The following comments are given for the sake of pedanticism.
Frank's general point about early Ysart (pre-war Monart) canes possibly making it all the way to Strathearn and other places is correct. But certain points, when taken out context, or when individually quoted - as in Max's well stated response - are not strictly true.For example:
As far as I know, all paperweight makers make their own canes - probably at company level rather than individual.
This means that you can match weights by comparing canes to known examples.
Perhaps true for many studio / individual artists. But not true for several makers.
My understanding is that Caithness Glass made the canes - as well as the weights - for Edinburgh Crystal millefiori items. Many of the canes seen in Edinburgh Crystal weights are also found in Caithness Glass items - and many of those canes are very much like ones seen in John Deacons' items with the StK signature cane, and perhaps others.
Also, Murano canes have been used by many non-Murano paperweight makers including some Americans.
Then there's the modern Chinese weights that have canes so similar to some Murano ones that it really is difficult to know where some items were made.Also:
Some of the earliest Monart glass was decorated with millefiori or twist canes ... ... Here we have a unique resource that indicates these canes were ONLY used by the Ysart family.
I think I know what you are getting at Frank, but to say those canes were used ONLY by the Ysarts is not true (as you rightly state later in your comments).Then one of my "favourites":
... So you could find 'Monart' canes in Vasart and Paul Ysart paperweights. ...
Well, yes, but the generalised use of "Monart" is something I have always had difficulty with. Had the statement been "... could find pre-war
Monart canes in Vasart and PY weights ...", then I would agree. But other than "personal" items, surely all of Paul's post-war-pre-Caithness weights were Monart. Canes pulled by Paul in those years are not - to the best of my knowledge - found in any other makers' pieces.
I hope to generate more on all this "tedius detail"
at the Perth event.
As for paperweight collectors being "relatively spoit ..." - yeah, maybe that's right. But as we have already seen, unless somebody has access to the relevant books, it is all too easy get tied up in knots over a supposedly simple id of a Perthshire Paperweights regular production weight. :!:
One thing that is certainly true for me is that my paperweights are easier to display than my general glass. The weights even form alleys across my floor space ... all very decorative and adjustable