The Journal of The Glass Association Volume 2

The Journal of

The Glass Association

Volume 2 1987

FRONT COVER: Wine glass and wine glass cooler, engraved with the crest of the Prince of Wales, c.1810. Reproduced by

gracious permission of Her Majesty the Queen.

Printed by BPCC Northern Printers Ltd., Stanley Road, Blackpool FY1 4QN

ISBN: 0 9510736 1 3

ISSN: 0951-3108

The Journal of The Glass Association

Volume 2

1987

Contents

Chandeliers at Bath

Martin Mortimer

The Prince’s Glasses: Some Warrington Cut Glass 1806-1811
Cherry and Richard Gray

The ‘WHR’ Drawings for Cut Glass and the Origins of the Broad Flute Style of Cutting

Ian Wolfenden

The Glassware of Percival Vickers & Co. Ltd., Jersey Street, Manchester, 1844-1914

Barbara Yates

Two Bohemian Engravers Rediscovered

Charles Hajdamach

Keith Murray Modern Glass — the Swedish Connection
Diane Taylor

The Glass Association

Chairman: Anthony Waugh

Hon. Secretary: Roger Dodsworth, Broadfield House Glass Museum, Barnett Lane, Kingswinford, West
Midlands DY6 9QA.

Launched at an inaugural meeting at Stourbridge College of Art in November 1983, The Glass

Association is a national society which aims to promote the understanding and appreciation of glass and

glassmaking methods, both historical and contemporary, and generally to increase public interest in the

whole subject of glass. The Association publishes a quarterly newsletter,
The Glass Cone,
which

includes short articles, news and reviews.
The Glass Cone
is edited by Charles Hajdamach, Broadfield

House Glass Museum, Barnett Lane, Kingswinford, West Midlands DY6 9QA.

The Journal of the Glass Association
is issued every two years. It deals primarily with the history of glass

in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, although articles on the eighteenth century are published as

appropriate. There is a natural emphasis on the glass of the British Isles, but contributions on overseas

glass are welcome where they relate in some way to British glass. Articles reflect the breadth of interest of

current glass studies in the design, social, industrial and economic contexts of glass as well as its

aesthetic and art historical aspects. Anyone wishing to publish in the
Journal
should contact the editor.

Editor of the
Journal:

Ian Wolfenden, Department of History of Art, University of Manchester, Manchester

M13 9PL.

Published by The Glass Association 1987

Printed by: BPCC Northern Printers Ltd., Stanley Road, Blackpool FY1 4QN

ISBN: 0 9510736 1 3

ISSN: 0951-3108

Chandeliers at Bath

Martin Mortimer

Editor’s note: this paper was given as a lecture to the Glass Association at a meeting in Bath, on 3 May, 1986.

The city of Bath is fortunate in the number and quality

of English glass chandeliers which survive in its

various public buildings. Included in them is by far the

finest suite of eighteenth century chandeliers in the

country, possibly in the world. They still hang in the

rooms for which they were designed and made, and

they are fully documented.
In order to place the chandeliers of Bath in context, it

might be as well to run rapidly through the evolution of

English glass chandeliers to the point where the major

figure of William Parker appears.
It is customary to say that the first glass chandeliers

in England are two of those at Hampton Court, one of

which was severely damaged in the recent fire. While
happy to genuflect in the direction of these chandeliers,

they do not, for me, start the story. They are of crystal,

not glass; are contrived from chains of beads on
frames of metal, and in all look very un-English. Their

source may be France, or even Scandinavia. Indeed,

the one which suffered damage may have been rebuilt,

perhaps even twice. A further chandelier at Hampton
Court was found at some time to be signed as the work
of the furnisher and gilder, Benjamin Goodison, in
1736. This is the fitting whose silvered frame includes

pairs of lions and unicorns. For me, advent of the

load-bearing glass arm is the start of English chande-

liers, reflecting as it does in its deft turnery the
contemporary baluster glasses which themselves

owed nothing in material or design to the great glass
centres of Europe.

When glass arms first appeared, English makers

had been using lead for some 30 or 40 years. This is
reflected in the sophistication of early arms. Arm, drip

pan and candle tube were constructed in a single

piece, a matter of some skill. Very few chandeliers
survive with these arms, but short examples of the type

were often fitted to the aprons of pier glasses with

frames of gilt gesso, the combination being known as a

sconce. The well-known 4-light candelabrum in the V.

& A.
{

P
1.1}
is a development in this series of one-piece

arms. They were clearly a problem to clean and very

soon the drip pans were made to be removable. A fine

chandelier given to Emmanuel College, Cambridge, in

1732 illustrates this development

It hangs in the

Chapel and can thus easily be seen. Like all the early

glass chandeliers yet known, its stem comprises

separate pieces which were cut. Briefly, cutting was a

development from, or an elaboration of the bevelling of

looking-glass and window plates. Border decoration on

looking-glasses became complex in the early years of

the eighteenth century, giving rise to a certain amount

of machinery to aid the various processes.
The processes included the use of horizontal grind-

ing and also wheel cutting. It is perhaps no accident

that the first public reference to glass chandeliers at
present known is an advertisement of John Gumley,

the most important plate glass maker of the time, who

was by then in partnership with a major cabinet maker,

James Moore, in 1714.

In the late 1730s and 40s, moulded chandeliers

appear to have been popular. They frequently included

some cutting but were principally of reticulated glass
with rope twist arms. The Assembly Rooms at York

were furnished over several years from their opening in

1732 with a considerable suite of chandeliers of this

type. Fragments of two survive in the Treasurer’s
House. Others, at Doddington Hall, Lincolnshire, came

by tradition from the Lincoln Assembly Rooms. Soon,

makers cut the arms too, to add sparkle, and more
elaborate surface treatments were devised, such as

large flat diamonds with cross cuts, the commonest

decoration between 1750 and 1770.

Plate 1.
Two-piece candelabrum for four lights, c. 1725.

Victoria and Albert Museum.

The next change was fairly dramatic as arms

became more elaborately curved; canopies (or
`shades’ as they were called then) were added and the

whole hung and applied with ornaments. The splendid

example illustrated
(

P
I.3)
, one of a pair from Kimbolton

Castle, epitomises this stage and is the sort of thing

Thomas Betts could have made, judging by the items

of chandelier interest listed in his inventory. The
so-called ornaments were very varied, though always

arranged in sets symmetrically about the structure.

They were the first hanging drops and they brought
movement to glass chandeliers, a dramatic advance as
they turned in the draughts, winking in the reflected

light of many candles. This chandelier shows the

degree of elaboration reached during what can only be
called the Rococo period, before chandeliers were

touched by the Neo-classical style. That moment
happened at Bath in the chandeliers designed by

William Parker for the Tea Room of the new Assembly

Rooms, and it is a story of some complexity but great

interest.

The splendid Rooms were opened with a Grand Ball

in October, 1771. For some 50 years they formed the
focus of social life in this most fashionable of Spas.
During the late nineteenth century they gradually

declined and were let to various commercial enter-
prises. In the 1914-18 war they were used as billets,

and in the late 20s and 30s the Ball Room was used as

a Cinema. In 1937 Thomas Cook bought the Assembly

Rooms and gave them to the National Trust, who

leased them to the Corporation of the City of Bath at a

nominal rent. As a condition, the Corporation then put
them in order once again in considerable style,

entrusting restoration of the chandeliers, still surviving

although much dilapidated, to Delomosne and Son Ltd.

It is just as well Thomas Cook’s rescue bid came

when it did, since, after a Gala Ball in October 1938, at

which they were re-opened by the Duchess of Kent,

the Rooms were gutted in the Baedeker raid on Bath.

Had they not previously undergone restoration and a
reorganisation of their ownership, it is doubtful whether

they would have been re-built. As it was, they were

once again restored from mere walls by Professor

Richardson, later Sir Albert Richardson, P.R.A., and

put to use once more. The chandeliers had been

prudently dismantled and stored during the war, and
afterwards, while the future of the Rooms remained

uncertain, the Great Octagon chandelier was installed

in the Pump Room, and one of the Ball Room set in the
Octagon (confusion here!) in Milsom Street, a charm-

ing neo-classical galleried Hall, once a Chapel. On

completion of the second and far more major restora-

tion, all the chandeliers returned to their original

places.

So much for the Rooms themselves. When the

Furnishing Committee was first about its business, it
commissioned chandeliers from two makers: Jonathan

Collet and William Parker. Parker had been in business

on his own at 69 Fleet Street for some 9 years as a
glass manufacturer, buying his supplies from nearby
Whitefriars. It has been suggested by E. M. Elville that

Parker might have taken over the business and

connections of Jerome Johnson, on the grounds that
nothing seems to be heard of this famous maker after

1762, when Parker arrived in Fleet Street
(
‘
1
. Likewise,

nothing is attributed to Parker of any kind, certainly not
Plate 2.

Chandelier in the Chapel of Emmanuel College,

Cambridge, presented in 1732.

Plate 3.
Chandelier formerly at Kimbolton Castle, c. 1765.

Plate 4.

The two sides of the inscribed receiver bowl from one of William Parker’s Tea Room chandeliers, 1771.

chandeliers, before the commission for the three Tea

Room chandeliers.

It is of prime importance to glass history that the

receiver bowl of one of these chandeliers is inscribed

PARKER FLEET STREET LONDON
(
P
L4)
. The discov-

ery of this feature sent my senior partner, Bernard

Perret, on a voyage of research, the results of which
were published in
Connoisseur
in October and Decem-

ber, 1938
(2)
. It put to death the hitherto universal

attribution to Waterford, made presumably merely on
the grounds that the chandeliers had been there a long

time and must therefore be antique, and what other

source could there be?

Jonathan Collet, however, is known to have taken

over the business of an established glass manufactur-
er, that of none other than Thomas Betts who died in

1765. There is evidence for this in the existence of a

bill-head in the Heal collection, dated 1765, in which

the name of Betts is crossed out and that of Collet

substituted. Again, nothing of chandelier (or perhaps

any other) interest has been attributed to Collet before

his commission here for the five Ball Room chandeliers

(one large central fitting and four smaller flanking it),

though of course, as all should know from perusal of

Betts’ fascinating Inventory published by our Associa-

tion, he must have been deeply involved in all the

paraphernalia of chandelier construction, taken over
lock, stock and barrel from Betts
(3)
.

It is a fortunate thing that the Minute Book of the

Furnishing Committee survives, as it traces the history

of the supply of the chandeliers in some detail
(4)
. On 15

August, 1771, Collet’s quotation of £400 for the five

Ball Room chandeliers was accepted “provided the

extraordinary expenses be all laid out in Ornaments, as
you have agreed before to send gilt chains to all the

chandeliers”. At the same time, Parker’s quotation for

the Tea Room chandeliers was accepted, the Commit-

tee agreeing additional expense for ornaments, relying
on Parker’s judgement but “You will please to remem-

ber the top and bottom shades were to be ornamented
at the original price of seventy pounds”. On 19

September Parker’s account for £330 was paid. A

week later Collet’s bill was settled: £382 for the five Ball

Room fittings.

So far, so good. The Rooms opened in October, and

on 24 October an anxious entry reads “As one of the

arms of the chandeliers in the Ball Room fell down

during the time the company was dancing and two

others having before fallen down, it was resolved to

ask Councillor Lane how to act”. The Committee had
the chandeliers inspected both by Mr. Collet’s servant

and Parker himself and, as a result, dismantled them.

They then advised Collet “As several arms of the

chandeliers you put up in the New Assembly Rooms
have already failed, and all the others on close

examination are found to be so unsafe as to endanger

the lives of the company, your servant has taken them

down”. They forthwith demanded the return of their
money. What “close examination” might mean in

those days in the absence of a light polariser or other

means of establishing stress I cannot imagine, but it

seems probable that the trouble was inefficient anneal-

ing, perhaps linked to inexperience in assessing the
dimensions required of arms of this size.

It seems clear that Parker was on the spot (as has
been suggested by his being mentioned in person in

connection with the inspection), for on the same day it
was minuted: “Resolved: that Mr. Parker’s proposals

for making five lustres for the Ball Room, the whole to

contain two hundred candles, the fashion and orna-

ments to be left to Mr. Parker, who is to deliver and put

them up in ten weeks at the furthest for the sum of five

hundred pounds be accepted”. This may appear a

horrific challenge, but it must be remembered that the
three Tea Room chandeliers were made, delivered and

hung between 15 August and 19 September. This was
summer time and the roads as good as they ever could

be, so the committee will have considered they were
giving Parker plenty of extra time to take account of

worsening transport conditions. They were — since they

were able to pay Parker for the Ball Room chandeliers

on 31 January following. On 31 October, 1771, the

Committee wrote Collet a long and fierce letter,

brandishing the law and ending ” . . . however un-

pleasing a truth it may be to your ears, so long as a
chandelier of Mr. Collet remained, the general

apprehensions of danger would never be removed”. In

November the Committee went to law. By April, 1772,

Collet had suggested arbitration by the appointment of
a referee for each side, and in writing about this, the

Committee is beginning to mention only one chande-

lier. In June of the following year the Committee agreed

to keep the large central chandelier and release the

four smaller ones to Collet provided he “undertakes to

make the chandelier of 48 arms safe and good in every
respect”. In addition, they required £30 on top. “They

expect you will warrant the above chandelier safe and
sound as a satisfaction to the public and that it will be

ready and put up at yr. expense by the first of
September next”. It seems Collet’s reply suggested

that the smaller chandeliers were not of a saleable

size. The end seems to have come in June, 1773,

when the Committee agreed to buy the chandelier for

100 gns. (presumably they had by then received their
money back for the original purchase) and paid £15 for

its alterations, £14.4.10. for transport of the four

smaller chandeliers to London, and £12 for a new
chain, carriage and assembly. It seems clear from this

that the large fitting went back to London for correction,
while the others stayed in Bath until negotiations were

finally completed.

Now to the chandeliers. Collet’s mammoth lustre
(0-5)

was used in the large Card Room known as the

Octagon. It is to me a combination of superb glass and

terrible design. It is also so old-fashioned for its date

that it is amazing to realise that all these chandeliers
were made at the same time. Collet’s chandelier is a

large assembly of stem pieces, including the spherical

central piece almost obligatory through the eighteenth

century till now. Most of the major pieces have the

classic surface treatment of large flat diamonds with

cross cuts. The features which date this chandelier are

therefore the trumpet stem piece above the top ball,

the varied profiles of the arms and, perhaps, the

elaborate borders of the pans, which cannot be seen in

the plate but which one can see from below. It is
probable that this and the Parker fittings would have

been far more generously hung with ornaments.

Certainly the Octagon chandelier at least would benefit

from this; a more liberal sprinkling of drops would
soften its menacing and spider-like presence. Its early

history gives food for thought: which of the five

chandeliers originally provided by Collet for the Ball

Room, of which this was the central fitting, shed arms?

The possibility of technical miscalculation would lead

one to suppose that it was this, by far the largest of the

five, with arms of greatest projection. And yet it was

this chandelier that the Furnishing Committee even-

tually agreed to accept. One wonders why Parker, so

ready to take immediate advantage of the Ball Room
fiasco, does not appear to have offered to provide a

chandelier for the Octagon. He is unlikely not to have

suggested it. There is no record of an English glass
chandelier of this date larger than Collet’s. It is

something over 10 feet high with enormous stem-

pieces and four sets of twelve candle arms. At this time

it was only just becoming usual to taper glass arms so
that they reduced in bulk and thus weight as they

extended from the arm plate. It may be that Collet had

not introduced this feature of design. Parker certainly
did. On the whole one feels for Collet, his grand and

eccentric chandeliers collapsing while Parker snaps at

his heels.

Before considering Parker’s approach to the design

of large chandeliers, I have a suggestion as to what

Collet did with two of his set of four. In 1935 the

remains of two splendid chandeliers were bought by

Delomosne and Son Ltd., the arms being delivered in a
sack. Bernard Perret had at that time commissioned
his glass cutter to experiment with the re-joining of

broken chandelier arms, and he had just achieved

success in the problematical annealing. It was found

Plate 5.
Forty eight-light chandelier in the Octagon by

Jonathan Collet, 1771-3.
possible by cannibalisation to restore one of these

chandeliers, repairing sufficient arms by the new

process. They came to us with a tale that they had

formerly been in the “Taunton Assembly Rooms”. The
Assembly Room in the Market House was opened in

October, 1772, just a year after the grand suite at Bath,

and contained “two elegant and large glass chande-

liers”. They were the gift of Colonel Richard Coxe
when M.P. for the county, which he represented

between 1763 and 1784. Plate 6 illustrates the survivor

from which it can be seen that it shares many details

with the one in the Octagon at Bath; indeed, the upper

part of the Bath chandelier is virtually duplicated in the

Taunton example with those wandering double-curved
arms. Here again is the classic large diamond-cum-

cross cuts treatment, the pan borders, and the odd-

shaped dished canopy (at the bottom at Taunton, at

the top at Bath). Add to this the hollow finial cut all over
with hollow diamonds and the congenital ugliness, and

I feel it could be agreed that they are of the same date

and maker. This chandelier is now in the United States.

William Parker’s first chandeliers at Bath are the

three supplied for the Tea Room
(
p
1.7)
, one of which is

so usefully marked. The first thing to note about these

chandeliers is the surface treatment of the stem

pieces. Parker makes no use of flat diamonds with

cross cuts, a pattern in universal use during the

previous twenty years or so and retained by Collet. He

thus moves forward a generation as it were, though still

incorporating large spherical stem pieces, themselves
a traditional form. These he has cut with flat diamonds

Plate 6.
Chandelier perhaps by Jonathan Collet, possibly

one of four discarded by the Furnishing Commit-
tee.

Plate 7. One of the set of three chandeliers by William Parker in the Tea Room.

Plate 8.

One of William Parker’s set of five chandeliers made for the Ballroom, 1771-2.

alone, reverting to a pattern not seen since the 1730s.

The most significant feature of the design of the
chandeliers is the introduction of vase-shaped stem

pieces, the first datable use of neo-classical elements

in chandelier design. They are unpretentious, entirely

subservient to other parts of the shafts, forming only a

small part of the general layout, but they are there. It is

in this and in his repertoire of surface treatments that
Parker is seen to be in the van. He uses the flat
diamonds again in horizontal rows over spiral and

straight fluting. Rococo elements survive in the serpen-

tine, double curved arms which emerge in four sizes

from two receiver bowls on each chandelier. A Parker
trade mark of this date is the hollow-blown finial of

almost acorn shape.

When one turns to the Ball Room chandeliers
(

P
u
P

one can see how rapidly Parker developed his

thoughts. Here we have approximately the same

structure and virtually the same arm layout, but the ball

stem has gone in favour of large and smaller vase stem

pieces. Between August, 1771, when he was commis-

sioned for the Tea Room chandeliers and October,

when the Ball Room fittings were ordered, Parker thus
eliminated the ball stem, the principal feature of all

English glass chandeliers since their inception in the

1720s. Further obvious changes include the elabora-

tion of the ornaments to include slender spires stand-

ing on the curves of the arms. It is possible that the
plain spires are replacements, the notched ones

original. Again, many of the ornaments have been
broken, purloined or lost. There is a sparseness about

all the Assembly Room chandeliers which does not fit

at all well with the richness one expects of this period.

Unfortunately, one has no idea how loaded they were,

since possibly the only contemporary chandelier illus-
trations are those which appear on the Trade Cards.

Maydwell and Windle’s card shows a plain and
un-ornamented chandelier, albeit cut throughout, and

also a more elaborate one with standing fleurs-de-lys,

spires and stars, as well as ornaments pendent from

the top shade and arms. Despite this catalogue of
garnish, the engraver has achieved only a meagre and

unfurnished appearance. But these trade cards
will

often have been drawn without specific knowledge. It is

clear, too, that many of the glass manufacturers’ trade

cards were produced by the same supplier, since many
products appear on several cards in facsimile.

From an assessment of these chandeliers and their

style, then, one can distil the feeling that Parker was

the man of the moment, competent, reliable, fashion-
able. He provided the most splendid suite of chande-

liers in the country at that time for one of the most

fashionable centres. That his reputation was thus
made there is no doubt, and his career soared far

beyond the scope of this article. In the 1780s, for

instance, he was closely involved in the first furnishings

for Carlton House under the direction of the architect,

Henry Holland, the start of a Royal connection which
spanned some fifty years. Nearer home, when the
Guildhall was re-built in Bath after much controversy by

Thomas Baldwin in 1775-78, Parker was commis-
sioned for three chandeliers for the Banqueting

Room
(0.9)

.
Plate 9.

One of the set of three chandeliers made for the

Banqueting Room in the Guildhall by William

Parker in 1778.

It is most interesting to see that Parker’s thoughts, so

innovative at the Assembly Rooms, had
scarcely

advanced at all in the six years that had passed. The

arms are still double-curved, the vase-shaped stem

pieces the same; extra ‘shades’ or canopies have been

introduced between the two receivers, and the cano-
pies are a lot larger than those on the previous fittings.
The general effect of richness is due to the chains of

circular drops which were added in the early nineteenth

century, together with the pans and nozzles and their

mounts. It is a pity that these great chandeliers are now
immersed in this froth, where richness of another kind

was doubtless intended for them. Whether they were

originally dressed with chains of pear-shaped drops
cannot now be ascertained. They could perhaps have

been by 1778. Today we have become used to

continuous inflation, so that it is odd to note that Parker

charged less for these than the £100 each for the

Assembly Rooms’ fittings.
The neo-classical style took hold of chandeliers

following Parker’s use of the vase-shaped stem pieces
at Bath. Initially makers played with the possibilities of

the style, but gradually a pure form was developed. A
half-way stage is reached in a pair supplied in 1783 by

Parker to the Duke of Devonshire for Chatsworth
(p1.10).

There is a large central vase with deep spiral cutting,

canopies above and below, a single row of arms for

lights with a row above of alternate arms with spires,
and snakes. The whole is hung with chains of graded

pear-shaped drops of high quality, linked by fan-cut
four-ways which resemble the paterae of classical

Plate 10.

One of a pair of neo-classical chandeliers

supplied to the Duke of Devonshire by William

Parker for Chatsworth, 1783.

idiom much as the chains represent swags of husks.
Until about now, arms had continued to be made with

integral candle tubes. The whole component was

vulnerable, requiring complete replacement in the

event of a candle burning down and fracturing the tube.

Here, in the Chatsworth pair, the tube arms have been

discontinued, and one sees vase-shaped nozzles
which, with the pans, have Van Dyck borders; a turned

brass mount unites these components, and doubtless
every metal part is stamped with identification numbers

or letters to ensure correct assembly. The pair were

supplied at a cost of £210. Although this was still only
£100 or so apiece, they are less than half the height of

the Bath fittings and the price indicates a considerable

increase. The rather squat appearance would doubt-

less be improved by correct assembly. The style finally

settled to a classic formality, and these chandeliers
were made with little variation by various makers for

some twenty years. A pure example would have arms

on two levels as at Chatsworth, but where the low ones

would carry lights, the alternating high ones would
carry spires over small canopies, and there would be a

fairly rigid layout of dressings.

By the end of the eighteenth century arms were left

plain fluted to a six-sided section but not notched. An

elegant example was bequeathed to the Holburne of

Menstrie Museum in Bath
(p1.11),

and it represents the

final and most pure state of the neo-classical chande-

lier in England. It is mentioned here since it is readily

seen on any visit to Bath, in conjunction with those in
the Assembly Rooms and Guildhall. It is a good

example to consider in view of its degree of elegance

and refinement. The main stem feature is of vase form
with softened shoulders, the arms taper gracefully, the

spires are crisply cut and brilliantly polished on the lap.

It is hung with chains of graded pear-shaped drops,

meticulously faceted, of which the smallest are less
than half an inch long. By now, the quality of lapidary

cutting on drops had reached a peak of perfection both

in accuracy of layout and brilliance of finish never

surpassed.

On this note, then, it would be as well to finish. The

further development of English chandeliers is not

represented in Bath, at least in publicly accessible
buildings
(5)
. They became ingenious, elaborate and

very costly as the nineteenth century opened, but the

end of the previous 100 years surely set an unbeatable

standard of beauty, restraint, logic and fitness of
purpose.

Plate 11.
Neo-classical chandelier in the Holburne of

Menstrie Museum, Bath, 1795-1800. The in-

verted position of the central vase has been

corrected since this photograph was taken.

Footnotes

1.
E. M. Elville, ‘The History of the Glass Chandelier’,

Country Life Annual,
1949.

2.
J. B. Perret, ‘The Eighteenth Century Chandeliers at

Bath’,
Connoisseur,
October 1938.

3.
A. Werner, ‘Thomas Betts — An Eighteenth Century

Glass Cutter’,
The Journal of the Glass Association,

Vol. 1, 1985.

4.
Minute Book of the Furnishing Committee. Quoted from

ms notes made from a typescript of the original by

Bernard Ferret. The notes are in the possession of

Delomosne and Son Ltd.

5.
There are, of course, many fine chandeliers in private

hands in Bath and its neighbourhood, disclosure of
which would not give pleasure to their owners.

1 0

The Prince’s Glasses

Some Warrington Cut Glass 1806-1811
Cherry and Richard Gray

The 1806 visit of the Prince of Wales to Liverpool was

unlikely to be allowed to pass by without ceremony.

George’s brother the Duke of Clarence was the most
prominent opponent of growing political opposition to
the Slave Trade, a great source of wealth in Liverpool.

The Prince himself was an object of popular support
and loyalty at a time when Napoleon was still a

potential threat to the Crokivn and British prosperity at
home and abroad. ‘Prinney’s’ protracted stay on

Merseyside in the autumn of 1806 was highlighted by a

banquet attended by his brother, the Earl of Derby and
the principal naval, military and political officers of the

town, and the local gentry. The venue, The Liverpool

Arms, was, like most of the town, painted and,

illuminated, its floors covered with red baize and its

interiors seductively lit by Grecian lamps and plaster

figures holding wax lights, borrowed from the illustrious

Mr. George Bullock. Every extravagance was procured

or prepared in time to ensure the visit was memorable

and sumptuous. Plate was provided by the Royal
Goldsmith, Rundle Bridge and Co., for the Prince’s

table
)
. Delicacies from every season were served,

including a buck and freshwater fish from Mr. Blundell

of ince. Ivory-handled cutlery was to be provided and
wines, drawn from the cellars of the gentry, were

served in decanters adorned with blue ribands. In

particular it was the table glass which attracted
comment from the Prince, and he asked the Mayor to

order him something similar, from the manufacturer in
Warrington. The glass had been manufactured by

Perrin Geddes and Co. of Bank Quay, Warrington, and
was engraved with the Liverpool Corporation Crest.

The following extract serves to summarise the detail of
this unusual commission:
“. . .

The Prince of Wales had greatly admired the

Glasses that were procured for his table at the

dinner, and that he had requested the Mayor to

order him a few dozen Glasses of the same sort,

your Committee, conceiving that it would meet the

approbation of the Council, have directed a set of

Plate 1.
Wine glass and wine glass cooler, engraved with the crest of the Prince of Wales, c. 1610. h. 14.0 cm., 10.1 cm.

Reproduced by gracious permission of Her Majesty the Queen.

Plate 2.

Decanter, engraved with the crest of the Prince of Wales. h. 32.95 cm.

Reproduced by gracious permission of Her Majesty the Queen.

Decanters and Wine Glasses to be made, to be

presented to the Prince of Wales from and in the

name of the Corporation’.

Brimful of enthusiasm and self-satisfaction over

the success of his royal visit, the Council had not

the slightest hesitation, but the greatest pride, in
complying with what appeared so modest a

request. An order was given to Messrs. Perrin,
Geddes & Co., of Warrington, the manufacturers,

for twelve Decanters, thirty-six Coolers, six Carafs
or Water Jugs, six dozen Claret Glasses and six

dozen Port Glasses. This was subsequently consi-

dered too small a service for the Prince’s table,

and a supplemental order was given for twelve

additional Decanters, four dozen Wine, four dozen

Claret Glasses and three dozen Goblets. In

addition to this Colonel Lee and Major Bloomfield
were each presented with four dozen Decanters

and four dozen Wine Glasses. This was only glass
ware, and could not be expected to cost very

much, but let us see what happened. In February,

1809, the Accounts for the goods were before the

Council and referred for consideration to the

Reception Committee, the Treasurer in the mean-
time being directed to pay £600 on account, and in

May, 1811, (there was evidently no hurry to settle)
an order was made for payment of the balance,

amounting to £706.18s., the total thus being

£1,306.18s., a sum which probably disconcerted

the Council when their enthusiasm had cooled

down”
(2)

What is not obvious and bears clarification is the fact

that the Prince’s duplicate glass was essentially a

‘quantity nearly similar’ to the Liverpool service which

had been procured — like many other necessities — for
the Royal Visit. The Prince’s new glass was engraved

with his own crest rather than Liverpool’s, the three

feathers (Appendix1). Finally the further eight decan-

ters for Colonel Lee and Major Bloomfield were
considered and exchanged with eight from the original

Mayor’s glass used on the Prince’s table at the
celebrated dinner. These were personalised with the

Lee and Bloomfield Crests, additional to that of the

Corporation (Appendix 2). There can be little doubt

therefore that the Prince of Wales was given Warring-

ton table glass which he had first seen on a trip to

Liverpool in 1806. Two further tantalizing questions

beg answers about this Royal glass; its appearance

and secondly its present whereabouts.

The high cost of the glass, the fact that it took over a

year to make (September 1806-January 1808), and of

course the owner for whom it was intended does

suggest a rather lavish design. A letter from Bloomfield

to Liverpool does, even allowing for protocol, confirm

this impression:

“Dear Sir,
I have received the Prince of Wales’s com-

mands to acknowledge the receipt of your letter

and to request that you will convey to the

Corporation of Liverpool His Royal Highness’s
best thanks for the very handsome service of

glass with which they have presented them, the

magnificence, the exquisite workmanship and
taste of which His Royal Highness cannot suffi-

ciently admire but which he considers as the most
beautiful and ornamental specimens he ever saw

of this valuable manufacture . .”
(3)
.

The date 1806 suggests a heavily cut pattern in lead

crystal, and of course it is known that the bulk of the

suite was engraved with the Prince’s crest, rather than

the Liverpool crest and the Bloomfield and Lee family

crests. Since the order is documented, one can expect

to find the three kinds of drinking glass, decanters,

coolers and carafes. As to the location, a famous and
magnificent suite, some of which is engraved with the

Prince’s crest, is in the Royal collection at Windsor and
elsewhere
(4)

. This may indeed be some of the glass

ordered for the Prince from Perrin, Geddes & Co. At

Windsor in 1985 there were thirteen coolers, forty-four
decanters (two sizes) and nine stoppers (to fit the

larger decanters) and seventy-one glasses (three

sizes) in cut crystal
(5)

. Apart from the six ‘jugs or

carafs’, this is precisely the kind of drinking suite

ordered for the Prince. The Windsor glass is stunningly

opulent. No expense has been spared in the extrava-
gant design, with its lavishly thick metal and deep

complex cutting. The swirling design (most striking in

the shoulder of the decanters) animates the form of the

glass, suggesting the quality of molten metal. The
drinking glasses have unusual star shaped feet,

enhanced by mitre cutting on the upper surface. The
delicacy of the finely blown bowls which also bear a

strange rope twist border below the crest, and the

precision of the engraving are in marked contrast to

Plate 3.
Tumbler. Enamelled decoration, after ‘DR. SYN-

TAX IN THE GLASS-HOUSE’ by Thomas Row-

landson, published in 1820. h. 13.5 cm. Royal

Brierley Crystal Museum.

.-;

•
-…./ (7 -,'”
–

tel – *V . ,,,
– _e,
–
—

(;.
,
,,i,:,

–

i
/

j___,.

1 _

rza:e,,,/.1_,

,..

vie

;

___

c.,,,,,,..i •

1
1
1

—

Ery

‘,A – , –

, , – – ,,,,,f

”
—
___ 7 ~
/J

2′
–
..i _

,c
–
_

–
_

–
–
,

\,)

….- /
v-r-ef —

– • ,

11
…
,

( .

_
2

i 1
1

….-

_-.-
—

….- .•••-__
……..
…….
.
161

1
„.
.
e

.„

–

“”••••=11111•11111
n
•

_ …all

.; .4

.’,

!•

41
C
-….

.
/
„

Avr

-i
t’
.-migml

.11

, _…-

:..

.
414
.
filk

..:

i .

.1_

.11 liv.

Plate 4. Bill of sale to Ralph Wright

of Flixton. Manchester. from Perrin Geddes & Co., Warrington, 6 December. 1809. Private

Collection.

O
•
v

–

Plate 5. Wine glass and octagonal dish from Perrin Geddes & Co., formerly belonging to Ralph Wright of Flixton. 1809. h.
12.0 cm., 8.0 cm. Private Collection.

eh 1- / .”;

•

dry, 4t .

•

X44;”
iiimomi
n
e”

/
I

.4 rArintemlimpowill

–

4111:040i)

•

1 irfririA”KraM11*°41**117
P

Plate 6.
Octagonal bowl, attributed to Perrin Geddes & Co., belonging to the Vawdrey family, c. 1810. h. 7.8 cm. Private

Collection.

Plate
7. Wine glass and wine glass cooler, engraved with the crest of the Prince of Wales, belonging to the Vawdrey family, c.

1610. h. 13.9 cm., 10.4 cm. Private Collection.

Peter Vawdrey (1780-1831). Employed at Perrin

Geddes & Co., 1802-11. Undated oil painting.
Private Collection.

their heavily cut, swirling undersides, faceted stems

and star feet
(

P
I.1)
. It has been estimated that the largest

of the splendid decanters would weigh about nine

pounds
(
P
I-2)
. It remains to prove whether this is the

glass ordered from Perrin, Geddes & Co. of Warrington

on behalf of the Prince of Wales, who had pointedly

admired such a suite at the 1806 banquet in The

Liverpool Arms. Some of the Windsor glass can be
linked to Perrin, Geddes & Co., but it is first important

to establish something about the reputation and output

of the Warrington Bank Quay Glass Works up to the
crucial date of 1806.
The Bank Quay Glass Works was begun in 1756/57

by Robert Patten and Peter Seaman of Warrington,

and Edward Deane and Thomas Falkner of Liverpool.

By 1797 Josiah Perrin and Edward Falkner had each
the largest shares in the firm whose total capital was

£25,000
(6)
. Perrin had been manager or partner in the

Liverpool Old Glasshouse in 1761
(7)

, and had married

Peter Seaman’s daughter Catherine in 1778
(8)
. The

Geddes side of the family had Scottish connections,
and were involved in the glass industries of Glasgow

(Verreville), and Alloa
(9)
. From 1795-1824 the Warring-

ton firm traded as Perrin, Geddes & Co., in whose

name the Company account was kept with bankers

Par, Lyon and Kerfoot in 1795
(10)

If the Bank Quay Works was increasingly large and

prosperous, it was also topical. Dr. Syntax’s adven-

tures published his attempts at making something like
a bottle at Warrington in a
Glass-house:

“Through the day he travell’d on;

The night he passed at Warrington; –

Where his keen, philosphic eye
Enjoy’d the highest luxury.

It seems the venerable town

Retains a national renown,
For its superior skill display’d

By which all kinds of glass are made; . .

‘Though’ he exclaimed ‘it doth appear,

Each Glass-house is his temple here

Where Art and Commerce both combine

In gratitude and praise to join’.
Syntax now wished to try his skill

In forming some neat utensil;
When ev’ry part was duly fitted,

As to his hand the tube submitted;

The strict directions he obey’d
And something like a bottle made”.

This amusing fantasy, and the not improbable specta-
cle of Syntax’s wig being set alight, is illustrated by

Thomas Rowlandson in the Dr.’s
Second Tour . . in

Search of Consolation
which was published in

1820
(11)
. An enamelled tumbler, decorated after Row-

landson, may have been made at the Bank Quay
Factory
(
P
I
.
3)
, continuing an earlier Perrin tradition in

enamelled glass:

“Just opened in the old Church Alley, Liverpool,

The Warrington Wholesale and Retail Warehouse,

where are sold all kinds of Blue, Green, White and

Painted enamil, double and single Chrystal Flint;

Cut, Flowered and Plain Glasses, of all sorts; and
Apothecaries’ Phials, as cheap as at the Manufac-

tory. Also Bottles and Cardevine Squares. Broken
glass taken in exchange or for ready money.

Josiah Perrin and Co.”
Some early nineteenth century glass can be attri-
buted to Perrin Geddes and Company with reasonable

certainty. A bill of sale to Ralph Wright of Flixton,

Manchester, is dated Warrington, 6 December
1809
(
P
1.4)
. Glass belonging to the family, which corres-

ponds to the goods on the bill, is now on loan to public

museums
(13)

. The striking thing about the glass is its

quality. The heavy thick metal is beautifully decorated

with all over step cutting, giving an impression of

prismatic brilliance
(
P
I.5)
. This ensuite Warrington Glass

is an important example of Perrin Geddes and Co.’s
production in its own right, but will also help to establish

a link with the Prince of Wales’s Glass of 1806/8. It is
intriguing that the Warrington Glass Manufacturer John

Unsworth, who styled himself ” . . . Manufacturer to
His Majesty and to His Royal Highness the Prince of

Wales . .”
(14)

had accounts with Perrin Geddes and

Co.
(15)
. Unsworth, who inscribed his 1798/1801 Sales

Day Book ‘John Unsworth Glass Cutter, Warrington’,
one can tentatively suggest was a glass cutter and
engraver who also sold glass (as well as a range of

other goods) between 1789 and 1806, and possibly up

to 1824
(18)
. Unsworth cannot be dismissed as the

decorator of the Perrin and Geddes and Co. Royal

Glass of 1806/8 at present because sales accounts
books and sales day books beyond 1806 do not

survive amongst his papers.

Recently a strong link has been established between

the manufacturer Perrin Geddes and Co., and the

Prince of Wales crested, cut service now at Windsor, in

the past attributed to London manufacturers such as

John Blades of Ludgate Hill
(17)
. A direct descendant of

(12)
.

Plate 9.

Decanter, engraved with the crest of Liverpool.

h.30.5 cm. Corning Museum of Glass.

a 1797 share holder in Perrin Geddes and Co., Daniel
Vawdrey (1733-1801), retains a collection of glass

including step cut pieces remarkably similar to the
documented Flixton glass of 1809
(
P
I-6)

. Also included

are a cooler and drinking glass identical to pieces in the

Royal collection at Windsor, engraved with the Prince

of Wales crest
(0.7)

. It is tempting to assume this

memento of the family firm was acquired by Peter

Vawdrey (1780-1831)sP
I.8)

, the younger son of Daniel

Vawdrey and Mary Seaman and a salaried employee

at Perrin Geddes, 1802-1811
(18)

. He was a signatory to

the dissolved partnership of Perrin Geddes and Co., on

30 June, 1824
091

. Vawdrey’s inventory of 1834 in-

cluded ‘useful glass’. The term ‘Regent Pattern’ is

bracketed between entries for a ‘Decanter, 4 wines
various, Rich Cut Decanter, Do Wine Cooler’
(20)
.

If Perrin Geddes and Co. manufactured drinking

glasses for the Prince of Wales, based upon similar

glass from Warrington used for the Royal dinner in

September 1806, some probably survive at Windsor in

the Royal collections in 1987. Some of the eight

decanters and eight dozen glasses passed eventually

to Liverpool for the use of the Mayor’s table in 1808

may be expected to appear, and like the Windsor suite

will bear the Prince’s crest. Vawdrey’s glass relates to

the Windsor and Liverpool groups.

For the moment the earlier prototype to the Royal

suite, used for the 1806 dinner, has been identified in

its original form
(P19)
as opposed to the eight decanters

personalised for Major Bloomfield and Colonel Lee by

further engraving. The extraneous glass, earlier than
the 1806/8 Perrin Geddes commission, yet stylistically

related to it, could be the subject of a separate study.

In the context of British glass of the early nineteenth

century the Royal Perrin Geddes commission is of

significance. Although it is not a fully equipped table

service it is an early suite of mature cut lead crystal for

the most opulent and prestigious of patrons and
connoisseurs. It pre-dates the 1824 Londonderry

service made at the Wear Flint Glass factory in
Sunderland, and is at least contemporary with if not

earlier than the Davenport service made for the Prince

of Wales by a Staffordshire manufactory, as a
documented provincial cut glass suite
1211
.

Footnotes

1.
Liverpool City Library Record Office (hereafter LCLRO),

Minute Book of The Prince of Wales Visit Committee

1806-9. 352MIN/COU I 2/10. Meeting 20 November,

1806, pp.90-91.

2.
James Touzeau,
The Rise and Progress of Liverpool

from 1551-1835,
Liverpool, 1910, vol.
II,
pp. 734-41.

3.
LCLRO, Minute Book of the Prince of Wales Visit

Committee. 352MIN/COU I 2/10. Meeting 21 April,

1808.

4.
Phelps Warren, ‘Luxury in English & Irish Cut Glass’,

Antiques
December 1969, pp.882-6, ills. 4, 5, 8.

5.
A letter to the authors from the Lord Chamberlain’s

Office, 25 April, 1985.

6.
Cheshire Record Office (hereafter CRO), Balance Sheet

of the Bank Glass Works, 30th June, 1797. DMD L6/1.

7.
Williamson’s
Liverpool Advertiser,
7 August, 1761. In

Francis Buckley, ‘Old Lancashire, Glasshouses’,
Trans-

actions of the Society of Glass Technology
1929, vol. 13,

p. 236.

8.
CRO, Genealogical Notes: Seaman and Darrel families,

18th November, 1914. DMD 3764/28.

9.
John Lees Carvel,
AIloa Glass Works,
Edinburgh 1953,

pp. 12-13.

10.
Warrington Reference Library, Microfilm of Ledger 1788-

95 from Parr Lyon and Kerfoot (MF29), January 1795.

11.
William Combe,

The Second Tour of Dr. Syntax in

Search of Consolation, A Poem,
London, 1820. First

issued in monthly parts with 24 coloured plates, after

Thomas Rowlandson. From a later edition: J. C. Hotten,

Dr. Syntax’s Three Tours,
London 1868, ill., pp. 182-3.

12.
Liverpool General Advertiser,
3 April, 1767. In Francis

Buckley, op.cit., p. 241.

13.
The Victoria and Albert Museum. Warrington Museum

and Art Gallery.

14.
R. J. Charleston, ‘Some English Glass-Engravers: late

18th – early 19th century’,
The Glass Circle
4, 1982, p.5.

15.
Manchester Central Reference Library. Archives Library,

The Records of John Unsworth Glassmaker. Sales Day

Books 1798-1806. L24/4. Microfilm M24/4.

16.
Pigot & Deans’

Directory for Manchester and Salford

1824-5.
In E. Surrey Dane’s

Peter Stubbs and the

Lancashire Hand Tool Industry,
Altrincham, 1973. pp.

187, 279.

17.
Howard Coutts, ‘London Cut Glass’,
Antique Collecting,

June 1987, pp. 22-3.

18.
CRO, Glassworks Account Books of Peter Vawdrey, vol.

1, 1801-13. DMD L6/3.

19.
London Gazette,

25 May, 1827, in Francis Buckley, op.

cit., p. 241.

20.
CRO, Inventory and Accounts of Peter Vawdrey, 1834.

DMD B/4.

21.
R. B. Brown, ‘The Davenports and their Glass 1801-87′,

The Journal of the Glass Association, vol.
I, 1985, p. 32.

Appendix 1

Extract from Minute Book of The Prince of Wales Visit

Committee, 1806-9. LCLRO, 352MIN/COU
I

2/10. A meet-

ing on 22 September, 1806.
83 The Mayor having reported that His Royal Highness the

Prince of Wales, while sitting at dinner had greatly

admired the Glasses that was procured from the Glass

Works at Warrington and that H.R. Highness had

desired the Mayor to order him a quantity nearly similar,

with his Crest ingraved upon them in lieu of the

Corporation Crest –

Resolved and Ordered
That the following Glass be ordered from the Warring-

ton Glass Works, and that H.R. Highness be requested

to accept the same from the Corporation:
12 Decanters

36 Coolers
6 Jugs or Carats

6 doz.” Claret glasses

6 doz.” Port

do.

And the Mayor having also stated that Col Lee had

requested him to procure for him a few Glasses

Ordered
That 4 decanters
And 4 doz.” Wine Glasses

For him

And . . 4 decanters and 4 doz.” Wine Glasses for

Major Bloomfield be ordered at the Glass Works and

presented to them at the expense of the Corporation.

Appendix 2

Extract from Minute Book of The Prince of Wales Visit

Committee 1806-9. LCLRO, 352MIN/COU
I
2/10. A meeting

on 21 January, 1808.

120. The Chairman reported that Alderman Clay and himself
accompanied by
M.r.
Falkner one of the Proprietors of

the Glass Works and M. Foster had been at the Glass

Works at Warrington, and inspected the Glass pre-

pared for His Royal — the Prince of Wales, and also the

Glass intended to be presented to the Colonels

Bloomfield and Lee, and he also stated that it had been

suggested that the Wine Glasses originally ordered
were too limited in their Number for the Prince’s Table.

Resolved
That Four dozen Claret Glasses and four dozen

Wine Glasses be added to the former order, making in

the whole Ten dozen of each sort of Wine Glasses. It

appearing that the Decanters made for the Colonels
Bloomfield and Lee were of a similar pattern to those

intended for the Prince of Wales.

Resolved
That it is the opinion of this Committee that the

Decanters to be presented to Colonels Bloomfield and
Lee ought to be of a different Pattern to those intended

for the Prince of Wales.

Resolved

That the Decanters made for these Gentlemen be

directed to be sent to Liverpool for the use of the

Mayors Table, and that Eight Decanters be sent from
hence (with the consent of the Mayor) to the Glass

Works in lieu of them (these Decanters being part of

those used at the Prince’s Table when he dined here

upon the 18th September, 1806) and that the Crests of
Colonels Bloomfield and Lee be put upon these

Decanters.

Resolved
That four of these Decanters when finished be

presented to Colonel Bloomfield and four others to

Colonel Lee, and that four dozen wine glasses be also

presented to each of these Gentlemen — and that
Alderman Clay be requested to present the same in the

name of the Common Council of Liverpool.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank R.
B.
Brown, T. V. Jackson, Nicholas

Moore, Daniel Vawdrey’s family and Hilary Young for
showing us much unpublished information and making

helpful suggestions about Warrington glass. Alan Seabright
photographed the glass in pls. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

t’t1t rt

rrft

•

The `1A/HR’ Drawings for Cut Glass and the

Origins of the Broad Flute Style of Cutting
Ian Wolfenden

Documentary evidence for British glass design in the
early nineteenth century is rare. There are just three
published series of pattern drawings for glass of the
1820s and early 1830s, the period of a major design

development in British glass, from elaborate, mitre-cut
work based on diamond patterns to a simple style

relying chiefly on broad, flat flutes. A fourth series of

drawings, now in the Broadfield House Glass Museum,

Kingswinford, provides some new evidence on the

emergence of the broad flute style. The fourth series

may be termed the ‘WHR’ drawings, from initials

pencilled beside a design for a cut glass sugar

bowl
(
P
I.1
.

The broad flute style of cutting was established by

the mid-1830s. A printed price list of the London firm of

Apsley Pellatt, published during 1838, illustrates de-
signs entirely in this style

)
. Prior to this date the

evidence is less secure. In discussions of the origins of

the style attention has normally been focussed on the
Waterford drawings of Samuel Miller, which are usually

dated to around 1830. The majority of designs in

Miller’s drawings are broad flute, and it has reasonably

been conjectured that the style must have formed
during the 1820s
(2)

. The Miller designs are not them-

selves dated, so the evidence for dating the drawings

bears close examination. The same is true for the other

published series.
Dudley Westropp, who first published the Miller

drawings, stated that they were ‘prepared by SamUel

Miller, foreman cutter in the glass works, in the

twenties and thirties of the nineteenth century’
(3)
.

Elsewhere he inclined to date them around 1830,

Plate 1. Design for sugar bowl, with inscription `WHR’. ‘WHR’ Drawings: Sketchbook. Broadfield House Glass Museum.
19

•

i
+

‘

pu-1.4)
-.0.’

‘
7
14
7

•

‘

Plate 2.
Designs for jugs, sugar bowl and covered bowl in broad flute style. ‘WHR’ Drawings: Sketchbook. Broadfield House

Glass Museum.

simply from the style of the decanters, almost all

having perpendicular sides”
)

. Two pieces of evidence

provide a broad framework for dating these drawings:

the paper is watermarked 1795, 1820 and 1825, and

Samuel Miller is recorded as foreman cutter at Water-

ford in a letter of 1831
(5)

. The variety of phrasing

Westropp used in dating them probably stems from
something which he briefly mentioned in publishing

them: they are not a homogeneous group. Some
designs occur in a notebook watermarked 1820 and

the remainder are on loose sheets. An example of

designs in the notebook is an oval centre bowl with

diamond cut swag motifs and splits
(6)

. This is, stylisti-

cally, rather earlier than glass recorded on the sheets.
Equally, designs for decanters in the notebook differ in

general from those on the sheets. The notebook
decanters are sometimes round-bodied and most are

cut with variations of the diamond frieze or vertical

panel, or else groups of mitre cuts or other Regency

motifs. The loose sheet designs are for vertical-sided
decanters only, and these are largely broad-fluted, with

flat or pillared flutes
171
. The notebook could have been

prepared in the 1820s before the sheets, and it is quite

possible that the whole series represents the produc-

tion of some years. As none of the designs is highly
numbered there is no unequivocal guide to a relative

chronology. Westropp may well have been correct
when he said that the Miller drawings were of the

1820s and the 1830s; it is difficult to draw precise

conclusions from them.
Even more problematic is a second series of

drawings with an Irish provenance. This is the John

Fitzgibbon series, published by Mary Boydell in the

revised edition of Westropp’s
Irish Glass,
in 1978. The

drawings are recorded in Westropp’s additional mate-

rial as having belonged to John Fitzgibbon who
‘worked in Hanover St. Glass House Cork’
0)
. When

published they were compared stylistically to the
drawings of Samuel Miller. More recently, it has been

implied that they should date before 1818, as the
Hanover Street works of the Cork Glass Company

closed in that year
191

. Since the drawings include broad

flute designs they would thus have an especial
significance for the history of cut glass style; no other

evidence suggests that broad flute cutting emerged in

the 1810s. However it is worth noting that the Waterloo

Glass House Company of Cork (1815-1835) had

warehouse premises in Hanover Street and advertised
under that address
(10)
. If Westropp’s source on Fitzgib-

bon confused the works with the warehouse, then the

Fitzgibbon drawings could derive from the Waterloo

Company, at any time up to 1835. Unfortunately the
drawings are now lost, although photographs of them

are in Dudley Westropp’s additional material. No

watermarks are recorded, so the question of whether

they might date from before 1818 remains open. The
style of the designs suggests a date nearer 1830, but
the drawings are a doubtful quantity.

Apart from the Miller and Fitzgibbon series the only

other published drawings of this period are of Scottish

origin. They are among the papers of the Ford and

Ranken families of Edinburgh and were published in
1915 and 1916
(11)

. The earliest material relates to what

began as the Caledonian Glassworks of William Ford,

in 1810 or 1812. Sheets of pattern drawings have
watermarks of 1811, 1814 and 1817
(12)
. Much later

material is also included in the papers, and the

collection requires further research before it can yield

any results. Broad flute glasses are named in a bound

volume inscribed ‘Fattens (sic) Holyrood Glass

Works, Edinburgh’, dating probably from the 1840s
(13)
.

As yet it is uncertain how early the broad flute style
began in Edinburgh.

The published pattern drawings are of limited assist-

ance in determining the origins of broad flute cutting in
Britain. They do suggest the style was in vogue, at

least in Ireland, at a time when diamond cutting was

still popular; the presence of both styles in the

Fitzgibbon drawings is perhaps the clearest indication
of this. Such a period of overlap could be anywhere

from the early 1820s to the early 1830s or, possibly,

even prior to 1818.
Before turning to the ‘WHR’ drawings, other evi-

dence for the beginnings of broad flute work needs to

be considered. The late Hugh Wakefield drew attention
to later nineteenth century claims that the style

originated in the Birmingham cutting shops
(14)
. He
further noted some glasses, acquired in Birmingham

around 1820 and now in the Conservatoire des Arts et
Métiers in Paris, which might be early in the develop-
ment of the style
(
‘
5
>; these have alternate flat flutes and

groups of vertical mitre cuts. Birmingham was certainly
developing as a centre for glass cutting in the first

decades of the nineteenth century. For the years

1770-1800 Francis Buckley had found references to

just five cutting firms in Birmingham, from

Directories”
)

. By 1829 there is evidence of almost

thirty
(17)

. Yet the sources noted by Wakefield are

vague as to dates; one suggests that diamond cutting

gave way to broad flute around 1840
(18)

. The same

source states that John Gold of Birmingham took out a
patent for a machine to cut broad flutes in 1832. In fact,

Gold’s patent dates from 1834, and an illustration to
the 1857 publication of the patent clearly shows a
broad flute decanter
(18)
. This at least suggests that the

style was well known in Birmingham by 1834.

Yet Birmingham was not alone within the West

Midlands in expanding as a centre for cutting glass.

Nine firms are recorded as glass cutters in Dudley in
1829 and a dozen in the Stourbridge district
(28)
. As

evidence from a Directory this may not be wholly

reliable. But of Dudley in 1829 it was said that ‘In the

town are several glassworks, where all kinds of
ornamental and cut glass are got up for the Eastern

and other foreign markets, as well as for home

consumption, in the most elegant style of
workmanship’
(21)
. There is also evidence that Stour-

bridge had gained a reputation for its cutting by

1819
(22)

. Bearing in mind the close proximity of Dudley,

Stourbridge and Birmingham, little difference might be

Plate 3. Designs for bowls and stands. ‘WHR’ Drawings: Blue Wash Sheets. Broadfield House Glass Museum.
21

–
7

—‘

re/

•
(
-77

_t-
—

—
r

Plate 4.
Designs for decanters. ‘WHR’ Drawings: Hatched Sheets. Broadfield House Glass Museum.

expected in the glass produced in all three places. In

this respect the ‘WHR’ drawings at Broadfield House
are of some interest.
The ‘WHR’ drawings consist of just over 250

individual drawings for cut glass vessels and sixteen
sheets of lighting equipment. They are in four separate

but inter-linked groups, showing designs from one
factory over a number of years. For convenience, the

groups are here given the following titles: ‘the sketch-
book’, ‘the blue wash sheets’, ‘the hatched sheets’ and
‘the decanter designs’. They are briefly described in

the Appendix. None of the groups is a systematic

record of production, such as one finds in factory

pattern books of the Victorian period,
but

there is

evidence within the drawings that they are of produc-

tion designs. There is also some evidence of a
sequence of design within the decanter designs;

relative dates for the introduction of designs can

therefore be suggested.

The sketchbook now consists of forty two pages,

often with several drawings per page, mostly in ink; the

drawings are partially annotated
(

P
1.2)

. There is no

obvious order to the drawings, and two of the early
pages have blue wash drawings pasted in. The
appearance of the sketchbook is that of perhaps a

designer’s notebook, although the inclusion of serial

numbers, weights or prices by some designs is
indicative of glass in production. The blue wash and

hatched sheets are loose sheets of highly finished

drawings
(pls.3and4)

One group is drawn and washed in
pale blue, the other outlined and hatched in dark ink.

The finish suggests that these are presentation draw-

ings; some designs are annotated with production
details, further suggesting that they could be drawings

for a traveller to show prospective clients. The fourth
group, the decanter designs, is of quite different

character
(P1
‘

5)
.
This contains small sketchy drawings of

decanters on pages which originally formed part of a

paginated notebook; the extant pages are numbered
118 to 120. Pattern numbers, ranging from 1 to 2238,

are associated with some designs, and all designs
have notes of weight and price of cutting, with

occasional additional information. The original book
seems to have been a type of factory price book.
The ‘WHIR’ drawings have little history attached to

them.
Of
the four groups three were deposited by a

Mr.

R.
C. Richardson, at an unknown date, with the

Stourbridge Public Library. No information on these

groups was recorded at the time of deposition.

Although he was not known to the last direct descen-

dant, the late Horace Richardson, R. C. Richardson is

likely to be of a branch of the Richardson glassmaking

family of Wordsley, near Stourbridge
(23)
. This is

suggested by the fact that within the R. C. Richardson

papers was material from the family’s firm
(24)

•
The

fourth group of drawings, the decanter designs, was

found in a file at Dudley Art Gallery marked ‘Richard-

son Patterns’. There is thus strong circumstantial

evidence to associate the `WHR’ drawings with the

Richardson firm, although the possibility that they

•

c• r – ‘ /

•

‘ ‘ 4

‘

•:-

.-)

,. / ( /
7

;4″.
•e
–

V72

•

r ;),.

“,/

,/4:-/,

•

…

,(
iii; , !

‘,’

1_, i !

;

“T 7

–
rr,r

V-•

titi
n

Plate 5.
Designs for decanters. ‘WHIR’ Drawings: Decanter Designs, p.118. Broadfield House

Glass Museum.

originally derived from an outside source cannot

entirely be ruled out.
A further link to the Richardson firm lies within the

drawings themselves, in the inscription ‘WHR’. This is

pencilled by the side of an ink drawing for a sugar bowl,
with what might be the letter ‘F’ underneath. The initials

and the handwriting are those of William Haden

Richardson who, with his brother Benjamin and Tho-

mas Webb, founded Webb and Richardson late in

1829. While this could be a chance inscription it may
be conjectured that the initials are set beside the bowl

to indicate design authorship. W. H. Richardson did
sign designs for his firm during the 1830s; for example,

the inscriptions ‘WHR fecit 27/6 34’ and ‘WHR lnvr’ are

found by specific designs on loose sheets at Broadfield

House
(25)
.

Even if the initials are accepted as evidence of W. H.

Richardson as designer of the sugar bowl, the ‘WHR’
drawings should not necessarily be attributed to the

Richardson firm. A series of early pattern books from

the firm survives, which appears to commence from

the Webb and Richardson period of the firm from

December 1829 to 1836
(26)
. The numbered designs in

the ‘WHR’ drawings do not correspond with any in

these pattern books. From 1810 to July 1828 W. H.

Richardson worked for Thomas Hawkes of Dudley,
probably as a traveller at least for some of that

time
(27)

. The ‘WHR’ drawngs, which have serial

numbers up to 2238, representing probably some six

years production, could fit into this period of William

Haden’s career
(28)
. Watermarks of 1814, 1824 and

1825 are consistent with a possible date in the mid to

late 1820s, as are the numerous Regency style glass

designs in the drawings. A possible attribution for the
‘WHR’ drawings is therefore to Thomas Hawkes of

Dudley, although this must remain conjectural.

If it is impossible to be sure from which factory the

‘WHR’ drawings come they can at least be seen to

have strong West Midlands connections. A fixed date
for them is also impossible to establish. Most of the

drawings must have been made after 1824/1825, but,

as none of the groups is a day by day production

record, the glass designs themselves could be earlier.

A date for the designs in the mid to late 1820s is quite

likely in that there are a few correspondences of style
with some early designs in the pattern books attributed

to Webb and Richardson of 1829 to 1836.

The ‘WHR’ drawings contain a mixture of diamond

cut and broad flute designs. The serial numbers

associated particularly with some decanters in the
decanter design pages are a very useful guide to

relative dates for the introduction of broad flute cutting.
The lowest numbered, and presumably earliest broad
flute decanter in these pages is no. 378. No. 599,

which has a squat, rounded profile with broad flutes
and mitred basal flutes in the Regency manner, may be

contrasted with no. 463 and also no. 605, which should

be almost exactly contemporary
(pls.6 and 7)

The latter

two decanters also have rounded profiles, but the cut

patterns are in a typically Regency frieze arrangement.

Decanter 599 may then be contrasted with two of

higher number, for example nos. 2163 and 2230
(PI.8)
.

These retain the Regency frieze composition and

should be some four to five years later in date. No. 599

is an example of the transitional character of a number

of designs in the ‘WHR’ drawings, which suggest that
we are close to the origins of the broad flute style. A

considerable period of overlap between the late

Regency style and the broad flute style is also
indicated.

The decanter design pages show only round-bodied

shapes. Straight-sided broad flute examples occur

elsewhere in the drawings, comparable with designs in

the Miller drawings and the Stourbridge pattern books

of the 1830s. A decanter in the hatched sheets, with
alternate pillared flutes and grouped vertical mitres,

develops the theme of the Birmingham glasses of c.

1820 noted by Hugh Wakefield
(

P
1
‘
4)
. Two blue wash

drawings illustrating decanters with straight sides and
vertical panels of diamond cutting relate to a design

produced by Apsley Pellatt in London, also c. 1820
(2)

Among the decanters, which are the most common
type in the ‘WHR’ drawings, there is considerable

design variety. How far the firm that produced the

drawings was leading and how far following trends is
impossible to say, but, in respect of broad flute cutting,

the transitional character of many designs suggests

they were at least abreast of current developments.

The degree to which complex Regency and simpler

broad flute patterns overlap in the drawings is interest-

ing. The reason is probably that the broad flute style
was originally intended for a cheaper market, repre-

senting an attempt at diversification to meet a growing

demand for cut glass. The annotation of cost prices for

cutting found in the decanter design pages reveals the
relative cheapness of broad flute work. Costs for

cutting two decanters of similar weight compare as
follows: horizontal frieze, 3 lbs., 5/-
(page119,top r.)

;

broad flute 31 lbs., 3/-
(page 118, row 5, extreme r.)

The

suggestion is supported by an article in
Pottery

Gazette
in March, 1899
(39)

.
The author had been a

commercial traveller in the glass trade and he refers to

an old order book of his father’s, dated 1832, made up

from commercial travels in the North and Midlands:
The cutting

varied in style, and, evidently, in

price; low flute and hollows sufficing for decoration in

some cases, the better goods having hob-nail and

other diamonds well cut in’.

Altogther some thirty vessel types are shown in the

‘WHR’ drawings. Very few names of types are given,

so that nomenclature must sometimes be conjectural;

some types can reasonably be identified by reference
to types named in surviving West Midlands pattern

books of the 1830s and 1840s. Chiefly there occur:

decanters (quart/pint), wines/goblets, ales/cham-
pagnes, tumblers, wineglass coolers/fingers, jugs,

dishes/plates, bowls and caddies, covered jars,

sugars, butters, celeries, pickles, cruets, mustards,
custards, jellies and toilets. Some types tend to

simpler, fluted decoration, the wines for example.

Broad flute cutting appears on decanters, pickles, a

covered jar, a covered bowl on a stand (probably a

butter), a cruet and a croft. Other types tend to be richly

cut, several bowls and dishes, for example. The most

splendid glass illustrated, a blue wash drawing pasted

into the sketchbook, is an elaborately decorated centre
bowl and stand
(P1

‘
9)
.
This has full-blown Regency

ornament of strawberry diamonds and step cutting,
with a scalloped rim. The centre bowl and other bowls

and dishes may have formed part of large services and

so been richly cut.

—

,
–
0

..Tr
i
f
–
e-

–
/ c…. -..–

.16
r

10/10,2:
1

W.A.
Arblr

‘vier

n
4
1#0147

Ttei.LA LIFfroprAt

zcfie

Wit,

di;
Aga:*

1
1111 111111f

Plate 6. Decanter nos. 463 and 599. ‘WHR’ Drawings: Decanter Designs, p.119 (det.). Broadfield House Glass Museum.

Plate 7. Decanter nos. 604 and 605. ‘VVHR’ Drawings: Decanter Designs, p.119 (def.). Broadfield House Glass Museum.
25

1.1

1u
“- I

2.290
-4
,414
7

el
e
–
14-s-A”

Plate 8.
Decanter nos. 2163 and 2230. ‘WHIR’ Drawings: Decanter Designs, p.119 (det.). Broadfield House Glass Museum.

Plate 9. Design for centre bowl. ‘WHR’ Drawings: Blue Wash Drawing in Sketchbook. Broadfield House Glass Museum.
26

•

•••••
2
••••

J.•
n
•••
nn
•••••40

•
11
,,
,•••••••

•
•I•••
“.

Plate 10.
Designs for celeries. `WHI:l’ Drawings: Sketchbook. Broadfield House Glass Museum.

Within the range of types the celeries have particular

interest, in that their form seems distinctive
(p1.10).

These are stemmed glasses with bowls of bell-shaped
profile, sometimes with a turnover rim. The necks are

fluted, the bowls sometimes cut in relief diamonds. The
type is very different to that found in the Miller

drawings, although it does have affinities with a

thistle-shaped celery, with conical rather than flared
neck, found in the Fitzgibbon patterns. Close in form, if

richer in decoration, is a celery glass engraved with the
arms of the Wards, Earls of Dudley (
31) (p1.11).

This

glass, which is likely to have been made in Dudley, is

tentatively attributed to Thomas Hawkes, one of whose
daughters married into the Ward family in 1843.
Whilst difficulties remain with their attribution, the

‘WHIR’ drawings both confirm and extend existing

hypotheses concerning the origins of the broad flute

style. There is strong circumstantial evidence, and the

initials ‘WHR’, to associate them with the West
Midlands and, in particular, with a firm where William

Haden Richardson worked. There is also evidence to
date them to the mid and late 1820s. The presence of

transitional and mature broad flute designs in amongst
an array of diamond cut work suggests that the

beginnings of broad flute cutting lie close to the period

of the drawings. The conjecture of Hugh Wakefield that
broad fluting began in the 1820s seems to be borne

out. However, it may be that the role claimed for the
Birmingham cutting shops in originating the style has to

be called into question. More positively, the drawings

indicate that the broad flute style was, initially at least,

simply a cheaper alternative to diamond cut glass,
Plate 11.

Celery cut and engraved with the arms of the

Wards, Earls of Dudley, c.1825-1830. h. 26.7cm.

Broadfield House Glass Museum. (Photo:
Michael Pollard).

developing, by the late 1830s, into the main style of the

day.

In recent years awareness has grown that several

centres outside Ireland, traditionally associated with
the cut glass of the first decades of the nineteenth

century, are significant for the history of British glass

cutting in this period. It is hoped that the ‘WHR’
drawings may help focus attention on the West

Midlands as one of those centres.

Footnotes

1.
H. Wakefield,
Nineteenth Century British Glass,

Lon-

don, 2nd.ed., 1982, p.33 and p.36.

2.
H. Wakefield, ‘Early Victorian Styles in glassware’,

Studies in Glass History and Design.
ed. R. J. Charles-

ton et al., Sheffield, 1969, pp.50-54.

3.
D. Westropp,
Irish Glass,
rev.ed., Dublin, 1978, p.177.

4.
Westropp, ibid., p.177.

5.
Westropp, ibid., p.93-94.

6.
National Museum of Ireland, Dublin, vol.102 – 1927:

notebook (p.15). III. in Westropp, ibid., pl.Xlll, top r.

7.
National Museum of Ireland, Dublin, vol.102 – 1927:

compare notebook (p.8 bottom) and loose sheets,
passim. III. in Westropp, ibid., pl.XIII, left, and pl.X.

8.
Private coll., Rev. Canon R. M. L. Westropp, Dudley

Westropp add. mat., ms note accompanying drawings.

9.
R. J. Charleston.
English Glass and the glass used in

England, c.400-1940,
London, 1984, p.198.

10.
Westropp, op.cit., p.122.

11.
J. C. Varty-Smith, ‘Concerning Old Pattern Books’,

The

Queen, the Lady’s Newspaper,
18 Sept. 1915, pp.524-

525 and 1 Jan. 1916, p.28 f.

12.
Varty-Smith, ibid., 18 Sept. 1915, p.524.

13.
National Register of Archives (Scotland), ‘Holyrood

Flint Glass Works’ (depos. at Huntly House Museum,

Edinburgh), Box No.1, 1/10.

14.
H.
Wakefield,

Nineteenth Century British Glass,
Lon-

don, 2nd.ed., 1982, p.29.

15.
Wakefield, ibid., pp.29-30.

16.
F. Buckley,

A History of Old English Glass,
London,

1925, p.140.
17.
Pigot and Co.,

Commercial Directory of Birmingham

and its Environs,
London and Manchester, 1829.

18.
Anon, ‘English Glass Cutting’,

Pottery Gazette,
1
Mar.

1883, p.269.

19.
Patent Specifications: Gold, A.D. 1834, No. 6640,

London, Great Seal Patent Office, 1857.

20.
Pigot, op.cit.

21.
Pigot, op.cit., pp.112-113.

22.
Pinnock,

History of Topography of the Counties of

England,
1819,

Worcs., p.30. Quoted in

V. C. H.

Worcestershire,
vol.2,
p.280.

23.
Enquiries of Mr. Richardson were very kindly made for

me by Herbert Woodward.

24.
Broadfield House Glass Museum, folder no. 3 (Stour-

bridge Library), R. C. Richardson coll. This contained,

for example, the Richardson firm pattern book water-

marked ‘S EVANS & CO 1830’.

25.
Broadfield House Glass Museum, orange folder of

loose sheets marked ‘Richardson Patterns’ and blue

folder of loose sheets. Uncatal.

26.
Broadfield House Glass Museum, series of seven

pattern and sketch books, one bearing the Richardson

price code and all inter-linked by design correspond-
ences. Uncatal. For the probable date of these see

Broadfield House Glass Museum, folder no.4 (Stour-

bridge Library), R. C. Richardson coll.: 28 pages of an
order book and some fragments of pages, ruled,
watermarked (2 varieties) T. Edmonds 1829,

273cm.(w) x 41.6cm. One page from this book has

orders dating 1830 and 1831 and another, apparently
from the same book, illustrates wines also found in the

early
Richardson pattern books.

27.
Stuart Crystal archive, box of Richardson Family

papers: notebook inscribed on front cover ‘William
Haden Richardson Dudley 1819’, p.85. A traveller’s

journeys are found on pp.43-44.

28.
The Stourbridge pattern books of both Thomas Webb

and of the Richardsons show a production rate of some

1000 patterns every 3 years during the 1830s and

1840s.

29.
Apsley Pellatt,

Memoir on the Origin, Progress and

Improvement of Glass Manufactures

London,

1821, fig.2.

30.
Anon, ‘The Revelations of an Old Order Book’,
Pottery

Gazette,
Mar. 1899, pp.343-344.

31.
Broadfield House Glass Museum, catalogue of glass,

978.

Acknowledgements

I am especially grateful to Roger Dodsworth, who brought the
‘WHR’ drawings to my notice, and to Charles Hajdamach,

who has always made material at Broadfield House so

readily available. For information supplied and for help of

various kinds, I particularly wish to thank the Rev. Canon

Michael Westropp, Herbert Woodward, Mary Boydell, David
Scarratt, Christine Golledge and Jack Haden.

Appendix

Description of the `WHR’ Drawings in Broadfield House

Glass Museum

1.
Sketchbook

Prov: folder no.6, Stourbridge Library, R. C. Richardson
collection.

Drawings in dark ink, hatched. Occasional rough pencil

sketches.

Several blue wash drawings pasted in to early pages.

Bound, no covers, 42pp. extant from probably 52.

Watermarked on several pages, `J WHATMAN 1824′ and
‘J WHATMAN 1825′. 29.3cm.(w) x 22.7cm.

2.
Blue Wash Drawings

Prov: folder no.6, Stourbridge Library, R. C. Richardson

collection.

Drawings in pale blue ink and wash.

Seven loose sheets of vessel glass and four loose sheets

probably cut down from the same size; eight sheets cut

down and pasted into the sketchbook. Also a number of
loose sheets with drawings of lighting equipment, prob-

ably from the same series. Watermarked (two large loose
sheets of vessel glass drawings), `..1 WHATMAN 1814’.

41.8cm. x 26.9cm. (vessel glass large drawings).

3.
Hatched Drawings

Prov: folder no.6, Stourbridge Library, R. C. Richardson

collection.

Drawings in dark ink over pencil, hatched and washed.
Nine loose sheets of vessel glass, three of which appear
to have been cut down from the size of the others. One

sheet of lighting equipment, apparently from the same

series. Watermark – remains of an ‘N’ on one sheet.
37.9cm x 26.5cm. (vessel glass large drawings).

4.
Decanter Design Pages

Prov: Richardson file, formerly at Dudley Art Gallery.

Drawings in dark ink, fully annotated with weights and
prices.

Two sheets, each of 4 pp., from a paginated notebook.
Pages 118, 119 and 120 extant. Page 174 from the same

notebook, with drawings of toilet flasks, is also extant, cut

down. Watermarked B & S 1824. 24cm. x 32.5cm.

The Glasswares of Percival Vickers & Co. Ltd.,

Jersey Street, Manchester, 1844-1914
Barbara Yates

Although recent exhibitions have brought the pressed
glass made in the Manchester area in the nineteenth

century into the public view, very little has been written
about the leading manufacturers and the wide range of

wares they actually produced. The development of

pressed glass did make Manchester the largest em-

ployer of glass makers by 1872
(1)

; however the

pioneer firms of the area began their production in the

manufacture of traditional fine cut and engraved

tablewares, that were considered of a quality equal to

any produced in the country mid century
(2)
.

The industry in Manchester grew very rapidly and

declined with even greater speed. The reasons for this

were undoubtedly the state of the industry as a whole,

which developed after the lifting of the Excise Tax in

1845, prospered, then declined very rapidly from the

mid 1870s up to 1900. Free trading and the lack of
import restrictions had led to the flooding of the home

market with foreign glasswares, and the export trade

was seriously affected by the imposition of heavy tariffs

abroad.
The new market created by the development of the

glass press led to the prosperity of the Manchester

industry in the 1850s and 60s, with the leading and well

established firms, such as Percival Vickers, gradually

turning over much of their production from free-blown

tablewares to pressed glass for the mass market.
Yet, although many firms contributed to this growth,

information regarding their activities is very limited as

so few records have survived to the present day. Also

Manchester was famous for its connections with the

cotton trade, not glass, so when all the factories closed

their existence was forgotten.

The identification of Manchester-made glass has

been reliant on the study of registered designs, trade
advertisements and the few trademarks that were

applied to pressed goods
(3)
. Until very recently only

one pattern book was known to have survived, a

compilation of sketches from the pattern books of

Molineaux Webb & Co. up to c.1870
(4)

The discovery of a series of trade catalogues

published by Percival Vickers & Co. between the

period c.1846
{5)
and 1902, although incomplete, offers
both the historian and the collector a unique opportun-

ity to study the diversity of wares by this firm, adding

greatly to the knowledge we have of glass production
in Manchester and hopefully extending the reputation

of the factory in the history of nineteenth century flint
glass manufacture.

This article is an attempt to show the variety of goods

produced by this firm in the sixty years of its existence

and the manner in which they changed with the advent

of new technology and the fluctuation in the market.
Although widely respected as a glass manufacturer by

contemporary writers, the firm of Percival Vickers has

hitherto received little attention or accolade; this is an

attempt to rectify this situation.

The British and Foreign Flint Glass Works was

founded in 1844 by the partnership of Thomas Perciv-

al, William Yates and Thomas Vickers
(6)
,
with a

company name of Percival, Yates and Vickers, finally

changing, with incorporation, to Percival Vickers & Co.
Ltd. in 1865
(7)
,

The factory was purpose-built on

leased land
(8)

with three furnaces of thirty-six pots total

capacity
(9)
,

one of which was used for coloured goods.

A continuity of production and technical skill was

brought to Manchester from Warrington by those who

pioneered the industry, as the majority had connec-

tions with, or had been apprenticed to Warrington

factories. Thomas Percival had been apprenticed at
the Bank Quay Glass Co.
(10)
, formerly Perrin, Geddes

& Co., a factory that had been working from c.1757 and
had gained a reputation for the production of fine cut

glass tablewares. in 1833 he moved to Manchester

and joined the firm of Molineaux, Webb, Ellis & Co.,

Thomas Webb Snr. being his uncle, finally becoming
works manager for the firm before venturing into

business in his own right. Although a rivalry between

the manufacturers in an area is often assumed, in

Manchester many of the factory owners, large and
small, were related to or had working relations with one

another. They attended each other’s functions, ex-

changed recipes and ideas and worked together under
the auspices of a local Manufacturers Association in

order to establish uniform rates of pay, conditions of

121

‘3)

as
JJ

.73

OIP

employment and even selling prices. By the 1870s the

union factories in both Warrington and Manchester

worked to ‘Lists of Numbers’, whereby union repre-

sentatives and the employers agreed to the making

and selling prices of items in the districts, to avoid

competition between the factories. Such co-operation
may explain why, for example, the cut ‘tankard’ jugs

advertised by Burtles Tate in the
Pottery Gazette

March 1888 are identical to some illustrated in the
Percival Vickers 1881 cut glass catalogue.
By 1863 the firm had become the largest employer of

all the Manchester factories with a total workforce of

three hundred and seventy three
(11)

, holding its

position as one of the largest manufacturers until its

eventual demise in 1914.
A complete picture of the output of the factory is

impossible due to the lack of intermediate catalogues
(See Appendix for a list of the catalogues referred to).

However, as the firm registered ninety-eight designs

between 1847 and 1902 the only large gap is from the

mid 50s to the mid 60s when the firm was in a
transitional period between the manufacture of free-

blown luxury items and the mass-production market.
From 1865 the firm registered designs almost yearly,

virtually all for items of pressed table and ‘fancy’
goods. Some continuity of production can be traced
using the catalogues, as several of the cut glass

designs featured in the earliest catalogue were still in.
production in the 1890s and many of the registered

designs from the 1860s and 70s feature in the 1881

catalogues, with a great number of designs in con-

tinuous production for at least thirty years; a fact that
could strike a bitter blow to the collector in the dating of

individual pieces!
As there are many thousands of designs in the

series of catalogues a page by page appraisal is

obviously impossible, therefore examples have been
chosen that are representative of the ranges of

glasswares each catalogue presents. Some of the

illustrations, therefore, take the form of compilations of
individual items as opposed to full pages of designs as

published.

The earliest catalogue, which is beautifully illus-

trated, contains mainly designs for cut glass wares,

some with cut and engraved decoration and fifteen

examples of items that were moulded in one form or

another. In all there are two hundred and ninety three

designs for decanters, fifty one for tumblers and three

hundred and sixty eight for wines, numbered, judging

on the basis of style, in chronological order with the

highest numbers being the then latest designs. As it is

unlikely that the firm only made this limited range no
doubt other such catalogues existed illustrating addi-

tional tablewares. When this catalogue was produced
the firm was still mainly producing goods for the

traditional ‘luxury’ market; quality and variety would

appear to have been of importance as such a wide

range of individual designs were available. Mass

production techniques were considerably to limit the
variety of goods manufactured, as the later catalogues

show.

Plate 1, numbers 1 and 6 are examples from the first

page of the decanter section, in all probability some of

the earliest designs produced by the factory. The
decanters exhibit many characteristics of cut glass-

ware from the early 1840s with vertical pillar flute
cutting and relief moulding on the cylindrical and bell

shapes. Over one hundred similar designs follow, on

mainly the cylinder, barrel and bell shapes, with
subsequent designs such as those of numbers 33, 55

and 131 exhibiting the revival of intricate cutting

techniques in bold and simple large scale geometric
patterns of mitre cutting that became the vogue after

the lifting of the Glass Excise. Example 131 typifies the

way in which form became subservient to decoration in

many cases. The blown blanks must have been
extremely thick and heavy to allow this extent of

cutting. The lowest numbered non-geometric designs

take the form of stylised Gothic architectural panels, as

in example 23; later examples utilised the pointed arch

as a frame for panels of mitre cutting and engraving, as

in No. 221.
The earliest ‘datable’ piece in the catalogue is

number 53
(PL 1)

, a cylindrical decanter with ‘moulded

body and stopper’, presumably mould-blown in a two

or three piece mould. This design was registered by

the firm in 1847
(12)

and was obviously considered

worthy of protection as an oval dish with corresponding

pattern was registered shortly after it
(13)

. Interestingly,

this dish was one of the very first press-moulded

designs registered by the firm. Other moulding techni-

ques were also used by the factory; No. 144
(

P’
.2)

, is an

excellent example of diamond moulding in the ‘Vene-
tian style’, one of five such designs represented, one

being a ‘matching’ tumbler.

Plate 1.
A compilation of decanter designs (1846 Cut

Glass Catalogue).

/i6

DIAMOND MOULDED BODY

/37

CUT A
ENGRAVED

1013
287

/63

“rr
,

t Fig
–
Dap
237

ENGRAVED

Plate 2. A compilation of decanter designs (1846 Cut Glass Catalogue).
31

15f
158
7.39
)72

178
is
219
252.-

JO.;

.7F d
JSS

The style of cut decoration changes quite noticeably

in the catalogue with the introduction of new, more
curvilinear shapes; number 137
(PI-2)

is a good example

of this. Here the plain fluted panels which constitute the
sides of the ovoid decanter are broken by a horizontal
cut band of Greek Fret patterning. This classical motif,

in its many variant forms, was to become a very
popular decorative feature used by all the major

Manchester factories in the 1860s and 1870s. This

decanter also has a matching wine glass, No. 260
(P1
‘
3)
;

many other such ‘sets’ are featured, the majority of the
latter decanter designs having matching wines, some a

range including port and sherries. Certainly post 1850

the concept of the tableware ‘set’ was to become very
important, particularly in pressed tablewares which by

the early 1880s might consist of over twenty individual

items per design.

Although all-over concave cutting of the neck fea-

tured more and more predominantly on the new

curvilinear shapes, all-over neck and body cutting, as

in No. 146.
(P12)
,
became much shallower in relief and

more sympathetic to form. Individual motifs also

featured much more in the last hundred or so designs;
the six and eight point star motif as illustrated in No.

208
(131.2)
,
was a device widely used in both cut and

engraved decoration and was one of the designs that
was translated by the firm onto pressed tablewares in

the early 1860s
(14)
.
Another interesting motif with

many illustrated examples, is the ‘portcullis’ pattern

which was perhaps directly influenced by the mid-

century vogue for the mediaeval (See No. 252
01-2)

and matching glass No. 312,
(

1.3)
).

The majority of the last fifty decanter designs, the

most recent in date, are examples of very complex
mitre cutting as in No. 287
(
P
1
‘
2)
.
This type of decoration

was the height of fashion by the late 1840s, and this

example compares very favourably in both form and
decoration to illustrated exhibits of the Great Exhibition

of 1851
(15)
.

Engraved decoration is limited almost entirely to the

decoration of the ovoid and globular shapes, the

earliest example of engraving being No. 99,
(/312)
,
a

cylindrical decanter with engraved panels of game bird

and vine. All the engraved decoration falls into easily
definable categories: naturalistic or stylised fruit/floral

motifs, grape and vine and Greek key and other such

classically-inspired decoration. An interesting feature

of the latter designs is the use of small motifs based on
geometric forms, used all over in conjunction with

cutting or in decorative banding on an otherwise plain
body. The majority of engraved decanters have match-

ing glasses.
The tumblers illustrated in the catalogue are almost

entirely flute cut in either six, eight or twelve flutes,

often with a split cut between. The most noticeable

feature of the wine glasses illustrated is the develop-

ment of bowl shape. Examples 1, 2 and 3
01.3)

are

typical of the first third of the designs in the catalogue,

the usual bowl forms being the trumpet, conical, bell
and ogee, cut with six flat flutes either running from

stem to bowl on a drop stem as in numbers 1 and 2, or
just on the bowl with a plain uncut knopped stem.
Gradually the illustrations introduce more intricately cut

examples, firstly on the stem then on the bowl,

culminating in the heavy all-over cutting exemplified by

No. 9. Bowl shapes gradually become more and more
Plate 3. A compilation of designs for wines (1846 Cut

Glass Catalogue).

curvilinear as the catalogue progresses with all the

latter designs executed on two basic shapes, com-

plimentary to the ‘new’ decanter shapes.
In general all bowl and stem decoration approxi-

mates to that found on decanters, the examples in

Plate 3 being chosen for their variety. Number 144 is

worthy of note as it is the only example in the catalogue
of an ‘added-to’ stem, with a trail of glass extending

from the foot winding up the stem to form the base of

the decoration of ivy stems and leaves engraved on the
bowl. Number 249 is also interesting as it illustrates the

use of panels of ‘frosting’ in contrast with cut panels as

a decorative feature.
Until the late 1860s all frosting was done by hand, by

the women and girls employed in the factories. It was
an arduous task that involved rubbing the finished
items with either a file or a bar of glass, using sand as

the abrasive
(16)
.
The popularity of the technique for the

decoration of pressed glass led to its mechanisation,

on a wheel similar to that used by glass cutters.
As no details exist, it can only be surmised as to how

long production remained predominantly for blown

tablewares. The factory made pressed glass from a
very early date, possibly from the outset, and by the

1870s pressed glass production was predominant, as it
constituted the ‘bread and butter’ end of the market.

GUT-i-CELER I ES•:)

“4.

//3.

/IS.
80.
/q,
/97.

Ova/
4111111141$11111110

1
‘

nu
tr
i

l
limitrommelli

/20

Plate 4.
Celeries, Etched, Cut and Engraved, from the 1881 Cut Glass Catalogue. (Compiled).

CLARET

……

70S. 27
.

..yar 7.6

LW. 17.7fAi

JIA

167

d’dlf

Plate 5.
Claret Bottles and Water Jugs, 1881 Cut Glass

Catalogue. (Compiled).

STA
The reputation of the Manchester glass industry in

the second half of the century was based on pressed
glass production. Factories such as Percival Vickers

and Molineaux Webbs had realised the market poten-

tial at an early stage and produced quality pressed
goods made from flint glass. Although by the end of the

century other areas had taken the lead in the market,

Manchester’s pressed glass was always considered

superior in quality.
Percival Vickers’ 1881 catalogues clearly show that

by that date the factory was aiming its wares at two
quite separate markets. The cut glass catalogue, which

is 48 pages in length, illustrates designs for over thirty

individual items of tablewares; yet in total contrast to
the earlier catalogue there were only 35 designs in

production for decanters and a mere 47 designs for

wines. A new decorative technique had also been

introduced, acid etching. The latest designs for table-

ware ‘sets’ were all numbered, by design, in the 1500s;

many, such as No. 1519
(0.4)
, were decorated with

etching or a combination of etching, cutting or engrav-
ing. Although acid etching is often viewed as some-
what inferior to engraving, it would appear to have

been quite the reverse at Percival Vickers. The price

lists for this catalogue show that items decorated with

etching were often appreciably higher than the same
item decorated conventionally. Of the examples given

in Plate 4, No. 1519 (etched) was the same price as

No. 120 (engraved), 4/6d. each, even though 1519

would appear a much simpler design. Yet both could
be considered relatively inexpensive when compared

with No. 149 which sold at 25/6d., the most expensive

item in the catalogue.

.93.

.5frey/AZ
/0′

Plate 6.
Flower Stands, 1881 Cut Glass Catalogue. (Compiled).

Al 4

11121 AAA
A. RAMO.0/10.

Aro. Xe. 7,e gird //

TH
–
E ‘OSBORNE

zz ay.
CSAIIAr

–.71
^
C
r

. d

Z.4.5147..rN

.Year./

1/ I
may
/ 9i
r

akam C
o • rt

..-e.;;;/

•

Bo
i
k-r.

—,
1
•T;;/,1

-4/

••••X
274

,
14
,
/,

R
e1
4

Hiumdfackluted

iiyPeretivakNickers

& ee.

NaRake

star. 7,

Magtgaetur
r
ed
hyParairakNiakers
& te.
l~i
aa
tk

e
~

laRake stem 5.5

Plate 7. Part Pressed Glass Tableware Sets. The Osborne and St. Petersburg, 1E181 Pressed Glass Catalogue. (Compiled).
As
is well illustrated in this plate, intricately mitre-cut

decoration was experiencing a revival in the late 1870s

and early 80s. This type of ‘brilliant cutting’ features

throughout the pages of this catalogue, no doubt

accounting for the fact that all the large items, spirit

bottles, clarets, decanters, celeries, even pickle jars
were sold individually. Only drinking vessels and very

small items such as salts, cruets and ice plates were

sold by the dozen. In order to show the variety of

shapes and decorative techniques utilised throughout

the catalogue, Plate 5 is a compilation of designs for
claret bottles and water jugs, two sections displaying

some very decorative ranges of wares.
The last six pages of the catalogue contain some

very interesting designs, not for tablewares but table

decorations; root and crocus glasses, specimen tubes,
troughs and epergnes. Although produced predomi-

nantly in flint glass, many of the smaller items were

available in ‘fancy’ colours, including ruby and pomona
green, the firm’s standard tableware colours. The

flower stands are particularly magnificent, ranging in

height from 51″ to 25″. There are two types displayed,

the three-arm ‘hanging basket’ variety and those with
`fixed’ arms, some with mirrored bases (See p1.6). They

are decorated either with engraving in naturalistic floral

and fern patterning, or with ‘threading’, a simple
but

effective trailing technique applied at the furnace prior

to finishing
(See Nos. 707 and 683, p1,6).

It is worth remembering when discussing relative

markets that neither a footmaker nor journeyman cutter
working at this factory in 1881 could have afforded the
most expensive celery with a whole weeks wages

(17)
.

Hand produced and decorated glasswares such as

these were still aimed at the affluent middle class

market and would have been far too expensive for the

majority of the working population to afford.

Not so the glasswares illustrated in the 1881 pressed

glass catalogue; mass-produced and in many cases

sold by the gross these goods were aimed at the other
ends of the market, the brewery trade and glassware
for the masses.

The gap in information about the firm’s production of

pressed glass from the 1840s to the 1880s is lessened

by the existence of registered designs from 1865

onward. Perhaps the firm’s reluctance to register
designs prior to this was because the market was
relatively secure and the threat of replication not that

great. Many of the designs registered in the 60s and

70s were still in production in
1881.
For example the

St. Petersburg tableware set was based on a design

registered in 1873
(18)

for an ice plate
(S” P1.7)

. There

are, however, notable exceptions; two decorative
vases registered in the 1870s,
both
found in coloured

glass, do not appear in the catalogue
(19)
. As many

similar wares were registered by Manchester firms in

the 1870s for a huge variety of decorative pressed
glass, it is possible that many other decorative items

were manufactured by Percival Vickers, featuring
perhaps in a supplementary catalogue of ‘fancies’.
Only one solitary decorative item was still in production

in 1881, a chimney piece ornament of a rather shaggy

looking dog (“). Although this is a solitary specimen it

Plate 8. Pressed Dog. 1881 Pressed Glass Catalogue. h. 12.5 cm. Pressed Dolphin Vase, Reg. Des. No. 284031 (1874). Coll.

J. Edgeley and E. Frumin. Photo: Peter Burton.

does have a somewhat distinctive base and might help

to identify other similar items thought to have been

made in the Manchester area.
This catalogue lists no fewer than forty-five individual

items of table /house wares, candlesticks, compotes,

ink wells, brush trays, piano feet, even a paint palette
that was made in flint and ‘cornelian’ colour. Nearly half

of the catalogue is taken up with a huge selection of
drinking vessels, with 420 designs for tumblers, 94 for

goblets and 63 for grogs, with many more for wines,

liqueurs, champagnes and clarets in every conceivable

capacity. The tumbler market was particularly lucrative

at this time; ‘common’ goods as they were known were

one of the few lines that the English manufacturers felt

they could still compete in. The Manchester factories

held the market in tumbler manufacture and this was

no doubt a very important element of production at

Percival Vickers. As can be seen in Plate 9, a very wide
variety of designs was produced, some very striking

and original, such as the ranges 132-4, 135-7 and

140-3.

The catalogue then continues with page after page

of table and household goods in a wide variety of
shapes and sizes, mainly decorated in imitation of cut

glass, although there are no examples of pressed

copies of the firm’s cut goods. There are even
examples of the ‘lacy’ glass usually associated with

American factories of the period, including two some-
what impractical cup and saucer sets.

All the tablewares were only available in flint; the

housewares and fancies however, were available in a
wide range of colours. Unfortunately what these were

is rarely mentioned. The colours the factory termed

`common’ were blue, green, amber and puce; these

were used for candlesticks, piano feet, finger cups and

the like. The pressed dog and a few other items were

available in ‘fancy’ colours, a cigar tray in ‘best’

colours. A match striker was available in black, a spell

holder in opaque colours, and a number of items could
be made to order in what were termed ‘oriental’

colours. Hopefully some of the colour range used can
be established when individual items are identified

from the catalogues, these few details coming from the

accompanying price lists.

The final section of the catalogue, pages 48 to 70,

illustrates the pressed tableware sets produced by the
factory, eight in all: the Jersey, Grosvenor,

Osborne
(
P
1.7)
. Colonial, Milan, St. Petersburg, Vienna

and the huge Manchester set featured in a supplement

in the
Pottery Gazette

when the new catalogues were

advertised
(19)
. The Jersey, Colonial and Grosvenor

were available in clear glass only as they were all-over

imitation cut glass designs; the others were available
either in clear or frosted
glass
and were obviously

designed to accommodate the technique, with bands

of patterning that could be ‘picked out’ by the process.

*Pins

/47

*Ara
ISO

*0:hart

‘
e

134

*Pita
31

/42

Ores:al

HO
1411

krenott

P8456E.0 GOBLETS

•

a
WV

WNW

•

ofv.e
.7

!/.1 (heart

5
1
”

n
ilav
t
PRESSCD

rumaccfts.

Mastikeibtred JayPeraiYakNiekers

ea.
ibigiAltei,
MaRcilester.

21
MaRtigaatured bylPerreirals,Yiakers
&

ea.
liFaiked. braRehesier.
r

Plate 9.
Tumblers and Goblets, 1881 Pressed Glass Catalogue.

The sets came in a variety of sizes, ranging from
eleven to twenty
–

seven pieces, the larger sets includ
–

ing items such as table centres, biscuit barrels,

compotes, even pickle jars. The only items never made
by the factory in pressed glass were water and claret

jugs and decanters, even though glasses to use with
them were available. Obviously the market had no

need for such items! The range of goods illustrated in
these catalogues was extended in 1893 with the

publication of two supplementary catalogues, one for

moulded, cut and engraved tablewares, the other for

items
‘
specially designed for the electro
–
plate trade
‘
.

By 1893 the great depression in trade had caused

many of the Manchester factories to close, particularly
those reliant on pressed glass production. The market

for quality items had been superseded by the desire for

low cost, with even
‘
common lines
‘
becoming in
–

creasingly difficult to compete in. The publication of a

catalogue exclusively for the electro
–

plate trade was

undoubtedly an attempt to either break into or remain

in this market, which was under pressure from foreign

competition. There was heated opposition at the time,

led by the Manchester Manufacturers Association, to

the practice of Sheffield platers who
‘
bought
–
in

‘
foreign

glass cheaply then mounted it and labelled it
‘
British
‘
.

The designs illustrated in this relatively small catalogue

(25 pages/300 designs), are mainly
‘
smallwares
‘
;

castors, cruets, marmalades and the like, adaptations

of the designs found in the larger supplementary

catalogue, specially designed to be fitted with metal

rims or in metal mounts.
The other, much larger catalogue is interesting in

that the goods advertised indicate a change of direc
–

tion for the factory. The majority of the supplementary

designs are for blown tablewares, with only eleven

pages of pressed designs out of a total of eighty
–

three.

For example, a further forty
–
eight decanter designs

were added to the existing range, all with new pattern

numbers. It would appear that the firm was attempting
to re
–

establish itself in the luxury market, due to the

continuing decline in the pressed.

The majority of the pressed goods illustrated are by

and large for items patterned in the factory
‘
s latest

designs, those registered in the late 1880s and early

1890s. Competition forced all the major pressed glass

manufacturers to register nearly all their new designs
in an attempt to prevent the all too frequent imitation by

foreign factories. The latest designs registered, such
as those numbered 138130 and 134907
(p1.10),

were all

based on imitation cut glass, often in quite complex

all
–
over designs which would have been difficult to

mould and required a good quality metal. In many

respects the pressed glass designs were far more

intricate than those found on the blown tablewares.
Although many examples of ‘brilliant cutting
‘
can be

found in the cut glass designs, the majority of the

patterns are much more restrained, consisting of
distinctive
‘

blocks
‘

or bands of geometric cuts, with a

repeated use of fan
–

shaped cuts as a motif
(p1.11).

The

etched and engraved designs are frequently very

delicate, applied in simple banding or in light all
–
over

floral patterns such as the set illustrated in Plate 11,

VIP)

,•der,

ArliNf

r
YV

prat

i
f’ le!
f
t

;

•

A
•
, t j

.1
1
.

77
,
7r,

rYtitt

Imp

;WA

3.1
lusimaitiwv.munit.

ai7Fir

ZUAZI

6KE
–

1:11CP.1214
3′

EITOFS7′ •

g
n’a

141
,

vow
16,14147

Plate 10.

Tablewares from the 1893 Supplementary Catalogue. (I.) Reg. Des. No. 134907, (r.) Reg. Des. No. 168130. Max h.

22.2 cm. Private Coils. Photo: Peter Burton.

Plate 11.
Cut and Engraved Glasswares from the 1893 Supplementary Catalogue.

Set 1558. This was a twenty-seven piece set, one of

six illustrated; the range of items available in the cut
glass sets was very extensive, including vases and

epergnes. There are also extant pieces from one of

these sets in both the ruby and pomona green

colours
(20)
,
which may have been available to order.

Although the firm continued to register designs for

both cut and moulded glasswares well into the twen-
tieth century, no further tableware catalogues appear

to have been published, A revised price list, dated

1905, refers page by page to the 1893 catalogue, with

every item still in production. It is quite possible that

items from the 1881 catalogues were also still in

manufacture, although this can only remain conjecture.
Other than the registered designs, few other details

exist about production at the factory in the twentieth

century. Only one small catalogue of electric light

shades, published in 1902, and a few single page

leaflets remain. All this material relates to a side of the
business not previously mentioned, that as a producer

of scientific and technical glasswares. This side of the

business continued throughout the factory’s existence,
involving the manufacture of a wide range of items

including chemical retorts, pavement and deck lights,

light shades and globes and large trade containers.
The electric light shade catalogue, although only

eight pages long, is interesting as little is known about

this type of glassware production. All the leading firms

in the country manufactured light fittings as they were a

constant trade, yet very few can be attributed to
individual factories. This catalogue and the three

separate sheets of electrical globes contain eighty-two

production designs, both blown and moulded. The

blown shades were predominantly produced in opal

glass, either plain or frosted, many having a frilled rim.

Blown globes were either left plain, cut in predominant-
ly geometric patterning, or mould-blown and then cut to

sharpen the design. The press moulded shades and

globes were similarly patterned, frequently in reg-

istered designs. Interestingly the shades were pro-
duced in ranges, pressed in the same mould and then

finished at the furnace to give different shapes. This
would seem a very logical method of production,

allowing variety without the expense of producing a

large number of moulds.
How important financially this side of the business

was will probably never be established; what is clear is

that by 1907 the factory was in a serious financial state,
leading to the voluntary liquidation of the company by
extraordinary general meeting on 6 September that

year. Glass production would appear to have con-
tinued for some time after this date, the factory finally

being sold in 1914, prior to a large ‘clearance sale’ of

the stock by the company’s liquidators
(21)
.

Although the factory has long since ceased produc-

tion, hopefully the firm’s trade catalogue will enable a

lot more of the glass produced by this factory to be
identified. As a contemporary writer put it:

“Manchester glass has a reputation of its own.

There are distinct features about it that do not

pertain to the glass of other districts. Every

variety of table glass, cut, etched, engraved plain

and pressed, is made in the Manchester district,

and is found in Messrs. Percival Vickers & Co.’s

show-rooms.”
(22).
1.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Footnotes

Trades union statistics, taken from the Quarterly

Reports of the Flint Glass Makers Friendly Society,

published in the
Flint Glass Maker’s Magazine,

(1851-97) (Hereafter F.G.M.M.). In 1872 the Manches-

ter factories (union controlled) employed 333 men of

status footmaker and above out of a total of 1,840 in the

country.

“It may be affirmed without prejudice to other manufac-

turers in localities where such business is now carried

on, that the Manchester glass is in no way inferior to the
best in the country.”,
The Art Journal,
1851, p.290.

Unfortunately very few of the Manchester manufactur-

ers are known to have used trade marks. Those known

to have been used on pressed glass are: JD/anchor

mark of John and James Derbyshire.
SEAFOAM . . . . a colour effect registered by Burtles

Tate & Co, Ltd.
P. V. & Co

Percival Vickers & Co.

I B B I
….
Webb Bros., Varley Street.

In the possession of the City Art Gallery, Manchester.

This catalogue has no printed date but is hand-dated
1846. It was published in the name of Percival, Yates &

Vickers.
Although frequently referred to as Percival Yates’,
particularly in early directories, the firm’s original title

and partnership was in all three men’s names.
(s
”
8)
.

The firm became a registered company on 16 Decem-
ber 1865, with all three partners listed as joint owners.

Although William Yates’ name was omitted from the

firm’s title after this date he and his descendants
continued to hold shares in the company until its

closure. Public Record Office, B.T.31,
(n

Details of Leases etc., 1844-1865, PRO, B.T.31
,(2692C).

Society Statistics taken from the annual schedule for
the year ending 31 Dec 1857.
F.G.M.M.,
Vol. III, p.248,

1857.

This factory was established under the title Peter
Seaman & Co., c.1757 – c.1782, when it changed to

Perrin & Co., becoming Perrin, Geddes & Co. from
c.1795 – 1824. Taken from the Warrington Poor Rate

Books, Warrington Local History Library.

Childrens Employment Commission,
1865, Vol. XX, Pt.

II, p.70, (C.E.C.), Evidence given by William Yates.
(Molineaux Webbs employed 311 workers at this.date).

Registered Design No. 46788, 5/11/47. Moulded de-
canter with the same design as a bottle, Reg. No.

42296, 25/2/47.
Registered Design No. 47344, 27/11/47. Pressed glass

dish.
Three separate items were registered in this design.
i)
Stemmed sugar, Reg. No. 183352, 18/1/65.

ii)
Jug, Reg. No. 183353, 18/1/65.

iii)
Comport, Reg. No. 185030, 21/3/65.

See
The Great Exhibition Catalogues,
Vol. II, Royal

Commission 1851, Glass Section.
G.E.C., 1865, op.cit., p.269, Evidence given by Mr. T.
Webb, Molineaux Webb & Co. Ltd.

Between 1871 and 1891 the nominal weekly wage for a

first class foot-maker rose from 17/- to 19/- for a 33 hr.
week, with overwork payable in proportion (when

available). Cutters received a lower rate of pay than
this. Even with overwork neither could expect a wage

exceeding 25/-.
Registered Design No. 272685, 7/5/73. An ice plate.

The two fancy glass vases described are;
i)
Pressed Flower Vase. Reg. No. 243554, 1/8/70.

ii)
Pressed Dolphin Vase. Reg. No. 284031, 29/7/74,

(See p1.8)
.

Kindly shown to the author from the collection of

Thomas and Edwina Percival.

The Pottery Gazette and Glass Trade Review,
January

1914, p.11.

The Pottery Gazette and Glass Trade Review,
Septem-

ber 1898, p.1120.

Appendix

Catalogues and Price Lists referred
to

Percival, Yates & Vickers

Illustrations of Cut Glass, manufactured by Percival, Yates &

Vickers, Dated by hand, 1846. (58 Pages).

Percival Vickers & Co. Ltd.

Illustrated Catalogue of Cut Glassware, 1881, (59 Pages).

Illustrated Catalogue of Pressed Glassware, 1881. (42
Pages).

Supplementary Catalogue of Moulded, Cut, Engraved and
Etched Flint Glass specially designed for Home and Export

Trade, 1893. (83 Pages).

Patterns of Moulded, Cut and Engraved Goods, specially

designed for the Electro-plate Trade, 1893. (25 Pages).

Glass Shades for Electric Light, Cut and Moulded, 1902. (8

Pages).

Electric Globes, Three separate sheets, 41 designs, 1902.

Fish Globes, Salvers & Covers, Ceiling Shades and Confec-
tionery Jars, two sheets, 12 designs, 1902.

Revised Price List of Cut Glass, 1881.
Pressed Glass Price List, 1881.

Price List of Electrical Shades, 1902.

Price List of Electrical Globes, Etc., 1902.

Revised Price List of Cut and Moulded Glass, 1905.

The catalogues and price lists are privately owned.
The authoress has photocopied the entire set for reference.

Two Bohemian Engravers Rediscovered

Charles R. Hajdamach

Glass collectors are well aware of the vital contribution

made to Victorian glass by immigrant Bohemian

engravers of the calibre of the legendary William
Fritsche and Frederick Kny. Others, such as Joseph
Keller in Stourbridge, Franz Tieze in Dublin and Paul

Oppitz in London, passed on their skills to English

apprentices and created a legacy which is still with us

today. Less known and more difficult to research are

the characters who produced a vast body of com-
memoratives, portraits and floral engraving, mainly

unsigned and resulting in anonymity. It is therefore

especially rewarding to discover a group of glasses
with family archive material of two of these forgotten

Bohemian engravers and to give credit to the families

who have preserved these treasures. This short note is

essentially a story of how a series of coincidences can

bring such information to light and increase our

knowledge and appreciation of glass history.

The first part of the detective story began in

Manchester in the winter of 1973 when the Manchester

City Art Gallery acquired an impressive presentation
goblet engraved for the opening of the Town Hall in

1877
(p11)
. It was made at the Prussia Street Flint Glass

Works of Andrew Ker and presented to the mayor by
the glass workers. Nothing else was known of the

history of the goblet or of the obviously talented
engraver responsible for the decoration. During the

previous two years the Art Gallery had actively

collected glass, especially pressed ware made by

Manchester factories, and by February 1974 it was

possible to stage a small display of those items

including the goblet. With the co-operation of the local
press an appeal was printed for information on

Manchester glass from the public
(1)
. Within a week

Mrs. Florence West had written to the gallery with the

information that the goblet was the work of her
grandfather Wilhelm Florian Pohl
(P1
‘
2)
. A follow-up

story described the discovery
(2)

. It showed Mrs. West

admiring the goblet which she had often heard about
but never seen”
(3)
.

The mystery of the Town Hall goblet began on 11

September 1926 when a note in the Observatory
section of the
City News

informed its readers that:

“Monday next marks the forty-ninth anniversary

of the opening of the Town Hall in Albert Square.

The honour fell to the Mayor (Alderman Abel
Heywood) and on September 13th 1877, he

performed his task with distinction. In the evening
came a banquet, which was held in the large

room of the new building. The company compris-

ed about four hundred guests, among whom
were .

. The gifts to the Lord Mayor included a
large glass goblet, richly cut, bearing a fine view

of the Town Hall front, made and given by the

men employed at the Prussian Street Flint

Glassworks, Ancoats. A few days ago, writes a

correspondent, I came into possession of the

booklet, issued by the Corporation, giving the

names and addresses of the banquet
guests. . .”

A Mr. Frank 011erenshaw replied to this note a week

later:

On reading the paragraph in the City News that

Monday was the forty-ninth anniversary of the

opening of the Manchester Town Hall, I was

interested in the mention that amongst the gifts to

the Mayor was a large glass goblet, bearing a fine
view of the Town Hall front, made and given by

the men employed at the Prussian (sic) Street

Flint Glassworks, Ancoats.

Can any reader please give us further information

regarding this (I expect now extinct) glassworks;
also if the goblet is still
in
existence. This

information, I am sure, will be appreciated by

many City News readers.”

By now the correspondence had.caught the imagina-

tion of various local historians and glassmakers. Three

letters in the
City News
of 25 September 1926 threw

some light on Pohl and Manchester glassworks. The

first, by William Simpson, included the following

comment that: the goblet referred to was no doubt
made by the firm of Andrew Ker of Prussia Street (not

Prussian Street), Oldham Road. This firm was noted

for its fine quality of flint glass, and also for its

high-class engraving and cutting of the same. Their

most skilful engraver was a Pole named Pohl. I posses

a number of glasses engraved and cut by him. He

started in business on his own account in Oldham

Road nearly fifty years ago, but whether his business is

still carried on I cannot say, as the premises he

occupied were pulled down when the extension of the

Oldham Road Goods Yard belonging to the Lancashire

and Yorkshire Railway took place some years ago.”

The second correspondent, a C.H.W.K. of Dyserth,

mentioned that: “it was from him (Andrew Ker) that I
learnt that most of the glass models carried by the

glassworkers in the procession at the opening of the

new Town Hall were made at his works. I am unable to
say definitely at which works the goblet referred to was

made”. Finally L. Milner Butterworth of the Newton

Heath glassworks added some information about the
history of local glassworks but did not expand on the

whereabouts of the goblet. All of this general corres-

Plate 1.

The Manchester Town Hall Goblet, 1877. h. 15″ (39.4 cm) Coll. City of Manchester Art Galleries.

pondence resulted in a letter

(4)
from Eleanor A. Pohl,

one of Wilhelm’s daughters:
Your correspondent, Mr. William Simpson, re-

fers to my father, the engraver of the goblet

presented to the Mayor of Manchester at the

opening of the Town Hall. It was made at Andrew

Ker and Co’s glass works, Prussia Street (now

Kemp Street), and the men who represented the
firm were Mr. Wilkinson, the mixer, Mr. McGui-

ness, the cutter, Mr. Travis, cutter, and Mr. Pohl,
the engraver (a Bohemian, not a Pole as stated).

I should like to know where it can be seen if it is

still in existence. My sister, who is now engraver

for Messrs. Stephenson’s, Barton Arcade, re-

members Mr. Pohl’s engraving, and how it had to

be slung up to bear the weight. It had the Town

Hall on one side and, I believe, the portrait of the
Mayor on the other side”.

Although some of the information in these letters is

incorrect, i.e. Pohl’s nationality of Polish and the

portrait of the Mayor on the goblet, they do create other
tantalising mysteries such as the Pohl glasses owned
by William Simpson and what type of engraving

Eleanor’s sister created for Messrs. Stephenson.

Excitement over the mystery receded until it was

revived with another newspaper article, printed some-

time between June 1951 and 1952
(5)

,
headlined:

“BEAUTIFUL POHL GOBLET HAS JUST

VANISHED.
Most people in Burnage know Mrs. Agnes Chap-
man who at 88, is the oldest member of the

Burnage Over Sixties Club.

But of all the people who see the dignified old
lady walking slowly from her home in Arbor

Avenue, to the shop at the corner, few would

think of her as a woman with a mystery.

And yet Mrs. Chapman is the last remaining link
with a problem which has baffled civic heads for

nearly half a century.
The ‘Mystery of the Missing Goblet’, with which

she is linked, has its beginnings in the prosper-

ous days of the nineteenth century when her

father, a skilled glass engraver, was commis-
sioned by the City Fathers of Manchester to

commemorate the opening of Manchester Town

Hall by engraving a goblet with a picture of the
‘new’ Town Hall and a portrait of the Lord Mayor

of the time.
To a man like Wilhelm Pohl such a commission

meant a great deal. A refugee from Bohemia,

land of exquisite glass, it was the highest honour

he could imagine.
The goblet he engraved was universally voted to

be remarkable and it was received with much

applause by the aldermen.

For a time it was kept in the Town Hall among the

civic treasures but suddenly, quite unaccount-

ably, it vanished.
‘It’s very strange’, said Mrs. Chapman, ‘I’ve tried

all my life to find the goblet, but it has just
vanished from the face of the earth’.”

Agnes Chapman may be the sister mentioned by
Eleanor in her letter of 1926. According to her

daughter, Mrs. Florence West, Agnes engraved glass
at her home for various firms. The practice seems to

have been widespread in Manchester. In conversation
Plate 2.

Wilhelm Florian Pohl. The photo is from a visiting

card inscribed “From the photographic Studio of

E. Ireland, Marsden Chambers, 105 Market

Street, Manchester”. Coll. Mrs. F. West.

with Mr. Shufflebottom of Frederick Hampson’s Pre-

serverance Glass Works in Manchester, he remem-

bered his firm sending quantities of plain tumblers and

other glasses, to ladies at home to be engraved
(6)
.

So after almost 50 years, the dreams of two of Pohl’s

daughters and his granddaughter were realised when

the goblet was rediscovered, but the reason for its
initial disappearance and its whereabouts for 50 years

are still a mystery. The only clue was the suggestion

that it was a lot in a sale in the North-East before

appearing in a County Durham antique shop.

The next exciting stage in this voyage of discovery

was the information from Florence West that the
Chapman branch of the family owned a number of

glasses engraved by Pohl as well as a family bible
which contained a record of Pohl’s travels and his two

wives and children
(7) (pls. 3 and 4).

The title page is

inscribed “William and Sarah Pohl Md. (Married) 21st
Agst 1871 Great Sankey, Warrington.” The next page

lists the children of his second marriage:

“Eleanor Ada Pohl
Born July 24th 72 Warrington Wolfs House
Sankey Bgs.

Elizabeth Mary Pohl

Born Feby 8th 74 Bank Quay

William Emmanuel Pohl

Born Nov 28th 75 Bowling G. Terace B. Quay

Alex.da Holm Vass Pohl

Born Jany. 14th 78 Rochdale Rd Manchester”.

/ g

hLt41

•

&Y
.
°
(/ I

‘
. rte/t

J
r

)

)(
;,
,/

t
.
‘
1.
.

•
f

4’
4
). t
r

cyct

A,
‘ ‘

j
:
.
.)
,•• 1444

•
,— -1 e”,
,
,,,,,e•
f’,,,,

4
–

,, i ,,

. ,,…
7

–,….?,,„ n.-tiai-

,:•
,.,/: r & cnt(

,.., “,

i
7
;
f 7 .., 1.

. /

_
.

1(,, )i(`
/

c
‘

..?(/
r

Plates 3 and 4
The
Family Register title pages of Wilhelm Pohl’s bible. Signed by him in Manchester in 1882.

Plates 5

Rummer engraved with St. Mary’s Church in Sankey where Pohl married his second wife Sarah, and WooIfs House

and 6.

where they lived and where their first daughter, Eleanor Ada, was born. h. 6

2
/
5

“. Coll. Philip and Pat Chapman.

Plate 6.

See Plate 5.

Plate 7.

Goblet engraved with the initials SP for Sarah

Pohl within sprays of leaves, fuchsias and lily of

the valley with the date 1 June 1883. Although the

exact significance of the date is not known it may

be for Sarah’s birthday. h. 72”. Coll. Mrs.
F.
West.
=

Plate 8.
Cream Jug, cut with row of ovals, engraved with

sprays of ferns and lily of the valley and the initials

FP for Franciska Pohl, his first daughter. h. 3r.
Coll. Mrs. F. West.

This note is followed by a poignant entry which gives
the date of death of his first wife and their five children

including Christina who died in 1870 just 9 months old.

The full entry is as follows:
“Christina Blyth Pohl
Died Dec. 12th 1870 Aged 28

Franciska Pohl
Born May 13th 61 Edinboro N.B.}

Agnes Glassner Pohl

Born June 5th 63 Orford Lane Warrington

Jessie Blyth Pohl

Born May 15th 65 Orford Lane Warrington

Bertha Jane Pohl

Born Feby. 29th 67 Orford Lane Warrington

& Christina Pohl

Died May 1870 aged 9 months

interred in the Cemetery of Warrington”.

The third page is inscribed:
“Wilhelm Florian Pohl
Born May 31st 1839 in Parchen

by Steinschonau Bohemia

Edinburgh 1858

Warrington 1863

Manchester 1875″.

These three pages provide a vivid picture of Wilhelm

Pohl’s life. At the age of 19 he had left his native
Bohemia to avoid conscription and travelled to Edin-
burgh following a path taken by many other Bohemian

engravers. In her book
Victorian Table Glass and

Ornaments
Barbara Morris discusses a number of

these engravers, some of whom are listed in a

sketchbook of Franz Tieze who worked in Dublin. Pohl

married Christina Blyth, probably in Leith where he had
settled, and following the birth of their first daughter

they moved to Warrington. The next seven years in

Warrington must have been happy ones for Wilhelm

and Christina with the birth of another four daughters.

But tragedy struck in 1870 when the youngest,
Christina, died at 9 months old in May followed by the
death of his wife in December. Pohl married Sarah

(maiden name unknown) in August 1871 and in July of

the following year their first daughter Eleanor Ada was
born. Three more children followed, the last born in

Manchester in 1878, the year after the engraving of the

Town Hall goblet. Other information about him comes
from Philip and Pat Chapman. According to Philip

Chapman each member of the trades procession (at

the Town Hall opening?) wore an insignia to identify his

trade; Wilhelm Pohl wore a clear glass star with a blue

centre on his lapel. The star is now in the possession of

the New Zealand branch of the Chapman family.

Apparently Wilhelm Pohl also worked on the seafront

at Blackpool for two seasons where he engraved
tumblers etc. with names and mottoes. The high cost of

hiring a stall was prohibitive, and Pohl decided it was
unprofitable and he gave it up after two years. Philip

Chapman also knew that Pohl was buried at Philips

11•111•Emor,—…

Plate 9.
Water Jug engraved with horseman in military

uniform, sprays of oak leaves and acorns. h. 71″.

Coll. Mrs. F. West.
Plate 11.

Goblet, cut stem with star on foot, the bowl

engraved with a band of fruiting vine. h. 71″. Coll.

P. & P. Chapman.

Plate 10.
Glass Mirror engraved with flowers and ferns on the underside and silvered

after cutting. I. 7”. Coll. P. & P

Chapman.

Plate 12.

Side view of jug in Plate 13 showing the cornucopiae containing flowers, leaves and ferns. The base of the jug is

roughly engraved over the ground pontil with a spray of berries and leaves.

Plate 13.

Water Jug engraved with a view of The Devil’s Glen, Co. Wicklow. h. 8
4

/
5
“. Coll. P. &
P.

Chapman.

Plate 14. Print of the Devil’s Glen, Co. Wicklow, used by Pohl as source material for his engraving on the

jug. Published by Newman & Co., 48 Watling St. London; no date is given. In Hall’s
Ireland: its

scenery and character,
1841-3, The Devil’s Glen is described as “little more than a mile in

length .

a wide carriage road has been constructed all through the glen . . . It is perhaps the

most graceful, if not the most stupendous, of the Wicklow cataracts … . Reader, to reach it is,

literally, but a days journey from London.” This information has been kindly provided by Mary

Boydell who searched through all the available nineteenth century prints of the Devil’s Glen in the

National Library of Ireland. Photo: courtesy of National Library of Ireland.

Plate 15.

Valentin Weinich with his son Ferdinand. Coll.

Mr. & Mrs. Malpass.
1986 a goblet was brought into Broadfield House Glass

Museum which was said to be engraved by Weinich.
Another three glasses were part of the same collection
plus a number of original documents of Valentin

Weinich’s which included a trade card, a “Deportation

or Repatriation of Aliens” form, a First World War

Identity Book and his death certificate
(12)
. Weinich had

moved from Preston to the Stourbridge area on 10 July

1910 hence the lack of information in Manchester. The

Identity Book also contained two photographs of
him
(13115)

. With the information given in these papers it

is possible to piece together a detailed history of

Valentin Weinich’s life, even to his height of 5′ 4r. He

was born on 12 December 1844 in Blottendorf,

Bohemia and trained as a glass engraver. He moved to

England at the age of 18 but unfortunately we do not
know if he followed the same path as Wilhelm Pohl. In

an exhibition of glass in January and February 1876
organised by the Glass Sellers Company and held at

Alexandra Palace, Valentin Weinich was awarded a
bronze medal together with an F. Weinich of whom

nothing is known at present. Other Bohemians who

won medals were Paul Oppitz (gold and silver), F. E.
Kny, W. Fritsche, J. Blumtritt, F. Kirchoff and A. Proft.

By 1873 Weinich was living and working in Manchester
at 111 City Road, Hulme. He had married an English

girl, Janet Fields and on 29 October 1873 their
daughter Franziska was born. On 21 March 1878

Amelia was born; the third child Ferdinand was born on

11 May 1884
(13)
. Weinich’s trade card which proudly

mentions his Bronze Medal award describes him as a

Park Cemetery, Bradford Road, Manchester although

the gravestone had been removed. A search through

the burial registers revealed grave number 1165,

Section E, Church of England Part, the date 14 Jan

1893 and the entry Wilhelm Pohl, 52 years, Glass

engraver, 5 Butler Street, Ancoats
(8)
. His widow Sarah

died in 1908 at the age of 68 and was buried next to

him
(9)
.

The vivid, detailed record of Pohl’s life is enhanced

by the seven glasses which are owned by the
family
(1
0

) (
P
F
s
.5 t

o
14)

. The rummer, goblet and cream

jug are of special personal significance. None of the
glasses is signed; therefore without the existence of

the family records the significance of the engravings
would be lost to us. The rummer is important on two

counts. Firstly it portrays a new chapter in Pohl’s life
when he re-married and when he was able to provide a

settled home for the children of his first marriage.

Secondly, after the Town Hall goblet, it shows the full
quality of his engravings for he would have given of his

best on a subject so full of memories. Of all the glasses

it evokes the greatest emotions when seen against the

entries
in
the family bible.

The second part of the detective story moves to

Stourbridge and involves a contemporary of Pohl’s
who worked in Manchester. In his sketchbook Franz

Tieze records a “Valentin Weinich at 63 (or 163) Every
Street, Ancoats, Manchester”
(11)
. Amongst the in-

formation on Manchester glass coming in from the
public as a result of the 1974 press appeal there was

no mention anywhere of an engraver by this name. In
Plate 16.

Pair of ruby stained goblets and covers engraved

with horses and riders. h. 152’. Coll. Mr. & Mrs.

Malpass.

“Practical Glass Engraver, Wholesale Cut & Engraved

Glass Manufacturer (of) 111 City Road, Hulme, Man-

chester (supplying) Flower Stands, Water Sets, Water

Bottles and Tops, Decanters, Wines, Tumblers,

Sugars and Creams, Celeries etc. in Great Variety.

Coat-of-Arms, Monograms etc. Engraved in First Style

of Art”. According to family tradition Weinich had a
shop in Blackpool to sell his glass, a close parallel with

Pohl’s history.
The four glasses which have come to light would

appear on grounds of shape and style to date from the

1870s and 1880s
(pls.16-18).

Family tradition is certain

that they are the work of Weinich. The close attention

to details and fine modelling especially on the pair of
covered goblets approaches some of the best work of

Bohm or Zach.
By 1910 he had moved, as a widower, to Amblecote

where he would have been welcomed by other

Bohemian engravers. In 1914 his address was 13 High

Street, Amblecote, only a few minutes walk away from

the house of William Fritsche. It is tantalising to
speculate on the friendships between these immigrant

engravers and how the underground network of
information operated between them. Weinich may

have been attracted to move to Stourbridge by his

fellow countrymen. In Amblecote he worked at the

Plate 17.
Goblet engraved with three roundels, two with

birds amongst leaves and fruit, and one with

cornucopia and fruit, with bands of fruiting vine.

h. 9
3
6
0
“. Coll. Mr. & Mrs. Malpass.
Plate 18.

Jug engraved with a named

panel
of

“Satan

Smitten by Michael” surrounded by scrolling
foliage. h. 7
3

/
5

“. This subject matter does not

appear to be recorded elsewhere on glass. Coll.

Mr. & Mrs. Malpass.

glass house of Webb and Corbett where William Kny
was a partner. Together with Herbert Webb of the

same factory Kny was a signatory to vouch for
Weinich’s good behaviour on the application form for

exemption from Deportation or Repatriation of Aliens in

1914. Another Bohemian, Hugo Maisey, worked for the

same company and was interned as an alien during the

First World War. It is not known whether Weinich’s

application for exemption was successful. As an alien

his identity card was stamped with regulations such as

the War Office “approval for munition work if otherwise

eligible” and “Valid Only For Work With T. Webb and

Corbett.” His five changes of address in Stourbridge
between 1918 and 1921 are also recorded. Valentin
Weinich died on 6 April 1927 aged 82 years in

Stourbridge
(14)
.

Three years earlier the great William Fritsche had

died. With their passing away a glorious period of glass

engraving disappeared, but their legendary achieve-

ments are still discussed in revered tones by present

day engravers. The discovery of the group of glasses

by Pohl and Weinich serves to emphasise in broad
historical terms the level of quality work produced by

the lesser known engravers and underlines the influ-

ence they exerted on English engraving. On a more

personal family level it seems fitting that the skills of at

least two Bohemian artists are still enjoyed by their
descendants.

Footnotes

1.
In
Manchester Evening News
8 February 1974.

2.
In
Manchester Evening News
19 February 1974.

3.
I acknowledge with deepest thanks the generosity and

assistance which Florence West and Pat and Philip

Chapman extended to me in my researches into the life

of W. F. Pohl.

4.
City News,
Saturday 2 October 1926.

5.
Based on the known birthday of Agnes Chapman, née

Agnes Glassner Pohl, given in the Family Register.

6.
Conversations in March 1974.

7.
In the possession of brother and sister Philip and Pat

Chapman.

8.
The correct age would have been 53.

9.
Sarah was buried on 24 August 1908. Her address was

given as 20 Livesay St., St. George. The entry from the

Philips Park Cemetery Registers gives the following

information.
“1165 Grave Owner Eliz. Pohl

Internments

43, 317 Wilhelm Pohl

79, 127 Ada Chapman

91, 711 Sarah Pohl
Philip Berry Chapman, 73, Crem. Re-

mains, A23799, 7′ 0″
Wilhelm Chapman, 43, A35707, 6′ 0″
Elizabeth Mary Chapman, 87, Crem.

Remains, A39711, 4′ 0″
Eleanor Ada Pohl, 98, Crem. remains,
A44249 Urn, 3′ 6″ ”.

10.
One other Pohl glass remains a mystery. Mrs. West

mentions a goblet, possibly ruby cased, engraved with

a scene of the “Highland Bride Departed” which she

thought may have been in the Victoria and Albert

Museum. A search through the museum’s collections

by Mr. Robert Charleston did not reveal the glass and

its whereabouts remain unknown. Mrs. West also owns
a ruby goblet, 41″ high, engraved with a prancing stag

between trees. It is said to have been brought by

Wilhelm Pohl from Bohemia.

11.
Information supplied by Mrs. Mary Boydell.

12.
I am indebted to Mr. & Mrs. Malpass for allowing me

access to the four glasses and archive material in their

possession. Copies of the papers are deposited at

Broadfield House Glass Museum.

13.
Ferdinand was to become a school-master teaching

sport at Stourbridge Grammar School.

14.
Ferdinand continued to live in his father’s house until

the 1960s.

Keith Murray Modern Glass — The Swedish Connection

Diane Taylor

There has been scant recognition of the efforts of

British glass firms and individual designers who sought
to put British glass back in the international limelight in

the period between the two world wars. One might

reflect that, as so often happens with historical

research, the recent past is more obscure to us than
earlier periods which have been studied over the

years. British glass between the wars has recently

been the subject of a major exhibition at the Broadfield

House Glass Museum and features the work of one
designer, Keith Murray, whose designs for Wedgwood

and Stevens and Williams have received some recog-

nition from design critics and historians. Nevertheless,

Murray’s career as a designer of glass, ceramics and

metal, has been treated, for the most part, in a
summary fashion. The arch – modernists, Nikolaus

Pevsner and Herbert Read, both identified Murray’s

designs with the Modern Movement in architecture and

design and positioned him in the vanguard of British

industrial design. Whilst Murray’s simple, undecorated

designs for glass and plain, architectural ceramics with
their smooth matt glazes confirm this view of Murray as
a designer of ‘form’ for industry, there are, in his

extensive number of glass designs for Stevens and
Williams, many examples of decorative designs which

demand that Murray’s contribution to glass design of

this period be more fully assessed.
We are fortunate to have Keith Murray’s own

account of how he came to design glass for Stevens

and Williams in his article, ‘The Design of Table Glass’,

Design For Today,
June 1933. Murray was an

architect, not a professional designer, and if he had

been able to find work in his chosen profession, he

may well never have moved into design. As it was, he

found himself out of work in the difficult years following
the 1929 Wall Street Crash, and so he turned his

attention to glass design. Murray’s initial interest in

glass was that of the collector; he had a long standing
admiration for old English glass, which Murray catego-

rised as that made before 1850. His special preference
was for ‘plain or flat cut pieces, characteristic of

Waterford, which did not destroy the clarity of the

glass.’ However, the stimulus to make his own designs
for glassware came, not from his association with

historical glass, but rather from the modern glass

exhibits at the
Exposition Internationale des Arts

Decoratifs et lndustriels Modernes,
Paris, 1925. It was

the glass from Sweden, Finland, Czechoslovakia and
Austria which he admired most and convinced him that

‘there was no reason why the qualities of old English

glass should not be given modern expression’
(1)

Murray was not alone in recognising the lead that
foreign manufacturers, and, in particular, Swedish

glass firms were achieving in terms of innovative
design. Marriott Powell of Whitefriars’ Glass Ltd.

summed up the contribution of the Swedish glass

manufacturers displaying their designs at the 1925

exhibition as;
. . ..”the best exhibit of purely utilitarian wares in

simple, graceful forms, of pleasing colours and
reasonable prices alongside the beautiful

‘Graal’
(2)
wares and showpieces of outstanding

merit as regards the technical excellence of the

cutting and engraving.”
(3)
.

There can be little doubt from his remarks that

Powell was referring to the designs of Simon Gate and
Edward Hald for Orrefors. As a director of England’s

foremost manufacturers of art glass, Powell was

qualified critically to assess the glass on display at the

exhibition on behalf of the British Department of

Overseas Trade. He suggested that English manufac-
turers could learn from their Continental competitors,

some of whom enjoyed government support in the form

of special training for artists and craftsmen or govern-

ment-funded bodies dedicated to improving design in

industry. He concluded:
“If only sufficient inducement were forthcoming, I

see no reason why the results achieved in France

and Sweden should not be surpassed in this

country:’
(4)
.

Powell had identified a lack of interest in new design

in Britain which was slow to change. By the early

1930s, however, competition from abroad, combined

with the effects of the world slump, caused more

enlightened British manufacturers to introduce new
ranges. The directors of Stevens and Williams were

anxious to introduce a range of modern glass which

could compete with the modern designs imported from

countries such as Sweden
(5)
. Keith Murray’s designs

for simple table glass and ornamental designs fulfilled
this brief.

Murray was employed by Stevens and Williams as a

freelance designer in 1932 and was retained by the

firm for approximately two months per year with the
provision that he should design glass only for them. He

continued to work for the firm until the outbreak of the

Second World War, producing about one hundred and
fifty new designs each year. The designs that were

made up for costings are recorded in the ‘Keith Murray
Works Description Book’ which can be examined in

Royal Brierley Crystal’s Glass Museum. It is difficult to

establish just how many of those designs went into
production, and of those that did, the quantities that

were produced.

-•

The influence of Swedish design in England can be

measured by the importance attached to the
Exhibition

of Swedish Industrial Art,
held at Dorland Hall, London,

in 1931. Glass featured strongly in this exhibition
although the work of only four firms was on display:

Orrefors, Kosta, Eda and the Maleras Glas Co-

operative. Orrefors displayed a broad range of designs

including an elaborately engraved piece,
Celestial

Globe,
by Edward Hald and an engraved vase by

Simon Gate with a frieze of naked female figures in an

Arcadian setting. It was precisely these kind of pieces
which had established the international reputation of

the Orrefors Glassworks and its two leading artists,

Gate and Hald, throughout the 1920s.
It
is interesting

to note that Murray was not influenced by this aspect of

Swedish glass artistry. These pieces were technical
and artistic tours de force intended for public presenta-
tion and sold in limited numbers. They were prestigious

and elitist products. In this they were more akin to the

products of the Arts and Crafts Movement than newer
developments in Swedish design which emphasised

well designed everyday household products. There

were, however, many aspects of the glass on display at

this exhibition which were later to appear in Murray’s

repertoire of designs for Stevens and Williams. Indeed,
it is likely that he made his first designs on paper for
table glass soon after the 1931 exhibition during a

period in which he could not find architectural work.

Plate 1.
Plate from Guillaume Janneau,
Modern Glass,

1931, showing coloured soda glass designed by
Edward Had and Simon Gate for Sandvik. (With

kind permission from The Studio Ltd.).

The factors which Murray identified as essential to

good modern design were that it should show common

sense, be functionally satisfactory, have good line and

form and satisfy contemporary taste
(6)
. The range of

styles adopted by Murray for his designs in three media

show that his own appreciation of contemporary taste
was fairly broad. It is in his designs for glass, however,

that one sees the greatest variety of stylistic influences

ranging from Swedish modern, traditional and

`machine aesthetic’ to Art Deco. The largest part of

Murray’s design output for glass at Stevens and

Williams shows just how far he was influenced by
contemporary Swedish design in particular, in form,

decoration and colour. This influence is most apparent

in his designs for plain, colourless and coloured mould

blown glass; modern cut glass; engraved glass with
delicate all-over patterns or motifs such as swimming

fish and cacti; and two-coloured glass such as vases,
toilet sets and wine services in colourless crystal with

contrasting black glass details.
Murray’s designs demonstrate that he was aware of

developments in Swedish glass design after 1925,

although it is unlikely that he visited Sweden during this

period. In reality there was little need for him to do so

because Swedish glass was sold in design-conscious

stores and showrooms in London such as Heal and

Son and Gordon Russell Ltd. Swedish architecture and
design was frequently discussed and illustrated in

journals, and the DIA, of which Murray was a member,

had long been an ardent admirer and advocate of

modern Swedish design.
Undecorated Glass, Colour and form:

Notwithstanding the success of their designs for

decorative glass, Gate and Hald were equally

acclaimed by critics of design for their designs for

simple, undecorated glass at first for Orrefors and then

for her sister firm, Sandvik
(0-1)
. Undecorated glass

the Liljevalchs Art Gallery, Stockholm, 1917,

which saw the emergence of a new concern for the

design of everyday household objects in Sweden.

From the very first, Gate and Hald were concerned with
well-designed cheaper glass as well as with making

designs for the decorating shops
(7)
. The development

of the decorative Graal designs involved Gate, and
later Hald,
in

all aspects of what the Swedes call ‘heat

worked’ glass (hyttarbetat glas), and this sensitivity for

form and material is reflected in their designs for

simple, inexpensive glass.
A cheaper soda glass was made at Orrefors and

both designers made simple designs often with trailed

decoration in the Venetian style
(8)
.
This was made in a

popular blue-green colour but other coloured glass was

produced at Orrefors and Sandvik in shades of black,

brown, grey, blue, green and topaz. The designs by

Hald and Gate for Sandvik tended to be more utilitarian

than those for production in the Orrefors glass house,

which specialised in hand made glass. The mass

produced Sandvik glass was generally blown-in-

mould, which lent itself readily to optical effects such as
light fluting or spirals. Orrefors had, from its establish-

ment as a glass house, produced cheap utilitarian

glass but since 1913, when the firm was purchased by

Consul Johan Eckman, it had focussed on gaining a

reputation for all aspects of fine glass making. It was

the involvement of designers of Hald’s and Gate’s

calibre however, which set the cheaper Orrefors and

Sic,
I .11

rie

,•

‘

1.
1

two,/11r.

;

•

11.1.11
1
:

d
,

Plate 2.
Plate from Keith Murray, The Design of Table Glass
‘, Design For Today,

June
1933.

Sandvik glass apart from that of most other glass
factories.

It was an important part of Murray’s philosophy, as

one who saw himself as an industrial designer, to make
designs for mass production, although he advocated

standardised mass production by machine as the only

true means of making good design available to all
(9)
.

In practice, however, he was committed to working for
a firm that specialised in expensive hand made glass

and his efforts were limited to designing forms which

could be easily produced in simple moulds and could
therefore be made in greater quantities by less skilled

glass makers. It would seem that even in this respect

he was thwarted by the firm’s reluctance to commit
itself to the expense of making new moulds until a

design looked to be a certain good seller
(
p
1.2)
.

Nonetheless, Murray made designs intended for mould

production which were at first produced by hand

methods
(10)
.

Aesthetically, Murray preferred glass

which was undecorated and which showed the desig-

ner’s sensitivity to form and material. He persisted in

his attempts to produce this kind of glass for the lowest
possible price at Stevens and Williams, which shows

the extent to which Murray was motivated by the

achievements of designers like Gate and Hald at
Orrefors to bring good design to the lower end of the

market.

Murray’s designs for undecorated glass fit into three

different categories: inexpensive ornamental pieces

and drinking sets usually in coloured glass, simple
elegant table services and sherry sets often in colour-

less crystal and ornamental pieces in crystal or
coloured or two-coloured glass with thick heavy
bodies. All three categories have equivalents in the

various types of undecorated glass produced at

Orrefors and could be said to be thus in the spirit of the

hand-made Swedish glass.

Many of Murray’s designs for inexpensive coloured

glass are characterised by the thinness of the metal

combined with a graceful outline which emphasised
the finesse of their delicate hand-blown forms
(
P
13)
.

These designs could be considered to be the equiva-
lent of Gate’s and Hald’s designs for Sandvik. Some of
the designs have a moulded rib pattern which is

reminiscent of many of the Sandvik designs c. 1920-

30. A cocktail shaker by Murray in bottle green
glass
(11)

has a ribbed body similar to a decanter by

Hald in brown glass
(12)
and a waisted gourd-shaped

form with hollow stopper. The gourd shape has a
counterpart in Hald’s design for a cocktail shaker in

brown soda glass for Sandvik, which has a double
waisted body and hollow stopper
(13)
,

There are indeed similarities between some of the

forms of Murray’s designs for undecorated glass and

those of the Orrefors firm as, for example, in the use of

the trumpet foot for wine glasses. The trumpet foot was

a feature of traditional old English glasses of which
Murray was a collector; however its revival in Swedish

glass in the 1920s cannot be ruled out as a possible

source of inspiration for Murray. The trumpet foot was

used by Hald for the red wine glass and champagne
glass in a table service for Sandvik
(14)
. Murray used

the same form for several drinking services including

the RIBA wine glasses
(p1.4)

An amber coloured wine

glass and a candle holder in bottle green glass
(PI 5)
by

Murray both have an identical foot to a design by Hard

for Sandvik dated 1920-30
(15)
.
Hald’s candlestick is in

a brown-tinted soda glass whereas Murray’s candle

holder is in coloured crystal.

It is difficult to compare the prices of Murray’s

cheaper designs and the Sandvik range. Firstly, one

would be comparing an imported product with a home

produced one and secondly, there are no exact

equivalents in that the Sandvik glass was designed for

mass production in a cheaper metal whereas it is

unlikely that Murray’s designs, in lead crystal, would
have been produced in any great quantities. Where

sterling prices are available for Sandvik designs it

would seem that the prices were indeed lower than for

the approximately equivalent Murray piece. For exam-

ple,
Design For Today,
October 1935 featured,

“.. . Swedish sea-green table glass designed by

Simon Gate, and sold by Heal and Son Ltd. Decanter

6s. 9d., tumbler 2s., wine glass 1s. 5d., finger bowl
1 s. 7d., plate 3s. These are charming in colour,

excellent in quality and very inexpensive.”
(16)

.
A

Plate 3. Bath jar, bowl and bottle from toilet set by Keith Murray, c. 1934, in ‘Violet Crystal. (By courtesy of The Board of

Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum).

Stevens and Williams promotional brochure of the
same year shows a range of cocktail and whisky sets
by Keith Murray featuring a small cocktail shaker in

bottle green glass at 17s. and matching small stemmed
glasses at 36s. a dozen
(17)
. It can be seen from this

example that the so-called inexpensive pieces by Keith

Murray could cost more than twice as much as

well-designed Swedish imports.
Murray’s designs for plain glass were generally

cheaper than his designs for decorative glass. His

most expensive designs were for heavily cut glass;
however, his plain designs in black or black and crystal
tended to be thicker and heavier in weight than his

designs in the thinner bottle green glass and were,
therefore, in the middle price range. For example,

Stevens and Williams advertised plain vases at 25/-
and 29/- each in heavy black glass
(18)

. This compares

with designs for handmade glass by Gate and Held for

Orrefors in both coloured and colourless crystal, which

tend towards thick, heavy vessels often with optic

effects. These designs would naturally have been

more expensive than the more delicate, mass pro-

duced designs made at the Sandvik factory. An

advertisement taken out for Heal and Son Ltd., in

Design For Today,
July 1934, shows six examples of

‘Keith Murray’ glass described by them as, “.. . mod-

ern English glass, fluent in form, decorated by
one who

knows how to begin and where to stop.”
(Author’s

emphasis.)
(19)

Three of the pieces are simple col-
oured vases in ‘river green’ and are entirely plain; their

prices range from
12/6
to 14/9. The other three pieces

are decorated bowls in colourless crystal, two of which

have cut patterns and one a light engraved design;

they are priced from 25/- to 52/6, the engraved bowl

being the most expensive.

Two coloured glass:
Simon Gate and Edward Hald both made designs

with contrasting colourless and black glass from 1930

onwards, although the combination of black and

colourless crystal was fashionable in both Europe and
America before this date
(20)

. However, Gate’s and

Hald’s designs were certainly a stylistic departure from
what had gone before. These designs became popular

and sold well and were taken up by other Swedish
glass factories. The Orrefors display at the Swedish
Exhibition in London, 1931, featured several examples

including a heavy crystal vase with a black glass rim

and foot designed by Simon Gate
(21) (p1.6, bottom left)

One of Murray’s best known pieces is a tall crystal vase
with an engraved cactus motif and a distinctive black

foot, c. 1933.
6

‘
1:7)
. Both Murray’s and Hald’s vases

could be described as ‘bucket’ shaped but the form of
Murray’s vase is finer and more restrained than the

Gate piece which makes a virtue out of the glossy,
optical quality of thick crystal and irregular outline.

Murray’s design is dominated by the tall cactus motif

‘

Plate 4.
Table Glass designed by Keith Murray, c. 1934, with engraved monogram and star motif commissioned for the Dining

Club of the newly opened Royal Institute of British Architects, Portland Place. (Royal Brierley Crystal Ltd.).

Plate 5.
Candlestick in bottle green glass and wine glass in amber, both with trumpet foot. Designed by Keith Murray,

c. 1932 — 1938. (Royal Brierley Crystal Ltd.).

Plate 6.

Plate from
The Studio,

1930, showing three

examples of glass designed by Simon Gate and

Edward Hald for Orrefors on display at the
Stockholm exhibition of 1930. (With kind permis-

sion from The Studio Ltd.).
repeated around the vase which gives it a distinctive

character whereas Gate’s design confidently exploits
the organic qualities of the material.

There are several other designs by Murray which

feature the contrast of black or dark green glass

against a colourless crystal body, including vases,

bowls, decanters and glasses, table jugs and bathroom

sets. It is those heavier pieces such as a tall vase with

black foot, and a large beer jug with black foot and
handle, however, which are closer to the Gate design

in spirit
(22)
.
Murray’s interpretation of this particular

style was nevertheless different to that of the Orrefors’
designers in that Gate and Hald liked to contrast the

optical qualities of a slightly curvaceous form in
colourless crystal against the hard glossiness of the

shiny, opaque black glass,
(0-8)
, whereas Murray’s

forms are always precise and regular in profile.

Cut Glass — Modern Movement/`Machine Aesthe-

tic’ Style:

Murray’s attention to form is consistent for all of his
designs in all three media and was indeed an important

part of his personal philosophy of good, modern

design. There are designs in all three media, however,

in which particular emphasis was placed on geometric
forms, perfection of surface finish and turned or

wheel-cut decoration of a mechanistic nature. With
reference to cut crystal, there was certainly a prece-

dent in designs by Simon Gate for Orrefors,

c. 1931
{p1.6 top Tett)

A cut-glass vase by Simon Gate

illustrated in the 1931 exhibition catalogue is similar to

several of Murray’s designs for cut-glass bowls which
feature regularly-spaced bands of deep cutting around
the circumference of the vessels
(2

‘
)
. The modern

Plate 8.
Pair of vases in heavy crystal with contrasting black foot, HU 86, designed by Edward Hald for Orrefors, c. 1930

(h. 17cm.) (Private collection).

Plate 7.

Tall vase with engraved cactus motif designed by Keith Murray, 1933. Circ. 403 — 1954. (By courtesy of the Board of

Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum).

aesthetic for geometric forms and horizontal bands

was common to many aspects of Modern Movement

architecture and design. The Stockholm Exhibition of

1930 heralded the advent of the Functionalist style in
Sweden and marked the growing acceptance of

Modern Movement ideology amongst Swedish

architects and designers. Murray’s ‘machine aesthetic’
designs were all likely to have been produced during

his first year at Stevens and Williams, that is 1932, only

one year after the Swedish exhibition in London. He

does not seem to have produced any similar designs
after this date. The most likely reason for this is that the

larger bowls required up to five hours work in the

cutting shop and therefore would have been very

expensive to make.

Olive
–
cutting:

Murray’s designs for cut glass for Stevens and

Williams encompassed many styles, from the austerity

of a modern ‘machine aesthetic’ to simple modern
versions of traditional patterns such as reverse dia-

monds and broad flutes. Prior to Murray making
designs for the firm, its cut glass designs were

conservative in style
(24)
. When Simon Gate was asked

to make modern designs for cut glass in 1916, his first

year at Orrefors, he designed a range of tall, slender

vases and bowls in colourless glass, amethyst and
dark blue with vertical olive-cutting all around the

vessel called
Triton.
The range was later extended to

include table services as well as ornamental pieces.

The elegant proportions of Gate’s
Triton

designs with

their slim graceful flutes were the antithesis of the
`all-over’ cut patterns which were produced at Orrefors
Plate 9.

Page from ‘The Keith Murray Description Book’,

showing spirit decanter 521A with olive cutting to

base and stopper and toilet set 519A with vertical

mitre-cutting and contrasting black stoppers in the

Swedish manner, both c. 1934. (Royal Brierley

Crystal Ltd.).

Plate 10.
Heavy ashtray, dark green with cut flutes and hollows. (d. 18cm.). Designed by Keith Murray, c. 1934. This piece

retailed at 42/- in 1935. (By courtesy of the Board of Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum).

Plate 11. Cup and cover with engraved decoration de-

signed by Edward Hald for Orrefors, c. 1927.

(Broadfield House Glass Museum, Kingswin-

ford).

before Gate and Hald joined the firm. Murray occa-
sionally used olive-cutting in narrow vertical flutes in

the Swedish manner to decorate decanters and a

cocktail shaker; however, the flutes were cut in a band

around the base of the vessel rather than all over as on

Gate’s designs
(25) (PI.9)
.
An exception to this is a toilet

set which has narrow flutes of shallow mitre-cuts from

the base of each piece to the neck or rim
in
the manner

of Gate’s
Triton
designs. This set, with its contrasting

black glass stopper, is distinctly in the Swedish
style
(0.9)

Cut coloured glass:
The coloured glass of Simon Gate and Edward Hald

designed before 1930 was characterised by its light-
ness and elegance; however, around this time they
both began to design heavier, thicker pieces in both

colourless crystal, coloured glass and decorated glass.

Other Swedish glass factories followed Orrefors’ lead.
Elis Bergh designed a range of thick coloured cut

pieces with severely geometrical or spiral flutes for

Kosta which were illustrated in an exhibition publication

dated 1933
(26
.
A Stevens and Williams publicity

brochure of 1935 shows a range of ‘Cut and Fluted

Vases and Ashtrays Designed by Keith Murray’ in

crystal or coloured glass
p1.10).

The three designs

illustrated in the brochure are heavy dark coloured
glass with deeply cut broad flutes in a similar style to

the designs by Elis Bergh
(27)
.
The pattern numbers

indicate that Murray’s pieces were designed c. 1934

and the prices, which range from 35/- for an ash tray up
to 84/- for a globular cut vase, indicate that this range

was never intended to compete with the inexpensive

coloured glass made popular by Hald and Gate at

Orrefors.

Engraved Glass:
Murray was under some pressure at Stevens and

Williams to make designs of a decorative nature in

order to keep the various craftsmen in work. In such

designs he was clearly influenced by the example of

Swedish glass, especially that of the Orrefors firm,
which had set new standards for modern engraved

glass. He did not attempt to emulate the highly-worked

neo-classical designs which had established the inter-

national reputation of Simon Gate and Edward
Hald
(p1.1 1),

neither did he adopt the pictorial approach

of Edward Hald, but he did incorporate a certain
lightness of touch combined with a severity of form into

some of his designs for engraved glass, which was
characteristic of Orrefors designs.
Hald made a series of engraved bowls and vases

incorporating two simple motifs,
Wild Strawberry
and

Night Sky
(a star pattern), both of which reflected the

artist’s affinity with the ‘National Romantic’ spirit which

had pervaded Swedish architecture and design since

the turn of the century. They were introduced in 1918
and applied to a variety of designs throughout the
1920s. The small-scale motifs were engraved lightly all

over the surface of the glass, the lightness of the

engraving matching the delicacy of the vessel itself. On
a more practical note, this type of design was

successful for Orrefors because the lightly engraved
repetitive motif did not require the hand of the most

skilled engraving artists, and the all-over nature of the

pattern could disguise minor flaws in the glass

blank
(28)
.
It is therefore not surprising that Murray

should make similar designs for production at Stevens

and Williams. These designs by Murray were mostly
based on small flower motifs, stars, or repetitive

geometric patterns often with an engraved border

pattern of geometric motifs after the fashion of Gate
and Hald
(29) (p1.12)

.
The star motif was sometimes used

as a border pattern as in a design for a fluted decanter

and sherry glass decorated with a single row of
stars
(30)
.

The star motif is also to be found on Murray’s

table service commissioned by the RIBA Dinner Club,
where a single star is placed between each letter of the

monogrammed drinking glasses
(PIA)
.

Some of Murray’s designs have a single or repeated

motif of a plant or flowerhead as a central feature on a
colourless crystal vessel
(
P
I.
”
)
. These motifs are more

detailed and naturalistic than the ‘all-over’ patterns

described above and demonstrate Murray’s abilities as

a botanical artist. Such pieces demanded a high

degree of skill on the part of the engraver and, whilst

they did not approach the standard of the large,
prestigious exhibition pieces executed by the very best

engraving artists at Orrefors, they confirm that Stevens

and Williams could match much of the Orrefors

production in both design and quality.

Murray’s most distinctive designs for engraved glass

Plate 12.

Keith Murray vase with engraved decoration,

1932. (h. 22cm.) (By courtesy of the Board of
Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum).
Plate 13.

Keith Murray vase with engraved design,

c. 1938. (By courtesy of the Board of Trustees of
the Victoria and Albert Museum).

include cactus motifs and underwater scenes with fish,
plants and bright cut bubbles. It is difficult to determine

to what extent Murray was inspired by Swedish

designs in his choice of motifs. The swimming fish
motif had been used by Edward Hald on a small

engraved spirit glass dated 1930
(31)
.
Hald also de-

signed a range of pipe bowls in tinted glass decorated
with fish with tiny bright-cut air bubbles rising from the

fishes’ mouths which were on display at the Stockholm
Exhibition of 1930
(32)
.
Furthermore, there are sketch-

es of fish and sea creatures, some with little bubbles, in
the Edward Hald Archive at Vaxja, Sweden, dated

1930, which are probably the experimental designs for

this range. There is also a page of numbered designs,

also dated 1930, in the Orrefors archive showing

bowls, vases and dishes wih a variety of maritime

motifs including underwater scenes with little fish
and/or sea creatures
(33)
.
Hald continued to develop

his aquatic themes in the successful
Fishgraal
range

launched in 1937.
Murrays aquatic designs were intaglio engraved but

were generally more detailed than the Orrefors pipe

bowls
(34)

.
The earliest ‘fish’ design dates from 1932

and was indeed one of Murray’s first designs for

Stevens and Williams. It is certain, therefore, that had

Murray been influenced in his choice of motif for

engraved glass by Swedish examples, it would have
been Hald’s earlier designs which inspired him and not

the later and more popular
Fishgraal
designs.

There is a similar, though more tenuous link between

Murray’s choice of the cactus motif for engraved glass

and, once again, a design by Edward Held. Murray

used a cactus motif to decorate a variety of vases,
bowls, dishes and decanters, sometimes with the

popular contrasting black foot and sometimes on

colourless crystal. The designs were large scale and
probably intaglio engraved. Murray’s use of the cactus
motif was both sensitive and witty; he selected a

different species to match the individual vessel; a tall,

narrow vase would be decorated with a tall, columnar
plant whereas a broad, flat dish might have a design of

cacti branches with flat leaves, as on a Christmas

cactus. The inspiration behind this particular motif is

obscure although the cactus was a fashionable house-

hold plant and its use as a modern decorative form
implied a break with the botanical themes of the

nineteenth century. The inspiration for this motif may

have been an engraved vase designed by Hald in
1926,
Cactus,
which showed a fashionably dressed

young woman in a hot house full of potted cactus
plants
(35)
.
A vase of the same design was presented

to the then Duchess of York, Princess Elizabeth,

mother of the present Queen, on the official opening of
the Swedish Exhibition in London in 1931. Contempor-

ary photographs show that it remained on show during

the exhibition and the presentation was reported in the

press. It is typical of Hald’s engraving designs, pictorial

in composition and light hearted in style. The cactus
plants are tiny in relation to the size of the vase,

whereas Murray used the cactus as a large scale motif

for intaglio engraving. Although Murray’s designs were

not slavish adaptions of Hald’s, it seems most likely

that Hald was his source of inspiration for the cactus

theme.

Pictorial Designs for Engraved Glass:
Hald’s pictorial compositions of modern day themes

are amongst the most distinctive pieces produced at
Orrefors between the wars, not only for the delicacy of

the engraving but for the highly individual character of

the designs. In designs such as
Thunderstorm
1920,

Broken Jetty,
1920,
Firework Bowl,
1921,
Cactus,

1926, and
Circus,
1931
(p1,6, centre)

Hald brought into

Plate 14. Keith Murray vase with engraved decoration u: It,

–
, airport and dated 1934 on the piece. (h. 22cm.) (Manchester City

Art Galleries).

engraved glass a variety of new themes, both rural and

domestic, which represented modern life, albeit often

of a whimsical nature. Murray did not design pictorial
motifs, indeed, given that he believed that his training

as an architect qualified him essentially to design new
forms for industrial production, his extensive repertoire

of decorative designs for Stevens and Williams is most
surprising. However, most of his designs for engraved
glass tend to be either a simple all-over pattern or a
single, large scale motif usually arranged around the

vessel as described above. The only exception to this
is a large vase dated 1934, which shows a scene of a

modern airport building with windsocks and hangars

and tiny aeroplanes and helicopters in the sky

above
(36) (p1.14)

This design may have been intended

as either a prize or a commemorative piece but it was

purchased for Manchester City Art Gallery’s Industrial

Art collection.

Sweden was not alone in producing well-designed

modern glass in the 1920s. The firm of Leerdam in

Holland was noted for its excellent table glass of

modern form and, nearer to home, the Whitefriars

Glassworks had a long established reputation for
simple, inexpensive hand made glass. Keith Murray

and Stevens and Williams’ director, Col. Reginald
Williams Thomas, were personally encouraged by

Barnaby Powell of Whitefriars for their concerted effort

to improve the standard of English glass
(37)
.
Both firms

produced plain coloured glass and simple elegant table

services in crystal throughout the 1930s; however,

Murray had shown his first designs to Marriot Powell at

Whitefriars who did not find them suited to production

methods at the firm. This may have been because
Murray had ideas about designing for mass production
whereas Whitefriars specialised in hand made art

glass.
It is difficult to assess the precise extent of Swedish

influence on Keith Murray. It is clear that Murray was

certainly influenced by some of the developments in

glass design achieved by the combined efforts of

Simon Gate and Edward Hald at Orrefors, and, in

particular, by those styles which could be most easily

adapted for production at Stevens and Williams. The

areas in which Murray seems to have been most

strongly influenced include his designs for plain glass

in colourless and coloured crystal, two-coloured glass

in black and colourless crystal, heavy modern cut glass

in colourless and coloured crystal, engraved crystal
with delicate all-over patterns and also his choice of

motifs such as the cactus and aquatic themes which

both have precedents in the designs of Edward Hald.
Murray was never a slavish copier of Swedish

designs; indeed, it was ultimately the inherent qualities

of traditional English lead crystal to which he sought to
give modern expression. Murray was influenced by

both traditional old English glass and modern Euro-

pean decorative designs; however, all of the Keith

Murray designs for Stevens and Williams are unified by

the purity of form and restrained decoration which one

associates with the architect/designer. Murray recog-
nised in Swedish glass, and, in particular, the designs

of Gate and Hald, a combination of both formal

elegance and creative style which he believed was
appropriate to modern glass. There is little wonder that

Murray should look to the designs of these artists for
inspiration in his singular effort to develop a modern

aesthetic for English lead crystal which could embrace

decoration as well as form.

Footnotes

1.
Keith Murray, ‘The Design Of Table Glass’,
Design For

Today, vol.
i, June 1933, pp.53-56.

2.
‘GRAAL. A thick-walled piece of glass which may

consist of layers of several colors (sic) and etched, cut

or engraved with a pattern. The piece is then given an

outer coating of clear glass. It is heated and then by

blowing, a pattern emerges as the glass is “stretched”

out.’ — Anne Marie Herlitz-Gezelius,
Orrefors, A Swed-

ish Glassplant,
Stockholm, 1984, p.139.

3.
Reports on the Present Position and Tendencies of the

Industrial Arts as indicated by the International Exhibi-
tion of Modern Decorative and Industrial Arts, Paris,
1925.
Dept. of Overseas Trade, p.139.

4.
Ibid., p.139.

5.
Unpublished interview: D. Taylor/Lt. Col. R. S. Williams-

Thomas, 1986.

6.
Keith Murray, ‘Some Views of a Designer’,
The Trans-

actions of the Society of Glass Technology,
vol. 19,

p.11.

7.
Simon Gate came to Orrefors in 1916, followed by

Edward Hald in 1917.

8.
This was made with sulphate rather than soda during

the First World War, hence the name Sulphate glass.

9.
Murray, ‘Some Views of a Designer’, op. cit., p.16.

10.
Murray, ‘Table Glass’, op. cit., p.56.

11.
Cocktail shaker: Royal Brierley Crystal Museum

(hereafter RBC), Brierley Hill, ‘Keith Murray Works

Description Book’ (hereafter KM), no. 417A, c. 1934.

12.
Decanter: design no HS 840/11 — illustrated, Edward

Hald, Ex. Cat. National Museum, Stockholm, 1983, cat.

no. 175.

13.
Cocktail shaker: design no. HS 875 — illustrated, Hald,

ibid, cat. no. 179

14.
Table service: design no. HS 1010 — illustrated, Hald,

ibid, cat no. 196.

15.
Candlestick: design no. HS 913 — illustrated, Hald, ibid,

cat. no. 181.

16.
‘Furnishing the Home’,

Design For Today, vol.
iii,

October 1935, p.409.

17.
RBC, Stevens and Williams publicity brochure,
Brierley

Crystal,
c. 1935, p.8, design no. 417A, (illustrated on

reverse).

18.
Ibid., p.5, design nos. 440A & 441A.

19.
Design For Today, vol.

ii, July 1934, p.275.

20.
The Wiener Werkstatte designers, Kolo Moser and

Joseph Hoffman, both contrasted colourless with col-

oured glass in their designs. Hoffmann designed a
range called ‘Bronzite’ for Lobmeyer from 1910, which

contrasted black and colourless crystal. Contrasting

colours were also used for mass produced American

pressed glass in the 1920s. See advertisement for the

United States Glass Co.: ‘A Bowl and Black Stand’,

Pottery Gazette and Glass Trades Review,
1 May 1924,

reproduced in Raymond Notley, “The United States

Glass Company, An Introduction to its Origins and

Export Success Story”,
The Glass Cone,
No. 13,1987,

p.3.

21.
Illustrated in
Catalogue of the Swedish Exhibition of

Industrial Art,
London, 1931, plate 26.

22.
Illustrated: RBC,
Brierley Crystal,
p.6, design no 422A

and p.5, design no. 445A.

23.
RBC, (KM) design nos, 173A, 228A, 229A, 230A, 248A,

249A, 250A, 251A.

24.

At the 1925 Paris Exhibition, Stevens and Williams had

exhibited a heavily cut bowl with water lily motif and

petal shaped rim on a faceted pedestal. illustrated:
Report,
Paris, 1925, op. cit., p.143.

25.
RBC, (KM) design nos. 351A, 521A, 659A.

26.
Illustrated:
Svensk Stil och Standard,
exhibition cata-

logue, Stockholm, 1933, p.50.

27.
RBC,

Brierley Crystal,
p.3., design nos. 446A, 449A,

408A.

28.
Hald. op. cit., p.148.

29.
Vase in Victoria & Albert Museum collection, C 514

1934, 86, and RBC (KM) designs nos: 539A, 842A,

155A, 152A, 153A, 687A, 843A, 1115A, 116A.

30.
RBC, (KM) design no. 540A.

31.
Design no. H 824, illustrated: Hald, op, cit., cat. no. 135.

32.
Design nos. H 861 & JG 868, illustrated: Hald, op. cit.,

cat. nos. 231 & 232.

33.
Orrefors Archive, design nos. H 830 — H 839.

34.
RBC, (KM) design nos. 115A, 955A, 1014A, 1056A.

35.
The drawings for this design are in the Edward Hald

Archive, Vaxj6, Sweden, dated 1926.

36.
RBC, (KM) design no. 350A, (dated ‘1933’ on original

design).

37.
Unpublished Interview: D. Taylor/Lt. Col. Williams-

Thomas, 1983.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the following individuals and

institutions for their help with this article: Roger Dcdsworth

(Broadfield House Glass Museum); Dr. Patricia Kirkham

(School of Art History, Leicester Polytechnic); Lt. Col. R. S.

Williams-Thomas (Royal Brierley Crystal Ltd.); Victoria and
Albert Museum, London; Smalands Glass Museum, Vaxjo,

Sweden; Orrefors Glass Museum, Orrefors, Sweden.

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

The Journal of The Glass Association Volume 2

Recent Posts

Address

Email

Instagram

Facebook