UPDATE & CORRECTION
About the first weight ray posted in this thread, I said:
... now that I have seen the white ground, I can say that it is "more lumpy" than the equivalent of each layer of my Triple Harlequin example, but I am reasonably happy that it's a Paul Ysart weight and most likely 1930s period.
Well, I have now changed my mind!
Having seen the weight in real life and set it against my early Paul Ysart pieces, I no longer think this is an Ysart. The use of the white bits as a ground had me "reasonbaly happy", but when all the other features were taken as a whole, it looks much like a regular European weight.
One thing that I have always been hesitant to say is that all Paul Ysart weights with peripheral bubbles will have only 6 or 8 bubbles in the outer ring. If I were to make that statement publicly, no doubt a few would suddenly turn up, just to prove me wrong
However, as yet, I have not seen other numbers in Ysart weights, but I have seen (in books, and on dealers stands) several weights with 7 peripheral bubbles, which is what Ray's item has, and these have all been consistent with a general German / Bohemian attribution. I am also willing to believe that such weights may also have been produced in France or Belgium.
Under UV (Longwave & Shortwave) Ray's weight fluoresces much the same as early Ysart (Green & "Dusty" Grey). But as I have said elsewhere, this UV reaction is common to much sode-based glass as was used in many countries.
Another point is that, like many Ysart early scramble (or "Harlequin") weights, this weight contains pieces of aventurine. With the weight in my hand and daylight for viewing, it was clear that the aventurine was "watery" [as a visual description, not a method of manufacture] whereas the aventurine used in Ysart weights was more "solid" in apperance.
So, even though Ray's photos were very good, viewing the actual item amongst other known pieces made a lot of difference and the clues were easier to assess. Also, the 7 peripheral bubbles feature is something that I really should have commented on in the first place, if only as a suggestion of a query.