
changed with the introduc-

tion of the metal glassblowing iron

in the second half of the 1″ century

CE and the following standardiza-
tion and mass production of arybal-

loi. The aryballoi could now be blown

in larger sizes, as larger ‘gobs’ could

be taken with the use of the metal

glassblowing iron, just as with jars

and bottles. This development can
be seen from the 2nd and
3rd

century

CE when much larger aryballoi were

formed. These were both heavy and

medium-walled. Until now it’s still
not clear how and for what these

larger ones were used. Carrying such

a large object around was certainly a
challenge and not particularly ele-

gant. These larger aryballoi could
have been used as storage vessels

to form a stock in the public baths,

or used in private baths in the large

estates. An additional benefit of

being able to take on a larger gob of

glass was that thicker-walled arybal-
loi could now be made, lessening the
chance of damage or breakage. The

most exceptional variant form of the

aryballoi is the hexagonal one. While
it seems that the description of ary-

ballos for this shape is not correct,

the trade jargon still uses it. Accord-

ing to the literature, very few hex-

agonal aryballoi have been found

and in most cases the site of the
find was in the Western part of the

Empire
(Fig.14).
Besides the match-

ing hexagons there is difference in

appearance. There is a clear distinc-
tion between the compact type and

a taller and more slender form. Oth-
er than the form, the way the hex-
agonal variant is made also differs

from all other aryballoi. The others

are free-blown, while the bodies of
the hexagonal ones are mould-blown

to establish the characteristic form,

with the neck and mouth being free-
formed. The last known form varia-

tion on an aryballos is the ring type.

This is basically a round form derived

from the standard type but then pro-

duced as a kind of “pilgrim flask”,

also called a lentoid form – within the

middle of the body is a circular pas-

sage, giving the flask its ring form.

The faultless forming of such a “pas-
sage” is quite a complex technique,
Fig. 14

Hexagonal aryballos, collection Hans van Rossum.

Found in Cologne; late 1st -early 2nd century CE;
H = 11.8 cm, D = 4.7 cm; W = 132 g

requiring top craftsmanship from the

glassmaker. It is quite possible that
the ring-type aryballos is the result

of experimentation by a local glass-

maker trying to create an appealing
new form using techniques unique

to him. As he, or why not she, was

quite successful with this new form,

it seems that quite a market devel-

oped for this new “fashion” model, as

shown by several finds of this special

type. The other noticeable quality

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

BATH OIL AND PERFUME

Fig. 15
Aryballos, collection Joop van der Groen. Eastern Mediterranean, probably

Asia Minor; late 1st century CE; H = 8.1 cm, D = 7.6 cm; W = 74 g
Fig. 16

Aryballos, collection Arie Dekker. Black Sea region or Asia Minor;

2nd century CE; H = 6.5 cm, D= 6.2 an

of this aryballos model is the color.
Not a bluish-green but in many cas-
es a light olive green or a pale yellow-

ish colour. Known finds of this type

are from France and Germany and
are present in the museums of Lyon,

Amiens, Cologne, Trier and Frankfurt.

FORMING THE MOUTHS AND HANDLES

Different ways and means for form-

ing the mouth of the aryballos were
available. In a number of cases,
mainly with the early examples, the

mouth was folded in the form of a

triangle
(Fig.15).
To accomplish this

the glass was first outwardly extend-
ed then sloped upwards and fold-

ed inwards. The typical somewhat

heightened “triangle” form is specific

for production in the 1st century CE.

Another mouth form is called a col-
lar-rim. The rim was first folded out-
wards and downwards, followed by
upwards and again inwards folding.

In the so-called collar rim one can
see

that this form is a kind of imitation
of earthenware current in that peri-

od
(Fig.16).
The ceramists of Perga-

mon in Asia-Minor used that form of
collar rim extensively in their earth-
enware. The least complicated way

Fig. 17
Aryballos, Windmill collection. Western part of the

Roman Empire, probably North Italy; 1st century

CE; H = 6 cm, D = 5.0 an
to form the mouth of an aryballos

was to finish it simply and smooth-
ly. The glass mass was at first hori-
zontally worked outwards followed

by folding it inwards again. After
re-heating the mouth was further

smoothed. We are thankful to the

scientific study by Sorokina (1987)
for much of our knowledge on the

areas of origin of the aryballoi, based
on the differently executed mouths,
ears and handles. The way the han-

dles were made relates directly to
the period in which the objects were

made and their respective areas of

origin. To note, the handles of the
early and thin-walled aryballoi were

made by using a thick glass thread
fixed to the shoulder of the object,
pulled up to the rim then turned

downwards and folded to be fixed
to the neck of the object
(Fig.17).

Glass Matters Issue no,8 May 2020

This way of doing it is more or less

like the way the handles were formed

and attached for the core-formed
ones in the Hellenistic period. Some-

times the handles were made of the

same colour glass as used for the
body, known as monochrome. In
other cases, the glass for the handles

was of a contrasting colour known,
as mentioned earlier, as bi-chrome.
After the deployment of the metal

blowpipe, probably during the second
part of the first century CE, the ary-

balloi got not only heavier and larger,

but had differently formed handles.

For example, circular handles placed

on the shoulder and not touching the
neck at all. Others were attached to

the shoulder and connected to the

mouth. Yet others were formed like

the silhouette of a dolphin, hence

the name dolphin handles. This dol-
phin shape points to production in

the northwestern part of the Roman

Empire and more specifically to work-

shops in Cologne, or the area around

Cologne. The majority of the arybal-
loi have two handles; however, others

are known with three or four handles

(Fig.18). The latter are quite rare.

Fig. 19

Aryballos, collection Joop van der Gmen.
Niirvenich, Germany; 1st — 2nd century CE;

H = 6.0 an, D = 5.4 an; W = 42 g
SPRUCING IT UP

Most of the
spherical heavy-

walled aryballoi were without any

decoration, but there are excep-

tions. Some of the aryballoi from

the northern coasts of the Black

Sea were provided with horizon-
tal grooves ground into the cor-

pus at defined spacing and pattern.
In Karanis (Egypt) some arybal-

loi were unearthed with ground
grooves in the body; however,

these are made of clear translu-
cent glass. Other decorations are
known, such as using glass threads

wound around the body of the
object
(Figs.19 & 20).

Again, these

aryballoi are generally found in the

northwestern part of the Roman

Fig. 20

Aryballos, Windmill collection. Rhineland
1st— 2nd century CE; H =5.3 cm, D = 4.7 an

BATH OIL AND PERFUME

Fig. 18

Aryballos with four
handles, collection Hans van Rosswn.

Cologne; 1st century CE; H = 5.0 an, D = 5.4 an; W = 42 g

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

Fig. 21

Aryballos, collection Nico Bijnsdorp. Roman Empire;

2nd — 3rd century C_E; H = 7.5 cm, D =7.5 cm; W = 68 g
BATH OIL AND PERFUME

Empire and could refer to the pro-
duction centres in Cologne. From

that same region, objects are known
where the glass thread forming the

Fig. 22

Aryballos, Windmill collection. Eastern

Mediterranean; 2nd century CE;
H= 15.0 cm, D= 12.0 cm
(dolphin) handles progresses down-

wards on the body of the object. In
a number of cases, to achieve an

extra decorative effect, that lower

part has been pinched with a set of
pliers, giving a ribbed impression.

Aryballoi formed in a mould to get
a pattern on the body
are

quite
rare – one unique example is known,

having a diamond pattern
(Fig.21).

SEALING THE ARYBALLOI

The mouth of the aryballos can
be plugged or sealed. Most of the
time a bronze stopper or other
kind of plug was used, the stop-

pers often being connected to a

bronze link chain
(Fig.22).

The

aryballos could be carried around
by an attached cord or a met-

al chain, but also through using
a nicely formed bronze handle.
Most of the time, bronze rings

connected the carrying accoutre-

ments to the handles. In many cases
the metal elements have corrod-
ed away but there are still objects

having a well-preserved part, or

all of the accoutrements
(Fig.23).

A totally different way to seal

the aryballos was by plugging the

mouth with a wad of a white sub-

stance, either beeswax or gypsum,

Fig. 23

Aryballos, collection Hans van Rossum. Eastern

Mediterranean, probably Asia Minor; lst-2nd

century
CE; H = 7 3 cm, D = 7 0 cm; TN = 188 g

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

Fig. 25

Aryballos, collection Hans van Rossum. Probably the northern Black Sea region;
2nd — 3rd century CE; H = 9.6 cm, D = 7.8 an; W = 68 g

BATH OIL AND PERFUME

Fig. 24

Aryballos, collection Annelies Bos-Pette. Roman Empire, probably Black Sea region;
2nd century CE; H = 7.3 cm, D = 7.3 cm; W = 60 g

as was more or less common for

bottles and jugs
(Fig.24).
A “funny”

example is the aryballos shown here

(Fig.25).
The beeswax or gypsum

was not particularly neatly applied
but like a great lump slumped over

the mouth. The previous owner of

this aryballos was not aware of using

different materials to seal aryballoi.

He assumed that the content of the

aryballos had, in the grave, a kind
of uncontrolled chemical reaction,
forming this irregular glob. In his

opinion this reaction had formed the
kind of chalky plug. After he tried to

remove this “flaw” he noticed that

the mouth was already cracked in

antiquity. To deal with the sealing

problem the original Roman owner

packed the whole in a large blob of

bee wax or gypsum. Further scientif-

ic research needs to give the answer

to the question – is this blob beeswax
or gypsum? Another remarkable
detail with this aryballos is the way

the handles have been attached. In

all known cases up to now the glass-
maker attached the glass thread first

to the shoulder pulling it upwards,
folding it and attaching it to the

neck or the mouth. The glass thread

starts in that case quite sizeable on

the shoulder and “thins” when it’s
pulled up. With this aryballos the

glassmaker also started out in the
traditional way but, probably, the

glass blob did not fuse on the shoul-
der. Subsequently, after that inci-

dent, he or she started to work in the
reverse way and attached the glass

thread first to the neck. Thereafter

the craftsperson finished his or her

work more or less in the tradition-

al manner, folding the glass thread

and re-attaching it to the glass blob
that was left on the shoulder. The

process described above could, in a

Sherlock Holmes way, be researched

from the observation that the glass

thread on the top side is thick and

thins out to the shoulder. In this

way shortcomings in the production,
leading to developing cracks or not

fusing and the masterly repairs by

the glassmaker, can be discovered.
TO CONCLUDE: LET’S SPRINKLE

SOME SAND TO FINISH THIS ARTICLE

The thermal baths also played an
important role in the day-to-day

doings of the people in the times

of the Roman Empire. Sand was

a cleansing medium in the baths
but is also the main ingredient

for making glass. The baths also

functioned as a kind of neighbour-
hood centre, where people could

gossip, exchange the most recent
news, or play board games – not

to say that plots couldn’t be devel-

oped around politics or politicians.

Who says that the baths didn’t
play a role in many plots around

the impeachment of a reigning

emperor or the succession thereof?

One sees what a role small objects
like aryballoi can have in history.

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

face that has been made conductive.

Decorative, plant-like growth forma-

tions on each vessel symbolise that

life is completely dependent on water.

THE MAKING PROCESS OF THE

AQUATOPIA WATER OBJECTS

All pieces from the Aquatopia collec-
tion were produced via electroforming.

This traditional technique was invent-
ed in 1839 by scientists in Britain and

Russia. As electroforming is not con-

ventional, or economical commercial-
ly, it is less utilised today. But in spite
of being a time-consuming process,

occasionally with rather unpredict-

able outcomes, artists spare no effort

in exploring this technique, as it allows
the creation of extraordinary designs

and interesting textures that cannot

Made of copper and glass, materials

traditionally used for transporting and
storing water, the craft objects strad-
dle the line between function, imag-
ined function and aesthetic quality. All

pieces were produced by the electro-
forming technique, a process in which

a layer of copper is deposited on a sur-
AQUATOPIA

Aquatopia

Katrin Spranger

MY RATIONALE

A
quatopia takes a critical view

of our fresh water supply and

on increasing demand and

pollution. In the UK we may not rec-
ognise the urgency to rethink water
consumption, yet our choices in food,
materials and lifestyle tie into the

global issue of the increasing scar-
city of water. According to a report
from the United Nations in 2005,

two-thirds of the world’s population

will face water shortages by 2025.
I create ‘science fiction’ stories

about depleting resources and cli-
mate change. In the dystopian nar-
rative of Aquatopia, pure water is on

the verge of depletion and this pre-
cious resource is recognised by keep-
ing consumption and waste to the

bare minimum. Inspired by tradi-
tional water systems, the Aquatopia
objects were created as futuristic and
reimagined drinking vessels, scoop-

ing bowls, storages and shower fun-
nels that engage original plumbing

parts and laboratory-found objects.

RIGHT Fig. 2

Aquatopia Water Vessel, copper, glass.
40 x 25 x25 cm. 2018

BELOW (LEFT) Fig. 3

Aquatopia Drinking Vessel, copper, glass, plastics.

20 x10 x 5 cm. 2017

BELOW (RIGHT) Fig. 4

Aquatopia Water Pipe, copper, glass, wood.

30x15x10cm. 2016

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

AQUATOPIA

FAR LEFT Fig. 5

Aquatopia Water Storage,

copper, glass, limescale.
35x30x30cm. 2017

LEFT Fig. 6

Aquatopia Thinking Sculpture,

copper, blue patina, glass,
plastic. 2018

BELOW Fig.
7

Aquatopia Water Tank, copper,

glass, sea fern, plastic.

50 x 30 x30 cm. 2017

be achieved by any other means. In the
process, a layer of metal, for example

copper, silver or gold, is deposited on a

surface that may originally not be con-
ductive, but has been made conductive

through a lacquer that contains con-
ductive partides. Pieces are immersed

in a tank with an electrolyte solution

and a dosed circuit is then made using
two electrodes. Low, direct current is

then applied, causing the electrode

connected to the positive pole (a

sheet of metal) to dissolve. The met-

al ions migrate through the solution

and cause the cathode (object piece)
to become coated with metal. The lon-

ger a piece remains in the tank, the
heavier the metal deposits will become.
Having studied electroforming

for many years, I’ve been making

the Aquatopia collection to broad-

en my knowledge by using a range

of rather uncommon materials and

handling different shapes that can

be electroformed. Original plumb-
ing pieces were coated with conduc-

tive paint, then materials such as
dried plants (moss and sea fern),

synthetics and conductive mate-
rials such as steel were employed.
Depending on the complexity of a

piece’s shape and surface area, it was

sometimes ratherdifficult to distribute
the coating evenly in all places on the
objects. Naturally protruding tips and

edges attracted more metal, whereas

cavities were hard to fill with any at all.

Consequently, some of the Aquatopia
objects needed to be electroformed on

the outside first, and then just on the

inside at a later stage. Some textured

pieces were assembled after a layer of
metal was already electroformed, in

order to keep textures defined and del-

icate. Throughout the process, in order

to achieve a successful outcome and

create interesting surfaces, a constant
turning of the pieces in the electrolyte

solution and adjustment of the power
of the electrical circuit was necessary.

BIOGRAPHY

Katrin Spranger creates sculpture

and jewellery that deals with science
fiction, environment and consum-

er culture. Focusing on resources

that might become depleted in the
future, she explores natural mate-
rials including crude oil, water and

honey to develop wearable but also

time-based and interactive pieces.
Originally trained as a goldsmith,

Katrin holds a Master’s in Fine Art/

Jewellery from Konstfack University,
Stockholm. Her hybrid practice has

led to collaborations with artists from
many disciplines and often crosses
over into the realms of fashion, food,

fine art, performance, photography

and installation. From an industrial

aesthetic to precious metal creations

and even edible works, her varied art-

work creates bold performative expe-
riences for the viewer. In this way,

they interact with the user or wearer,

by questioning notions ofwhat is pre-

cious or valuable to our society today.
Having been awarded numer-

ous grants and awards for her work,
Katrin Spranger has exhibited inter-

nationally and has contributed to sev-
eral publications. Besides teaching

positions at several colleges in Lon-

don, Katrin co-founded K2 Academy

of Contemporary Jewellery in 2017

with business partner Kelvin Birk.

IMAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Images 2,3,4,5,7 are present-

ed with thanks to Sylvain Deleu

Image 6 is presented with

thanks to Henning Spranger.

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

Fig.1

GLASS PHOTOGRAPHY

Some Tips for PHOTOGRAPHING GLASS

Bill Millar

BACKGROUND

You need a plain background which
will not detract from your image.

White is excellent for coloured glass
and may do for clear glass. Black
or grey is invariably essential for

engraved glass. A plain, white, bor-
rowed pillowslip and a black poly-

thene bin liner will get you started.

Make sure you minimise creases,
folds and specks of dust, as these

are likely to be distracting. A3 art
paper will do very well but will mark

with continued use. A long-term

solution is to buy a section or two of
opaque perspex and bend it to a soft

“L” shape. A section 100cms x 60cms
will be more than enough for most
purposes and a smaller section will

do for smaller items. You will need
to apply heat to bend the perspex. I

offer no suggestions as
I would not wish to get
the blame for scalds or
burnt-out hairdryers.
bin liner and some sticky tape. Take

a cardboard box, large enough to

accommodate your perspex back-
ground, remove the front and the
top, line it with black polythene

bin liners or, better still, paint it
matt black and you have your light

box. Black at the sides gives a more
defined line on the edges of clear

glass. The final source of reflections
to eliminate is your own face and
clothing. Black clothing and a bala-

clava may arouse suspicions with
the serious crime squad so I recom-
mend a sheet of black material as a

hood on the front of the light box.
Having minimised reflections,

you still need a light source. Avoid
using your camera’s flash at all costs.

A specialist daylight bulb (less than
£5 each) is the best solution. Many
cameras have the facility to set for

bout ten years ago I tried to

photograph glasses in my
collection. The results were

hopeless. Like all bad workmen I
blamed my camera and bought a
replacement. Had I known how to

use the original camera I need not

have bothered – my loss, Nikon’s gain.

Shortly after this I was accepted as a
volunteer at Broadfield House Glass

Museum; they had just acquired a
Nikon camera, identical to mine

and wanted a volunteer to photo-
graph much of the collection. Thou-
sands of images later I feel I can offer

advice to members who may want
to photograph glass in their collec-

tion. Some of the failed photos I have

taken can at last have a use: to illus-
trate this article, help you avoid sim-

ilar mistakes and creatively improve

your glass photos during lockdown.
Glass has the amazing properties

of transmitting and reflecting light

which can make it the devil to record.

The objective of this article is to offer
simple tips which will help you take

effective photographs of glassware,

something I have yet to find in a pho-

tography text book. Professional pho-

tographers may shudder on reading

this article. All I can say is, please
produce a text book on how to pho-

to graph glass and we can all learn.

EQUIPMENT

My aim is to help you make best
use of your existing equipment
rather than encourage you to

spend money that you should be
using to buy glass. A digital cam-
era, which allows control of expo-

sure and aperture, and a tripod are

the realistic minimum. Beyond

that some DIY will help you con-

trol light but if you do get the
bug, a small investment in light-
ing equipment will make life easier.
MANAGEMENT

L IGHT

There are three poten-
tial problems with light:

too much, too little and

reflections. Windows

and lighting produce
unwanted reflections,

while furnishings and

walls produce coloured
reflections. A darkened

room, cupboard under

the stairs or a garage

without windows are

all options but I would
always recommend a

light box.
See Fig.1
for

a Blue Peter version
made from a cardboard

box, two black bin lin-

ers, one white swing

Glass Matters Issue no.8.May 2020

GLASS PHOTOGRAPHY

the types of light used, includ-

ing fluorescent which is normally

a nightmare. For most purposes I
have found placing the light source

above the subject most effective.
Hence no top on the light box. For

engraved glass, the light source

above and behind the object is defi-
nitely best. Opaque, coloured and
patterned glass may require frontal

lighting. A reflector of kitchen foil

laid in front of the subject works well,

whereas a frontal light may produce
too many reflections. There are no

absolutes concerning lighting as the
shape, construction, surface finish,
transparency or opaqueness of each

item will create their own unique

problems, so you will need to exper-

iment to get the best lighting set-up.
Even when your own lighting is the

only light source, the shape of some

glass objects makes the elimination
of reflections impossible. Globular

bottles are an especial nightmare.

CAMERA

SETTINGS

Most digital cameras are clever

enough to make their own decisions

on focus and exposure. However, for

best results you may need to man-

age the settings yourself, which is
not complicated. The aperture you

use will determine how much of

the photo is in focus. The widest

aperture, typically anything from
f1.4 to f4 depending on lens, will
require the shortest exposure but

will give the least depth of focus.

The smallest aperture, typically f22

to f35, will give the greatest depth
of focus but will require a much

longer exposure, possibly several

seconds, impossible with a hand-

held camera. Hence the need for a

tripod. I usually use autofocus but

am finding an increasing need for
manual focus to get the best results.

Autofocus will choose a specific

point of the item on which to focus

(the point of focus). Clear glass,
because of its transparency, may

confuse the sensor. At close range,
the depth of focus (simply, the

amount of the object in focus, from
front to back) of most lenses is quite

shallow, typically as little as one or
two inches. The depth of focus is

centred on the point of focus. If the

depth of focus is two inches and the
camera focuses on the nearest point

of the object, only the front inch of

the object will be in focus. In photo-

graphing a large glass, if the point

of focus is the front of the top rim,
the stem may be out of focus. A high

f number will increase the depth of

focus, then manual focusing, using

the stem as the point of focus should

bring the whole glass into focus.

The image at
Fig.2
illustrates this,

along with some lighting problems.

Software is available to link your

camera and laptop so that you can view

what the image will look like on screen

before taking the photo. Such software

would enable a better image and avoid
issues such as that at
Fig.2.
Pending an

investment in this software, the alter-

native is to take a series of photos with

differing settings, transfer them to

your computer, check the results, then
go back and do it all over again and

again until you get the desired result.

If your camera and editing soft-

ware will handle RAW images then

set your image type to RAW. The
files will be larger than JPEG files

but you will have more control over
editing, especially with adjustments

to lighting. Also, with RAW imag-

es you do not need to set your cam-

era to a specific type of light source.
CAMERA

ANGLE

Not only does a tripod help you avoid
camera shake on longer exposures

it also allows you to select the right

camera angle. When photographing a

glass, the top rim is the normal point
of reference. It is largely a matter of
personal taste whether you have the
rim absolutely level or have a high-

er or lower view point. There may be

occasions where a particular angle

is needed, such as the glass at
Fig.7.

What must be recognised is that if the

rim is level you will be looking down

on the foot – see the glass at
Fig3.

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

The closer the camera is to the object

the more the distortion, in this case

between bowl and foot, will become

apparent. Another blessing of the
tripod is that you can progressive-

ly alter the angle and/or the cam-
era settings, take a series of shots

and choose the image you like best.

EDITING

Having downloaded your images,

you can then edit them. Free digital
editing software available online will

do everything you need. The primary
objectives of editing are to straighten,
crop, brighten or darken, and remove

highlights or reflections. Straight-
ening and cropping are straightfor-

ward. A black or white background
may produce what looks like an over
or under-exposed image. However,
editing can easily lighten or darken
the overall image. It is also possi-

ble to adjust contrast, lighten shad-

ows, darken highlights, and select

small areas to lighten or darken.
None of these adjustments affect

the integrity of the image but fur-
ther editing may affect the hones-

ty of the image. For example, you
can remove the colour of a coloured
reflection by converting the image to

black and white – see
Fig.4c.
Natural-

ly, this will affect the apparent tone
of the item. The spot healing tool

enables you to circle an offending

highlight or blemish and eliminate it.

The software reads the surrounding
area and replaces the spot with a sim-
ilar finish. It can be used to remove
reflections over quite large areas pro-

vided they do not overlap decoration.
Airbrushing might enhance a film

star’s curves but is best limited to
improving the background rather
than altering the object. Much bet-
ter you clean the glass or adjust the

lighting and retake the photographs
to produce an honest image. Provid-
ed you always keep the original imag-

es you can experiment to your heart’s

content to develop your editing skills.

The images at
Figs.4a, b,& c

illustrate

how simple editing can be used.

To
DEVELOP YOUR SKILLS

I suggest you start with coloured

glass, like the opaque pressed glass
bowl at
Fig.5.
This will allow you to

concentrate on depth of focus and

illumination. Items with applied dec-

oration, such as the Lobmeyr bowl at
Fig.6,

offer a slightly more demand-

ing subject. After this try clear

glass, then cut glass, then finally,
etched or engraved glass as at
Fig.7.

At the very least, you may now

look at photographs with a more

critical eye. If you choose to apply

some of these tips and photograph

your glass, have fun. I hope you will
get the same, enormous satisfaction
I do at producing a good image. If you
have any questions please contact me

on [email protected]. If you
have any suggestions or tips, I will

be only too happy to hear from you.

AN IN-DEPTH EXAMINA-
TION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS

I am currently locked down so do not

have proper facilities, just a camera
and tripod, so have had to improvise
to demonstrate the effects of cam-

era settings, background and editing.
Fig.1
Mock-up of a light box.

Fig.2
(2 seconds exposure at f9).

Autofocus selected the rear rim as
the point of focus, so the front is
out of focus. Where a glass has an

all-round pattern, a shallow depth
of focus is needed to throw the
pattern on the far side of the glass

Fig. 4a

Fig. 4b

Fig. 4c
GLASS PHOTOGRAPHY

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

out of focus so that it does not

interfere with the pattern on the
front of the glass. In this instance

I took it the wrong way round, but
Fig.6 was more successful. Some
reflection is inevitable with a

curved bowl and this can usually

be minimised with simple editing.

However, there is also a coloured

reflection which is more problem-

atic. With plain glass the colour of a
reflection can be edited out by con-

verting the whole image to black
and white, but this is not possible

where there is coloured decoration,

and a clear reflection cannot be

easily removed where it overlaps

the decoration. Finally, the glass

was lit from above and the gilt pat-
tern on the front is in shadow. This

could be improved by editing but

a reflector at the front would have
produced a better starting point.

•
Fig.3

This borrowed photo illus-

trates the distortion that can
be created by a wide-angle lens.

The rim of this glass is virtual-
ly level whereas the foot appears
to be at nearly 45 degrees.

•
Figs.4a, b, & c. Fig 4a
(1/20th of a

second exposure at f2.8) demon-

strates that a white background
does not work for engraved glass

and that a crease is intrusive. In
Fig.4b (1.3 seconds exposure at

f22) the benefit of a dark back-

ground is obvious. At Fig.4c the
same image has been edited to
straighten, crop and convert to

black and white to remove the
coloured reflection. The spot

healing tool was used to remove

most of the reflections on the bowl

and the top right-hand corner of
the background was airbrushed

to remove a distracting problem.

•
Fig.5

(2.5 seconds expo-

sure at f20). This bowl

posed two challenges.

The depth of focus must
be sufficient to keep the
front half of the bowl

in focus, and because
the item is opaque the
underside must be illu-

minated. Fortunately,

the white perspex back-

ground helped. The small
number of highlights or
reflections do not serious-

ly detract from the image.

•
Fig.6

(0.68seconds expo-

sure at f9). Deconflict-
ing the decoration on the

front and back of this bowl

was achieved by leaving
the rear half slightly out

of focus. The gilding on

the front was illuminated

using a silver foil reflector.

•
Fig.7
(30 seconds expo-

sure at f22). A low cam-
era angle was needed to

separate the engraved

area from the bright area

at the top of the stem.
A very low light source mini-

mised reflections, hence the

long exposure. The spot healing
tool was used to remove reflec-

tions on the bowl. Engraved

glass offers the greatest chal-

lenge of all; good luck if this is

what you want to photograph.

GLASS PHOTOGRAPHY

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

Flame’s in flow-

ers!

to the

The corolla

is of ease and the

cola and leave. of

metal. It is lively-

Ifxdf4ig and impu-

tar, but we must

hesitate to sae that
the idea is op-

preprints: to the
toe to be made

or the artiele-
Snell art, maks.
natty Um-, in

erne ju nix-position with t1 gore. gene-
rally come, uff second best.
WINK

(iLN.

,
4
rrntiril pattern,

nix-

untutored by Riellarstomfs.
‘Theornanwnt which
this glass ff..’

name winds round the
Arm. and is of peso
pot-Instal. The sine

leaves are canine/led

in gold on the low).

‘ffnue feattans are
grao:fut woe:-
ties, Mat they

neuescarity raise

Ow oast of Ow
A 14

abase the aver-

age. !loth it and the finger-glass
below belong to the series of Art.

nunutlettire,:stal art (tom the design

by Mt.

liedgraer.

PLowiat Vase, inanufaeluted by

Altens:ogerr..

Fri4ZZ•GLAwf. Me t okr
a

stn faufactured 1w Meliard>ous.

The shape of thts glass is

novel for Ito fortienlar par-
‘se. The ornamental ante-

,
nses are cantos-Ilea in their

=total colour, and nicely ex-
ecuted. The smaller ornament

is of enamelled gilding. It is is

handsome trifle. Mg we shout’
fear rather rosily in its manu•
facture; a.. indeed, must le 1111

ornamental %Melt demands skilled ha

HENRY COLE & GLASS DESIGN

Comments on GLASS DESIG.

Henry Cole and the 1852 ‘Chamber of Horrors’

James Measell

K
nighted in 1875 in belated

recognition for his work in
collaborating with Prince

Albert and organising the 1851

Great Exhibition, Henry Cole

(1808-1882) is well known
for other efforts, ranging
from the Penny Post, the

standardisation of railway
gauge and the Royal Albert
Hall construction to the

first commercial Christ-

mas card and his author-

ship of books for children.

In the 1840s, under the

pseudonym Felix Summer-

ly and in consort with artist
Richard Redgrave, he designed

and marketed some innovative

utilitarian and decorative items.

Henry Cole was also responsible
for a ‘chamber of horrors’ exhibi-
tion at Marlborough House in 1852.

Soon after joining the Society for

the Encouragement of Arts, Man-
ufactures and Commerce in 1846,

Cole was involved with exhibitions
sponsored by the society, including
events in 1848 and 1849 that each

attracted more than 70,000 visitors.

Cole was a member of the council of
the Society of Arts, as it was gener-

ally known, and, in 1850, he became
its chairman. Cole was a strident

critic of Government efforts in art
education, primarily through pub-

lication of the
Journal of Design and

Manufactures,
but also through his

testimony before a Select Commit-

tee charged with investigating prac-

tices within the Government schools
of art that had been founded in the

late 1830s and during the 1840s.
In the first issue of the
Jour-

nal
(March 1849), Cole discussed

and illustrated three glass arti-
des, including a flower vase made

by Messenger with a metal stand

(Fig.2).
The other two items were

made by the Rich-

ardson firm near

Stourbridge after

designs by Rich-

ard Redgrave: a
crystal finger bowl
with decoration

in gilt and hand
painted enam-

el and a crystal
wine glass in the

`Tendril pattern’
which had green

glass ’round the

Fig.2
Text and illustrations

from the Journal of

Design and Manufactures

(September 1850)
Fig.1

Sir Henry Cole, c. 1875

stem’ and ‘vine leaves … enam-
elled in gold on the bowl.’ Both
Richardson products were
described in positive terms
save for the cost of their

manufacture due to orna-
mentation that ‘demands

skilled hand-labour.’ In

subsequent issues of Cole’s

Journal,
Richard Redgrave’s

remarks to designers of

ornament regarding the

value of the study of bota-

ny can be found. In the Sep-

tember 1850 instalment of the

Journal,
Redgrave’s ‘Canons of

Taste in Carpets, Paper-Hangings

and Glass’ appeared. In prefatory
remarks, Cole remarked that these

canons contain ‘principles so sound

and so well meriting serious reflec-

tion from all….’ Regarding taste

in glass, Redgrave offered only a

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

*21

FALSE. PRINCIPLE&

No. 42.—GLASS BUTTER 10511.
No. 5-1, —WINE G LASS.

No. 54.-
JELLY GLASS.

llhp-rration.
In

cash

of dime articles

the natural notlatte of the Outs viten
blown destroyed by the surfaces twint.;

nn.
fit

Prturipu

IN,traitou.

No. 65.—GLASS thi0111.F.T. OPAL.
(Novevarnot..- Qone*. form

the

transparency of the material sacrificed
to imitate 0th:oder.

No. r…—GLASS (lt
MIXT (rt:ontEn

NvITU UPAL At IiNIIHAVV,Ir).

Otarration. -Traronarroc., which

es..mtitotes
the beauty of the material,

entirely olmtro)ed,
thereby rendering it

impossible
tO

Sty
the contents.

No.

GOBLET.

Otsermat;ou.
-Foil. unfitted the we; the vessel shrinks in the

middle
so
that it

could not
he emptied without raising the foot considerably shore the

mouth.

HENRY COLE & GLASS DESIGN

single sentence in which he object-
ed to glass ‘covered with a ground

surface or cased with opal’ and

asserted that the beauty and util-

ity of glass ‘also consist in shew-

ing the crystal clearness of the

water or the ruby brightness
of the wine that mantles in it.’
As General Superintendent of the

Government Department of Practi-
cal Art and its successor, the Depart-

ment of Science and Art, from 1852

to 1873, Cole was the prime mover

in promulgating the rigid stages of
the South Kensington curriculum

for art and design education that

were omnipresent in British Gov-
ernment schools of art for more

than a half century. Soon after the

close of the Great Exhibition, Cole

sought to establish a museum that

would house examples
of ornamental art that

were associated with
manufactures. A Parlia-

mentary grant of £5000
enabled Cole to secure

a wide variety of items

(including some from
the Great Exhibition)

and to prepare them
for display at Marlbor-

ough House in London

in 1852. Cole’s continu-

ing zest for museums

led to the establish-
ment of the South

Kensington Museum,

which was renamed
the Victoria and Albert

Museum in 1899.

During May-June

1852, the exhibition

prepared by Henry

Cole at Marlborough
House was available
only briefly (a fortnight

plus a few days), and it

attracted little atten-
tion, although articles

appeared in
The Times

(19 May and 1 June).
Design works by stu-
dents from the Gov-
ernment schools were on display

along with numerous articles from
various countries that were in the

Great Exhibition. After the sum-
mer vacation, Marlborough House

opened once again in early Septem-

ber. On Monday 6 September 1852,

The Times
carried a lengthy article

devoted to the ‘Museum of Manu-

factures’ in which displays were char-

acterised as ‘the finest examples of
ornamental art that can be procured,

to which students and manufactur-
ers may have access for the purposes

of examination, study and copying.’
Near the end of the article in
The

Times,
this description of an extraor-

dinary area of the museum appeared:
The ante-room is fitted up as a

sort of ‘chamber of horrors,’ with a

collection of all kinds of so-called
ornamental manufacture, which

are considered to exhibit false prin-

ciples of decoration, such as vulgar

and inharmonious colouring, want of
meaning and unity in pattern, grace-

less imitations of natural forms, &c.

The department, in giving its rea-
sons for condemning the individual

examples here shown, afford the pub-

lic an ample opportunity of testing

the accuracy of the canons it enforc-

es in its instruction to the students.
What was contained within Cole’s

`chamber of horrors’ at Marlborough
House? To answer the query, one can

consult the printed catalogue enti-
tled ‘Examples of False Principles in

Decoration.’ Some 84 objects are list-
ed and described therein, as follows:

carpet, nos. 1-9; chintzes and silk,

nos. 10-20; paper and other hang-
ings, nos. 21-36; gar-
ment fabrics, nos. 37-60;

porcelain and glass, nos.

61-79; and metal work,
nos. 80-84. Of the 84

items mentioned, just
two are illustrated (nos.

64 and 69), and both

are glass
(Fig.3).
Pre-

sumably, those visiting

the ‘chamber of horrors’

would have the catalogue
in hand whilst viewing

the various objects and
could ponder the indict-

ments of false principles

ascribed to each indi-

vidual article. The
First

Report of the Depart-

ment of Practical Art,

published in early 1853,

summarised this area
of Marlborough House:

‘A small room has been

fitted up with exam-

ples of modern carpets,

paper hangings, garment
fabrics, pottery, glass,

Fig. 3
Text and illustrations from the

catalogue of Examples of False
Principles in Decoration’ (1852).

No. Gs.—COliNtIC01`1.1. FOR

1
,
LI 1WlittS.

06,..vratilvar.-

construetive line

very had,—the

appearing as
if

Mock on. instead of (ornery% part of the
whole; transparency of the matar.s1

tiestroyelL

No.

FL(tWlif( VASE.

(li.e. ra tiwt.
—The erenenti outf.ne

entirely dmtroyid by the vert;ral

cuttings.

Na. 70.–EA STIIEN WARE VASE.
Merrovaion.,
— (treatments coped

from a fimeral ease. ami inapprepr;me

ntewvationt, Nn. so.

No. 7t.
-F1.OWP.11 rf.T.

Merreuness.—hohn::on in ratdiert-

–
w.tre

of neon, ;mink(‘ !An-, bound

ovrttxtr with yellow ribbon,

No.:.—PAIR OF 4C1SS4

oimreoneoa—laaitution of
halt upv,irig the

ito!y of the hint ma+, to or a

dirtAtitto
Of ha length.

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

HENRY COLE & GLASS DESIGN

papier mach& &c., which are intend-
ed to illustrate FALSE PRINCI-
PLES of Decoration, and to present

types of what ought to be avoided.’
Prior to the commentary regard-

ing the individual glass items, Cole’s
catalogue summarised remarks by
Richard Redgrave regarding glass,

and it is quite apparent that crystal
glass was the focus. The inherent
beauty of such glass was ascribed
to its ‘brilliancy of surface and

transparency,’ and, Cole asserted,

‘another excellence of glass is its
lightness, as compared with its pow-
er of containing.’ In the mid-nine-
teenth century, utilitarian glass
objects were made of blown glass,

and this method of manufacture

was lauded because it ‘unites thin-
ness, translucency, and pure surface
to forms which combine the great-
est symmetry with varied curves.’

‘Elegance of form,’ the catalogue
concluded, ‘should be the first con-

sideration.’ Cole’s catalogue also
referenced concerns about some

current practices in decorating

glass. Glass articles which have ‘the
surface covered with ground orna-
ment’ were deemed unworthy of

acceptance, especially if such cut-
ting was to be found ‘on the bowls of

wine glasses.’ Decorative techniques

such as gilding and enameling were
acceptable for drinking vessels so

long as these methods of orna-
mentation do not ‘interfere with

a perfect sight of their contents.’
As mentioned above, items

61-79 in the ‘chamber of horrors’
encompassed both porcelain and

glass, but a close reading of the cat-
alogue reveals that only numbers 62
through 69 were indeed glass. Num-
bers 62 and 63 were listed simply as

‘butter dish’ and ‘wine glass’ respec-
tively, with no descriptions what-

soever; however, the text of the
catalogue indicates that these arti-

cles displayed the same cut decora-

tion as number 64, a ‘jelly glass.’ The

illustration shows a stemmed arti-
cle with cutting on much of the body,
and the underside of the foot is cut

as a multi-pointed star. According to
the catalogue, this typical mid-nine-

teenth century cutting style is sub-

ject to ridicule because ‘the natural

outline of the glass when blown [is]
destroyed by the surfaces being cut.’
Numbers 65 and 66 are opal glass

goblets, and this feature made them

‘coarse’ and objectionable because it
was ‘impossible to see the contents.’
Number 67, also a goblet, was
deemed deficient in form, because
the constricted shape ‘in the middle’

made the goblet difficult to ‘be emp-

tied without raising the foot consid-
erably above the mouth.’ Number

69 is a tall footed flower vase with
cutting, and its failure in design

consists in the fact that ‘the gen-
eral outline [is] entirely destroyed

by the horizontal cuttings.’

The ‘chamber of horrors’ at Marl-

borough House attracted the atten-
tion of author Charles Dickens, and
he recounted his visit in a lengthy

satire. In
Household Words,
Dickens

assumed the character of count-
ing-house proprietor Mr Crumpet of

Clump Lodge, Brixton. Crumpet was

‘very miserable,’ his distress stem-
ming from the exhibition, which

he described as ‘a gloomy chamber,

hung round with frightful objects,
in curtains, carpets, clothes, lamps
and what not.’ Mr Crumpet came
to realise that everything in Clump
Lodge, from furniture, carpets and

decorative accents to the clothes
in his wardrobe, was illustrative of
false principles of taste. He became

‘ashamed of the pattern of my own
trowsers,’ and he saw himself as ‘a
haunted man, molested in my peace

by horrid sights, which follow one

another almost without intermis-
sion.’ Crumpet’s mood darkened

still further when he encountered
his friend Mr Frippy (‘an extreme-

ly elegant and tasteful gentleman’).

Alas, Frippy’s attire displayed even

more false principles than Crum-
pet’s! Nonetheless, Crumpet hoped

that a dinner invitation to Chimbo-
razo Villa, the Frippy family abode,

would be restorative. It was not to
be, however, for Frippy’s wallpaper,
with its ‘perspective representa-

tions of a railway station frequently
repeated’ was simply a ‘nightmare.’

During dinner, Mr Crumpet was
appalled to drink wine from a glass

‘of which the bowl was cut to the
destruction of all elegance of out-

line.’ When asked to pour water for
his hostess, Crumpet found that the
glass jug had a handle like ‘the body

of a snake,’ and he ‘was reminded of
the late horrid affair of the cobra.’
Many of the instances of bad

design described in Dickens’s sat-
ire can be linked directly to objects

among the 84 examples that were

displayed at Marlborough House.

Within the account in
Household

Words,
however, one can find this

careful articulation of correct

design, as follows: ‘ornament …

should in the first place be close-
ly fitted to the uses of the thing. It
must convey a sense of fitness to

the mind, and vex the eye with noth-

ing that suggests a consciousness
of incongruity or contradiction.’
James Measell is an Honorary

Research Fellow at the University

of Birmingham. He can be contact-

ed by email: [email protected]

FOR FURTHER READING:
Elizabeth Bonython and Anthony

Burton,
The Great Exhibitor: The Life

and Work ofHenry Cole
(London: V&A

Publications, 2003).

•
Charles Dickens, ‘A House Full of

Horrors,’
Household Words
(4 Decem-

ber 1852), pp. 265-270.

Christopher Frayling,
Henry Cole and

the Chamber of Horrors
(London: V&A

Publishing, 2010).

•
Department of Practical Art, ‘Exam-

ples of False Principles in Decoration,’

Appendix C in
A Catalogue of the Arti-

cles of Ornamental Art in the Museum
of the Department
(London: HMSO,

1852), pp. 22-32.

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

WHCmog and BGF

WHATS GOING ON1N VORDSLEY

White House Cone – museum of gla ss

Graham Fisher

T
he Trustees of the Brit-

ish Glass Foundation recog-

nise the difficulties created by the

Covid-19 pandemic and would like

to assure our supporters and fol-

lowers that, subject to Govern-
ment constraints in fighting this
nasty virus, our efforts to create a

world-class glass facility continue.
I am thus singularly grate-

ful to Brian Clarke for his invita-
tion to report on what is quietly

going on behind the scenes at BGF
in our efforts to ‘tread water’ until

we are back on solid ground.
The Museum is, of course, tem-

porarily closed and all activities

suspended, including those of our
resident glassmaker Allister Mal-

colm who has been obliged to commit

glassmaking sacrilege by shutting off
his furnace. But this is far from an idle

time for Allister who routinely car-

ries out essential maintenance tasks

on-site whilst also populating cyber-

space with updates. His latest little
gem is a delightful video that shows
where we are right now and offers

a few happy moments of the better
times we all hope will return soon.

As a practising glass artist, Allis-

ter has his own professional web-

site and social media feeds but in
his capacity as a Trustee of BGF he

also independently manages, mon-

itors and contributes to the White
House Cone Facebook stream. This

is more usually populated by matters

connected with our own operations

but in the current circumstances
BGF extends its support to the wid-

er glass industry in welcoming con-

tributions from anyone (subject

to usual protocols) who wishes to

share news, promote their work or
maintain contact with colleagues.

We remain confident that as soon

as the lockdown permits us to do so
we will be in a position to resume

our efforts to attain our aims. Hav-

ing received our National Lottery
Heritage Fund grant (formerly the

Heritage Lottery Fund) to complete

the fit-out it is somewhat incongru-

ous that, through no one’s fault, we
can’t spend it yet. There are certain

legal and procedural implications to
this so we are liaising closely with

HF to ensure that the grant offer

remains valid and that we can access

it immediately the situation permits.
All recruitment enquiries, includ-

ing the appointment of a Muse-
um Director and an external PR

agency, are suspended but we have

advised applicants that procedures

will resume straightaway post-lock-

down from where we left off. The
tender process for the fit-out design

team has similarly been paused

until restrictions have been lifted.

Our internal fundraiser is active in

helping us secure a viable long-term

finance stream whilst our advisers
continue to offer us advice; albeit

much is held in abeyance, it is none-

theless there. Our expanding vol-
unteer team is kept informed and

on-board by the sterling efforts

of our Volunteer Coordinator.
The BGF Secretary, who long

ago attained the status of irre-
placeable, has further developed

her role to now include a business
White House Cone museum of glass –

a recent image prior to Covid-19

management function that includes

ensuring good governance. An essen-

tial element of this lies in working

with our in-house accountant and sus-
taining the currency of our business

plan which, especially in the current

climate, is subject to constant review.
In the meantime we maintain a

public presence by occasional news

items and reportage pieces such as
this. Reciprocally we continue to

welcome comments and news but

would respectfully ask contribu-
tors to appreciate there may be a

slight delay in any response. But
respond we will – as we always do.

A small but dedicated team is help-

ing to keep our website and media

feeds up to date, which is greatly

appreciated. Our email bulletin Glass-
Cuts is currently grounded but will

return to the airwaves as soon as pos-

sible. The first edition of the post-
Covid era will include a review of what
has happened while we were away.

From all of us at BGF a sin-

cere thank you, as always, for

your support and much obliged
to you for asking. Please stay safe.

Graham Fisher MBE, is chairman and

a Trustee of the British Glass Founda-

tion, managing PR and Communications.
www. b r itishgla ss found ation .org.uk

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

TWISTS,

RIGHT OR LEFT

The right-handedness of
Georgian twist glaSses

SimonWain-Hobson

T
he serpentine and the twist

introduce movement into

lines and rods. While uncom-

plicated, they provide grace and

relieve the eye from the hardness of

the straight line. Twists in glass go
back at least to the Romans, explode

with the exuberant Italian filigrana
and onwards to English lead glass.

There are only two ways of twist-
ing a glass rod — to the left or to the
right. Two twisted and coloured

glass stirring rods from Syria, dating
to the 1-2 century AD, nicely reveal
this dichotomy. One has a left-hand-
ed twist, the other right-handed.’
The word spiral, omnipresent in

glass literature, is to be avoided, as
twisted glass rods or stems are helices.

Helices have a constant diameter. By

contrast, the
gyre
of a spiral increas-

es. A very simple way to remember

what is what, is to hold out an open
right hand and twist it to the right

while raising it
(Fig.1).

The thumb

maps out a right-handed twist. A

simple mnemonic is: Right hand Ris-
es to the Right, or RRR. Likewise, if
the open left hand is twisted to the
left while being raised, the thumb

describes a left-handed twist: Left

hand Lifts to the Left (LLL). Remem-

bering RRR is sufficient for the alter-

native is
de facto

a left-handed twist.

Italian (Altarese) glassmak-

ers made both left-handed and
right-handed twists and filigrana.

Although the twisted opaque canes
were flattened before assembly into
coupes, vases and glasses, it is not
difficult to pick out the handedness

of the twists. Numerous examples of

left-handed twists can be found in two
excellent works on filigrana glass.”

On a recent trip to Murano more
left than right-handed twists were
spotted, although the salient point
is that both are still being made.

This means that there was not, nor

is, any technical obstacle to making

left or right-handed twisted glass

stems. The Syrian glass sticks are

simply some of the earliest examples
of a binary choice — twisting to the

left or right. We are all in agreement
with the stylistic influence of Ital-
ian glassmakers on English glass in

the last quarter of the 17th century,
yet despite this, the English gaffers

defied their Italian forerunners from
the beginning and made right-hand-

ed twisted stems
(Fig.1).

Why?

Let’s look at this chronologically.

At the very outset, when the Italian
influence was strong, a few glasses
and covers had what Bickerton calls

rope twists
4 (Figs.31,32)

which were

right or left-handed. Other exam-
ples can be found in the V&A and the

British Museum. Equally, a Raven-

scroft jug (c1675) has a left-hand-

ed rope twist handle
4 (Fig.21) 5 (Fig.45)

although similar jugs have
4(Fig.22)5(Plate5)

plain handles.

Among the earliest quintes-

sential English glass designs, an
omnipresent right-handed twist
is encountered in the bowls of the
flammiform ale glasses c1680-1700
6

and variants of these continued
throughout much of the eighteenth

Fig. 1
Iconic gestures describing left-handed and right-

handed twists, and on the right, a double series

opaque twist right-handed twist.
Thanks be to Michangelo, photos © SWH

and Athelny Townshend

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

TWISTS, RIGHT OR LEFT

century. A remarkable example is

an ale glass c1685 in which every
element — bowl, stem and foot — is

made from right-handed twisted ele-

ments
(Fig.2).

A single period piece

with a left-handed twisted bowl was

pointed out to me by Colin Brain,

emphasizing that such glasses could

be made, but rarely were.
?
With the

supremacy of knopping to enliven

stems of the baluster period there

was probably no need for the twist.
Even then, a twist did creep in from

time to time and when it did it was
right-handed, a twisted pedestal stem

c1725 being a case in point.
4(Fi
g

330)

Yet with the transition to plain

stemmed glasses there was per-

haps a need to recover movement.

The literature has it that incised
twists were originally made by knif-

ing the soft metal of an otherwise
plain stem, followed by twisting.
8

As the spacing was rather irregu-

lar this method was substituted

by the use of a mould of some sort,

the gather being drawn and twisted

and finally cut into shanks. Incised
twist stems are all right-handed.
The first air twists were made

by pricking a blob of metal at the

base of the gather, then cover-

ing it, followed by drawing and

twisting, a process well illus-

trated by Crompton.9(P1ate
20)

The method for making air twist

shanks necessary for three-piece

glasses is different and described
by Wilkinson

l°
:

“a lump of molten

glass, 3″-4″ wide and approximately 6″

in length, is forced into a steel mould in

the base of which are fixed steel rods of

the desired pattern. The glass is forced

on to these rods, withdrawn, and inside

are the hollow tubes of air. This end is
now closed over and a pontil is fixed to it,
Fig. 2

A
tai

1 slender ale glass where all elements have been

twisted to the right (33 cm) c1685 ©Bonhams

the 6″x 4″ mass is then drawn out into

a thin rod about
1

/2″ in diameter. This is

twisted while being drawn out and the

result is a rod 20 to 30 feet long which

is cut up into suitable lengths for the
making of legs for drinking glasses”.
The twist could have gone

either way, but it invariably went

to the right
(Fig.3A).
Contempo-

rary left-handed air twists
11
and

12 (Figs.196-199)

opaque twists

have

been made emphasizing once again

that there was no technical diffi-

culty to making either twist. The

beautifully engraved left-hand-

ed air twist cider glass used as

frontispiece in Crompton’s book
9

probably results from the unfortu-

nate reversal of the negative given

the very similar right-handed glass

in the V&A, illustrated by Gabrie1.
13

The two must have been from

the same set. Presumably some-

thing similar explains three

left-handed colour twists in the

same photo which is otherwise a
highly improbable event.
14 (Page 70)

The English gaffers connect-

ed with the art of using opaque

white canes by the mid-18th

Fig. 3

A group of right-handed twists, A- mercury & air,
B — opaque, C- mixed twist stems © Bickerton

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

TWISTS, RIGHT OR LEFT

century. Opaque glass canes were
placed on the marver or in an optic

mould and a gather of glass was
used to pick them up. Once well

marvered, the ensemble was cov-

ered by clear glass. From there on,
they were almost certainly drawn

and twisted in the manner of air
twists described by Wilkinson.

English period pieces invariably

showed right-handed helical stems
unlike their Italian counterparts.

UNCOVERED

CANES

Here lies yet another difference: the
Italians used canna a filli that were
either opaque covered by clear glass

or those made out of three layers –
clear, opaque, clear glass core – a
point well made by Kitty Larneris.
2

Did English glassmakers use clear

glass-covered opaque canes in the
manner of their Italian counter-
parts? That uncovered opaque

canes were used is shown by the
laminated corkscrew or tape where

the opaque white canes are packed

one against another
(Fig.3B).

While

the regularity of a loose corkscrew
could suggest picking up of cov-
ered opaque canes, with the use

of an optic mould a regular spac-

ing is ensured. Hartshorne refers
to interspacing clear and opaque

glass canes in a circular mould
15

so providing a regular spacing.

Opaque multicolour twist stems
16

‘
17

prove that coloured canes were

not covered by clear glass because

they are juxtaposed
(Figs. 4B, 4C).

It seems that the English gaffers
didn’t used clear coated white or
coloured canes: so once again, they

didn’t follow Italian techniques.

FURIOUS

TWISTING

One final point about glass twisting
is worth mentioning. The complexity

and regularity of some of the three-

piece air and opaque stems made

using prefabricated stuck shanks is

breathtaking and has understand-
ably solicited admiration. None-

theless, drawing and twisting was

a remarkable human feat, as a sim-
ple calculation reveals. If we heed

Wilkinson
10
, the marvered metal

could be drawn out to 20-30 feet.

Taking 25 feet or 7.6 metres, longer
than a London double-decker bus,

and knowing that the pitch (one

complete turn) of an air or opaque
twist is generally around 0.5-1 cm,
drawing and twisting would mean

something like 760-1520 complete
twists. As the metal would be cool-

ing rapidly and becoming more rigid
while being drawn out, these phe-
nomenal numbers of twists were
probably introduced within a few
minutes. If we allow 10 minutes that

means 76-152 twists per minute — or
up to 2.5 twists per second. As two
children or men were performing

the operation
walking backwards
18

that still leaves approximately one
complete twist per person per sec-
ond. There must have been variation

in the twist over the entire length
reflecting fatigue or the vagaries of

any handmade process. The preci-
sion of the twists, particularly the

exquisite mixed and colour twists

of the later period, is all the more
remarkable given this final furious

fling.’ Actually, Apsley Pellatt was

the first to illustrate this process of
drawing out long glass canes in his

Curiosities of glass making.
2°
There are

some interesting modern techniques
to draw out canes, one of which
used an electric drill that generat-
ed left-handed twisted glass rods.
21

Fig. 4

A: an OT stem in which the inner and outer tapes

were made from dosely packed opaque canes ©

Athelny Townshend; B: a blue colour twist made
up of an opaque gauze and tape tightly edged by

cobalt blue canes, © SWH; C: a flamboyant colour
twist from the former Kaplan Collection shows
off admirably the tightly juxtaposed opaque and

coloured canes © Bonhatns

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

TWISTS, RIGHT OR LEFT

SO WHY RIGHT-HANDED?

Georgian twisted bowls, incised
twists, drawn mercury twists, drawn

air twists, as well as the furious
fling to making air and opaque twist

shanks, all required different tech-

niques. Yet despite this, the twist

was
always

to the right. The contrast

between the Italian and English gaf-

fers is striking. It must have resulted

from a clear choice, probably cul-

tural. As the Italians flattened their

helical opaque twists with a battle-
dore prior to assembly, the sense of

a twist would hardly be noticed and
therefore unimportant. Indeed, you

have to look carefully to discern the

handedness of the flattened helix.

Certainly, barley twist furniture

legs go both ways. Wooden or ebony

handles on Georgian punch ladles are

both left and right-handed. Georgian

silver, brass or wooden candlesticks
can be both right and left-handed,

sometimes pairs with both. Yet when
it comes to glass tapersticks and can-

dlesticks the twists are, once again,

always right-handed. Well, well!
The words bottlescrew and cork-

screw first appeared in 1681 and

1720 respectively, while the majority
of corkscrews are right-handed. But

why
should

glass bowls, stems and

opening devices follow suit? Could

it be that the left-handed twist had
negative connotations? In heraldry

the
bend senestre,
a white band from

bottom left to top right over the
device, denotes illegitimacy. Toast-

ing friends with a glass bearing

such a motif might understandably
offend; as right-handed twisted glass-
es show a series of parallel lines from

bottom left to top right this is clear-

ly not the explanation, far from it.
Living in France, I have come across

a number of 18th century French
opaque twists in soda glass that are

invariably right-handed, suggesting

that they copied the English. Jac-
queline Bellanger illustrates eight
facon d’Angleterre
opaque twist

drinking glasses all of which are
right-handed.

Nostetangen air and

opaque twists made in Norway are
right-handed. While in Copenhagen

in 2017 I saw a group of not so good
right-handed air twists made of lead

glass in a junk shop. Although the
owner assured me they were Dan-

ish, they may well have been Norwe-

gian. Copying the English gaffers was

a no brainer; we are no further on.

Later on, things eased up, or

broke down. Left-handed opaque

twist stemmed glasses do exist. They

are invariably of a poorer manufac-

ture, sometimes in soda metal and
frequently referred to as Dutch, or

worse, Continental! The propor-

tions, whiteness and colour aren’t
quite right – ruby red is out in force –

while the canes are frequently drawn
more thinly compared to the heyday

of the English opaque twist stem.

Have you noticed how any ill propor-
tioned or unloved Georgian glass is
often referred to as Continental?
23

and when left-handed twists come

with English overtones, they are
hailed as harking from the late Vic-

torian and Edwardian periods!
The Georgian gaffers defied their

Italian predecessors and twisted glass
to the right for reasons that escape me.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.
The editor suggests –
Perhaps it’s

because most people are right-hand-

ed and therefore it was and is the
natural way to twist the glass??

REFERENCES

1.
Glass at the Fitzwilliam Museum

(1978) Cambridge University Press,
Figure 95, p50.

2.
Lameris, Kitty (2012) A

collection of

filigrana glass,
Amsterdam: Frides

Larneris Art and Antiques.

3.
Lhermite King, Sylvie (2013)

Verres de la Renaissance –
origi-

nes et influences,
Paris: Galerie a la

Facon de Venise.

4.
Bickerton LM (1986)

Eighteenth

century English drinking glasses, an
illustrated guide
2n
d

revised edition,

Antique Collector’s Club, Suffolk.

5.
Lanmon, Dwight (2011)

The Gold-
en Age of English Glass 1650-1775,

Antique Collector’s Club, Suffolk.

6.
Charleston, Robert J (1984)
English

glass and the glass used in England,
c400-1940,
George Allen & Unwin,

London, plate 43a.

7.
Thorpe, WA (1929)A
History of

English and Irish Glass,
The Medici

Society, vol 2. plate XXXV i.

8.
Hughes, G. Bernard (1958)
English

glass for the collector 1660-1860,

Lutterworth Press, London, p38.

9.
Crompton, Sidney (1967)

English

Glass,
London, Ward Lock.

10.
Wilkinson, Reginald (1968)

The

Hallmarks of Antique Glass,
London:

Richard Madley, p29.

11.
https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=dMDvXFgEOIA

12.
Tait, Hugh (Ed.) (2012)

5000 years

of glass,
The British Museum Press,

London.

13.
Gabriel, Ronald (1974)

English

Drinking Glasses,
Charles Letts &

Co., London, plate 10, p21.

14.
Sheppard C & Smith J, (1990)

From

the Restoration to the Regency,
Mallett

& Sheppard & Cooper, London, p70.

15.
Hartshorne, Arthur (1897)

Old

English Glasses,
London: Edward

Arnold, p3.

16.
Lloyd, Ward (2000) A

wine lover’s

glasses: The AC Hubbard Jr. collection,
Richard Dennis, Shepton Beau-

champ, p53.

17.
Bonhams catalogue (2017)

The

Julius and Ann Kaplan Collection
lots

49 & 51.

18.
Hughes, G. Bernard (1958)
English

glass for the collector 1660)1860,
Lut-

terworth Press, London, p42.

19.
https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=20qT0Ntk9Sk

20.
PellattA,

Curiosities ofglass making,

Bogue, London, 1849, online repro-

duction p107.

21.
https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=RPclr9DcchM

22.
Bellanger, Jacqueline (2006)
Histoire

du verre, L’aube des temps modernes

1453-1672,
Massin Editeur, Paris.

23.
Daisy Wilmer (1920)

Early English

Glass,
3rd Edition, Bazaar Exchange

& Mart, London, p31.

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

UK IN TAIWAN & CHINA

A Thread of Light
Taiwan and Contemporary Glass

Colin Reid
Fig. 1

Colin Reid holding his ‘Ring of Fire’

0
n 7 September 2019, the exhi-

bition
‘A Thread of Light, Col-

in Reid and Three Generations

of British Cast Glass Artists’
opened at

the Liuli Glass Museum, Taiwan. This

major exhibition brought togeth-
er my work with that of Keith Cum-
mings, my tutor from my days as a

student at Stourbridge College of Art
along with seven artists who trained

or worked in my studio earlier in their
careers. These are: Bruno Romanelli,

Angela Jarman, Sally Fawkes, Rich-
ard Jackson, Joseph Harrington, Fiaz
Elson and Karen Browning
(Fig.2).

This is an impressive list and I am
proud that such a great group of art-

ists have worked in my studio and

gone on to become some of the best
and most established names in Brit-
ish cast glass. It was incredibly special
for me to be able to bring this group
together with the work of Keith Cum-

mings. I have Keith to thank for my
decision to work in kilncasting in the
first place. When I arrived at Stour-

bridge in 1978, I was already a trained
flameworker and planned to study hot

glass, but the incredible profusion of
experimental work in kilnforming

techniques that was going on under
his supervision quickly drew me in.
Liuli Museum Taipei did a fantas-

tic job in exhibiting and promoting

the show in Taiwan. It was housed in

a historic building in a small park, an
oasis of lush tropical vegetation and a

lake in the heart of the gleaming glass
towers of downtown Taipei. There was

lots of media attention at the opening,

a regular paparazzi scrum helped by
the presence of star guest David Tao,

who is a Chinese pop star. Many of the

Fig. 2

From the left. Richard Jackson; Sally Fawkes;

David Tao; Colin Reid; Fiaz Bison; Angela Jarman;

Karen Browning

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Returning Cycle. Richard Jackson

Eternal Exchange Xl. Sally Fawkes

Wintertide 3. Keith Cummings

artists came to the opening and we
spent an exhilarating few days being

wined and dined and shown the sights
of Taipei. Our hosts at Liuli were

incredibly hospitable and generous.

There are 36 works in the show, which
ran for 6 months in Taipei from where

it will be transferring to Liuli Museum

Shanghai for another 6 months. An exhi-
bition catalogue has been published.
Liuli Gongfang was started by Lor-

retta Yang and Chang Yi in the 1980’s.

Their background is in film; Loretta
was a film star and Mr Chang a prom-

inent director. They set up Liuli after
falling in love with glass at Heller Gal-

lery in New York in the 1980’s and real-

ising there was nothing like it in China
or Taiwan. What they have built is tru-

ly impressive. Loretta’s work is based
on a Chinese aesthetic and her excep-

tional modelling skills. She has cast

powerful, large scale works that refer

to Buddhist themes and concepts from

traditional Chinese art and poetry. All

the work is accompanied by poems

to which they relate, written by Mr

Chang. They are an impressive couple.
Liuli studio has grown into a major

force, with a huge studio in Taiwan

and an even bigger one in Shanghai.

The traditional techniques of kilncast-
ing by lost wax, which many of us use,

have been perfected to a level that I

have never seen before. The quality

of the casting and finishing is superb.
Loretta’s original works are pro-

duced in editions of 800 which are

sold in their network of over 40 gal-

leries throughout Taiwan, Main-
land China, Malaysia, Singapore

and Los Angeles. The museums in

Taipei and Shanghai are for major
exhibitions of international art-

ists. Some previous shows present-

ed the work of Lino Tagliapietra,

Toots Zynsky and Antoine Lerpelier.
It has been really exciting to bring

a major show of British cast glass to

Taiwan and China. My sincere thanks
to Lorretta and Chang Yi and all our

friends at Liuli Glass; Andrew Brewer-

ton for his help and guidance in curat-

ing the show, to all my fellow artists

and to my tutor, Keith Cummings.

The following paragraphs are an

edited extract from the catalogue of the

exhibition:-

Keith Cummings’ reflections on

the now global phenomenon of the

Fig. 6

Fig.
7

Fig. 8

Nautilus and Cohn Reid

Double Trouble, ptl. Karen Browning

Narvi. Bruno Romanelli

UK IN TAIWAN & CHINA

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

UK IN TAIWAN & CHINA

Fig. 9

Void. Joseph Harrington

studio-glass movement in contempor
ary art, provide a useful intro-

duction to
A Thread of Light: Col-

in Reid with three generations
of British kiln-cast glass artists.
“Only a few decades ago, just being

able to cast glass was enough to excite

interest, and questions that involved

deeper creative motives were somewhat
overshadowed in the headlong search for
novel ways of merely shaping the mate-
rial. We are now a couple of generations

down the line from those heady, exciting

and naïve days, though most of the pio-
neers ofthe studio movement are, happily,

still with us. Now that the studio-glass

movement is in its third generation, it

is increasingly common for established
artists to accept aspiring ones as studio
assistants. This has a profound effect on
those lucky enough to benefit from such

an experience. It is a far cry from the ear-
ly days, when very little information was

available, and the little that did exist had
to be gained by constant experiment.”
Those words connect in active, liv-

ing memory, a generational perspec-
tive on the emergence of kiln-cast
studio glass in a very British context

since the 1960s. The artists gathered

together in this exhibition are linked

across three generations of think-
ing and making in the medium of
cast glass, in a particular place (the

UK) at a certain point in time (over
the last sixty years). With a series of
three publications, Keith Cummings

(b.1940) has established the technical,
historical and contemporary dimen-

sions of this movement, and of his
own pioneering practice
(Fig.11).

Cummings’ work is both the original
fuse and a continuing source of illu-

mination in this thread of light across

three generations of British artists
in kiln-cast glass. His quietly self-ef-
facing influence since the 1960s and,

significantly for studio glass artists in

China since the 1990s, both through
his studio practice and through his
teaching, is of far-reaching historical

significance. The artists represented
in the current exhibition do not com-
prise an aesthetic ‘movement’ in the

recognised sense of that term. They

have no manifesto; there is no ‘house
style’. The extraordinary diversity of
their work traces the individual path-
ways they have followed. Even so they

are working in an identifiable tradi-

tion, exemplified by their choice of

materials and techniques, philosophy

and lifestyle. Within the global studio

glass movement, this British tradi-

tion, with the development of small

studio furnace technology, distin-
guishes itself from American hot glass
and the work of Czech and French art-
ists in glass factory contexts. This is
a growing community of artists in
kiln-forming, stemming from Keith

Cummings’ earliest experiments as a

student at Durham University in the
late 1950s and later at the Whitefri-
ars Glass Company and Stourbridge

College of Art, later transferring to

the University of Wolverhampton

and then the Royal College of Art

in London. In the UK, the forma-
tive role of art schools and univer-

sity departments has been decisive.
The exhibition opened in Septem-

ber 2019 and ran to February 2020

in Liuli Museum Taipei. Following the

Covid-19 pandemic, the follow up exhi-
bition has been delayed. The date for

opening in the Liuli Museum Shanghai
is now proposed for 5th September 2020
and will be running for about 6 months.

IMAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To Simon Bruntnell for Figs.5, 7,11
To Sylvain Deleu for Figs.1, 6, 9

To Richard Jackson for Figs.3, 4

To Andy Smart for Fig.8

LIMI MUSEUM TAMIFI
4…,N41119, • =1,1

arilulLearn

•
Opom0

I
-1111NEONII

mouvotawe
WI ER All..

.4440

A
Thread o
,
light

2019.9. 2020.3.8

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

A Thread of Light
Exhibition Catalogue

Reflect 2017. Keith Cummings

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

LEFT Fig. 2

Ripon Cathedral entrance

BELOW Fig. 3
Leicester Cathedral The Parting of The Red Sea

SANDBLASTING GLASS

MAKL G
large scale
glass

COMMithORS

Sally Scott
Fig. 1

Chapel of Reconciliation Walsingham

I
studied painting at the RA

Schools, where there was a

strong emphasis on drawing and

have been grateful ever since for this
early training. As well as painting, I

learned etching. Having no interest
in printing from the etched plates,
they were then exhibited — and the
plates got bigger and bigger. Etched

plates with a mural of the Battle of

Trafalgar exhibition were exhib-
ited at Madame Tussauds; these
included life-size figures of Nelson.

On moving to a new house, I

bought my own sandblasting equip-
ment; this was set up in my garage

and I started to sandblast on met-

al. The mural for Shorts of Belfast

at the Farnborough air show was
my first sandblasted work on stain-

less steel. I then moved on to glass,

sandblasting for the first time on
my own windows! Followed by

many local houses’ windows and
doors all over west London. At

Gatwick Hilton, I created the Amy

Johnson large panels, further com-
missions then arose for other hotels.

At a RCA conference on Glass and

Architecture, I was then fortunate
to meet up with David Peace: the

P&S partnership followed and we

worked together for sixteen years,
from 1986 to 2003, focusing on

large-scale commissions such as
the Leeds Angel Screen and Jacob’s

SAMUEL PROUT

Topographical

Water – Colourist

(1783 -1852)

Fig. 3
SANDBLASTING GLASS

Ladder on the side of the

bell tower – this was report-

edly the largest engraved

glass commission since

John Hutton’s work on
Coventry Cathedral in the

1960s. After P&S, I moved
on to working at Nero

Designs and have contin-
ued there until this year –

the Corpus Christi (Oxford
college) three panels

between library and chap-

el have just been complet-

ed, but not yet installed.
We entered competitions

for Walsingham
(Fig.1)
and

Ripon Cathedrals
(Fig.2),

both came at the same
time but Walsingham

moved faster and the work

was made before Ripon.
Fig. 4

The
Church
of the

Transfiguration, Canford Cliffs

Sally then referred to oth-

er large-scale commissions: at

Westminster Abbey; the Part-
ing of the Red Sea at Leicester

Cathedral
(Fig.3);
The Church

of the Transfiguration at Can-
ford Cliffs in Dorset
(Fig.4);

the Roman Catholic National

Shrine Church at Walsingham

and then the side of the Bell

Tower at St Mary’s Church,
Newick, near Lewes in Sussex.
Sally Scott — Cert. R.A.S.

F.G.E. C.A.S., an architectur-
al glass engraver and painter

introduced her art to the Glass
Society at The Artworkers
Guild meeting on 12 Nov.2019

19th Century
.

LAMPWORKER

Bob Wilcock
Fig. 2

duced absolutely nothing on Borton,

but it turns out to be a surprisingly
common name – a check on ‘Find My

Past’ produced thousands of hits.
Do any readers have some infor-
mation on Mr Borton? He

says he is self-taught, but

hile researching for my

latest book, I came across
this advertisement in the

Cinque Ports Chronicle
from October

1839
(Fig.1).

A google search has pro-

Fig. 1

Patronized by the Royal Fancily, and numerous families of
distinction.

V OR A SIIORT TIME ONLY.—Curiosity high-
ly gratifying.—GLASS WORKING and MODELLING,

The exact likenesses of dogs, horses, &c., in miniature.
The nobility, gentry, and the public, are respectfully informed

that BORTON’S FANCY GLASS WORKING EXHIBI-

TION, (from the Polytechnic Institution, 309, Regent-street),
superior to anything of the kind ever yet exhibited, is now open

for Inspection, at 59, GEORGE-STREET, HASTINGS.
FOIL SALE.—A great variety of chimney and cabinet orna-

ments, in coloured glass, and other curiosities, too numerous to

mention.
Mr. B. is a self-taught arti.t, and will engage to model in

glass the exact likeness of any clog that the company may bring;

a gentleman’s carriage and horses, or anything they may choose

to mention, he will make in their presence.
In Bath, 500 clogs were modelled from nature ; in one season

in Cheltenham, 300 ; and in Weymouth, Exeter, and Plymouth,
numerous dogs, horses, &e., were brought for miles round for

their likenesses in glass.
There is now to be seen at this exhibition, a most beautiful

model of her Majesty’s ship Britannia; and also a splendid little

model of a steam-boat in motion.
Admission :—Ladies and gentlemen, Is.; children and servants,

6d.; and trout six till eight in the evening, only 6d. each ; for

I which every person cony have a specimen, the value of their ad.

mission.
Open from nine till five, and from six till eight In the evening.

Dealer in every description of glass shacks.

Gentlemen’s families and schools attended on moderate terms.

October, 1839.
was lampworking taught

5
at the Regent Street Poly-

technic? Contact me at

[email protected]

Editor comments: George

Street in Hastings leads

into the Old Town from the
seafront: a narrow, curved,
pedestrian-only street with

many local artisan shops and
restaurants. Today, No.59 is

a restaurant — closed under
Covid-19 restrictions. At the

time, a neighbour of Mr Bor-

ton and residing at No.57

(Fig.2),
was the waterco-

lourist, Samuel Prout
(Fig.3).

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

Fig. 2

Strange Attractors (detail)

BIENNALE GS WINNNER

Apertura Aurora

Jon Lewis

T
hese sculptures were chosen to

be exhibited at the 2019 Glass

Biennale in Stourbridge. Jon

tells us that 7 was thrilled and honoured

to be awarded the Glass Society prize at

the closing of the Biennale”. The work

was then purchased by the Glasmuse-

um Lette, Coesfeld, Germany. With Yuki

Kokai, Jon had visited this modern muse-
um in 2015 and had been impressed with

its stunning design and great collection.

Jon Lewis writes:-
Superseded
by modern flat screens,

bulky old cathode ray tube TVs have

become redundant and are a world-

wide waste issue due to the high lead
content in their glass. Having been

involved in glass recycling in many
forms over the years, various things

have been thrown into my furnace,

including bottles, fluorescent tubes

and windows. The glass in the Aper-
tura Aurora sculptures is fashioned

from recycled television screens;

the glass is blown before being cold-

carved, spark-impregnated with iron

and then patinated. The vessels have

a window of pure transparent colour,

giving a framed aperture of light
within a seemingly stone-like solid. I

am trying to capture a small essence
of the blown glass vessel and frame it.
Corrosion and rust appeal to me. I

appreciate the rich weatherworn sur-

faces and patinas which it can create.

In 1994 I started experiments to coat

blown glass with a skin of iron. This

body of work has been an ongoing

series which I have developed through

the years. My recent evolution of the

series is “Distant Electric Vision” – the
phrase used 100 years ago to describe

the pioneering experimental technol-
ogy now known as television. I dis-

mantle stylish old Bang and Olufsen

televisions as a project in upcycling.

Television screens are made of an

exceptionally good quality optical

glass, as lucid and workable as any
Fig. 1

Apertura Aurora

studio glass. The screen glass is melt-
ed in my furnace and blown to create
the form while the metal in the chas-

sis is used to coat the vessels in iron.

STRANGE ATTRACTORS

These sculptures, formed in a sim-
ilar manner to Apertura Aurora,
are pictured in full on the back

cover. The detail, shown here,

has its own captivating aura.

Jon has a studio at Parndon Mill
at Harlow in Essex and can be con-
tacted at [email protected]
The photographs are acknowl-

edged with thanks to Mathew Booth.

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

HIMLEY BOTTLES

MORE SEALED BOTTLES

in the Dudley Altmann Services collection

DavidBurton

T
his piece follows on from my

article on the Eila Grahame col-

lection, published in the
Jour-

nal of the Glass Society.
There are

four additional bottles held in the

Dudley Museum Services collection

at Himley Hall, the most important
of which is an Onion bottle sealed

R H / 1699
flanking a globe. Note

the short ‘stubby’ neck relative to

the long necks of the earlier Shaft

and Globe bottles. This made it dif-
ficult to grasp the neck and pour
the contents into the glass without

spillage. The globe as a sign is usual-
ly depicted as a sphere marked with

latitude and longitude lines and the
top left hand portion of a globe can

be seen within the image of the seal.

R H will be the tavern keeper of a

Globe tavern, probably situated in
London where the sign was popular

with inn, tavern and coffee hous-
es. One of the most popular men-
tioned in Pepys’ diaries is The Globe

in Little Eastcheap where he writes

on 21 January 1663, ”

and at the

Globe tavern in Eastchip did give them
a glass of wine and so parted”.
The tav-

ern was destroyed in the Great Fire

of 1666 and never rebuilt as far as
records show. However, The Globe

Coffe (sic) House, later the Globe

Tavern in Cornhill (1673-1722),

`north out of Cornhill with a passage

to Threadneedle Street’,
west of the

Royal Exchange and west of Castle

Alley (1720), is often confused with
the Globe behind the Exchange but

was in existence when this early bot-
tle was ordered. Further research

becomes necessary to confirm

whether R H was indeed the tavern
keeper at this City tavern, otherwise

Westminster or Southwark should
be considered as other possibilities.
BELOW Fig. 1

WHC BH L780 bottle

RIGHT Fig. 2
FWHC BH L780 seal

History: This bottle, (Accession

No. L780) on loan from a member

of the public to the Dudley Museum

Services collection held in Himley
Hall, may in due course be displayed

at the White House Cone museum
of glass (WHCmog). Fig.1 & Fig.2.
The bottle sealed
In° / Weller

/ 1735
is a mallet-shaped bottle of

dark olive-green glass with much sur-
face wear to the body, a chip (10mm),

nibbles to the edge of the lip and wear

around the edge of the seal. There
may be a family connection with Rob-
ert Wellar of Tonbridge, Kent, who

has a sealed bottle to his name dated

1711. (See Robe / Wellar / 1711 (Bur-
ton 2015, p.560) and BOXTED HALL

(circling the upper seal quartile) / * /
SUFFOLK / 1774 (Burton, p.753)
for probable family connection).
History: This bottle, (Accession No.

BH14), formerly in the Broad field House

Glass Museum collection, is now part of
the Dudley Museum Services collection

held in Himley Hall and may in due course

be displayed at WHCmog. Fig.3 & Fig.4.
BELOW (BOTH)

Fig. 3
WHC BH14 bottle

Fig. 4
WHC BH14 seal

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

HIMLEY BOTTLES

Finally, the last of the sealed

bottles, is a three-part moulded

Magnum Cylinder bottle dated
c.1835-1845, sealed with
a Com-

et
in the form of a five-pointed star

with five long trails. There are in

excess of a dozen recorded exam-
ples with a height measurement of

318mm/335mm. The bottles range
from pale lime-green to olive-green

and dark-green and some examples
retain the original label verifying the

contents as
‘Vieux Cognac 1811’.
At

least six examples are known with

the original contents and waxed seals

intact, although the level of ullage

is well below the base of the cork.
Although the families Allan,

Anderson, Burcetre, Chivers, Maun-
defield, Oswald and probably others

have a comet, ppr. or a ‘blazing star’

as their crest, it is probable that this
seal was designed to celebrate a vin-
tage year, in this case 1811. This was

an extraordinary wine vintage year

which also became known as the year
of the comet, not a reference to the
famous Halley’s Comet but the less
romantic sounding C1811F1, discov-
ered by Honore Flaugergues (1755-

1835). The bottles are of English
manufacture, which suggests that

the cognac was shipped to England

in cask (hogshead) and bottled for a

leading wine and spirit merchant. It
is interesting that a number of the

leading wine and spirit merchants
have examples in their collections,

including Sandeman’s in Porto (also
known as Oporto) and Harvey’s of

Bristol (subsequently sold at auc-

tion in 2003). One of the examples
held in The Sandeman collection is

corked and covered in sealing wax

with the contents intact; the
sec-

ond
example was discovered near

Maiden Castle, Dorchester. One of

the most remarkable wine auctions

ever held was at Christie’s in Paris in

2002 when the cellar of the Duke of
Windsor was offered for sale. One

lot included four examples of this

sealed bottle with the original con-
tents intact, the bottles sealed with

a large covering of sealing wax. The
price achieved at auction reflect-

ed the value placed on the Reserve

Cognac 1811 and the provenance
rather than the value of the bottles.
History: This bottle, (Accession

No. BH1680), formerly in the Broad-
field House Glass Museum collection,

is now part of the Dudley Museum

Services collection held in Him ley

Hall and may in due course be dis-
played at WHCmog. Fig.5 & Fig.6

LEFT Fig. 5

WHC BH1680 bottle

BELOW Fig. 6

WHC BH1680 seal

STIPPLE-ENGRAVED ALLOA GLASS

The earliest record of a glassworks
in Scotland was in 1610 when a

facility was established at Wemyss,
Fifeshire, but it was not until

well into the eighteenth century

following the expansion in trade

links spawned by Britain’s overseas
possessions and the beginnings of

the Industrial Revolution that the

glass industry became well estab-
lished. The Alloa Glass Work Com-

pany was established by Frances,

Lady Erskine, in 1750 with a small

glasshouse built on the north bank
of the River Forth at Alloa, Clack-
mannanshire. Its history reflects

the story of glass manufacturing

in Scotland since that time. The

loss of the American colonies cre-

ated unsettled trading conditions
over many years and it fell to the

Scottish glass manufacturers to
re-establish trade with the Unit-

ed States of America once hostili-

ties had ceased and a more relaxed

trading environment ensued. Bot-

tle glass was the first product to

be manufactured at the glasshouse

but these were plain glass bottles,
not sealed (Carvel, p.9). It was

only in the early nineteenth cen-

tury following a number of chang-
es in ownership that the plant was

extended and an additional cone

built. This happened at a time

when Timothy Warren arrived in

Alloa from Newcastle upon Tyne
having served his apprenticeship at

the Nailsea Glassworks near Bris-

tol. His experience revolutionised

the Alloa Glass Work as it expand-

ed its range into table and window

glass and improved the quality
and embellishment of its prod-
ucts. His arrival also had a major

influence on glass manufacture

at other Scottish glassworks. The
inventory at Alloa included what
were termed ‘decorated bottles

and flasks’, the decoration being

the addition of strips of glass
known as quillings to the body of

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

Fig.

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

WHC BH1044 a far left side

WHC BH1044 b left side

WHC BH1044 c front

a vessel while it remained hot and
plastic, described as rigaree glass

trails in the listing of sealed bot-
tles associated with the glassworks.

Alloa table glass was declared to be

`equal to the goods made in New-
castle’ and skilled craftsmen were

employed to engrave seals, coats of

arms and other emblems on various
types of containers (Carvel, p.16).
This bottle was probably pro-

duced at the Alloa Glass Work and

is not sealed but has been stip-
ple-engraved on the surface of
the glass. This was a skilled and

delicate operation made with a

small hammer and a diamond or

steel pointed tool that ‘chips’ the

surface of the glass to produce
minute shallow indentations. The
engravings commemorate happy
family events such as weddings,

births, baptisms and anniversa-
ries; sad events such as a death or

fatal accident, often at sea; public

events, i.e. the opening of a railway
or the launch of a ship, or occupa-

tions such as farming and small-
holdings, or to honour a Masonic

lodge or Worshipful Master, or

simply to celebrate being Scottish.
The Alloa glass bulbous Cylinder

bottle is engraved with
WILLIAM
Fig. 10

WHC BH1044
d right side

KEMP
within a banner,
18 / 39,

zsurmounted by
three garbs
above

a set square and compass, an

axe, hoe, saw, hammer and oth-

er implements
embraced with-

in
a thistle and rose, and a tree,

fructed,
at the rear. The Grand Fes-

tival
Of Ancient, Free, and Accepted

Masons of England
took place at Free-

masons’ Hall, Great Queen Street,
London on 24 April 1839, where a

William R. Kemp was Secretary to
Fig. 11

WHC BH1044 e back

the Board of Grand Stewards. This

may provide an avenue for further
research into the social history of

this important early Scottish-man-
ufactured stipple-engraved bottle.
History: This bottle, (Accession

No. BH1044), formerly in the Broad-
field House Glass Museum collection,

is now part of the Dudley Museum

Services collection held in Himley
Hall and may in due course be dis-
played at (WHCmog). Fig.7 to Fig.11.
HIMLEY BOTTLES

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

larly the celebrated ‘Amen’ glasses.

His abilities as a research-

er, author, macro-photographer

and public speaker were put to
good use when starting to make a
detailed record of Jacobite glass,

both purchased and viewed in pri-

vate collections — documented

in a card-mounted photographic

index. Close-up photography was
enhanced using a homemade, por-

table lightbox; spare weekends

were set aside for film processing
and sessions in the home darkroom.

As the search for more glass speci-
mens expanded, so too did the trips

to museums and private collections

around the country: sometimes to

well-known locations, such as the

V&A in London, on other occasions
to more discreet venues. Family

holidays would occasionally have
Dr G B Seddon

interesting asides, as when Dun-

vegan Castle on the Isle of Skye
was visited to view the renowned

Amen’ glass. He also ‘discovered’
The Breadalbane ‘Amen’ glass and
following his article in
Country Life

magazine in 1986, this glass was

sold at Christie’s later in the year.
Geoffrey received much support

from Glass Circle members and

was particularly grateful for the

assistance given by former Presi-
dent, Robert Charleston. Over the

years Geoffrey read several papers

at Circle meetings on the topic of
engraving, with special reference to
the ‘Amen’ glasses, which in turn led

him to explore the complex issue of

authenticity. He relished the rich

historical detail, the problem that

IN MEMORIAM

In Memoriam

Dr GB Seddon

Andrew Seddon

D
r Geoffrey Boyd Seddon

(January 1930 – March
2020) enjoyed over 45

years membership of the Glass Cir-
cle and was author of
The Jacobites

and their Drinking Glasses,
a semi-

nal work aimed at both students of

Jacobite history and glass collectors.
Since its publication in 1994, it has
been widely accepted as an author-

itative review of drinking glasses

within the Jacobite era. Geoffrey’s
research has also assisted collec-

tors and researchers with the task
of authenticating engraved glass.
Geoffrey was born in Manchester

and brought up in Wigan; he pro-

gressed through Grammar School

and technical college, then after
National Service, gained entry to

the University of Manchester to

study medicine. His first hospi-
tal jobs in Cheshire and Manches-

ter led to meeting his future wife

Joyce, who was nursing at the Roy-
al Infirmary. They married in 1957.
Geoffrey had always wanted to be

a doctor and spent the best part of

thirty happy and fruitful years in

general practice in the Midlands.
He died peacefully in his sleep at

his Cambridge home; he is survived

by his wife, son and two daughters.
Geoffrey had many outside inter-

ests and had always been interested

in antiques. The chance purchase
of an eighteenth-century drink-

ing glass, thought to have Jaco-

bite significance, opened up a new

subject for him. Joining the Glass

Circle in the early 1970s coincid-
ed with regular trips to Sotheby’s

auction house – as Geoffrey’s col-

lection of glass grew, so did his
knowledge of Jacobite history and

an interest in engraving, particu-

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

THE JAC:OBI I I

DRINKING GLASSL>
IN MEMORIAM

provenance presented to collec-

tors, and with a comprehensive
collection of slides in his presenta-

tions, was able to bring Jacobitism

in the eighteenth century to life.
Geoffrey’s research culminated

in the publication of
The Jacobites

and their Drinking Glasses,
a syn-

thesis of historical background and

close detective work; there were
chapters on emblems and mottoes,

analysis of calligraphy and engrav-
ers’ stylistic techniques, and the

`Amen’ glasses, including discus-
sion of the known fake varieties.

At the time of publication, few in
the glass world could have antici-
pated the furore that was to ensue

on authenticating Jacobite glass. In

the event, Geoffrey’s work was an
invaluable source of reference; he

remained firmly unconvinced when,

in 1994, Peter Francis of Queen’s
University, Belfast, writing in the
Burlington Magazine,
complained

of the lack of pre-1745 provenance
for any of the ‘Amen’ glasses, of the

lack of pontil marks on glasses from

the 1750-60 period, and of the pres-
ence of late Victorian typology on

several eighteenth century exam-
ples. Francis’s argument

had the effect of under-
mining the collectors’

market, but countering

this, Geoffrey pointed

with confidence to the

487 glasses which he had
photographed as part of

his research: in particular,

to the wheel-engraved

glasses which formed
94 per cent of the total;

his conclusion was that
it was still possible to

authenticate about 75 per
cent of Jacobite glasses.
But the debate was

a cause for concern: so
much so that in 1996,

The Glass Circle con-
vened the symposium

entitled ‘Judging Jaco-

bite Glass’, a multi-disci-
plinary gathering of collectors and

experts held at the V&A Museum.

Geoffrey was among the speakers

on that occasion and was able to

argue persuasively on the impor-
tance of Jacobite glass as materi-

al culture in this country’s history,
underlining his firm belief that

authenticity in assessing glass
is always an act of faith in one’s

own, or someone else’s judgment;

authentic relics should not be con-
demned without further evidence

being sought out and tested. The
symposium encouraged research-
ers and collectors alike to look

more deeply into the archives for
new material and was thus believed
to have benefitted all concerned.

Geoffrey’s work and involve-

ment with The Glass Circle did

not stop with the first edition of

his reference work or the 1996

symposium: the results of further
research, in particular by Circle

member Peter Lole, led to a second
edition of
The Jacobites and their

Drinking Glasses
in 2001 in which

all the new evidence was careful-

ly reviewed. In 2010 in Edinburgh,

Geoffrey had the opportunity
to present his thesis at a sym-

posium on the 400th anniversa-
ry of `Glassmaking in Scotland’.
However, his interest in glass

extended beyond the eighteenth

century: for many years he had
practiced with stained glass in

his home workshop, produc-
ing lampshades, bowls and dish-
es, and panels for windows and

doors, all the time experimenting

with design; he also worked with
dichroic glass, producing many

varieties of small jewellery items.

Together with Joyce, who herself
is a talented still-life artist, he

was a keen supporter of the local
Open Studios art and craft group.
In his later years, not wishing the

research started in
The Jacobites and

their Drinking Glasses
to peter out,

Geoffrey directed his study towards
finding the identity of the engrav-

er of the ‘Amen’ glasses; in this

search he was ably assisted by Peter
Lole and Australian glass engraver,

Ian McKenzie. This joint research,

leading to the finding that the

`Amen’ glass engraver was Sir Rob-
ert Strange, was deservedly wor-
thy of a final chapter in the third
edition of Geoffrey’s book

which appeared in 2015.

Reference books from any

discipline can often assume

lives of their own, but few
can be said to portray the

Jacobite era quite as colour-
fully as
The Jacobites and

their Drinking Glasses:
its

content and the sequence
of events which unfurled
during the course of its
publication mirrored Geof-
frey’s love of his subject mat-

ter and his enthusiasm for

activities within The Glass

Circle. His erudite network-
ing with Circle members

and participation at meet-
ings will be greatly missed.
This is an edited synopsis

of thoughts from Andrew Sed-
don, Dr Geoffrey Seddon’s son.

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

LETTERS

The Fox Hunt Glassware Set
James Measell

n a previous issue of
Glass Mat-

ters,
I discussed a cameo vase

executed by George H. Pope during

his time as a glass decorator at the

Thomas Webb firm. Now, I seek
the help of readers to complete

a set of engraved glass articles
designed and executed by Pope.
The Webb enterprise marketed

a set consisting of six glasses and

a handled jug. The six glasses are
the same shape as the one exam-

ple shown here, and each is dec-

orated with an individual scene
that, taken together, represent

the chronology of a fox hunt … but

from the perspective of a wily fox
that manages to elude the hunt-

ers and dogs! One might expect

to
see
livery-clad horseback riders

and a pack of dogs on the glass-
es, but such are left to our imag-
ination as glass decorator Pope

chose to depict only the fox with

some countryside as background.
Each of the glasses has a different

scene to carry forward the sequence,

and each has a brief caption as

well as an engraved signature, ‘G.
H. Pope’. As shown here, the first
The first of sixglasses from Thomas

Webb’s ‘Fox Hunt Glassware set’

glass depicts the fox standing with

head held high, mouth agape, and a
forepaw raised. The engraved cap-
tion begins the chronology: ’10:30
roused by a familiar sound’. Of

course, the ‘familiar sound’ is the
traditional bugle that signals the

start of a fox hunt. The remaining
five glasses tell of the fox’s actions
to outwit the hunters and dogs.
Can our fellow readers of
Glass

Matters
search their shelves and dis-

play cabinets to locate the other five

glasses and the handled jug? I would

like to feature photos of the entire

set in a future issue along with illus-
trations from archival sources that
reveal the production of these inter-

esting articles at Thomas Webb.
James Measell is an Honorary

Research Fellow at the University

of Birmingham. He can be contact-

ed by email: [email protected]

A Christmas cardfrom France
with an intriguing stamp!

Sue Newell

T
was delighted to receive a card

1. from a friend in France that
showcases the skilled work of the
Tailleur de Cristal –
the glass cut-

ter. It is from the
Métiers d’Art

series, which translates roughly as

`Craft Professions’. A quick search

online revealed that it was intro-
duced in March 2019 and with-

drawn at the end of the year, with

800,000 stamps being issued over
the eight-month period. Designed

by Florence Gendre, the first day
cover showed the original art-

work by Gendre next to the nine-
teenth-century style French goblet

on which it was based. Up to now,
97 stamps have been issued in the

Métiers d’Art
series, highlighting

different skilled trades, includ-

ing millinery, bookbinding, iron-

work, carving and perfumery. In
2015 another glass-themed stamp
was issued; it celebrated hot glass

working and using a photo from

Getty Images, depicted a close-up

of a trail being applied to a vessel.
Does anyone know if glass has

ever featured on British stamps or

ones from farther afield? Stained

glass panels have regularly appeared
on Christmas stamps here, but what

about glass vessels, glass making, or
the various types of glass decorat-

ing? Do get in touch with our Edi-
tor if you can share any information.
Editor: I came across this small

book on postage stamps depicting

glass, printed in 1987. It’s subti-

tled
‘The Art of Glass on Stamps’,

throughout the world, from Bra-

zil to the UAE, via Japan, Israel,
the Czech Republic, and many more.

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

LETTERS

Coral Princess Covid-19 Cruise
A Trip
of
a Lifetime

Pamela and Anthony Metcalfe

W
e had planned a cruise to

South America, aiming to

disembark in Buenos Aires where

Pamela’s grandparents had emi-

grated in the 1920s, stay there for a
few days to
see
its glass and antiques

and then fly north to the spectacu-

lar Iguazu Falls before flying home.
On 3rd March 2020 we flew

from London Heathrow to Santia-

go in Chile where, alas, a bag with
most of our clothes did not arrive

before our cruise liner, ‘Coral Prin-
cess’, sailed south. It could have

been worse; we bought toiletries ,
and tops on board, and our neigh-
bours in the next cabin kindly lent
us clothes including a shirt and

underwear for Anthony! Six days

later, down south in Punta Arenas,

we were reunited with our luggage.
Then, able to relax on holiday and

watching the BBC World News, we
were gripped by coronavirus, lock-

down, social distancing, furloughs,
closed schools, factories and shops –

we seemed to be in a different world.
`Coral Princess’ looked after

us well – good food and wine and

some excellent entertainment, and

we sang ‘If you’re healthy and you
know it wash your hands…1 As our

voyage continued we witnessed
some spectacular sunsets, water-
falls, a dormant volcano, visited a
sheep ranch, saw

majestic glaciers

in the Magellan

Strait, travelled

on the world’s

southernmost
railway, rounded

Cape Horn, and

then on to the
Falkland Islands

where we saw an
old red London

bus and several varieties of penguins

at Bluff Cove where Pamela felt com-

pelled to buy a pink glass penguin.
Thus far we had no incidence of

Covid-19 on board. However, when

we docked in Buenos Aires, our Cap-

tain announced at 3.45 am(!) that

Argentinean health officials want-
ed to take our temperatures and

study our health questionnaires –
we realised we were back in the real

world and abandoned all thoughts
of glass and Iguazu, simply wanting

to fly home. But these officials took

so much time before we could dis-
embark, we missed our flights and

missed more flights when Argenti-
na closed its borders the next night.
On we sailed to Montevideo,

then north to Rio de Janeiro where

we glimpsed ‘Christ the Redeem-
er’ from offshore, ‘crossed the line’

at a hilarious ceremony, and then
to Barbados. We saw much sea,

some sargassum and many flying
fish but could not disembark at

any ports. Then, as we were enjoy-

ing a cocktail and ice cream on the

sun deck one afternoon, the Cap-
tain announced that we had two
cases of the virus on board and

we were all confined to our cabins
for the remainder of the voyage.
On 5th April we finally docked

in Miami. After temperature
checks, the 400 or so Brits board-
ed coaches and were escorted by

police cars – with all lights flashing

– to Miami airport and we flew on
a repatriation flight to a deserted
Heathrow Airport. It had certainly

been a trip of a lifetime – but had
not turned out quite as planned!
Pamela’s pink penguin turns

out to have been made in Bath,
UK(!) and doesn’t quite fit in

with our black and white Bac-
carat, Maltese, Villeroy et Boch

and New Zealand glass collection.
Glass Society members, Pame-

la and Anthony Metcalfe, returned
safely from their exploit and as with
most of us, have been hibernating

and keeping a social distance. They
kindly agreed to review their cruise.

From left to right:
1 Phoenician Glass, Malta

2 & 3 unknown
4 bathaguaglass, Bath UK
5 Baccarat, France

6 Hoglund Glass, New Zealand

7 Villeroy & Boch, Germany,
(NB.giftware often from China)

8 unknown

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

Fig.

opaque twist glass

Fig. 2
opaque twist

Fig. 3
glass 32

Fig. 4
glass 130

Fig. 5
glass 131

Fig. 6
Roman glass

LETTERS

Discussing Cordial Glasses 1
Theo
Zandbergen

W
e

really enjoyed reading “Cor-

dials and All That” by Simon

Wain-Hobson, a basically concise

and somewhat humorous review
of these intriguing glasses. Col-

lecting glass can be a ‘fun’ addic-
tion that opens up new avenues

to the understanding of glass-

making and the use of the objects

produced. One is often mesmer-

ized by the ‘elegance’ of the time

and the environment in which

those glass objects were used.
We have some related glass-

es in our collection which we

wish to share, pictures of five of
them are shown
(Figs.1 — 5).

Most

of the time, we call these glass-

es “toast-master” or “deceptive” as

their content is quite minimal. In

my opinion, they could have a dou-

ble function, being used as both cor-
dial and toast-master. The function

of this type of glass was quite exten-

sive, not only in the UK but also on
the continent. The five glasses I’ve

shown were too exclusive to be
used for daily drinks like `jenev-
er’
(Dutch or Geneva gin is the juni-

per-flavoured traditional liquor of the

Low Countries)
or other distillates

to drown the miseries of the day

in those dreadful times in the local

pubs of the 18th century and since.
There are many more styles of

cordials from the continent that

were used to waste money and time
by drinking, mostly by men. Though
for the not so well-to-do circles,

glasses were an exception rather

than for common use, but poverty

was galore and drinking amongst
men quite heavy. Alongside strong

alcoholic beverages, Taverns served
high and low percentage beer, lead-

ing to the invention in the Low Coun-
tries of the double whammy, a glass

of beer with a shot glass of jenev-

er. The all-abundant beer was the

only reliable drink as the water was

often too contaminated. Bless our
current days with reliable tap-water.

The contents of cordials varied
Mt,

from location to location. Howev-

er, I believe that the elegant glasses

in the article and my collection were

only used in the “higher circles” of

society, enjoying malts, aquavits,
mares, grappas, orujos and cordials.
The charm of these glasses

has withstood time and now col-

lectors enjoy the splendour of

these magnificent objects in their

collections. Did any one of the col-

lectors ever try a cordial from one
of the glasses in their collection?
I think that glass 130 in
Fig.4
is a

deceptive glass, which could have been

used as a cordial or toastmaster’s glass.

You can dearly see the “glob” of glass
in the bottom of the bowl. The con-

struction of the glass is quite fragile

with the “a jambe” stem (a hollow cigar
or leg shape). So, it is, at least in my

opinion, more of a candidate for cor-

dial than for toastmaster. Who knows?
I’ve also added a picture of a small

glass from Roman times which I think
could have been used as

a kind of cordial glass

– for an early grappa?
Theo Zandber-

gen is a Glass Society
member from Holland,

he offered the articles on Aryballoi
(part two in this issue) and was
most helpful in their editing.

Simon Wain
–
Hobson replies

Having seen the pictures of Theo Zand-

bergen’s glasses, and read the above dis-

cussion thoughts, Simon Wain-Hobson,

the author of ‘Cordials and all that’ in
Glass Matters 5,
commented: I’d call

the two Opaque Twists small wineglass-

es, while the other three very collectable

glasses just have small bowl capacities.
So? If you lower the bar, such that any

glass with a small bowl was for strong
alcohol, anything basically goes. But then

you can’t argue they were for cordials
and not whisky, gin or some other ghast-

ly flavoured concoction from that era.
Editor adds: The delicate and frag-

ile foot of glass 130, would rule out the
likelihood of it being used as a toast-
master’s glass, they are normally char-

acterized by a strong ‘firing foot’.

q161(010

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

Discussing Cordial Glasses 2

Peter Henderson writes

M
any thanks for a splendid

article, especially seeing a

reference to Sellar and Yateman

on the vexed issue of cordials and
ratafias. In line with your argu-

ments I tend to think we could

just call them
‘small elegant glass-

es for posh people – mainly women’,
though that does not really slide

off the tongue. The other point
is that the small capacity would
tend to slow drinking down, so I

have heard it argued that these
glasses were used for more expen-

sive drinks, though this tends to
fall down when you consider how
many small wine glasses there

are. I have heard Andy McConnell

argue that drinkers of the period
would down the contents of the

glass rapidly, especially during
toasts, as the quality of wine in the

period was pretty poor. Certainly
contemporary accounts suggest

that people in the 18th century
drank copious amounts, and not
just those in Hogarth’s Gin Alley.
I attach pictures of what I

understand to be cordials: a multi-

ply spiral opaque twist glass,
another OT cordial with a domed,

helmet foot and a triple knopped

balustroid short cordial. Final-

ly a ratafia, which has fluting
on the bottom third of the bowl.

Simon Wain-Hobson replies
There is a whole group of small bal-

ustroid glasses with capacities rang-

ing from 2-40 ml which englobe gin

glasses. Athelny Townshend had a
small collection of comparable bal-

ustroid glasses. Not sure what can

be said except that basal fluting

is unusual. The helmet foot DSOT
would seem to have Jacobite engrav-

ing? Delomosne illustrates well
this type of cordial in their cata-

logue of the John Towse collection
of cordials. Your OT cordial is the

odd one out. It is not too clear from
the photo, but the twist is unusu-

al. The outer ply are bothersome.
Is it a mixed twist? Is it of lead or

soda metal? That would impact an
appreciation of the glass. Basical-

ly, is it lighter than the helmet cor-
dial or a similar sized glass? The
16 cm OT cordial needs more info.
I’ve seen such twists on Italian or

Victorian 19-20C copies — nobody
seems to know much, even Peter
Anderson with whom I’ve discussed

such twists. They are usually of soda

glass. The calculated capacity of your

ratafia is around 53 ml (1.8 fl.oz)

confirming that it is a bona fide flute

cordial. Of course, Georgian men
knocked back alcohol at a rate that
would make us look like lily-livered

boys. I’ve read that at banquets there

could be up to 20 to 40 toasts. You’d
never survive using a strong alco-

hol, on top of which it would be more

expensive. Let’s see what Peter says.

Peter Henderson responds

I have never had the slight-

est doubt about the cordial with
the multi-ply twist. It is without

doubt of lead metal and the colour,

weight and everything else about
the glass screams mid-18th centu-
ry. It lives in a cabinet surround-
ed by other 18th century glass and

is totally at home. It has a central
corkscrew twist around which is

a larger band; a nice glass in my
view, and a bit unusual. There is

a slight opalescence to the stem. I

was surprised with your reaction,

especially considering the diversi-

ty I have seen in OT stems. I pur-
chased it from a reputable dealer.

Fig. 1
OT cordial 16cm

Fig. 2
Helmut foot cordia117.4cm

Fig. 3
Balustroid smaIl cordia113.3cm
Fig. 4
Ratafia 17cm
LETTERS

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

LETTERS

Publishing Collisions
Andy McConnell

If insanity is defined by repeat-
ing the same mistakes while

expecting different results,
then there’s no hope for me!

The reason for this is that I’ve

restarted another book project. And

this is a ‘mistake’. I’ve still got tons

of copies of my 544-page tome,
The

Decanter, Ancient to Modern,
pub-

lished 18 months ago, and haven’t
even managed to recoup its direct

costs. But then, anyone thinking that
they can make money from writing

books of this type is truly demented!
Research and image archiving

for
Swedish Glass Design
began in

2005 when I drove to Denmark,

Sweden and Finland to research my

book on
20th Century Glass,
[Mill-

er’s, 2006]. I didn’t appreciate then
that I’d still be working on it 15

years later. But I’ve since returned
to Sweden eight times for up to six

weeks at a time, archive scanning,
shooting collections and inter-
viewing its remaining participants.
Basically, I fell in love with the

quality, diversity and sheer quan-
tity of Swedish glass. And, frank-
ly, I also liked its price — much of it

was dirt-cheap, at least in Sweden.
Three years ago, I was blasting

away at
Swedish Glass Design
when

my publisher, Diana Steel, redi-
rected me towards revising my

first book,
The Decanter, An Illus-

trated History from 1650.
Spending

three years doing it was a mis-

take. But I did. The new version is

an achievement, though I say so
myself, but it took way too long.
I was diverted from
Swedish

Glass Design
as I’d collided with

a legal/financial brick wall. The

law covering the reproduction of

images of glassware had changed.

As it is enforced in Britain by DACS
[Design & Artists Copyright Soci-

ety], authors such as me must pay

to use images of designs involving
`artistic craftsmanship’, payment

going to their registered design-
ers and their descendants for 70

years after their death. DACS’ orig-
inal quotation for using 350 imag-

es of designs by the great Vicke
Lindstrand [Orrefors & Kosta],

was £15,000. Yes, £15,000! And
Lindstrand was just one of 100+

featured designers! That was

enough to sideline the project.
But now, three years later – and
with nothing better to do during

`The Great Plague’ – I’m back on

it. The DACS problem/menace

remains live and real but I’m work-

ing on it – while praying fiercely!
Note: I own the world-sup-

ply of copies of
‘The Decant-

er, Ancient to Modern’.
They’re

£50 plus £10 for UK courier, from
myself: [email protected].
Editor notes: Andy McConnell

is an acclaimed authority on the
Scandinavian glass industry.
Swed-

ish Glass Design
is pencilled-in

for publication in autumn 2021;

the cover design is shown.

Ms Howe of Bickley

and john Wesley

Dill Davis, living in Melbourne,
Australia and a member of both

The GA and The GC for many years,

has sent in this story, with a request.
Owning a glass that has been in the

hands of such a famous man is a fas-

cinating connection with history.
Please send replies to the editor.

Back in the 1980s I purchased a

glass from a local dealer which had
been purchased by him at Sotheby’s.
The glass, a classic drawn trumpet,
mercury twist example
(Fig.1),
had a

ticket tied to it
(Fig.2);
this informs

that the glass was used by John

Wesley for a Communion Service.
John Wesley [1703 — 91], an English

clergyman, evangelist and founder

of the Methodist movement in the
bet!g41.4

!Ca_
0;

ibtildey. Hot .camas fatti444 ii

rivvo.

,cot
;row waeLav to

emax.4.4.4.4.i.444.
Seto

auk.. 4
1

, woo. 6km-tux by

miss 14Atte
act.

,51.1. cJarz

qt.

LEFT Fi
g
.1

DT mercury twist glass. Collection No.
217

ABOVE Fi
g
. 2

Label attached to glass when purchased

Church of England, did preach at

Bickley, but I have spent many hours
trying to trace Ms Howe, her father

and Mrs Shutter, but to no avail. Can
any readers of
Glass Matters

help?

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

LETTERS

Triton and Horses

sculpture update

Dwight Lanmon

T
enjoyed the latest issue

1 of
Glass Matters,
but I

did notice one rather glar-
ing error (page 16). The
Triton and Horses sculp-
ture by Frederick Card-
er was
not carved
from a

block of glass. It is a lost-

wax casting. The only carv-
ing (actually, modelling)

was done in wax, not glass.
There are two versions

of the Triton sculpture in
the collection of the Corn-

ing Museum of Glass. One

has two horses
(Fig.1),

the

other three
(Fig.2).
Clear-

ly, moulds were made of
the individual parts for the

wax models, which could
then be assembled in mul-

tiples, as wished. That

is, the wax models were
not unique, but each was
re-cast and was destroyed

in the process of creat-

ing the glass sculptures.
Fig. 1

Acc.no. 52.4.335; dated 1944,

with two horses

Editor : A thank you to

Dwight Lanmon for this cor-

rection. Following the histo-
ry of these Frederick Carder

sculptures, this information
can now be used to correct
the accession notes with the
Triton and Horses sculpture

held by the Dudley Museum
Services, (page
16, GM7).

Coming from Winterthur

Museum, where he’d been since

1966, Dwight Lanmon joined

The Corning Museum of Glass

in 1972 after the floods due
to Hurricane Agnes and fol-

lowing the museum’s expan-

sion and rebuilding became its
Director from 1981 to 1992.

Dwight returned to Winter-

thur Museum as the Director

in 1992 where he remained
until retiring in 1999.

Fig. 2

Acc.no. 52.4.316; dated 1950,
with three horses

Peter Ling asks the members:-

1
have enjoyed being a distant

member from Kingoldrum, Kir-

riemuir, Angus, Scotland, for some

years now. I have a query I’m sure
some knowledgeable soul in our

ranks will resolve. What is the

apparent incised ‘T’ — it doesn’t

look like a mechanical impression –
on the under-surface of the feet of

some Victorian glasses and exact-
ly how is it applied ? I have a very

modest wee collection of Georgian
twists and rum-

mers, but have

come across

very similar ‘T’
marks on two

of a couple of

what I believe
to be Victorian
rummers, one
encircled with

a scalloped dec-
oration
(Fig.1) ,

the other plain

(Fig.2).
Look

forward to reso-

lution on query.
Regards to all.

Glass Matters Issue no.8 May 2020

G LASS

MAT”TFTIS

The magazine of

THE GLASS SOCIETY

Provvtoti,ws the ixwolerstonA,di.in,s ciwol otypreci,ati,o1A,
of

glass

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

Glass Society Glass Matters_No.8, May 2020

Recent Posts

Address

Email

Instagram

Facebook