Table of Contents
The following tabulation shows the extent to which errors are found in the captions that accompany the photographs in the Boggess books. Percentage error = number of errors / total number of captions x 100%.
The remarkably high percentage error for the first book reflects the somewhat limited state of knowledge that existed at the time it was published (1977). Nevertheless, many of the identifications given by the Boggesses in this book are apparently based on nothing more than hearsay. Although many of its identifications are incorrect, the book does provide good to excellent photographs. It is out-of-print today, but used copies are often available on the Internet.
These correction sheets would be much less extensive were it not for the work of the late Paul Miles. Paul energetically tabulated many of the errors that are found in the captions in the Boggess books, and he also was usually able to supply correct identifications. In this task he consulted with several other cut-glass enthusiasts. Anyone who would like a copy of Paul's original lists for the first four Boggess books can find them as follows: Book 1, Book 2, Book 3, and Book 4. Questionable items in Paul's tabulations, as well as questionable items in general, have been set aside by this writer for consideration at a later date. Readers who wish to share additional identifications should send them to the writer at P. O. Box 586, Olean, NY 14760. All contributions will be acknowledged.
The corrections on these sheets have been double-checked for accuracy wherever possible. They are based on primary sources -- mainly factory catalogs but also trade journals and magazine advertisements. Secondary sources -- such as "tradition" and books other than those that contain pages from companies' catalogs -- have been avoided. If a particular item is not listed on the correction sheets, the Boggess identification may or may not be correct. The reader must confirm this independently. In this connection please note that many items are not identified, either by the Boggesses or by this writer; they continue to be a challenge to us all.
Please keep the following points in mind when using the correction sheets:
1. Quotation marks. These are used for "assigned" names, where the official, factory names are not known. Because of the increased number of catalog reprints now available, assigned names are used much less frequently today than in the past. But note the number of patented patterns that still lack official names. Quotation marks and a variation (*---*) are also used when referring to the catch-all categories created by Hawkes and Hoare for their miscellaneous patterns. Hawkes called these patterns "Odd" while Hoare used the terms *Regular* and *Cut Regular*. It has also been necesssary to use quotation marks when referring directly to remarks made by the Boggesses, including their misspellings. It is not always possible to determine whether an error is a misspelling or simply an incorrect identification.
2. Agents. On the correction sheets the term "agent" is used in its broadest sense, referring to a company (wholesaler, retailer, or store) that sold products that were obtained from cutting shops whose identities are not always known today. It is important to recognize that the agents did not cut the glass they sold. In addition, agents usually changed the names of the patterns provided by the cutting shops. Because of these reasons, there is little, or no, value in checking agents' pattern names, and this has not been done.
3. L. Straus and Company. When these books were written it was believed by many dealers and collectors that the acid-etched trademark that consists of a star-on-a-circle was used by this company to mark its wares, a supposition set in motion decades ago by J. Michael and Dorothy T. Pearson (Pearson 1965, p. 180). It is now known, with certainty, that this trademark was registered by the Libbey Glass Company for use on the plain (i.e., not "figured") blanks which the company sold to various cutting shops, including Straus (note 1). The reader should note, therefore, that the statement "signed Straus", which appears frequently, is erroneous. Moreover, the Boggesses sometimes "force" a Straus origin on a star-in-a-circle marked item by giving the pattern a Straus name even though the illustration clearly shows an entirely different pattern! Confirmation of the well-known "Corinthian by Straus" pattern has not yet been demonstrated. (It is correctly shown as item 44 in B2 and item 870 in B4, but incorrectly as item 108b in B1.
In these books there are only two examples of authentic Straus products that carry the star-in-a-circle trademark of the Libbey Glass Company. One is item 869 in B3, where the catalog name of this patented design (pat. no. 28,733) is unknown; collectors call it "Puntie". The other example is item 713 in B4: American Beauty (pat. no. 26,190). This indicates that Straus purchased these blanks from the Libbey Glass Company. Other examples may come to light as investigators continue to use the following tools, which are readily available, to identify items made by L. Straus and Sons: STRAUS-MACY RICH CUT CATALOG, American Cut Glass Association, 2000; L. STRAUS & SONS 1893 CATALOG, American Cut Glass Association, 1987; and the patented patterns on file at the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The Boggess books are useless for identifying Straus cut glass.
4. The Tuthill Cut Glass Company. Most dealers and collectors use the descriptive pattern names suggested many years ago by the Pearsons, especially for the company's many realistic patterns. The Boggesses have varied some of these names and have introduced others. All of these are assigned ("coined") names and, as such, need not concern us. Only one catalog, of limited usefulness, has been found for the Tuthill company. It contains only numeric, geometric patterns and was probably assembled early in the twentieth century as a saleman's portfolio. One pattern, No. 183, appears in B2 as item 776. (Contact acgakathy@aol.com for additional information.)
5. Colored Cut Glass These sections are rich in corrections even though only those that could be confirmed with certainty are listed on the correction sheets. The number of items made by the Belgian factory Cristalleries du Val Saint-Lambert is remarkable considering that they appear here in books devoted to American cut glass. This strongly suggests that sellers and buyers take considerable care when American colored cut glass is being considered for sale or purchase.
Although colored cut glass from Belgium has received considerable attention, the reader should not overlook the fact that colorless cut glass was also imported from this county (and from other countries as well). Item 458 in B4 is an example.
6. The Russian and Persian Patterns. These patterns/motifs are shown in all five of the Boggess books. Unfortunately, they are often incorrectly identified. The percentage error approaches 50%, which suggests that flipping-a-coin was the means by which identification was made! Distinguishing between the Russian and Persian patterns -- as well as distinguishing between four variations of the Russian pattern -- is important and is easily accomplished. Although a detailed discussion is presented elsewhere., the following summary can help the unitiated reader cut through the confusion generated by the Boggesses' misidentifications:
The Russian and Persian patterns are each produced by cutting six intersecting sets of parallel miters. The spacing between the miters of two of these sets (which are orthogonal) determines whether the pattern is Russian or Persian. The Russian pattern at this point in our discussion is more appropriately called "basic Russian" for reasons that will become apparent.
The reader might want to consult the drawings of the Russian and Persian patterns that are given in the frontispiece of the ACGA's first J. Hoare & Company catalog reprint. A worthwhile exercise is to make photo-enlargements of these drawings. The finely-drawn, continuous lines represent the six intersecting sets of parallel miter cuts. For the Russian pattern an octagonal hobnail is produced. The closer spacing of the miter cuts of the Persian pattern, however, results in a twelve-sided hobnail.
The cutting, if any, on the surface of the hobnail must be considered in order to define the four variations of the Russian pattern. This is not necessary for the Persian pattern where a hobstar is usually cut on the pattern's hobnail. However, the hobnail can carry strawberry (fine) diamonds, or some other motif, in place of the hobstar. Where these variations occur, the pattern is still known as Persian. The Persian pattern is used as a motif in Hunt's patented Royal pattern (pat. no. 41,555) where it sports a Brunswick star on its hobnail. The Royal pattern is best seen in figure 2 of the patent's drawings. The Persian pattern itself was never patented, a circumstance that it shares with the Russian pattern.
In the case of the Russian pattern the pattern is not, in the strictest sense, "Russian" unless its hobnail has been cut with a multi-pointed single star. Today this pattern is often referred to as Russian Canterbury, to avoid ambiguity, although the term Russian is also correct. The ambiguity arises from the following circumstance: The Russian pattern as illustrated in the catalogs of the many companies that cut it during the 1880s and 1890s always shows the pattern with a single star on its hobnail. The pattern is, however, simply a slight modification of an earlier patten, one that probably dates from the late 1870s. It is identical to the Russian (Russian Canterbury) pattern but without any cutting on its hobnail. This "clear-button Russian" was given different names by different companies: Hawkes called the pattern Star and Hobnail, while L. Straus & Sons labeled it Octagon Diamond and Star. The Mt. Washington company called the pattern No. 60. Today this pattern is known as Russian Cleveland by many dealers and collectors. By using the terms Russian Canterbury (starred hobnail) and Russian Cleveland (uncut hobnail) the difference between these two patterns is emphasized and ambiguity avoided. (Many people, however, incorrectly call Russian Cleveland "Russian".) It is ironic that Russian Cleveland, the second variation, is actually the older of the two patterns. While it would be historically correct to call it Star and Hobnail (using Hawkes' name as a generic term), it probably is much too late in the day to make the change.
If the hobnail on the basic Russian pattern is found cut with strawberry (fine) diamonds, the pattern is called Russian Ambassador, the third variation. The fourth variation has a hobstar cut on its hobnail. It looks, at first glance, as if it were the Persian pattern, but because its hobnail is octagonal, it is obviously of Russian, not Persian, origin. It has become known as "The Persian Variation of the Russian Pattern" or, more simply, Russian-Persian. As this explanation makes clear (!) the Russian-Persian pattern and the Persian pattern are two entirely different patterns. This was recognized by the original cutting shops, and the two patterns were sold, and priced, separately.
The foregoing explanation has its roots in the work of Daniel, Revi, and the Pearsons. The Boggesses, for some unknown reason, have ignored this earlier work with the result that the unwary reader is needlessly confused by several of the Russian and Persian patterns in the Boggess books.
7. Duplicated Patterns. Occasionally a company's pattern was duplicated by one or more other companies. This occurred when so-called "generic" patterns -- hobnail, Russian, strawberry diamond, etc. -- were cut, and it also happened when companies (usually two) agreed to "share" a pattern. The Boggesses, however, have distorted these facts by extending them to an extreme degree, claiming -- by many examples, especially in B2 -- that duplicated patterns are frequently encountered. While it has not yet been possible to analyze all of these claims, Paul Miles found that where they could be checked the claims proved to be invalid. This writer, who has been able to spot-check only a few of the supposedly duplicated patterns, has also found this to be true. He agrees with the following assessment by Bill Evans and Dow Mitchell, written in a related context:
Many competing firms cut similar patterns, and most, if not all, cut replacement pieces in others' patterns, but we have found in our continuous review of the patterns as member of the ACGA Pattern Identification Committee, that there is always something unique in the various companies' renditions of a pattern, something that distinguishes one company's version from the others' (note 1, p. 14).
"Something unique" results in a different pattern, with a different name, cut by a different company.
In light of the fact that the Boggesses are often unable to identify patterns correctly (and are likewise frequently unable to distinguish between similar motifs) it is not surprising that -- to them -- many dissimilar patterns appear to be identical. The reader, however, should put little faith in the "duplicated patterns" claimed by these authors.
8. Photographs. In any book whose purpose is to identify cut-glass patterns the quality of the photographs used is of primary importance. Unfortunately, the quality of the images supplied by the Boggesses is highly variable. Many patterns will forever remain unidentifiable because their photographs are so poor.
NOTES:
1. Carlson, C. E., 2000: It's Not What You Thought It Was, The Hobstar, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp. 1, 8-15 (May).
2. Evans, B. and D. Mitchell, 1999: One Bud Nipped, The Hobstar, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 13-14 (Jan).
Updated 28 Nov 2003