Shards of Indiana, Pennsylvania - A Second Look - by Jerry & Cleo Kudlac

Glass Patterns Identified in the Recovered Shards

In our final article we discuss the process we used to examine the shards and to identify the various patterns. Some shards were easy to identify, but we found others to be very difficult.  One thing is for sure, today, collectors have a lot more resources available than Heacock had in 1975.  We start out with a little background on the shards.

Since 1931, there have been various accounts of glass shards being found in the area where the glass factory was located.  One account tells of children getting cuts on their feet when swimming in Two-Lick Creek.  Local residents occasionally found shards and tried to sell them at yard sales. The old glass factory was abandoned and was eventually demolished.  The surrounding land had become unsightly and polluted due to coal mining, the glass factory and a salvage business. The Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP) and the community wanted to cleaned up and reclaim the land for expansion; and as a result, the old glass factory site became part of the IUP campus.  From 1948 through 1968, twenty new buildings were added to the University campus.  A newspaper account mentions glass shards being uncovered during the construction of the George P. Miller Football Stadium which was completed in 1962, and located near the glass factory site.

In 1975, Harry Helman, his son Del, and George McMillian obtained their glass shards that were uncovered at a campus construction site.  This was the first attempt to study and research the shards.  Six years later in 1981, “The Antique Trader” published an article by William Heacock describing the patterns identified in the Helman shards. Additional research on the glass was published later in a book completed by James Measell and Berry Higgins.  “Dugan/Diamond – The Story of Indiana, Pennsylvania Glass” was based on facts from historical records, documents, personal communication with decedents of the Dugan family, and a collaboration of many individuals and collectors.  Considering the limited number of books available in 1975, it is no wonder that it took six years of research to identify the patterns.

The glass shards we examined were recovered in 1995, when new construction was taking place on the IUP campus which, coincidently, was right over the footprint of the old factory site.  Since undertaking “A Second Look”, we can appreciate the time, labor and the challenge it took to identify those first glass patterns.   Today, we have many resources available to us; but we soon learned that even with these resources, some patterns were quite a challenge to identify.  Each glass shard was one piece of a big puzzle; and from that one piece, we had to visualize the item and where that piece fit.  Some patterns could only be identified by comparing the shard with the suspected pattern.  That process is quite different than having the entire bowl or plate to look at and to identify.  For those who have not had this experience, we will share how we went through that process.  

The shards we examined were a mix of all types of glass made at the Indiana, PA factories from 1892 – 1931; therefore, identifying the type of glass with a pattern could help identify the time period that the glass and patterns were made.   We examined shards for patterns and for color.  The glass shards ranged in size from about a quarter of inch or smaller to 3-4 inches in length.  Many of the shards were from finished pieces that probably broke during final phase of manufacturing.  Some shards were globs of molten glass of no particular shape, but some had a partial pattern impressed in them, probably a result of testing a batch of glass for its consistency.

Our first step was to clean the dirt from the shards and sort them by type of glass as described in previous articles and examined under white and black light (ultraviolet). Photograph #27 shows five basic types of glass. 27A- Glass cased with gold-ruby glass (Cranberry) and opalescent glass; 27B- Opaque glass; 27C-Opalescent pressed glass; 27D-Iridized clear glass; 27E- Non-iridized transparent glass.

The second step was to sort the shards based the color of the glass.  This gave us another indication of approximately when the glass was made.  For example, transparent dark green glass and custard glass would date its production from Northwood and National period to possibly the early Dugan period.  Iridized shards would place them in the Dugan/Diamond period while the non-iridized amber and light green would most likely be from the later Diamond period.  In photograph 28 are examples of the types of glass found. 28A- Vaseline (Northwood), 28B- Amber (Late Diamond); 28C- Black (Late Diamond); 28D- Amethyst (Dugan & Diamond); 28E- Dark green (Early Northwood & Dugan); 28F- Ice Green that glows (Late Diamond); 28G- Royal Blue (Early Northwood or Late Diamond); 28H- Dark Ice Blue (Early Northwood, Dugan and Late Diamond); 28I- Selenium Red (Late Diamond); 28J- Selenium Pink (late Diamond).

The third step was to examine the thickness of the glass shards to determine if the shard was from a pitcher, plate, tumbler or a vase.  Thick shards were probably from a pitcher and a thin shard from a tumbler. Early blown tumblers made by Northwood and Dugan are very thin while pressed glass tumblers are thick. Determining if the pattern was on the outside (bottom) or inside (top) aided in identification since some patterns are only found in one location, but not both.  Identifying structures such as mold seams, edge treatments of pitchers, bowls, plates, tumblers and vases helped to locate the shards within the pattern.  Shown in photograph 29 are: 29A -  Top of Dahlia water pitcher; 29B – Top of Circle Scroll water pitcher or similar item; 29C – Daisy pattern (iridized) from inside bottom of a Lattice and Points vase.

The fourth step in identification was to look for characteristic design structures such as: (1) stippling in the pattern and/or background, (2) an intaglio or embossed pattern, and (3) an internal or external pattern.  For example, a leaf pattern may have a particular shape, veins, stippled or non-stippled leaves, branching or clusters of leaves with or without tendrils or other connecting branches or structures.  Double patterns will have a different pressed pattern on each side of a shard such as the Fanciful and Persian Garden pattern.  

Shown  in photograph are: 30A–Intaglio Poppy;  30B- Fanciful inside pattern; 30C – Backside of Fanciful (Big Basketweave); 30D – Iridized base of Circle Scroll Spooner or creamer (this feature is not found on all items in the Circle Scroll pattern); 30E- Iridized Persian Garden small plate

Sometimes within a series of items of the same pattern (berry bowl, large bowl, plate, pitcher, etc.), only one item has a design that is different from all other items of the same pattern.  If you cannot locate a photograph of that exact item, then it becomes difficult to identify.  For example, the base of a Nautilus tumbler is different than all other Nautilus items, the spooner or creamer in the Circle Scroll pattern has intaglio beads at the base while most other items of that pattern do not, (photograph 30D); and finally, the Wreathed Cherries pattern has a design of three cherries with three leaves that is only found on inside bottom of berry bowls. Examine closely Photo 31A to see a glass shard that has been placed over a section of the Corn Flower pattern of a tumbler.  In Photo 31B is test piece of clear glass with the cherry pattern that is only found in Wreathed Cherry berry bowls Photo 31C.

To further illustrate the problem, one very large shard had a very sharp pressed pattern in amethyst glass (Photo 32B).  We thought it was the Cosmos Variant pattern. Although most reference photographs show a good representation of a pattern, this piece was not a exact match.  It appeared that the reference photographs were of a poorly pressed Cosmos variant pattern with some of pattern missing.  After retrieving several of our own Cosmos bowls for comparison, we found that one of our bowls was also a poorly pressed pattern lacking in detail (32A), but the second bowl had a very sharp detailed pressed pattern (32C).   Both bowls had exceptional iridescent, but it was obvious that they were the same pattern, except one was better than the other.  Most reference photographs are excellent, but occasionally additional research may be necessary.

Summary

In the table below, we have listed 81 patterns in 133 variations of colors and types of glass.  To date, we have been unable to identify an additional 15 patterns.  The factory glass dump was most likely used by the company and employees to discard all kinds of refuse.  We feel that most of these 15 patterns were made at this site; but also realize that some of the unidentified patterns may not be relevant.   All glass colors and patterns discussed in this series of articles on “Shards of Indiana, PA – A Second Look” that have been identified are now cataloged and archived for future reference and study.

Our work with these shards has given us a new appreciation for all the dedicated individuals who continued the effort of Heacock and others with their own research and sharing their knowledge.  We continue the effort by sharing our findings with you.

Note:  A special acknowledgement goes to Claudia Minick for her expertise and knowledge of the Diamond Glass-Ware Company.   Thank you, Claudia for sharing your knowledge with me.

Patterns Identified In Glass Shards Recovered From Indiana, PA, Facilities.

Glass Companies: 1892 to 1931
Indiana Glass Company - 1891;  Northwood Glass Company - 1896; National Glass Company - 1900
Dugan Glass Company - 1904; Diamond Glass Company 1913 (Diamond Glass Ware Company)

Color Abbreviation Key