Bacchus - early, late, or just on time?

By Alan Thornton

An article first published in the Paperweight Collectors Circle Newsletter No. 88, August 2005

The glass factory of George Bacchus is known to have produced high quality paperweights in the middle of the 19th century.  Now, some 150 years on, increasing numbers of weights are being given the attribution ‘late Bacchus’ or ‘early Bacchus’, usually by their proud owners, and often on weak evidence such as a single cane. In this article I offer some thoughts – controversial maybe - on the origins of these weights, and the accuracy of these attributions.  And I pose some questions, mainly unanswered, about old English weights.  Hopefully it will inspire other collectors to look again at their pieces – and maybe join in the debate - and perhaps help find some answers.

We do not know how many of the beautiful ‘classic’ Bacchus weights were ever made, but estimates of between 400 and 600 seem reasonable, given how many are known, and the scarcity of new examples.  Nor can we be certain that these weights were made by Bacchus, for none were ever signed. But they are clearly the work of someone – and maybe just one person – with considerable technical skill and artistic feeling.

There are other weights (designated ‘late’ or ‘early’) that share particular aspects of the style and often some of the canes of the classic weights.  These vary from fairly crude examples to precise but uninspired ‘classic’ designs to competent close packed or concentric weights that are often classified as ‘Old English’ ( see Old English Paperweights by Bob Hall for pictures of various examples, and for a wealth of factual information).  However, the complex ruffles and collared canes of the best classic weights are rarely seen in the poorer examples; and the simpler cross canes often proliferate in ‘later’ weights, both in concentrics and close packs.  Why should this be so?  What can we deduce from it, if anything?  Did Bacchus produce more than one quality and price of weight during their heyday?

Paperweights were never a major source of income for English glassworks, and so the classic weights were probably made infrequently, in small batches.  There would be little commercial sense in using workers to make several hundred items of stock that would sit on the shelves for years when they could be making items that would sell quickly.  If the classic weights were made over a period of about six years, as has been suggested, then one man’s output one day a month would be enough to account for them all.  It could be that a batch was made just once or twice a year.  In either case, the first few weights of each batch would have been made when the gaffer and his team were probably a little rusty.

So what did our gaffer do, when he came to make his first paperweight after a break of weeks or maybe months?  Although probably paid for piece work, he is likely to have made a couple of weights to get his hand in, and it is unlikely that these would have been the most precise set-ups using the best canes. More likely he would use trial set-ups by his apprentice.  The most challenging part of the process would be forming the beautiful precise base we see in classic weights – and the first one or two may have been less than perfect.  However, these weights could still have been attractive and saleable items.  So could some of our ‘later’ weights have originated in this way?

What of the rogue canes, common in Bacchus concentric set-ups?  Why choose one – or more - different canes to complete an otherwise symmetrical design?

Perhaps it is just the signature of our master craftsman.  Interestingly, the rogue cane – and the use of a larger central element – continues to appear in old English weights through to Arculus and Walsh Walsh, as does the use of 10 cog canes.  The ‘1848’ paperweight weight shown here has all these features.  Is this coincidence, mimicry, or the continuing influence of one man and his apprentices?  Did some of the Bacchus team end up at the Arculus factory?

To return to the title of this article: are there ‘early’ and ‘late’ Bacchus weights?  Chronologically there must be.  But does the quality of an individual weight, or the canes that it contains, mean we can both attribute it to Bacchus and assign it to a particular period?  In my view that would be an over-simplistic approach.  The untidy weights with cruder, simpler canes could well represent the very first attempts – or they may be weights made by the apprentice using scrap material.  Once we get to the classic weights, we see sustained high quality pieces no doubt made over a period of several years.  But it is quite likely that some poorer quality pieces were made in similar style with similar canes at the same time.

As time went by, and the demand for expensive paperweights started to tail off, then Bacchus would have been unlikely to invest time and effort in making more complex canes once existing stock had run out.  Better to make simpler canes or buy them in from elsewhere, and to make cheaper weights.  So later weights might be expected to have a wider variety of canes, including more, simpler ones.

Did Bacchus respond by making simpler, cheaper, lower quality weights, or did they just stop production?  And if so, where did the remaining canes and moulds go?  Did they sit on the shelves?  Were they sold, or thrown away?  Or spirited away by one of the glassworkers who went to another employer?  Could that be why we see some simpler old English weights which include the odd Bacchus cane?  To say, for example, that only Bacchus weights contain 18 point cog canes becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy unless we are prepared to accept that such canes might occur in other weights.  So how should we interpret the tankard* inscribed with the date ‘1872’, that  contains probable Bacchus canes: was it made around then, or is it an earlier piece inscribed at a later date, as is commonplace with commemorative silverware?  My suggestion is ‘interpret with care’!

 * see the article on Bacchus weights by Bob Hall in the PCA Bulletin 2002 pp 52-57.

We are unlikely to find categoric answers to all the questions that I have posed, but we can perhaps achieve more than just idle speculation about some of the issues.  We have a considerable body of forensic evidence in the hundreds of Bacchus and ‘possible Bacchus’ weights that exist, and these must contain some clues to the answers.  But we should be cautious at this stage – tempting though it may be – to label a weight ‘early’ or ‘late’ Bacchus without very good reason.

All the images in this article are of old English weights in the author’s collection; some of them may have been made by Bacchus!.

 



Bacchus


Maybe Bacchus


Probably not Bacchus!



Arculus / Walsh Walsh


Unknown


Unknown


Unknown