Bill Evans was probably the first investigator to discuss dimorphism in cut glass. In 1994 he analyzed examples of Hawkes' Princess I pattern, a pattern that shows this characteristic (note 1). The term has a biological basis but in cut glass it refers to, and is limited to, the repositioning of motifs within a pattern. The name of the pattern does not change. (The term does not refer to the substitution of one motif for another one; this would result in either a pattern variation or an entirely different pattern with a different name.)
If one glances ahead to the images, he will notice that the writer has played a trick on the reader in order to illustrate dimorphism: The digital image of the hock glass, below on the left, has been "flipped" horizontally, using Photoshop, with the result that there are two images, with the glass on the right a mirror image of the glass on the left. While this case of dimorphism should, perhaps, be called "creative dimorphism", it does illustrate the writer's point. In these two illustrations of Dorflinger's Royal pattern the positions of the star and the strawberry (fine) diamond, or crosshatch, motifs are seen to be reversed. Surprisingly, both of these arrangements can be found in the ACGA DORFLINGER catalog (1997) where they are both labeled Royal. For example, on p. 17 a goblet and a wine glass match the hock glass shown on the left, while a saucer champagne matches the hock on the right. Moreover, the three glasses are standing together in close proximity for their group photograph! Because two slightly different versions of the Royal pattern were available -- but were not identified as such -- one wonders how a person would order an exact replacement for a glass that was shattered.
Two images of a hock wine glass that demonstrate dimorphism (see text). The Royal pattern by C. Dorflinger & Sons on shape no. 520. Red cut-to-clear. H = 4.6" (11.7 cm), rim D = 2.75" (7.0 cm). A dozen of these glasses cost $38 in the 1890s. The single hock glass illustrated here sold for $481 at an eBay auction in 2003 (Image: Internet).
Although digital editing makes it easy to fake dimorphism, the printing of the "wrong" side of a film negative will give the same result. This is what was done on p. 117 in the book RARITIES IN AMERICAN CUT GLASS. The purpose was not to display dimorphism, but to present "a pair of very fine 'Harvard' pattern lamps" when only one was available (note 2)!
In cut glass it is always necessary to describe the pattern/motif as it is shown on the cut surface, not the uncut surface. Confusion can result if this rule is not observed. For example, by simply turning over a plate one has a second view of the pattern. The two views are identical only when the pattern and/or motif is symmetrical (See the symmetry1.htm file in Part 4 for definitions and tests). If the motif were asymmetrical or if the pattern were to contain an asymmetrical element, apparent dimorphism would be the result. The "real" pattern is the one on the cut side of the plate, not the one on the uncut side which, oddly enough, is the side that is normally viewed (note 3). One does not frequently find examples of apparent dimorphism because most motifs and patterns are symmetrical. While the Dorflinger catalog shows that the Royal pattern is dimorphic, the pattern is also apparently dimorphic because the cuttings on its subdivided diamond are asymmetrical. The same can be said about Hawkes' Princess I pattern. (But note that, unlike the Royal pattern, the Princess I pattern is symmetrical vertically.)
The Royal pattern was probably introduced before 1890, possibly c1887. This date is suggested by the close resemblance of the pattern -- and Dorflinger's Star and Diamond pattern as well -- to Clark's "Strawberry Diamond and Star" pattern which was patented in 1886 (note 4). The name Royal may have been chosen as an acknowledgment of Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee of 1887. The Libbey company made this acknowledgment in the naming of its Victoria pattern (1887).
In conclusion it can be noted that the popular pinwheel is also a motif that is dimorphic. The cutter has the option of using either clockwise- or counterclockwise-turning pinwheels. In either case the motif is also asymmetrical, as are most patterns that contain this motif. Rarely does one find both types of pinwheels on the same item. When one does, the pattern is symmetrical. But its pinwheels -- each and every -- continue to be apparently dimorphic, because they are asymmetrical and, consequently, change direction when one's view of them shifts from the cut to the uncut side of the article.)
NOTES:
1. Evans, Bill, 1994: Desperately seeking "Devonshire", The Hobstar, Vol. 16, No. 9, pp. 1, 6-8 (June).
2. The authors, Herbert Wiener and Freda Lipkowitz, used an even more obvious technique on p. 39 where a single candelabra has been made to do the work of two. Its photograph was simply printed twice: side by side. These shenanigans are not a complete surprise. The book's senior author was sued in 1988 for selling fake American brilliant cut glass. The lawsuit was eventually resolved under a confidential settlement. An in-depth account of this scandal has been written by Ian Berke as "Problems in Cut Glass" and published in the Maine Antique Digest, issue of March 1990, pp. 26-A to 29-A. The article contains useful information concerning new glass that has been (is being?) sold as old glass.
3. In the photographs and drawings that accompany U. S. patent applications either the cut side or the uncut side is illustrated; there is no preference. In a few instances, both sides are represented.
4. In the earliest reprinted Dorflinger catalog, found in the ACGA's compilation of 1997, the Royal pattern is shown in a section dated c1886. But this date is too early by at least two years because this section also contains the Florentine pattern which was not patented until 1888.
Updated 2 Jun 2004