I agree that I'd like to see more attributions in the, 'branding' of weights but, to be fair to JD, it's part of a long tradition. Almost all, 'classic period' weights are attributed to factories not individuals. Since then, the trend has continued: Harland, Caithness, Selkirk, Perthshire, have all produced weights where the individual artist cannot (easily) be identified. If it's John's studio then the output is his I guess.
Hee hee! Having tried my hand at paperweight making I'd have to say it takes more than a, 'technician' to pick up and encase the lampwork. I found the lampworking (relatively!!!!) easier (droopy, L-shaped, paperweight anybody?). I'm quite happy to buy collaborative pieces. I'd have to say JD is, IMHO, one of the finest workers of hot glass (quintuple/encased overlay....?) and I think it only improves the quality and beauty of the weight to let somebody who is at the top of the game in lampworking (Allan...) do what they do best.
But would still like to see all contributions attributed.
Anybody know what the, 'rules' are for getting your cane in a paperweight? Sometimes individual canes appear in Caithness weights (e.g. Willie Manson), Selkirk weights (e.g. Peter Holmes) and JD (e.g. Allan Scott). Sometimes the maker appears on the certificate. But not always.
Still, all adds to the fun I suppose!