The Journal of The Glass Association Volume 7

The Journal of

The Glass Association

21si r:Birifi:ciczy Issue
VOLUME
7 2004

The Journal

of the

Glass Association

Volume 7
2004

The Glass Association

Life President: Anthony Waugh

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 his-

torical and contemporary, and generally to increase public interest in the whole

subject of glass.

The Journal of the Glass Association deals primarily with the history of glass
in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, although articles on earlier periods
of glass history 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:

Roger Dodsworth

Broadfield House Glass Museum

Compton Drive
Kingswinford

West Midlands DY6 9NS

ISBN 0 9510736 6 4

OFFICE ADDRESS

The Glass Association

Broadfield House Glass Museum

Compton Drive
Kingswinford

West Midlands
DY6 9NS

Text © Authors and
The Journal of the Glass Association,

2004

The
Journal
was prepared for publication by the Society of Glass Technology and

printed by Alden Group Limited.

FRONT COVER

Ewer, blown, trailed, pincered and enamelled in the form of a mythical creature with drop-in cover and hollow wing

handles, Thomas Webb and Sons, Amblecote, Stourbridge, enamelled by Jules Barbe, c.1888-1890.

C.
R

Hajdamach Collection.

BACK COVER

A P5/S7 dual bulb French-style lamp with a Moncrieff’s ‘standard fitting’.

Ex-Turner Collection, © Christie’s Images Ltd. 2003.

CONTENTS

Medieval Glass Vessels used in Ireland
c AD 1200-1500

Rachel Tyson
7

“A most artful deception”: behind the scenes of an 18th century Scottish glasshouse
Jill Turnbull

Bulb, Root or Hyacinth Vases in the 18th and 19th Centuries
John P Smith

The Wyllie Family of London – Glass Cutters
and

Wholesalers 1792-1856

Alex Werner

The ‘Grotesque’ Designs of Thomas Webb and Sons
Charles R. Hajdamach

Fenton Art Glass: English Inspirations for Design
James Measell

Monart Lighting
Ian Turner

Medieval Glass Vessels used in Ireland

c AD 1200-1500
Rachel Tyson

INTRODUCTION

Over the past twenty years there has been a great inter-
est in medieval glass vessels throughout Europe. This
has culminated in exhibitions and publications from

Italy (Mentasti
et al.
1982), Germany (Baumgartner

and Krueger 1988), France (Foy and Sennequier 1989)
and the Low Countries (Henkes 1994). The author
has published a survey of the medieval glass used in

England (Tyson 2000). Research on the medieval glass

in Ireland has previously been undertaken by Edward
Bourke, resulting in both unpublished research from

Dublin (Bourke 1987) and published work from Wa-
terford (Bourke 1997). Donald Harden referred to the

most notable vessels from Winetavern Street, Dublin
in a survey of medieval glass in Britain in 1978. There

is however a limited awareness of the full extent of
these Irish glass finds outside Ireland.
In November 2000 a research visit was made to

the Republic of Ireland in order to complete an up

to date survey of the medieval glass vessels excavated

in Ireland. This paper describes the results of that

survey, and compares the glass used in England and

Ireland during the high medieval period to answer

several questions. Ireland was colonised by the Anglo-
Normans in 1169, whose founders were not only from

England but also Wales, Normandy and elsewhere in

France, and on a smaller scale from Scotland (Phillips

1984, 88). Similarities between glass consumption in
Ireland, Britain, and possibly France, would there-

fore be expected. There were certainly pan-European
fashions in glass tablewares amongst the wealthy, with

similar types being used throughout Europe. However
there were also idiosyncrasies within particular coun-

tries. Heraldic designs on glass were most favoured in

Germany; particularly popular were enamelled beak-

ers produced in Venice as they were a perfect medium
for coloured emblems and coats of arms.’ In France
these enamelled vessels were unexpectedly sparse, as

were the high-lead glass vessels thought to have been
produced in Germany.’ In Italy a larger proportion

of undecorated glass has been found, and the use
FIGURE 1

Locations in Ireland, England and France mentioned in the text.

of glass appears to have been more widespread in
the population. Stemmed goblets and handled jugs

were more popular in North-Western Europe, while
Mediterranean Europe favoured beakers and flasks.

This study explores whether the glass found in Ire-

land is from the same range of sources as England

and whether there are any notable characteristics of
Irish glass consumption.The research concentrated

on glass vessels from Dublin, Waterford and Cork

100m
Key

1.
Wood Quay

2.
St John’s Lane

3.
Winetavern Street

4.
High Street

.
.,

, ….- V1/4

I
r..

/ / ‘ %

.„ ,-

-”

t
1

12
th
C town wall!’

1, ,–

s 1

…..
k

-) t

/I
I

, ,.,….v.
, ,…

…. _

I i

… -. –… —

…..— ..:
:.-…

–
2

……

..-• —
.—

…”

___.

-.. ….

i
1

i Christ Church

, 1/… -• —- “.

,,,,,

, ….

, ,..

1 i

•
,'”

•
N
r – — – –
-../)

I Cathedral

, .., ,

…

-,-

/
%1

,…

–

N.
i 1

……; ‘
\

.–•

“‘”
I
II

….- .–%

,N…….

4
..7

….
–•

-…………. / ….

..,

“‘s …..
N.

……………. ……

./ …..

..:-
..
—I

i r

/ ••• ,./ /

/ /

……..%

1
‘…….,

MEDIEVAL GLASS USED IN IRELAND

FIGURE
2

Map of sites in Dublin (after Bourke 1987, fig. 42).

(Fig. 1). Glass was known to have been found in a
number of medieval excavations in Dublin and Wa-

terford. Cork was an important port where imported

pottery had been found and glass was surely used. It

was considered that medieval glass was likely to exist,
perhaps unrecognised or uncatalogued, in museum

stores. Although glass from other sites and museum

stores across Ireland was sought for further evidence
of glass consumption, very little was found. The pe-
riod considered commences with the Anglo-Norman

colonisation of 1169, and covers the high medieval

period up to c. I 500. In fact all of the glass found came

from contexts dating between the late 12th and the

early-mid 14th century. Glass vessels were present in
Ireland in earlier periods, but they are not the focus

of this study.’
The author is indebted to Edward Bourke who

generously made his unpublished research on glass

vessels in Ireland between AD 100 and 1400 avail-
able, without which this study would not have been

possible. Much of the glass included in his thesis was
found to have decayed further or was not available for

examination. Surprisingly little additional glass was

found that had been recovered by excavation since
he completed his thesis in 1987. However, since 1987

new finds and publications in Europe have cast further
light on fragments described by Edward Bourke, and

more information on their origin, date and form has
become available. Some undiagnostic fragments and

glass listed by Bourke that is not conclusively medieval

have not been included in this study.

MEDIEVAL GLASS IN ENGLAND

The glass from Ireland will be compared to that from
England, its immediate neighbour and from where

most of its colonists came. A summary of glass con-

sumption in England is therefore given below, outlin-
ing the main glass forms, many of which were imported
from continental Europe, and their functions.

The author’s survey of medieval glass vessels found

in England showed particular patterns in when and

where glass was used.
4
While little has been identified

from the beginning of the 13th century, by the end

of the century its use was flourishing. The late 13th

to mid 14th century is the period in which decorative

glass tablewares were at their peak, in quantity as
well

as in the range of different decorative types. Stemmed
goblets, beakers, bowls and jugs of greenish potash

glass were imported from northern Europe,
as
well

as yellow and opaque red high-lead glass from Ger-

many, and colourless soda glass with applied blue and

Red

Yellow

Blue
Green

DI Orange

111 White

(

MEDIEVAL GLASS USED IN IRELAND

PLATE 1

Enamelled beaker from Winetavern Street, Dublin.

By courtesy of the National Museum of Ireland.

colourless trailing from southern France and Italy.
Drinking glasses decorated with coloured enamels

came from Venice. Islamic glass included gilded and
enamelled vessels, and while nothing has been posi-

tively identified as Spanish, it is likely that products

also came from the glass industry there. Meanwhile
glassmaking had become well established in England,

with the best-known concentration of furnace sites in
the Surrey/Sussex Weald (Kenyon 1967). In addition

to large quantities of window glass, they produced

green potash glass utilitarian vessels, often crudely

finished. These included urinals — thin-walled vessels

FIGURE 3

Enamelled beaker from Winetavern Street, Dublin.

_ —
–
”
…..
1
11111111111111111

MEDIEVAL GLASS USED IN IRELAND

FIGURE 4

Jugs from Winetavern Street, Dublin.

with rounded bases used to monitor and diagnose
health by urine inspection — and hanging oil lamps

with rounded bowls narrowing to long hollow bases.

General-purpose household flasks and storage bottles

were also made. Unlike the decorative wares whose

styles changed with fashion, these utilitarian vessels

were made to the same designs from the 12th through
to the early 16th century.
The later 14th century and early 15th century have

yielded much less evidence for glass, particularly ta-
blewares. While this may partly be affected by the

difficulty
in
dating archaeological deposits to that

period, there is no doubt that there was also a decline

in production and use. Glass recovered again by the
later 15th century, and by 1500 was more widely used,

with utilitarian vessels reaching their peak. In addi-
tion to the types described above, large quantities of

distilling vessels were used, particularly on monastic

sites. Tablewares included elaborate Venetian vessels

and green beakers from Germany.
The consumption of glass was restricted to the

more wealthy and educated in society throughout

the medieval period. Typical sites were castles, royal
palaces, manor houses, monastic sites, and wealthy

urban sites. Consumers ranged from kings and monks

to the more successful merchants. It was not until the

16th century that glass penetrated further down the

social scale. So, were similar vessels found on the same

range of sites in Ireland?
DUBLIN

The greatest quantity of glass, up to 53 vessels, was
found in Dublin, the centre of the Anglo-Norman ad-

ministration. It is here that there have been more exten-

sive urban excavations than anywhere else
in
Ireland,

carried out in the 1970s by the National Museum of

Ireland, particularly in the area between Christ Church

Cathedral and the River Liffey (Fig. 2). Three of the

sites where glass has been found are situated in this

area — Wood Quay, Winetavern Street and St John’s
Lane — while the High Street lies slightly further to the

south. All lie within the walled Anglo-Norman city,
which continued to occupy the Hiberno-Norse area of

settlement, with no obvious changes with the Anglo-

Norman ‘invasion’ of 1169 (Barry 1987, 120). These

sites all provided waterlogged conditions, preserving
glass that would otherwise have disintegrated.

The majority of the glass came from Winetavern

Street (Figs. 3-6). This was referred to as the Street

of the Tavern keepers in 1220 and 1236-7 and the

Street of the Wine Tavern Keepers in 1316 (Bourke

1987, 120). If glass was imported as an adjunct of the

wine trade this would certainly have been the area to

find it. It produced a wide range of 13th to early 14th

century vessels including high-lead glass vessels, an
enamelled beaker, colourless drinking vessels includ-

ing those with blue trailing, jugs, as well as urinals and

hanging lamps. Wood Quay also yielded glass from a

MEDIEVAL GLASS USED IN IRELAND

FIGURE
5

Vessels from Winetavern Street, Dublin.

wide range of contexts and included 12th to 13th cen-
tury footed goblets, and 13th to 14th century high-lead

glass and a colourless and blue trailed goblet (Fig. 6).
The glass from High Street was not seen by the author,

and all comes from Edward Bourke’s research; it is

included here as it falls within the date range under

discussion (Fig. 7). The contexts are thought to date to
the 13th century, and the few small fragments certainly

suggest a date no later than the 12th to 13th century;

it is important as very little glass survives from this

period. Lastly, the glass from St John’s Lane all comes

from one deposit, and includes a late 13th/early 14th

century goblet and a hanging lamp (Fig. 7).
The earliest post-Conquest tablewares came from

High Street and Wood Quay. Part of a footed goblet

with a folded double-walled base, and traces of rib-

bing on the foot and possibly on the lower edge of the

missing bowl, can be dated to the 12th or 13th century

(No. 28). Surviving examples of these fragile, early,

footed goblets are rare, but are concentrated in France,

indicating that they were probably made there. A late

13th century goblet from the château at Caen has rib-

bing on the foot with wider ribs around the bowl (Foy

and Sennequier 1989, 166, no. 89). Two fragments from
possible footed goblets were also found in Waterford

(Nos. 63 & 70), while only one candidate is known in
England, from York (Tyson 2002, 2818-20, no. 11131).

In Dublin, two further fragments from Wood Quay

and one from High Street appear to come from footed
vessels (Nos. 31, 32 & 34).
A number of inverted rim fragments from High

Street all come from contexts probably of the 13th

century (Nos. 38, 40-42). While these are too small
to give a conclusive diagnosis, inverted rims tend to

disappear after the 12th to 13th century. More com-

mon in the earlier medieval period, they are found

on two colourless and one green ‘beaker’ or ‘bowl’

dated to the 12th to 13th century in England (Tyson

2000, 104-6, types C5-6). Other green trailed bulbous

vessels with inverted rims have been found in, and are

thought to originate in, Germany (Baumgartner and

Krueger 1988, 107-9, nos. 50-2).

High-lead glass, dating to the 13th to early 14th

century, was found at Wood Quay and Winetavern

Street. The presence of high-lead glass invites particu-
lar interest since this type of glass was only revealed
to be medieval in the late 1980s (Baumgartner and

Krueger 1988, 161-75). There are still relatively small
numbers of identified examples, for example only

about 35 vessels in England. Before Baumgartner

and Krueger’s research, these vessels, recognised as

containing lead on account of their weight and bril-

MEDIEVAL GLASS USED IN IRELAND

26.

21.

27.

28.

30.

32.
cm
33.

FIGURE
6

Vessels
from Winetavern Street and Wood Quay, Dublin.

liance, were attributed to the 17th century or later.
Analysis in Germany showed that this medieval type

of glass contains up to 84% lead oxide.’
Although no furnace sites have yet been discov-

ered, isotope analysis of the lead found that, in the
fragments sampled, the lead came from Germany,

suggesting that it was probably manufactured there

(Wedepohl
et al.

1995). The vessels represented here

are however very fragmentary. They are all yellow,
the most common high-lead glass colour, although

bright green and opaque red vessels were also made

(Baumgartner and Krueger 1988, 161-75). A base frag-
ment from Winetavern Street with concentric trails on
the underside may come from a trailed jug/flask or

possibly a beaker (No. 19). A similar base from Not-

tingham with part of the body surviving comes from a

jug or flask (Tyson 2000, 116-7, g256), while a yellow

jug handle survives from Battle Abbey in Sussex
(ibid.,

g255). A further body and a rim fragment of high-lead

glass were also found in Winetavern Street (Nos. 20

& 26). The central section of a stemmed goblet was
found in Wood Quay (No. 33), but not enough of the
bowl or stem survives to show how it was decorated.

All of the more complete lead glass vessels known are

decorated, so we can safely assume that these vessels

also would have been. Decoration is usually in the
form of applied trails or prunts, in yellow, green or

blue glass.’
The most striking glass vessel from Dublin is the

enamelled beaker from Winetavern Street (Fig. 3,

No. 1 and Plate 1). This is made of colourless glass

with brightly coloured enamels painted on the inner
and outer surfaces. The surviving fragments depict a
creature, possibly a dromedary, next to a column with
foliage in the background. There are dotted and solid
borderlines above and below this scene. This vessel

belongs to a group of well-documented enamelled

beakers that were made on Venice’s glassmaking is-

land of Murano between c.1280 and 1351.
7
Venetian

archives contain descriptions of this type of decoration
between those dates together with the names of some

of the glassmakers and painters. Some of those crafts-

men referred to, such as Bartolameus, also occur in

inscriptions on excavated beakers (Zecchin 1969-70;

)

43.

38.

40-42

46.

50.

35.

48.

47.
MEDIEVAL GLASS USED IN IRELAND

FIGURE 7

Vessels from High Street and St John’s Lane, Dublin.

Clark 1983). The reconstructed form of this beaker
is particularly wide and squat; other beakers of this
form have been found, although they are not com-

mon.’ The most comparable design can be seen on a
beaker from the Karl Amendt collection in Germany;
it depicts a dromedary, with foliage and dotted and
linear borders, but lacks any columns (Baumgartner

and Krueger 1988, 142-3, no. 92). Columns are fre-
quently found on other beakers of this type, although
they usually depict human figures and, particularly,

religious subjects (e.g.
ibid.,

129-137).

The remaining 13th or 14th century colourless glass

vessels are also likely to come from Mediterranean
Europe, although a more precise attribution is difficult

to provide. All but one come from Winetavern Street.
No. 27, from Wood Quay, is part of a stemmed goblet

with a hollow stem, a flat-based bowl, with plain blue
and pincered colourless horizontal trails around the

bowl. This resembles a more complete goblet from

a late 13th century pit context in Canterbury with

similar features including alternate plain blue and col-
ourless pincered trails, a flat-based bowl and hollow

stem (Tyson 2000, 61-3, g33). A number of beakers
with similar decoration are concentrated in Germany

(Baumgartner and Krueger 1988, 181-3); the Dublin
and Canterbury goblets are more unusual in being

stemmed. A source in southern Germany is a pos-

sibility
(ibid.,
180). Colourless glass with blue trailing

was also made in southern France where a number of

medieval furnace sites have been excavated (Foy and

Sennequier 1989, 74-87). But despite the many frag-
ments found there, the combination of plain blue and

colourless pincered trails does not seem to be present.’
Similar products appear to have been popular and
probably made in Italy, for example Murano (Baum-

gartner and Krueger 1988, 40-42), although fewer fur-
nace sites have been found in Italy than France. Bowl

fragments from Winetavern Street (No. 2), decorated

with a horizontal blue trail and blue looped trails be-

low, are similar to a number of bowls which have an
S-shaped profile found in Southampton (Tyson 2000,

107-9, type C8.2), while a stemmed bowl with a more

E527

g5S2 E406

= E421

NB
E435

® E434

MEDIEVAL GLASS USED IN IRELAND

similar profile comes from Nottingham
(ibid.,
62 &

65, g40). This style probably dates to the early 14th

century, and was certainly made in southern France,

and possibly also northern Italy
(ibid.,
107).

The rim of a colourless beaker, bowl or goblet bowl

is decorated with blue trails marvered into the body

(No. 8); a solid stem from the same context (No. 9)
may possibly belong to the same vessel. This decora-

tive technique is less common than applied trails, but

three 14th century goblets with marvered blue trails

on the bowl were found at the Bank of England site

in London (Tyson 2000, 62, 65-7, g41-43). All three of
these goblets had solid stems with decorative knops,

while the upper profile of the bowls is not known.
Evidence for marvered blue trailing beneath an ap-

plied pincered colourless trail exists from the southern
French furnace site at Rougiers, although not enough

survives to confirm whether the style of trailing from
Dublin or the Bank of England could have been made

there; it is merely a possibility. A colourless goblet

stem with flared base (No. 6) unfortunately lacks any
associated bowl fragments, so no detailed attribution

is possible, but may come from any of these southern
European sources.

Fragments of a green glass stemmed goblet deco-

rated with mould-blown fins around the bowl were

found at St John’s Lane (No. 46). This is one of the

most common decorative types of green potash glass

goblets, made in the Argonne region of France dat-

ing to the late 13th/early 14th century (Baumgartner

and Krueger 1988, 240-9). The lower bowl of a simi-
lar green glass stemmed goblet displays the edge of

mould-blown vertical ribs (No. 21), a slightly less

common variation made in the same area. Other green

glass tablewares include fragments from a jug deco-

rated with concentric trailing (No. 4). There is also

an opaque red jug (No. 3), believed to have originally

been decorated with similar trailing. Opaque red glass

jugs have been excavated from a 13th century context
in London, and a late 15th-early 16th century context

at Eynsham Abbey in Oxfordshire (Tyson 2000, 119,
g 266-7). There is some evidence that opaque red glass

was made in England, but it was also made in other
regions. Fragments have been found at furnace sites

in the Black Forest in Germany (Baumgartner and
Krueger 1988, 37-8), La Seube in southern France

(Foy and Sennequier 1989, 81), and the Italian-estab-
lished workshop in Corinth (Davidson 1940, 306). A

jug of this colour from Neuss in Germany was found

to be made of high-lead glass, and is probably Ger-

man (Baumgartner and Krueger 1988, 172, no. 137).

Chemical analysis would be required to confirm

whether this jug is high-lead, potash or soda glass.

At least four hanging lamps are represented

(Nos. 15, 16, 48-51) and a minimum of three urinals

(Nos. 5, 10-14, 17, 36-37) from the Dublin sites. These
vessels could have been made in a number of countries

(see below).
FIGURE

Map of sites in Waterford (after Hurley
et al.
1997, fig. 1:1).

WATERFORD

Waterford was a major Anglo-Norman city from 1170,

the second most important city after Dublin in this

period (Walton 1992 quoted in Barry 1997, 17); long-

term royal mints were located only in these two cities

(Barry 1997, 18). Waterford and New Ross in County

Wexford were the two main ports for international

trade (Barry 1997, 14). Considerable wealth must have

been found amongst the inhabitants of Waterford.
The 27 glass vessels found in Waterford were recov-

ered from five different sites along either side of Peter

Street in the heart of the original Hiberno-Norse part

of the city, close to the River Suir, and were excavated

between 1987 and 1990 (Fig. 8; Hurley 1997). At E406

yellow high-lead glass and green potash glass goblets

came from a stone-lined pit with other high-status finds
including highly decorated Saintonge ware ‘indicative

of the high social and economic status of the owners’

(Gahan and McCutcheon 1997, 336). Pits containing
glass tablewares also featured at E421, E434 and E527

(Fig. 9). E527, Arundel Square, produced the largest

quantity of glass, from several pits and other layers

(Figs. 9-10). These included two fragments possibly

from early footed goblets and many hanging lamp and

urinal fragments, dating between the late 12th and late
13th centuries. A decorated vessel fragment came from
a burial in St Peter’s graveyard (E435; Fig. 9).

There are some interesting early drinking vessels

amongst the Waterford assemblage. These include

two fragments from Arundel Square, possibly from

footed drinking vessels dating to the 12th or 13th

century. Unfortunately they are, like the other few
examples known in England and on the Continent,

only small with incomplete profiles. The thick mould-
blown vertical rib (No. 63) may have come from the

bowl of a footed goblet of the late 12th or early 13th

century, or a small flask of the same date. More com-

MEDIEVAL GLASS USED IN IRELAND

54.

56.

MI.
1
1====111
n

55.

57.

60.
58.

70.

63.

FIGURE 9

Vessels from Waterford (all sites).

plete footed goblets with mould-blown ribs have been

recovered from domestic deposits at Saint-Denis and

Etampes in France (Foy and Sennequier 1989, 162-3,
nos. 83-5). Flasks with similar ribs have been found

in graves in Chauvigny, St Germain, and Bordeaux

Cathedral
(ibid.,
183-6, nos. 114-8). The domestic

nature of Arundel Square suggests that a drinking

vessel is more likely. The pushed-in foot with optic-
blown ribs (No. 70) may come from a footed goblet
of similar shape. These were often manufactured with

optic-blown ribs on the foot, the most similar being

from a late 13th century context in the château at Caen

(ibid.,
166, no. 89).

The high-lead glass vessels from Waterford are of

considerable interest from a European perspective.
While all high-lead glass of this date invites interest,

since it is a relatively newly discovered phenomenon
(see p.11), two of the three vessels are types not seen

before in this glass. Some high-lead glass goblets have

mould-blown ribbing on the hollow stern, but the two

Waterford vessels are most unusual in having mould-

blown decoration on the bowl. The bowl with vertical

fins (No. 58) is a style relatively common on green
potash glass goblets made in the Argonne region of
France,
1
° but this example is unique in high-lead glass.

The second high-lead glass goblet has an unusual S-

shaped ‘stepped’ profile, not found on any other high-
lead goblets, and mould-blown patterning in alternate

vertical panels of raised bosses and a paired leaf design
(No. 54). A range of mould-blown designs are found

on green goblets (Baumgartner and Krueger 1988,

nos. 250-61), but none are very similar to the pat-

terning found on No. 54. The third high-lead glass

goblet (No. 57) has an applied zig-zagging blue trail.

MEDIEVAL GLASS USED IN IRELAND

67.

68.

71.
CM

FIGURE 10

Vessels from Waterford (site E527).

Parallels can be drawn with a yellow high-lead glass
goblet with blue/green zig-zagging pattern around the

bowl from Kriaresborough Castle in Yorkshire (Tyson

2000, 58-60, g22-4); most other goblets in this type of

glass are also decorated with trailing.

Interestingly, part of a green goblet with a very

similar profile and similar style decoration as the

stepped high-lead glass goblet came from the same

pit in Waterford (No. 55). The stepped profile of the

bowl is unusual, and cannot be identified amongst any

of the vessels found in England. Two stepped green

goblets with mould-blown ribbing on the bowls have

been recovered in Maastricht, with another probable

example from Cologne (Baumgartner and Krueger

1988, 260-1, nos. 286-8). These date to the late 13th/

early 14th century and are attributed to the Rhine-
Meuse region. This suggests a strong link between the

high-lead and potash glass of North-Western Europe.

The weathered hollow stem is all that survives of a

second green glass goblet (No. 56).

The only colourless glass from Waterford consists

of a body fragment probably from a bowl with an S-

shaped profile, with vertical ribs and a horizontal trail

above (No. 60). This is similar to a bowl, thought to
have been made in southern France, found in a context

of AD 1300-50 in Southampton, (Tyson 2000, 103-4,

g195). Bowls of a similar form decorated with applied
colourless and blue trailing are more common than

this type with mould-blown ribs.
At least six urinals (Nos. 61, 67-69, 72-73, 75-78, 80)

and a number of rim fragments possibly from hanging
lamps (Nos. 65, 66, 71) were recovered from Arundel

Square, from contexts dating between the late 12th
and late 13th centuries. See below for a discussion of

their uncertain source.
CORK

Cork has been shown to be the third most important

port in Ireland in the late 13th and 14th centuries,
through which 17% of all Irish trade passed (Gra-

ham 1977, 41). It became an Anglo-Norman colony

in
1177,

so imported goods similar to those found

at the colonies at Dublin and Waterford might be

expected. Merchants of many nationalities traded in
the city, including Dutch, Flemish, English, Spanish,

Italian, Breton and Aragonese (O’Brien 1995). Cork

was the largest importer of wine from Bordeaux in
Ireland
(ibid.,

45), and although much was transported

onwards to the English army, there is little doubt that

it would also have been consumed within the city.

Probably imported with the wine, Saintonge pottery

is found in considerable quantities in Cork in the later

13th and 14th centuries. Glass vessels are often found

in the same contexts as Saintonge ware, seen for ex-
ample at the Dublin and Waterford sites.
It was therefore expected that vessel glass was to be

found in Cork. All of the boxes of glass in Cork Public
Museum were searched; this search however proved
negative. Evidence only exists for one undiagnostic

glass vessel from an unpublished excavation report.

These fragments were recovered from a pit in Grattan

Street with good preservation conditions due to the

presence of organic material, which also yielded two

fragments of Saintonge green-glazed ware (Hurley

and Ni Loinsigh 1998, 3 & 12). The site was situated

in an area just inside the City Wall consisting of gar-

dens and yards. There was no evidence of structures

that may have given a more detailed picture of the

type of site. It is likely that it was the burgage plot

of a reasonably wealthy consumer, with imports of

MEDIEVAL GLASS USED IN IRELAND

Saintonge and North Devon ware from other parts of

the site. Medieval window glass and a linen smoother

were also found.
It is likely that the absence of medieval vessel glass

in Cork is due to archaeological bias rather than a
real absence; either the right places have simply not

been excavated or the preservation conditions have

not been good enough for glass. A similar anomaly

occurs in Bristol, one of the largest ports in medieval

England where glass was surely used and traded, but
has not yet been found. Because glass was relatively
rare and needs good preservation conditions, the fact

that it has not yet been found cannot be seen as par-

ticularly significant.

CHARACTERISTICS OF IRISH GLASS

CONSUMPTION

A major feature of the glass in Ireland, which differs
from England and other European countries, is the

lack of any medieval glassmaking industry in Ireland.
There is no evidence that Ireland had a glass industry
of its own until the second half of the 16th century,
when there are references to licenses for glasshouses

in Ireland to Pierre Briet and Jean Cane, Verzelini

and Captain Thomas Woodhouse (Westropp 1920,
20-1). References to glaziers and glassworkers exist
from the 13th century onwards, including William the

glass worker in 1258, Richard the glazewright in 1409
and 1434, and William Cranch and other glaziers in

the 16th century
(ibid.),
but these refer to the instal-

lation of windows rather than glass manufacture. In

1332-33 a sum of money is recorded in the Pipe Rolls
of Edward II as ‘Wages for a glazier working on divers

occasions, and for divers colours brought for making
the glass windows’ at Dublin Castle
(ibid.).
Although

it is possible that this may refer to the manufacture

of coloured window glass, implying the existence of a
glassmaking furnace in which vessels could also have
been created, it is more likely that the ‘colours’ were

simply for painting or staining the glass.” Evidence
for glassmaking sites can be extremely elusive, but it

seems likely that some documentary evidence would
have survived if any had existed in Ireland.
The question therefore arises, where did the utilitar-

ian hanging lamps and urinals used in Ireland come
from? In England and other European countries these
basic, crudely finished and relatively cheap items are

likely to have been indigenous products. Both forms

were manufactured at glasshouses in England, for ex-

ample Blunden’s Wood in the Surrey Weald (Wood
1965). The same types are also found in other North-

ern European countries including France (Foy and
Sennequier 1989, 340-50, 329-31), and Germany (e.g.

Nassachtal glasshouse, Baumgartner and Krueger
1988, 35-6). If they were available locally there would

have been no reason to import them in these countries;
importation would have increased the cost, and in

England the few documentary references that exist
indicate that they were relatively cheap (Tyson 2000,

149). However, if there was no native glass industry

in Ireland, would these utilitarian vessels have been

imported to Ireland from England, the nearest avail-
able source, or would they have been purchased with

decorative glass and other imports from France or

elsewhere in Europe?

Bourke suggests that France may have been a more

likely source since other glass vessels were probably
imported as ‘an adjunct of the wine trade’ along with

Saintonge pottery (Bourke 1997, 384). However,

considerable trade also occurred between Ireland

and England, for example in pottery from the areas

around Bristol and Chester, the principal two ports
used (O’Keeffe 2000, 115, 118-20). There is no way

of distinguishing whether these utilitarian vessels are

English or French. Chemical analysis of medieval

glass, while able to answer some questions, is unable

to distinguish between the products of different glass-
houses within broadly similar traditions. Northern

European and English production methods, while

varying in the exact recipes between furnaces and
batches, have no discernible characteristics.
The areas from which decorative glass vessels

were imported to Ireland are broadly similar to
those supplying England. Both countries had the
full complement of the three different glass types:
yellow high-lead glass and green potash glass from
northwestern Europe, and colourless soda glass ves-

sels from Italy, southern France and perhaps south-
ern Germany. However, there are some absences in
the glass recovered from Ireland. Glass of the 12th

and 13th centuries from the eastern Mediterranean,
including flasks, bottles and beakers from Syria or
Egypt, and painted Byzantine bottles, found in small

quantities in England, might have been expected in a

colony whose trade was most prosperous in the 12th

and 13th centuries. On the other hand, it is not certain

whether the eastern Mediterranean glass in England
arrived via merchants or whether it was brought back
by pilgrims or Crusaders. ‘
2
These absences should not

be taken too literally, however, since most can prob-

ably be attributed to the limited number of excavations
that have been carried out in Ireland, and the smaller
population.
On a more positive note, Ireland is particularly well

represented in high-lead glass from Germany — argu-

ably better represented than England in its proportion
of the total glass, coming from four of the nine sites
in Waterford and Dublin. It has been shown that
two of the high-lead glass goblets from Waterford

are unique in Europe, being the only known examples
of high-lead glass to have mould-blown patterning on
the goblet bowls.

The medieval glass in Ireland is even less similar

to that in the parts of France from which some of

Ireland’s colonists came; notably Ireland favours
the enamelled and high-lead glass that is so sparse in
France (see page 7).

MEDIEVAL GLASS USED IN IRELAND

Another major aspect of Irish consumption is the

lack of any glass dating to the 14th and 15th century.
While there appears to be a gap in the archaeological
evidence in the later 14th and early 15th century in
England, there is no shortage of earlier 14th century

glass as is the case in Waterford; the lacuna in the
evidence appears to feature a little earlier in urban

excavations in Ireland, from the mid 14th century.
Maurice Hurley cites theories for this including the

absence of diagnostic pottery dating between the mid
14th and early 16th centuries, so cesspits cannot be

dated to this period, a ‘general urban decline’, and
the removal of rubbish from towns. In Waterford ‘the
use of stone in house construction and the removal of
pre-existing strata prior to the erection of new houses

was common from the 13th century onwards’ (Hurley
1997, 894). It therefore remains likely that although

the archaeology is absent, glass continued in use at

least into the 14th century in common with the rest

of Europe, although evidence is lacking more widely
by the end of the 14th and early 15th century. No

glass from the later 14th and 15th century has been
identified at all in Ireland, and this may be because
Ireland suffered a more severe economic decline in this
period (Barry 1987, 168). Later 15th and 16th century

stratigraphy in towns falls victim to destruction by

Georgian cellars.
Current evidence for vessel glass in Ireland ap-

pears to suggest that its use was only an urban
phenomenon. All of the glass in this paper comes

from Anglo-Norman towns; glass in England simi-

larly comes from relatively wealthy urban plots,

which also yielded other imports. However, Ireland
lacks the other types of sites where glass was used

in England, namely castles, palaces, manor houses
and monastic sites. Can we therefore assume that
inland sites and the Gaelic-Irish population had no

interest in it? Imported pottery from France certainly

found its way to other sites; 12th and 13th century
Rouenais jugs have been found at rural sites such

as Rathmullen motte in County Down and Kells
Priory in County Kilkenny (O’Keeffe 2000, 121).

13th century Saintonge ware from France has been

widely found, including Gaelic-Irish settlements at

Clonroad, County Clare and Armagh
(ibid.).

The

only glass recovered comes from Movilla Abbey

(Henderson 1984), and one fragment from the An-
glo-Norman foundation of Kells Priory. This is a
folded base (Bourke 1987, 192-3, no. 167), which

is likely to date to the late 15th or 16th century. As

such, there is a resemblance to finds from England

in that most of the glass from monastic sites comes
from the Dissolution deposits of this date. Presum-

ably earlier rubbish was disposed of away from the

site, and surprisingly few examples of 13th or 14th
century glass have been found, despite this being
the date at which the greatest range and quantity of

glass tableware is found. Rural and monastic sites

are poorly represented by excavation compared to
those in England, so the lack of evidence from Ireland

cannot be taken as indicative that it was not used in

these communities.

Dr Rachel Tyson
August 2003

The author is a freelance specialist in archaeological

glass, and author of a major survey of medieval glass
vessels used in England.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am indebted to Edward Bourke for access to his
unpublished research. The Glass Association kindly
provided a travel grant enabling this research to take

place. I would also like to thank the staff of the Na-

tional Museum of Ireland, particularly Patrick Wal-
lace, Nessa O’Connor, Mary Cahill, Andrew Halpin

and Margaret Lannin for assisting so helpfully with
the research. Stella Cherry of Cork Public Museum,

Maurice Hurley of Cork City Corporation, and Rose-

mary Ryan of Waterford Corporation also provided

valuable assistance and advice.

NOTE ON THE GLASS DRAWINGS
Some drawings are original illustrations by the au-
thor, but the majority have been re-drawn from Ed-

ward Bourke’s illustrations, particularly those where
the glass was not available for examination or where

its condition has deteriorated since Edward Bourke’s
research. Any errors in the re-interpretations remain

the responsibility of the author.

ENDNOTES
1.
Eg Baumgartner and Krueger 1988, 126-60; Krueger 2002. In fact, these

vessels are so popular in Germany and Switzerland that it has been

suggested that some were made there (Krueger 1996, 283-5).

2.
Regarding the lack of enamelled glass in France, see Krueger 2002,

118. Only one fragment of high-lead glass is published from France
in the surveys by Baumgartner and Krueger 1988 and Wedepohl
er

1995.

3.
Bourke 1987 includes 9 examples of vessel glass from the Roman period

in Ireland, 47 from the early Christian period and 47 instances from

Viking Age Dublin.

4.
The detailed study can be found in Tyson 2000.

5.
See Wedepohl
et al.
1995, 76. This compares with around 30% lead oxide

in modem lead glass.

6.
But see the high-lead glass goblets from Waterford, with unusual mould-

blown designs.

7.
Eg Clark 1983, Zecchin 1969-70, Baumgartner and Krueger 1988.

8.
Eg from Strasbourg, with a rim diameter of 100mm and a base diameter

of 75 mm (Baumgartner and Krueger 1988, 150-1, no. 105).

9.
Personal research by the author, examining the glass excavated from these

furnace sites, was carried out in France in 1994.

10.
Late 13thlearly 14th century examples can be seen in Baumgartner and

Krueger 1988, 240-9. No. 46 from Dublin is also of this type.

I I. The painted colours, in the form of oxides or re-used coloured glass,
were commonly fused on to the window glass in a furnace requiring a

lower temperature than for manufacturing glass, in the location where

the windows were being fitted. This process is described in the glazing

accounts of St Stephen’s Chapel, Westminster, in the late 14th century

(Hunter 1981, 46).

12. For example, a pair of beakers belonging to the Walters Art Gallery in
Baltimore, with enamelled scenes interpreted as the Dome of the Rock

and the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, with Christ entering Jerusalem
on a donkey, are interpreted as pilgrim souvenirs (Carswell 1998).

MEDIEVAL GLASS USED IN IRELAND

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barry T.B., 1987,
The Archaeology of Medieval Ireland,

Methuen, London.

Barry T.B., 1997,
Waterford. A Historical Introduction,
in Hurley
et al.

1997, 12-20.

Baumgartner E. and Krueger 1., 1988,
Phonix aus Sand rand Asche: Glas des

Mit telalters,
Klinkhardt and Biermann, Munich.

Bourke E., 1987,
Glass vessels in Ireland c100 AD-1400 AD,
M.A. Thesis

(unpublished), National University of Ireland.

Bourke E., 1997,
The Glass,
in Hurley
et al.
1997, 381-9.

Carswell J., 1998,
The Baltintore beakers,

in R. Ward (ed.),
Gilded and

Enamelled Glass from the Middle East,
British Museum Press, Lon-

don, 61-3.

Clark J., 1983,
Medieval enamelled glasses from London,
Medieval Archaeol-

ogy 27, 152-6.

Davidson GR., 1940,
A medieval glass-factory at Corinth,
American Journal

of Archaeology 43, 297-324.

Foy D. and Sennequier G., 1989,
A Travers le Verre du Moyen Age a la Renais-

sance,
Musee Departemental des Antiquites, Rouen.

Gahan A. and McCutcheon C. with Hurley M.F. and Hurst J.G., 1997,
Medieval Pottery,
in Hurley
etal.
1997, 285-336.

Graham B., 1977,
The towns of medieval Ireland,
in R.A. Butlin (ed.),
The

development of the Irish town,
London, 28-59.

Harden D.B., 1978,
Anglo-Saxon and later glass in Britain: some recent

developments,
Medieval Archaeology 22, 1-14.

Henderson J., 1984,
The Glass,
in R. Ivens,
Melville’ Abbey, Newtownards,

Co. Down: Excavations 1981,
Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 3rd

series, vol. 47.

Henkes H.E., 1994,
Glas Zonder Glans, Vij Eewen gebruiksglas uit de Bodem

van de Lage Landen 1300-1800,
Rotterdam Papers 9.

Hunter
J.,
1981,
The medieval glass industry,
in D.W. Crossley (ed.),
Medi-

eval Industry,
Council for British Archaeology Research Report 40,

143-50.

Hurley M., 1997,
The excavations: Genera! Introduction,

in Hurley
et al.

1997, 1-6.

Hurley. M., 1999,
Archaeological evidence for trade in Cork from the 1211,

the 17th centuries,
in Lfibecker Kolloquium zur Stadtarchaologie im

Hanseraum II: Der Handel
Bereich Archaologie der Hansestach Lubeck,

Lfibeck: Verlag Schmidt-Romhild, 13-24

Hurley M.F. and Ni Loinsigh M., 1998 (unpublished),
Archaeological Excava-

tions at 17 Grattan Street, Cork,
Cork Corporation.

Hurley M.F., Scully O.M.B. and McCutcheon S.W.J., 1997,
Late Viking

Age and Medieval Waterford. Excavations 1986-1992,
Waterford

Corporation.

Kenyon G H., 1967,
The Glass Industry of the Weald,

Leicester University

Press.

Krueger I., 1996,
Research in medieval glass: Where are we standing now?,

Annales du I 3e Congas de ]’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire

du Verre, 277-88, Lochem: AIHV.

Krueger I., 2002,
A second Aldrevandin beaker and an update on a group of

enameled glasses,
Journal of Glass Studies 44, 111-32.

O’Keeffe T, 2000,
Medieval Ireland• An Archaeology,
Tempus Publishing

Ltd, Stroud.

O’Neill, 1987,
Merchants and Mariners in Medieval Ireland,
Irish Academic

Press, Blackrock.

O’Sullivan M.D., 1962,
Italian Merchant Bankers in Ireland in the 13th Cen-

tury,
Allen Figgis and Co Ltd, Dublin.

Phillips J.R.S., 1984,
The Anglo-Norman Nobility,
in J. Lydon (ed.),
The

English in Medieval Ireland,
Proceedings of the first joint meeting of

the RIA and the British Academy, Dublin 1982, 87-104.

Tyson R., 2000,
Medieval glass vessels found in England cAD 1200-1500,

Council for British Archaeology Research Report 121, York.

Wedepohl K.H., Krueger I., and Hartmann G., 1995,
Medieval lead glass from

North-Western Europe,
Journal of Glass Studies 37, 65-82.

Westropp M.S. Dudley, 1920,
An account of glass-making in Ireland from the

16th century to the present day,
Herbert Jenkins Ltd, London.

Wood E.S., 1965,
A medieval glasshouse at Blunder’s Wood, Hambledon,

Surrey,
Sussex Archaeological Collection 62, 54-79.

Zecchin L., 1969,
Un decoratore di vein a Murano alla fine del duecento,

Journal of Glass Studies I I, 39-42.

Zecchin L., 1970,
Fornaci Muranesi fro it 1279 ed it 1290,
Journal of Glass

Studies 12, 79-83.

APPENDIX: DETAILS OF GLASS FROM
DUBLIN AND WATERFORD, LISTED BY

CONTEXT

DUBLIN
Winetavern Street
Within the area of Pit Ill: beaker base fragments from the upper fill of Pit
111, ?13th century; beaker body fragments north of Pit Ill with 13th/14th

century Saintonge ‘parrot’ jug; bowl in pit 1/1; jug ‘found close to enamelled
beaker fragments’.

I.
Beaker ( Fig. 3; Plate 1):
fragments, some rejoined, of colourless glass

beaker decorated with painted coloured enamels. Enamel is slightly corroded
and patchy. Design is bordered at the top by a horizontal row of white dots,

and orange and yellow lines below. Bordered at base of design by a white

line. Main scene includes a column with spandrel. To the left is some foliage

and the head possibly of a dromedary. To the right some foliage is visible.

Painted on outer and inner surface. Outer surface: yellow, white and green.

Inner surface: red, blue and orange. Rim diameter 90-100 mm. Extant height

66 mm. Additional body fragments show a fragment with a column base
with part of spandrel, a fragment with column base and most of spandrel,

and three fragments with undiagnostic enamel design, and an undecorated
fragment. E81:735, 736, 765, 786.

Colourless kicked base fragment with applied base ring, thought to belong to

same beaker. Base diameter c.75 mm. E81:723 (Bourke 1987, nos. 137, 139,
141; Harden 1978, 14, pl. VI B).

2.
Bowl or goblet bowl ( Fig. 5):

adjoining rim and body fragments of a col-

ourless bowl, possibly stemmed. Vertical rim, curving downwards to form

a rounded bowl. Applied horizontal blue trail halfway down, with traces

of two looped trails below. Rim diameter c.91 mm. E81:734 (Bourke 1987,

no. 138).
3.
Handled jug (Fig. 4):

fragments of opaque red glass jug. Most covered by a

layer of opaque beige weathering. Kicked base with pontil mark on underside.

Rim fragments, with part of pouring lip. Solid handle, round in cross-section,

with pinched fold at uppermost end. Numerous body fragments. Irregular

rim diameter. Harden described as originally covered by self-coloured trails.

E81:1746 (Bourke 1987, no. 165; Harden 1978, 15).

Pit 5, probably 13th century:

4.
Handled jug ( Fig

4): rim, body and base fragments of jug with opaque

brown weathering, originally green. Applied decoration of concentric hori-

zontal trails. Everted rim fragments, with pouring lip. Part of handle survives,

which is folded up, above rim, and down; folded outwards above lower join.

Part of kicked base with trailing on underside. Irregular rim diameter, est.

c.90-100 mm. E81:999 (Bourke 1987, no. 166; Harden 1978, 15).

Pit 5/5, 13th century:

5.
Flask/urinal ( Fig 5):

rim and base fragments of flask/urinal of opaque

weathered glass. Flared rim, intumed and thickened. Convex base with pontil

mark. Rim diameter

c.96 mm. E81:8295 (Bourke 1987, no. 140).

Pit 6/1, pit dated by dendrochronology to 1233; glass found in upper fill with
tokens of 1279 and Ham Green and local pottery of the 13th-14th century:

6.
Stemmed goblet ( Fig. 5):

part of stem and base of rejoined fragments of

colourless glass with a slight yellow-green tinge. Solid stem, missing upper

section, forming a bulb at its base, which has a pontil scar on the underside.
The flared base is joined about half way down the bulb, pressed on to the
bulb with four slightly curved tool marks around the join. Base flares out

gradually, then widely to form foot. No base rim survives. Extant base dia-

meter 110 mm. Stem diameter c.8 mm. Extant height 145 mm. E81:4620

(Bourke 1987, no. 156).

7.
Body/base fragment:

undiagnostic fragment of opaque weathered glass.

E81:6176 (Bourke 1987, no. 157).

Pit 615, black organic fill with 13th/14th century glazed and unglazed pot-
tery:

8.
Beaker or goblet bowl? ( Fig
_5): adjoining rim and body fragment of a

colourless vessel, with marvered blue glass decoration. Everted rim. Rim

diameter c.92 mm. E81:8362a
&
b (Bourke 1987, no. 163).

9.
Stemmed goblet ( Fig 5):

fragment of solid goblet stem of colourless glass

with a light brown/yellowish tinge. Thickened at end where originally joined

to bowl or foot. Eat: 8363 (Bourke 1987, no. 164).

10.
Flask! Urinal:

convex base fragments of urinal with pontil mark on under-

side. Weathered opaque brown. E81:8361a (Bourke 1987, no. 158). All of the
following flask/urinal fragments could belong to the same vessel.
I I.
Two small rim fragments,

with a thickened everted rim. Weathered opaque

brown. E81:836Ib (Bourke 1987, no. 159).

12.
Flaring body or neck fragment

of probable flask/urinal with strain marks

on external surface. Weathered opaque brown. E81:8361c (Bourke 1987,

no. 160).

13.
Small rim fragment

of probable flask/urinal, everted with thickened rim.

Weathered opaque brown. E81:8361d (Bourke 1987, no. 161).

14.
Three body fragments

found with 8361a-d, probably from flask/urinal.

Weathered opaque brown. E81:8361e (Bourke 1987, no. 162).

Pit 8/1, lower fill with 13th century Saintonge and local pottery:
15.
Hanging lamp:

base stub of hanging lamp. Rounded convex base, now with

surface corrosion, but originally would have had a pontil scar on underside.
Weathered opaque dark brown. Fourteen separate fragments from the adjoin-

ing base and stem of the lamp. E81:3140a (Bourke 1987, no. 153).

16.
Hanging lamp:
adjoining fragments from the centre of a rounded convex

hanging lamp base. Pontil scar on underside. Weathered opaque brown. E81:
3140c (Bourke 1987, no. 155).

17.
Flask/ Urinal:

convex base of urinal with pontil mark on underside.

Weathered opaque brown. E81:3140b (Bourke 1987, no. 154).

Pit 8/1, upper level with 13th century wares:

18.
Body fragments:

35 undiagnostic fragments, opaque brown weathered

glass. E81:3128 (Bourke 1987, no. 152).

MEDIEVAL GLASS USED IN IRELAND

Pit 1312, upper levels, 13th century:

19.
Decorated vessel ( Fig 5):
?base fragment from kick of vessel (beaker or

jug?) of yellow high-lead glass with four concentric trails. E81:2880 (Bourke

1987, no. 146). Same vessel as below?

20.
Decorated vessel:
thin body fragment of yellow high-lead glass from flaring

body wall. E81:2866 (Bourke 1987, no. 145). Same vessel as above?

21.
?Stemmed goblet ( Fig 6):
base of probable goblet bowl, with trace of

stem or pontil mark on underside. Traces of optic-blown ribs towards the
broken edge. Green glass, weathered opaque brown. E81:3032 (Bourke 1987,

no. 149).

22.
Rim fragments: tiny
rim fragments with a slightly thickened edge. Slightly

everted or vertical. Possibly from a hanging lamp, or goblet bowl. Weathered
opaque brown. Thickness c.0.6 mm -1.5 mm. E81:3032a (Bourke 1987, no.

148).

23.
Rim fragments: tiny
rim fragments with a slightly thickened edge, and

body fragments. Slightly everted or vertical rim. Weathered opaque brown.
E81:2997 (Bourke 1987, no. 147).

24.
Body fragments:
thin body fragments, weathered opaque dark brown.

Some show faint traces of mould-blown ribs. E81:3032c (Bourke 1987, no.

150).

25.
Body fragments:
thin body fragments, weathered opaque dark brown.

E81:3104 (Bourke 1987, no. 151).

Under mortar deposit, associated with 13th/14th-century pottery, and near
the enamelled beaker:

26.
?Decorative table vessel (Fig. 6):
rim fragment of yellow high-lead glass.

Slightly everted. Rim diameter c.125-140 mm. £81:895 (Bourke 1987, no.
143).

Wood Quay

Upper fill of drain, associated with 13th/14th century Saintonge ware, 13th

century Dublin ware and a stained glass window:

27.
Stemmed goblet ( Fig

6):
three fragments of goblet bowl of colourless

glass. Bowl has flattened base with tapering walls. Two adjoining body frag-
ments from upper part of bowl have a horizontal blue trail and pincered

colourless trail below. Applied colourless trail around the base of the bowl,
tooled to form pincered projections. Remains of a hollow stem with a pontil

mark in the centre of the underside of the bowl. E132:302340 and 302264

(Bourke 1987, no. 105).

Upper fill of culvert, associated with 13th century Dublin ware:

28.
Footed goblet ( Fig. 6):
base of a footed goblet of green glass with patches

of dark enamel-like weathering. Base pushed in high in centre, with faint

traces of wide ribs, and double-width walls folded over at flaring foot rim.

Only a trace of the bowl remains, with trace of ribs. Complete circumference

of base survives. Faint pontil mark on underside. Base diameter c.60 mm.
El 32:54168 (Bourke 1987, no. I 1 1).

Infill between structures, with 13th century Saintonge and local wares:

29.
?Hanging lamp:
base of a possible hanging lamp stem, pushed in on the

base with a pontil mark at edge. Opaque brown weathered glass. El 32:97740

(Bourke 1987, no. 113).

Square A, in deposit of leather offcuts, associated with 13th century Saintonge
and local cooking ware:

30.
Rim ( Fig. 6):
pale bluish colourless rim of bowl or goblet bowl, or possibly

lamp. Rim diameter c.140 mm. E132:50682 (Bourke 1987, no. 107).

Dark fill, associated with 12th century Gloucester and 13th/14th century

Saintonge wares:
3 l .
Base fragment:

base rim fragment of vessel, folded over forming hollow

base rim, opaque weathered glass. E132:53444 (Bourke 1987, no. 110).

Found while clearing water accumulated over bedrock, associated with 13th

and 14th century Saintonge and Ham Green pottery:
32.
Base fragment ( Fig 6):
fragment from the junction of base and foot of

footed vessel of opaque brown weathered glass. Estimated base diameter c.50

mm. E132:55190 (Bourke 1987, no. 112).
Context not known:
33.
Stemmed goblet ( Fig 6):
part of a stemmed goblet of yellow high-lead

glass. Good condition. Top section of hollow stem, solid section above with
pontil scar on underside, and small part of goblet bowl. Tool marks visible

around join between bowl and stem. No visible decoration survives. Extant

height c.28 mm. Extant stem diameter 18-19 mm. E132:164.

High Street
Between lines of wattle and daub under east wall of TFS1, probably 13th

century:
34.
Footed goblet?:
base fragment of vessel with everted foot and double-

thickness walls with hollow base rim. Blue-green glass. E71:3914 (Bourke

1987, no. 122).

Below TFSI, a 13th century timber framed house, with green-glazed Sain-
tonge ware:

35.
Ribbedfragment (Fig.

7):
slightly inverted rim fragment of colourless glass,

with edge rolled inwards, and wrythen mould-blown ribbing. Rim diameter

c.93 mm. E71:2320 (Bourke 1987, no. 114).
Dark soil from immediately pre-house levels, probably 13th century:

36.
Urinal rim:
rim with inturned edge of blue-green glass, probably from

flask/urinal. E71:3696 (Bourke 1987, no. 118).

37.
Urinal rim: flared
rim fragment with inturned edge, of greenish glass,

now partly weathered opaque brown. Rim diameter c. I 10 mm. E71:36I2

(Bourke 1987, no. 126).

Trowelling of wattle features, possibly Ilth-12th century:

38.
Rim fragment ( Fig
7):
rim fragment of good condition greenish-blue

glass, with slightly inverted rim. Rim diameter c.113 mm. El1:3294 (Bourke
1987, no. 115).

Post and wattle wall pm house TFSI, probably 13th century:

39.
Body fragments:three
adjoining body fragments of blue-green glass vessel

with tapering walls. E71:3871 (Bourke 1987, no. 121).

East of post and wattle, pre house TFSI, probably 13th century:

40.
Rim fragment (Fig.
7): thickened rim of blue-green glass, slightly inverted

at rim. Estimated rim diameter c.170 mm. Adjoins and is same vessel as Nos.

41 and 42. E7I :3766 (Bourke 1987, no. 117).

Dark soil north of workshop TFS2, probably 13th century:

41.
Rim fragment
( Fig.

7): thickened rim of blue-green glass, slightly inverted

at rim. Estimated rim diameter c.170 mm. Same vessel as Nos. 40 and 42.

E71:38I I (Bourke 1987, no. 125).

North of post and wattle, possibly a plot boundary; probably 13th century:

42.
Rim fragment (Fig. 7):
thickened rim of blue-green glass, slightly inverted

at rim. Estimated rim diameter c.170 mm. Same vessel as Nos. 40 and 41.
E7I:3689 (Bourke 1987, no. 120).

Square 4, possibly 13th century:

43.
Body fragment (Fig 7):
body fragment of colourless glass with mould-

blown vertical ribs possibly bowl or bottle neck. E71:3929 (Bourke 1987,

no. 124).

44.
Body fragment:
body fragment of greenish-blue glass bottle with vertical

sides. E7 I :3978 (Bourke 1987, no. 123).

South-east of 13th century timber framed building:

45.
?Base fragment:
base fragment of mould-blown vessel, possibly bowl,

of blue-green glass with faint mould blown ribs. E71:3387 (Bourke 1987,
no. 116).

St John’s Lane
Group found in dark organic deposits west of trench, Square 1, with I3th
century Saintonge jug:

46.
Stemmed goblet ( Fig. 7):

rim and bowl fragments, some rejoined, of

goblet bowl. Originally greenish glass, now dark opaque brown. Everted
rim. Vertical ribs around the bowl, starting a little below the rim, becoming

more pronounced, fins around lower part of bowl. No stem survives. Rim

diameter c 140-150 mm. E173:3210a (Bourke 1987, no. 127).

47.
Trailed fragment (Fig. 7):
body fragment with horizontal trail. Weathered

opaque. El 73:3210c (Bourke 1987, no. 129).

48.
Hanging lamp (Fig 7):
Rejoined and loose fragments of the stem and low-

er bowl of a hanging lamp. Originally greenish glass, now weathered opaque
brown and iridescent. Narrow stem with rounded convex base and pontil scar

on underside. Flares out widely towards missing bowl. Extant height c 118

mm. Also body fragments. E173:3210b (Bourke 1987, no. 128).

49.
?Hanging lamp:
slightly inverted rim fragments of opaque weathered

glass, possibly a lamp bowl, or other bowl. Rim diameter c.92 mm. E173:

3210d (Bourke 1987, no. 130).

50.
?Hanging lamp ( Fig 7): vertical
rim fragments of opaque weathered glass,

body tapering slightly inwards. Possibly a lamp bowl. Rim diameter c.I30

mm. E173:3210e (Bourke 1987, no. 131).

51.
?Hanging lamp:
vertical rim fragments of opaque weathered glass, inturned

at edge. Possibly a lamp bowl, or other bowl. Rim diameter .c113 mm. El 73:
3210f (Bourke 1987, no. 132).

52.
Body fragments:
body fragments of opaque weathered glass, found with

32I0b, d-e. E173:3210g, i & j (Bourke 1987, nos. 133, 135 & 136).

53.
Rim fragments:
tiny rim fragments of opaque weathered glass, found with

3210a-g. E173:3210h (Bourke 1987, no. 134).

WATERFORD

E406 (fronting on to Peter Street, also bordered by Cooke Lane and
High Street.- 1987)

Fill of stone-lined pit (2003), mid-late 13th century, with highly decorated

Saintonge ware:
54.
Stemmed goblet ( Fig.

9):
fragments of yellow high-lead glass from the bowl

of a stemmed goblet with a stepped S-shaped profile. Mould-blown design

in vertical panels alternately of raised bosses and paired leaves with central

small bosses. E406:2088:183 (Bourke 1997, 383 & 8, fig. 13.1.1).

55.
Stemmed goblet ( Fig

9):
rejoined fragments of greenish glass bowl from

stemmed goblet with a stepped S-shaped profile. Mould-blown patterning on

MEDIEVAL GLASS USED IN

IRELAND

underside of bowl consisting of small bosses. Estimated rim diameter c.100-

110 mm. E406:2018:183 (Bourke 1997, 383 & 8, fig. 13.1.2).

E421 (east of St Peter’s Church, 1987)

Fill of stone-lined pit (1020), mid-late 13th
century:

56.
Stemmed goblet (Fig 9):
hollow goblet stem of pale bluish-green glass,

flaring out towards base. Surface layers weathered away leaving only a thin
layer of the original thickness. E421:1076:100 (Bourke 1997, 383 & 8, fig.
13.1.6).

E434 (fronting on to Peter Street, also bordered by Olaf Street and High

Street; 1988)

Fill of pit (3019),
late

12th century:

57.
Stemmed goblet (Fig 9):
three fragments of yellow high-lead glass from

the flaring bowl of a stemmed goblet. Blue trail applied in a zigzagging pat-

tern around the bowl. Bowl turns in sharply towards the base, where there

is an applied horizontal yellow trail. E434:3036:1-3 (Bourke 1997, 383 & 8,
fig. 13.1.5).

Fill of stone-lined pit (28),
mid-late 13th century:

58.
Stemmed goblet ( Fig. 9):
two fragments of yellow high-lead glass from

the bowl of a stemmed goblet. Mould-blown vertical fins around the bowl.

Remains of three fins on lower bowl, two ribs on rim fragment. Bowl has
bell-shaped profile with slightly everted rim. Rim diameter estimated c.80-100

mm. E434:530:172 (Bourke 1997, 383 & 8, fig. 13.1.3).

Pit HS1:L10, late 12th century:

59.
Vessel:
numerous small undiagnostic fragments of vessel glass. E434:593:

172 (Bourke 1997, 389).

E435 (St Peter’s graveyard; 1988)

Burial, mid 13th-late 16th/early 17th
century:

60.
Bowl?( Fig 9):
body fragment of colourless glass, probably from bowl

which flares out towards rim. Vertical mould-blown ribs (two surviving),

with an applied colourless horizontal trail above. E435:228:B41:1 (Bourke

1997, 383 & 8, fig. 13.1.4).

E527 (Arundel Square, also bordered by Peter Street, Cooke Lane and
High Street; 1990)

Stone-lined pit IN2:L14,
mid-late 13th century:

61.
Urinal:
convex base from a urinal, with trace of pontil mark on underside.

Originally greenish or bluish glass, now weathered opaque brown. E527:718:

60 (Bourke 1997, 385 & 8, fig. 13.2.9).

62.
Vessel:
twelve fragments from curved vessel body, with traces of three

applied horizontal trails around waist or neck. Weathered
opaque brown

glass. E527:718:61 (Bourke 1997, 389).

Organic layer IN2/3:L11-12, late 12th-early
13th century:

63.
?Rib from decorative vessel (Fig.
9): thick vertical fin, mould-blown, on

curving body fragment. Weathered opaque brown. Thickness of rib c.8 mm.

E527:687:17 (Bourke 1997, 387 & 9, fig. 13.3.2).

Cess-like
deposit IN3:L12,
early 13th century:

64.
Vessel:
thirteen small undiagnostic body fragments of vessel of weathered

opaque brown glass. E527:766:29 (Bourke 1997, 389).

Fill of stone-lined pit (654) IN3:L14,
mid-late 13th century:

65.
Hanging lamp:
fifteen small rim fragments from the wide rim of a ves-

sel, probably a hanging lamp. Rim inturned at edge. E527:638:52d (Bourke

1997, 389).

66.
Hanging lamp:
several rim and upper body fragments from the wide rim

of a vessel, probably a hanging lamp. Rim intumed at edge. Estimated rim

diameter c.150 mm. E527:638:52e (Bourke 1997, 389).

67.
Urinal (Fig. 10):
flared rim fragments from a urinal. Originally greenish

or bluish glass, now weathered opaque brown. Estimated rim diameter c.105

mm. 11527:638:52a (Bourke 1997, 385 & 8,
fig. 13.2.6).

68.
Urinal ( Fig 10):
convex base and part of bulbous body wall from a urinal,

with pontil mark on underside. Originally greenish or bluish glass, now weath-

ered opaque brown. E527:638:52b (Bourke 1997, 385 & 8, fig. 13.2.8).

69.
Urinal:
numerous undiagnostic body fragments of weathered brown glass,

probably belonging to 13.2.6 or 8. E527:638:52c (Bourke 1997, 389).

Stone-lined
pit IN5:L14,
mid-late 13th century:

70.
BeakerlFooted Goblet (Fig. 9):
folded base of beaker or footed goblet,

pushed upwards on underside to form a dome, with pontil mark in centre.

Optic-blown vertical ribs on inner and outer layer of the double folded base.
Base rim missing. Broken where starts to flare out to form body. Extant

diameter c.39 mm. Originally green, now weathered opaque mottled beige.
E527:1017:12 (Bourke 1997, 383 & 8, fig. 13.1.8).

71.
Rim (Fig. 10):
several rim fragments from the wide rim of a vessel, such

as a hanging lamp or goblet bowl. Rim inturned at edge. Originally greenish
glass, now weathered opaque beige. Also numerous tiny body fragments.
Estimated rim diameter c.180 mm. E527:1017:9a (Bourke 1997, 383 & 8,

fig. 13.1.9).

72.
Urinal:
rim and body fragment from a urinal. Everted fire-thickened

rim, turning downwards to a cylindrical neck. Originally greenish glass, now

weathered opaque beige. E527:1017:9b (Bourke 1997, 385 & 8, fig. 13.2.5).

73.
Urinal:
convex base from a urinal, with pontil mark on underside. Rim

fragment. Estimated rim diameter c.80 mm. E527:1017:9b (Bourke 1997,

385 & 8, fig. 13.2.7).

74.
Vessel:
three rim fragments of greenish glass. E527:1017:9c (Bourke

1997, 389).

Timber-lined pit IN7:L11, late
12th-early 13th century:

75.
Urinal:
two rim fragments and numerous small body fragments from

a urinal. Widely everted and fire-thickened rim. Originally greenish, now
weathered opaque brown. Rim diameter c.95-100 mm. E527:747:88c (Bourke

1997, 385 & 8, fig. 13.2.1).

76.
Urinal:
three fragments from the wide cylindrical neck of a urinal. Trans-

lucent bluish glass. E527:747:88b (Bourke 1997, 385 & 8, fig. 13.2.2).

77.
Urinal:
two adjoining fragments from the convex base of a urinal. Pontil

mark on underside. Originally greenish glass, now weathered opaque brown.

E527:747:88d (Bourke 1997, 385 & 8, fig. 13.2.3).

78.
Urinal:
convex base fragment from a urinal, with pontil mark on underside.

Translucent bluish glass. Numerous tiny body fragments, probably from same

vessel. E527:747:88a (Bourke 1997, 385
&
8, fig. 13.2.4).

Timber-lined pit IN7:L11,
late 12th-early 13th century:

79.
Vessel:
numerous undiagnostic body fragments of vessel now weathered

opaque brown. Estimated rim diameter c.160 mm. E527:747:5 (Bourke
1997, 389).

Sunken barrel, backyard sill-b hs PS2:L12, early 13th
century:

80.
Urinal:
convex base from a urinal, with trace of pontil mark on underside.

Originally greenish or bluish glass, now weathered opaque brown. E527:1079:
12 (Bourke 1997, 385 & 8, fig. 13.2.10).

“A most artful deception”: behind the scenes of

an 18th century Scottish glasshouse

Jill Turnbull

This story begins on a dark and stormy winter’s night

at the end of the 18th century, as many good Scottish
stories do. It involves confrontation, incarceration,

unfair dismissal and a legal battle, but it is not a tale

of romantic fiction with a happy ending; it is a story

of conflict between the Excise and the glassmakers of

Greenock, and it provides some small insights into
life behind the scenes in their operations.

On 1 1 th December 1794, at between 8 and 9 pm,

four men banged on the door of the glasshouse at

Crawfurdsdyke, Greenock, demanding entry. They

were admitted by the manager, William Tennant, who

had been expecting them. The four were James Bal-

vaird, General Examiner of Excise in Scotland, John

Carr, Supervisor of Excise in England and (temporary)

Officer of Excise in Scotland, James Anderson, Super-
visor of Excise in Greenock, and James Williamson,

Excise officer at the glasshouse.
The visit was the second of the day. During their

earlier inspection the men had surveyed all the readily

available areas of the glasshouse, including the pot

chamber and scaffold, without any difficulty. Just be-
fore their departure, however, they had asked to see

the pot loft and the pot-making area, a request that

was adamantly refused, despite considerable argu-
ment. The evening visit followed contact with a local

magistrate, who had signed a warrant allowing them

to force entry to the prohibited areas. The magistrate

accompanied them to the glasshouse.
The Greenock Glassworks Company had begun

their operations only just over seven months earlier,

on 28th April 1794, producing bottles for both the lo-

cal and export markets. There was a four-pot furnace
in which, during the first eight months of operation,

30,700 dozen bottles were made, of which 4,356 dozen

were exported to Portugal. William Tennant, a part-
ner and the manager of the firm, was an experienced

glassmaker, who had trained under Archibald Geddes

at Leith.
Despite being shown the magistrate’s warrant,

William Tennant persisted in refusing entry to the
pot loft, insisting that the Excise had no legal right of

access to that area of the glasshouse — a claim hotly

denied by Carr and Balvaird. Eventually, the Excise
officers broke down the doors to the pot loft and en-

tered. Their wet clothing brushed against some of the
`green’ pots, allegedly causing damage to two of them.

According to Tennant, the Excise men also caused

harm to the crucibles in his pot chamber “by exposing

them to a current of air far below their temperature,

so that many of the pots may have been much hurt,
if not rendered totally useless…”. In justification of
his action John Carr later claimed that, as a result of

his perfectly legal forced entry, he had found “upward

of thirty glass pots very considerably larger than any
presented to, or gauged by, the [Excise] officer”, thus,

in his view, confirming the scam he had been called

in to investigate.
William Tennant was clearly very angry and set out

to get his own back on Carr. It was not until 26th De-

cember 1794, however, that he lodged a legal protest

with the Court of Justiciary, that “Messrs Balvaird,
Anderson, Williamson and Carr, have been guilty of

a gross violation of law, as well as damaging the pots
in his pot chamber…”. He also obtained a warrant to

arrest Carr “because he was English and might return
there” and thus be outside Scottish jurisdiction.

In the subsequent court case,’ John Carr gave

a graphic description of how he had been “sitting
comfortably”, with his sister and her family in Aln-

wick Castle (which is, of course, not in Scotland, but

Northumberland), where she was in service, when
he was arrested, at about four o’clock on Saturday

27th December 1794. He was taken by post chaise to
Dunbar, where he was locked up in the jail from the

evening of Sunday 28th December to eleven o’clock

the following night, when he finally managed to ob-

tain a warrant of liberation, with a ‘caution’ of 1,000

“A MOST ARTFUL DECEPTION”

merks Scots (£666 13s 4d sterling). Carr’s incarcera-

tion in Dunbar, some 23 miles from Edinburgh, was
particularly galling because he had no access there

to the legal advice and courts of the capital, where
he would almost certainly have obtained his freedom

much more quickly. Carr was not a happy man.
Records of the actions of the Excise after the inspec-

tion of the Greenock glasshouse and the legal battles

which followed Carr’s arrest and imprisonment are

the sources for this paper. Before exploring them,
however, it should be mentioned that in Scotland, in

addition to the usual antipathy between the Excise

and the glassmakers, the involvement of an
English

Excise officer would have further fuelled Scottish

animosity.

EXCISE FRAUD

John Carr, a senior English Excise officer, had been

sent to Scotland in 1794 to investigate suspicions of
fraud concerning the operation of the Excise in the

glasshouses there. It was suspected that the Scottish

glassmakers had been depriving the Revenue of money
by “the shifting and substitution of large pots for mak-

ing glass instead of small ones shown to and gauged by
the Revenue officers…”. The basis of this claim was

that the larger pots were concealed until they were

required in the furnace and were secretly substituted

for the pots already gauged and ready for use.

Carr went to Scotland and, with James Balvaird,

undertook a complete survey of all the fifteen glass-

houses operating there.’ They issued a joint report on

22nd December 1794, concluding that “vast frauds are

most assuredly practised at all of them”, and went on
to describe the principal deceptions they considered
had been practised:

1. Pot substitution
“The
pot chambers are not entered as

required by law and the stock of large

working pots is kept private and no Of-

ficer suffered to approach them. A few

small conical pots are made and kept

at each House for the purpose of being
brought down to the annealing arches

FIGURE 1

Sketch of pots discovered by the Excise men at the bottleworks at
Alloa, showing the deceptive pot on the left.
FIGURE 2

Sketch of pots discovered by the Excise men at the Leith Flint
Glass Works, showing the “most artful deception” on the left.

and there presented to the Officer to be
gauged; and this is no sooner done than

an opportunity is taken to remove them
back into the chamber and to place in

their stead other pots far larger and more

capacious, and approaching much nearer

to a cylinder in form, and these latter sort

are the only ones out of which they are

now working.”

The
two pot shapes were illustrated in the report of

their inspection of the bottleworks at Alloa, “from

which your Honours will judge of the Fraud at this
and all the other Houses” (Fig. 1).

A further, and more subtle, variation on this prac-

tice was found during their visit to the flint glasshouse

at Leith. The use of closed pots to melt the finer metal
enabled the internal dimensions of the pots to be var-

ied, and they claim to have found:

“one of the usual make, but the other was

a most artful deception, made wholly for

the purpose of being gauged, but never to

be put into the furnace. Externally they

appeared of the same size and shape …
but internally the sides were so increased

in thickness from the mouth downwards,

so as to represent a very sharp cone, and
the diameter was thereby so contracted

that at ten inches only from the mouth, it

became about ten inches less.”

They then illustrated the two types of pot (Fig. 2).

2. Ladling
“Another very
general method of fraud is

that of taking large quantities of metal out
of the pots, before gauging, under pretence

of scumming
(sic)

them, and in numerous

cases whole pots are laded out
(sic),
but

from their manner of proceeding it is evi-

dent that this is all privately returned into
the pots during the time of working…”.

“A MOST ARTFUL DECEPTION”

PLATE 1

View of Dumbarton showing the glassworks on the left. Coloured aquatint published 1824.

Broadfield House Glass Museum, Kingswinford.

Their visit to Dumbarton Giass Works (Mate
1)

was used as an example of this practice. There they

had observed:

“that they frequently respite the work-
ing in particular pots, which is a certain

indication of fraud, and this is confirmed
by whole pots of metal being frequently

laded out under pretence of its not being

fine enough for working, but it is most cer-
tainly done to procure a quantity of cullet

for charging the respited pots with.”

3. Cracked pots
A third alleged scam involved damaged pots. A minor

crack in a working pot was often repaired temporarily

by opening the furnace in front of it and turning the

pot so the cracked section was exposed to the air. The

glass cooled and solidified as it seeped through the

crack, “but the traders here evidently take advantage
of this, and always work the metal down to below the

cracked pot before the gauge is taken, pretending it

has not been higher filled”.
It is clear from the detailed descriptions of their

visits to the Scottish glasshouses that the Excise of-

ficers had been opposed and thwarted at every op-

portunity. The glassmakers, from the management

down, had used every trick in the book to prevent

them gauging the pots and gaining access to the pot
lofts, the only exception being the Leith Glassworks

Company, which operated a crown and a bottle house,

next door to the larger Edinburgh Glass House Com-
pany. There the management had co-operated fully,

while the bottleworks at Dundee was also commended

for using correctly gauged pots.
At the remaining eleven glasshouses, several

of which were under the management of various

members of the Geddes family, they experienced a
frustrating time. At the flint glasshouse in Glasgow,

for example:

“we found No. 6 pot in the furnace open
without notice and worked a considerable

way down; but on going back to the other

side of the furnace for the gauging irons,
we found on returning the pot shut up by

putting a loose stopper against the mouth
and sticking a quantity of wet clay behind

it; this we immediately removed but before

the stopper could also be taken away Mr.
Geddes interfered, seized the gauging iron

and in the most violent and passionate

manner opposed us; finding it impossible

to succeed we gave up the contest after

struggling some time.”

At Dumbarton they were refused access to the ‘pot

rooms’ so, as they had at Greenock, they obtained

a warrant granting them entry. Despite being ac-

“A MOST ARTFUL DECEPTION”

companied by a local constable they claimed to have
been “most violently opposed and threatened with

being treated as common thieves if we proceeded any

further. As there were upwards of thirty of the work-

men collected about us, and finding… that nothing

but the most imminent personal danger would arise

from persisting, we gave it up and retired from the

premises.”
Carr and Balvaird examined the Excise officers’

books and working practices, finding inconsistencies,

errors and, at Glasgow, that no officer was in attend-

ance at the time of their visits. They suggested that,

as a result, the amounts of Excise charged at Glasgow
totalled £60 a round, “whereas they ought to be near

ten times that sum”. Their report concluded with rec-

ommendations for some internal reorganisation of the
Excise and the prosecution of several of the glasshouse

managers. They also brought to the attention of the

Scottish Excise Board the fact that on every occasion

that they had been opposed “the fraudulent glass-

makers have … grounded their opposition … on a

compromise which they allege took place in the Court

of Exchequer more than two years ago and by which it

was agreed, notwithstanding the express terms of the

law, that their pot chambers were not to be entered

and that after the officer has charged the metal in the
pots, no other gauges were to be taken”.

An inevitable consequence of this report was some

internal upheaval in the Scottish Excise department,
resulting in the suspension from duty of three Excise

officers, Messrs Maitland, Corbet and Leven, ap-

parently on the recommendation of James Balvaird.

There was also an internal investigation, the results

of which were of considerable embarrassment to the

Scottish Excise Board.
There had, indeed, been an agreement between the

glassworks managers and the Excise, a ‘Memoran-

dum’ of which remains with the court papers. This
records a meeting which took place on 25th January

1792, attended by James Montgomery, a lawyer rep-

resenting the Glass House Company of Leith, and

Archibald Geddes manager there; James Dunlop,
on behalf of the Dumbarton Glass House Company

and Mr Dixon, the manager; John Geddes, manager
of the Glasgow Glass House Company; and William
Geddes of Alloa. On the other side was John Mait-

land, whose role with the Excise was not specified,

and William Corbet, General Supervisor of Excise,
together with the Advocate General and Mr. Bonar,

Solicitor of Excise.

Their purpose was “to put an end to the different

prosecutions in Exchequer filed in the name of his

Majesty’s Advocate General and the managers of the
Leith, Glasgow and Alloa Glass House Companies”

and to prevent all disputes between the companies

and the officers of the Excise. They agreed, as the

managers had insisted to Carr, that provided they

were given an hour’s notice, the Excise officer would

gauge the pots an hour before manufacture started
and would not interrupt the work afterwards. They

also agreed that there should be no access to the

“place or places used for making pots” but as soon as

the pots were ready for use they should be removed

to somewhere the officer had access to at all times

so they could be surveyed before being placed in the
annealing arch.

It would appear from this document that there

had been, at least on the part of the Excise, a genuine

desire to come to an agreement that was within the

British law but which would reduce the number of

prosecutions for infringements of the very demanding
Excise rules. The glassmakers themselves were clearly

keen to reduce the inconvenience inherent in the strict

application of the rules. John Carr was completely
unaware of the agreement, nothing similar to which

existed in England, as, apparently, was the Excise
Board in 1795. James Balvaird knew all about it but

said nothing, happy to have Maitland, Corbet and

Leven in the role of scapegoats.
Justice prevailed, however. In a damning report

dated 29th May 1795, the Excise Board ruled that

James Balvaird had abused his position as General
Examiner of Excise in Scotland. He had been at fault

in not informing John Carr “an entire stranger to
persons & circumstances” of the 1792 ‘Compromise’

agreement, ignorance of which had caused Carr to
present a false report. They also made it clear that it

was Balvaird who had blamed Maitland, Corbet and
Leven for dereliction of duty, despite Carr’s refusal

to name any individual officer, “so that the applica-

tion of the general charges to these three officers

must have originated from malice or prejudice of the

said Mr Balvaird”. The upshot was the suspension
of James Balvaird and the honourable reinstatement

of the other three officers to their former posts. They

were also granted compensation ranging from £105 to
£157 10s, in addition to their outstanding salaries. The
Board’s report makes it clear that Maitland, Corbet

and Leven had constantly complained to their bosses
that they were being obstructed by the glassmakers,
but no action had been taken. The Board subsequently

discovered that Balvaird had deliberately deceived
them and they confirmed his dismissal from the post

of General Examiner.

WORKING PRACTICES

The court case Carr versus Tennant, which was heard
at the Court of Session in Edinburgh in 1796, was
quite separate from the Excise enquiry discussed

above. John Carr, acting as an aggrieved individual,

pursued William Tennant for “wrongous imprison-

ment” and claimed reparation of £1000 sterling plus

expenses of £200. The evidence justifying Carr’s action
has already been mentioned; the evidence presented

in Tennant’s defence provides a rare glimpse behind

the scenes of an 18th century glasshouse and will be

discussed below.

“A MOST ARTFUL DECEPTION”

FIGURE 3

Plan of the furnace, pot chamber and pot manufactory at William Tennant’s bottle works at Greenock, dated December 1794.

Reproduced with the permission of the Keeper of Records of Scotland.

‘A MOST ARTFUL DECEPTION”

Writers from Pellatt to Hajdamach have empha-

sised the importance of crucibles to the success of a
glassworks and there are plenty of descriptions of the

making processes and the essential skills of the pot-

makers. The men called to give evidence on behalf

of Tennant included the pot-makers themselves and
numerous other workmen at the glassworks who gave

first-hand accounts of their actual working conditions,
as well as details of Carr’s inspection. William Ten-

nant provided an illustrated plan of the pot loft and
relevant areas of the glasshouse (Fig. 3).
The pot loft at Greenock was described by William

Lamb, a married man aged 30, who had previously

worked as a warehouseman and then as a pot-maker

at Verreville and at Dundee. It was 100 feet long and
18 feet wide, and was kept at a steady temperature of
between 54 and 60 degrees Fahrenheit, being heated

by a `cockel’ or stove. The pots were made there, as

well as dried. The windows were sometimes opened

during the summer, but even then were closed if there
was any wind, because a cold wind could crack the

drying pots. Every effort was made to keep the tem-

perature steady and in order to avoid any draught,

there were three doors between the pot loft and the

glasshouse, only one of which was opened at a time.

There were “4 plies of brown paper pasted over the
seams of the door to the glasshouse and 2 plies on the

second door”. The day after Carr’s visit two of the

unfinished pots in the loft “had a piece fallen out of
their sides”, something Lamb had never experienced
before. The damaged pots are illustrated clearly in

Tennant’s plan. Lamb estimated that the value of each
pot, which had previously been £5, had considerably

increased by 1794 because the price of clay and the

cost of carriage had gone up. He confirmed that the
plan of the pot loft and glasshouse presented to the

court by Tennant was accurate.

Since one of Tennant’s main reasons for having

Carr arrested had been the damage caused to his pots
by the forced entry, there was a logical emphasis by

his defence on the need to avoid sudden changes of

temperature and cold draughts in the pot loft. Lamb
described how on one occasion at the Dundee glass-

works 13 pots were broken “in consequence of air

which came up from below through the seams of the

floor, which was prevented from happening again by
plastering the room below”. He also stated that when

he had been working at Verreville there were no doors

between the pot loft and the glasshouse, and of the 84
pots made there “only 6 or 7 could be used, all the rest

having cracked in drying”, a substantial loss to any

glassworks. Two doors were put in and the problem

was solved.

While in the pot loft the crucibles did not stand

directly on the floor, but on “a kind of stools called

pot-bottoms, which raise them about six and a half
or seven inches above the floor”. During the drying

process the pots, the walls of which were some three

inches thick at the brim, shrank by three to four inches
in diameter. Since they were making bottles at Green-

ock, the pots were, of course, open. When removed to

the pot chamber, they were placed on straw to prevent

them standing on bare bricks. They usually remained
there, at a temperature maintained at between 95 and

100 degrees Fahrenheit, for three weeks. It is notice-

able that Lamb’s description of the making process,
particularly the timings, was sometimes different from

Tennant’s evidence.

A later witness, the pot-maker at the Edinburgh

Glass House Company at Leith, described how they

stuffed the windows with straw in winter to prevent

draughts, but he only made pots at that time of year if
there was a shortage; “the common season for making
pots begins in April and ends in October”. Only one

employee, James Bell, a bottle sizer, described as an

`outwork hand’, gave evidence for the pursuer. He

stated that, in the absence of the Excise officer, he had

seen the mouth of an annealing arch opened and the

pots inside replaced, but the originals were not taken

to the working furnace.

William Tennant was, of course, loquacious in

his own defence. A main plank of his argument was
the slightly bizarre one, that there were actually two

manufacturies at his glasshouse — one “for making
the vessels or large crucibles in which the materials

for making glass are melted in the fire”, the other to

manufacture the glass. He maintained that, since there

was no tax on the crucibles, the Excise officers had no
more right to enter that area than to enter his, or the

judge’s, bedroom.

Equally implausible, given the rank of Carr and the

senior Excise men accompanying him, was Tennant’s

original allegation against Carr that he had entered the
glasshouse illegally so that he “might thereby discover

and learn the secrets of the valuable manufacture of

making pots … for your own private benefit, or that
those who sent you from England upon such a clan-

destine employment”. Rather more believable was the

statement that they were unable to pay the tax due to

the Revenue because the Carr incident had caused

them financial loss.
The individual Excise ledgers relating to glass

in Scotland no longer exist, except when kept for a
particular reason — such as a court hearing. Among

the evidence remaining in the National Archives of
Scotland, in material related to the case Carr v. Ten-
nant, are a number of the ledgers kept by the Excise

men responsible for the Greenock glassworks, James
Williamson and James Anderson, between 6th July
1794 and 7th July 1795. They, too, contribute to the

glimpse behind the scenes at the glasshouse.
The working year was divided into eight rounds,

most of which lasted 42 days, but two being of 50

and 49 days, each round being recorded as an en-

tity. Of particular interest is the ‘Glass Dimension

Book” which records the diameters of each pot

taken at different points, the date it was set in a
particular hole in the furnace and the date it was

“A MOST ARTFUL DECEPTION”

demolished. The ‘Glass Table Book’
4
lists the mean

diameter of each pot, which varied considerably
from 23 to 35 inches. The top diameters given in the

Dimension Book varied less, most being around 36

inches — conforming to the space allotted for each

pot in Tennant’s plan.
The period of use for each pot was sometimes

remarkably short — the average life being only four

weeks. The shortest period recorded was a week, the
longest almost seven. The records show that only a

few months after the glassworks opened, the furnace

was demolished and rebuilt, no glass being produced
between 13th November and 1st December 1794 while

the work was done. It took six days to demolish the

old furnace and another five to rebuild it, after which
it was annealed for a further five days before pots
number 26-29 were set and charged, two of them with

9 cwt, two with 10 cwt of metal. They were ready for

working on Monday 1st December. Two weeks later

number 4 pot broke but was repaired and survived

until 25th December when it was again mended; but

this time the repair failed to hold and the following

day the metal was lost. On 27th December number 3
pot broke and that metal was also lost. Both pots were

replaced but on the 29th number 4 pot was ladled out.

Then the workmen made the most of their Hogma-
nay and on 1st January 1795 Williamson noted “Men
unfit to work. Metal ladled out”. Sequences such as

this illustrate very clearly the frequent disruption to
production.
William Tennant’s robust defence included his

own lengthy description of the pot-making process,

in which he was at pains to emphasise the inherent
fragility of the pots until they were really dry. He de-

scribed the length of time it took to dry out the pots,
in particular the care that had to be taken in the pot
loft, where they remained for several months. Because
new pots were being constructed in the same room

“the great quantity of wet clay, the cloths with which
the pots are kept constantly covered while building

and breath and other exhalations from the numerous

workmen employed keep the air always in a very damp

state”. When dried out sufficiently, they were moved
to the pot chamber, where “every endeavour is made
use of for … keeping up a perpetual circulation of very

dry and moderately warm air”.
According to Tennant, the pots remained several

months in the pot chamber — Lamb told the court

the period was three weeks — and were then moved

“to what is generally called the pot scaffold, being
a scaffold or projecting floor within the area of the
glasshouse where they are exposed at some height

above the ground to the almost suffocating heat of
the glasshouse itself … Thence a short time before

they are wanted they are again removed into … the

annealing oven … the mouth of the furnace is then
built up, and they are for some weeks
(sic,

but he

later says days) exposed to a gradually increasing

heat …”.
Tennant went on to describe in detail how the

Excise officers examined the pots from the time they

entered the pot chamber, where they were measured
and marked by the officer “with his name or in such
other manner as in his opinion may most effectually
prevent another pot from being substituted …”. No-
tice was given on removal to the pot scaffold and the

officer examined his mark, again measured the pot

etc. before seeing it sealed into the annealing oven, a
procedure repeated before it was placed in the glass

furnace. The Excise officer at Greenock, James Wil-

liamson, clearly gave each pot a number, which he
recorded as it was placed in the furnace.
Despite Tennant’s impassioned defence, the story

had no happy ending for him. Judgement went to

Carr, and Tennant was ordered to pay damages and
costs. So John Carr finally had his revenge, his only
material loss being the certificate granting him the
rank of Excise officer, which remains in the Edin-

burgh court records. The Scottish glassmakers lost

their privileges under their unofficial, but legally sanc-

tioned, ‘Compromise’ agreement, and had to accept
the same inconvenient Excise rules as their English

rivals. The Greenock Glass House Company was

closed down early in the 19th century, and by 1806
William Tennant was out of work and looking for a

new job in Newcastle.

Dr Jill Turnbull
October 2003

Jill Turnbull is the author of
The Scottish Glass In-

dustry 1610-1750
and is currently researching glass-

making in Scotland after that period.

ENDNOTES
1.
All the material in this paper is contained in Court of Session papers

CS231/CJ6/5 Carr v Tennant, held in the National Archives of Scotland

(West Register House), unless otherwise referenced. Individual items

are not numbered.

2.
This figure does not refer to companies, some of which owned several

glasshouses.

3.
CS96/3121.

4.
CS96/3122.

Bulb, Root or Hyacinth Vases in the 18th and

19th Centuries
John P Smith

In1989 Asprey held an exhibition of over 150 antique
bulb vases together with a large number of old col-

oured prints dating from 1612 to 1880, complete with

a brief but well illustrated catalogue.’ This was the

first large exhibition devoted to this subject and was

assembled by the author (Plate 1).

Bulb vases fall halfway between the decorative and

the useful and have a much longer history than is usu-

ally supposed. They are still made today, sometimes

in clear plastic, and in England can be found on the
shelves of supermarkets in the early autumn next to

the ‘bulbs from Holland’ section. Although usually

for hyacinths, small versions exist for crocus or grape
hyacinths, which the author’s mother also used for

forcing acorns.
The origins of the bulb vase date back to first half

of the 18th century, rather earlier than one might in-

tuitively expect. Most people, discussing bulb vases,

assume them to be of Victorian origin, developed

around 1830 when English floral societies were very

PLATE 1

A selection of hyacinth vases from the 1989 Asprey exhibition.

Asprey.

BULB, ROOT OR HYACINTH VASES

active. They also believe that the hyacinth has always
played second fiddle to the tulip and that
Tulipomania

meant that the tulip was always more important than

the hyacinth, both aesthetically and commercially. In

fact
Tulipomania
was over by the end of 1637, the mad-

ness of previous decades peaking with many people
ruined, and by 1700, with changes of fashion in garden

design, the hyacinth had started to overtake the tulip
in commercial importance. Indeed, in 1734 a catalogue
published in Holland warned against speculation in

hyacinth bulbs and in 1739 a catalogue of bulbs by

Nichaas van Kampen of Harlem listed nearly 500
varieties of hyacinth but only 381 of tulips.
The earliest reference to growing bulbs in water

alone was published in 1731 in the
Philosophical Trans-

actions of the Royal Society of London.
A Swedish

scientist, Samuel Treiwald (1688-1742), director of
mechanics to the King of Sweden, wrote “An account
of Tulips and other Bulbous plants, flowering much

sooner, when their Bulbs are placed on Bottles filled
with Water, than when planted in the Ground”. His

experiments, calculated more for amusement than sci-

ence, involved placing bulbs of tulips and other flowers
on glasses filled with water. These bulbs were observed

to bloom in January, five months before they would
have flowered in a garden bed. In the same issue of the

Transactions,
Philip Miller (1691-1771), author and

gardener to the Worshipful Company of Apothecar-
ies in Chelsea, who had been inspired by the Swedish

experiments, published his own study on employing
`early blowing tulips’, hyacinths and narcissi. The

bulbs were set on utilitarian glass carafes filled with

`common Thames water’ to about one-quarter of an

inch below the bottom of the bulb and placed in a

green house for several weeks. The hyacinths bloomed

a full six weeks sooner than the tulips and narcissi,

although the blooms were not as large as on bulbs
planted in earth. Miller appreciated the novelty of the

experiment, recommending it as an amusement for

display in the chambers of those without a garden.
2

In 1734 Robert Furber (c.1674-1756), the London

nurseryman, reissued his 1732 edition of
The Flower

Garden Display’d,
to which he added “A flower-

garden for gentlemen and ladies, being the art of
raising flowers without any trouble, to blow in full
perfection in the depth of winter”. Furber describes

how he “bought some Dozens of Flint Tumbler
Glasses of the Germans who cut them prettily and

sell them Cheap; whole pints to Halves and Quarters;

wide at the top and tapering to the bottom”. In these
he placed spring bulbs — narcissus, several sorts of

hyacinths, tulips, daffodils and jonquils — and “took
particular care that no water shou’d be fill’d up to wet

any more than just the Bottoms of the Bulbous Roots,
for that would certainly rot them and have destroyed

all my hopes”.
3
In fact the early experimenters soon

discovered that, although tulips would survive with
their roots in water rather than soil, hyacinths actu-

ally thrived, making them the ideal flower for those
PLATE 2

Worcester transfer-printed hyacinth vase c.1770.

Phillips, Son & Neale.

without a greenhouse or other expensive protection
to grow during the winter months.
Although Robert Furber tried out all sorts of bulbs

in German tumblers, possibly with bulbs standing on

pebbles in the glass, before long special glasses were

developed for hyacinths and, more rarely, crocus. Some

bulb vases were made of ceramic materials, and the au-
thor has seen one made in brass and stamped ‘Keswick

Art Guild’. However, the best material was glass as it

is necessary to control the level of the water carefully;
too high and the bulb rots, too low and it dies. Also

with glass there is the fascination of watching the roots

descend — a most educational aspect for children.

One of the ceramic factories that may have made

hyacinth bulb vases was the Sevres porcelain factory

in France, but extant examples are rather smaller than
normal bulb vases and may well be night-lights. Indeed
the cataloguer of Sotheby’s English and Continental

Ceramics and Glass sale, London 1st March 1994, in

a footnote to lot 82, a Vincennes vase c.1745-48 from

the collection of T.H. Clarke, wrote: “These objects,

formerly described as
Vases
a
oignons,
are now known

to have been given to brides on their wedding night to

light them to bed. The ingenious idea of a narrow cylin-

drical interior both gives stabilising weight and acts to

extinguish the candle as it burns below the rim, leaving

the bride and groom to concentrate on other matters.”

The use of these objects is confirmed by an engraving

in Lawrence and Dighton,
French Line Engravings of

the late XVII Century,
London 1910. It may also be

suggested by the decoration of this example, where

BULB, ROOT OH HYACINTH VASES

PLATE 3

Portrait of a Lady, pastel by Jean-Etienne Liotard.

Musee d’Art et d’Histoire, Geneva.

the offering of a scallop shell, attribute of Venus, to an

embarrassed young man may well be symbolic. The
Bowes Museum in County Durham has a similar vase.`

On 26th May 1993 Phillips of London sold (lot 347)

an English transfer-printed ceramic vase from the Cyril
collection attributed to Worcester c.1770, which was

undoubtedly a hyacinth vase (Plate 2).
5
However, this

paper will concentrate on glass examples.
Glass hyacinth vases come in three basic forms,

squat and bulbous, churn shaped like an old milk
churn, and inverted baluster, the latter sometimes

with a pedestal foot. Some documented examples of
these will now be discussed.

In the Musee d’Art et d’Histoire, Geneva, Switzer-

land, is a pastel portrait,
Femme Inconnue a la Jacinthe,

by Jean-Etienne Liotard (1702-1789), depicting a lady

in a good blue day-dress and with a double string of
pearls sitting at a table and holding in her right hand

a clear bulb vase with a white hyacinth in bloom

(Plate 3).
6
The upper half of the vase is decorated

with trailing, and the flower has few florettes, typical

of hyacinths of this period. The pastel is catalogued

as being drawn in 1754 and this date is thought to be

secure.’ This is the period of Liotard’s first visit to
England, although it is not suggested the lady is an

English woman.
On the 14th December 1999 Eric Couturier,
Com-

missaire
–

Priseur Associe
at the Drouot auction centre

in Paris, sold an oil painting attributed to the school

of Nicolas Lavreince (1739-1807) entitled
Jarnais

cf Accord dit aussi la Petite Guerre,
showing two fash-

ionable young girls, one with a cat, the other with a

dog. In the background on a mantelpiece is a clear bulb

vase of the pedestal variety being used as a flower vase.

The painting probably dates from around 1780.
The National Trust at Upton House, Warwickshire,

holds a print
La Soirée d ‘Hyver,
dated 1774, which

shows a domestic scene with three bulb vases of churn
form on the mantelpiece, all with flowering bulbs in

them. The Bordeaux Museum also has a print with
bulb vases on the mantelpiece (Plate 4).

The earliest documentary reference known in

England is for the 6th November 1770 when Michael

PLATE 4

Detail from a print entitled “Louis XVIII offrant des violettes a plusieures dames”, dated llth January 1816.

Musee des Beaux Arts, Bordeaux.

BULB, ROOT OR HYACINTH VASES

•
4’6

PLATE 5

Cut Georgian hyacinth vase illustrated in
Irish Glass
by

Dudley Westropp.

Edkins, the Bristol based enameller and gilder, re-

corded in his ledgens

To: 12 Hyacinth glasses, blue gilded

2s. Od.

Edkins is known to have decorated clear, white and

`Bristol’ blue glass, but none of these hyacinth vases

are known to have survived.
The Victoria and Albert Museum in London

possesses two oil paintings of flower arrangements

executed by John Constable (1776-1837) in 1814, and

in both pictures a coloured hyacinth vase has been
used a the holder. The museum used to sell postcards

of these. One is illustrated in
Hyazinthenglaser

Joachim Henley
Cut glass hyacinth vases in the Irish style are known

(Plate 5). In 1920 Dudley Westropp,’° former curator
of the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin, made

a list of random items of Waterford glass taken from

old account books. Included for 1816 is:

6 flower root glasses

3s. 4d.

It is interesting to note that these cut clear glasses were

67% more expensive than Edkin’s coloured and gilded

examples. Cut glass has always been a luxury.

My attention has been drawn to several American

sources.” James Gilliland, the famous American glass-

maker, advertised in the
New York Mercury
on the 11th

October 1762 ‘tulip and flower glasses of the neatest
patterns’. And on the 4th April 1763 he advertised

`flower root glasses’. Triplett and Neale, merchants

of Alexandria, on the 18th April 1817 advertised in

the
Alexandria Herald
that they were importing from

Dublin ‘cut and plain

Flower root glasses’.
I have drawn extensively on Joachim Henle for

documented examples from mainland Europe dating
from the 18th and 19th centuries.” In 1731, the same
year as Treiwald and Miller published in
Transactions,

Der Neu
–
antommende Hollandische Gartner
was pub-

lished in Nurnberg by Job. Georg Lochner. This also

illustrates a hyacinth growing in water. In 1762, the

second edition of a book written by George Voorhelm
(1711-1787),
Traite sur la Jacinte,
was published in

Harlem by C.H. Bohn. This illustrated (folio 139) a
hyacinth in a glass root vase (Plate 6) and a hyacinth in

a ceramic delftware decorated vase. In 1753 a German
translation was published in Nurnberg. This work is

well known and has been quoted by Ferguson and also
in the Bloembollenglazen Club newsletter.”

Henle illustrates the Constable painting mentioned

above and also a charming painting by Maier Philippe

Rousseau (1816-1887) of an off-white hyacinth in a
pedestal bulb vase next to some crocus in a terra-cotta

pot.’
4
In the 18th century the Nostanger factory in

Norway produced churn-shaped vases which are

illustrated in their catalogue, published in Copenhagen

in 1763.

In his book Henle illustrates 19th century hyacinth

vases from Bohemia, with typical gilt and impasto

enamel decoration, as well as examples from Daum

in Nancy, France, Germany (naturally), Saint Louis

in Alsace, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and

Switzerland. Particularly interesting is a catalogue

published by the Fenne Glashate Raaspiller & Co.

GmbH Nachfolger in 1909-10, which illustrates fifteen

PLATE
6

Hyacinth vase from
Traile sur la Jacinte
by George Voorhelm,

Harlem 1762.

BULB, ROOT OR HYACINTH VASES

the catalogue of a forced sale of some of their stock

in 1881 listed as lot 853 ‘Cruet stand, with six cut
bottles, twelve hyacinth glasses, and twelve puce hock

glasses’. ‘
8

A 19th century method of decorating hyacinth

vases, which has never been seen by the author, is
De-

calcomania
or

Potichomanie. The Art Journal
of 1855,

on pages 39-40 in an article on ‘fancy work’, devoted

several paragraphs to the subject:

BLOEMBOLLEN

voor kamer en thin
Verzamelingen van Hyacinten, Tulpen.

Crocus, „nz. not verpakt d
[2.50, 15.
—
r

f7.
—

, 19.
—

,
[10.

—
,
ft2–, [144

–
1

of
f
16.–.

(910) I

Beschrijvende en geillustreerde Prijs-

couranten
van Sloembollen
ziju

op
aan
–
:

vrag, kostoluos ver1s7ijgbnar.

GROENEWEGEN
& Co.

BLOEMISTEN

PLATE 7

Advert by Groenewegen & Co showing the type of vase patented

by the Schleswig-Holstein/Fiensburger Glasfabrik.

vases in three shapes:
Bauchige

(bulbous),
Konische

(conical), and
Urne
(urn shape) in hand-engraved, gilt,

enamelled or optic glass.

Henle also details three German patents. The first

is an extraordinary concept of having one bulb grow-

ing upwards together with one underneath growing

down in the water, and was taken out by the Schleswig-
Holstein/Flensburger Glasfabrik in 1875. Known as
the Antipodean, this is the holy grail of all continental
vase collectors. Plate 7 illustrates a Netherlands adver-

tisement for such a vase, and an actual example exists

in the Museum des Kreises, Pion, Germany. In 1884

the Schmidt company patented a two-piece vase in

Berlin, and an example marked
SCHMIDT PATENT

was number 124 in the Asprey exhibition. In 1890 a
similar idea was patented in Stuttgart. This patent,
or derivatives of it, had a very long life. An example
is illustrated in a Berlin catalogue of 1888,
15
and the

catalogue of Christiania Glasmagasin, Oslo, Norway,
illustrated five forms of vase including a two-piece
Schmidt patent type.
16

To return to England and the 19th century, in 1849

Apsley Pellatt, by then the Grand Old Man of British

glassmaking, published his
Curiosities of Glassmalc-

ing.
He opened the section on coloured glass with the

following paragraph:

“Dark, massive, coloured Glasses, former-
ly made in Flint Glass-houses — whether
blue, green, amethyst, or other colours,

for hyacinth, hock, and finger glasses, or

in large cylinders for cutting and flatting

into Window Glass — have been almost

superseded; the latter by Crown Glass-
makers, and the former by lighter or less

dense Flint Glass colours.”
17

Davenport is well known for its porcelain, but its

glassmaking activities are less well known. However,
“POTICHOMANIE –

Solomon’s proverb,

`there is nothing new under the sun’ and

`the thing that has been shall be again’,

holds good in the Decorative Arts as
in

other things. The new accomplishment,

now so popular, called
Potichomanie,
is but

a resuscitation and combination of some

varieties of fancy work, which was fashion-

able about 30 years ago. The earliest form
of this decoration consists in applying to
the inner surfaces of
colourless hyacinth

glasses
daubs of water-colour paint of

different colours. These daubs were suf-

fered to run one into another at the edges,

as in the process called ‘marbling’. When

dry, a coat or two of thin plaster of Paris
mixed with water was applied to the inside

of the glass. This set in a few minutes and

secured the colours from injury by water,

and also gave them body or solidity. The

glasses were then filled with water, which

had no action on the plaster of Paris, and

the flower roots were placed in them in the

usual manner. A still nearer approach to
Potichomanie
is still to be found in some

country villages, where window-blinds are
formed by gumming to the glass flowers

and birds cut out of chintz furniture or
paper-hangings, and then covering the in-

ner surface with oil paint. Five or six years

after
the vari
–

coloured hyacinth vases
had

been introduced, it became the fashion to
paint with oil-colours the outer surfaces

of large raisin-jars and others of suitable

form. When the paint was dry, birds and

flowers, cut out of chintz furniture or pa-

per, were fastened to the surface of the jars,

which were afterwards varnished. They

were used for dried rose-leaves, lavender,

and other scents. Many of these jars are

still in existence.”
“Potichomanie
is now so fashionable

that the shop windows are full of speci-

mens of the art to the exclusion of other
fancy-work, and one cannot walk along

the streets without meeting shop-boys car-
rying glass vases, and other materials for

it in their hands, so that the fact almost
verifies the name
Poticho-mania.”

er£7,

751:M?

tr./

PLATE 8

Tye’s original design registration of 1850.

said frame or support consists of a piece of
wire the lower end of which is bent into a

circular figure; the plane of the said circle
being at right angles to the straight por-
tion of the ring (d) is not quite closed but

admits of being compressed to diminish in
diameter to permit of its introduction into

the groove (a); the upright wire (b) is kept

firm a? this position (e) is a wire bent in

the form represented and standing in the

upright (e).
2
‘ The stem of the hyacinth is

introduced on the upright into the space

(f) and leaves are supported by parts (e)

& (e). The part (e) & (0 may be raised
or lowered on the upright (b) so as to be

just the height of the plant. When not in
use as a bulb glass the frame (b) may be

removed and the vessel (a) then constitutes

a flower vase. The object of my design is

supporting of the stem and the leaves of
the plant as explained. The form of the

whole is new.”

Mr. Tye was not a glassmaker but a mould-maker,

and vessels from at least two of his moulds survive.

On one the base has the moulded inscription
GP TYE

31 CHARLES ST BIRMINGHAM,
the other inscrip-

tion being
GP TYE REGISTERED NOVEMBER 4

1850
(Plate 9).

A few years ago Birmingham Museum and Art

Gallery acquired a marked G.P. Tye vase with a fac-

simile of the metalwork (Plate 10). These must have

been in production for a long time as in 1880 the firm
of Barr and Sugden, Seedsmen and Nurserymen of

Covent Garden, London, were advertising Tye’s vases

BULB, ROOT OR HYACINTH VASES

“It may, therefore, appear superfluous

to describe it, yet as some of the readers

of this journal may not have been initi-
ated into the mysteries of the Art, I shall
briefly explain the process. Figures, birds,

flowers, &c. — cut out of paper and prop-
erly arranged — are gummed on the right

side and placed on the inside of thin glass
vases. A coat of varnish is applied when the

figures are dry, then a coat of oil-paint of

a suitable colour, and lastly, another coat
of varnish. The effect, where the pattern

is well arranged, is good, and the glazed

surface of the vase with the opaque colour
within forms a good imitation of china.
Generally speaking, the taste shown in the

arrangement of the figures is by no means

good, and in some it is execrably bad; so

much so, that it is more than probable that
this fashionable occupation will exercise a
pernicious influence on the public taste. It

is a kind of patchwork in which the most

incongruous designs of all nations and
periods, Greek, Etruscan, Egyptian, Chi-

nese, Indian, and Modern European, are

jumbled together in inextricable confusion,

and with a total ignorance of artistic effect

and the rules of ornamentation.”

“The drawing is a view of my design. It
consists of a vessel (a) in which the bulb is
to be grown having the shape represented

and round the mouth of which is a groove
of the form shown at (a) in Fig. 2. The

object of this groove is to allow of the in-

sertion of the frame or support (b) which

As anyone who has tried to grow a hyacinth in a

bulb vase knows, the weight of a fully opened flower,

if large, is often enough to cause the flower to droop
or the whole bulb to tip out of the vase. Even in 1764
Philip Miller wrote about this problem for bulbs grown

in soil in his
Gardener’s Dictionary:
“When the stems

of the Flowers are advanced to their Height, before the
Flowers are expanded, you should place a short Stick

down by each Root, to which, with a Wire formed into

a Hoop, the Stem of the Flowers should be fastened,
to support them from falling; otherwise, when the Bells

are fully expanded their Weight will incline them to

the Ground.”
19

At least two British designs were registered to help

alleviate this problem. Both these designs were regis-
tered for the associated metalwork, and can be missed
by anyone trawling the patent office for glass-related

materia1.
20
On November 4th 1850, George Percy Tye,

described as Proprietor, Birmingham’, registered a
`Design for Hyacinth glass and support’ (Plate 8).

The text of the design registration (No. 2516) reads

as follows:

BULB, ROOT OR HYACINTH VASES

with supports, including a triple hyacinth bulb holder
known as Tye’s Triple (Plates 11 & 12).
22
Incidentally

in 1878 Barr and Sugden listed in their catalogue no

less than 150 types of daffodil!
Another design advertised in Barr and Sugden’s

1880 catalogue was the Princess (Plate 11). This design

was registered on 20th July 1877, number 312057, by
PLATE 9

Hyacinth vase by G.P. Tye and view of base showing moulded mark.

John P Smith.

Stevens & Williams of Brierley Hill,
23

and their pattern

book notes that these vases were produced in Flint,

Blue, Amber, Green, Puce, another (illegible) colour

and Ruby, with the Ruby, made from gold, costing
nearly half as much again as the other colours. They

were engraved with Ferns and Palms by Edward Miller,

who also engraved the registration mark, all for a cost

PLATE 10

Tye hyacinth vase in the collection of Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, with modern facsimile of the metal support.

The left-hand vase is also by Tye.

John P Smith.

BULB, ROOT OR HYACINTH VASES

Elegant Hyacinth

The
‘Woodcuts arc aithfuf representations of

r,
bd.
per dozen.
Glasses.

New Designs, Colours, and Decorations.

These
beautiful Floral Vases. It is recommended that Supports
are

ordered with the
Un.55d5,

11 doe
price of the Princess and Tyc’s Triples, Supports ore included.

TEE
QUEEN.

rerrii.Licr.c.arco
volUME.

In Jet, La 6.1 each
In
Hush fa. cd, eaolL

it Rohe do 130.117, la ad.
etch.

101T1[ PLOWER! AND
TRACCIEV.

1,010 :a Grny,

Od.

Ill
4aCh

Hoge d0 IOM, la. Ed_
THE PRINCE.

WITH FlJnIAL

In jet-, as 03. each.
I n onalae, at. Gd. itch.

In Gown,

tooth.

Sorry, e5VIL

/n Isabella Gler,1a.6,1.041h

‘`,:.1
1
111’4=,t,17.7’1,17
THE PRINCESS.

tlnaludinc Sun./I I

TRAWsnAn car.
ORAL’.

TIFIILLT RS011AcEn.

In Amber, te.’GJ. each_

15 Mae, :KM. !Mb.
In Pose. an. Cot. caul,

in AVIiltc, Fa. Cal. bath.

nubs,
ea.

each.
TYE

‘

S 14
.
0.

WW1
.
, AllTaAst au FnICRC.

in
Jut. .
a. c.o..

In Tornuolm, A.. cid. cach.

In Huta du urry.f., OA. antic,

WITH FLORAL RFRARATI300.

In noes Colour, II. each.
..1m.,91.034
–
.11.

In R.

cooh-

Houl du IlarcF,
n
IA•C
A
.L

1,71, Ar anLL 07.:11 COLD.

TO Done COleux. 10. eAch

In J et, Ja. each.
In I’ LI Nadu, Ia, each.
larlatalt.,

91. -oncli.

Many
d,1501
Hodanc,

1..
CUL

Tar 5d. each.

rInln Colour.%

p3
–
icon,

la each
TYE’S TRIFLE,

Including Support.

IFITH /FLORAL O8C01AT1011.

In Ora, !Oa Od. each.

In Hose, Ws. SR coal.

In mac.
wILhoul.

DerelualIon.

rui.
anon.

In /11de. without Descridlon,

In
.

Orn..5. without
Dec
Oration,
RYE’S 111INTAT1TRE.

tr.
IF.Ala cOlan

,
n5,

pl. par dem!, W. each.

hol
e
ttlaX…A.
1.1

..hata:

each.

In ToscuuSee, la 00 ouch.

PLATE 11

Hyacinth vases from a catalogue by Barr & Sugden, Covent Garden c.1880.

Reproduced from Hyazinihenglaser by Joachim Henle.

of 2
1
/4 (old) pence, about one new penny. This also had

a metal contraption similar to the G.P. Tye design to

support the flower.
In the second half of the 19th century John Ford’s

Holyrood Glassworks in Edinburgh was the largest

glasshouse in Scotland. The Museum of Edinburgh

has in its collection a Ford catalogue from the late 19th

PLATE 12

Tye’s Triple hyacinth vase.

Ken Cannel! Collection.
century, which lists eight different forms. These were

available in assorted colours, in flint or plain glass,

some being engraved.
24

Silber and Fleming was a London based firm of

wholesalers and importers. One of their catalogues

has been published in facsimile.
25
Dating from c.1880

this illustrates three vases: number 5645, an inverted
baluster vase decorated all over in trailing in purple,

green, blue and citron, number 5646, a churn-shaped
vase in puce, amber, blue, green and flint (clear), and
number 5647, a squat vase in puce, amber, blue, green

and flint. John Wheeler of Fulham registered ‘an or-
namental design for the shape or configuration of an

article of glass’, i.e. a bulb vase, at the Patent Office

in Chancery Lane on 9th November 1883.
As well as the items of American interest noted ear-

lier, a search of the index to the Rakow Library at the
Corning Museum of Glass produced several references

including one to a catalogue of articles for nursery and

seedsmen by C.F.A. Hinrichs of New York dated 1879
(Plate 13). The company was described as ‘Importers

and dealers in foreign glassware, French china, fancy
goods, toys

proprietor of Kleeman’s Patent SST.

Germain Lamp, and sole agent for the glass factories

of the Compagnie Anonyme, of Namur, Belgium’. As
the illustration shows, they imported several different

forms from both Belgium and Bohemia. The Co-op-

erative Flint Glass Co., Beaver Falls, PA, produced a

28-page catalogue in 1909 featuring a wide range of
glass objects including hyacinth vases in three forms,

apparently in clear glass, which they wholesaled at 61/2

BULB, ROOT OR HYACINTH VASES

Sr
,
1;:
I .7′ F7.1

n
113 117:11-4. r/-4:0.

grar THIS LIST CANCELS ALL PREVIOUS ONES.
alt

CATA LOGU E OF ARTICLES
— FO —

C. F. A. I-TIN
–

MCI-IS,

29, 31 & 33 Park Place,
N. Y.

Trir ACINTE1 OH

NO. 1. VASE, SHAPE BELGIAN.
In cases of 200 pieces, viz., 50 pieces each,

Clear Glass, Blue, Purple and Green, per dozen

by the case

$1 25

Repacked, per dozen

NO. 2. AMERICAN SHAPE BELGIAN.
In cases of 200 pieces, viz., 50 pieces each,

Clear Glass, Blue, Green and Purple, per

dozen by the case

Repacked, per dozen

50
5

AMERICAN SHAPE BOHEMIAN.
Chocolate, Celadun, Green, Black, Blue,

Rose, Ruby and Amber, $4 00 and $4.50 per dozen, accord-

ing to decoration.
–

?TA ”
A

Tv I A
–
10
,.
.72,71.

BOHEMIAN.

BELGIAN, in cases of 200 pieces, viz., 67

Blue, 66 Green, and 66 Purple, or 50 each,

Clear Glass, Blue, Green and Purple, per dozen

by the case

$0 90

san:is repacked, per dozen

1 16

BOHEMIAN.

NO. 5. NEW SHAPE, C. F. A. H.
BELGIAN.

In cases of 16i dozen, assorted, Blue, Green,

Purple and Crystal, by the case per doz., $0 90
Repacked, per dozen

1 15

SMALL BOHEMIAN, NO. 9.
Shape like No. 3, but not so tall.

Clear Glass, per duz

$1 00

Blue ”

” .„

1 15

Green ”

”

1 15

Purple ”

”

1 15

Clear Glass, with Rose

Band, per dozen

1 50

NO. 0. 6
I
J
1
5 BOHEMIAN, LARGE.

Green, Plain, per dozen

$3
80

Blue,

”

3 50

Ruby, ”
3 75

Ruby, Engraved, ”
. . ….. 4 50

Bine, Etttuelled, ”
4 50

Green,

”

4 50

Ruby, Gold Decorated, per dozen

4 50

Blue,

”

……

4 50

Green, ”
4 50
13 Ur I-.Y3

NO. 7. 5 1 1
4
BOHEMIAN, SMALL.

Same Shape as No. 6.

Blue, per dozen

Green, ”
3

Ruby, ”
3

Blue, Enamelled Flow-

era, per dozen

Green, Enamelled Flow-

ers, per dozen

Ruby, Engraved Pow-

ers, per dozen…

AMPELON9 OR HANGING FLOWER
BASKETS.

Each with Pot inside,. of Lava or Terra-Cotta Stone.

have over forty different

– .

‘ion; u

..•

inches wide, at $1 to $10 per
pair—prices without cord or

wire—such as Light and Dark
Brown, Natural, Chocolate, Red,

Yellow, Violet, Cream, Black,

Green and Bronzed, all of vent-

ours Patterns, Designs and Decorations.

AMPLE CORDS, WIRES, ETC.

Cotton

$3 00 per dozen.

Chains
8 00

Chains in boreal No. 39. No. 18. No. 16. No. 15.
of 12 yards… f

$1 00

$1 12

61 50

$1 75

AQUARIA AND FISH GLOBES.

Lava Stands, being Lava Figures and Groups, supporting

Fish Globes, kgcc. The Fish Globes,
&c.,
range in size from 5

to 10 inches, the stand complete from 10 to 30 inches. They

are decorated with great taste similar to ampler, and repre-

sent a number of pleasing subjects, such as Leda and Swan,

Castle, Cottage, Triton on Sea Horse, Pedestals of Coral,
Peasant Lad and Girl, Dancing Nymph and Cupids, Birds-
nest, Shepherd and Shepherdess, Graces, Satyr, Cupids in

Peace and at War, Angling and Net Fishing, Dolphins,

Marquis, Hunter, Cherubim, Elephant, &c., $1 60 to 30 00

each.
Some in Bohemian Glass, richly Cut, Colored
and

Gilt.,

with Medallions, up to $75 00 each.

4 inches.
$2 00

S inches.
$3 50
FISH GLOBES.

HANGING.

5 inches.

6 inches.

$2 25

$2 50

9 ine
.
hes,

10 inches,

$5 00

$7 50
7 inches.

$3 00

11 inches.
$9 00 per dozen.

ON
Foot.

1 qt.

gal.

1 gal.

gal. 2 gal. 3 gal. 4 gal.

56 00 $8 00 $10 0
–
1 $12 00 $14 00 $18 00 $27 00 doz.

ON SILVER FOOT.

$10 00 $12 00 $16 00 $21 00 $26 00 $31 50 per doz.

Blue Enamelled Band

50 per dozen.

Green ”

”
50 ”

Ruby Gold Decoration

3 50

Blue

”

3 50

Green ”

3 50

Ruby, plain.

Amber, plain. Ruhy, eng.

Amber, eng.

$3
26.

$3
00.

$4 00

$4 00 doz.

Ruby Glass, per doz

$1 75

Amber ”

”

1 75

Ruby Engraved Vine

Leaf, per dozen

2 50

Amber Engraved Vine
Leaf, per dozen

2 50
00 Ruby, Gilt Decoration,

per dozen

$3 50

25 Green, Gilt Decoration,

per dozen

3 50

Blue, Gilt Decoration,

per dozen

3 50

The

PLATE 13

Hyacinth or bulb glasses from catalogue by C.F.A. Hinrichs, New York, September 1879,

Rakow Library, Corning Museum of Glass.

BULB, ROOT OR HYACINTH VASES

or 7 dozen lots in a barrel. A catalogue of GilHinder

and Sons, Philadelphia, PA, c.1919,
26
lists vases of

both churn and squat form in blue, green, crystal and

amber, either imported or of their own manufacture.

In 1920 the Dutchman S. Bleeker wrote
Geillust-

reerd handboek over Bloemistery,
which illustrated a

Schmidt’s patent type vase, a de-luxe arrangement of
three vases on a delftware (?) stand with wire supports

for the flowers, a single vase with wire support similar
to the G.P. Tye and Stevens & Williams registered de-

signs, and also one of the elusive Antipodean double

vases.
The production of bulb vases continued through-

out the 20th century in Europe and continues to the
present day, but this is outside the scope of the present

article.

John P Smith
August 2004

John Smith is head of the Glass Department at Mallets

& Son (Antiques) Ltd , London, and is also Chairman

of the Glass Circle.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Various authors have already published on the
subject of hyacinths and hyacinth vases and I have

drawn freely and with gratitude on their work.
I
am

particularly indebted to the following: Joachim Henle

whose well illustrated book
Hyazinthengleiser
27
brings

us right up to the 21st century; Anna Pavord, whose

book
The Tulip
28
informs us comprehensively about

this bulb and also contains much history about the

hyacinth; and Patricia Ferguson,
29
who has not only

written about the growing of hyacinths from a mainly

ceramic background but who also referred me to the
earliest documented references in English to growing

bulbs in water. The newsletters of the Bloembol-

lenglazen Club
3
° have also been a continuing source

of information.

ENDNOTES
1.
Hyacinths, Vases and Prints,
Asprey, New Bond Street, London, 8th-24th

December 1989. Written by but not attributed to John P Smith.

2.
Ferguson, Patricia

F, Wedgwood and Bentley’s Bulbous Root Pots: Refining

and Reviving an Eighteenth-Century Floral Fashion,
in Keith A. Mcleod

(Ed.),
Wedgwood, Art, Design and Production,
Selected

Papers from the

Proceedings of
the

Wedgwood
International
Seminars, Nos.43, 44, 45,

Toronto 2002,
pp.55-70, p.56.

3.
Blacker, Mary Rose,
Flora Domestics: a History of Flower Arranging

1500-1930,
London 2000, p.59.

4.
I am grateful
to Howard Coutts, Curator of the Bowes Museum, for

bringing this to my attention.

5.
I am grateful to Jo Marshall, formerly of Phillips, for bringing this to my

attention.

6.
Museum inventory number CR88.

7.
Private correspondence to the author, dated 18th June 1992, from

Renee Loche, Conservateur des Peintures Anciennes, Music d’Art et

d’Histoire, Geneva, and author of a monograph on Liotard.

8.
W.A. Thorpe,

A History of English and Irish Glass,

London 1920,

p.223.

9.
Henle, Joachim,

Hyazinthengliiser, Geschichte and Tradition,

Munich

2000, ISBN 1 58234 013 7.

10.
Dudley Westropp,
Irish Glass,
London 1920, p.87.

11.
I am indebted to Arlene Palmer Schwind for drawing my attention to

this in private correspondence dated 12th January 1990.
12.

Henle,
op. cit.

13.
The Bloembollenglazen Club, formed in 1998, is a Dutch club for col-

lectors of hyacinth and other flower bulb forcing
vases.

14.
Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam,

inv. no.2257.

15.
Preis-Liste Crystall-Glas-Fabrik v. Ferd. V.

Poschinger Buchenau’ !Catalog

der
Glasproduktion aus
dem Jahr 1888, reprinted by Morsak Verlag

Grafenau 1987.

16.
Teigninger til priskkurant A, April 1929 (Rakow Library, Corning Mu-

seum of Glass).

17.
Apsley Pellatt,
Curiosities of Glass Making,

London 1849, p.73.

18.
Lockett, Terence A. and Godden, Geoffrey A.,
Davenport – China,

Earthenware and Glass 1794-1887,
Barrie and Jenkins 1989, p.290.

19.
Ferguson, Patricia F.,
op. cit.

20.
Jenny Thompson discusses this problem in

The Glass Cone,

No.
62,

Winter 2002.

21.
The writing is impossible to decipher at this point,

22.
Henle,
op. cit.,

p.79.

23, As noted by Dilwyn Hier,
The Glass Cone,
No. 63, Spring 2003.

24.
I am grateful to Jill Turnbull for bringing this to my attention.

25.
The Silber & Fleming Glass and China Book,

Wordsworth Editions, Ware,

Hertfordshire, England 1990.

26.
Library Call Number TP8868 G48c 1919.

27.
See endnote 9.

28.
Pavord, Anna,

The Tulip – the story of a flower that has made men mad,

Bloomsbury Publishing 1999.

29.
Ferguson, Patricia E,

The eighteenth century mania for hyacinths,

Antiques Magazine, USA, pp.844-851.

30.
See endnote 13.

.k4

IRIS

LUX’

–.
“11
1
W4

sole

ZiEll IWO

47
41

–

4r,
to

ugh%

11
14.1151
05
,

_414TE-LaInIg
NE

111111

ssssss cot

sss
a

F
ri

2•
44
x ..T.

The Wyllie Family of London –

Glass Cutters and Wholesalers 1792-1856
Alex Werner

In 1856 the business records of Thomas Wyllie were

exhibited in the Chancery Case Wyllie v Green) They
record the dealings of two generations of London glass

cutters and wholesale glass dealers. The ledgers and
papers were deposited by the defendant George Joseph

Green of the Stoner Glassworks, Birmingham. In 1854

Thomas Wyllie was declared a bankrupt. His creditors,
one of them being Green, took over the business, and,
to settle his outstanding debts, agreed to a payment

of ten shillings in the pound. However, the sister of
Thomas Wyllie, Emma Wyllie, a spinster of Eltham,

who was owed £158 12s 1 d by her brother, refused
these terms. She stated that the outstanding sum was
not what she or her solicitor called a ‘trade debt’.
2

The

papers were deposited at the Court of Chancery and

were never reclaimed after the case had been heard.
This archive is of major importance for glass his-

torians in that it reveals the business of a London

wholesale glass dealer and cutter from the late 18th
century right through to the mid 1850s. It is a large

and comprehensive archive filling fourteen large boxes.

The account books and work books throw light upon
the supply of glass to customers in the metropolitan

area and further afield to counties in the South-East.
Moreover, the information found in the archive is not

limited just to the London area. It has a wider rel-

evance as it shows how glass was ordered from many

different manufacturers in England and Scotland,
and on a few rare occasions from Ireland and Ger-
many. Patterns of supply can be studied, revealing the

emergence of new glassmaking centres during the first
half of the 19th century. At times the records are so

complete that it is possible to chart the emergence of
new shapes and styles, reflecting the fashions of the pe-
riod. Although no pattern books survive in the archive,

further research may enable the firm’s detailed orders

to be studied alongside surviving glasshouse designs,
records and price-lists. Only a very small proportion

of British glass made during the first half of the 19th
century can be linked to particular retailers, cutters
PLATE 1

This detail from Horwood’s Map of London, 1792, shows

the area to the east of Bishopsgate Street. The dotted red line
identifies Smock Alley where John Wyllie had his business.

Museum of London.

or manufacturers. Retailers dictated to a large extent,
through their orders, what the glasshouses supplied.

Standard types of wine glasses, goblets and decanters

were produced by all the leading manufacturers. How-

ever, regional variations in pattern, shape and cutting
may exist. The archive covers the period when steam
power extended the possibilities of glass cutting and

when press-moulded glass began to imitate cut glass.
In 1792 John Wyllie, the father of Thomas, set up a

glass cutting workshop at No.7 Smock Alley, Widegate

Street. This area, situated to the east of Bishopsgate,
one of the main northern thoroughfares leading out

of the City, and to the west of Spitalfields, London’s

silk weaving quarter, consisted of narrow lanes and
alleys with small shops, workshops and warehouses

(Plate 1). There were other glass businesses nearby

such as Philip Jacob & Son’s cutting manufactory
located at 14 Artillery Passage just a few doors down

from Wyllie’s premises. Information about John Wyl-

lie’s Scottish background has come to light through

THE WYLLIE FAMILY OF LONDON

PLATE
2

This engraving by E. Soulby of a glass cutting workshop appears on Lawrence Dorgan’s trade card. There were cutting workshops in

London that employed steam power. However, most small workshops would have continued to use hand and foot power
during the first half of the 19th century.

Heal Collection of trade cards, British Museum, London.

family history research.’ He was christened on the 7th
April 1766, the fourth child and first son of Andrew

Wylie and Jean Greig. His father was a `tacksman’ or

tenant farmer at Stracathro in the County of Angus,

Scotland. How John Wylie came to open a glass re-

tailing business in London remains a mystery. Wyllie’s

accounts do show dealings with Robert Greig, a china

and glass merchant, who may have been related to his
mother. Furthermore, there was a successful merchant

in London called Thomas Wyllie, possibly a relation,
who had been made an honorary burgess of the town
of Brechin in 1774. It is conceivable that John Wyllie

worked for him before setting up his own business. He
named his second son, Thomas, possibly as a mark of

appreciation.
The market for glass was expanding in the metropo-

lis as the wealth and size of its population increased.
The London directories of the 1790s refer to Wyllie’s

`cut-glass manufactory’, suggesting that he ran a small

cutting workshop. The term ‘manufactory’ is used

quite widely at this period and does not necessarily
mean a large undertaking, though it usually implies

some form of making, assembly or decorating. In
other words, Wyllie was more than just a wholesaler or

warehouse owner. His workshop was probably located

at the back or at the top of his narrow terraced house.

He employed perhaps three or more glass cutters, who

worked hand or foot-powered glass cutting machines.
The trade card of Lawrence Dorgan of 137 Aldersgate
Street illustrates such a ‘manufactory’ (Plate 2). John
Wyllie appears to have been a respected figure in the

local community as in 1799 he was nominated as an

overseer of the poor in the parish. His local church

was Christ Church Spitalfields where all his children
were baptised.

The first entry in Wyllie’s earliest surviving account

book is to Abiathar Hawkes of Dudley. It records a

balance due of £68 lOs 8d on November 30th 1792.

No information is given about the type of glass that

Hawkes had supplied, although 9s 8d was taken off
the balance for ‘goods flown’, meaning a small amount

of glass had cracked due to not being annealed cor-
rectly. Wyllie obtained a discount of 20%, probably

the standard rate between glassmaker and wholesaler

at this period. A further 2% was allowed for break-

ages. Carriage was paid by the wholesaler and then
refunded when the final bill was settled. In the follow-

ing year Wyllie ordered a total of 185 hundredweight

of glass from Hawkes costing £814 lId, with a carriage

charge of 5s 6d a hundredweight. The transportation

of the glass to London represented about 7.5% of
the total bill before deductions and nearly 10% after

the discount allowances. There was a further ready

money discount of 5%. Most of the payment for this

first entry in the ledger was made in cutlet or broken

glass. Glass cutting produced considerable quantities
of cullet. This waste product had a monetary value of

18s 8d a hundredweight in the 1790s. Glass manufac-

turers added it to the batch to aid melting. The four

late 18th century Whitefriars trading ledgers in the

THE WYLLIE FAMILY OF LONDON

Museum of London’s archive reveal a similar practice

whereby customers returned cullet to the glasshouse. It

was weighed and its value credited to their accounts.
4

In 1793 the cullet that Wyllie sold to Hawkes came

to just over a fifth of the total payment due. Later

entries show just the occasional consignment of cul-

let noted on the credit side of the accounts. London

glasshouses were the more obvious buyers for cullet,

and transport to Dudley would have been expensive.

Perhaps, the carrier that had transported Hawkes’s

first orders of glass returned with Wyllie’s casks and

hogsheads of cullet.
The earliest account ledger records just the value

of ‘goods’ bought and sold, with only the occasional

suggestion of what the ‘goods’ might have been. In

1806 Wyllie returned 106 cruets at is 6d a pound

(weight) and 45 decanters at is 10d a pound to Rooker

& Jackson of Darlaston near Walsall. Glass was sold

by weight more often than by the piece or the dozen.

Occasionally, on the debit side, goods were listed as

missing or sent back as they had been received in er-

ror, such as ’64 Ringd decanters and 55 plain pint

Prussian decanters’ returned to Abiathar Hawkes in

1797. Glass was also sent back if not up to standard.

An example of this was in 1805 when £9 worth of glass

from T & G Hawkes was described as ‘being melted

and sulphered’.
John Wyllie bought from many different glassmak-

ers, but only very occasionally from one of London’s
glasshouses. No reason for this is given in the archive.

The Whitefriars glasshouse, off Fleet Street, and the

Falcon glasshouse, on the south of the river Thames

close to Blackfriars Bridge, as well as others in South-

wark and Ratcliff, did make the standard table glass

that Wyllie needed for his business. Cost may have

been a factor in his choice of suppliers outside of

the capital. Despite evidence of national price agree-

ments, discounts offered by provincial glassmakers

were likely to have been more generous than those of

the metropolitan glasshouses. Regular deliveries of

glass from a number of different regional manufac-
turers kept Wyllie well supplied, precluding the need

for a reliable local supplier. By the beginning of the

19th century, it was clear that London depended on

large consignments of glass made in other centres, as
the metropolitan glasshouses were unable to meet the

demand. However, there is no evidence of any trade

restrictions or cartels existing that limited the sale in

London of glass made at regional centres.

Between 1792 and 1808 Wyllie bought all his glass

from the Midlands. In the glassmaking centre of

Dudley his suppliers included Abiathar Hawkes and
then later Thomas & George Hawkes of the Dudley
Flint Glass Works and William Penn of the Phoenix

Glass Works. From Stourbridge Wyllie ordered glass

from Coltman & Grafton, Wheeley & Littlewood and

Honeybourne and Batson.’ The archive shows how

from the early 1800s Birmingham began to rival the

Dudley and Stourbridge area as a glassmaking centre.
No doubt other London glass wholesalers started to

buy glass from this town at around the same period.

In the 18th century most of the glass needed by the

Birmingham toy and small metal ware manufacturers

would have come from the Dudley and Stourbridge

glasshouses. As Birmingham developed into a very
important manufacturing centre, and with more and
more workshops and manufactories using glass, it was

not surprising that a local glass industry developed.

The fashion for cut glass was another contributing

factor. Cutting workshops were set up using steam-

engines, made by the local firm of Boulton & Watts, to

power the cutting and polishing wheels. In 1800 Wyllie

bought glass from Jones Smart & Company, in 1803

from Hughes and Harris, in 1804 from Shakespear &

Company and from Rooker & Jackson from nearby

Walsall, in 1806 from Brueton Gibbins and in 1807
from Haywood & Hodgson and George Madeley.
Much of the glass ordered by Wyllie from Birming-

ham seems to have been similar to that supplied by

the Stourbridge and Dudley glasshouses, such as de-

canters, wine glasses and goblets. There was a slightly
higher percentage of salts and cruets. Sometimes the

word ‘neat’ was used against orders from the Bir-

mingham glasshouses noted after the unenlightening

words ‘by goods’, which was the standard wording for

each order. Whether this had a different meaning to
the word ‘plain’, which was also used, is unclear. The

word ‘neat’ could mean that the base of items such

as goblets and decanters had been polished down.
Sometimes the abbreviation ‘gr.’ was used which may

stand for ‘ground down’.

The inland navigation system of canals and rivers

would have made Birmingham just as well placed as

Stourbridge and Dudley to supply ports such as Bristol

and Liverpool and from there the expanding markets
of North America and the West Indies. Up until 1802

most of Wyllie’s purchases from the Midlands would

have been transported to London via a combination

of canal, river and roads. The trade directories list car-

riers that departed nearly every day from both centres.
Unfortunately, in the archive, virtually no details are

given about the carriage of glass on the canals. The
information recorded for the Staffordshire pottery and

porcelain ordered by Wyllie is more complete with car-

riers’ names often given.’ The routes from Stourbridge,

Dudley and Birmingham were well established, though

slow and hazardous. The Oxford Canal had opened

in 1790, giving London a partial connection with the

canal system of the Midlands and the North. The

final leg, from Oxford to London down the Thames,
remained an unreliable navigation. The transport link

improved greatly with the opening of the Grand Junc-
tion Canal in 1801, though the Blisworth Tunnel was
not finished until 1805. This canal joined the Thames

at Brentford, with the main London terminus at the
Paddington Basin. Here goods were unloaded onto

wagons for the short journey into the centre of Lon-

don. It was not until 1820 when the Regent’s Canal

stjjr~l ,s

–

/5
‘6

4’4/

THE WYLLIE FAMILY OF LONDON

PLATE
3

An example of an order to the Northumberland Glass Company dated 14th September 1811. The order includes ‘Gloster’ and ‘Lisbon’

wines. On the right-hand side of the page, a number of items are described as ‘short’ or ‘broke’.

National Archives .1901935.

opened that a more central depot was established at
the City Basin. This was very well placed for Wyllie’s
business, no more than a mile away from his Spital-

fields warehouse.
In 1807 and 1808 Wyllie ordered glass from Isaac

Jacobs of Bristol. In the account ledger it was recorded

that £147 7s worth of goods was supplied as well £3
of ‘goods neat’. It seems likely that the main order re-

ferred to general undecorated glass and that the ‘goods
neat’ included cut and gilt items. This is born out in the

following year when Wyllie ordered a further £152 2s

2d worth of glass from Jacobs with £4 2s 6d for ‘cutting

and gilding’. After this no further glass was ordered
from Jacobs or, for that matter, from Bristol.

From 1809 more detailed information about Wyl-

lie’s glass orders is found in the archive. Two invoice
books dating from 1809-1818 and 1818-1829 contain

descriptive entries of orders to 43 Staffordshire pot-
A’.

17
‘5

6 Ae,

/4-
-e5”
•

4-AI-
–

e
p

tery and china firms and 23 glass manufacturers. Glass
orders were allocated a running number, probably to

aid the identification of the particular barrel or pack-
ing case containing the glass.
In the early 19th century another part of the country,

the North-East, takes over from the Birmingham and

Stourbridge area as Wyllie’s main supplier of glass. In

1803 he had bought about £50 worth of glass from

R. J. Shortridge & Co. of Newcastle-on-Tyne. However,

in 1809, Wyllie began to order from the Northumber-
land Glass Company, a glass works situated at Lem-

ington to the west of Newcastle-on-Tyne. Soon, this

firm became his principal supplier, with shipments of
glass arriving in the Port of London on a regular basis.
In September 1809 he ordered £157 worth of glass, in

October £198 of glass, and in December two orders, one
of £167 and another of £492. The following year, the

orders become more frequent and larger, the quantity

0.11wN-

ingq,N1
,
:.
J111,FEK

,•119911
11
l`

111k
.

H’.
Mit •

rTir
•

THE WYLLIE FAMILY OF LONDON

exceeding anything he had acquired previously from
any single glass manufacturer. For the next five years

the company supplied him with an average of about

£1500 of glass per annum.

It is possible to compare the prices and the de-

scription of the glass Wyllie ordered with a surviving

price-list of the Northumberland Glass Company dat-

ing from around this period.’ The price-list reveals that

the standard price for a pound of plain flint glass was
I s
4d
with an extra 2d for strong flint glass for cutting.

The price paid by Wyllie was slightly higher suggesting
that the price-list dates from around 1805. To gauge the

quantity of glass that Wyllie was ordering, it is worth
examining just one of his orders from this company.

In August 1810, in a total order of £273 of glass, Wyl-

lie was supplied with over 22 dozen ‘confectioners’

of different sizes, 35 dozen salts and mustards, 350
decanters and 530 dozen goblets and wines of various

sizes and patterns. This order was packed into twelve

hogsheads or large barrels.
Between
1810
and 1820 other glass companies from

the North-East started supplying Wyllie, though none

as important as the Northumberland Glass Company.

These included the Gateshead Glass Co. (1811), Turn-

bull & Company, also called the North Shields Glass
Company (1815), Atkinson & Wailes (1815), Lowry

& Sowerby
(1817)
and White, Young and Tuer (1817)

of the Wear Glass Works, Sunderland (this company

made the famous 200 piece cut Londonderry service).

Often the ships carrying the glass were identified such
as the
Olive,
the
Charlotte,
the
Britannia
and the
Boun-

tiful,
along with the captain’s name. Once, tragically,

a ship was lost and a whole consignment of glass had

to be re-ordered. Another time there was a collision

with another ship’s bowsprit resulting in damage to

some of the glass. The glass seems to have been packed
into casks or tierces, probably the standard form of
packaging for transporting flint glass at this period.

The packing cases illustrated in prints later in the cen-
tury, especially those found in Thomas Shotter Boys

lithographs of London street scenes, may have been
more appropriate for the
age

of steam-powered ships

and the railways.
Wyllie ordered a wide range of different types of

wines, goblets and decanters. In the invoice books

the quality of the glass is described by words such as
`tale’, ‘best’, ‘flint’, ‘strong’, ’13 formed’. Some of these

terms relate to the weight and thickness of the glass

while others refer to the quality of the glass. ‘Tale’

is commonly employed suggesting less than perfect

glasses probably with ‘seed’, bubbles and minor im-

perfections. Fashion dictated a range of changing bowl

shapes and proportions to wine glasses and goblets.
Terms such as ‘Gloster’, ‘York’, ‘Wellington’, and

`Coburg’ appear frequently, named after royalty and

dukes, as do terms such as ‘Spanish’ and ‘Lisbon’,

the towns or countries from where particular styles

of wines were produced or shipped. It would seem

that royal
events

sometimes dictated the introduction
– _

33 ,SITATEN;3′.6
–
117iothaarauv..W.Arraferoifiroa
2

pLATE4

William Stevens’s trade card shows how a glass and china

wholesaler set out his wares. The warehouse’s upper floors were

used as stock rooms although the first floor room on the
left-hand side has curtains (& no stock) suggesting a

bedroom or living room.

Banks Collection of trade cards, British Museum, London.

of new glass shapes. The marriage of the Duke
of

Clarence (later William IV) to Princess Adelaide of

Saxe-Meiningen probably led
to the pattern known as

`Adelaide wines’. ‘Coburg Drams’ may possibly have
been named after Queen Adelaide’s father George,

Duke of Saxe-Coburg Meiningen.
The terms for the bowl shapes of wines and gob-

lets were sometimes descriptive such as ‘flute’, ‘pear’,
`calm’, ‘barrel’ and ‘globe’ with further illustrative
terms for various stem types including `pully buttons’,

`B
stem’ and ‘knob’. The most common term used to

describe the foot of the glass or goblet was ‘cast’. Ca-
pacity was perhaps of even greater importance to the

supplier and retailer. It is clear that some goblets had
a very large capacity, up to three pints sometimes,
but

more commonly they were
under or just over a pint.

Wines and goblets were by far the most common items

ordered by Wyllie with next in quantity being decant-

ers and tumblers. Other sorts of glass were supplied
ranging from mustards and cruets to lemonades and

`sugar basons’ and from finger cups and muffineers to

salts and vinegars.

A number of customer order and work books have

survived in the archive relating to Wyllie’s late 18th

THE WYLLIE FAMILY OF LONDON

century and early 19th century business. In London
Wyllie had a wide variety of customers; some were in-
volved directly with the china and glass trade like Tho-

mas Bettridge of Whitechapel and Samuel Richardson

of Coleman Street; others can be identified from the
London directories as being stationers, furniture mak-

ers, publicans and inn-keepers — trades that required

regular supplies of glass and pottery. A number were

not listed in any trade guides, implying perhaps that

Wyllie was selling to hawkers, small refreshment estab-
lishments and private individuals. Wyllie was not sup-

plying the top end of the London market. His glass was

destined for the homes of middle class Londoners and
the many drinking establishments in the metropolis.

Most of his customers were to be found perhaps within

a two-mile radius of his warehouse. Locations in the

ledgers are only given when customers were situated
further afield. Some were sited in riverside parishes

and hamlets to the east of the City of London. These

are likely to have been ship-chandlers and suppliers

of glass (and ceramics) to merchants and the crews

of ships involved with the coasting and export trade,

such as Luke Staples of Wapping, Mrs Elizabeth Wil-

son of Rotherhithe, William Dunn of Greenwich and
Jacob James of Woolwich. A few of Wyllie’s customers

THE 8’11/EWE-SELLER Or OROCEERT-WAI/E
84ATEitN0 FOB 00) CLOTH2S.

[Prom a
lkquerreanx LY
Muss.]

PLATE
5

The Street-Seller of Crockery-Ware, a wood engraving of 1851

made from a contemporary photograph by Beard. The old

clothes, including a hat, that have been bartered for, are shown

alongside his basket of china.
were located outside the London area. Broadly, their

businesses were in small market towns close to the

metropolis like Edward Jones of Luton, John Cox of
Leighton Buzzard, James Shorter of Maidenhead and

John Cooper of Windsor.

Wyllie’s most prestigious customer was Josiah

Spode. It is possible that Wyllie was keeping Spode’s

London Staffordshire warehouse stocked with plain,

cut and engraved glass. The first order dates from 17th

May 1793 when he sold ‘goods’ to him, and small

orders continued on a regular basis until 1797. Spode

reciprocated with ‘goods’ in exchange. We learn some-

thing of what he sold by the returns listed on the debit

side of the account book; these include ‘best wines’,
`3 gill goblets’, ‘finger cups’, ‘4 square goblets’, ‘a sett

of cruets and castors’, ‘
1
/2 pint tumblers’, ‘3 gill tum-

blers’ and ‘1 goblet engraved’. Wyllie’s involvement

with wholesale earthenware trading in London may

have developed from his initial contact with Spode.

Wyllie’s only overseas customer was John Lownds of

`Norfolk, Virginia, America’, who ordered from Wyllie

in the late 1790s. Lownds may have been introduced

to him by Spode; he reappears in a later ledger in 1801

trading from St Ives, Cornwall.
A particularly rare survival in the archive is a hawk-

ers’ book of the 1820s. This lists items sold to six or

seven regular hawkers, who would have bartered glass

and pottery in the streets and markets in London and
the suburbs. In the 1850s Henry Mayhew provided

one of the best descriptions of the ‘street-sellers of

crockery and glass-wares’ (Plate 5). Despite Wyllie’s

ledger relating to glass hawkers some twenty to thirty
years earlier, it is still worth examining the aspects of
this trade as related by Mayhew. The street-sellers car-
ried their goods in large baskets that were principally

sold close to Spitalfields market where Wyllie had his
warehouse. Furthermore, the main ‘crock swag-shops’

and glass shops were located ‘in the streets neighbour-

ing Spitalfields market’. The hawkers rarely sold their

glass wares for money. Mayhew was told by one of the
street sellers that ‘they all goes in swop’.’ The baskets

containing the stock were carried on the head through

the streets. When selling house to house or from the

street pavement, the basket was lowered and borne…

on the arm’. A hawker related that:

“We give a sugar-basin for an old coat, and
a rummer for a pair of Wellington boots.

For a glass milk-jug I should expect a

waistcoat and trowsers, and they must be

tidy ones too.”

Most of the hawkers’ stock was of second-rate

quality, the sort of glass that ‘won’t stand hot wa-

ter’. The hawkers went round the streets announcing

their wares by shouting out aloud, going into pubs

and shops to see whether anyone wanted to buy or

swap items. Four of Wyllie’s hawkers were women,

Mrs Sidney of Clifton Street, of Finsbury Square,

THE WYLLiE FAMILY OF LONDON

PLATE 6

Thomas Wyllie’s house still survives, shown here
in
this

photograph taken in October 2004. These two houses were built

around 1757 and Wyllie lived in the one on the left
(No. 58 Artillery Lane, formerly 4 Raven Row).

Mrs Simpson formally of Leadenhall Market, Mrs
Wrougham of Old Street and Mrs Simonds of Raven

Row just by Wyllie’s shop. They sold low value goods

such as sham drams, wine glasses and goblets, as well

as china plates and jugs.
From 1809 right through until 1854 the ledgers list

in detail the glass which John Wyllie, and then Ann
Wyllie and her son Thomas, and finally Thomas on his

own, ordered. John Wyllie’s business began to change

after about 1815 as pottery and porcelain orders grad-
ually decreased and he concentrated more and more

on glass retailing. He died in 1820 and the business
was continued by his wife Ann Wyllie. He had married
her in 1801 and they had had eight children, though a

number died in infancy. John Wyllie’s will specifies that

his business of a ‘glass and china warehouseman’ was

to be continued by his wife until his son Thomas, born

1803, ‘arrives at the age of twenty one years’. In 1825

the last two ceramic orders were placed with Benjamin

Godwin & Sons and New Hall. There is no obvious

reason why Ann Wyllie discontinued this trade, though

she may have been following the advice of her hus-
band to gradually wind down the Staffordshire side

of the business. Perhaps, it was no longer an economic
proposition for her and her son to retail both glass and

ceramics. They may have decided to concentrate on

what they knew best — glass cutting and wholesale glass

dealing in the London area. The firm became known

as Ann Wyllie and Son. Ann Wyllie seems to have been
a proficient tradeswoman, though the competency of

her son as a businessman is less clear. His father had

left the foundation of a well-established business with
£5000 in ready cash, investments and property, includ-

ing a dwelling house in Commercial Road. Thomas ran

the firm from 9 Artillery Street until about 1836 when

he moved to 4 Raven Row (now 58 Artillery Lane), a

fine mid 18th century house (Plate 6). The reason for
the failure of the business in 1854 is unclear, though

the development of press-moulded glass may have

been a factor.
A number of customer order and work books of

the early 1820s throw light upon the type of work that

was carried out by London glasscutters. An interest-

ing entry for the customer William Raven, dated May

18th 1824, describes the type of cutting that Wyllie

supplied (Plate 7). The work included ‘cut tumblers’,
`cut jug strawberry’, ‘cut Lisbon goblets edge flute’,

`cut salts — rings on side’ and ‘cut salts festoon’. The

`strawberry’ cutting was mentioned frequently, and

was clearly a fashionable type of cutting in which
the Wyllies specialised. In entries such as `I cut Cad-

dys lattice’ & ‘1 cut Cream jug lattice’ one discovers
references to the popular raised diamond cutting.
Quite a number of other orders mention ‘strawberry
diamond’. Sometimes the descriptions are even more

precise such as ‘I square castor 4 rows Dimaon [sic]

& spheres & rings’. An order book of the 1820s to the

cutting shop specifies the glass to be cut. An order for
cutting on tumblers — ’12 1/2 pint tumblers flute 12oz,

and 12 1/2 pint tumblers fingers 12oz’ — implies two

variations on flute cutting. ‘Fingers’ were probably
narrower and longer than ‘flutes’.
From the order books it is clear that Wyllie’s work-

shop engraved glass. For example there is an entry
for ‘2 quart tankard mugs, 2 pint tankard mugs and

2 1/2 pint tankard mugs’ to be engraved with ‘Hunts-

man with Hat a whip in hand 3 or 4 dogs Chasing the

Fox before them Cyphered WL Done Well & 2 pint

Cyphered mugs J.B. & Hop & Barley’. Engraving is

mentioned frequently suggesting there was someone
skilled enough to do this work in his workshop. Quite
a few of the orders for engraving were for local inns

such as the Blue Boar, or were to be delivered to a
certain place by a certain time such as `to be packed
in this basket, [for] Mr Hutchinson – New Turnstile
Holborn before 4 o’clock’.

Glass was bought from an increasingly wide-

ranging area. Over 100 suppliers are recorded in the

archive (see Appendix). Different glass partnerships

relating to the same glasshouse are noted in the chang-

ing company names. Scottish glasshouses were tried

out such as the AlIoa Glass Company (1828-1834),
Bailey & Company of Edinburgh (1826-1834) and
Robert Marshall, perhaps of Leith (1826). Glass

firms in the North-East and the Midlands continued
to remain very important suppliers, with usually one

or two firms supplying the bulk of Wyllie’s annual
requirement.

THE WYLLIE FAMILY OF LONDON

AY.r z

;

h
,Yke

-4 1,, /,

/
J.

47,„

•

if •

‘

7
—

–

O •

•

44 • (Y
4

— „

‘e
f
.

(
”
4-
”

,,4
7

-” „

4
4, 1-e

14—fic>2–

–

l
,

•

4,6;,,-81

•

•
7
10
—

e-1

•
7
/

PLATE 7

William Raven’s order of 18th May 1824 detailing different types of cut patterns. The most expensive items were the nine inch oval cut dishes.

National Archives J901936.

In the late 1820s and early 1830s an important

change took place in Wyllie’s business as an increas-
ing amount of glass began to be supplied ready cut.

This is in sharp contrast to the earlier history of the
business when it would appear that much of the glass

was supplied either plain or as blanks to be cut by
Wyllie’s own workforce. It was the Birmingham glass

manufacturers that first began to supply Ann Wyllie

with ready cut glass. In 1824 she ordered a range of

glass from Harris Gammon
&

Company (Plate 8) that

included ‘flint ales’, ‘flint clarets’, ‘flint liquors’, ‘jelly

glasses’, ‘handled lemonades’, ‘wine coolers’, ‘goblets’,
`decanters’ to what was termed ‘exact to cut pattern’.

Three or four years later manufacturers’ pattern
numbers start to be used more regularly in the order

books. Some of the orders identify the pattern through

a number rather than a description. Sometimes the

pattern numbers were supplemented by a brief descrip-

tion, making it possible still to visualise the type of

glass being supplied. For example, the order in 1828
for cut jugs to Shortridge Sawyer and Company, a

South Shields glass manufactory, gives not only the

quantity ordered and the pattern number but also the

capacity, the type of cutting and the cost:

6 2qt Cut Jugs Hollow Flute 9/-

1066

Flute & Split

8/-

1049

Star Diamon

10/- 1097

I
•

f
/f

‘1
1-
“,77
–

„
.e<1 -0/ _eV THE WYLLIE FAMILY OF LONDON 4 ,‘,,ed J, 4 4/-/6 /4 6a, -kJ j1 -... ),- ,, , ,, '‘ ;, ...„ - v - .. • - _, . .----____ •• f „ , - e z /- d/ _,,, ? ;41..),,_•,;,(, 2. 1 -te--6j,f, v7 . , cy/ 6:4ee, e , • Ali .1.,0 6?4e-e-a /7. 1 . j eLie.."../ i '' , 1T.'4- ____. ,,,, 44r -- . 4 / ,, , ,,,•_• .,_ .,*. ..i,- „ 3 -i '; , ,,,,„..) 9, li -4 .de-7 -4-aeee., . m .- (fr ,, -- ..(4,__ ), ,,,-. - 4 7 ., 4- vid---- 1/ - " 4 , -‘- 67-"1,.,), ; , -7*,--, . D)/ • A ,- , 0 - e 7 - - , 4 / 3 / ree—t%6 --- ' A ______ /, A,;1. - 1 ' - J -1 -- r. _ .„ PLATE 8 Harris Gammon & Co.'s order of 12th March 1824 has a number of items specified to be made to pattern. The 'confectioners and covers' of different sizes were used for displaying sweets, cakes and confectionery, no doubt displayed in many London shop windows. National Archives J901940. The latest styles were also sometimes identified in the orders, such as an order to Shakespear & Son in 1829 that stipulated the salts, wines and decanters to be cut 'new Gothic'. By the 1830s it was unusual for the glass firms not to supply some part of their orders to the Wyllies in a cut form. This was very different to ten year earlier when most items were requested to be sent ready Tor cutting' or just plain. The 1830s saw the Birmingham glasshouses providing Wyllie with bulk orders of many of the standard cut forms and patterns. Crates of 'fluted' or 'edge fluted' goblets were supplied in quantity. 47 /4. z /e".` e ' ( 7,4 Ji b:0-vo ) • THE WYLLIE FAMILY OF LONDON h- )^.' ,6 - -/ 5141$ fr z `X%;•,‘ PLATE 9 In the order of Molineaux Webb of 16th April 1846 colours such as cerulean and opal appear and pattern names such as Brunswick, Albert and Princes are used. Near the bottom of the order note the `prefsed plates'. National Archives J901936, 937. .0( , 1 The establishment of agents or representatives of regional glass manufactories in London may have begun to undermine Thomas Wyllie's business in the late 1830s and early 1840s. Some of his larger customers may have found it possible to deal directly with the manufacturer through such individuals, do- ing away with the wholesaler. Clearly, by the 1830s, it was becoming uneconomic for the Wyllies to cut certain standard types of patterns in London. The steam-powered workshops attached to Midlands, North-East and Scottish glasshouses could cut glass much more quickly; also wages were lower than in London. This undoubtedly led the Wyllies to scale down their own cutting facilities. Special orders for cut patterns needed urgently would have still been carried out in their own workshop. As a result of the competi- Live nature of the cut glass market in the 1820s and 1830s, London workshops probably began to specialise in the luxury end of the market. Nevertheless, even in this area, the regional centres probably competed with London. The deepest and most elaborate cutting could be undertaken cost effectively and orders could be turned round very rapidly. The communication and transport revolution al- lowed the regional production centres to compete with the metropolis not only on cost but also on delivery. The distribution and supply networks were transformed by new forms of transport. Although it is difficult to substantiate directly from the archive, it would appear that orders to glass manufacturers in Scotland and the North-East were turned around more quickly than before. These centres of production 48 THE WYLLIE FAMILY OF LONDON would have benefited from the regular and frequent steam ships linking the ports of Leith, Newcastle and London. For the Midlands, the canal system was very important in providing a reliable, though not quite so rapid, transport link with the metropolis. In 1838 the London to Birmingham railway opened. This may have helped to improve communication between the Midlands and London. However, it is not clear what quantity of glass was transported by rail in the 1840s and 1850s. There is some evidence in the archive that London agents, acting for the different regional glass manufacturers, co-ordinated orders for metropolitan wholesale customers. These agents would have been in weekly if not daily contact with their suppliers, sending back orders and checking on delivery dates. Some of these factors may have led Thomas Wyl- lie to develop new lines of business in the 1830s and 1840s. Some of these may have been very competitive in London with only small profit margins. Clearly, the business was not as secure as when it was run by his father at the start of the 19th century. Large orders for glass chimneys for oil and gas lamps were ordered, suggesting a new area of trade. Coloured glass begins to occur more often in the invoice and order books, but this was probably no more than a reflection of the general development of the glass trade. Manu- facturers began to produce a wider range of colours at this period. Wyllie's stock included the standard root glasses in blue, green, white and puce. Green hock glasses were regularly supplied, as were blue and green finger bowls. From the late 1830s distinct sets of glasses were ordered, usually comprising wines, clarets, champagnes and 'liquors'. An example of this is an order from William Gammon & Son in 1838 for 30 dozen cut wines, 12 dozen cut clarets, 12 dozen cut champagnes and 8 dozen 'liquors' all with the same pattern number (No. 73). In 1837 Ann Wyllie died, and the directories give only Thomas Wyllie at their address. New suppliers appear from the late 1830s alongside some familiar names. From St. Helens there was Bell & Company (1835), then the Ravenhead Flint Glass Works (1839), followed by S. Sherwood (1849) and finally G. Sher- wood & Company (1852). From Stockton-on-Tees we find the Haverton Hill Glasshouse (1835) and later Walton & Company (1849), from Dublin, Elijah Pring (1841), from Tutbury, Thomas Jackson (1839) and from Warrington, Thomas Robinson (1843). In the 1840s Manchester glass firms become major suppliers to Wyllie, especially of press-moulded glass. Although the Manchester glassmakers Maginnis & Company had appeared in the order books as early as the 1820s, it was the appearance of William Robinson in 1838, followed by Atherton & Watson in 1842, and especially Molineaux Webb Ellis & Company in 1846 that really marked out this city as a major new production cen- tre, supplying Wyllie and no doubt other wholesalers. Molineaux Webb supplied Wyllie with a wide range of coloured items, notably made in opal and cerulean, as well as press-moulded plates and dishes such as Warwick dishes (Plate 9). The final years of the Wyllie business were clearly not very successful. The emergence of press-moulded glass imitating cut glass may have been one of the reasons for Thomas Wyllie's bankruptcy. The firm had tended to concentrate on the middle to low qual- ity market for glass, and this sector may have become very competitive by the 1850s. There were many large wholesale glass dealers in London and some were linked or even part-owned by regional glassmakers. In 1852 Wyllie made one last attempt to widen his stock of novelty glass by importing fancy coloured flower and scent bottles from Vogelsung & Son of Frankfurt. Perhaps he had seen their display at the Great Exhibition. Unfortunately, this had no effect on the business, and it finally failed in 1854. This article has only touched on some aspects of the material covered in the archive. It is to be hoped that further research into the papers and ledgers may reveal new insights into the products of particular glass manufacturers that supplied Wyllie, as well as providing new information about the cut glass trade and the general economics of British glass production and retailing in the first half of the 19th century. Alex Werner September 2004 Alex Werner is a leading authority on glassmaking in London in the 18th and 19th centuries. He is Deputy Head of the Later Department at the Museum of London. ENDNOTES 1. National Archives .190/927-944. 2. Emma Wyllie won her case. 3. Research by Colin and Frank Wylie — personal communication. 4. Museum of London, Whitefriars Archive, 3092, 3093, 3095 & 3096. 5. See Charles R. Hajdamach, British Glass 1800-1914, pp.63-79, and Ha Haden, The Stourbridge Glass Industry in the 19th Century, 1971. 6. See Ann Eatwell & Alex Werner, A London Staffordshire Warehouse, 1794-1825, Journal of the Northern Ceramics Society, Vol. 8, 1991, pp.91-124. 7. Price list is held by the Durham County Record Office and reproduced by Dr. Catherine Ross, The Flint Glass Houses on the Rivers Tyne and Wear during the 18th century, Glass Circle Journal No. 5, 1986, p.84. 8. Henry Mayhew, London Labour and the London Poor, 1851, Vol. 1, p.410. 49 THE WYLLIE FAMILY OF LONDON APPENDIX Alphabetical list of suppliers to Wyllie, compiled from the Wyllie archive. Locations are given, where known, and the dates between which the companies were doing business with Wyllie. Name of supplier Location from to Alloa Glass Co., Alloa, Scotland 1828 1834 Appleby (late of) Haverton Hill, nr Stockton 1837 1842 Atherton, W Manchester 1846 1849 Atherton & Watson Manchester, Oldham/Old Hulme Rd. 1842 1842 Atkinson & Wailes Gateshead 1815 1816 Bache, J. 1846 1849 Bache & Nevill 1846 1849 Bailey & Co. Edinburgh, Midlothian Glass Works 1826 1834 Bailey & Co. Portobello 1846 1849 Barber & Pallister 1847 1847 Bell & Co., Thomas St.Helens 1835 1836 Berry & Harris, Rice Birmingham, Islington Glass Works 1828 1834 Biddle & Co. Birmingham, Park Glasshouse 1838 1841 Bing Brothers & Co. Hamburg 1844 1844 Booth & Co., William 1835 1842 Booth, French & Mirt, W 1828 1834 British and Foreign Glass Co. Manchester 1844 1844 Burrell & Co. North Shields 1819 1820 Coltman & Grafton Stourbridge, Brettle Lane Glasshouse 1795 1801 Cook, William Gateshead 1846 1849 Coulston & Pallister Sunderland, Deptford 1846 1849 Cowper & Co. Haverton Hill, nr Stockton 1848 1848 Dodd & Co., J.C. Newcastle-on-Tyne 1846 1849 East & Vincent Birmingham, Phoenix Glass Works 1835 1836 Gammon & Co., William Birmingham, Belmont Glass Works 1828 1834 Gammon & Son Birmingham, Belmont Glass Works 1837 1849 Gateshead Glass Co. Gateshead 1811 1815 Gibbins, Brueton Birmingham, Aston Glass Works 1806 1811 Green, George Joseph Birmingham, Stoner Glass Works 1841 1854 Green & Son, Joseph Birmingham, Stoner Glass Works 1843 1843 Guest, Wood, Guest Dudley, Castle Flint Glass Works 1840 1842 Harris & Co, Thomas Birmingham, Belmont Glass Works 1804 1808 Harris, Thomas & John Birmingham, Belmont Glass Works 1816 1829 Harris, Gammon & Co. Birmingham, Belmont Glass Works 1821 1824 Harris, Rice Birmingham, Islington Glass Works 1835 1842 Haverton Hill Glass Co. Haverton Hill, nr Stockton 1835 1836 Hawkes, Abiathar Dudley 1792 1799 Hawkes & Co., Thomas Dudley 1800 1807 Hawkes, Thomas & George Dudley 1801 1812 Haywood Hodgson & Co. Birmingham, Greatbrook St. 1807 1808 Henley, Thomas Birmingham, Baskerville Mills 1828 1834 Hewson 1828 1834 Hodgson, William Birmingham, Greatbrook Street 1809 1818 Holmes, William London 1833 1833 Honeybourne & Batson Stourbridge, Brierley Hill Glass Works 1805 1805 Hudson, H. Gateshead 1849 1852 Hughes & Harris Birmingham, Bartholomew St. 1803 1804 Jackson, Thomas Tutbury 1839 1849 Jacobs, Isaac Bristol 1807 1808 Johnson, Berry & Harris Birmingham, Islington Glass Works 1827 1830 Jones Smart & Co. Birmingham, Aston Glass Works 1800 1805 Littlewood, Benjamin Stourbridge, Holloway End Glass Works 1805 1806 Lloyd & Summerfield Birmingham, Park Glass Works 1843 1852 50 THE WYLLIE FAMILY OF LONDON Lowry & Sowerby Gateshead 1817 1822 Madeley, George Birmingham, Greatbrook St. 1807 1808 Maginnis & Co. Manchester 1828 1834 Marshall, Robert 1826 1826 Marshall, Sandeman & Co 1827 1830 Micklethwait, J.R. & H. 1841 1841 Mills, Webb & Stuart Wordsley, nr Stourbridge 1854 1854 Molineaux & Co. Manchester 1849 1852 Molineaux, Webb, Ellis & Co. Manchester 1846 1849 Neville & Co., Samuel Gateshead 1849 1852 New Stourbridge Glass Co., Gateshead 1835 1849 North Shields Glass Co./Turnbull & Co. North Shields 1815 1816 Northumberland Glass Co. Lemington Glass Works, nr Newcastle 1809 1842 Parrish & Co. Wordsley, nr Stourbridge 1801 1803 Pellat, Apsley London 1843 1843 Penn, William Dudley, Phoenix Glass Works 1802 1803 Percival & Yates Manchester 1846 1846 Perry & Co. Carrs Hill Glass Works 1828 1834 Pring, Elijah Dublin, Ringsend Flint Glass Works 1841 1842 Ravenhead Flint Glass Co. St.Helens 1839 1842 Robinson, Thomas Warrington 1843 1846 Robinson, William Manchester, Hulme Glass Works 1838 1849 Rooker & Jackson Darlaston, nr Walsall 1804 1806 Roughton & Parkes Dudley, Holly Hall Glass Works 1804 1805 Sandeman, John 1828 1830 Shakespear & Co. Birmingham, New Town Row 1804 1806 Shakespear, William Birmingham, Soho Glass Works 1828 1830 Shakespear & Son Birmingham, Soho Glass Works 1828 1836 Sherwood, S. Eccleston, St.Helens 1849 1852 Sherwood & Co., G. Eccleston, St.Helens 1852 1854 Shortridge & Co., R.J. Newcastle-on-Tyne 1803 1816 Shortridge & Co. South Shields 1816 1821 Shortridge, Sawyer & Co. South Shields 1822 1843 Shortridge & Sawyer South Shields 1839 1842 Silvers, Thomas Dudley, King St. 1828 1834 Sowerby, George Gateshead 1822 1836 Sowerby, John Gateshead 1846 1852 Stevens, James Birmingham 1850 1854 Thomson, C.L. & Shaw Birmingham, Aston Glass Works 1837 1842 Thomson, C.L. Birmingham 1841 1849 Valentine, Benjamin 1852 1852 Vogelsung & Sons Frankfurt 1852 1854 Walsh, J.W Birmingham, Soho and Vesta Glass Works 1852 1854 Walton & Co., Thomas Haverton Hill, nr Stockton 1849 1854 Webb, E. & J. Stourbridge, Holloway End Glass Works 1846 1852 Webb, Edward Stourbridge, Holloway End Glass Works 1852 1854 Webb, Joseph Stourbridge, Coalbournhill Glass Works 1849 1854 Wharton, Thomas Birmingham 1828 1834 Wheeley & Littlewood Stourbridge, Dennis House & Park 1796 1803 White, Young & Tuer Sunderland, Deptford 1817 1819 51 The 'Grotesque' Designs of Thomas Webb and Sons (or The Story of Two Friends, a Saleroom, the Cheltenham Gold Cup, and Ebay) Charles R. Hajdamach This article is as much about good luck, chance, syn- chronicity or serendipity, call it what you will, as it is about new information on glass history surfacing unexpectedly. It involves the finding of an unusual set of glass designs on Ebay followed by a sequence of events which ended up with the identification of a spectacular example from those designs, and provided fresh information about a group of products from a Stourbridge factory, which had hitherto been attrib- uted to the Continent. The sequence of events began on the 20th Janu- ary 2004 when my friend Alix Gilmer was searching through the pottery and glass sections of Ebay and found a set of designs described as Art Pottery De- signs'. I had just returned to the house when she called me to the study to look at the designs, bearing in mind that the auction finished within about six minutes. The designs on one page looked as if they could be ceramic but from the next page which the vendor had illustrated, it was obvious that these were glass designs PLATE 1 Ewer, blown, trailed, pincered and enamelled in the form of a mythical creature with drop-in cover and hollow wing handles, made at Thomas Webb and Sons, Amblecote, Stourbridge and enamelled by Jules Barbe, c. 1888-1890. Height 16 cms, Length 26 ems, Width 15 cms. This piece matches design no. 249 in Figure 6. Author's Collection. 52 ti:+t P411. THE 'GROTESQUE' DESIGNS OF THOMAS WEBB AND SONS PLATE 2 Jug made by Thomas Webb and Sons, Amblecote and enamelled by Jules Barbe, c.1888-1890. This example is similar to jug no. 214 in Figure 10. Broadfield House Glass Museum, Kingssvinfard. using well-known late 19th century techniques. There was no factory attribution although the illustrated de- signs suggested a possible link to Thomas Webb and Sons. With a minute to go a large bid was put in to try and ensure a successful outcome. Luckily the bid was successful and the designs duly arrived within two days from the seller in North Wales. The eleven pages measure 54 cm wide by 38 cm high and contain 42 individual designs (Appendix, Figs. 1-11). The designs are numbered; the lowest is 195 and the highest is 266, although they do not run in sequence through the pages. Some of the designs are annotated. A few extra designs have been loosely sketched in later using a blue biro pen. The format is an early form of copying, possibly blueprint, suggesting a date of about 1900, which would be commensurate with the rusting of the five staples holding the pages together. On some pages, where there has been move- ment during the copying process of the original or the copy paper, the designs have a ghost image. All of the designs are for enamelled glass. Fortu- nately, one design gives the clue to allow definite iden- tification of their origin. Alongside pattern number 196 is the note 'Engraved Fish (Kny)' (Fig. 4). The Kny in question is Frederick Engelbert Kny, the bril- liant Bohemian copper wheel engraver who worked at Thomas Webb and Sons from the 1870s. The jug in this design would have been engraved by Kny, then passed to the enameller who in-filled the engraved work with his enamels. Twenty designs have fish or lizards ap- plied as handles, feet or decoration, and are further highlighted by the heavy enamelling. The most exotic and unusual of the designs are five in the shape of grotesque animals suggestive of a Peruvian or Mexican influence reminiscent of some of the ceramic work of Christopher Dresser. The next part of the story involves the chance find of one of those animal pieces. A glass collector friend shares an interest in horse-racing and the two of us met to go to the Gold Cup day at the National Hunt Festival at Cheltenham in March. For jump racing fans this was a historic day when Best Mate equalled Arkle's record of winning the Gold Cup three times in succession. On our return home the waiting pile of let- 53 THE 'GROTESQUE' DESIGNS OF THOMAS WEBB AND SONS PLATE 3 Jug made by Thomas Webb and Sons, Amblecote and enamelled by Jules Barbe, c.1888-1890. This jug matches design no. 235 in Figure 1. Broadfield House Glass Museum, Kingswinford ( Parkington Bequest). ters included a sale catalogue from Dreweatt Neate at Donnington, near Newbury. While I was pouring the much-needed refreshing drinks, my friend commented about an unusual glass in the catalogue. When I lent over to see the catalogue, I could hardly believe that the illustration of the piece which had caught her eye matched one of the designs. Leaving the gin and ton- ics to one side, a move which reflects well the urgency of the situation, I quickly rushed to get the designs, found the appropriate page and sure enough the piece coming up was an exact match to design number 249 (Fig. 6). After the initial excitement, it dawned on me that the oddest element of this find was that neither before nor since had I received a catalogue at home from the auction house. Lot 507 was described as 'an unusual Continental enamelled glass ewer, fashioned in clear glass in the form of a winged mythical creature with scrolling tail, tubular beak and a crested drop-in cover, painted in coloured enamels with stylised floral and foliate mo- tifs, 26 cm long, possibly French or Bohemian'. The auctioneers kindly supplied a condition report, which gave the piece as in excellent condition. On the day of the sale, Wednesday 24th March 2004, I had booked a telephone link and after a quick round of bidding I became the owner of the animal ewer. A few days later it was back in Amblecote, only a stone's throw away from the site of the Webb factory where it had started its life at the end of the 19th century (Plate 1). The final exciting element of this story is the con- nection with the renowned enameller at Webb's in the latter part of the 19th and early 20th century, Jules Barbe. Local tradition stated that Webb's had made grotesque pieces with lizards (Plate 2) and fish (Plate 3) decorated with enamelling by Barbe, but lack of evidence often meant that glass pieces in this vein, when they did appear, were usually attributed to French or Bohemian factories, as the saleroom rightly did on available knowledge. After all, most glass enthusiasts would place these zoomorphic ew- ers, with their bizarre shapes and florid decoration, into a European context rather than an English one. The lack of information about Barbe's designs was compounded when his one surviving design book disappeared from the Webb factory when it was clos- ing in 1991 following the bankruptcy of its owners Coloroll. 1 It was standard practice for the top artists at the factories to keep their personal design record with their own numbering system; a design book kept by Daniel Pearce at Webb's is now in the collections 54 THE 'GROTESQUE DESIGNS OF THOMAS WEBB AND SONS at Broadfield House Glass Museum. These eleven pages may therefore be copies from Barbe's design book. Six of the eleven sheets have page numbers in the bottom right hand corner, i.e. 22, 24, 16(?), 26, 20 and 18, proving that they were taken from a larger volume. The compiler of these pages was ob- viously not too bothered to keep them in sequence. We may never know why these pages were chosen or how they ended up in Wales at the beginning of the 21st century. Bought by sheer chance on Ebay as Art Pottery Designs, these pages now provide vital evidence for a hitherto unappreciated part of Webb's production and underline even further the quite as- tonishing range of products from one of the great British glass companies. Charles R. Hajdamach September 2004 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dreweatt Neate for their help and assistance and particularly Geoffrey Stafford Charles and Dave Pincott for supplying the colour photograph of Lot 507, and Roger Dodsworth for supplying the images of the jugs in the Broadfield House Collection. My thanks also go to Mix Gilmer and Judith Vincent for making this story one of those memorable 'eureka' moments. ENDNOTES I. Some designs from Barbe's design book, for enamelled Burmese glass c.1886 in 'American Shapes', were illustrated by Janie Chester Young in her article Insights into the Development of Burmese Glass: The Ju- les Barbe Pattern Book, published in The Glass Club Bulletin of the National Early American Glass Club, Number 158, Spring 1989. Charles Hajdamach is a well-kn own author and lecturer on 19th and 20th century glass. He is Chairman of the Glass Association and former Director of Broadfield House Glass Museum. APPENDIX FIGURE 1 Page I showing pattern no. 235, a jug and matching goblet with shell moulded decoration, a technique patented by Thomas Webb and Sons. The jug is annotated 'I Large blue fish in front/ smaller fish under handle and 6 small fish with gold seaweed on reverse'. The goblet note states '2 large fish and 6 small ones on goblet'. The page number 22 appears on the bottom right of the page. The blue carp is a later biro(?) addition. 55 r' - 0`.. t . 9 • . • • •ir • • 1 . % THE 'G ROT ESQU E' DESIGNS OF THOMAS WEBB AND SONS 7 .s FIGURE 2 Page 2 with applied fish on gourd shape vases. FIGURE• 3 Page 3. The small bowl, no. 245, is annotated 'Brown glass Faint rib'd and Crysled' (sic). Bowl no. 242 is inscribed 'Smoke colour Faint ribbed, lilies and rushes continue round'. The page number 24 appears on the bottom right. 56 57 FIGURE 5 Page 5. The three designs on the right are in blue biro. THE 'GROTESQUE' DESIGNS OF THOMAS WEBB AND SONS FIGURE 4 Page 4. The jug on the left, no. 195, is annotated `Foliage and Flies eng'd (engraved) Foliage gilded — Flies silvered'. The crest on the left of the jug bears the 'Ich Dien' motto and feathers of the Prince of Wales. Jug no. 196 gives the name Kny, making the link with Thomas Webb and Sons and Jules Barbe. The handled decanter, no. 197, was enamelled with '5 different fish and gold seaweed on body and 7 small fish on shoulder'. What appears to be page number 16 is on the bottom right of this page. THE 'GROTESQUE' DESIGNS OF THOMAS WEBB AND SONS FIGURE 6 Page 6. Pattern no. 249 matches Lot 507 in the Dreweatt Neate catalogue. The small bowl, no. 252, is described as Amber Vase Blue Lizard', a colour combination often attributed in the past to Bohemian glass factories. FIGURE 7 Page 7. No. 259 is an upright version of the ewer in the Dreweatt Neate sale. The small cover with the three knops presumably would have lifted off. The page number 26 appears bottom right. 58 THE 'GROTESQUE' DESIGNS OF THOMAS WEBB AND SONS FIGURE 8 Page 8. Two of the 'grotesque' zoomorphic jugs. FIGURE 9 Page 9 only has one design, for this lizard stem goblet, annotated 'Wt 13 oz'. The page number 20 is on the bottom right. 59 THE 'GROTESQUE' DESIGNS OF THOMAS WEBB AND SONS FIGURE 10 Page 10 has two faint pencil outlines of a butterfly and an exotic bird, which were part of the original designs. FIGURE 11 Page 11. Vase no. 205 came in two variations: no. 205a 'same vase with French Cave (?) Fish' and no. 205b `same vase but made in Crackled Flint'. 60 Fenton Art Glass: English Inspirations for Design James Measell From 1905 up until 1948, company founder Frank Leslie Fenton was responsible for designing the glassware made by the Fenton Art Glass Co.' His designs were often based on nature (flowers, fruits, and animals), but he also found ideas in art, espe- cially great paintings, and in lace work. And, like many glassmakers in early 20th century America and elsewhere, he sometimes produced close copies of wares that were being marketed successfully by his competitors. When Frank L. Fenton passed away in May 1948, the reins of management and other responsibilities were assumed by his two sons, Frank M. Fenton, 32, and Wilmer C. Fenton, 24. Like his father, Frank M. Fenton had no formal training in art, but he was well aware that, in order to remain in business and make a profit, the company had to create and manufacture products that would be accepted by the buying public. "I observed that we had been successful during World War II in selling glass with a Victorian styl- ing", Frank said in a recent interview, "so I began to try to learn all I could about the glass designs of that period. Antique reproductions made by other glass companies were then selling well in the gift market, and I spent much time in antique shops and at antique shows looking for design ideas. Over the next thirty years, our company made quite a few moulds that were really adaptations of old patterns or shapes. We thought these would sell well in our glass colours and treatments." A storage area at the Fenton plant contains many items purchased during those years. The tightly- packed shelves hold a few metal or ceramic pieces, but most of the Victorian-era articles are glass made in England, Europe or America. This article will discuss some of the English-made items which have served as inspirations for Fenton designs. In 1952, Fenton began to market a four-piece flower set called Clusterettes (Plate 1). These were created by designer Stan Fistick, who worked at Fenton for a short time. The Clusterettes are plain and without pattern, but their debt to the rectangular and semi-cir- cular Sowerby flower troughs of the 1870s and 1880s is obvious. 2 Each of the Fenton Clusterettes has a socket for a taper candle, but this feature is not present on the Sowerby pieces. Spanish Lace is the Fenton name for a motif originally called New Opaline Brocade, introduced by the Birmingham firm of John Walsh Walsh in 1897. 3 Fenton used this design to create a footed cake plate in pressed glass in 1954 (Plate 2). The pattern is PLATE 1 Fenton Clusterettes in milk glass c.1952. 61 FENTON ART GLASS PLATE 2 Fenton pressed cake plate in Spanish Lace pattern c.1954. on the plunger, and this item has to be flattened by a skilled finisher using a cherry wood paddle. This cake plate was made in several opaque colours during the 1950s and 1960s, and it may have a scalloped edge or a tightly crimped edge. The Spanish Lace motif was also added to several previously plain moulds: bowl, candleholder, footed candy box, salt/pepper shaker, and vase. These pieces were produced in opal (Milk Glass), and they have crystal edges created by a Fenton process called 'ring- ing', wherein a skilled glassworker spins a ribbon of molten crystal glass onto the edge of the item. In the 1970s, Fenton marketed many of these with an attractive hand-painted decoration called Violets in the Snow. A small Fenton pressed basket with rustic handles is clearly derived from a piece made by George Davidson and Co. of Gateshead, the design for which was reg- istered on 15th August 1891, registry number 176566 (Plate 3). The Fenton basket was first made in 1964 and was variously described as 'oval basket', 'Daisy and Button basket' or 'English basket' in Fenton cata- logues or promotional materials. Both the Davidson and the Fenton baskets measure about 5 7 /8" long, but the Fenton piece is noticeably thicker. The look of the tree-branch handles is more realistic on the Davidson piece, too. Likewise, a Fenton oval bowl, which dates from the late 1960s, is similar to items in Davidson's 1890 Suite (Plate 4). 4 The Davidson bowl measures 8W' long and 6 3 /4" wide and is slightly flared, while the Fenton piece is 7 3 /4" long, 5`/2" wide and not flared. The Davidson piece has pattern on the outside of its small toes, but the Fenton piece has smooth toes. The Fenton oval bowl was grouped with other Fenton Daisy and But- ton items (although the patterns are not exactly the same) made from moulds originating in the late 1930s when the firm called this line Cape Cod. PLATE 3 Davidson oval basket (left) and its Fenton counterpart. 62 PLATE 5 Fenton 3634 Hobnail pattern oval basket. PLATE 6 Base for Fenton two-piece fairy light. FENTON ART GLASS PLATE 4 Davidson 1890 Suite oval bowl (left) and its Fenton counterpart. The Fenton Hobnail pattern was selling well in the 1960s, so the company was always looking for shapes that could be adapted to this line. Several small Sow- erby pieces, which are well-known in vitro-porcelain colours, e.g. the 1240 Gladstone bag and the 1301 basket-shaped posy holder, were probably the founda- Fenton began to make fairy lights in the early 1950s, but these were one-piece items. A two-piece (shade and base) fairy light was developed later, and the base for these resembles an 1890s Samuel Clarke candle cup, which has a cross-hatched pattern and rests upon six small toes on its underside (Plate 6). 6 tions for Fenton's 3634 Hobnail oval basket (Plate 5). 5 This Fenton basket is just under 6" long, so it is quite a bit larger than the Sowerby pieces. Nonetheless, the similarities among the respective topmost edges and the handles are noteworthy, as is the shape itself. Frank M. Fenton's purchase of a Burmese glass candle cup for a Clarke fairy light led the company to create a mould that closely replicates this Clarke piece.' Fenton's pressed article, which is called an 'insert' by the company, is, however, somewhat smaller and less PLATE 7 Clarke (left) and Fenton fairy light candle cups or inserts. 63 FENTON ART GLASS PLATE Fenton's Water Lily covered candy box (centre) and candle-holder (right) were inspired by the English ceramic covered bowl and plate (left). The diamond registration mark dates the ceramic piece to 1849. detailed than the original Clarke piece (Plate 7). The Clarke candle cup is embossed on the inside with the inscription S. CLARKE PATENT TRADE MARK FAIRY, but Fenton's version is perfectly smooth. This Fenton insert has been used with many different fairy lights for more than twenty years, and these are among Fenton's most popular products today. A mid 19th century English ceramic covered bowl and plate inspired a Fenton pattern called Water Lily in the 1970s (Plate 8). By this time, the Fenton firm had a full-time designer, Anthony Rosena, on its staff. Frank M. Fenton worked closely with him to adapt the pattern of these English pieces for shapes that could be made successfully in pressed glass. "We needed a knob on the cover of our Water Lily candy box so it could be handled easily", Frank M. Fenton recalled, "and the socket in the Water Lily candleholder needed to be deep enough to hold a taper candle. Tony did a nice job of adding what was needed to the original design so that these pieces would be a success for us. The Water Lily pieces sold very well." Glass design and glass production are complex processes, but perhaps this brief article has demon- strated how the characteristics of one product can influence another many years later. Dr James Measell January 2004 Dr Measell is Associate Historian at the Fenton Art Glass Company, Williamstown, West Virginia. He can be contacted on jsmeasell@jentonartglass. corn ENDNOTES 1. For a brief account of Fenton history and products see Lesley Jackson, 20th Century Factory Glass, Mitchell Beasley, London 2000, pages 72-73. On Frank L Fenton's designs in iridescent glass, see Glen and Stephen Thistlewood, Carnival Glass: the Magic and the Mystery, Schiffer Pub- lishing Co. 1999. For more information about Fenton and its current products, see the company website: www.fentonartglass.com 2. Simon Cottle, Sowerby Gateshead Glass, Tyne and Wear Museums Service 1986, page 67. These are pictured individually or as sets in virtually all of the books devoted to English pressed glass. 3. Eric Reynolds, The Glass of John Walsh Walsh 1850-1951, Richard Dennis Publications 1999, front cover and pages 13 and 42; Charles R Hajdamach, British Glass 1800-1914, Antique Collectors Club 1991, pages 318-319. This motif (and the phrase Opaline Brocade) were ap- propriated by Harry Northwood for a line of blown ware in opalescent glass made at his plant in Indiana, Pennsylvania, during 1899-1900; see William Heacock of al., Harry Northwood: The Early Years 1881-1900, Antique Publications, Marietta, Ohio 1990, pages 132-134. Interest- ingly, Frank L Fenton's first job was as a decorator at the Northwood plant. 4. Raymond Slack, English Pressed Glass 1830-1900, Barrie & Jenkins 1987, page 77. 5. Both Sowerby pieces are illustrated by Cottle, op. cit., pages 100 and 109, and there is an excellent photo of the 1301 basket-shaped posy holder on page 41 in Slack's book. 6. For an original catalogue showing this candle cup, see chapter 3 of Dorothy Tibbitts's unpaginated book, Clarke's Fairy Lamps, Mission Press, Huntington Park, California. Many examples of Clarke's lamps with these candle cups are pictured in Amelia E. MacSwiggan, Fairy Lamps: Evening's Glow of Yesteryear, Bonanza Books, New York 1962; T. Robert Anthony, 19th Century Fairy Lamps, Forward's Color Productions, Manchester, Vermont, 1969; and Bob and Pat Ruf, Fairy Lamps: Elegance in Candle Lighting, Schiffer Publishing Co. 1996, A good website to visit is www.fairy-light.com 7. Tibbitts, op. cit., plate VI, number 7. 64 Monart Lighting Ian Turner INTRODUCTION Ysart Glass, which was published in 1990,' will probably remain the Monart collector's standard reference work for many years to come, even though it is now out of print. Its colour photographs illustrate a wide range of Monart glassware and paperweights, and it includes the two Monart Glass pattern books. Collectors are able to distinguish genuine Monart from other later glassware by referring, in particular, to the pattern book shapes. New collectors, especially, need such references because Monart-style glass is still being made in Scotland, and more recently in England, by glassblowers trained by one or other of the Ysart brothers, and, as genuine Monart has increased in popularity, other competent glassblowers have been encouraged to imitate this style. However, to a limited extent the Monart story, as told in Ysart Glass, needs to be re-written in the light of new research. When the book was being written in the late 1980s only two surviving pattern books were known; one was the published catalogue, and the other a manuscript which was then in Paul Ysart's possession and was reproduced in the book with his consent. Since then, however, other pattern books have come to light. These all came from Miss Betty Reid's estate. Betty Reid's family lived next door to Paul Ysart and his family in Scone, and as a child she played with Paul's children. She joined Moncrieff's in Perth straight from school in 1944 and worked in the dispatch office until she was made redundant on 31st March 1984. She died in 1993. In 1947 Miss Reid was photographed (Plate 1) with the first post-war Monart, the Royal Wedding Gift Set,' and from then until the end of Monart production in 1962 one of her office tasks was to process orders for Monart glass. She kept a sales book and periodically updated the price lists; she dispatched stock orders to shops in the UK and sent paperweights to Paul Jokelson PLATE I Betty Reid, photographed in the Moncrieff boardroom in 1947 with the Royal Wedding Gift Set. 65 MONART LIGHTING in the United States; and she entered the shape and size codes on to the paper labels and then stuck them to every piece of glass that left the factory. When Monart production ceased, she kept all the sales documents, together with the office copies of the Monart pattern books, and made them available to me when I was re- searching the Monart Glass section of Ysart Glass. What she did not tell me at the time was that she also had the manuscript Lighting Pattern Book and a manuscript copy of the line drawings for some of the Monart Ware shapes. The line drawings for Mon- art Ware are not the subject of this paper, and will be written up separately later, but they do require a correction to a statement made in Ysart Glass to the effect that 'the shapes that appear in the pattern books were designed by Mrs Moncrieff in collaboration with Salvador Ysart'. 3 The evidence from both surviving manuscripts does not support that view because all the shapes, all the sizes, and all the subsequent amendments are in Paul Ysart's very distinctive hand. So, to put the record straight, whilst his father Salvador Ysart was undoubtedly the inspiration for Monart Glass and may well have worked with Mrs Moncrieff on all the early colourways, the shapes were primarily Paul Ysart's responsibility. Just before her death Betty Reid told me that, soon after Monart production ceased, she had found both manuscripts in a skip in the factory yard and had re- moved them. Much to her regret she could not find the Monart colour recipe book. She knew exactly what it looked like, but there was a limit to what she could do, in the dark, after the factory had officially closed at the end of her working day. The second correction is to the statement in Ysart Glass to the effect that Monart ceiling lamp shades and table lamps are 'non pattern book ware'. 4 This is not correct; pre-war lamps and shades were made to recorded shapes and sizes in a separate lighting pattern book. THE MONART LIGHTING PATTERN BOOK The Monart Lighting pattern book is very early. It has a green cover on which there is a first period Monart Ware label design, and it is headed 'Lighting Ware Models'. It is reproduced in full as Appendix I at the end of this paper. It was probably started in 1924. This ties in with Mrs Moncrieff's Friendly Talk on Monart Ware, published in 1925, where she writes: "While up to the present time this enam- elled glass has only been employed by us in the making of bowls and flower-jars it has a future of considerable importance for quite another purpose, namely, for electric standard lamps and shades. The glass, when illuminated from within, yields some very beautiful effects, and it can be easily imag- ined how charming it might be if introduced with taste and restraint in accordance with any special scheme of decoration. Although it has already been adapted by us in pendant form for diffused ceiling lighting (my emphasis), this is a field so large that no time has as yet been available for its development. We however anticipate wide scope for activity along this line and feel confident that the appreciation so freely granted to our first endeavours will be equally merited by those to follow." The manuscript is in two sections. In the first, marked 'Pedestals', there are designs numbered P1 to P29 for lamp bases, and in the second section, marked `Shades', there are shapes SI to S25 for shades. Every drawing is in pencil, and many are annotated in Paul Ysart's hand. Four pedestal shapes are crossed out and marked 'see new shape' and the new shape, with the same number, has been inserted and precedes the old shape; P6 old and new shapes illustrate this point. There are two versions of shape P28. Some of Paul's amendments are dated; e.g. shape P9 has been amended with the note 'broader base to prevent toppling over per Mrs John B.I.F 1935'; an- other, P16, with shade S16, carries the note 'as sent to Antwerp April 1930'. Some of the shades were dual purpose, either for ceiling shades or, inverted, for the top part of a lamp. S6 is an example; another, S22, has a special variation for a tilting fitting. Some pages are dirty and the annotations indistinct. It is very much a working document that has been used in the office and probably on the shop floor too, and it has been amended from time to time either in the light of experience or in response to changes in customer demand. Whilst this manuscript pattern book is a definitive record of pre-war pedestals and shades, it does not include any of Paul's post-war lamp designs, and was probably not used after 1939. Separate from the manuscript proper, but kept loose inside the same cover, are two drawings of dual bulb lamps, and these are reproduced immediately after the pedestal and shade shapes as Appendix II. They deserve detailed study. The first is a true-to-scale technical drawing of a dual bulb lamp with a P6 size VII+ base and a S3 size VI shade. As we have already noted, shape P6 is one of the shapes that is superseded by a new and different shape, so we can safely assume that this type of lamp was an early one although, to date, not one complete lamp of this design has been identified. The drawing contains several annotations in Paul's hand, mostly relating to the light fitting. It appears from these that the 'standard fitting', which is illustrated, is a fitting made specially for Moncrieff's, and that it was ap- proved by John Moncrieff himself on July 18th 1927 and by his wife Isobel (`Mrs John') the following day. Such fittings are not uncommon on surviving lamps, and their distinguishing feature is the carrier support- ing the shade, which, as can be seen in this drawing, is cast in one piece. A different sized carrier was required 66 • MONART LIGHTING PLATE 2 A Krinks dual bulb lamp fitting. Turner Collection. for each size of shade; this is clear from Paul's notes in the right hand margin where he records that the carrier illustrated, which is for a 7" shade, is "also made for 9" Shade and for 11" Shade". Having separate fittings for different sizes of shade must have been too expensive or too inflexible in practice because the drawing shows that Paul has crossed out the reference to the approved standard fitting and replaced it with the note "Subsequently replaced by Krinks fitting". A look at the pattern book proper shows that there are several other refer- ences to the `Krinks' fitting, which would appear to have superseded Moncrieff's own fittings for most of the pedestals used for dual bulb lamps. For example, shapes P1-6 all contain similar annotations showing that the neck size has been adjusted to fit the Krinks fitment. P13, in contrast, has Paul's note "keep to our fitting" in the right hand margin. There are no technical drawings of the Krinks fitting, but it is almost certainly the fitting found on many dual bulb mushroom lamps in which the car- rier has adjustable sliders to fit different sized shades. One of these is illustrated in Plate 2, which should be compared to the technical drawing of the P6/S3 lamp in Appendix II and to the colour plate of the French- style Iamp, formerly in my own collection, which is illustrated in Plate 3. The adjustable Krinks fitting is almost certainly one bought in from an electrical fit- tings catalogue; the one illustrated in Plate 2 is marked `Made in England', but there is no maker's name. Betty Reid herself told me that the fitting came from a com- pany called 'Samuel Krinks', but she had no further information. Someone with a detailed knowledge of inter-war electric lighting may be able to throw more light on this subject. One final point of interest in this particular drawing concerns the light bulbs. Both bulbs, with differently sized bayonet fittings, are large and of a type that quickly went out of production in the 1920s to be replaced by the small bulbs found today. In the Krinks fitting, the bulb holders are still differently sized, as are the holders for Paul's post-war flange lamps that we shall look at later. The second lamp drawing in Appendix II is not a technical drawing. It shows a P23 size VII pedestal married to a S22 size VII shade and contains, in addi- tion to dimensions, the note 'neck our fitting' in Paul Ysart's handwriting. The note is curious because this type of lamp usually comes with what we have now assumed to be the Krinks fitting. Unlike the other lamp drawing, the electrical fitting and bulbs are not shown. This dual bulb lamp is by far the commonest type of Monart lamp, and is usually described as a `mushroom lamp' to distinguish it from French-style lamps. An excellent example is illustrated in Plate 4, with a Krinks fitting. Monart shades come in three types: ceiling shades, uplighters, and lamp shades. Shapes Sl, 4, 8, 13, 18 and 25 are clearly down-facing, everted ceiling shades because they are all drawn with holes in the top. We know from surviving photographs that the metal electrical fittings attached to the larger glass shades were supported from a ceiling rose by a metal chain through which the electrical flex was loosely threaded, but smaller shades were supported (as on small mod- ern fabric or paper shades) by the strength of the flex alone. Shape S15, although not shown in the pattern book with a drilled hole, is in practice a common ceil- ing shade shape. Another type of ceiling shade is shown by shapes S5, 6, 10 and 11. These are all up-facing and supported • PLATE 3 A P5/S7 dual bulb French-style lamp with a Moncrieff's `standard fitting'. Ex-Turner Collection, © Christie's Images Ltd. 2003. 67 PLATE 4 A P23/522 mushroom lamp with a Krinks fitting. Ex-Turner Collection, © Christie's Images Ltd. 2003. by three brass chains attached to the ceiling rose at one end and to the shade at the other. The shade is drilled in three places, and the chains are attached to hooks held in place between felt pads by a nut on the inside of the shade which support the chains outside the lamp or, on larger shades, the hooks or in some cases eyes are inside the shade and attached between felt pads by a decorative screw-threaded moulding which supports the chains inside the lamp. In both cases, the light fit- ting at the end of the flex hangs loosely down from the 68 MONART LIGHTING PLATE 5 A S5 medium hanging shade with chains attached outside the shade. Perth Museum & Art Gallery, reproduced by permission of Perth and Kinross Council. ceiling rose and carried no weight apart from the bulb. Examples of both types are shown in Plates 5 and 6. Ceiling shades were made in many different sizes. S6, for example, when used inverted as shown, (it was also used upside down as a dual bulb lamp shade), came in five sizes from 9" to 14" in diameter. The largest, and probably the commonest ceiling shade, is S10, which came in three sizes of which the largest (size I) was a massive 161/2" wide. These ceiling shades were specifically designed for diffused room lighting and are most commonly, for obvious reasons, found with nearly white centres and multi-coloured mottling around the rim, usually worked all over with whorls. Uplighter shades are rare. There is only one shown in the lighting pattern book, shape S19, which seems to have been produced in one size only with a 16" dia- meter rim. This would have had a central drilled hole, although that is not shown on the drawing. None has yet been found, although one is illustrated in a contem- porary photograph discussed later in this paper. The rest of the shade shapes appear to have been designed for dual bulb lamps. S2 and 3, for example, are clearly of this type, as are S7 and 9. As we have PLATE 6 A large S10 hanging shade with chains attached to fittings inside the bowl and decorative screw-threaded mouldings outside. Perth Museum & Art Gallery, reproduced by permission of Perth and Kinross Council. PLATE 7 A colour 384 RF vase used as a dual bulb lamp base with a matching hand-painted parchment shade. Photo reproduced by kind permission of Mr Gary Millar. already noted, S6, which is shown as a ceiling shade, is used the other way up as a table lamp with a P3 ped- estal. Shapes S15 and 16 have never been found on a lamp base but are found drilled as ceiling shades; S21 seems to be a taller and smaller version of S20. Not illustrated in the lighting pattern book are the fabric shades on pedestals with wide necks. These dual bulb lamps are not uncommon and are sometimes found with their original tattered parchment or silk shades on pedestal shapes in the lighting pattern book and on vase shapes in the two Monart Glass pattern books; in both cases the bases are often frosted on the inside to give a more diffused light. There is a good example in Plate 85 in Ysart Glass, which shows the wide metal plate fitting over the neck, in that case on a shape FB vase, and a superb example on a RF vase is illustrated in Plate 7 in this paper. Pedestal shapes New 6, Old 8, Old 9, Old and New 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 27 and 28 are all of this type, and some duplicate Monart vase shapes (e.g. P11 is identical to vase shape EA). The fabric shades, painted to match their bases, are well illustrated in Plates 213-219 in Ysart Glass 5 where seven pages from the Liberty catalogues are re- produced in colour. There is some duplication from one year to the next, but the variety is self-evident. The fabric shades were not made in Scotland. All the bases and their fittings were sent to London to a small but 69 MONART LIGHTNG 0 0 2 FIGURE 1 Paul Ysart's drawing of nine pedestal shapes. as yet unidentified workshop where the shades were made and painted by hand. It is noteworthy that there are no dual bulb lamps in the Liberty catalogues with glass shades. Amongst Betty Reid's papers was an envelope con- taining small drawings of pedestals and shades, which appear to show how Paul Ysart matched them together in his lamp designs. They are reproduced in Figures 1-3. On a sheet of lined writing paper (Fig. 1) he has drawn nine pedestal shapes (all in the lighting pattern book); he has then drawn nine shades at the same scale on a separate sheet of lined paper and cut the sheet horizontally into three strips (Fig. 2); finally he has placed the shade strips over the page of pedestals and traced through them to produce a page of lamps which — and I am presuming here — he considered at the time to be the most harmonious combinations. The sheet of lamps (Fig. 3) was also cut into three strips, though the purpose of this isn't at all clear. Some of these lamp designs may not have gone into production. In the same envelope was a further drawing at a larger scale showing five lamp designs. Four of these match the lamp designs illustrated in Fig. 3 while one extra pedestal/shade combination has been added. In this drawing (Fig. 4) the lamps are now fully an- notated with their pedestal and shade numbers and, in two cases, their dimensions. These five dual bulb lamp designs are the ones that are most commonly found today and I think we can safely assume that they were the ones that were judged most likely to sell. Other designs of lamp, however, were definitely made and are occasionally found. These surviving drawings, all in pencil and in Paul Ysart's hand, throw an interesting light on the design process going on at Moncrieff's in the 1920s. ) FIGURE 2 Paul Ysart's drawing of nine shade shapes, cut into three strips. POST-WAR LAMPS After the Second World War Paul Ysart was working on his own in the Monart shop making only a limited range of glass. He did not introduce any new Monart shapes, but he seems to have abandoned the pre-war lighting range and introduced an entirely new range of lamps. So far as is known, he did not make drawings of any of his post-war lamps. Just as he never allowed anyone else to see how he made paperweights, he kept all his new lamp designs in his head; it was part of the FIGURE 3 Paul Ysart's drawing of nine lamps with Fig. 2 shades matched to Fig. 1 pedestals, cut into three strips. 70 Y2 2$s . 9/ / .0- 2 MONART LIGHTING FIGURE 4 Five lamp designs in Paul Ysart's hand. `mystery' of his craft that he kept hidden even from his post-war assistants like Charles Young and John Jones. It is thought that he did not make any ceiling shades after 1947, except as replacements. Although there are no drawings, there is photo- graphic evidence of displays at Watson's China Hall in Perth High Street dating from 1959, and good examples of post-war lamps have survived. Plates 77 and 78 in Ysart Glass and Plate 8 in this paper show one type of post-war lamp, a bedside globe lamp on a turned wooden base, some of which had a metal spring clip to hold the globe in place. These examples L PLATE 8 A bedside lamp on a turned wooden base, probably made in the late 1950s as a companion to Plate 9. Turner Collection. have a hole drilled in the top. Paul told me that Mon- crieff's always did this to prevent heat shattering the top of the globe, but just before he left the company he experimented, omitted the hole, and found that the lamp worked just as well without it. It did not shatter provided, of course, that it was used with the 15-Watt bulb supplied. It amused him that they had wasted nearly 15 years drilling holes in lamps that didn't need them, especially as the drilling itself sometimes caused so much damage that the globe had to be destroyed, and the company certainly could not afford that sort of wastage. I have yet to find one of these undrilled globe lamps. Plate 8 is a good example of a globe lamp made by Paul Ysart in the late 1950s. The second type of post-war lamp is illustrated in Plate 86 in Ysart Glass and Plate 9 in this paper. In this dual bulb lamp the glass shade is now supported directly on the base on a flange formed in the pedestal neck. The flange is drilled to take the flex into the dual bayonet fitting which is supported by a chrome-plated or aluminium disc sitting within the flange. The whole mechanism is demonstrated in Plate 9 on a lamp that is shown assembled illuminated (left) and dismantled (right). These post-war mushroom lamps are made in different sizes and with slightly differently shaped shades; most pedestals have a separate foot. Each lamp was hand blown and shaped, and the footed and flanged pedestal shape is so complex that it must have stretched Paul's skill as a glassblower to the limit DISPLAY PHOTOGRAPHS Examples of surviving Monart lighting wares are il- lustrated in Ysart Glass and in the colour plates in this article, but contemporary photographs are another valuable resource. PRE-WAR PHOTOGRAPHS Amongst Betty Reid's papers were black and white photographs of displays of Monart wares, and three of these are reproduced here as Plates 10, 11 and 12. 71 PLATE 9 A flange-fitting dual bulb lamp made by Paul )(sari in 1959, shown dismantled and assembled. Turner Collection. MONART LIGHTING The earliest is Plate 10, which is thought to be a pho- tograph of a display of Monart ware at Moncrieff's, perhaps in the boardroom, taken in the mid to late 1920s. Apart from the Monart vases and bowls, our main interest here is the Monart lamp on the table. This appears to be a surface decorated lamp with Moncrieff's own electrical fitting, and it has a P3 base and an inverted S6 shade. The ceiling shade may be Monart, but this isn't clear; if it were, it would be a wavy rimmed version of S25. PLATE 10 Photograph of a Monart Ware display, probably in the Monerieff Boardroom, taken in the late 1920s. 72 PLATE 12 Photograph of a Monart Glass display, probably at the Glasgow Empire Exhibition in 1937. MONART LIGHTING PLATE 11 Photograph of the Moncriefi Display Stand at one of the British Industries Fairs at Olympia in the 1930s showing the only known example of an uplighter. Plate I 1 shows Moncrieff's stand at one of the British Industries Fairs at Olympia in the 1930s. We know that it is in the 30s because the stand fascia describes the wares as Monart Glass not Monart Ware, a name change that occurred in 1930. The stand is photographed with the lights on. There are six ceiling shades, two shape S 10s suspended on metal chains and four S15s sup- ported by the flex alone, a S19 uplighter on a turned wooden standard lamp base, and four dual bulb lamps. The two lamps on the extreme left and right, one of which is partly obscured on this photograph but not on a companion photograph (not reproduced), are P13 bases with S14 shades; the lamp in the centre, within the curtained al- cove, is probably a P18 mantelpiece lamp with a matching fabric shade, although this is not entirely clear; and the lamp to the left of the alcove has a P7 base and S6 shade. Plate 12 is a photograph of a much smaller display, which is thought to be the Monart stand at the 1937 Empire Exhibition in Glasgow. The ceiling shade is S10, as in Plate 10, but the three lamps are all different. The tall left-hand lamp has a fabric shade on a NF vase base, and the other dual bulb lamp mid left in the photograph is an- other P18 mantelpiece lamp with a fabric shade. The single bulb lamp on a wooden stand on top of the display cabinet at the rear is very unusual. 73 i Scottish made far , ..... ........ temeHt. MONART LIGHTING PLATE 13 Photograph of the right-hand window display at Watson's China Hall, High Street, Perth in 1959. Perth Museum & Art Gallery, reproduced by permission of Perth and Kinross Council. PLATE 14 Photograph of the left-hand window display at Watson's China Hall, High Street, Perth in 1959. Perth Museum & Art Gallery, reproduced by permission of Perth and Kinross Council. 74 MONART LIGHTING PLATE 15 A Monart cameo (etched) lamp. Private Collection, reproduced by permission of Lyon and Turnbull, Edinburgh. Although one cannot be certain from the picture, it appears to be a Monart MF vase that has been drilled through the base so that it can be illuminated from within by a fitting in the bottom of the vase. POST-WAR PHOTOGRAPHS The only documentary evidence of post-war lamps comes from two 1959 black and white photographs of the shopfronts of Watson's China Hall in Perth High Street, which are reproduced here in Plates 13 and 14. These are interesting in several respects. They show the range of Monart and other Scottish glassware on sale at that time, and the quality of the photography is so good that it is possible to read many of the price labels. 6 Four mushroom lamps are displayed, one in the left-hand window and three in the right-hand one. Although not in colour, three of the lamps appear to be similar to the lamp in Plate 9, i.e. they have a mot- tied pastel ground with whorls of darker colour and aventurine in a 'nebulae' pattern. The exception is the top lamp in the right hand window that is in darker colours. With a magnifying glass it is possible to read that the latter is priced at £8 12s 6d and the lamp in the lower right hand corner is £8 18s Od. The top lamp in the left-hand window is £8 12s 6d. When I visited the shop in 1984 and spoke to Jim Ramsay, the manager, he told me that he could recall selling mushroom lamps similar to the one in my own collection (Plate 9) at £9 19s 6d as late as 1963, and that the globe bedside lamps were priced at 53/-. CAMEO LAMPS In 1990, when Ysart Glass was written, no complete cameo lamp had been seen. Several bases were known, and one was illustrated in Plate 93 in the book. 7 Paul Ysart told me that he could recall making the blanks for these lamps, but after Jimmy Walker had acid etched 75 MONART LIGHTING them his father was disappointed with the results and the experiment was not repeated. He also told me that the cameo pieces were not sold commercially, although he thought one complete lamp had been bought by the Japanese Ambassador. I assumed — in 1990 — that none had survived. In 2002, however, a complete lamp emerged in a private house in Cheshire, and this is illustrated in Plate 15. It is a P16/ S14 lamp, and the pedestal has a Monart Glass paper label marked 'etched glass'. The lamp was bought in the early 1930s as a wedding present for a couple with a family business in Lancashire, and the buyer had business interests on Merseyside; neither family had any connection with Scotland. So far as the owner was aware, the lamp had been bought locally, but there were no details of place or price. Paul Ysart was clearly unaware that the lamps had been sold commercially after all. The familiar colour scheme and pattern on the base, in which the surface decoration of brown and green enamels has been etched away to represent earth, tree trunks and foliage on a mottled orange lining, is repeated on the shade. One might have expected the brown and green base, representing trunk and foliage, to be surmounted by a shade containing more foliage and then sky, but that is not the case here, and it is probable that all cameo lamps were made in a similar manner. It has to be said that the etched cameo work is clumsy, and the Ysarts were probably right not to repeat the experiment. However, the survival of such a lamp in a household with young children and, more recently, young grandchildren, is little short of miraculous. It may be the only surviving complete cameo lamp, and as such it is of great interest to collectors even though, to my own eyes, it does not possess the beauty of many of the more familiar mushroom and French-style lamps. Its appearance just as this paper was in its final draft could not have been better timed. 8 CONCLUSION The Lighting Pattern Book, together with the colour plates of lamps and ceiling shades, contemporary pho- tographs and other archival material reproduced in this paper, have all added considerably to our knowledge of Monart production. The appearance of a Monart cameo lamp has been has been a special bonus. The documentary evidence clearly shows that Paul Ysart played a larger role in the early history of Monart production than had previously been suspected. I interviewed Paul Ysart at length in the 1980s, and I did not quite know how to take it when he once told me that he was a far better glassblower than his father. He had, after all, fallen out with his father in 1932 and was never reconciled thereafter. Factual evidence would suggest that Paul was right. In the 1950s, his father and the two other brothers, making Vasart Glass at The Shore Works, did not and possibly could not make either blown glass or paperweights to match in quality his own production back at Moncrieff's. 9 It is now clear, particularly from the Lighting Pattern Book manuscript, that Monart production generally almost certainly owed far more to Paul Ysart's genius than has previously been recognised. Ian Turner May 2004 Ian Turner wrote the essay on Monart Glass for the British Glass Between the Wars catalogue in 1987 and is the co-author of Ysart Glass with Frank Andrews and Alison Clarke. His collection of Monart Glass was sold at Christie's in September 2003. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to www.web-mouse.com photographic serv- ices for their original photography and their work enabling the reproduction of the Monart catalogues and archive photographs. ENDNOTES I . Ian Turner, Alison Clarke and Frank Andrews, Ysart Glass, Volo Edition, London, 1990. 2. Now at Balmoral Castle. 3. Turner, Clarke and Andrews, op. cit., page 18. 4. Turner, Clarke and Andrews, op. cit., page 21. 5. Turner, Clarke and Andrews, op. cit., pages 165-166, plates 213-219. 6. As an aside, this shop display also shows three magnificent pieces of Monart. In the left hand display there is a huge colourway 200 vase holding pampas grass, and in the right hand display there is more pampas grass in a large footed vase with an elongated neck plus a large temple jar, both in colourway 162. I saw all three in Paul's house in 1989 and presume they are still owned by members of his family. They were never offered for sale in Watson's China Hall, that is for sure. 7. This is now in the Perth Museum and Art Gallery. 8. The lamp appeared at auction at Lyon and Turnbull Edinburgh on 21st April 2004 and was sold, inclusive of buyer's premium and VAT, for £4800. 9. To be fair, though, Salvador Ysart was by that time over 70 years old and not in good health, and the Vasart Company's finances were precarious at the best of times. 76 MONART LIGHTUNG APPENDIX I The Monart Lighting Ware Pattern Book. 77 MONART LIGHTING 1 78 -29' r 1Y51 MONART LIGHTING 79 MONART LIGHTING 80 MONART LIGHTING 81 (SC IG S.4t MONART LIGHTING 82 MONART LIGHTING 83 MONART LIGHTING 111PRIPROF 84 0 V . 3 r a f t- IS ‘I . I! lLur 4. 5 , .. 1 ' l i k ' so....Ws, 1 t . 2 MONART LIGHTING 85 I 1 MONART LIGHTING 86 MONART LIGHTING I • UI 87 MONART LIGHTING 88 Ccah . 'il f MONART LIGHTING .2c)1R- 5 1 , . 1!! - 4 ' , / .. 89 MONART LIGHTING J 90 2 MONART LIGHTING 91 5/2 5. MONART LIGHTING APPENDIX II Two Lamp Designs filed with the Lighting Ware Pattern Book. The design on the left is reproduced at a larger scale on the next page. 92 MONART LIGHTING • ".1•1•11MoeswrJ uZA..,4,;=it.10I - .17:=7.51; , = -77 , 11111101P 93 ISBN 0 9510736 6 4

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

The Journal of The Glass Association Volume 7

Recent Posts

Address

Email

Instagram