Just to round things off regarding Leni's weight, and my encouragement for folk to offer opinions and reasons ...
a) We have established amongst ourselves that the weight is probably
Bohemian. We have not proven this beyond doubt.
b) The shape of the weight pointing towards a maker is one that is an important consideration and can often be a deciding factor. But as seen here, although the shape may be similar to Clichy (which is quite true) it cannot be taken as a definitive point. In this case, it has been agreed that the weight has had at least some surface repair, which could have altered the profile.
c) Also, on the subject of the shape, I gave a hint that in Sibylle Jargstorf's book, she mentioned something about Clichy profiles that may be worth a thought. What she said on page 125 was, "The profiles of weights from a single manufacturer can vary considerably, as seen in Clichy profiles." Personally I have not studied enough Clichy weights to say whether the comment is true or not but so far I have not heard of anyone saying that the statement is untrue.
d) When I commented that it was certainly not a Chinese item, I gave no reasons (and nobody queried this ... but if they had, I may have provided more clues
). Anyway, the main issue here was that the base of Leni's weight is finished with smooth concave grinding within a thin basal ring. This is a feature not seen in Chinese weights but is seen in antique French and Bohemian work.
e) As Leni had originally thought, but did not tell us until later :wink: the pattern of the weight compares quite well with a few seen in the online selection of the PCC 1999 Exhibition. My own checking of various photos in books and catalogues failed to find a truly similar design in other than Bohemain weights - but that in itself still does not prove that it is definitely Bohemian. However, for Clichy miniatures with one or two rows of concentric pattern, all the ones I have seen have had a superior setting of the canes. Also, Clichy weights tend to include at least one "pastry mould" cane which is not the case with our mystery item. [Perhaps I'll show an example of a Clichy "pastry mould" cane at some stage.]
f) The cane details, had a match been found, could have been the biggest clue to the maker (or, at least, the country). Unfortunately only a few similarities could be found but no exact match. However, this line of investigation raised some interesting comments about "Rose" canes and "6-point stars".
g) I have since produced a couple of sketches (not reproduced here) based on Leni's description of the "Rose" canes and from what I can see in the books, these do appear to point to a Bohemian attribution. As yet I have not found any references to French "Rose" canes where a central star or mass of rods (honeycomb) is surrounded by a ring of star canes before being enclosed in the rows of "petal" canes.
All of the comments on the weight have been useful and are exactly what is required in an attempt to identify the less obvious items. Size, clarity, cane detail, overall setting, base finish - they all matter.
Hopefully I will meet Leni and the weight at a PCC meeting and we will be able to get the views of others wiser than me. And maybe I can get some ultra close-up shots of the "Rose" canes ... well, I can try.
Oh, and as a last (?) comment, in recent years research has shown that some weights previously thought to be Bohemian could actually be Russian. I don't think this will turn out to be the case wih Leni's weight, but it's another point to bear in mind in the confusion of paperweight identities.