Registration Observations

The Pattern Books

The original design registrations are held in pattern books at the National Archives. From 1842 to 1883, all glass designs were entered into a total of four volumes which only held glass registrations. From 1884, different types of designs (cloth, porcelain, glass etc) were placed together in the same book. Some of these are very large and unwieldy - the one in the photo below being of average size.. yep, they do get bigger than that... - and each holds only a few months of registrations. Circa 1910, all designs were submitted on individual pieces of card and are held in A4 size boxes.

Most glass registrations were submitted on good quality paper, but others were done on scabby brown tracing paper, including some of the best Manchester pieces such as the Derbyshire Britannia sketch, which sadly has partially disintegrated. Some of the more complex designs were submitted as photos - many of the Burtles & Tate registrations for example. The pattern books are a historical source of Victorian photography in their own right.

Why bother to register a piece?

Registration gave brief copyright protection - a sensible move on the more ornate pieces, but it is rather puzzling why the Manchester firms felt the need to register so many goblet and tumbler designs, which were extremely similar to each other and mostly unremarkable. Surviving catalogues from Percival & Vickers and the Molineaux & Webb pattern book - which has thousands of designs - show that only a small number of the total pieces produced by these factories were registered.

What is being registered?

Some registrations are explicitly described as "pattern only" or "pattern and shape." Others show a single item and it is unclear whether the pattern, shape or item are being registered, or if other examples were made to the same design.

Is it an item or a set?

If we take the example of Percival & Vickers registration 319090 from 1878, the design sketch shows a single oval dish with precise dimensions given. There is no hint that a range of items were produced to the same pattern. However the following photos show that many items were made with design 319090, possibly a full tableware set.

One design... many items

Amendments to a pattern

Even when a design is specifically registered as "pattern" the pattern may still be changed! The Percival & Vickers registration 217727 from 1868 was for a repeating leaf pattern. The bowl below shows the exact pattern as registered, but it can be seen on the larger celery that the pattern was stretched out to cover the vase.

Stretch that leaf!

The top piece of an item may also differ to the registration drawing - probably because some were made to take a metal attachment.

Molineaux & Webb 1866 bowl - frilly on the top... but the top is flat on the design sketch

Can you trust the registration numbers?

No! We have three examples so far where the registrations and the glass pieces differ.

- An example of Molineaux & Webb registration 216348, registered on 31 Jan 1868, was stamped with the lozenge for 13 Jan 1868 (though another example where the lozenge was correct has been seen)

- Percival & Vickers registration 183352 in 1865 was drawn as a sugar bowl, and 185030 as a comport. We have an example of the comport, but the lozenge marks it as 183352 (sugar bowl). It could be a one-off error or perhaps Percival & Vickers mixed up the two designs.

Looks like a comport... stamped as a sugar bowl

Percival & Vickers registered two similar butter dishes in 1892 - registrations 193694 and 193695 - but seem to have put the wrong number on 193695.

Stamped as 193694...

But matches design sketch for 193695...

Let's settle this in court

In 1871, Ker & Webb took Percival & Vickers to court over infringement of a tumbler design. Details of the case show that the companies themselves were confused by the registration process.

28 Jan 1871 Manchester Times

Alleged Infringement of copyright

Before Sir J.I. Mantell and other magistrates, at the County Police Court, on Thursday, an information was laid by Messrs Andrew Kerr and Thomas Webb, Prussia Street Flint Glass Works, against Mr. Thomas Percival, for having, as managing director of Percival, Vickers & Co., Limited, manufactured and sold tumbler glasses of a certain pattern, thereby infringing the copyright which plaintiffs possessed in that pattern. Mr. Harrison Blair appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Jordan for the defence. Mr. Jordan raised the preliminary objection that the Act under which the proceedings had been instituted had for its object the protection of ornamental designs only; whereas the design which the plaintiffs alleged was an infringement of their copyright was for the purposes of utility, and not of ornamentation. The magistrates, having examined a tumbler handed up by Mr. Jordan, said they could not see that the pattern in question made the tumbler any more useful than if it had been perfectly plain. Mr. Jordan then said he should contend that the plaintiff's design was not new when they registered it, and he should also say that his clients had not infringed that design. He produced a glass which was, he said, of the identical pattern in dispute, and which, during the last fifteen years, his clients had manufactured and sold in Manchester, though they had not registered it. In support of his statements Mr. Jordan called Charles Henry Downs, who said he was a glass dealer, carrying on business in Manchester. Having examined one of the plaintiff's tumblers, he stated that for over twelve years he had sold tumblers of exactly similar pattern. Sir John Iles Mantell in giving judgement, said he and other magistrates on the bench were of opinion that the design of which Messrs Kerr and Webb held the copyright was not a new one; and also that the tumbler made by the defendants was not an infringement of that copyright. Mr. Jordan applied for costs on behalf of his client, against whom ten summoners had been issued. The request was granted.