Author Topic: is this a Caithness harlequin or a Paul Ysart maybe?  (Read 1984 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline flying free

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 7030
    • UK
Re: is this a Caithness harlequin or a Paul Ysart maybe?
« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2012, 08:42:35 PM »
thank you for taking the time to post that Chris.  I appreciate it. It's nice to be able to see the design close up.  And thanks for the information on the H cane weights.  I know nothing about these at all, but I have a few bubble design paperweights and was interested to know about this one.  Many thanks
m


Offline KevinH

  • Global Moderator
  • Members
  • *
  • Posts: 4437
    • England
Re: is this a Caithness harlequin or a Paul Ysart maybe?
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2012, 08:24:21 PM »
As Alan has touched on earlier, with an unsigned example it is very difficult to be sure when a PY-type "harlequin" was made.

But this is where a UV check does become helpful. With a longwave uv light it is possible to eliminate some options. With added shortwave uv result, it is possible to define manufacture as being a) PY pre-Caithness b) Caithness c) PY studios post Caithness.

However, since there is no signature cane (either CG or PH) I doubt this is a Caithness Glass "Harlequin" version (first released in 1972). And I think the way the canes are set and how the bubbles appear also suggests it is not a CG "Harlequin".

It could still be PY pre-Caithness years (he did flat polish the base of many weights in those years but mostly for designs with no coloured ground).

Visually and logically, I think it is more likely to be an unsigned example from the 1970s, in which case, as has been stated by others, it could be by Paul or one of his assistants. But I will not say that is definitely the case without a full uv check.
KevinH


Offline flying free

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 7030
    • UK
Re: is this a Caithness harlequin or a Paul Ysart maybe?
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2012, 09:49:09 PM »
Thank you Kev, interesting information - I'm not entirely sure what wave I'm using to test it, sorry, but under my short blacklight tube thing, it fluoresces dirty orange/brown.  It's completely different to my Strathearn closepack which fluoresces a bright murky yellow I would say, and next to it, this harlequin is definitely orange.  I'm not sure that helps at all as I don't have the other wave to double test it, but thanks for any thoughts  :)
m


Offline KevinH

  • Global Moderator
  • Members
  • *
  • Posts: 4437
    • England
Re: is this a Caithness harlequin or a Paul Ysart maybe?
« Reply #13 on: December 25, 2012, 12:34:09 AM »
Assuming your uv light is a standard battery operated unit, with a rather constricted uv beam, then a result of "orange" or "orange/brown" would tie with what I see as a more obvious yellow or "straw" colour using a mains powered unit with short strip bulb.

That reaction is proof enough that the weight is not pre-Caithness period. It could still be either Caithness Glass or PY Harland / Highland.
KevinH


Offline flying free

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 7030
    • UK
Re: is this a Caithness harlequin or a Paul Ysart maybe?
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2012, 09:07:43 PM »
Thank you :)
m


Offline w8happiness

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Gender: Male
  • More than 2 weights are a collection
    • paperweights
    • Tyrol,Austria,Europe
Re: is this a Caithness harlequin or a Paul Ysart maybe?
« Reply #15 on: December 29, 2012, 12:05:47 PM »
 ;) Hi from Austria,
Yes I think it is a Paul's work during Caithness time...
a little observation I have made during the last years is that Paul's harlequins
made at Caithness show some wobbles and grooves on the flat bottom, -best seen under a chandelier-
from parallel grinding traces which weren't  ground out completely afterwards, a bit like if it has stood on
cord velvet - the bottom finish of Harland harlequins is perfectly flat and much finer.
Moncrieff era harlequins normally have fire polished bottoms with a broken pontil and
a manganese pink dome. Please compare one from may collection here: http://paperweights.kulturpixel.de/artikel/115_Paul_Ysart_PY_Moncrieff_Caithness_Harland_Highland_Peter_Holmes_William_Manson
the first, top pair,left,

kind regards, ejm

EJM


Offline flying free

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 7030
    • UK
Re: is this a Caithness harlequin or a Paul Ysart maybe?
« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2012, 03:15:49 PM »
Hello ejm and welcome to the board  :)
thank you for taking the time to look at my post and for  your comments on my paperweight.  I had looked at your site previously, it has great information and pictures :)
 I think that may be where I found the similarities with my weight.
I should make a photo of the base though, as the base is perfectly and finely polished completely flat.  There are no grooves or fire polished finish at all on my weight.
On the basis of your observations I think that would possibly make it a Harland weight?  I'm still unsure how to be sure it was made by Paul Ysart though to be honest?  it isn't marked with any signature cane.  I guess if Paul Ysart didn't always use a signature cane, then there is still thepossibility it may have been made by him.  But if others at the works also did not always use a signature cane also, then it could have been made by someone else.  All I can say about it is that it is impeccably made. But I'm not sure even that helps any further with deducing who actually made it. 
thank you again for taking the time to comment.  I appreciate it :)

So perhaps could we say we are leaning to it being made at Harland on the basis of the observations of the base finish and that there is no Caithness Glass signature cane in it?
Or would that be an assumption too far? 


Offline w8happiness

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Gender: Male
  • More than 2 weights are a collection
    • paperweights
    • Tyrol,Austria,Europe
Re: is this a Caithness harlequin or a Paul Ysart maybe?
« Reply #17 on: December 31, 2012, 06:22:02 PM »
 :) Hi flying free,a Happy New Year first of all!
Of course, Kevh and tropdevin are right, there are many criteria to be combined, and sw UV check is a good tool to decide;
I forgot to say, the profile/side view is another aspect to sort out single harlequins (at Caithness the profile is high and almost round, Harland tend to be flat- with double layers they are high egg shapes as well).
At Harland, it's a known fact, Paul was also "supervising making  and approving weights" (made by assistents like W.Manson or Davis Hurry and others)-as read in Mahoney's book, the accompanying certificate says so-  .
I think it's a good idea, please show pics of the flat bottom- the ripples I have referred to are best seen when you view the bottom from the side and move the angle from 5-15 deg. with a spotlight in front- sometimes the final polish is done so well that the moving reflection shows when you turn the angle. I have 2 double layer and 3 single harlequins showing this effect, and further 3 from later (made at Caithness from 1976, with CG cane-and not made by Paul of course) they also show those tooling traces, and they have an etching Single Harlequin made in Scotland),
kind regards ejm 
EJM


Offline flying free

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 7030
    • UK
Re: is this a Caithness harlequin or a Paul Ysart maybe?
« Reply #18 on: January 01, 2013, 12:00:10 PM »
Happy New Year to you also  :)
I've tried to take a photo that shows what you have described but been unable to successfully.  However, I can see what you mean about the 'corded' effect of the parallel lines in the base.  It looks and feels completely flat however, when you hold it angled at a certain degree to the light you can indeed, strangely, see parallel lines reflected.  Thank you :)
So, if all those things point to it being made at Caithness, how do we know for sure it was made by Paul Ysart though please?
Was he the only one making these Harlequins at Caithness? And if it had been a Caithness weight made by someone else would it have had the CG cane in it?  Apologies for all the questions  :-[ I'm just trying to learn and be sure about my id.  I hope you understand  :)
I've attached the best picture I can get, I hope you might be able to see the parallel lines in the reflected parts? mm, having uploaded the picture,you can't really see them, but they are there.
thank you again for your interest and help.
m


Offline w8happiness

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Gender: Male
  • More than 2 weights are a collection
    • paperweights
    • Tyrol,Austria,Europe
Re: is this a Caithness harlequin or a Paul Ysart maybe?
« Reply #19 on: January 01, 2013, 03:15:29 PM »
Hi flying free,
well done- corded sounds good, it isn't too obvious but-I would personally put it into the "Paul Ysart made it at Caithness" drawer!
What we know for sure- some apprentices (Peter Holmes f.i.) were trained by PY and shown techniques, so harlequins are supposed the objects for training; but Peter Holmes also said, that he made a snake weight and showed it to PY who took it away (and it's missing since...too good work!). But now: assumption 1- Paul had his millefiori and colour glass locked away and carefully guarded it; so if identifiable PY complex millefiori,latticinio and aventurine is enclosed, it must have come out of the locker in Paul's presence; I'd conclude, the better the canes are, the more the harlequin was  produced by Paul himself. Assumption 2- Paul had to fulfill the contract with Jokelson, by supplying PY signed weights exclusively to this US source; Paul had no alternative signature at this time (at Harland he had the H cane)- so is this the reason that there are many unsigned harlequins from this Caithness era? I suppose most unsigned were made by himself!
After 1972 Peter Holmes made PH singed Harlequins at Caithness (Paul had left and founded Harland in ca. 1970)- and the CG cane appeared first ca. 1975/76.
Those pieces had a translucent 3D dark cushion as base, significantly different!-Pauls always had millefiori or latticinio over a thin 2D colour layer.
Finally, Paul was fond of working alone, and assistants weren't shown more than necessary (but we have no evidence for this except eventual unfinished hot weights plunged into a water bucket when someone entered at the wrong time)  kind regards, ejm
EJM

 

Search
eBay.com
eBay.co.uk

Link to Glass Encyclopedia
Link to Glass Museum
Enter
key words
to search
Amazon.com