All good fun, as Kevin says!
I agree that the cane with the yellow outer tube in Nadine’s weight matches the one in Andy Dohan’s article on Hidden Roses. They are described as ‘Bohemian’ roses, but it is not clear why from the article. Might the weight in which they are found be a later Clichy weight? That could explain why something similar to Clichy roses appears in it! I know that is an easy answer, but why look for complications? Andy wrote the article about 8 years ago, and a weight might well have been attributed (mistakenly) to Bohemia, given there was little or no public knowledge of the later Clichy weights. If that is the case, then the attribution of Nadine’s weight as later Clichy, and Selman Auction 32 lot 20 as Clichy are consistent.
I find it hard to believe the Selman weight is anything other than Clichy. Not that I have 100% confidence in Larry’s attributions (he still calls Old English with 1848 canes early Whitefriars, for example). It is just that the weight has so many Clichy roses! If the weight to which Andy’s article refers is undeniably Bohemian, then, as Kevin says, we have a mystery.
I have looked through the illustrations in the Clichy book, where there are some 25 images of weights assigned to the later period. I cannot see this particular yellow tube cane with the hidden roses, but the later Clichy weights do show a greater diversity of cane design and general style than the earlier weights. But there are some canes in Nadine’s weight that are very like canes shown in the later weights. The 8 cog canes with the blue valleys in the innermost ring appear in different colour ways in several weights ( blue valley and red centre, red valley red centre); and several weights include large white collapsed tube cane roses (sometimes alongside the cruder shard roses). There are 3 canes in Nadine’s weight where an orange-brown 32(?) cog ring surrounds a white 10 cog ring that in turn surrounds a white 8 cog ring. In the book, a near identical coloured 32 cog cane surrounds a thick white 6 cog ring. I do recognise that this is no proof of attribution!
Turning to the UV question: Roland Dufenne has examined only very few items, so I would be wary of drawing firm conclusions from his evidence (and I have misgivings about UV results anyway – more on that in due course!). He reports that under illumination with a lamp using a Woods filter (so using 365 nm radiation) French weights fluoresce as follows:
Baccarat : rose-violet
St Louis : rose-salmon
St Mandé : pale yellow
Clichy : cloudy green-yellow
Clichy (later period) : cloudy grey-blue.
Also he shows a Bohemian weight fluorescing a strong yellow colour. Make of all that what you will! He does give images that show the difference, but there are only 3 later Clichy items, and one each of the others.
[I will be in France for 3 weeks from Sunday, so I am sorry to say that I cannot be at the Cambridge meeting. Nor will I be able to contribute to this discussion during that period.]