NetworK ezine Issue 77. October 2021
Totally Devoted to Carnival Glass
Welcome to our October NetworK. We begin and end this issue with some wonderful old ads from around a century ago. It’s such a privilege and a pleasure to be able to enjoy and study these fascinating illustrations – and perhaps imagine the talented illustrators who created these lovely images, at work with their tools of the trade. So, let’s start with this eye-opener from a Perry G. Mason catalogue. And before you ask, it has no connection with the esteemed lawyer from the 1950s TV series. However, some detective work was most certainly needed in pursuit of this case.
They say a picture’s worth a thousand words, and the one above could certainly fulfil that expectation. Let’s start with the pattern. At first glance it is so familiar – it’s an easily found Fenton piece and one we probably all have. But stop and look again. Is it Dragon and Lotus or Peacock and Grape? In fact, it is neither, or maybe both! The illustrator has taken the medallion-style concept and combined them into one Fenton amalgamation. Peacock and Lotus! And yet another motif, this time from a Dugan-Diamond pattern, has also been added. The encircling band around the central floral design is identical to that on Dugan-Diamond’s Windflower. Fenton’s Dragon and Lotus (top): the Perry G. Mason
illustration uses the greater part of this design, but replaces the dragon with the peacock from Fenton’s Peacock and Grape (bottom). |
Above: an extract from Perry G. Mason catalogue, c. 1930.
Courtesy Jon D. Bartell and the Glass Paper Fanatics. The encircling band around the central floral design on the Perry G. Mason illustration is similar to that on Fenton’s Dragon and Lotus pattern, but it is much more defined. In fact it appears to be more like the bold encircling band on Dugan-Diamond’s Windflower (right).
|
There are several reasons why the Perry G. Mason illustration might have been presented as a blended fusion of patterns. Possibly – but highly unlikely – there really was a Peacock and Lotus design produced, but no actual production examples have yet been found.
Much more feasible is that the illustrator wanted to give an impression of several patterns that they had in stock – so instead of drawing just one design, the illustrator created a composite of several designs. It’s fascinating to contemplate the scene as the artist laid out the various Carnival bowls with their different designs and chose to portray them as we see in the catalogue ad. It could just as easily have been a Dragon and Grape design that emerged, instead of the Peacock and Lotus. One important factor emerges, and is underlined by what we demonstrated in the last issue of NetworK with regard to the “wrong” stopper on the Imperial Grape decanter. We should also caution ourselves not to always rely on the veracity of old ads – sometimes they are not showing the true picture.
Cake or Fruit Basket and Handle Note that the description in the ad’s text calls the piece a “basket” as it has a removable “twisted silver wire” handle that converts it from a simple bowl to a rather fancy basket (see right). The way in which the metal handle was attached to the bowl was no doubt the cause of chips on the edge of some Carnival items. What collectors today call a “three in one” edge was described in the ad as a “fancy edge scalloped in a rare artistic manner”. |
Grape Delight
Dugan-Diamond’s Grape Delight pattern – found in the rose bowl and nut bowl shapes – is an interesting piece, with its six distinctive little feet.
Dugan-Diamond’s Grape Delight pattern – found in the rose bowl and nut bowl shapes – is an interesting piece, with its six distinctive little feet.
Above: a 1915 Butler Brothers wholesale ad for the two Grape Delight shapes, showing that they were still being made in the early Diamond years (i.e. after 1913).
Left: an earlier Butler Brothers ad – this was in the Dugan years, before Diamond took over in 1913. Notice that there is no price shown, but it does say "Out" - does this mean it was out of stock? Interestingly, the 1912 pack weight seemed to be 5 pounds less than it was by 1915! |
Reproductions of "Grape Delight"
In the Carnival Revival years both shapes in this pattern were reproduced for L.G. Wright. Some of these reproductions may have marks that resemble a Northwood N mark, although it’s likely that not all the reproductions are marked. (These N marks can be seen in a new feature on our website – see next section on Trademarks.)
So why would a piece that we know was made by Dugan-Diamond, be reproduced with a Northwood mark on it? That doesn’t seem to make sense, until you look into its past …
The early Carnival writers and researchers of the 1960s and 70s were completely unaware of Dugan as a Carnival maker.
In the Carnival Revival years both shapes in this pattern were reproduced for L.G. Wright. Some of these reproductions may have marks that resemble a Northwood N mark, although it’s likely that not all the reproductions are marked. (These N marks can be seen in a new feature on our website – see next section on Trademarks.)
So why would a piece that we know was made by Dugan-Diamond, be reproduced with a Northwood mark on it? That doesn’t seem to make sense, until you look into its past …
The early Carnival writers and researchers of the 1960s and 70s were completely unaware of Dugan as a Carnival maker.
Only the Big Four were fully acknowledged: Fenton, Northwood, Imperial and Millersburg – and many of the patterns that we know today as Dugan-Diamond’s (such as Farmyard, Jewelled Heart etc), were being attributed to Northwood. The recognition that Dugan-Diamond was a major producer of Carnival Glass began in the mid-1970s. The "spark" was when excavation work began in Indiana, PA, on the site for the future Miller Stadium construction which was exactly where the old Dugan-Diamond Glass Co. had previously stood. As the ground - later to be known as the “Dugan Dump”- was dug up, Del Helman and others, came across many glass shards. Helman recognised their importance and sent them to the late William Heacock, glass researcher, for further documentation. Heacock’s results, published in 1981, gave the key clues to Dugan-Diamond's Carnival Glass production. Writing at the time, Heacock gave an insight into the initial poor reception of this crucial information: “What I don’t understand is why so much apathy concerning these shards? Maybe I haven’t done enough to spread the word. Or maybe it’s just too hard for people to accept change. We ALWAYS thought these patterns, and others, were Northwood – so just because one person says they are not doesn’t make it not so. I realise change of any kind is hard to accept”. |
Dugan Glass Co., early 1900s, courtesy Indiana Gazette.
The railway line serving the Dugan Glass Co., can be seen clearly. |
When you understand the way things were before Dugan-Diamond was fully accepted as a major Carnival maker – it makes sense that a mark that looked like a Northwood N, was added to reproduction of a piece that was actually made originally by Dugan-Diamond! And of course, as knowledge advanced, these false marks were not only frowned upon (indeed, legal action was taken to stop their use) but in a twist of fate, they also became a way of spotting reproductions and fakes.
When you understand the way things were before Dugan-Diamond was fully accepted as a major Carnival maker – it makes sense that a mark that looked like a Northwood N, was added to reproduction of a piece that was actually made originally by Dugan-Diamond! And of course, as knowledge advanced, these false marks were not only frowned upon (indeed, legal action was taken to stop their use) but in a twist of fate, they also became a way of spotting reproductions and fakes.
Ice green Carnival Grape Delight nut bowl and rose bowl,
as shown in the 1980 L.G. Wright catalog supplement. Courtesy Jon D Bartell and the Glass Paper Fanatics. |
Purple Carnival Grape Delight nut bowl and rose bowl,
also shown in the 1980 L.G. Wright catalog supplement. Courtesy Jon D Bartell and the Glass Paper Fanatics. |
The first Grape Delight reproductions that were made in the mid -70s were reported to be in ice blue and amber and (according to Dorothy Taylor in her “Encore by Dorothy Book 1”) were made for John Jennings of Tennessee by Mosser. In the early 1980s, Mosser made the Grape Delight in purple and ice green for L.G. Wright. Cobalt blue was also made in the reproductions.
There’s a lot of misleading information about these reproductions on the internet. One source claims that the flared rim on the nut bowls is only found on the originals, but if you look at the L. G. Wright illustrations above, you’ll see that’s not the case – the reproductions were also made with flared rims.
Trademarks
Trademarks or Makers’ Marks are so useful when found on Carnival – many of us have probably wished at some time or other, that all Carnival had been marked so that we could easily attribute it. However, sometimes the items that are trademarked can lead the unwary on false trails. The apparent Northwood N marks, as explained in the earlier Grape Delight article above, are one such example.
Trademarks or Makers’ Marks are so useful when found on Carnival – many of us have probably wished at some time or other, that all Carnival had been marked so that we could easily attribute it. However, sometimes the items that are trademarked can lead the unwary on false trails. The apparent Northwood N marks, as explained in the earlier Grape Delight article above, are one such example.
|
Left: the Dugan Nautilus – the Northwood script mark is on the base.
Courtesy and copyright Jeremy Webster. The full story of the real and false "N" mark and this fascinating Dugan anomaly is on our website. It is part of our new and extremely comprehensive Trademark feature in which we cover all old, original Carnival worldwide. All the Classic Carnival makers who used trademarks are included, but we don’t stop there. Over 40 trademarks and labels on Carnival from around the world are illustrated in our Trademark Gallery - it's essential viewing! Here's the link: Trademarks and Labels |
Thistle and Thorn
It’s a thorny problem! Browse around the internet and popular sales sites, and you’ll see this ubiquitous pattern frequently attributed to Sowerby. It’s one of those self-fulfilling predicaments, whereby one person copies another, then someone else copies that, and it gets repeated until it assumes its own wishful “truth”. The fact is, there is no documentary or catalogue evidence to show that Sowerby made the Thistle and Thorn pattern. The unproven “attribution” to Sowerby seems to date back many decades – to a time when the only English Carnival maker known to collectors was Sowerby. Since then, we have discovered evidence for – and documented – other English Carnival makers such as Turnbull, Greener-Jobling and Moore. But that old Sowerby "wishful attribution” clings like wild ivy to the Thistle and Thorn. There are many Sowerby catalogues in existence and much research has been done by scholars and collectors alike – Thistle and Thorn is not shown in any Sowerby catalogue or archive. So, who made it? And when and where did they make it? What exactly do we know about it? It’s all explored here in our new Collector’s Facts: Thistle and Thorn. |
|
If you have missed any of the previous issues of NetworK and NetworK Specials, they are all here: Back Issues.
Privacy and the use of your information: we only use your name and email address to send you your FREE Carnival Glass NetworK ezine. We will not share your name or email address with anyone else, or use it for any other purpose. You can change your mind about receiving your NetworK ezine at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link at the foot of every issue, or by emailing us at [email protected]
Join us on Facebook
We would love you to come and join in the fun, and we invite you and your friends to join us all on NetworK's fast growing and very active Facebook Group!
We would love you to come and join in the fun, and we invite you and your friends to join us all on NetworK's fast growing and very active Facebook Group!