American Cut Glass Association

---

The Patented Patterns (1882-1914)

Between 1882 and 1914 twenty-four patents were granted either to T. G. Hawkes or to individuals who were closely associated with his company. Seventeen of these patents, including one in an engraved style called "gravic", were devised by T. G. Hawkes himself; two, also in the gravic style, were designed by his son, Samuel Hawkes; and one, a design patent for a French-dressing bottle, was granted to Townsend deM. Hawkes, a cousin. In addition, a patent was granted to Philip MacDonald, a glass cutter employed by Hawkes who assigned the patent to his employer. This is the only design patent so assigned. Two patents were issued to Richard Briggs, a Boston merchant, who had the company produce the designs for his customers exclusively. The Briggs patents, therefore, are traditionally listed along with the Hawkes patents. Finally, a patent was granted to Walter Egginton who was working for T. G. Hawkes & Company at the time of the patent.

The earlier patents use numbers on the patents' drawings to pinpoint specific features on the accompanying illustrations, and the patents are described in greater detail than in the later patents. Beginning with patent no. 25,386 (Aberdeen) numbers are eliminated, and the design is described in general terms. All verbal description is eliminated beginning with patent no. 40,195 (Panel) and the specifications simply state, for example, "The figure [i.e., drawing] is a plan view of a glass vessel showing my design."

Beginning with patent no. 20,257 (Chrysanthemum) and continuing through no. 26,731 (Festoon) T. G. Hawkes named the patterns in his application papers, and these names appear in the company's catalogs. Walter Egginton also named the pattern in his 1893 patent (Valencian), and he took the patent with him when he joined his father at the O. F. Egginton Company, established three years later. Richard Briggs referred to his two patterns as Louis XIV, using the same name for both patents. The second patent, no. 19,106, has a medallion for a monogram and was the version that Briggs "usually" ordered from Hawkes according to Spillman (1996, p. 180; fig. 8-42). After the patent expired H. P. Sinclaire & Company also produced the Louis XIV pattern, re-naming it Marie Antoinette (Sinclaire and Spillman 1997, p. 15).

A few patented patterns have assigned or "coined" names. That is, they have names temporarily assigned to them by writers for identification purposes, to be used until official names become available. The "coined" names are always enclosed within quotation marks. The "MacDonald" pattern is discussed in the russian1.htm file in Part 1. The name "Maltese Cross" was chosen by A. C. Revi (1965, pp. 180, 183) who tended to use words that are found in a patent's specification. No catalog name for "Maltese Cross" has surfaced to date (note 1).

The Russian and Notched Pillars pattern appears as Russian and Pillar in Daniel's book and in the work of Revi, Pearson, Sinclaire, and Spillman, all of whom have copied Daniel who probably acted upon on a suggestion from Samuel Hawkes. While Russian and Pillars (plural) is an authentic Hawkes pattern-name, it was given by Hawkes to a pattern that was never patented, one that (logically) does not contain notched pillars. Therefore, it is markedly different from the patented pattern which, it is suggested here, be known as Russian and Notched Pillars, and not Russian and Pillar(s), to avoid confusion. A pattern with this name was sent to the Paris Exposition of 1889. It differs only slightly from the patent, so there is a good chance that Russian & Notched Pillars is actually the official name for this patented pattern. The writer has yet to find the pattern in a Hawkes catalog.

The "Gravic Tiger Flower" pattern is enclosed within quotation marks because the writer has not been able to find this pattern under this or any other name in any Hawkes catalog. To complicate matters "Gravic" designs were sometimes referred to as "Satin Engraved".

The first half-dozen patent applications use photographs. Beginning with the Richard Briggs patents, line drawings replace the photographs, because the latter failed to show all the required detail. Actual specimens of cut glass would typically be sent to the patent lawyers -- Knight Brothers of Washington, DC in the case of Hawkes -- who would have professional draftsmen prepare the line drawings. It is believed that the patentee would also submit a draft of the patent proposal to the lawyers who would render it in language acceptable to the U. S. Patent Office. This would account for the absence of terms familiar to glass cutters and the inclusion of expressions that the glass companies themselves would not normally use. The verbal descriptions also contain inconsistencies, such as use of the term "rosettes", that suggest the likelihood that different lawyers were employed in writing the individual specifications.

The following compilation is based on the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office's Web site where the reader can find complete patent applications, including specifications and (usually) drawings, the latter of best-available quality. Revi's early work (1965, pp. 172-190) and the J. Stanley Brothers, Jr. volumes of patent material at the Rakow Research Library have also been helpful.

The Briggs patents (nos. 19,105 and 19,106) are listed here because Hawkes was involved in their patents and subsequently was the exclusive manufacturer of items in these patterns. Please see the briggs.htm file in Part 4 for additional information.

Philip MacDonald assigned his patent to Thomas G. Hawkes, the individual, not the company. All of the other patents listed here were retained by their patentees; they are marked with asterisks (*).

---

Patent No. / Catalog or "Coined" Name / Patentee / Application Filed / Patent Granted

---

12,982 / "MacDonald" / Philip MacDonald / 21 Mar 1882 / 20 Jun 1882 (assigned to Thomas G. Hawkes)

17,837 / Grecian / Thomas G. Hawkes / 31 Aug 1887 / 25 Oct 1887 (*)

17,838 / Russian and Notched Pillars / Thomas G. Hawkes / 31 Aug 1887 / 25 Oct 1887 (*)

18,267 / Grecian & Hobnail / Thomas G. Hawkes / 9 Jan 1888 / 24 Apr 1888 (*)

18,268 / "Star Rosette" (Empress?) See the "Star Rosette and Other Patented Patterns Sent to Paris in 1889 " section of the "Hobnail-Grecian-Star-Rosette" page ( Hawkes 7 file for further information / Thomas G. Hawkes / 9 Jan 1888 / 24 Apr 1888 (*)

18,301 / Princess / Thomas G. Hawkes / 17 Mar 1888 / 8 May 1888 (*)

[19,105 / Louis XIV "Fleurs-de-lis" / Richard Briggs / 28 Mar 1889 / 21 May 1889 (*)]

[19,106 / Louis XIV "Fleurs-de-lis and Wreath" / Richard Briggs / 28 Mar 1889 / 21 May 1889 (*)]

19,114 / Brazilian / Thomas G. Hawkes / 29 Apr 1889 / 28 May 1889 (*)

19,865 / Venetian / Thomas G. Hawkes / 5 May 1890 / 3 Jun 1890 (*)

20,132 / "Maltese Cross" / Thomas G. Hawkes / 7 Aug 1890 / 2 Sep 1890 (*)

20,257 / Chrysanthemum / Thomas G. Hawkes / 10 Oct 1890 / 4 Nov 1890 (*)

21,705 / Coronet / Thomas G. Hawkes / 16 Jun 1892 / 12 Jul 1892 (*)

22,136 / Valencian / Walter Egginton / 21 Dec 1892 / 17 Jan 1893 (*)

25,386 / Aberdeen / Thomas G. Hawkes / 2 Mar 1896 / 14 Apr 1896 (*)

25,944 / Nautilus / Thomas G. Hawkes / 10 Jul 1896 / 18 Aug 1896 (*)

26,730 / Nelson / Thomas G. Hawkes / 1 Feb 1897 / 9 Mar 1897 (*)

26,731 / Festoon / Thomas G. Hawkes / 1 Feb 1897 / 9 Mar 1897 (*)

40,195 / Panel / Thomas G. Hawkes / 7 Apr 1909 / 3 Aug 1909 (*)

40,324 / Gravic Carnation / Samuel Hawkes / 26 Jun 1909 / 2 Nov 1909 (*)

40,325 / Gravic Floral / Samuel Hawkes / 26 Jun 1909 / 2 Nov 1909 (*)

41,000 / "Gravic Tiger Flower" / Thomas G. Hawkes / 11 Aug 1910 / 29 Nov 1910 (*)

41,153 / Willow / Thomas G. Hawkes / 11 Aug 1910 / 7 Feb 1911 (*)

46,500 / (shape: French-dressing Bottle) / Townsend deM. Hawkes / 16 Jul 1914 / 6 Oct 1914 (*)

(note 2)

 

---

NOTES:

1. Spillman incorrectly attributes the name "Maltese Cross" to Dorothy Daniel. She reports that this pattern "does not appear under that name (or any other name that I could find) in any orders or in any of the early [Hawkes] catalogs..." (Spillman 1996, p. 183).

2. Although Spillman (1996, p. 92) states that the Cobweb pattern was patented, no patent record has been found.

---