Author Topic: Another Paperweight-Quiz  (Read 8036 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nadine

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 52
  • Gender: Female
    • Paperweights24.com
Another Paperweight-Quiz
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2006, 08:40:50 AM »
Hello everybody,

sorry for getting back to you so late, but we had some trouble with the health of our youngest son.
Ronny will now bring this weight with him to the PCC meeting in September.


I got a message from Paul Dunlop, here is his opinion:

This weight indeed has canes and characteristics of the "Pantin" millefiori
weights I wrote about. It also has canes from a second source I have been researching. It appears that some of these canes found their way to Val St. Lambert over the years and
it is possible that this is one of their weights. I would love to see it in person some time.
Thanks for sending me the photos.

Sincerely,

Paul Dunlop


And Larry Selman wrote the following:

The torsade makes me think it might be Val
St. Lambert however I am not sure.

All the best,

Larry



Like said above in my oppionion there are too many things, which are very untypically for VSL. I´ve looked through many older auctions catalogs and found the following weight:

L.H. Selman Spring Auction 2004 / Lot 20:
(http://web888.can13.de/webbrowser/weightsmall.jpg)
For a bigger picture click here: http://web888.can13.de/webbrowser/weight.jpg

Description:
Lot 20
Antique Clichy open concentric millefiori paperweight, composed of a center cluster of seven pink and green rose canes, bordered by a turquoise and white collar, and encircled by a ring of yellow tubes, each containing eight tiny pink and pale green roses at its center. The piece includes a slightly irregular ring of eighteen pink and green roses, as well as a border garland of assorted complex canes, on clear ground. The ring of canes around the border alternate between pink cog/red and blue flower canes, blue-collared pink bull's-eye canes, and red, blue, and white blue complex flower canes, each with a tiny pink rose center. Diameter 3 5/8".
$2000-$3000

(The weight was sold for 3025$)

The yellow tubes containing eight tiny pink and pale green roses are absolutely the same like the ones in my weight.
This, the white rose and the parallel filigree twists makes me think more than ever, that it will be a very rare Clichy weight (possible Pantin).
I keep on searching for more identical canes matching to this weight :)


Have all a very nice and sunny day!

Nadine

P.S. Here is the link to the pictures again: http://web888.can13.de/webbrowser/unknown/index.html


Offline Leni

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 2277
Another Paperweight-Quiz
« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2006, 09:07:14 AM »
I'm so glad you posted about this again, Nadine!   :D

I missed the June PCC meeting and was really kicking myself because I had wanted to see this weight!  

I am very sorry for the health problems of your youngest - I do wish him completely better!

I am really glad Ronny will be over in September - that's a meeting I'll make sure I don't miss!  I am so longing to see this weight!    :shock:
Leni


Offline tropdevin

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 1964
  • Gender: Male
    • Paperweights
    • England
    • My Paperweights Website
Nadine's unknown weight - Later Clichy
« Reply #32 on: August 26, 2006, 06:50:46 AM »
I think there is little doubt that the paperweight described by Nadine is a Clichy weight made after 1860.  The Pantin 'connection' is, in my view, now a blind alley.

When Paul Dunlop wrote his article suggesting that some antique French weights (which were not classic Clichy) were probably made by Pantin, I suspect that he did not know about Roland Dufrenne's book.  It is in French, which restricts readership, but is called 'La Cristallerie de Clichy'. Roland Dufrenne worked on the book with Jean Maes and Bernard Maes ( Louis-Joseph Maes founded the Clichy factory, and was the great great grandfather of Jean Maes).  Most of the book is about Clichy glass in general, but there are about 70 pages in full colour dealing with Clichy paperweights and related objects. Quite a few weights remained in the family, so there is little doubt about attribution or date.

There are two significantly different groups of canes from the two periods (1845-1860, and post 1860).  The later period weights shown have canes very similar to Nadine's weight: collapsed tube roses, cog canes with blue and white outside; simple crosses in canes, and so on.  They include very similar designs. Most of the large complex weights are on 'upset muslin', with parallel bands of latticino - like hers, and one even has a torsade (not the same colour though).

I don't think there is any need to seek a Pantin or other attribution.

And it would look good in my collection...!

Regards

Alan Thornton
Alan
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. Please feel free to contact me direct if you do not agree with my comments and do not wish to make your concerns known by posting in this thread.
 http://www.pwts.co.uk


Offline THX1138

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 31
the paperwright is val st. lambert
« Reply #33 on: August 26, 2006, 01:21:45 PM »
George N. Kulles' excellent series of books (there are three compact, but incredibly informative volumes) touches on virtually every comment made in this thread about the "mystery" paperweight.

Kulles' books are Identifying Antique Paperweights: Millefiori, Identifying Antique Paperweights: Lampwork, and Identifying Antique Paperweights: The Less Familiar. The books, which run about 76 pages each, are rich in paperweight detail and filled with drawings and photographs.

Pages 63 - 67 in Identifying Antique Paperweights: The Less Familiar is about Val St. Lambert.

The weight in question IS Val St. Lambert. In fact, there are photographs of the same style of weight (different cane color scheme, but same millefiori ad clustering) with the diameter ribbon in the book.

The books run $25 retail in the U.S.


Offline Nadine

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 52
  • Gender: Female
    • Paperweights24.com
Another Paperweight-Quiz
« Reply #34 on: August 26, 2006, 04:35:09 PM »
Hello again,

thanks Alan for your help to identify this weight.
I totally agree, that it might be a 2nd period Clichy.

@ THX1138
I have all the 3 books from G. Kulles, but the weights shown there are not comparable to this one.
Also I´ve seen the weights in the Clichy book and they are more similar to my weight.

If you have read the whole thread, you´ll see, that there are many facts who say, that this is not a VSL weight. One of the most important is, that at all VSL weights have a low profile and a rather low dome .
The weight shown at Kulles Page 65, Figure 159 has a similar design, but you can see the torsade clearly, when you are looking from above, also the canes are not similar to my weight. The Torsade shown there is a typical VSL torsade and not matching to the one in my weight.
Plus: there are 5 clusters + 1 cluster in the center, my weight only has 4 clusters + one in the center, from which the cluster in the center is more complex than in the VSL and it has 2 concentric rings (another hint for Clichy).

Last but not least, the collapsed tube roses, VSL did never make them.
Fig. 159 +164 shows the 2 only known roses, that VSL has ever made.

You can compare every VSL-Cane in Kulles´ fantastic book, no one will match to the canes in my weight.

Another fact is, that VSL weights often resemble Clichy weights, probably Kulles´ book shows a good copy of my Clichy :lol: :wink:

Have a nice weekend.

Nadine

P.S. In two weeks you can see this weight at the PCC-Meeting in Cambridge  8)


Offline THX1138

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 31
not a clichy
« Reply #35 on: August 27, 2006, 12:57:39 AM »
Bsed on the base, the weight is not a Clichy. But, based on the base, it is closer to Val St. Lambert. The ribbon is also a key as in Kulles' "The Less Familar" volume, page 65, figure 159 and page 67, figure 164.


Offline tropdevin

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 1964
  • Gender: Male
    • Paperweights
    • England
    • My Paperweights Website
Clichy or VSL ?
« Reply #36 on: August 27, 2006, 08:22:13 AM »
I am not at all convinced by the argument that Nadine's weight is Val St Lambert.

I know George Kulles, and have his books, and he would be the first to admit that ideas evolve, and that sometimes what it says in the books is wrong.  He has, for example, decided that the array of tube canes used to identify 'Islington' weights is now an incorrect assumption - weights with these canes are more likely to be from Northern Europe.  That is not to criticise George at all - his books are very helpful. But like any paperweight book you read, you cannot consider them to be 100% correct.  As more information becomes available we have to be prepared to review the present understanding, and sometimes change our minds.

I share Nadine's view : I suspect that George wrongly identified a later Clichy as Val St Lambert when he wrote the 'Less Familiar' book.  I can see why, with the torsade, but where are all these other Val St Lambert cluster designs that he refers to? Has anyone seen one that is definitely Val St Lambert?  All the VSL weights that I have seen ( maybe 20 different ones) have a low profile, unlike Nadine's weight.  If only George were on email we could get him to join the debate! Perhaps I'll write to him.

Regards, Alan.
Alan
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. Please feel free to contact me direct if you do not agree with my comments and do not wish to make your concerns known by posting in this thread.
 http://www.pwts.co.uk


Offline KevinH

  • Global Moderator
  • Members
  • *
  • Posts: 4328
    • England
Another Paperweight-Quiz
« Reply #37 on: August 27, 2006, 07:10:17 PM »
I am still keeping an open mind on this one.

THX1138 rightly says that George Kulles' books are excellent. But we should note that the first two were published in 1985 and 1987 and were therefore based on information at that time. The later book was published in 2002 and, as Alan points out, we now have new information to study.

However, I'd like to add a few detailed points for consideration:

Nadine stated, as is often said amongst paperweight collectors,
Quote
... One of the most important is, that at all VSL weights have a low profile and a rather low dome .
But on page 62 of Kulles' ... The Less Familiar, he sated under "Profiles",
Quote
Later unfaceted Val St. Lambert examples have a taller, rounded dome.
Unfortunately, he did not show a comparative image of such a dome and he did not say whether thiose profiles were comparable to other makers. Perhaps the "higher dome VSL" weights will turn out to be later Clichy?

When comparing designs of weights, it is tempting to say that a particular pattern or usage of canes is "the same as" others seen and therefore, (also bearing in mind other factors), it indicates a particular maker. In Kulles' ... The Less Familiar, page 65, he said,
Quote
A common Val St. Lambert design has five cane clusters spaced around a central millefiori cane.
That general pattern - of five outer clusters - was also used by other makers (including modern Scottish). But the majority I have seen have had a cane cluster at the centre, not a single millefiori cane (as shown in two examples by Kulles). Could the central single cane actually be an identifying feature of VSL? If it is, then Nadine's weight is most certainly not VSL because it has a double-row cluster at the centre - and it also has only four outer clusters, not five.

One problem is that the book does not explicitly state whether there were or were not other known variations of that pattern from VSL.

I think this is all quite fascinating and is similar to the (sometimes heated) discussions over several years on whether or not Whitefriars made weights dated 1848. Anyone who checks out Kulles' Identifying Antique Paperweights Millefiori will see, for example, on page 37 that reference is made to "early Whitefriars weights (dated 1848)". Since then [1985], proof has been given that many weights with exactly the same "1848" canes were actually made in the 1920s at the Arculus factory in the English midlands and similar weights and bottles, again with 1848 canes, were continued by Walsh Walsh (after buying Arculus) and certainly marketed in the mid-1930s. Of course, there are still various collectors who do not agree that Whitefriars did not make those items.

I am eagerly awaiting the English translation of the new book on Clichy that Alan mentioned. Although I have briefly browsed two copies, I have not properly studied any of it. So for now, I will accept that Nadine's and Alan's views on the mystery weight being late Clichy are the current favourite.
KevinH


Offline Frank

  • Author
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 9227
  • Gender: Male
    • Glass history
    • Gateway
Another Paperweight-Quiz
« Reply #38 on: August 27, 2006, 07:52:14 PM »
Frank A.
Please help preserve glass web-sites for posterity by donating to The Glass Study Association a non-profit organisation.
Scotland's Glass - Ysart Glass
Glass Zoo - Glass Study.COM
Commercial Czech


Offline alpha

  • Author
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 266
  • Gender: Male
Another Paperweight-Quiz
« Reply #39 on: September 01, 2006, 01:37:47 AM »
If you look at the cane with the yellow ring on the outside and the red dots in the center. I think if you look closely those red dots should be minature rose canes. If so, this cane was illustrated in an article I did for the Paperweight Collectors Association Bulletin on Hidden Roses. See for an article index for the PCA Bulletin:
http://www.paperweight.org/bulletin/PCA_BulletinTOC_By_Issue.pdf

 

Search
eBay.com
eBay.co.uk

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