Topic: Purple & Orange Swirl Paperweight...

[kane_u_pain]

Purple & Orange swirl paperweight...has 2 'gouge' like marks to the base...could this be a type of signature???...or just a production flaw???...the marks seem deliberate...not very good with paperweights...is an over sized paperweight...extremely heavy...bought it many years ago from a market...sorry...has a more vibrant colour than the pics show...and not as dirty...

[Cathy B]

Hello there, and welcome to the board.

I don't know much about paperweights either, and someone should be along to help further soon, but the marks are nothing to worry about. This is just the pontil mark. See here for more.

And while we're discussing that Wikipedia link... Is it accurate, and if not, would someone volunteer to improve it? Specifically, the third paragraph might not be correct for all collectable glass. (Maybe bottle collectors refer to impressed marks on the base as pontil marks, but it's not standard practice. Or is it?)

[kane_u_pain]

I hope so cathy... ...thanks for the link...was extremely helpful  :hiclp:...i think the 3rd para does need correction/expansion...

[KevinH]

Other messages discussing pontil / punty, within the GMB, can be found by searching for both those words together. Some of the past messages are:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,19621.msg113309.html#msg113309
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,579.msg2518.html#msg2518
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,945.msg4979.html#msg4979

As for para 3 in the Wiki info, I don't know if it's right or not. But I would not be surprised at whatever terms and words have come into vogue via the "collectibles and antiques" industry.

[aa]

The whole Wikipedia entry is extremely inaccurate, not just para 3.

[Cathy B]

  And where it's not wrong, it's confusing. So, does anyone volunteer to correct the public record?

Hey, do they really saw the bottoms off blown pieces to get rid of the pontil marks? :rn:

(Sorry about hijacking your thread, Kane.)

[Sach]

And where it's not wrong, it's confusing. So, does anyone volunteer to correct the public record?

Hey, do they really saw the bottoms off blown pieces to get rid of the pontil marks? :rn:

(Sorry about hijacking your thread, Kane.)

It is one way to do it.  More likely the bottom is ground down to eliminate any marks.

[kane_u_pain]

Not a problem Cathy LOL...as long as everyone looked at the weights!!!...:24:...

[aa]

Hey, do they really saw the bottoms off blown pieces to get rid of the pontil marks? :rn:

It is one way to do it.  More likely the bottom is ground down to eliminate any marks.

Grinding is almost always necessary after cutting with a diamond saw, so if sawing is used it is only one part of the process.

[Frank]

Added a link to Wiki entry - using the first link that Kev gave above. Much easier than trying to correct the text :nogoss: