Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests > Glass Paperweights

St Mande??


And this one - It is clearly french, but too tall for a Clichy.  Is it a St Mande?

It's 1.5 inches diameter
There is one that looks like it has the same dimensions on Bob Halls site
There was some St Mande discussions before Xmas so the truth is out there


--- Quote from: "mjr" ---There was some St Mande discussions before Xmas so the truth is out there
--- End quote ---

Sadly, I don't think the truth is out there ....Yet!   :?

I have one little weight which was ID'd as St Mande by Sibylle Jargstorf - although there were some who still doubted  :roll:  :wink:  So when I recently acquired a very similar weight I assumed that was a St Mande, too.  However, when Kevin UV tested the two together at a recent PCC meeting, it was clear they were probably NOT from the same glasshouse!   :shock:  :?

So I reckon the jury is still out on St Mande, and there may continue to be considerable doubt about these 'French' / 'Bohemian' / 'Russian' :?:  :o   :? unless or until more of them appear, and Kevin's UV testing finds more matches!     :roll:

I am not good on St Mande weights, but some features in this one do seem to line up well with illustrations shown in George N. Kulles's Identifying Antique Paperweights - The Less Familiar.

On page 55, he shows a cane which he calls, "Eyeglass" (having a connecting rod on two double-convex lenses) and on page 56 he shows, "Twin Ovals" (two oval-shaped bullseye canes set together) and "Pinched Bullseye" (single bullseye cane pnched together in the centre).

Looks to me as though the centre element of the dark-blue cane in the outer row is "two bullseye canes set together with a connecting rod". This seems to combine the connector of the "eyeglass" with the "twin ovals" that Kulles has identified.

Add to that the "chunky tubes" (my description) in all of the canes and I would say that St Mande could be right, according to the information so far known.

Leni said (more or less):
--- Quote ---...  Two St Mande ... UV tested together ... it was clear they were probably NOT from the same glasshouse!
--- End quote ---
Well, yes. And, no. The two weights did show a different UV result. But that might just mean that a different glass batch was used rather than they were from a different glasshouse - although that could still be the case. Until people have tested lots of these type of weights, we cannot really be certain of anything based on UV results alone.

On UV results, I like to pass on an interesting occurrence from 2005. At a Sotheby's auction there was as a "rare Pantin Clover" weight. It was stated that the UV reaction was identical to other Pantin weights tested in that way. In reality, the weight was a fairly well-known Paul Ysart Clover, not a Pantin. The glass used for both early PY (1930s to c1960) and for Pantin weights (19th century) shows pretty much the same reaction under UV! It always needs more than a UV check to determine an attribution.

Kevin. Thanks for that. In my initial post I put the link to Bob Halls example because the shape is the same. Even though you can only see Bob's from the top, the outer canes can only be half seen at an angle and not flat which means the sides are flatter, and the weight is taller , as on my weight.   Its good to see some can identification though.



[0] Message Index

Go to full version