HI JEFF,

GOOD TO HEAR FROM YOU. THANKS FOR THE INFO. HOPE YOU DON'T MIND MY SENDING THIS OFF TO ARCH, DAVE AND LARRY. I'M SURE DAVE WOULD LIKE TO PUBLISH THIS DISCUSSION IN HIS WEBSITE. I STILL THINK THAT 56 IS AN ORIGINAL. BUT I'LL LET ALL YOU ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS TELL ME WHY THE MARKET ISN'T FLOODED WITH ALTERED LAVENDER CUP PLATES. I KNOW WALTER PAID DEARLY FOR HIS. Dolores Bowler, Ayer, MA

Incidentally, as far as the colored 56 is concerned, I think that Jeff is probably correct in suggesting that this might have been a mistake at the factory (it is not a very attractive color). When you look at this plate in daylight you can see that it is quite blue in color - not the purple seen in UV radiated glass.

Your question about the lavender Clay was most pertinent. It is very close, but not identical in color to the 56. So, I will take a picture of them together and include it here. (I hope that this will not get a discussion started as to whether or not the Clay has been UV radiated!)

Got word today that the four (!) UV lamps that I ordered have been shipped to me. These are neat little units containing 18 UV bulbs in a reflector that is only about the diameter of a Cup Plate. As they produce almost no heat, I will be able to place Cup Plates directly on them - which will speed up any reaction that might occur. The 565B has a beautiful, resonant "Ring", whereas the 56 just goes "Clunk"

Thus the composition of the glass in the two plates must be significantly different. Ergo, if they both HAD been UV radiated, they would have reacted differently to the radiation, and would not be almost identical in color. Isn't logic fun? Arch Doty , Hillsboro, OR

Amethyst plates were made intentionally. Amethyst tints were the result of improper glass composition (too much manganese). My example (a Henry Clay) requires viewing edge-on to see the tint, much like another green tinted plate (also a Henry Clay, too much iron). HC's must have had poor quality control.

Light amethyst plates (or any other light color tints) would most likely be the result of the accidental mixing of colored and clear glass in the melting pot. Arch's #565B may be an example, and hopefully the #56 is another. However, the irradiation of one cup plate does not equal the invalidation of all amethyst cup plates. The point of irradiation is to make something of lower value look like something of greater value. This has become common with glass insulators, which I do not collect, but only gave as reference to illustrate how irradiation works. Glass quality comes into play in that cup plates were made with "flint" glass intended to be thisk and clear, while insulators, bottles, door knobs, etc, were not, so those easily become "sun purple" from UV exposure. Poor quality flint glass could do the same.

My #56 rings like a bell, and Larry's also rings, but is short in duration, or clunks according to Arch. Arch's #56 also clunks according to him. Thickness would affect the mass, which affects the pitch (frequency) for the same shape plate, but duration (damping) might be more related to how it is held, and to composition (poor flint glass seems to damp out quickly; pink tint #291's are classic examples). So glass quality may have been an issue with some of the #56's. Maybe Walt could provide a "second opinion" with his tinted specimen.

At this point, I am undecided about the Infamous #56 being an authentic color, but from where I am sitting without the plate in hand, I can't even tell what the real color is. Dolore's photo must be the most accurate as the auction photo looks blue, and Dave's photo looks more blue-violet. Relative color comparison does help. I would like to see how Arch's test works out, and I would like to hear what Walter has to say.

As for Arch's test, if it is a valid test, we all better hope that it has a negative result, because the last thing we need is to open up cup plate collecting to the same problem that insulator collectors face with altered color glass.

Finally, two comments to Larry:
1) You seem focused upon me as being the only doubter. I would point out that having no bids on the auction indicates that I may not be the only one among many collectors. My glass experience goes back to over 30 years ago, including digging bottles, collecting sandwich glass, and other antiques. Cup plates has become my real interest in the last 6 years, but I do not consider myself to be an expert. Knowledgeable, but far from being an expert.

2) No one who has had any dealings with Walter Moore would doubt his expertise. The fact that he bought a similar colored #56 for a substantial amount and then later doubted it's authenticity weighs heavily against your plate. And he is not the only expert having second thoughts. However, I am hoping that your plate is the real deal, and I am sure Walt would want that to be the case as well. Jeff LeBlanc, Aptos, CA

Dave:
I just saw the discussion on the lavender 56 and thought I would throw in my two cents.
I have enclosed a pic of the items in my collection which most approximate the color of the 56.

The color of the 56 is in some ways similar to the other items I have come across in my flint glass collecting, but not identical. Whether all or some of these objects have been "colorized", is a matter of continuing conjecture.

Regardless, there are very few specimens of any of these objects, which I think tends to negate the contention that they are easily produced. They may in fact be products of "natural" colorizing which occurs to varying degrees in all glass exposed to the suns rays. The relative abundance of minerals in the glass gathers from different factories will obviously affect the resulting intended colors, or response to external coloring agents.

I think these pieces of flint glass are here to stay and will be part of collections for many years to come. Their value, as with all collectables, depends on what people are willing to pay for them, not on how they acheived their color. The fact that the lavender 56 plates appeared as a group of 5 is not unusual as all cup plate collectors know, but I think an examination of provenance for this group of plates might identify the common source.

For other owners of the lavender 56, I might ask you review who you got the plate from and when. Perhaps this will help solve the question. Walt Moore,

I would definately bid on a light purple 56. The controversy will remain open until it has been proven one way or the other. However....the seller really should start at a nominal starting bid and allow the bidders to set the value. A cup plate is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Dolores Bowlers Companion gives it an insurance replacement value of $1800.00 and I would not invest that much on an unproven plate. I would pay $150.00 - $200.00 on speculation to have one in my collection. Dave McDonnell, Needham, MA

I have been reading a lot of trash lately about UV radiation of glass. Worst are the E-Bay diatribe that speaks of "Germ killing lamp purple" and the unfortunate article that says that one can color glass purple by putting it in a box with a germicidal lamp for a relatively short time. It is obvious that the authors did not bother to learn that germicidal, or "germ killing" ultaviolet lamps radiate energy in the UVC spectrum range (from 100 to 200 nonometers, if you want to get technical). Also, they did not bother to check easily available sources on UVC radiation, such as the Internet sites of our EPA, or that of the World Health Organization. Had they done so they would have learned that NONE of the sun's radiation in the UVC range reaches the surface of the earth, and that it is thus absolutely impossibe that this particular radiation could color glass.

As far as my tests are concerned, I am currently testing the effect of UVA and UVB radiation on a L/R 56, on a 467A (which Rose reports in lavender) and on a repro 440B (modern glass composition). In addition (because of the above referenced articles) I have ordered a UVC "germicidal" lamp and will use it for separate tests.

All that I want to do is develop some factual information based on actual tests under controlled conditions. To an engineer that is a lot more convincing than unsupported opinion!

As to the "Infamous 56", Jeff, I'll be delighted to send mine down to you so that you can see it yourself. Perhaps the owners of the others might be willing to do the same? That would allow someone we all trust to see, and compare, them. Arch Doty , Hillsboro, OR

Don't dismiss the germicidal lamps so easily. My understanding is that these were used back in the '70's to color bottles and fruit jars. It is true that UVC from the sun is blocked by the ozone layer, so sun purpling does not involve solar UVC. However, the chemical process that turns glass purple only requires light energy to initiate the reaction. UVC is shortwave UV light below 280 nanometers (nm). UV light above 30 nm, which includes UVC, will interact mainly with the chemical valence electron of matter. However, UV below 200 nm is absorbed by the oxygen in air, so that doesn't leave much of a window, but some amount of the UVC spectrum (200 - 280 nm) is still available to initiate the chemical process that alters the glass color. The UV info is available on Wikipedia.org. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet

I seem to recall one source stating that glass that has been radiated by nuking appears more blue under fluorescent light, and more purple under incandescent light. This may explain the unusual color of the #56's. Jeff LeBlanc, Aptos, CA

Hello Dave, After plowing through most of the discussions on the lavender cup plates and insulators and artificial colorization, I have to add what I can to the overall story. I have a perfect 3 inch lavender L/R 56 purchased at Brimfield for $30 about 5 years ago. We, the dealer and I, had a discussion about the multiple purple pieces in his display. He said they were all exposed to nuclear radiation at a food packaging plant in Florida. Exposure details were not discussed but he was very open with the radiation story. The cup plate purchase was based solely on my fascination with the color change and what the color revision may do to the cup plate market. Since the encounter at Brimfield I have not seen a flood nor a few lavender cup plates but I wretch when I see a flea market display of obviously color altered old bottles, and etc. I've attached a picture for verification of the color in the irradiated cup plate. Also when tapped, it has a ring but not a sustained ring typical of thinner cup plates. Howard Simmons, CT

This is now the 5th known 56 Lavender and the 2nd to be documented as radiated. Has anyone purchased that Geiger Counter yet? Dave McDonnell, Needham, MA

To all: That may be a big nail in the coffin, if not the final one. I am almost in favor of removing the entire discussion from the website in order to keep this under wraps. Trouble is, there are irradiated cup plates out there already, so this may be an inevitable outcome. Probably better to let fellow collectors know about the possible colorization than not. Caveat emptor. Jeff LeBlanc, Aptos, CA