This report began circulating among cut-glass enthusiasts during the summer of 2003. It has been reported that it will be published by the American Cut Glass Association (ACGA). The writer feels that he should comment on the report because it contains facts that he discovered several years ago. This material is not acknowledged by the authors.
Contrary to the authors' claim, it was ANTIQUE GLASSWORKS that first reported that Philip MacDonald's patent describes a pattern that definitely is not the Russian pattern. This became evident to the writer in the spring of 1997, and Jane Shadel Spillman, whose interest in the Russian pattern is well-known, was advised of this in May. A report concerning the discovery was published by Bill Evans in Newsletter No. 11 of the ACGA's Mountain States Chapter in September. It was probably during discussions between the writer and Evans in the spring of 1997 that the pattern was first called "MacDonald", a logical choice. The MacDonald/Russian discovery was part of an extensive investigation into patented cut-glass patterns undertaken by the writer.
Howe describes the difference between the Russian and "MacDonald" patterns by showing photographs of each pattern and by describing the patterns in words, an exposition that is difficult to follow. Unfortunately, he disregards the basic difference between these two patterns: The Russian pattern requires six intersecting sets of parallel miter cuts while the "MacDonald" pattern needs only four. Because of this we know immediately that the two patterns are not identical. This approach, suggested by a remark made by Revi (1965, p. 176), permits one to develop a series of straight-line motifs in a rational manner, from simple diamonds to at least one motif that is even more complex than the Russian motif. This is the approach the writer used in his check list of cut-glass motifs (see the motifs2.htm file in Part 1). Howe might have used this file, but he chose not to. Had he done so he would have demonstrated an ability to see beyond the superficial, to an understanding that is more sophisticated than what is revealed by his rather tedious, and confusing, verbal repetition of the photographic evidence.
Although Howe would have us believe otherwise, he was equating the MacDonald patent and the Russian pattern as recently as the summer of 2002, in spite of the fact that by then he had acquired an especially clear copy of the patent's illustration and should have seen the difference (The Hobstar, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 13-14 and the Howe 2 file). Only during the past year has Howe yielded to the inevitable and has acknowledged that MacDonald's pattern is called "MacDonald", or, as he would have it, "McDonald". So was it named, several years ago -- but not by Howe.
Howe's clear copy of MacDonald's patent-illustration makes it possible, for the first time, to distinguish between this pattern and a similar pattern that is shown in a patent issued to Edward T. Burgess 28 days after MacDonald had received his patent. The Burgess design is known today as the "Burgess III" pattern, with or without an option. It is one of three patents that were issued to Burgess on 18 Jul 1882. Unfortunately, back in 1997 when the writer was examining this situation he had only a poor-quality copy of the MacDonald illustration. Using it, he incorrectly equated the "MacDonald" pattern and the "Burgess III" pattern with its option; furthermore, he was also led to believe that the U. S. Patent Office had made a mistake when it issued two different patents for the "same" pattern. Although both patterns are based on four intersecting sets of parallel miter cuts, we now know that they are unequivocally different. The Patent Office, therefore, was correct when it issued two different patents in 1882. The writer apologizes for his error and regrets any confusion it might have caused. (Additional details are available in the russian2.htm file in Part 1, where there is also information on all three Burgess patents.)
MacDonald is consistently spelled "McDonald" in the report. Howe supposedly adds credence to this contention by inserting the following note (no. 11) which is given here in its entirety: "Jane Spillman, Curator of American Glass, Corning Museum of Glass, has advised that his name is listed in the 1880 Census as Philip McDonald, age 32, born in England; and he is not listed in either the 1870 or 1890 Census." No citation is given but this can only have come from Sinclaire and Spillman (both the 1979 and the 1997 editions, p. 72). The information is correctly quoted except for MacDonald's name which was given by Sinclaire and Spillman in this reference as "McDonnell (sic)". Howe has changed the evidence to suit his purpose! (More about the spelling of MacDonald's name can be found in the russian.htm file in Part 1.
Emmerson's contribution to the report includes an inventory of several pieces of glass cut in the "MacDonald" pattern that were recently acquired by the dealers Warren Biden and Teddie Steele. He also describes his widely-ranging searches for this pattern and speculates as to the amount of cut glass in this pattern that might have been produced.
Concerning the "Burgess III" pattern, Emmerson writes that "Not one example ... could be located!" His failure to recognize two examples that are found in the Boggesses' fourth book lowers one's confidence in Emmerson's ability to identify this type of pattern, if and when he encounters it. A friend of the writer's also has an example of "Burgess III" with fan border. His rose bowl is unsigned, but other, presumably post-1900, examples are said to be signed Hawkes. An early connection through Patrick Callahan, a Hawkes cutter who witnessed the Burgess signature on all three of the latter's patents is likely. (Intriguingly, the "Burgess III" pattern, with fan border, also appears on page 2 of the STRAUS-MACY catalog published by the ACGA.) It is clear that the Burgess patterns deserve more attention that what they have received to date. This is one reason why they are discussed in the russian2.htm file (Russian Facts and Fiction) in Part 1. The "Burgess III" pattern is rare, but probably not as rare as implied by Emmerson.
(Emmerson isolates himself from the Internet, so communication with him is difficult. The writer tried to contact Howe concerning his interest in the Russian pattern several months ago, but he received no reply to his e-mail. Nevertheless, both authors were informed of the writer's work by readers of ANTIQUE GLASSWORKS.)
The Emmerson and Howe report includes work that was carried out by the writer during the past several years, beginning in 1997. This work has been reported by him and by others, both in print and on the Internet (ANTIQUE GLASSWORKS). Because this work is not correctly and fully acknowledged, it has been plagiarized, and as such its use in the Emmerson/Howe report is, in the writer's opinion, unethical.
Updated 1 Sep 2003