N.B.: It should be noted that for each design patent discussed in these three cases (A to C) -- a total of five patents -- there is no direct or indirect mention in the patent's specification, nor is there any implication there, that the pattern under discussion was designed with cut glass in mind. This fact does not, however, preclude the possibility that the cutter's wheel was used at some time in the past to produce the pattern. While the writer believes that each of these patents was originally intended for PRESSED glass, the reader must make up his own mind.
1. Dorothy Daniel is unequivocal in her comments concerning these three patents: two by William Leighton, Jr. and one by John E. Miller. She maintains that each is intended for cut glass.
2. Thomas A. Crawford, Jr. in an article entitled "The Brilliant Cut Style, Its Origins and Development" assumes that Leighton's first patented design -- known as "Leighton's Bow-knot" -- is for cut glass, and he includes it with other, well-known cut-glass patterns, such as Parisian and Grecian, in his discussion (Pittsburgh Glass Journal, Vol. 1, No. 8, pp. 3-6). The following illustrations are the two views of Leighton's design that he included with his patent application:
In June 2002 the following pressed-glass bowl in "Leighton's Bow-knot" was advertised for sale on eBay. Although the seller claimed this was an "American brilliant cut glass dish" the following images clearly indicate that the item is pressed glass, not cut glass. Badly damaged, the dish sold for $8.00.
3. J. Stanley Brothers, Jr., in the "sheets" section of his index to design patents comments on the two Leighton patents as well as the Miller patent. Concerning "Leighton's Bow-knot", above, Brothers writes that "This is a PRESSED design -- not cut, so Daniel is in error for associating it with CUT ware" (emphasis original). (Although Brothers appears to have been knowledgeable about many aspects of glass and glassmaking, it must be mentioned that he also thought that Sinclaire's Snow Flakes & Holly pattern was intended for pressed glass!)
4. Daniel remarks that 'The heart-shaped bow described in Leighton's letters patent as 'a scroll ornamentation resembling bunches of ribbons', proved too expensive to be practical and was later dropped from the pattern." She does not appear to be aware of the second Leighton patent which excludes the scroll (below, left). If she did know of the second patent she seems to have misinterpreted its purpose. It appears to this writer that the "shield or heart shaped figure" was dropped for no other reason than its retention would have crowded the pattern on glassware such as the tumbler that is shown in this drawing that accompanies the second Leighton patent (below, left). This second pattern was given the name "Diagonal-Maltese Cross" pattern by Brothers who comments: "This is a PRESSED pattern -- not cut. Have seen a number of pieces."
5. John E. Miller's application for a patent for a "Maltese-cross"-type pattern was made more than five months before Leighton filed his first application, and more than six months before Leighton filed his second application, although all three patents were granted on the same day. The patterns are similar. Daniel writes that "there was no litigation but considerable controversy ensued"; unfortunately, she provides no source for this contention. As the reader might expect, Brothers comments that the Miller patent is a "PRESSED pattern", and he suggests the name "Checkered Maltese" for it (above, right).
(Design patent no. 16,409, granted to John E. Miller on 8 Dec 1885)
This Miller patent -- for pressed glass -- is reproduced here for two reasons: (1) The patent covers both shape and pattern, which is unusual, and (2) The pattern used is the Star & Hobnail (Russian Cleveland) pattern, a non-patented (generic) pattern that was sometimes used -- alone or with other motifs -- in the decoration of both pressed and cut glassware during the 1880s and earlier. Miller's patent contains the following, rather amusing passage:
The hat is ornamented by a pattern in relief, which consists of a series of geometrical figures. This pattern is a material element of the design, and so qualifies the other features thereof as to give to the whole the rough and dishevelled appearance of 'ye olden time' beaver-hat. The design is thus strikingly distinguished from prior figure designs, and is unique and handsome in appearance.
Brothers identifies this patent -- together with the "Checkered Maltese" pattern above -- as products made at the George Duncan & Sons glassworks.
Updated 10 Jun 2002