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. "[The "Dunkirk" pattern] was cut more extensively than the Victoria [pattern] ..." (Daniel 1950, p. 287). This is a reference to Joseph B. Hill's patent, no. 26,396 which was assigned to the Imperial Cut Glass Company of Philadelphia, PA the previous year.
2. From Revi 1965, pp. 378-379, concerning the Ohio Flint Glass Company presumably of Bellaire, OH: "A thorough search of the Bellaire city records failed to show any evidence of this firm's existence in that city, and we are inclined to believe that it had a very short business life." Note: Revi assumes that the Ohio Glass Works, which was leased to the Bellaire Goblet Company, "developed into the Ohio Flint Glass Company of Bellaire, Ohio" (Revi 1965, p. 378-379).
3. Dunkirk, Schreiber's address at the time the patent was granted, is a village in Indiana, about 20 miles NE of Muncie. Bellaire, OH is a suburb of Wheeling, WVA.
4. The Ohio Flint Glass Company should not be confused with the Ohio Cut Glass Company which was established in Bowling Green, OH by Pitkin & Brooks, according to Revi (1965, p. 379). Daniel (1950, p. 408) lists an Ohio Cut Glass Company with a New York City address.
COMMENT: During the early 1980s the writer saw a pressed-glass nappy or shallow bowl in what appeared to him to be the "Dunkirk" pattern. But he did not have a reference in hand, and it was, therefore, not possible to check all of the details of the pattern.
Updated 8 Mar 2002