Topic: Oh no - 'antique Whitefriars' again

[tropdevin]

***

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

[Lily of the Valley]

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

[TxSilver]

It is a nice paperweight. Any idea who might have made it? Someone put some work into it.

[Lily of the Valley]

 :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?

[TxSilver]

It might be that he forgot to change pictures between his listings. See http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280571080888.

[TxSilver]

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.

[pandelune]

A very nice Murano weight indeed.

[TxSilver]

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?

[tropdevin]

***

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

[KevinH]

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:

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?