Correction Sheets for Selected Publications

If the reader of this book is like this writer he will repeatedly find himself thinking: "This is interesting", immediately followed by: "But is this true?" Unfortunately, we are given little help in answering this question. Incomplete, inappropriate, and incorrect references -- major road blocks thrown up by the author -- repeatedly frustrate the enquiring reader who soon discovers that research methodology is a subject unknown to the author.

Interviews with family descendants are frequently cited, but verifiable information based on them is seldom given, although letters, personal papers, and even "line drawings" are said to exist. Family tradition, with all its uncertainty, looms large. There is no indication that the author has received any training in, or has had any prior experience with, interview techniques. This is important because an interview requires expertise on the part of the interviewer in order to minimize the personal bias that is present and to maximize the amount of reliable information that can be obtained. The audio interviews themselves have been retained by author; apparently no copies have been deposited in any museum.

Crofford frequently resorts to make-believe conversations and introspections. In skilled hands this approach can be effective. But here it results in unsubstantiated fantasies that add nothing to the story, are probably mostly untrue, and are distractions. In addition, the book is crammed with trivia (not always related to glass) -- padding that is necessary in order to produce a book-length manuscript. A gallery of photographs of Tuthill glass is presented as a last minute, slap-dash addition. The photos are not integrated with the text, and several patterns are incorrectly identified. Crofford's misspellings ask for, and receive, a light-hearted treatment in this review. His mistakes, and especially his plagiarisms, on the other hand, demand a much more serious approach.

Not long ago Crofford wrote an article that concludes with this remarkable statement: "I make it a point never to use imagination as a fact, for to do so would be misleading and could be detrimental to the American Cut Glass Association and its collectors and dealers" (emphasis added) (note 1). We leave it to the ACGA (and its collectors and dealers) to determine whether or not this book is detrimental. The rest of us can only marvel at the supreme irony of Crofford's statement and his chutzpa. THE RICH CUT GLASS OF CHARLES GUERNSEY TUTHILL is the kind of book that should remain on a bookshop's shelf until it is remaindered. A purchaser would need only to wait in order to buy it at a considerable, and much deserved, discount. He should not have long to wait.

Anyone interested in reliable material concerning this company should consult the references that are given in the Tuthill Cut Glass Company file in Part 2. The Crofford references listed there are for "completeness" only. They are not recommended.

NOTE:

1. Should facts be proven?, The Hobstar, Vol. 22, No. 10, pp. 1, 6 (Jul 2000).

CROFFORD'S MISTAKES (A SELECTION)

[Summer 1882] Harry Sinclaire had heard that Hawkes had just received a grant for the company's first patent. It was patent number 12,982, and it became known as the Russian pattern.

Fact:

Patent number 12,982 is for a pattern whose name has not yet been discovered. It is not the Russian pattern.

Page 24, Fiction:

Also, Charles would have a chance to work with designers like Philip McDonald [MacDonald]. After Philip secured the patent for the Russian pattern and assigned the pattern to Hawkes, he became the hero of Corning.

Philip MacDonald did not design the Russian pattern. (Does this make him an anti-hero?)

Pages 24-25, Fiction:

Shortly after June, 1882, Richard Briggs ... visited Hawkes Rich Cut Glass to order a complete, 600-piece banquet service for the Russian Embassy in Washington ...

"...[N]o evidence of any kind has been found to support the story of the Russian ambassador ordering a set [of glassware cut in the Russian pattern]." (Spillman 1996, pp. 237-240).

Page 25, Fiction:

The White House in Washington, D. C. ... selected the Russian pattern for its 1885 order for a banquet service of 600 pieces.

"... [T]he evidence does establish that the glassware [ordered in 1885] was another reorder of the Lincoln pattern set, not the Hawkes Russian pattern which was first supplied to the White House in 1891." (Spillman 1996, p. 246). (N. B.: Spillman's accounts are authoritative; her only error regarding the Russian pattern concerns MacDonald and his patent.)

Page 86, Fiction:

Upon arriving at T. G. Hawkes and Company [on 1 May 1898] Charles went to Tom Hawkes's office. Hawkes asked Charles if his workload was such that he could cut a large order in the Russian pattern. Charles assured Hawkes that such an order would come at a good time. The company was just finishing the last items of the orders on file. Hawles told Charles about the order his company had received from M. W. Beveridge for the Whie House, and he wanted Charles to cut eleven dozen finger bowls and an equal number of ice-cream servers. Hawkes told Charles to order the blanks from Corning Glass Works and have them charged to the T. G. Hawkes and Company account.

... Hawkes was pleased to subcontract the cutting of the finger bowls and the ice cream servers to the Charles G. Tuthill Glass Company. A completion date of October 1 was required in order to meet the delivery date requested by the White House.

... The order was cut, polished, washed, dried, and delivered to T. G. Hawkes and Company the week of September 26, 1898.

Crofford provides one reference, to Spillman 1996 (p. 247) where this order is mentioned. Unfortunately, he misinterprets the information given there: the 11 1/2 dozen figure (which he rounds down to 11 dozen) refers to the total number of individual items ordered from Hawkes. The order is detailed in the standard reference for this subject, Spillman's WHITE HOUSE GLASSWARE (1989, p. 101) where the author makes the point that "Hawkes was using Dorflinger stemware blanks in the 1890s", not Corning blanks as claimed by Crofford. Corning blanks were confined to larger items at this time. Oddly, Crofford does not mention the copper-wheel engraving that would have been required on each piece.

The number of pieces actually ordered varied from one to two dozen for each item of tableware that was to be cut in the Russian pattern. The items included goblets, clarets, wines, champagnes, and sherries in addition to the two mentioned by Crofford: finger bowls (two dozen ordered, not 11 dozen) and ice-cream servers (one dozen ordered, not "an equal number"). The total number of items to be cut by Tuthill, therefore, was 36, not 264 (= 11 x 12 x 2). Crofford then takes the number 264 and "runs with it", discussing in detail just how the three Tuthill cutters could best complete the order by October 1st. No "requested delivery date" by the White House is mentioned by Spillman who indicates that this order was placed on July 22nd, well after Crofford's date of May 1st. Spillman nowhere mentions the Charles G. Tuthill Glass Company. What is particularly unfortunate is the fact that Crofford has taken incorrect information, applied considerable imagination, and has come up with a mostly (entirely?) fictional account for the unwary reader.

Page 43, Fiction:

Hawkes had returned the previous week [in Sep 1888] from the Innescana [Inniscarra] House in Ireland.... Tom Hawkes handed Charles a very complicated line drawing of a pattern he had designed ... Charles, seeing that the cuts were all straight line cuts ... assured Hawkes he would be able to cut the pattern ... Hawkes had named the new pattern Brazilian. He planned to patent the pattern and enter it into production in late 1889 or early 1890.

The Brazilian pattern was not given that name until shortly before 26 Mar 1889: "We have changed the name of our new pattern from Venetian to Brazilian." (Spillman 1996, p. 186). Parenthetically, this is the reason why the Brazilian pattern does not appear on the invoices that accompanied Hawkes's glass shipment, early in March 1889, to the Universal Exposition in Paris. Nevertheless, the Brazilian pattern was exhibited there -- on a 15"D, two part punch bowl -- but it was called Venetian at the time its invoice was prepared. Only one example of this new pattern reached Paris, probably because the pattern was so new. Its patent application was filed on 29 Apr 1889, and the patent was granted on 28 May 1889. Spillman reports, however, that domestic orders for the Brazilian pattern were filled during the spring of 1889 (Spillman 1996, p. 186). (The Hawkes Venetian pattern we know today is an entirely different pattern, one that was patented in 1890.)

Because Hawkes's "new pattern" was not given the name Brazilian until sometime in March 1889, it is impossible for Crofford to use this name for the pattern Charles was assigned to cut on a ten-inch plate in September 1888. If the pattern, perchance, were the one that eventually was named Brazilian, then the assignment would surely have been a challenging one for an eighteen-year-old who had just begun the second year of his apprenticeship.

It should be noted that Crofford, using the patent drawings on file for the Brazilian pattern, shifts from "a very complicated line drawing" to a description of the pattern as one that is composed of "all straight line cuts". The former is the complete Brazilian pattern, the latter a modification that was also included in the patent. The ten-inch plate Charles was given likely required the complete pattern. But even if it did not, the modified pattern still requires a circular miter cut (overlooked by Crofford) at the base of its fan scallops. That, too, would not have been an easy task for someone in Charles's position.

Crofford has Charles completely finishing cut-glass patterns such as a "pillar and diamond" pattern, and the Norwood and Triumph patterns during his first year of apprenticeship, 1887-1888 (p. 33). The Norwood pattern is first listed, but not illustrated, in a c1890-1895 catalog; Triumph in a c1900-1910 catalog. The Norwood is shown, for the first time, in the c1900-1910 catalog that also illustrates the Triumph pattern. Crofford uses these illustrations to describe the patterns Charles is supposedly cutting. In his second year, 1888-1889, Charles is described polishing a vase in the Bengal pattern, a pattern which first appears in a catalog that has been dated 1910-1915. Amazingly, Crofford has Charles cutting the same size and type of blank as those illustrated in the two catalogs: a 7"D plate for the Norwood pattern and a 12"H vase for the Bengal pattern. The caption for the Triumph pattern states that the bowl "came in four different diameters", so Crofford is cut some slack. He opts for a ten-incher (Sinclaire and Spillman 1997, pp. 83, 84, 93).

Also during his second year Charles is required to produce line drawings and a written description for T. G. Hawkes of the latter's famous Chrysanthemum pattern. "Thomas Hawkes was pleased with the line drawings and the written description Charles completed on the Chrysanthemum pattern." (p. 35). He should have been astonished! The application for a patent to cover the Chrysanthemum pattern was not filed until 10 Oct 1890. Can we really believe that a finished example of this pattern was available for Charles to analyze two years earlier?

Crofford has elected to describe in words the Grecian and Chrysanthemum patterns (pp. 33-34). And he does so badly. Worse, there are no illustrations to help the reader visualize these important patterns. The description of the Chrysanthemum pattern is particularly unfortunate, especially when compared to the actual description (specification) as published: an excellent description of this abstract, break-through pattern that reflects one aspect of the contemporary Art Nouveau movement. Who wrote the description, we do not know. Perhaps Hawkes himself. Thankfully, it was not turned into "lawyereeze" by his company's law firm.

Crofford's Chrysanthemum misrepresentations continue (p. 46):

Concerning the 1889 Paris Exposition, Crofford erroneously believes not only that no complete inventory of the pieces sent to Paris exists, but also that the Chrysanthemum pattern was on display there: "Charles vividly recalled a twelve-inch plate cut in the Chrysanthemum pattern", Crofford enthuses when describing pieces supposedly sent to Paris. And he concludes: "It was the two full dinner services of crystal cut in the Grecian and Chrysanthemum pattern[s] that won the international prize for Hawkes Rich Cut Glass". Not true. Crofford has an urgent need to re-read THE AMERICAN CUT GLASS INDUSTRY by Jane Shadel Spillman, starting with Chapter 9, The Paris Exposition.

John Hoare had hired William Fritsche, an English glasscarver from Thomas Webb and Son(sic). Fritsche had moved to Corning to engrave for J. Hoare and Company during preparations for the exhibit for the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago [1893].

B. If Heronimous William Fritchie (originally Fritsche; b. c1860, Meistersdorf, Bohemia) is intended, then it should be noted that Fritchie moved to this country from Dublin. He previously lived in England during what appears to have been a brief period between his emigration from Bohemia and his arrival in Scotland, where he received his training in engraving before moving on to Ireland. There is no record of any employment at Thomas Webb & Sons. After moving to the United States, c1888, Fritchie -- who had Anglicized his name by the time he was working in Ireland -- worked for T. G. Hawkes & Company and had an independent shop. There is no record of employment at J. Hoare & Company (Sinclaire and Spillman 1997, pp. 142-145). On p. 71 in Crofford's book the engraver in question is called 'Bill" Fritsche and is engraver A; on p. 77 he is called William Fritche and is engraver B, but with a new spelling.

The foregoing examples combine two fine engravers, Fritsche and Fritchie, into one person, which undoubtedly saved Crofford some tedious explanations, but does nothing but add confusion to a situation that collectors have already found somewhat bewildering.

Pages 64-65:

In the following scene Charles Tuthill is visiting the Libbey pavilion at the Columbian Exposition:

Charles recognized Mike Owens, who invited him to join him, Kreteschmann [Kretschmann], and William C. Anderson, the Libbey designer. It was Anderson who had patented the Kimberly pattern and assigned it to Libbey. Charles was asked to rough cut a plate in the Kimberly pattern. Charles took an eight-inch plate and, being familiar with the pattern, began the roughing process. [Apparently the pattern was not marked on the plate.]

The pattern consisted of a twenty-four point Hobstar, cut in the center of the plate. There were two interlocking, arched double miter squares forming an eight-pointed frame for the Hobstar center. The border, formed by the interlocking squares, was filled with eight small, ten-pointed Hobstars. Curved arches were one of Charles's favorite cuts; he considered it an honor to rough in the pattern.

The pattern described by Crofford is one that has appeared in several publications, always on a plate that is owned by the Toledo Museum of Art. Crofford saw a photograph of the plate (above, left) in an article by John W. Keefe, sometime assistant curator at the Toledo museum who, in 1968, unequivocally called the pattern Kimberly (note 1). Since then, however, most observers have suggested either that the pattern is unknown, or that it is a variation of the Kimberly pattern. Wilson (1994, p. 662), who gives a complete history of the plate's photo-reproduction, suggests that the plate is cut "with a pattern of unknown name, perhaps a variant of the Kimberly pattern". The writer believes that it is reasonable to refer to this pattern as "Kimberly Variant" until confirmatory evidence becomes available.

The Tuthill company probably subscribed to the U.S. Patent Office publication that reproduced design patents when they were granted. Charles, therefore, had at least a year to become "familiar" with the true Kimberly pattern, because the patent for the pattern was granted on 8 Mar 1892. But how could he have known about the "Kimberly Variant" that Crofford describes? It is unlikely that it was widely cut. There seems to be only that single example in the Toledo museum. It does not appear in any extant Libbey catalog.

It should be noted, in passing, that the "Kimberly Variant" does not have two "double miter squares" as stated by Crofford. Both of the patterns illustrated here are single mitered: the variant with two overlapping squares, the patented pattern with two overlapping triangles, each triple bisected.

While he was roughing the Kimberly pattern, [Charles] heard himself introduced to the crowd as the "youngest known master glass cutter in the glass industry, visiting from Corning, New York, 'The Crystal City'".

NOTE:

1. Keefe, J. W., 1968: Libbey cut and engraved glass, The Magazine Antiques, pp. 394-399. (Reprinted in DiBartolomeo, 1974, pp. 205-210.)

Page 115:

In November, 1905, John O'Connor, owner of O'Connor Rich Cut Glass, sent word to Charles that he was cutting an unusually large punch bowl. He thought Charles would be interested in the leather sling his men had developed to hold the bowl during the cutting process.... [Charles] took the trolley to Goshen [NY], to visit with O'Connor.

... John O'Connor greeted Charles warmly and escorted him upstairs to the cutting loft. There, suspended above one of the big stone wheel cutting frames, was a beautiful, cased ruby punch bowl, which had been blown by C. Dorflinger & Sons to O'Connor's specification. The bowl was forty-four inches in circumference and almost one inch thick. The finished bowl, with its pedestal, ... would stand sixteen inches high.... [O'Connor's men] had rigged weights to counterbalance the weight of the punch bowl, which made it easy for the cutter to cut the Parisian pattern and to maneuver the bowl without holding this enormous bowl in his lap.

Crofford seems unware that this punch bowl is well-known and has been fully documented. Because C = 2(pi)r, the diameter of the "unusually large", "enormous" two-part punch bowl can be calculated to be 14 inches, a standard size offered by most full-line cutting shops. Revi (1965, p. 321) calls the pattern "Star", which may or may not be O'Connor's name for it -- but which no one (except Crofford) would confuse with O'Connor's Parisian pattern. Revi also mentions that the company in Goshen used "crystal blanks that were imported from France". Dorflinger is mentioned as a source for blanks at O'Connor's other factory in Hawley, PA.

The punch bowl is shown (in color) in COLORFUL CUTTING, a catalog that accompanied an exhibition sponsored by the Wheaton (NJ) Historical Association in 1991. At that time the punch bowl was owned by the late Harry Kraut, an aggressive dealer/collector of American cut glass. The bowl's present whereabouts is not known. Readers who do not have access to COLORFUL CUTTING can find the punch bowl (represented by a different photo) on the cover of REFLECTIONS ON AMERICAN BRILLIANT CUT GLASS by Bill and Louise Boggess (1995). The cover photo is correctly identified, but the black-and-white version that is shown as item 446 is not.

Page 132:

Charles was in Philadelphia [in 1911] when he first saw the Alhambra, or Greek Key pattern ... Seeing the Greek Key design [by Meriden], Charles thought, "This is the pattern Fred [Tuthill] has been trying to design for years". Charles regretted not thinking of cutting two forty-five-degree angles at the four corners to make the chain-like border, instead of the four ninety-degree angles Fred had designed."

Was Fred originally using overlapping squares? No wonder he failed. But, Charles, look again, your remedy is no better. In Meriden's "classic" version of the "Greek Key" motif there is a chain of overlapping hexagons. If the hexagons are regular, then each of the six interior angles of each hexagon is sixty degrees. There is no forty-five-degree angle, let alone two, "at the four corners" which, of course, are six in number.

In the next paragraph Charles, on a roll, is shown an example of what Crofford calles "Latticed Rosette and Ribbon". But the name of this patented Hawkes pattern was unknown to collectors for decades. It, therefore, was given an assigned name, "Latticed Rosettes and Ribbons", probably during the 1960s. Another case of precognition! Hawkes called the pattern Willow and showed it, so named, in a catalog dated c1911 (Sinclaire and Spillman 1997, p. 86).

Page 139:

[5 Feb 1912, or soon thereafter] Charles was aware Tom Mortensen [Mortenson] had been working on a pattern he called Rosemere. Tom had submitted the pattern for a patent, and when he received it, he assigned the pattern [that is, the patent] to the Tuthill Cut Glass Company. Charles was grateful to Tom and changed Tom's work routine, so that when he had the shop up and running, his priority would be to finish the Rosemere pattern.

Discussion:

The writer has been able to find only one patent issued to Thomas Mortenson of Middletown, NY. It is no. 42,367. The application was filed on 12 Jan 1912, and the patent was granted on 26 Mar 1912. This would agree, more or less, with the first statement, above. But Mortenson retained the patent; he did not assign it to the Tuthill Cut Glass Company. As was usual at the time, the pattern is not named in the patent.

Pearson (1969, p. 129) shows the patent-drawing, together with two examples engraved on bowls. There is no indication as to whether these examples are signed or not. But they definitely represent the Mortenson patent. The pattern is not named by Pearson. For identification purposes we have given the pattern the name "Floral" because no name apparently exists. In a few photographs that represent the patented pattern in Crofford's book the pattern is identified as "Daisy". But, unfortunately, Crofford also uses this name for other, completely different patterns!

It is clear that the patented pattern is not the "Rosemere" pattern that dealers and collectors have been familiar with for the past several decades. Examples of "Rosemere" were provided by Pearson in 1965 (p. 99), more than thirty years ago. There is a 10"D plate in Crofford's book that is correctly labeled "Rosemere", but this writer can not direct the reader to it for the following reason: The photographs of Tuthill cut and engraved glassware are grouped into two sections of twenty pages each. Unfortunately, these pages are not numbered, and neither are the photographs on them. (Additionally, there is no indication whether the items pictured are signed or not, although most of them probably are.) Crofford apparently is not aware of the meaning of the word "rosemere". He uses it together with wild rose and, in an extreme case, applies it to an entirely geometric pattern. Wild roses and a band of strawberry (fine) diamonds are the motifs used in the pattern most of us know as "Rosemere". Who designed the pattern, and when, we do not know.

Page 160:

The presentation ceremony of the gold medal was a simple affair.... [C. R. Clifford] complimented Susan and her [Tuthill] company for winning the gold medal for interior decorations (emphasis added). ... Clifford [then] led the international jury ... to the Meriden Cut Glass exhibit, where [he] awarded a gold medal for cut glass to Thomas A. Shanley, who was representing Meriden Cut Glass Company (emphasis added).

Crofford usually indicates that the gold medal won by Tuthill was for "cut and engraved glass", not for "interior decorations". His mention of gold-medal winner Meriden is a surprise. Nowhere does Crofford clearly describe the system of awards and medals used at the PPIE.

Page 164:

While in New York City [in Feb 1916] Charles, as was his custom, had arranged his time so that he could spend the afternoon on Long Island at the Tiffany Furnaces with Louis [Comfort Tiffany].... [T]he afternoon was devoted to the discussion of the Panama - Pacific International Exposition.... Charles and Louis were impressed with the Meriden [Cut Glass Company's] display of several examples of the Alhambra pattern, patented by Thomas A. Shanley, and the Byzantine and Theodora patterns, patented by William R. Eliot. All three patents had been assigned to the International Silver Company.

If it is true that the "Byzantine" and "Theodora" patterns were displayed at the 1915 exposition (in spite of the fact that they were "old" patterns, both having been patented fifteen years earlier, in 1900), then all concerned were remarkably precognitive because the two patterns were not given these "assigned" names until 1965, when Revi did the honors (Revi 1965, pp. 94-95). The original (official) names have yet to be discovered.

CROFFORD'S PLAGIARISM AND OTHER TRANSGRESSIONS

While reading Crofford's book, it became apparent to this writer that the book's language sounded familiar in several instances. The writer believes that these passages are examples of plagiarism. The book was not scoured for these infractions; they simply called attention to themselves. The reader, however, may not completely agree with the writer. Plagiarism does have its grey areas. To help the reader make up his own mind, plagiarism is defined in this section, and complete, but selected, passages from the book are presented. Whether Crofford's plagiarisms are inadvertent or not, we shall probably never know. Nevertheless, even if accidental, they are unacceptable.

Frederick Crews, in THE RANDOM HOUSE HANDOOK, defines plagiarism as "the serious ethical violation of taking others' words and ideas without acknowledgment" (Crews 1980, p. 341). Plagiarism, therefore, includes using a source without acknowledgment, as well as paraphrasing a source without acknowledgment.

In addition, plagiarism occurs when a source is paraphrased with acknowledgement, but where the words used are the source's, not the author's, and there is no attempt in the text to tell the reader which words are the source's and which are the author's. This "interweaving" of [the author's] own words with the source's does not render [the author] innocent of plagiarism" (emphasis original) (Crews 1980, p. 342). Similarly, Eric Foner of Columbia University, commenting on the alleged plagiarism of the popular historian Stephen Ambrose, is quoted as follows: "As we try to teach college freshmen . . . using a footnote doesn't solve the problem of appropriating the language of someone else and presenting it as your own" (USA Today, p. D1, 14 Oct 2002).

When using an acknowledgment -- that is, a reference, footnote, or citation -- it must, of course, be relevant, complete, and accurate. Four examples of plagiarism and other transgressions are examined in detail as follows:

Case A

Source: Sinclaire and Spillman 1997, p. 23:

The applicant must prove by examination that he is qualified in German, mathematics, bookkeeping, and drawing. Once accepted, he studies seven or eight theoretical subjects a year. They include German, mathematics, calligraphy, glassmaking technology, glass chemistry, design, technical drawing, and drawing from nature. . . . Meanwhile, practical engraving increases yearly, reaching twenty hours a week in the third year. At its end the appretice may have mastered the use of 100 or more engraving wheels.

The journeyman's certificate requires the student to pass a comprehensive examination on the three years' theoretical subjects. His engraving and design skills are judged from a work of his own design, which must incorporate all he has learned.

[Applicants] were tested for proficiency in German and their ability to learn such subjects as bookkeeping and mathematics. Their apprenticeship included studying seven or eight academic subjects throughout the years. The subjects pertained to such things as glass-making technology, glass chemistry, German, designing, math, nature drawing, penmanship, and technical drawing. The actual training at the wheel increased yearly. During his third year [the apprentice] was at the wheels twenty hours a week. By the time the Bohemian apprentice had completed the journeyman's apprenticeship, he should have mastered as many as one hundred wheels. To obtain a journeyman's certificate, the apprentice had to pass a theoretical test on the subjects studies as well as submit his engraving to be judged based upon a pattern of his own design. The design was to demonstrate all of the skills the apprentice had learned as an apprentice engraver. . . .

COMMENTS:

1. The Sinclaire and Spillman quotation was written by Estelle F. Sinclaire who acknowledges Max Roland Erlacher, a master engraver trained in Austria, who "supplied this information about apprenticeships" (Sinclaire and Spillman 1997, p. 327). Crofford, therefore, plagiarizes two individuals: Sinclaire and Erlacher.

2. The three dots at the end of Crofford's paragraph represent the following statement: "It was a requirement and a tradition in Bohemia, that master engravers were fine gentlemen." The reference given is to Battie and Cottle, 1991 (with no page citation). Because it is unclear whether this reference pertains only to this sentence or to the entire paragraph (in spite of the fact that the latter is based on Sinclaire and Spillman, 1997, as demonstrated here), Battie and Cottle's survey was examined. The "gentlemen" quote can not be found there; nor can one find any detailed information concerning the training of central Euopean glass engravers. Crofford's reference is, therefore, bogus. He likely obtained his "gentlemen" sentence from a different place in the Sinclaire and Spillman book: "The moral standards and dignity required of Master's candidates cannot be overemphasized. Corning's engraving Masters . . . were 'fine gentlemen', as tradition required them to be. . . ." (Sinclaire and Spillman 1997, p. 24).

Case B

Source: Fauster, C. U., 1971: Louis Vaupel, master glass engraver, The Magazine Antiques, pp. 696-701 (May).

[figure caption] Presentation chalice. Louis Vaupel's masterpiece, c1875-1880. . . . Height 9 inches. The engraving encircling the bowl depicts forest scenes with several hunters, hounds, and a stag at bay. The work is so minutely detailed that a squirrel on a branch and a snake wriggling through the tall grass can be clearly seen. Exhibited publicly for the first time at the Toledo Museum of Art's 1968 exhibition Libbey Glass, a tradition of 150 years.

After Christmas [1891], Charles spent time with Joseph Haselbauer. They both had recently examined Louis Vaupel's beautiful nine-inch presentation chalice. The engraving surrounding the bowl interpreted a Germanic hunting scene, with several mounted hunters and their hounds bringing a stag to bay. The work was so detailed, one could see a snake wiggling away in the tall grass and a squirrel on a tree limb. There was a wise old owl observing the action from the limb of the skeleton of a dead tree [reference given here: Wilson 1972].

COMMENTS:

1. Where was Vaupel's "presentation chalice" when Charles and Joseph Haselbauer examined it? In E. Cambridge? In Corning?

2. No pages are given in the Wilson reference, but he discusses Vaupel only on pp. 332-333 where there is no mention of the detail given by Crofford, including no mention of any owl, wise or otherwise.

3. The factual information in Crofford's account appears to have been taken in its entirety from Fauster's article (which is not cited), except the reference to that owl. The fictional information is obviously from somewhere known only to the author.

4. Following the above passage, Crofford sketches the life of Louis Vaupel, pretending that it was told to Charles and Joseph by John Leighton, Jr., who appears from nowhere (and who was Henry Barnes Leighton's brother, not nephew as claimed). Henry Barnes Leighton is said to have "known" Vaupel. This is not surprising, considering that he was one of Vaupel's students!

5. FYI: Spillman and Frantz (1990, p. 40) date the "goblet" c1870-75. Wilson (1994, p. 525) gives the date as 1872. (The goblet's foot shows a fairly early American use of the Brunswick star.)

CASE C

Source: Daniel 1950, p. 295:

Halley's comet had been predicted [to appear in 1910] but had not yet appeared in the sky when the Hoare company began cutting the Comet pattern. The fortunes of the glass business were waning at the time. The glass cutters were grumbling about wages and hours, and strikes threatened on all sides. Glass workers had always been highly organized and their power had long been one of the major concerns of the industry. The Comet pattern was one of those designed to cut costs. But the glass workers, by nature supersititious, took the comet as a sign of foreboding. The comet that appeared in Europe in 1456 had caused such terror there that the Christian church added the following lines to its daily prayers, "Lord, save us from the Devil, the Turk, and the comet."

The [Comet] pattern had been designed to cut manufacturing cost. This move upset glass workers who were grumbling about low wages and short hours. The pattern was named for the anticipated appearance of Haley's Comet, which had not yet appeared but had been predicted. The highly organized union workers were threatening strikes, and their power had long been one of the major concerns of the industry. Glasscutters were, by nature, a highly superstitious lot -- they took the Comet pattern as a sign of foreboding. When Haley's Comet appeared in Europe in 1456 it had caused so much terror that members of the Christian church added it to their daily prayers. The daily prayer then became: "Lord, save us from the Devil, the Turk and the Comet."

1. Crofford states elsewhere (see comment 3, below) that the Comet pattern was introduced by Hoare in 1905 or earlier. He probably bases this on Daniel's vague implication, also found on p. 295, that the pattern was in production as early as 1900. But the Daniel reference is more than 50 years old and must be used with caution. Spillman's (1996, p. 43) recent analysis of the Hoare company's catalogs indicates that the pattern was probably not available until 1912 or 1913 -- in other words well after the appearance of the comet. This fact, incidentally, helps to contradict the often-heard claim that the appearance of the comet in 1910 prompted the introduction of comet patterns by several manufacturers and their use in extensive advertising campaigns. The following fact also contradicts this contention: Most collectors would probably agree that the most outstanding of the "Comet" patterns is the one cut by the Libbey Glass Company. Although it was introduced as early as 1903 (Review of Reviews, 1903) the pattern was called Lenox by the company. Obviously, with such a pattern name, the Libbey company was not planning an advertising campaign based on the anticipated appearance of Halley's Comet.

2. Daniel's assertion that Hoare's Comet pattern was devised "to cut costs" is also questionable. Pieces of average quality in this pattern have been seen, but so have fine pieces of high quality that were costly to produce. Pearson (1965, p. 104) shows an ice tub that must have carried an above-average price tag, but he also shows a rather ordinary carafe. (Interestingly, Pearson also illustrates a signed Tuthill bowl cut in what he claims is a "comet" pattern.) Swan (1986, pp. 246-247) also shows the ice tub and, perhaps not surprisingly, claims that the Comet pattern "was conceived to celebrate the anticipated, though feared, appearance of Halley's Comet in 1910". Pearson also claims this, but he ignors the fear factor. It was really quite silly of Dorothy Daniel to imply that glassworkers of the twentieth century seriously believed in superstitions of the fifteenth century. Nevertheless, she unquestionably has cast a long shadow. Today's investigators acknowledge her contributions, but they treat her book realistically, making corrections when necessary. Crofford, unfortunately, is an exception.

3. Immediately preceeding the above excerpt by Crofford -- and also found on p. 113 -- is the following example of his gross misuse of material plagiarized from a previous investigator, in this case Estelle F. Sinclaire. Sinclaire's work is plagiarized because there is no reference to it:

Summer was almost over and winter was approaching when Charles blew first-whistle on Tuesday, September 5, 1905. The news from his friends in Corning was not encouraging. They were reporting a drop in cut glass orders. This drop in orders affected ten percent of Corning['s] population because 409 of its citizens were glasscutters [reference given here: CORNING (N.Y.) CITY DIRECTORY]. Unfortunately, J. Hoare and Company had introduced a pattern named the Comet [reference given here: Daniel 1950, p. 295]. . . .

1. No year is given for the first reference; presumably, the volume for 1905 was used. Sinclaire (Sinclaire and Spillman 1997, p. 17) also uses this source (as well as other volumes, issued biennially). She indicates that there were 490, not 409, cutters in 1905. The discrepency matters not. Neither figure is ten percent of Corning's population in 1905, when it was about 13,500. The percentage figure is either 3.0% (using 409) or 3.6% (using 490), not a significant difference unless you are one of the unemployed. Crofford arrives at his inflated figure of 10% by relating the number of unemployed cutters in 1905 to the population of Corning in 1868, when, Sinclaire reports, it was about 4,000!

2. The second reference indicates that Crofford believes that the Comet pattern had been introduced by 1905, clearly in error as pointed out in comment 1, above.

Case D

There are few direct quotations in Crofford's book. One wishes there were more. They might help legitimize the frequent references to "interviews", for example. But if they were handled as poorly as the example given here, they would have little value:

On pp. 23-24 Crofford claims to present a letter from H. P. Sinclaire, Sr. that is a reply to one written to him by his son, H. P. Sinclaire, Jr. (called "H. P."), in "March, 1883". The "letter" is presented as a direct quote in the guise of a story Will Sinclaire (H.P.'s younger brother) supposedly told to Charles Tuthill and Harry Hunt "one spring afternoon [in 1893] after school". The only reference given is to Estelle Sinclaire's two-volume book on her grandfather. The volume and page numbers are not specified. No matter. The letter does not appear in this reference. They -- there are actually two letters -- are given in Sinclaire and Spillman (1997, p. 203) where they are described as "unpublished". This reference is not cited in connection with the letters, but it is given later by Crofford, but with no page numbers.

COMMENTS:

1.Crofford claims that H. P. wrote to his father in March 1883, a date that is clearly an impossibility. We do not have the date of H. P.'s letter, but his father wrote his two letters in reply to his son's letter. Sinclaire, Sr.'s letters are dated 5 Jan and 16 Feb 1883.

2. Crofford combines the first of the aforementioned letters with part of the second letter to form a single letter which he presents as a direct quote. No date is given for this fabrication.

3. Crofford makes changes in the wording of the letters, in spite of the fact that they are direct quotations and, therefore, changes in content are prohibited. For example, the letter of 5 Jan reads: "Mr. Hawkes came to me the other day & offered to give you a situation in his office. . . . The position would be a very good one for one so young as you are, and there is not one chance in a hundred that you would get as good a one in New York. Here you would be at once next to your employer, who is a rising business man, young, and making money. In New York you would probably have to take a boy's place." Crofford changes this to: "Mr. Thomas Hawkes came to see me and offered you a position as bookkeeper in his office. The position will be a good one for a young man. There is less than one chance in a hundred you would find one in New York City as good. With Mr. Hawkes you will be close to your employer who is a rising young businessman, and making money. In New York City, you would probably have to take a boy's position."

4. Crofford takes information contained in the second of the two letters and uses it indirectly, relating it as a conversation between H. P. and his father, "overheard" by Will Sinclaire. Crofford then states that H. P. began work at the Hawkes company "in September of 1883". The correct date is March 1883, according to The Corning Journal, as reported by Sinclaire and Spillman (1997, p. 203). Crofford has had to adjust this date by six months in order to accommodate his misdating of the Sinclaire Jr./Sr. correspondence. (Presumably, 12-year old Charles then rushed home and immediately committed all this business to a journal, so that Crofford could write about it a hundred years later!)

CROFFORD'S PHOTO GALLERY

Photographs of Tuthill glass occupy two twenty-page sections in the book. They are undoubtedly last-minute additions. The pages are unnumbered, as are the photographs themselves, and none are specifically referred to in the text.

Information about the photographs is sparce. The only reference is the statement: "Marion [Tuthill Simions] . . . allowed me to take photographs of the cut and engraved glass Charles and Jennie used in their home" (pp. xii-xiii). Probably the single photograph of Charles's cut-glass masterpiece is from this source. Other than this, no photographer is mentioned in connection with the phtographs.

Many of the photographs are quite old; several date from the years prior to when Crofford first became involved with this project, July 1995 (p. vii). They appear in IDENTIFICATION OF AMERICAN BRILLIANT CUT GLASS by Bill and Louise Boggess (second edition, 1990; repeated in the third edition, 1996). The Boggesses acknowledge the assistance of the late Wallace Turner, owner of a Tuthill Museum in upstate New York, who is known to have taken many photographs of Tuthill glass. Crofford is not mentioned. (And, oddly, Turner and his museum are not mentioned in Crofford's book.) Perhaps some (most?) of the photographs in Crofford's book were taken by Wallace Turner.

While several of the items phtographed are said to be "from the author's collection", according to the Glass Collector's Digest of Jun/Jul 2000 (p. 27) where photographs identical to those in the book appear. But, again, no mention is made as to who photographed them. Crofford himself is, of course, a possibility as is Turner.

Crofford's grasp of pattern identification (always a problem with Tuthill glass) is poor. For example, he fails to identify correctly the popular "Wild Rose" pattern in a half dozen of the photographs. And he claims that Tuthill's only patented pattern (actually by Mortenson) is "Rosemere", but it is not. This pattern does appear in the gallery, however, where it is identified as "Daisy". Unfortunately, Crofford calls other, entirely different patterns "Daisy" too. Confusing, and entirely avoidable.

An additional fault is that there is no indication whether the individual pieces of Tuthill cut glass are signed or not signed. This oversight becomes especially important in connection with the pattern sometimes known as "Non-Rex" or "Pseudo-Rex". Crofford shows it on a two-handled bowl as a "variation of the rex pattern", with the implication that it is a genuine Tuthill pattern. Most experienced dealers and collectors, however, do not consider this to be a Tuthill product, although it is often bought and sold as such (note 1).

NOTE:

1. See The Hobstar, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 1 (Oct 1980).

CROFFORD'S MISSPELLINGS

The author seems to be inviting the reader to play a game of "Spot the Spelling Error" as he reads the book. We have listed only one instance for each misspelling we have found. While some do occur only once, others are repeated, a case where consistency should not be encouraged! Most correct spellings can be found in Sinclaire and Spillman 1997; otherwise, Pearson 1965, Feller 1988, or as indicated.

Thomas Mortenson (letters patent) appears as Mortensen throughout the book, to be spelled correctly only in the index. But Charles H. Voorhees is Voorchees (p. 47) throughout, even in the index. While it is not particularly unexpected to find Philip MacDonald (letters patent) given as McDonald (p. 24), it is unexpected to find Thomas Gibbons Hawkes listed as Gibbon (p. 46). Adolph Kretschmann picks up an "e" in his middle, Kreteschmann (p. 64), throughout. Joseph Nitsche gets changed to Netsche (p. 77), but Augustus Haselbauer does not need a sex-change operation to become Augusta (p. 77). The family itself gets an Old World treatment, more or less, as Hauselbaeurs (p. 71). Wilmot Putnam must learn to be recognized as William Pietman (p. 77) as must (H.) William Fritchie as Fritche (p. 77). Meanwhile, Candace Wheeler learns that she Candance (p. 66). Eli Masey (p. 84) might be correct, but Feller, who is briefly known as Fellow (p. 196), spells the name Macey. A similar uncertainty surrounds Louis Bradhurst (p. 108) because both Sinclaire and Spillman and Pearson give the name as Brandhurst. The Philadelphia jeweler Bailey, Banks and Biddle was never known as Bailey, Banks and Beddle (p. 169). Pronouncing Hagchornthwrite (p. 198) could dislocate a person's jaw; it is easier to pronounce as Haythornthwaite. Finally, it is a surprise to see Simions turned into Simmons (p. 188).

Place names do not fare any better. This writer did not initially recognize his next-door neighbor, Chautauqua county, when spelled Chautamuqua (p. 101). Innescana (p. 43) House's spelling strays quite a distance from Inniscarra House, but Knohinoor (p. 66) can still be recognized as Crofford's version of Kohinoor. Other place names that get misspelled include Schildhorst which becomes Scheldhorst (p. 60) and Breitenstein which becomes Breilenstein (p. 61). Both corrections are confirmed in Nelson, K. J., 1996: The "short biography" of the glass engraver Louis Vaupel, The Magazine Antiques, Apr, pp. 563-573 where Louis is always Louis, never Ludwig (p. 60).

The reader can play this game -- more misspellings surely await discovery -- but be aware, no gold medal will be awarded!

Updated 23 Oct 2002