The Mold Moved, but the Hen Stayed the Same

A hen on nest dish may have more than one legitimate name attached to it. The company that designed the form may not be the company that owned the mold later, pressed the glass, decorated it, or sold it. By the time all those names reach an online listing, the description can resemble a family reunion where nobody remembers how Cousin Fenton is related to Aunt Westmoreland.

Pressed-glass molds were expensive, heavy industrial tools, and many survived longer than the companies that first used them. When a glasshouse closed or changed direction, its molds could be sold, leased, repaired, modified, or passed through several owners. The physical design therefore continued even though the manufacturer, glass formula, color, mark, or marketing company changed.

The small Degenhart chick salt provides a fairly clean example. Degenhart produced the form beginning around 1966, and examples made from 1972 may carry the D inside a heart. The mold transferred to Boyd in 1978. Boyd continued producing the same basic form but used its B-in-a-diamond marks. The shape connects the pieces; the mark and production period separate them. These details are documented in the Open Salts hen on nest reference.

L. G. Wright makes the story more complicated. Wright owned and marketed an enormous selection of molds but outsourced glass production to established factories. Records preserved by the Corning Museum of Glass show that Wright used companies including Fenton, Fostoria, Viking, Morgantown, and Mosser. A piece may therefore be accurately described as L. G. Wright glass even though Wright did not operate the furnace that pressed it.

When Wright closed, its molds were auctioned in 1999. The National Milk Glass Collectors Society purchased several animal-covered-dish molds, including a five-inch hen cover, while other buyers acquired additional Wright molds.

Westmoreland molds also continued traveling after the company closed. Some were used by Rosso and Summit, and the original Westmoreland mark was not always removed immediately. That creates an uncomfortable but important fact: a genuine WG molded into a later piece may identify the mold’s ancestry without proving that Westmoreland pressed that particular glass.

This is why shape alone is not enough. Begin with the mark, but also check documented colors, glass formulas, catalog appearances, measurements, mold modifications, labels, packaging, and reliable provenance. A new color in an old mold is still new glass. Worn or softened detail may offer a clue, but mold wear is not a clock; molds could be repaired or reworked.

The safest description names only what the evidence supports. “Westmoreland mold, later Rosso production” is more useful than simply calling everything Westmoreland. If the actual pressing factory is unknown, say so. “Unknown” is not a collector’s failure. It is considerably better than solving the mystery by making up a relative.

Do you own a hen with a complicated mold history, or have another collector mystery hiding on your shelf? Share it in the comments and suggest a subject for a future article.

Research Sources

• Corning Museum of Glass: L. G. Wright Pressed Glass Archive
• National Milk Glass Collectors Society: L. G. Wright Mold Auction
• National Milk Glass Collectors Society: Studying Mold History
• Open Salts: Degenhart and Boyd Chick-Salt History
• National Milk Glass Collectors Society: Westmoreland Marks and Surviving Molds