One of the fun things about paperweights is that without a definite signature cane or a cane that can easily be confirmed, it's just not very easy in many cases to give an identification.
But - just as with anything else - one of the benefits of discussing the pros and cons of a considered attribution is that the process can give us a wealth of knowledge that cannot be gained by a quick and simple identification by an "expert".
Ray's comment about how the shape of the dome steers him towards an attribution is an important point. With all paperweights of the type discussed here, the dome shape, base finish, individual cane details, overall setting of the canes, as well as the internal clarity of the glass, are all crucial aspects to consider.
And then, after considering all the points, we may still end up with no firm conclusion. :roll:
I think it would be a good thing to let Leni and Ray, and anyone else who wants to join in, discuss their thoughts on this weight, preferably with as many book and website references as possible also being given.
I may think I know the answer to this one, but I will have to do some checking myself before I give an opinion. So ... thoughts, reasonings and references ... over to you folks, but I will raise one question - what's the height and diameter?
Oh, and Leni, in the Jargstorf book you may find a comment on Clichy profiles that is worth throwing in to the debate. And for everyone who wants to join in, don't forget to check out the PCC 1999 Exhib photos at:http://www.kevh.clara.net/exhib99/exhib99.htm
- there may be a clue in there.