Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Topic started by: kieran on May 16, 2008, 12:35:17 PM
-
hi id required, any help appreciated , thanks kieran
-
Looks like a very nice antique weight, somewhat envious ;)
Any chance of some clearer pics of the canes please?
If you think of the weight viewed from the top as a clock the canes between 3 and 6 o'clock look like they can yield a positive id,
but they're abit unclear. I suspect you have a very nice one indeed :)
-
Could be a Bacchus or an Arculus, IMO. Nice! :D
Jim Brown also makes excellent modern weights which are very like these antique weights, but he always signs them and also uses a B cane in the centre of the base.
-
Hi, looked up bacchus and it does say they pulled the canes right down to base, will try and get clearer picture of pic 1, thanks kieran
-
Bacchus is my thinking, need some better piccies tho.
Kieran, what does the base look like? And size please.
You posted while I was writing :)
Many OE makers pulled the canes under so that in itself doesn't really rule in or out a specific maker ;)
There are many complex canes in your weight tho so we should be able to ID it.
Looks like a very very nice OE weight.
Edit - Is that beige looking cane in the 4 / 4.30 position a honeycomb cane?
Thanks
-
Hi, hope these pics help
2 1/2 inches high 3 1/8 inch wide
nice wear to base
l dont know what a honeycone cane looks like - sorry-
kieran
-
hope these zoom in pics help
kieran
-
more pics
-
I think it is Bacchus, but I would like to see pictures hwere the canes are shown clearly,
they are a bit fuzzy.
If it is Bacchus then good pics of all the canes are especially important as there are so few of them around.
Thanks
-
It looks very like an antique English weight, and shares many features with Bacchus weights - but the canes look a little more like 'high quality Old English' than 'classic Bacchus'. I have seen a few weights that are of this quality, with a general Bacchus appearance, but that do not share any canes with the 'classic Bacchus' weights. Maybe a different maker, maybe a different period of manufacture.....
Alan
-
Hi, ive tried to zoom in hope these are better
Kieran
-
I know it doesnt appear to have any blackberry canes, but Im going to throw Islington Glass Works into the discussion!
Ian
-
I was hoping for some crisper images of the white canes - since there are quite a few I'd expect the Bacchus ruffle cane
to be amongst them if it is Bacchus. There is also a cane slightly up and to the left of the centre that looks intriguing.
The canes with a red star and white centre appear to match Bacchus canes in Bob Hall's book,
and those appear in weights with the white ruffle canes, as well as numerous others attributed to Bacchus.
Alan - looking at page 28, there are several of the red star canes that appear to match this one.
What do you think? And is there any chance of more articles on OE weights please ? :)
I dont have older PCA bulletins yet.
Kieran - if you could try to get one or two sharp and clear images of the weight - or even just parts of it?
The pictures are a bit out of focus and it makes it hard to match canes.
Is the base flat and polished?
Taking pics of paperweights can be devilishly hard sometimes, especially with a pastel palette such as on this one.
If you have a macro setting on your camera try that one (look for a "flower" symbol on your camera).
Lots of good lighting helps if your camera needs good light for sharp pics.
An IGW weight would be a find indeed, I have only seen pics of a very few, in Bob Hall's book and a handout I found online;
I don't think this is one of them.
Thanks
-
Hi
Just back from Wheaton - hence the delay in replying.
I don't think it is IGW - there are only 7 known, I think, and it does not seem to have anything obvious in common with their design. My personal opinion on the IGW weights (which others may not share), is that the 7 known - and no doubt a few others lost, or yet to de rediscovered - were more than likely sales samples made for trade fairs, either from Bohemian canes or by copying Bohemian canes. The hoped-for orders did not materialise, so no more were made.
This weight does appear to share some canes with the weights we call 'Bacchus', as Alexander says. I write 'Bacchus' in inverted commas because no one has actually shown who made these weights - but it is the label we all use, so let's stick with it until we know differently! (I will be writing more on Old English weights - an article based on my 'Queen's Head Canes' talk should be in next year's PCA Bulletin.) So it may be from the same maker - ie 'Bacchus'. But canes do move around...and there are some canes in this weight that do not look like the classic Bacchus canes.
Regarding Bob Hall's book, which is the best by far on Old English weights: do not take everything as accurate! Bob himself admits that there are errors, and that it needs revising. For example, I think that of the 114 weights shown in the Bacchus chapter, only 86 are by 'Bacchus'. The other 28 are by several other makers. And the idea that a weight that doesn't really look like a Bacchus must therefore be 'early Bacchus' or 'late Bacchus' is not one I agree with!
Alan
-
Hi, more pics, the base doesnt have a pontil its smooth clear glass, thanks for all your input, kieran
-
more pics
kieran
-
Ive seen an IGW weight with IGW cane and blackberries at the PCC event at Olympia a couple of years ago. Stunning piece, and yes I know they're rarer than hens teeth, just an idea! I do know some are attributed to IGW, but dont have the IGW cane. And, if they where made from other peoples canes, then who made the IGW cane? That absolutely has to be a specially made cane, and not one made by someone else.....
Ian
-
This is the difficulty in id'ing OE weights, apart from some whose output is documented.
Even where new documentation exists some insist on old truths, "antique Whitefriars" f.ex.
The only way I see (unless some irrefutable evidence comes to light) to link the attributed Bacchus
weights to Bacchus is to analyze the chemical composition of the clear glass in the weights
and match that to proven Bacchus clear glass. Even SG comparison, which is useful insofar as it can
show that some weights clearly have a different composition, leaves something to be desired
since the method used cannot tell us the chemical composition of the object measured.
I suspect a spectrometer would do the trick but those aren't to be had at the local hardware store ;)
If someone with access to a spectrometer could be pursuaded to analyze a number of weights and glass
we might get to the bottom of a few mysteries - might be a good project for a physicist with spare time :)
And as Alan says, canes do wander - even in antique weights.
A case in point from the 2008 PCA Bulletin, a Milville umbrella weight with apparent Baccarat canes!
Anyways - this weight is a very very nice OE weight with interesting complex canes.
Edit - Kieran, sorry to be bugging you for better pics but I can't see the cane details.
If possible can you try to get some images of just parts or the weight of a couple of canes.
Adding two pictures here to give you an idea of what I'm looking for :
-
Even if the chemical content of the clear glass batch was known, it still could not be used (alone) as definitive evidence of where an item was made. Why not? Because glass houses may have a) used cullet from other houses and b) changed their batch mix for various reasons over a number of years. A case in point of different mixes was Perthshire Paperweights, proven to my satisfaction, because of differences in UV reaction in a range of their weights.
As for IGW and Bohemian canes (which may be true), we should not rule out an even simpler explanation ... that the IGW weights are ... well, Bohemian!!! The only thing we know for sure is that Islington Glass Works exhibited at the Great Exhinbition in 1851 and that the details included a reference, but no image, to paperweights being shown.
Until evidence is shown that the IGW cane was indisputably made by Islington Glass Works, we must keep an open mind. I know of two weights that have canes matching some in "IGW" weights, one is said to be Bohemian and the other was thought to be antique Baccarat but with a deal of uncertainty! [I must try to get to see that "Baccarat??" weight again and get some decent photos.]
-
I did not mean that one piece of glass and one weight would do the trick, analysis on many items would be
needed to form a good picture. Differences in the raw materials would also confuse the picture if the sampling was small.
I agree that chemical analysis alone cannot definately id a weight, for that we need some kind of written record.
Cataloging the chemical composition of glass from a specific manufacturer spread over known items from various years
would give us some idea I think. Mass spectrometry or carbon dating could be used to show an item's age,
they've gotten pretty good at pinpointing age these days, which would help rule out (or in) some manufacturers.
At least it would link clear glass objects to paperweights by virtue of the clear glass composition, and that's more than we have now.
I have not read up on the glass made at Bacchus so I don't know how they
dealt with cullet, did they only make their own, did they buy from others etc?
-
Thank you all for all your feedback, hope these pics are better
kieran
-
Hi Kieran,
Your efforts with the pics are good, but sadly, for the purposes of a detailed look at individual canes they really need to be closer and sharper. I suspect you are getting close enough to show just the whole of the weight. But at that distance, normal focus in many cameras is often unable to provide the sharpness needed.
As Alexander as showed in one his recent posts, photos of small sections of the weight, using the macro focus function in the camera, are best.
Assuming your camera is relatively modern, it will have a range of focus controls. There will be one for long-distance (usually indicated by a mountain icon) and another for close-up / macro (usually a flower icon). Set the macro function and get in close - depending on the camera you may be able to get as close as a few centimetres but 30 cm (12 inch) should be adequate for sections of the weight. Also make sure the camera is rested on a solid surface (or on a tripod) when you take the photo.
If you have a 'wide angle / telephoto' control on the camera you can use that with the macro function to get smaller sections of canes in the whole frame - which will show them really large.
Hope this helps.
If you are unable to do this with your camera, please send me a couple of photos of the whole weight taken at a distance of over 60cm (2 feet), which should keep the overall sharpness of the image. I could then use photo editing to provide the cane details folk would like to see. Email them to me via my 'contact' icon on the left of the message.
-
I have today emailed Kieran four images I have created from some of his originals straight out of the camera. Individual canes may be seen very soon!!
-
Hi, many thanks to Kev for fixing pics for me
Kieran
-
Much better, forgive me for asking tho, why are the images so small?
-
The images should be clickable, like these (my copies) and will then show as 500 pixel size.
Edited to add:
Perhaps Kieran has not used the Image "Attachment" feature below the posting window? I admit that I find this feature is easy to forget as it is not with the other features above the posting window - and the results of adding attachments are not displayed in Preview mode! So it can seem a bit confusing until we get used to it.
-
Thanks - for some reason the othe rimages are only 150 pixels wide. These work.
-
From the canes I believe that it is from the same maker as many identified as Bacchus in Bob Hall's book.
These weights in Bob Hall's "Old English Paperweights" have at least two canes matching
(there may be more, this from a very cursory lookthrough ) :
P. 34 - right
P. 35 - top left bottom
P. 41 - top right
P. 42 - top two
P. 43 - bottom sodden snow
P. 45 - bottom left
P. 46 - all three
P. 48 - top left
P. 53 - top right
P. 58 - all images
P. 62 - top left
P. 65 - middle
P. 67 - top left
-
Thanks for your wonderful feedback Alexander
i'll have to invest in a copy of this book
thanks Kieran
-
But we now need Alan (tropdevin) to take another look and let us know whether any of those Bacchus weights in the book are, in his view, not Bacchus.
-
Hi Kev and others
I think that all the weights on the pages listed above by Alexander fall into the 'classic Bacchus' category - so this weight belongs there too, in my opinion.
Alan