No-one likes general adverts, and ours hadn't been updated for ages, so we're having a clear-out and a change round to make the new ones useful to you. These new adverts bring in a small amount to help pay for the board and keep it free for you to use, so please do use them whenever you can, Let our links help you find great books on glass or a new piece for your collection. Thank you for supporting the Board.

Author Topic: Oh no - 'antique Whitefriars' again  (Read 1458 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tropdevin

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 2396
  • Gender: Male
    • Paperweights
    • England
    • My Paperweights Website
Oh no - 'antique Whitefriars' again
« on: October 04, 2010, 07:03:02 AM »
***

Yet another item described as 'antique Whitefriars', although in this case it isn't even an English weight - it is a Murano.

I note that the latest Selman auction also uses the term 'antique Whitefriars' to describe various Old English paperweights, including a Richardson piece.  Yet there is no evidence whatsovever that Whitefriars made any paperweights before 1938 - and that is endorsed by the last Technical Manager of Whitefriars. So unless we want to call a 1950s paperweight 'antique Whitefriars', the term is at best inaccurate, and is misleading for the inexperienced collector.

Alan

Alan
"There are two rules for ultimate success in life. Number 1: Never tell everything you know."

The comments in this posting reflect the opinion of the author, Alan Thornton, and not that of the owners, administrators or moderators of this board. Comments are copyright Alan Thornton.
 http://www.pwts.co.uk

Support the Glass Message Board by finding a book via book-seek.com


Offline Lily of the Valley

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 306
Re: Oh no - 'antique Whitefriars' again
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2010, 12:11:55 AM »
For such a nice collection, it's an interesting misattribution.  It looks to have been cataloged that way rather than the seller just making it up.  That's a pretty hefty $$$$ on the bottom of the weight!  Perhaps this was an early piece for that collector.  It's a very nice Murano (IMHO).

Lily :)

Support the Glass Message Board by finding glass through glass-seek.com


Offline TxSilver

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 2810
  • Gender: Female
    • San Marcos Art Glass
Re: Oh no - 'antique Whitefriars' again
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2010, 01:45:36 AM »
It is a nice paperweight. Any idea who might have made it? Someone put some work into it.
Anita
San Marcos Art Glass
Visit the Murano Zoo
http://sites.google.com/site/muranozoo/

Support the Glass Message Board by finding a book via book-seek.com


Offline Lily of the Valley

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 306
Re: Oh no - 'antique Whitefriars' again
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2010, 03:27:17 AM »
 :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:

I did take a look at Alan's Murano Project and found some similarities but those weights were in the Unassigned category.  A or F Toso used a similar ground.

Basically, Anita, I don't have a clue ..... Lily :-\

What are your thoughts?

Support the Glass Message Board by finding glass through glass-seek.com


Offline TxSilver

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 2810
  • Gender: Female
    • San Marcos Art Glass
Re: Oh no - 'antique Whitefriars' again
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2010, 03:54:30 AM »
It might be that he forgot to change pictures between his listings. See http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280571080888.
Anita
San Marcos Art Glass
Visit the Murano Zoo
http://sites.google.com/site/muranozoo/

Support the Glass Message Board by finding a book via book-seek.com


Offline TxSilver

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 2810
  • Gender: Female
    • San Marcos Art Glass
Re: Oh no - 'antique Whitefriars' again
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2010, 03:59:10 AM »
Oh, I see. It is a re-listing of the same weight. I didn't notice the other auction had already ended.

Anyway... it reminds me of the nice pedestal paperweight that I bought a while back. We decided it was probably Fratelli Toso. Alan has that weight on his Murano site now, so I won't dig up the old listing.
Anita
San Marcos Art Glass
Visit the Murano Zoo
http://sites.google.com/site/muranozoo/

Support the Glass Message Board by finding glass through glass-seek.com


Offline pandelune

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 14
Re: Oh no - 'antique Whitefriars' again
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2010, 08:26:22 PM »
A very nice Murano weight indeed.

Support the Glass Message Board by finding a book via book-seek.com


Offline TxSilver

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 2810
  • Gender: Female
    • San Marcos Art Glass
Re: Oh no - 'antique Whitefriars' again
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2010, 08:51:41 PM »
Something I just caught is that he calls it magnum, which made it more impressive in my mind. It is 3.25", which is a standard size for Murano pws. Does a pw have to be at least 4" to be a magnum?
Anita
San Marcos Art Glass
Visit the Murano Zoo
http://sites.google.com/site/muranozoo/

Support the Glass Message Board by finding glass through glass-seek.com


Offline tropdevin

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 2396
  • Gender: Male
    • Paperweights
    • England
    • My Paperweights Website
Re: Oh no - 'antique Whitefriars' again
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2010, 09:12:39 PM »
***

Hi.

I am not sure there is an agreed size for a magnum, but 3 1/4 inch sounds too small to me. I would think that a weight needed to be 3 1/2 inch or more to be a magnum.

Alan
Alan
"There are two rules for ultimate success in life. Number 1: Never tell everything you know."

The comments in this posting reflect the opinion of the author, Alan Thornton, and not that of the owners, administrators or moderators of this board. Comments are copyright Alan Thornton.
 http://www.pwts.co.uk

Support the Glass Message Board by finding a book via book-seek.com


Offline KevinH

  • Global Moderator
  • Members
  • *
  • Posts: 5472
    • England
Re: Oh no - 'antique Whitefriars' again
« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2010, 09:30:47 PM »
The definition of "mangnum" differs between makers or companies. It probably also differs between authors, too.

My understanding is that 3.5 inch (9 cm) diameter is the smallest size that really can be called "magnum". As with the Murano size of 3.25 inch (8.3 cm), a lot of Paul Ysart weights were that 'standard' size, too.

The first edition (but not the second, it seems!) of, The Charlton Standard Catalogue of Caithness Paperweights defined magnum as 110mm [that's 4 5/16 inch according to my slide rule]. Their standard size was stated as 80mm [3 1/8 inch].

Paul Dunlop, in his book, The Dictionary of Glass Paperweights an illustrated primer, 2009, says:
Quote
Any paperweight from the classic period which is 3 1/4 inches ...
["Classic period" = 1845 - 1870 (ish)] He goes on to say that because 3 1/4 inches is a standard size for many of today's makers, then magnums should be "larger than 3 3/4 or 4 inches". Hmm, I wonder why he did not include 3.5 inch (9cm) in the definition?
KevinH

Support the Glass Message Board by finding glass through glass-seek.com


 

Look for glass on
 ebay.co.uk 
Look for glass on
 eBay.com (US)

Link to Glass Encyclopedia
Link to Glass Museum


This Website is provided by Angela Bowey, PO Box 113, Paihia 0247, New Zealand