There are more than a few so called “experts” in the field of identifying WJ Hughes “Corn Flower” glass, including a prominent one who claims she can “sense” whether a piece is authentic, but I think at the end of the day it`s the well-informed collector who is best placed to decide which pieces to add to their collection – toward that end I offer the following;
Some background on the evolution of the Hughes Cornflower cut and its relative value to collectors.
It’s well documented that WJ Hughes learned the art of cutting glass at Roden Brothers Ltd, Toronto silversmith’s who in the very early 1900’s started to produce a Canadian version of American Brilliant Cut glass.
It’s also been noted that Hughes left Roden Brothers sometime between 1912 and 1914 to start a business cutting his own design, a Grey Cut floral pattern which became known as Hughes “Corn Flower”.
At that time there were literally 100’s if not 1000’s of popular designs or patterns for cut glass known to Hughes, including those of his former employer, giving him a good basis for his own design, but as is the case with many great artists, it’s Hughes’ take on the work of his predecessors and colleagues that make his pieces stand out.
(An early 1900’s Brilliant Cut piece showing some elements that would later become part of Hughes’ Cornflower design – petals cut with a smooth convex wheel with uniform fringing, 60 degree hatched centers and V cut leaves on flowing stems.)
(An early 1900’s Roden Brothers Brilliant Cut piece showing some elements that would later become part of Hughes’ Cornflower design – non-uniform fringed petals, V cut leaves and the fringed single petal Bud Cut.)
One topic not covered that well in the three books devoted to the work of WJ Hughes, is that the Cornflower design as it was cut evolved substantially in the very early years, in fact it continued to evolve throughout its entire production life.
Starting with the earliest pieces, 1914 to the late Teens - these pieces are not only very rare, they’re quite different when compared to Hughes' later work. They present us with both an insight into how Hughes developed his Cornflower design and also a bit of a conundrum, because the earliest pieces contradict to some degree what the “experts” say about dating pieces to pre-1930 or post-1930 by the type of petal fringing.
While always having its own unique features, Hughes’ very early pieces had more similarities to the Brilliant Cut version than did his later pieces, but what should be important to collectors is that given the way Hughes ran his production, these very early pieces are likely the only ones entirely cut by Hughes himself.
One topic not covered that well in the three books devoted to the work of WJ Hughes, is that the Cornflower design as it was cut evolved substantially in the very early years, in fact it continued to evolve throughout its entire production life.
Starting with the earliest pieces, 1914 to the late Teens - these pieces are not only very rare, they’re quite different when compared to Hughes' later work. They present us with both an insight into how Hughes developed his Cornflower design and also a bit of a conundrum, because the earliest pieces contradict to some degree what the “experts” say about dating pieces to pre-1930 or post-1930 by the type of petal fringing.
While always having its own unique features, Hughes’ very early pieces had more similarities to the Brilliant Cut version than did his later pieces, but what should be important to collectors is that given the way Hughes ran his production, these very early pieces are likely the only ones entirely cut by Hughes himself.
(A very early large footed Compote with teardrop base, possibly a Tiffin Glass Co. blank.)
(Another very early Champagne glass, above are two good examples of Hughes' earliest work, this one also possibly cut on a Tiffin Glass Co.'s blank.)
In the earliest years the flowers were quite large with proportionally a very small hatched center, but the single biggest difference is that the stemming did not have the characteristic long flowing pattern found in all of Hughes’ later work; they are much shorter and cut differently, much heavier or deeper probably because of the stones and sharpening tools available at the time.
The conundrum arises when we see that these earliest pieces have a uniform fringing on the petals and in some cases a uniform fringed bead on the edge, all cut with a convex gang stone – which according to books by Krista Taylor and Wayne Townsend wasn't done by Hughes until approximately 1930.
It seems probable that Hughes actually did start with a uniform petal fringe and then changed to non-uniform fringing (probably because the stones / sharpening tools of the day required too much work to maintain a gangstone for fringing), switching back again to uniform fringing in 1930, perhaps when new cutting stones / sharpening tools became available.
Whatever the case one thing is certain, there are numerous documented examples of uniform fringed flowers, by many different American and at least one Canadian cutter, dating to as early as the late 1800's during the Brilliant period, so we know it wasn't a new practice when adopted again by Hughes in 1930, as has been suggested.
There seem to be few very early pieces in circulation, but the ones I have, stemware and tableware pieces, each have all three flower cuts on them - a full 12 petal flower, a 3 petal bud and a single petal bud all on the same piece. As you can see the compote above has the same flower cuts and also has a beaded edge done with the same gang stone.
By the later teens and through the 1920’s the cut has evolved into what we recognize now as some of Hughes' best work – it featured a proportionally lager hatched center in 12 petal flowers with non-uniform fringed edges, and what has become Hughes' signature - long flowing stems in a “wreath” around the flower terminating in V cut pointed leaves. There was plenty of use of the 3 petal and single petal bud cuts, beaded edges and handles, stars cut in the bases.
In the earliest years the flowers were quite large with proportionally a very small hatched center, but the single biggest difference is that the stemming did not have the characteristic long flowing pattern found in all of Hughes’ later work; they are much shorter and cut differently, much heavier or deeper probably because of the stones and sharpening tools available at the time.
The conundrum arises when we see that these earliest pieces have a uniform fringing on the petals and in some cases a uniform fringed bead on the edge, all cut with a convex gang stone – which according to books by Krista Taylor and Wayne Townsend wasn't done by Hughes until approximately 1930.
It seems probable that Hughes actually did start with a uniform petal fringe and then changed to non-uniform fringing (probably because the stones / sharpening tools of the day required too much work to maintain a gangstone for fringing), switching back again to uniform fringing in 1930, perhaps when new cutting stones / sharpening tools became available.
Whatever the case one thing is certain, there are numerous documented examples of uniform fringed flowers, by many different American and at least one Canadian cutter, dating to as early as the late 1800's during the Brilliant period, so we know it wasn't a new practice when adopted again by Hughes in 1930, as has been suggested.
There seem to be few very early pieces in circulation, but the ones I have, stemware and tableware pieces, each have all three flower cuts on them - a full 12 petal flower, a 3 petal bud and a single petal bud all on the same piece. As you can see the compote above has the same flower cuts and also has a beaded edge done with the same gang stone.
By the later teens and through the 1920’s the cut has evolved into what we recognize now as some of Hughes' best work – it featured a proportionally lager hatched center in 12 petal flowers with non-uniform fringed edges, and what has become Hughes' signature - long flowing stems in a “wreath” around the flower terminating in V cut pointed leaves. There was plenty of use of the 3 petal and single petal bud cuts, beaded edges and handles, stars cut in the bases.
(1920's Heisey "Revere" bowl cut by WJ Hughes with his Cornflower design)
(1920's Heisey "Revere" under plate for the bowl above, cut by WJ Hughes with his Cornflower design, note how the 3 petal bud has also evolved)
It’s the pieces cut during the very late Teens and through the 1920’s that have the most work devoted to each one, the largest flowers and the most leaves and embellishments, additionally, they are cut on some of the nicest blanks ever produced by American glass houses. These pieces are for the most part extremely well done and true works of art, probably because Hughes did a lot of the work himself, certainly at least cutting the most critical part, the stemming.
Coinciding with the Depression, the 1930’s saw the first actual reduction in the amount of work that went into cutting each piece. Initially it was done ever so slightly, but as the decade went by it did diminish further. By the end of the 1930's the flowers were cut a little smaller overall (with the center making up a larger percentage and the hatching much "looser"), there were slightly fewer stems / leaves per piece and less use of the single and 3 petal bud cuts. The embellishments were reduced, smaller stars done with fewer cuts and generally a little less of them.
The late 1920’s and through the 1930’s also saw the rise of colored American Elegant Glass, with the War bringing it to an end. Hughes cut plenty of the incredible colored blanks offered by American glass houses at a time when new designs in new colors were plentiful.
With the benefit of years of developing his design and cutting techniques, training cutters and with new cutting stones / sharpening tools, Hughes and this staff were at the peak of their skill when colored glass came into fashion. This makes these pieces (Late 1920's to mid-to-late 1930's) not only some of the best cut pieces, but because they’re on some incredible colored blanks, they’re easily the most collectable/valuable of all Hughes’ work.
It’s the pieces cut during the very late Teens and through the 1920’s that have the most work devoted to each one, the largest flowers and the most leaves and embellishments, additionally, they are cut on some of the nicest blanks ever produced by American glass houses. These pieces are for the most part extremely well done and true works of art, probably because Hughes did a lot of the work himself, certainly at least cutting the most critical part, the stemming.
Coinciding with the Depression, the 1930’s saw the first actual reduction in the amount of work that went into cutting each piece. Initially it was done ever so slightly, but as the decade went by it did diminish further. By the end of the 1930's the flowers were cut a little smaller overall (with the center making up a larger percentage and the hatching much "looser"), there were slightly fewer stems / leaves per piece and less use of the single and 3 petal bud cuts. The embellishments were reduced, smaller stars done with fewer cuts and generally a little less of them.
The late 1920’s and through the 1930’s also saw the rise of colored American Elegant Glass, with the War bringing it to an end. Hughes cut plenty of the incredible colored blanks offered by American glass houses at a time when new designs in new colors were plentiful.
With the benefit of years of developing his design and cutting techniques, training cutters and with new cutting stones / sharpening tools, Hughes and this staff were at the peak of their skill when colored glass came into fashion. This makes these pieces (Late 1920's to mid-to-late 1930's) not only some of the best cut pieces, but because they’re on some incredible colored blanks, they’re easily the most collectable/valuable of all Hughes’ work.
(1929 - 1930 Heisey Celery Tray , cut with full flowers , 3 petal buds, a beaded edge and a star cut in the base.)
(Very late 1920'sTiffin Jar with Lid, wheel cut with Hughes Cornflower)
1940’s pieces show a further, but this time marked reduction in the amount of cutting. During the early part of that decade most embellishments were dropped and while the execution of the work is always excellent, given the amount of cutting and the blanks available at the time, they are less collectable/valuable than the any of the earlier pieces.
Glass produced during the War lacks certain metals that give it clarity and other properties, and while many of the pieces appear slightly yellowed, there are still a number of very nice pieces certain to be early 1940's (paper labels) available to collectors.
1940’s pieces show a further, but this time marked reduction in the amount of cutting. During the early part of that decade most embellishments were dropped and while the execution of the work is always excellent, given the amount of cutting and the blanks available at the time, they are less collectable/valuable than the any of the earlier pieces.
Glass produced during the War lacks certain metals that give it clarity and other properties, and while many of the pieces appear slightly yellowed, there are still a number of very nice pieces certain to be early 1940's (paper labels) available to collectors.
(A pair of early 1940`s glasses from a set sold with paper labels, the blanks are top quality, possibly by Imperial Glass.)
(An Imperial Glass "Pie Crust" bowl dating to the late 1940's - still showing a few extra cuts in the base, but overall less cutting.)
Without getting deep into details, I think it’s fair to say the cut was quite similar (and not too far from the original) right from the start of the War through to almost the mid-to-late 1950’s, which in my opinion is the cut-off point for collectable Cornflower.
It`s at this point that the cut and blanks become markedly different, with all due respect to Pete Kayser, who was up against a diminishing market of quality blanks and a Union, within a decade the cut becomes a shadow of the original, lacking most of the elements that made the earlier pieces true works of art.
Disclaimer:
We are not affiliated in any way with “WJ Hughes and Sons “Corn Flower” Ltd.”
Without getting deep into details, I think it’s fair to say the cut was quite similar (and not too far from the original) right from the start of the War through to almost the mid-to-late 1950’s, which in my opinion is the cut-off point for collectable Cornflower.
It`s at this point that the cut and blanks become markedly different, with all due respect to Pete Kayser, who was up against a diminishing market of quality blanks and a Union, within a decade the cut becomes a shadow of the original, lacking most of the elements that made the earlier pieces true works of art.
Disclaimer:
We are not affiliated in any way with “WJ Hughes and Sons “Corn Flower” Ltd.”