Ask Ed

Q. "We have some Diamond and Sunburst Variant but it only has the nine diamonds within the large diamond. This is consistent with the Heacock Book VII pictures. Our compote has 16 diamonds and we wonder if it is the same pattern."

A.  I never thought about it so I looked. Plate 30 in Kamm Book Six shows only the table set in a U.S. Glass advertisement dated 1893. These pieces including the finial have the nine diamonds. The round berry set has more, some 16 in the master bowl and nine in the berry. Just to be different, the square berry has four diamonds while the water pitcher has 25.

The conclusion is that your compote is an example of what U.S. Glass called Pattern Number 15018.

Q. "This is a poor picture and we have been unable to name it."

When I first saw this pattern some years ago, it was amber stained and I was sure it was 1920s. Eventually I ran across it in a book on Hobbs Brockunier & Co. by the Bredehofts. It is Hobb's #337 and dates to July 1890. [Collector Books, 1997, Page 122] Tom and Neila were unaware that the pattern was made in rubina and was also ruby stained. It was apparently made only in the square berry set and the water set, with the former the common form of the two. I have never seen the water pitcher.

The above pictures show the ruby stained tumbler and the rubina and ruby stained types of berries.

Q. "This bowl has all the appearances of being old & authentic but the ruby is slightly purple. We can't name it."

I have seen this pattern several times. Dealers do try to sell it as ruby stained pattern glass. It does have a purple cast. The glass has some lead content based upon the heft and sound. It is a very clear and bright glass giving the appearance of being cut. My best guess is that it is of recent European vintage, at least 1950s or later. See Newsletter Volume III, No. 1 for another pattern that has age and lead and is probably of European origin.

The photo is of a piece of this pattern in my collection at the museum. It resides in the "what the heck is it" case.

Q. "This is the only piece of Millard that I have ever seen with this etching. It also has gold bordering the ruby."

Unique is correct. You raise an interesting point. How is it that engraved or souvenired Millard, other than the fern decoration, is not found? Beats me. Anyone have any ideas? It cannot be a rarity of pattern as there is lots out there. The size of the stained area seems adequate for engraving. I have seen souveniring on much more restricted spaces.