Related file: "Figured" Blanks
Part of the blame for the decline [in the popularity of American brilliant cut glass] must be attributed to the glass factories themselves for attempting to substitute cheaper imitation wares. To reduce the ever-increasing cost of the cutting operation, some factories first pressed a design into a blank mold and then hand cut and finished the piece. -- Carl U. Fauster, in LIBBEY GLASS, SINCE 1818 (1979)
Given what we now know about the Libbey Glass Company, the foregoing statement is a surprise. It contains the only reference to "figured" blanks that can be found in Fauster's survey of the company. Initially it was thought that the author was engaged in a cover-up, by directing attention to "some factories", without a mention of Libbey's own role in using "figured" blanks. That role, which was significant, is not entirely clear even today. It is hoped that this file will stimulate discussion of this important topic.
At the time the Fauster book was written, during the 1970s, the attention of knowledgeable dealers and collectors was increasingly directed to the "figured" blanks that were frequently encountered in the marketplace. Although not a new factor in the collecting of cut glass -- Daniel had discussed the subject in 1950 -- "figured" blanks was, nevertheless, a somewhat sub-rosa topic in the 1970s. Even the American Cut Glass Association, which was founded in 1978, held its council on the subject for several years.
Carl U. Fauster spent his career on the business, rather than the technical, side of glassmaking. Although he had access to an extensive Libbey glass collection, now housed at the Toledo Museum of Art, it is probable that he unintentionally passed over the evidence of "figured" blanks through ignorance, a possibly more appealing suggestion than one involving a cover-up. Wilson (1994) has described several examples of the "figured" blanks that can be found in the museum's collection. Regrettably Fauster's lack of attention to "figured" blanks has given rise to the myth that the Libbey Glass Company never used them. As suggested at the end of this file it would be worthwhile to assemble a register of Libbey "figured" blanks -- a difficult task but not an impossible one.
Products that were cut on "figured" blanks are not necessarily "cheap" in appearance. They can be impressive. This is illustrated by the signed Libbey bowl that is analyzed in this file. The following two images are oblique views of this item. All of the major miter cuts -- including the pairs of short, non-parallel radial miters -- were "pre-formed", as were the raised centers of the hobstars, including the central hobstar. Distortions ("flow patterns") in the uncut area of the blank -- near the bowl's rim -- indicate that not only were the scallops present in the mold, but the notches were there as well. Only the rim's bevel was hand-cut.
The photographs give the reader some indication of the expertise that was brought to the cutting of the motifs contained within the bowl's pre-formed miters. It is no exaggeration to state that the high-quality cutting on this bowl compares favorably to that on Libbey's famous "St. Louis" punch bowl (1904), which is best seen on the dust jacket of Revi's book (1965). Like that masterpiece this bowl also uses double Brunswick hobstars (note 1), a motif that is not often seen on Libbey's commercial cut glass. These uncommon stars have been cut on the hobnails of the bowl's four main hobstars and on the central hobstar, and they are crisply cut, which is characteristic of the company's quality cutting at this time. The miniaturized cane cutting also required a high level of precision, especially because no double-mitered wheels were used to cut the cane's paired miters.
The same bowl, rotated 045 deg:
In spite of the fact that the archives of the Libbey Glass Company are extensive, there is no complete compilation of patterns and shapes used by the company over the years. In the following analysis it has not been possible to compare shapes that are identical, but the two that are compared are similar.
It is assumed that the Leota pattern, below on the left, probably was produced only on "figured" blanks because (a) the number of different articles produced was limited, and (b) for at least a short time -- presumably when the pattern was first introduced -- it was not signed, which would have been a radical departure for the company at that time. Possibly the company first wanted to "test market" its "figured" blanks before admitting them into the family! The writer has seen an example of the Leota plate shown here; it was cut on a "figured" blank. Leota was introduced together with two other patterns, Elmore and Sunset, each with similar restrictions. Several examples of the Sunset pattern have surfaced on "figured" blanks. At some time, presumably somewhat later, Libbey began issuing Sunset with an acid-etched trademark. Perhaps the other two patterns were also "signed" then.
LEFT: Image taken from LIBBEY GLASS COMPANY, LIBBEY CUT GLASS, THE CHOICE OF THE CONNOISSEUR, a composite catalog published by the American Cut Glass Association in co-operation with The Toledo Museum of Art, 1996. The Leota pattern is shown on shape no. 36, a 7"D plate with a list price of $5.00 (c1905). (Used with permission; image may not be reproduced without the written permission of the Toledo Museum of Art.) RIGHT: Plan view of the bowl shown above. Cut in an unknown pattern on a "figured" blank, shape no. 211, by the Libbey Glass Company and signed (note 2). D = 9.1" (23.2 cm), H = 3.6" (9.2 cm), wt = 3.9 lb (1.8 kg). Destroyed Nov 1998.
Each segment below is described by progressing from the rim of the object to its center:
Segments Leota Pattern Unknown Pattern
000 & 3-ribbed fan 7-ribbed cross-cut fan
090 & 16-pt hobstar with 20-pt hobstar with
180 & 8-pt Brunswick hobstar 12-pt double Brunswick
270 deg on the hobnail hobstar on the hobnail
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
045 & 3 fans and 3 8-pt 4 converging rows of bead-
135 & Brunswick hobstars ing between 2 quadri-
225 & laterals of small cane
315 deg Hexagon containing double- Hexagon containing 4 rows
mitered English strawberry of beading bordered
diamonds with strawberry diamonds
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
center 20-pt hobstar with an 8-pt 24-pt hobstar with a 16-pt
Brunswick hobstar on its double Brunswick hobstar
hobnail on its hobnail
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tiny triangular areas, formed by three miters, are too small to carry
cuttings in the case of the Leota pattern. On the Unknown pattern
these areas are larger and are therefore cut, repeating the cross-cut
fan motif found at the apex of the 000, etc. degree segments.
There is no doubt that a "figured" blank, identical in design to that used for the Leota pattern, was also used to produce the "unknown" pattern -- a plate in the former case, a bowl in the latter case. However, it should be noted that Libbey also used identical "mitered patterns" for some of its non-figured patterns, patterns that were differentiated only by the motifs selected. This is clearly seen in the case of patent nos. 33,909 and 33,910 (Revi 1965, p. 34). These patterns, Sultana and "Silver Diamond", have identical "mitered outlines" that possibly were never figured because to date only fully-cut examples have been found. They were conceived five years before the appearance of the "figured" patterns analyzed here. Converging evidence suggests that Libbey did not begin to use "figured" blanks extensively until c1904. It is ironic that in this year of the Louisiana Purchase Centennial Exposition in St. Louis, MO -- with Libbey's cut-glass triumphs on display -- the company decided to venture onto the slippery slope of expediency. Such is the pressure of economic reality!
Because "figured" blanks can frequently be found among the products of the Libbey Glass Company, readers are encouraged to report them to this writer. Now that a considerable amount of archival material for the Libbey company has been made public, it should be possible to remove much of the secrecy that surrounds the use of "figured" blanks by this company, as well as to evaluate their importance from a perspective of a hundred years. In reporting such an item please include as much information from the following list of suggestions as possible:
Shape name and number from a Libbey catalog; trademark (use the table found in Wilson 1994, pp. 843-847); if no trademark present then indicate reason why the item is assigned to Libbey; and indicate dimensions, including weight. It would be helpful if you can identify the miter cuts that are pre-formed; if the rim is scalloped and notched, please indicate if these features are also pre-formed.
NOTES:
1. An 8-pt double Brunswick hobstar is shown, below on the left, together with an 8-pt standard (or single) Brunswick hobstar for comparison. On the Libbey bowl with the unknown pattern 12-pt double Brunswick hobstars (16-pt on the central hobstar) are used on the hobnails of the principle hobstars. The diameters of the hobnails on the "side" hobstars do not exceed 0.8" (20 mm); on the central hobstar the diameter of the hobnail is one inch (25 mm). All of the double Brunswick hobstars are cut with precision, a marked achievement given the very small working spaces. Did the master cutter of the "St. Louis" punch bowl, John Rufus Denman, also cut this bowl? The Brunswick star file.
2. The acid-etched trademark, found on the inside of the bowl near its rim, is an exact replica of the no. 3.1 trademark illustrated and discussed by Wilson (1994, p. 843) -- Libbey with L and Y tails not joined, and with the so-called short sword, that is, one with a length of about 1.0 cm. The top of the sword's hilt is in close proximity to the loop in the letter L. According to Wilson this trademark, with slight variations, can be found on glass as early as 1896, when it was registered, and as late as c1906 and "possibly as late as 1910" (Wilson 1994, p. 841). Several items known to have been exhibited in St. Louis in 1904 carry this trademark.
Updated 20 May 2002