Glassware -- Collectors and collecting; Glassware -- Great Britain; Glassware -- Prices
At the outset some attempt at classification is desirable. We may refer
the reader to the very exhaustive list of varieties which that great
authority, Mr. Albert Hartshorne, has made in his standard work on this
subject. For our purpose it will be sufficient, however, to make a broad
and simple division of drinking glasses into wine glasses, ale and beer
glasses, and cordial or spirit glasses. It is the custom, too, to draw a
distinction between the rude vessels made for common household or tavern
use and the finer and more highly finished examples designed for the use
of better-class people. Here, however, the distinction is rather one of
quality than of kind.
The three great groups to which we have referred fall into various
classes according to the diversity of shape in bowl and stem and, to a
less degree, of foot.
The bowls are variously funnel-shaped, with straight sides, or waisted,
that is, with the sides curved inward to form a waist, bell-shaped, and
ogee or double-ogee shaped--the last named showing in section the ogee
curve, so widely employed by the architect for his mouldings.
The stems are of two great classes--drawn stems or stuck stems. The
former are parts of the same lump of molten glass of which the bowl is
formed; the latter consist of a separate piece fused into the bowl.
As regards shape, stems may be plain rods, rods with knops, rib-twisted,
faceted, air-twisted, air-drawn, or opaque-twisted. We shall deal with
each variety in its appropriate place.
With regard to the foot, the generality were folded, that is to say, the
edge of the rim was turned under to form a fold or welt, so that the
glass stands on the rim, and not on the flat of the foot. Apart from
this, the only variations are those bearing on the flatness of the foot
and its diameter. In old glasses the feet were never quite flat. There
is always a perceptible slope from the centre to the rim, and very often
the central portion rose up into a dome. The foot was also wider in
comparison with the width of the bowl than in the modern type.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account