|
|
|
||||
| The American Cut Glass Association | ACGA Membership Benefits | About American Brilliant Cut Glass |
ACGA Store |
Contact Us |
|
      |
|
      |
  
|
  
|
|
Reprint from The Hobstar, May 1986, Pages 9-11
CUT GLASS DESIGN PATENTS AWARDED WM. C. ANDERSON 1887-1906
By Carl U. Fauster
The United States Patent Office awarded William C. Anderson of East Cambridge, Massachusetts, a skilled craftsman at the New England Glass Works, Patent No. 17,072 dated January 25, 1887. (Fig. 1) While this is the earliest patent for a Cut Glass "Ornamentation of Glassware" the Cambridge factory had obtained Design Patents for art glass by Joseph Locke as early as 1883 for Amberina. Collectors of cut glass by Libbey and other 19th century glassmakers should know the part these U.S. Patents played in the phenomenal popularity of cut glass during the Brilliant Years which author Dorothy Daniel places from 1880-1905 but we would extend until 1920.
It must be remembered that the outstanding success of Amberina has been credited with saving the New ?England Glass Works from bankruptcy. The other Locke patents - Pomona in 1885, Wild Rose (Peachblow) in 1886, Agata in 1887 and Maize in 1888 - for his art glass series, the official U.S. Patent was considered most important from a marketing or promotional standpoint. Based on these experiences it is quite understandable why the firm’s management supported obtaining official U.S. Patents for cut glass patterns designed by Mr. Anderson who would be awarded a dozen such patents from 1887 to 1906, far more than any other Libbey or New England Glass Works craftsman.
In her now out-of-print 1950 book, "Cut and Engraved Glass 1771-1905", Dorothy Daniel writes about patents as follows:
"Patent records are available for only a relative small number of cut glass designs. Some houses never did patent their designs; some pa-tented only those challenged by other houses; some patterns were never cut and many houses stopped patenting when it become apparent their designs were still not protected from copying."
She comments further that "Pattern stealing was common practice among glass manufacturers and cutters" and that "any pattern that reduces the (cost) factor became a target for competitive imitation." From our research concerning cut glass patents we certainly agree with Mrs. Daniel’s statement and point out that we know of no in-stance of a factory entering a law suit to protect a cut design patent.
William C. Anderson was a superb crafts-man creating cut glass designs that were important enough to be patented over a period of some twenty years. He was one of the few workers mentioned in the TOLEDO BLADE article of August 18, 1888 reporting the moving of the factory to Toledo and the name being changed to Libbey Glass Company:
"Willie Anderson, the foreman of the glass cutting department is one of the best glass cutters in the trade. He is a Scotchman by birth, American by adoption..., learned his trade with Libbey and has won his way to the front by hard work and application. He was a successful competitor for a prize for the best and most artistic design in cut glass awarded in Boston last year.
Mr. Anderson’s prize-winning pattern is again referred to by author, Dorothy Daniel, who suggests the close relationship between him, the craftsman and Edward Drummond Libbey, his employer: "One of the last patterns ever cut by the old New England Glass Company, Middlesex, is one of the most beautiful patterns. It is extremely rare and a collector’s item since it is one of the first of the curved miter patterns ever cut. It was designed by William C. Anderson, a glass cutter at the New England Glass Company where Edward Drummond Libbey was his boss. Libbey had inherited the New England Glass Company when his father died in 1883. Although it was facing bankruptcy, Edward Libbey felt if he could convert the New England Glass Company to the new— style heavy lead, deeply cut table-ware, he might be able to save it. He offered prizes for designs of cut glass and Anderson’s Middlesex was one of the first turned in."
Written almost four decades ago, Mrs. Daniel had the foresight to predict the growing interest in American Cut Glass by collectors.
None of the official U.S. Patent papers actually name the pattern because names were not assigned until the patent was a— warded. Attributing the name Middlesex to Anderson’s 1887 patent seems safe and pro-bably was chosen because he resided in the county of Middlesex. (Fig. 2) The descriptive terms used in the text of the application are interesting. We find words like "star", ‘‘rays’’ and ‘‘crossed or over-lapped archs" and "star-like figures with-in said arches." We do not find the word "Hobstar" which makes us wonder when this term was first used and when--a research project worth considering. Another of Anderson’s patents worthy of citing is No. 20,921 dated July 7, 1891. (Fig. 3)
Named Wedgemere, it proved to be popular in spite of its luxury price as printed in Libbey’s 1896 catalog-Goblets $120 per dozen and $24 for a 8 inch bowl. Since Wedgemere stayed a stock pattern for five years confirms its popularity at the turn of the century. Today this Anderson patent is one of the most eagerly sought by collectors and these formal patent papers can’t help but add more and warranted interest.
* * * * * * * * * * * *