Glass Message Board

Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Topic started by: Leni on April 19, 2005, 08:54:21 AM

Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Leni on April 19, 2005, 08:54:21 AM
I noticed nobody had posted on this board for a few days, so I had to do something about it.  At great personal sacrifice  :roll: I have over the last few days purchased a few new paperweights, just to keep this board going  :lol:

However, I have a problem!  The battery in my camera has died.  And while clearing the library (that's dining room to 'normal' people  :P ) I stupidly put away in one of the boxes the spare battery and the battery charger.  And can I remember which box it was in?  :oops:  :roll:

I have asked the vendor of the most interesting weight if I may use the pictures he used on ebay - yes, that's where I do most of my 'shopping'  :lol: - and am waiting to hear if he agrees.  He is curious to know an ID for the weight himself, so I hope he will say it's ok.  

At the moment we both are thinking 'Bohemian' but I'm not sufficiently expert on the different canes yet, and my searches in my paperweight books haven't turned up anything *exactly* like this one, although I keep feeling there's something on the periphery of my consciousness  :?

Kevin, is there a book you could recommend specifically about canes?  Those in this particular weight are incredibly elaborate, being made up of lots of tiny canes including some tiny 'rose-like' ones  :shock: I keep having to pick up my magnifier and have another look!   :D

Oh, it's so frustrating not having the use of my camera!   :x  :roll:

Leni
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: RAY on April 19, 2005, 10:26:59 AM
hi Leni
the book i have about identifying antique PW canes is called " identifying antique paperweights lampwork by george n kulles " or the one for the french weights is " antique paperweights  by paul jokelson but there was only 2000 published, but keep a look out for it, it's dam good book
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Frank on April 19, 2005, 10:37:40 AM
Andrew Dohan's book fits the bill:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0933756259/ref=nosim/glassmuseumonlin
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: RAY on April 19, 2005, 10:48:49 AM
yep thats a good book Frank, i've got that as well,  when i read the book i did'nt realize there were so many people doing paperweights, even some of the chinese had signature canes in there weights
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: RAY on April 19, 2005, 10:58:57 AM
i get my book's from Allan port  www.paperweights.com and off David www.paperweightcentre.co.uk
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Leni on April 19, 2005, 11:25:16 AM
Thanks very much for the book info fellas, and for the Allan Port link! Another site bookmarked!   :D

Just heard from the vendor of the weight - he says it's fine to use his images, as he's interested to know an ID himself, so here they are.  http://tinypic.com/4j9i4h  http://tinypic.com/4j9i61  http://tinypic.com/4j9i7b

Hope somebody can help with an ID   :shock:  :?  

It's very pretty and I'm thrilled with it anyway, but I do like to know  :roll:  :wink:

Leni

Images copyright Roger Widdows
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: RAY on April 19, 2005, 12:26:45 PM
a miniature clichy
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Leni on April 19, 2005, 01:27:36 PM
Quote from: "RAY"
a miniature clichy

 :shock:  :shock:  :shock:
Do you think so, Ray?  :?  I thought 'lightning never strikes twice'   :roll:

I know I'm no expert, but I was comparing the canes with my Clichy weight and couldn't see any which look like a 'match', although the quality is certainly as good!  

I thought Bohemian because there are one or two with similar canes in the Sibylle Jargstorf, particularly some of the Riesengebirge complex canes which contain 'Clichy-like' roses.

I must admit, I did think Clichy when I first saw it, but I told myself, "Don't be silly!  Your'e seeing Clichy weights everywhere!"  :roll:  :lol:

Leni
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: RAY on April 19, 2005, 02:01:50 PM
i'm no expert either Leni but the shape of the dome strikes me as clichy, go to go and pick kids up now, will write more later
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: KevinH on April 19, 2005, 03:56:53 PM
One of the fun things about paperweights is that without a definite signature cane or a cane that can easily be confirmed, it's just not very easy in many cases to give an identification.

But - just as with anything else - one of the benefits of discussing the pros and cons of a considered attribution is that the process can give us a wealth of knowledge that cannot be gained by a quick and simple identification by an "expert".

Ray's comment about how the shape of the dome steers him towards an attribution is an important point. With all paperweights of the type discussed here, the dome shape, base finish, individual cane details, overall setting of the canes, as well as the internal clarity of the glass, are all crucial aspects to consider.

And then, after considering all the points, we may still end up with no firm conclusion.  :roll:

I think it would be a good thing to let Leni and Ray, and anyone else who wants to join in, discuss their thoughts on this weight, preferably with as many book and website references as possible also being given.

I may think I know the answer to this one, but I will have to do some checking myself before I give an opinion. So ... thoughts, reasonings and references ... over to you folks, but I will raise one question - what's the height and diameter?

Oh, and Leni, in the Jargstorf book you may find a comment on Clichy profiles that is worth throwing in to the debate. And for everyone who wants to join in, don't forget to check out the PCC 1999 Exhib photos at:
http://www.kevh.clara.net/exhib99/exhib99.htm - there may be a clue in there.

 :)
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: RAY on April 19, 2005, 05:14:40 PM
well i was looking at the star shaped canes, if you look in the green ones there is a six pointed blue star in the center, with 5 outer stars i'm sure they are clichy, i've got no book's here to look at the moment,  me mother is reading then
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Leni on April 19, 2005, 10:11:05 PM
Quote from: "KevH"
I will raise one question - what's the height and diameter?

Thanks for your helpful comments Kevin.  The weight is quite small, maximum 2" diameter and with quite a low profile, only 1&1/4" high.  The base is concave and polished, and there is a small amount of wear on the base ring.

I am not sure if it has been re-polished at any time - if it has it was done very professionally, as it is impossible to detect by any distortions in the dome, and my first inclination would be to say not.  However, although the weight is small, the complex canes are quite large - certainly larger than any in my Clichy weight.  

But then the elements which make up the complex canes are incredibly tiny!  For example, in the very centre of the blue and white striped complex cane is a green six pointed star in white, surrounded by a tiny pink rose.  This is then encircled by three green and white concentric canes and three tiny white roses with pink centres :shock:      

I've searched every paperweight book I have, and every website I have bookmarked, and I've examined the weight with a magnifier until I'm going cross-eyed!   :shock:  :roll:

I can see why Ray says Clichy.  I still keep wondering myself, but there's something I just can't put my finger on :?  With everything I've looked at I see similarities, but then I see differences too  :x

At one point I started looking at the other French makers, but I'm fairly sure it's not Baccarat and I don't know the others that well - plus it doesn't match the size and profile as far as I can tell.  I just don't have enough experience at this!   :(

I still tend to think Bohemian.  

Kevin, can you put me out of my misery, or is there anybody else who wants to 'have a go' at this one?   :roll:

Leni
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: KevinH on April 20, 2005, 10:18:34 AM
Leni asked:
Quote
Kevin, can you put me out of my misery, ...

No, not yet. There are still some more things to consider.  But with the detailed thoughts so far, the clues are beginning to add up.

What we now need is for that camera to be found, Leni. And then we need good close-ups of the "rose" canes you have mentioned. They could be the biggest clue of all and are one of the most widely researched cane types in recent years.  :)

If you are unable to get detailed close-ups of the "rose" elements, you could email me the largest best quality photo you can get of each cane (or perhaps just the whole weight) and I will play around with enlargements.

Now, shall I make another comment? Yeah, ok ... from the photos of the top and profile views, I suspect the weight has been reground and perhaps quite a bit. The top view shows the design as off-centre, which may be just the way the photo was taken or it could have been a less than decent setting of the canes during the making. But the profile view does show an uneven dome shape with one side being lower than the other.
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Leni on April 20, 2005, 11:58:53 AM
Quote from: "KevH"
What we now need is for that camera to be found, Leni. And then we need good close-ups of the "rose" canes

 :(  That could take time!  The conservatory is being erected tomorrow, the doors will be broken through to the house next week, and then there's decorating and carpet fitting to be arranged.   :roll:  I don't expect to be unpacking the boxes again much before mid-May!  :shock:

I guess I'll just have to make some time to get in the spare room and dig around in the boxes!  What an idiot I am!   :oops:  

Even then, I'm not sure the camera (or the operator  :oops:  :roll: ) can manage a good enough close-up!   The magnifier I have been using is a very good one and even with that the detail is tiny!   :shock:

Quote
Now, shall I make another comment? Yeah, ok ... from the photos of the top and profile views, I suspect the weight has been reground and perhaps quite a bit. The top view shows the design as off-centre, which may be just the way the photo was taken or it could have been a less than decent setting of the canes during the making. But the profile view does show an uneven dome shape with one side being lower than the other.

I think you may be right!  The design *is* off centre, and is tilted slightly.  And IMHO the canes do look just a little too big for the size of the weight  :?  

Also, the unevenness of the dome can actually be felt more easily than it is seen.  I held the weight with my eyes closed and turned it in my hand and I can in fact feel what you observed!  :shock:  :roll:

There is wear on the edge of the base ring, but examined closely I think it may be more on one side than the other, although the ring - which is 1&1/4" in diameter -  does look central.

I guess I'd better stop and start searching those boxes!   :roll:

Actually, I'm enjoying 'the thrill of the chase' in all this and I think I'm learning and 'honing' my powers of observation!  It's much better than just "Who made this?"  "So-and-so." "OK, thanks!"   :lol:

Leni
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Anonymous on April 20, 2005, 01:16:23 PM
Not sure why but every time I look at it I keep thinking Chinese, particularly the lack of physical depth of the canes . Not modern.
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Leni on April 20, 2005, 01:38:54 PM
Quote from: "Leni"
I'm not sure the camera (or the operator  :oops:  :roll: ) can manage a good enough close-up!  Leni

 :D Woohoo!  Rang husband to ask if he had any idea which box I might have packed the camera battery charger away in, and he said "Don't worry, I'll get my big camera out this evening and take some good close-ups"   :D

Watch this space ......  :wink:

Leni
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: KevinH on April 20, 2005, 02:35:37 PM
Guest - The weight is definitely not Chinese.

Leni - Your comments about "honing powers of observation" is exactly what I was intending by suggesting this approach. And yes, examining weights by touch is by far the best way to check for "flea bites", "chips", some "bruises" and local flat spots from uneven regrinding / polishing. Well done so far!

I'm looking forward to the pics of cane detail. They may send us round in a few more circlles but it will all be good experience.
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Anne on April 20, 2005, 03:27:51 PM
Although I don't collect paperweights as such (I have four that sort of came to me!), I have to say that I'm finding this thread very interesting, far more so than if Kev had just said "it's a blah make". It's developing into a very neat masterclass rather than just being given a result off pat, and I'm sure the lessons learned can be used with other types of glass collecting as well.
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Leni on April 21, 2005, 08:54:29 PM
Right, I've got some pictures  :D   None of them enlarge terribly well though  :roll:  

We took the pics with the weight balanced in the neck of a small jam jar (I knew those jam jars would come in handy some time!  :lol: ) because I don't own a small enough stand, but my heart was in my mouth for fear of it slipping off, or husband knocking it against the rim and chipping it!   :shock:  

I apologise for the size of the images, but Kevin did same keep 'em big.  Bernard, don't even look!   :roll:   Sorry! :oops: http://tinypic.com/4ke44o    
http://tinypic.com/4ke1b5  
http://tinypic.com/4ke1c9  
http://tinypic.com/4ke1dc    
http://tinypic.com/4ke42d

You may notice there are a couple of little pieces of black in the base and also a tiny area of grey on the top which is not a 'flea bite' or bruise, but is actually under the surface in the glass.  It's really only visible at certain angles, but it shows up under magnification.  

I do wish the englargements showed the detail better - it is truly amazing!   :shock:  Still, we did the best we could in the circumstances.  So come on everyone - the thick plottens!   :lol:  :roll:

Leni
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: KevinH on April 21, 2005, 09:56:27 PM
Well, actually, I said "big and best" if emailing to me ...

... but I can handle them ok in here so it doesn't worry me.  :)

Interesting use of a jam jar.
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: RAY on April 21, 2005, 10:19:50 PM
i kow what you mean kev about feeling the weight 1st hand, i just got a strathearn weight off ebay, just got it this morning 2 chips in it and a bull's eye on the side no mention of them in the lack of description, i got it cheap so not really bothered it's a p6 flower with the yellow date cane and with white s cane

just been looking at the new photos and what a diffrence, i still say clichy even though i still havent managed to steal my books back off me mum
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Frank on April 21, 2005, 10:53:20 PM
:?:  :?
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Leni on April 24, 2005, 09:07:56 AM
Hasn't anyone else got any ideas?   :(

I have continued to search the internet and re-read my paperweight books, but I've only succeeded in confusing myself even more!   :shock:  :roll:

I thought about St Mande for a while, but there aren't that many examples around to compare - and some books don't mention them at all!   :roll:  Then I began to think maybe Clichy again, but it's the combination of the complex canes that is confusing me   :?

On the whole I guess I'm still thinking Bohemian, though.  Trouble is, the only one of my books which goes into much detail on Bohemian weights is the Jargstorf, and I haven't found much at all on the net!

Kevin, have you had any more thought on this one yourself, or any further 'hints' you could give me?

Leni   :?
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: KevinH on April 24, 2005, 09:00:21 PM
Hi Leni,

I have been tied up with all sorts of things recently but have now checked through various books and sale catalogues for any canes that may match those in your weight. I will add some more info soon (with some images, maybe), but for now, I can offer some thoughts that illustrate one of the many problems with cane identification.

As I know you have Pat Reilly's book, Leni, take a look at page 24, image top left. It's a Clichy chequer with a cane having an outer row of Stars. Ray said that he felt he knew of a Clichy cane with a six-point star surrounded by 5 stars, similar to one in your weight. And he may be right, although as yet I have not found a direct equivalent of that cane in a Clichy weight.

The image shown here is an enlargement from the weight in Pat Reilly's book: http://tinypic.com/4lrqfk

This cane helps to show that Clichy certainly did make 6-point star canes [but so did just about all millefiori makers] and therefore could have produced a complex cane with stars in the middle and in the outer parts.

However ...

From your pics of the canes we can clearly see that the central part of the cane Ray referred to has an appearance of being a light blue core with a darker blue "ruled" star pattern. Yet, in the view through the base, the same cane looks rather different - it shows the blue inner star as a regular "filled in" pattern within a thin coating of light blue.

What has happened is that the cane has distorted during the setting such that from the top view the inner part has closed up leaving the image of a specific type of star pattern that actually did not exist in the cane when it was made  :!:

As I have said, your weight has some features that illustrate some of the difficulties in making an attribution. And this "distorted star" perfectly highlights a general rule when checking paperweight canes. If the base is clear, always study the canes through the base as well as the dome to check whether any distortions have occurred. Often it does not make much difference, but occasionally it can highlight crucial evidence.

More to come ...
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: RAY on April 24, 2005, 09:49:33 PM
got my books back today, just been looking at them and the last one i looked in came up with the clichy star, looking at Lenis green cane set up you can see the blue star in the center described as six pointed star in  the kulles lampwork book and the outer canes purple/white as in the photo from the book , click on image for larger image

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/refined/th_a40d5ea5.jpg) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/refined/a40d5ea5.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/refined/th_bd0f5904.jpg) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/refined/bd0f5904.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/refined/th_73039287.jpg) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/refined/73039287.jpg)
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: KevinH on April 24, 2005, 10:38:14 PM
Thanks for adding that, Ray - and for the larger views, too.

This shows another point that can confuse - at least at the detailed level. In the larger image from George N. Kulles' book the points of the star are clearly rounded in most cases, whereas in the smaller image (and depending on your own screen resolution) the canes may appear as sharply pointed.

It's the same, and even worse, in real life. A crisp-looking cane can often be seen under magnification as less well defined, and some "star canes" turn out to be "daisy canes" instead.

But leaving aside the micro side of life (from a macro lens point of view), Ray's image does show that the full cane in Kulles' book is not of the same overall structure as the one in Leni's weight. I am not saying that Ray is wrong in his thoughts. On the contrary, his investigative skills are just what are needed. But as I said before, lots of makers produced 6-point "star" canes. Although I appreciate, and often use, the Kulles' references, I find the brevity of descriptions in some cases leads to a misunderstanding.

Ray has the latest version of the Kulles' book while I have the earlier ones (dealing with millefiori and lampwork separately). But perhaps the later one also includes, under the Baccarat section, the comment about "Baccarat bundles are composed of six-point star rods". And in my version of the books, it is also stated, against a drawing of a crisply pointed 6-point star:
Quote
Because the points of Bohemian stars are wide and short, their central bodies appear to be larger than those of other stars. Although usually sharply pointed, these stars occasionally have rounded points.
That's a good description and one worth bearing in mind, but it could also be just as true of other makers' 6-point stars, too.

What concerns us most with cane identification is the full complex cane, rather than the individual elements. This is just as true with my cane tables for Ysart weights as shown in my web space. The initial entries show individual "basic" canes which, on their own, do not necessarily provide a positive identification.
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Leni on April 25, 2005, 07:40:56 PM
Kevin, I am hoping to get to the PCC meeting in Cambridge on 11th June to hear Sybille Jargstorf,  :shock:  and I am wondering if it would be acceptable to bring my mystery paperweight along for her perusal  :roll:  

Is that sort of thing permitted?  Seeing as it will be my first meeting, I'm not sure how things go and wouldn't want to comit a faux pas  :oops:  :roll:

Leni
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: KevinH on April 25, 2005, 11:13:10 PM
Leni wondered, in respect of attending her first PCC meeting:
Quote
if it would be acceptable to bring my mystery paperweight along
Not only would it be acceptable, it's what the club is about ... sharing information and raising questions with all sorts of weights. Even if there is not an opportunity for guest speakers to consider things, many members always enjoy the challenge of a mystery.

At my first meeting, there was an identification session with a panel of experts. I took along the item shown in http://tinypic.com/4q4d9w and it was picked as the first piece for discusssion  :!: It's identity was not confirmed for sure at the meeting but after some time various members did come to an agreement. Any ideas, anyone?  :P
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: RAY on April 26, 2005, 12:23:33 AM
it looks like whitefriars, but its the other maker that begins with W :)
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Leni on April 26, 2005, 08:47:27 AM
Quote from: "RAY"
it looks like whitefriars, but its the other maker that begins with W :)

I would have said Whitefriars, too!   :?  Do you mean it's a Walsh?  :shock:

Leni
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: RAY on April 26, 2005, 10:07:18 AM
yep just like the one on kevs cpc site
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Leni on April 26, 2005, 12:38:51 PM
Quote from: "RAY"
yep just like the one on kevs cpc site

Ooooh, you cheat!   :twisted:  :lol:

Leni
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: KevinH on April 26, 2005, 10:39:12 PM
Well done on the Walsh candlestick, Ray  :)  Was that by memory or by searching the site for clues?

Anyone who may have guessed Whitefriars was more or less on the right lines, at least according to earlier ideas  - up until quite recently, most dealers and collectors would have said this sort of concentric weight was Whitefriars 19th century. And there are still some folk who don't go along with the latest research information.

When I bought it, I did so because it looked unusual, but very well made. I had no idea about the actual attribution or date, though. I simply believed the auction catalogue listing which stated "... 19th century Whitefriars paperweight with applied 18th century taperstick ..."  :!:  I fairly quickly changed my mind about the 18th C taperstick idea but for some time still thought it might be Whitefriars.
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Leni on April 27, 2005, 08:39:47 AM
Quote from: "KevH"
Anyone who may have guessed Whitefriars was more or less on the right lines

I guessed Whitefriars, using my Jargstorf book, but then when Kevin said 'the other one begining with W' I knew he had to mean Walsh, because Jargstorf refers to Walsh on the pages about Whitefriars!   :D

Then he said it was like the one on the PCC site, and I went looking.  It is the same one, isn't it?   :wink:  

Did you guess first Ray, or did you look?  :twisted:  Come on, own up!     :wink:  :lol:

Leni
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Leni on April 27, 2005, 12:16:01 PM
Quote from: "KevH"
we need good close-ups of the "rose" canes you have mentioned. They could be the biggest clue of all and are one of the most widely researched cane types in recent years.
Going back to what Kevin said all that time ago :roll:  :lol: ....

I haven't managed to get better pictures, but I have just acquired a new magnifier - 20x magnification!  :shock:  boy, are my eyes watering! - so I will attempt to describe what I have seen.  

I concentrated on the rose canes, because of Kevin's comments above.  They are incredibly tiny in detail - oh, and I'm almost certain now that they are *NOT* Clichy!   :roll:

So that people remember what I'm talking about, I'll post a copy of the picture here again.  Not too large this time   :oops:  http://tinypic.com/4qsiol

The pink rose cane in the middle of the complex cane at the very centre of the weight is made up of a deep pink core and three concentric circle of white cased in pink, all encircled by no less than nine deep blue six point stars in white encased in pink!  It is impossible to see them with the naked eye!  They do appear to have sharp points though, Ray.

These star canes are then encircled by the rose petal elements, which consist of flattened white canes encased in pink.  There are five in the first ring and then in each succeeding ring - there are three or four rings in all, distortion making the number a little unclear in places - the spaces are filled by shifting the circle round a little and adding a couple of canes as needed.  Sorry, it's just too small to be more precise.   :roll:  

This whole rose is then encased in a circle of very pale clear yellow, also not visible with the naked eye!

The three white roses, which, alternating with concentric green and white rings, encircle the centre of the blue and white complex cane, are even smaller.  They are also more difficult to see being at the edge of the weight and affected by distortion caused by the re-polishing which Kevin spotted.  

They seem to consist of a central blue six point star set in white, encirled by five six point stars - too small to see the colour, could be either blue or green - which are either set in pink or in white encased in pink.  

The white 'petals' appear to be standard white canes flattened as in the pink rose, and encircle the core in the same pattern of five canes shifting round and in-filled in each ring as needed.  The whole rose is then encased in clear pink.  

And I think I need to go and lie down now!  My head aches and I feel more than a little dizzy!  :shock:  :roll:  

I do hope I haven't bored everyone senseless - well, everyone except us paperweight cane fanatics  :lol:  :roll:  :oops:  :wink:

Leni
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: KevinH on April 28, 2005, 03:40:34 AM
Leni - thanks for the excellent description of the Rose canes. I will see what I can find that might tie in with these. Most of the detailed images of Rose canes is in PCA Bulletin articles, rather than the usual books. Fortunately (for me, that is) I managed to secure a set of PCA Bulletins going back to the 60s so I can spend some time browsing.

Just one other question, though ... if you can see the detail well enough. When you say that the final outer parts are a "yellow circle" or "encased in clear pink", do you mean it is like a tube, or like a thin colour overlay (flashing). Or is it actually a series of separate coloured bits - as with the spaced outer green bits of the Clichy (etc.) roses?

And while I am here, I'll now say that I have not found any examples in the books of exactly the pattern as in this weight - with an alternating set of 3 diametrically opposed canes. But in the PCC 1999 Exhib photos there is this one which is broadly similar and also has multi-row complex canes including variations of 6-point stars. (It has large roses, one which appears to have a full outer green coating, but the others show that it is actually separate elements of green - which is what I was trying to describe above in my question):
http://www.kevh.clara.net/exhib99/Antique/Bohemian/BOH013.htm
And this one gets close to the "diametrically opposed" pattern but doesn't quite make it:
http://www.kevh.clara.net/exhib99/Antique/Bohemian/BOH014.htm
And then there's this one, which is quite untidy, but does use the same pattern:
http://www.kevh.clara.net/exhib99/Antique/Bohemian/BOH015.htm

All of those three Exhib weights were included in the Bohemian section and as yet, I am not aware of them being reclassified as anything else (some others could be St Mandé, which as Leni pointed out earlier, is one of the less well known French makers - and which I will also say is still generating new evidence for discussions).

Anyway, it is those Exhib weights, along with the "interesting" features of lower quality setting but with some very complex canes, that make me think Leni's weight fits into the same group. So I tend to agree with Leni's original thoughts on it being Bohemian.

But I still want to see if we can find anything more on those Rose canes. They might turn out to be yet more examples of previously unrecognised variations, which is always fascinating for those who thrive on such minute details  :D
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Leni on April 28, 2005, 07:17:25 AM
Quote from: "KevH"
Just one other question, though ... if you can see the detail well enough. When you say that the final outer parts are a "yellow circle" or "encased in clear pink", do you mean it is like a tube, or like a thin colour overlay (flashing). Or is it actually a series of separate coloured bits - as with the spaced outer green bits of the Clichy (etc.) roses?

The yellow and the pink, where I have described it as 'encasing', is actually a thin clear layer which you correctly describe as 'flashing'.  Of course I know what flashing is and should have used it in this context, but I'm still not quite up with the correct expressions.  Sorry  :oops:  :roll:
Quote

http://www.kevh.clara.net/exhib99/Antique/Bohemian/BOH013.htm

I had looked at this one, and it was one of the reasons I thought 'Bohemian' from the start.  There are some similarities - particularly the green stars.  Also, the shade of green - it's not the same as that which I have seen in clichy weights, being rather more 'bluey-green' than what I think of as 'Clichy green'.  I am not sure if this is one of the criteria used to categorise weights,, so perhaps I am on the wrong track here, but I do tend to look at the colour when trying to identify canes   :?  

Quote
Anyway, it is those Exhib weights, along with the "interesting" features of lower quality setting but with some very complex canes, that make me think Leni's weight fits into the same group. So I tend to agree with Leni's original thoughts on it being Bohemian.

Yay!   :D  Kevin agrees with me!   :D  I feel quite proud!   :roll:  :oops:
Quote
But I still want to see if we can find anything more on those Rose canes. They might turn out to be yet more examples of previously unrecognised variations, which is always fascinating for those who thrive on such minute details  :D

Many thanks for your continued interest Kevin  :D   Thank goodness I'm not alone!  I was beginning to think I was in danger of becoming a paperweight 'nerd'!  :oops:  :lol:  :wink:

Leni
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: RAY on April 28, 2005, 01:13:42 PM
Quote from: "KevH"
Well done on the Walsh candlestick, Ray  :)  Was that by memory or by searching the site for clues?


from memory Kev,  looking at your site to much :D

my poor old mum had her antique shop broken into this morning, a pro job and got away with quite a bit of stuff, but what a suprise the cctv cameras in the town were on the blink :roll:

anyway so Bohemian the weight is then :D

Kev when you were up here the 1st time you said , you made a little game about naming the canes at one of your meetings, should do that on here and see who gets top marks :D  and you as the judge
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Leni on April 28, 2005, 04:46:16 PM
Quote from: "RAY"
Quote from: "KevH"
Well done on the Walsh candlestick, Ray  :)  Was that by memory or by searching the site for clues?

from memory Kev,  looking at your site to much :D

I've been looking at the site a lot too, but I was concentrating on the old French and Bohemian weights  :lol:  I must broaden my horizons!   :roll:
Quote
my poor old mum had her antique shop broken into this morning, a pro job and got away with quite a bit of stuff, but what a suprise the cctv cameras in the town were on the blink :roll:

Gosh!  Sorry to hear that, Ray  :(  Do give our sympathy to your mum!  Is there anything we should be particularly looking out for, in case it appears on ebay?  :evil:
Quote
Kev when you were up here the 1st time you said , you made a little game about naming the canes at one of your meetings, should do that on here and see who gets top marks :D  and you as the judge

Oooh yes, please!   :D  But wait 'til my new books arrive!  :lol:   :wink:

Leni
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: RAY on April 28, 2005, 08:58:08 PM
Leni it was mostly gold and silver, alot was one off egyptian piece's of gold, all in all about 20-25k worth was snatched, they had it all worked out they had ripped all the wires out from a telephone exchange up the road so the alarm wouldnt go off


Leni send me an email
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: Anne on April 28, 2005, 09:58:40 PM
Quote from: "RAY"
my poor old mum had her antique shop broken into this morning, a pro job and got away with quite a bit of stuff, but what a suprise the cctv cameras in the town were on the blink :roll:


Oh Ray, that's awful. :( Much sympathy to your mum - apart from the financial loss it's very traumatic dealing with a break in.

I've just heard at tonight's rehearsal from a friend who works there, that a shop in Carnforth was broken into yesterday - not antiques, but it sells high quality glassware, china, prints, etc.. we consider it a posh shop! - and a lot of stuff was stolen.
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: chopin-liszt on April 29, 2005, 07:46:58 AM
:( My greatest sympathy to your mum too, I've had the very unpleasant experience of being burgled too, it's nasty. Sue.
Title: New Acquisitions!
Post by: KevinH on May 05, 2005, 12:06:45 AM
Hi everyone,

Just to round things off regarding Leni's weight, and my encouragement for folk to offer opinions and reasons ...

a) We have established amongst ourselves that the weight is probably Bohemian. We have not proven this beyond doubt.

b) The shape of the weight pointing towards a maker is one that is an important consideration and can often be a deciding factor. But as seen here, although the shape may be similar to Clichy (which is quite true) it cannot be taken as a definitive point. In this case, it has been agreed that the weight has had at least some surface repair, which could have altered the profile.

c) Also, on the subject of the shape, I gave a hint that in Sibylle Jargstorf's book, she mentioned something about Clichy profiles that may be worth a thought. What she said on page 125 was, "The profiles of weights from a single manufacturer can vary considerably, as seen in Clichy profiles." Personally I have not studied enough Clichy weights to say whether the comment is true or not but so far I have not heard of anyone saying that the statement is untrue.

d) When I commented that it was certainly not a Chinese item, I gave no reasons (and nobody queried this ... but if they had, I may have provided more clues  :) ). Anyway, the main issue here was that the base of Leni's weight is finished with smooth concave grinding within a thin basal ring. This is a feature not seen in Chinese weights but is seen in antique French and Bohemian work.

e) As Leni had originally thought, but did not tell us until later :wink: the pattern of the weight compares quite well with a few seen in the online selection of the PCC 1999 Exhibition. My own checking of various photos in books and catalogues failed to find a truly similar design in other than Bohemain weights - but that in itself still does not prove that it is definitely Bohemian. However, for Clichy miniatures with one or two rows of concentric pattern, all the ones I have seen have had a superior setting of the canes. Also, Clichy weights tend to include at least one "pastry mould" cane which is not the case with our mystery item. [Perhaps I'll show an example of a Clichy "pastry mould" cane at some stage.]

f) The cane details, had a match been found, could have been the biggest clue to the maker (or, at least, the country). Unfortunately only a few similarities could be found but no exact match. However, this line of investigation raised some interesting comments about "Rose" canes and "6-point stars".

g) I have since produced a couple of sketches (not reproduced here) based on Leni's description of the "Rose" canes and from what I can see in the books, these do appear to point to a Bohemian attribution. As yet I have not found any references to French "Rose" canes where a central star or mass of rods (honeycomb) is surrounded by a ring of star canes before being enclosed in the rows of "petal" canes.

--------------

All of the comments on the weight have been useful and are exactly what is required in an attempt to identify the less obvious items. Size, clarity, cane detail, overall setting, base finish - they all matter.

Hopefully I will meet Leni and the weight at a PCC meeting and we will be able to get the views of others wiser than me. And maybe I can get some ultra close-up shots of the "Rose" canes ... well, I can try.

Oh, and as a last (?) comment, in recent years research has shown that some weights previously thought to be Bohemian could actually be Russian. I don't think this will turn out to be the case wih Leni's weight, but it's another point to bear in mind in the confusion of paperweight identities.  :D