Glass Message Board

Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Topic started by: glasseyed on July 15, 2007, 08:30:27 PM

Title: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: glasseyed on July 15, 2007, 08:30:27 PM
Hi

Can anyone help me with an ID on this pretty but rather sad paperweight. It looks like someone had used it to hammer in carpet tacks ;D

The canes look to me like they might be Clichy, has anyone had a weight this sad polished?

Thanks

Hazel

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/bridgesantiques/Paperweights

Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: karelm on July 16, 2007, 02:21:17 PM
I'm no expert on Clichy but they do look like rose canes on the outside.
In terms of restoration have a look at this picture:
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-7890

Title:Collectors' Paperweights price guide and catalogue
Author: Lawrence H. Selman
Publisher: Paperweight Press, Santa Cruz, California
Copyright: 1986, L.H. Selman Ltd.
Page: 175

I dont have a scanner so took a picture out of one of my books.  It gives a sense of what a good restorer can do.
Restoration seems to depend on how much "free" glass there is as the restorer basically peels layers of glass off until the damge is removed.  IMHO I would not restore the base until I have seen what the top looks like if it is restored, the reason I say this is that the base does not play such a critical role in a millefiori weight as it does in a clear base lampwork weight, as I said MHO.
Kind regards,
KarelM
PS: Mods please have a look at the pic and description and decide if it is OK in terms of copyright.

Mod: citation included.
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: Frank on July 16, 2007, 06:16:45 PM
Please add a full reference to the work, author, title, publisher, date of publication, page No, plate No. The copyright date and owner should also be kept with the image.

One of us will add the reference into your first posting later.

Thanks for asking!
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: glasseyed on July 16, 2007, 07:23:00 PM
Thanks Karel

The worst of the damage is in fact to the base so maybe it can be saved. I think it would be a pretty small weight if it polished sucessfully. :D

Regards

Hazel
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: KevinH on July 17, 2007, 12:53:33 PM
I don't think this is a Clichy weight. The canes are not as evenly cut and set as I would expect for Clichy. More likely Bohemian or St Mandé.

But the photos do not show the canes too well. Any chance of better pics with close ups of the canes? If the camera has, say, a 5 megapixel rating and has a "close-up" or "macro" function, then a good sized image of a cane will be easily possible.

A tip for phtographing details when the glass is scratched is to immerese the weight in water so that the water just covers it, then take the photo.
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: alexander on July 17, 2007, 01:04:32 PM
Could it be from around Riesenbirge?
There are roses shown in the Jargsdorf book with white petals on the inside
and also a "star-like" cane on page 72. (only similar in concept, not identical in any way).

I would really like to see the centre canes too.
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: glasseyed on July 17, 2007, 02:01:55 PM
Hi

Thanks for the replys, I have had another go at the photographs with the weight underwater (great tip - thanks Kev).

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/bridgesantiques/Paperweights02

Even in water the central cane was difficult to capture, I have not heard of Riesenbirge (more to learn :D).

Thanks

Hazel
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: karelm on July 17, 2007, 05:29:33 PM
Hi,
Having looked at those new pics I agree with Kev that it is prob not Clichy due to the arrangement not being precise enough.
However I still think that the weight has loads of age to it and comes from some "good" factory.  Riesenbirge if I remember correctly was part of Bohemia and made wieghts late 1800's and I believe their weights are very scarce...dont take my word though!
Kind regards
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: alexander on July 17, 2007, 10:28:45 PM
You should take my Riesenbirge mention with a grain of salt btw - it's too hard to tell from the pics.
Bohemia is my gut feeling and I'm leaning towards that region.

Seeing the new pictures my "star" theory goes out the window and they're not the same kind of stars at all.

The central cane looks intrigueing but it's hard to tell.
It appears to be 7 rods of 'light blue - white - pink white', circeling the middle
which appears to be pink star shape with white filling.

Page 75 in the Jargsdorf book has a similar cane in a Riesenbirge weight but it's all speculation without
a clear picture.

Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: KevinH on July 17, 2007, 11:20:30 PM
Thanks for the better pics, Hazel. I got the water tip from John Simmonds' book, Paperweights From Great Britain 1930-2000.

I will take a look at various literature for any cane matches but it may take me a while.

Alexander's thoughts about "Riesenbirge" could be reasonable but (and please forgive my pedanticism, folks) the place was actually Riesengebirge (with "ge" before the "birg"). This transaltes into English as Giant Mountains and was at the northern section of the former Bohemia.

Another thought is that the canes might find a match with what is now known to be "later Clichy" - but I don't think the quality of cane setting is good enough. Anyone with the Clichy book care to comment?
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: alexander on July 17, 2007, 11:40:48 PM
Heh - right you are, my little grey cells totally skipped the "ge".

Thanks for putting me straight - I would have continued to use the wrong spelling.
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: glasseyed on July 19, 2007, 06:20:43 PM
Hi

Alexander, your description of the central cane is accurate, the canes around it seem to consist of two rows of tiny frilly white canes around a pink tube with a white inner.

Kev, I have found a picture of a weight with similar rose cane and blue star canes in a Christie's catalogue 'Important glass and 19th century ceramics' 7/7/2005. Page 107.

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/bridgesantiques/Paperweights02

What do you think? - they describe it as 'a Clichy miniature close pack millefiori weight'. With the canes set on a blue ground they have a more even make up, but with the exeption of the rose the other canes seem different to the usual Clichy canes.

I'm confused!

Regards

Hazel  :P


Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: alexander on July 19, 2007, 11:08:28 PM
Confusing indeed ; )

I think mainly the reason I don't like the Clichy link is the setting and overall feel of the weight,
plus the roses - the roses seem a little different from Clichy roses.

The Christies weight seems to have some unwanted bubbles, is that common in older Clichy?

I've uploaded some pics of an old Clichy that's in the family below for comparison.
The roses are quite different, in the one below there are two roses, one regular green/pink/white with yellow center canes
and one pink/white with yellow centre canes.

Clichy 1 (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-7956)
Clichy 2 (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-7955)
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: alexander on July 20, 2007, 12:41:57 AM
Another thought - could it be Val St Lambert?

I'm browsing Selman's old catalogues and between all the drooling  ;) I found a VSL with
a central white petaled rose cane. Different but shows that they did roses too.

Selman VSL - Lot 63 (http://www.lhselmanltd.com/auc25/13.html)

Edit - so did Baccarat :

Selman Baccarat - Lot 52 (http://www.lhselmanltd.com/auc26/13.html)
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: glasseyed on July 21, 2007, 10:12:26 AM
 :cry: Oh dear the plot thickens!!!!!!!

Reference the bubbles - I hadn't noticed them in the picture before (too busy looking at the canes), however I don't think I recall seeing stray bubbles in the Clichy weights I have handled.

Maybe the attribution of Clichy in the Christie's sale was incorrect - that would lead us back to the Bohemian connection. I have just taken the weight and compared it to other weights in my collection (glass colour/profile). The glass has a slightly greyer tinge than either Clichy or Baccarat and the profile is similar but lower domed. It seems unlikely that given it present condition that the shape is anything other than it's original shape.

Regards

Hazel
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: Cathy B on July 23, 2007, 02:07:18 AM
PS: Mods please have a look at the pic and description and decide if it is OK in terms of copyright.
Quote from: Frank
Please add a full reference to the work, author, title, publisher, date of publication, page No, plate No. The copyright date and owner should also be kept with the image.

Karel, if you can let us know the full reference as Frank describes above, then we will add it into your description to make it copyright kosher. The copyright symbol, owner and date need to go into the description in the Glass Gallery as well, if I'm interpreting what Frank says correctly.
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: karelm on July 23, 2007, 07:42:44 AM
Cathy,
Sorry I'd forgotten about that :sleep:
Title:Collectors' Paperweights price guide and catalogue
Author: Lawrence H. Selman
Publisher: Paperweight Press, Santa Cruz, California
Copyright: 1986, L.H. Selman Ltd.
Page: 175

Hope that is everything!
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: rsts on July 24, 2007, 10:41:28 PM
Hazel - A very interesting weight and well worth having restored in my opinion. 

In the book 'Identifying Antique Paperweights - The Less Familiar' by George N. Kulles, he shows an identical rose on page 9, figure 22.  He attributes these weights to the Bohemia/Silesia region. His description is "the millefiori rose has concentric layers of thick opaque-white petals around a center of six prominent pink and white tubes. It can occur with either an outer row of white petals or green sepals."
Ron
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: Frank on July 25, 2007, 12:33:35 AM
Oh Well done Karel! It is that little bit of effort that makes a huge difference. It qualifies what you say, thanks the original researcher and spreads the word. It also guides people on which books to BUY!

Ommmmanniiii padmeeee hummm  ;)
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: glasseyed on July 25, 2007, 09:12:35 AM
Hi Ron

Thanks for the reply, looks like I'm going to have to buy yet another book. I don't think I knew what I was letting myself in for when I bought my first piece of glass (my mother dealt in porcelain, so I decided to collect glass). Now I seem to collect both, sell some and have a full time job!!!

I think I will try and have the weight restored and I will of course post a picture of the results.

Best wishes

Hazel
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: karelm on July 25, 2007, 01:44:27 PM
Hazel,
I think it would be intresting for many of us if you decide to get it restored to do a small write-up about exactly what and how they do it.  Also give us some sort of idea about cost.
Thanks
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: glasseyed on July 25, 2007, 01:56:20 PM
Hi Karel

I'll try, I haven't had a weight polished before so I don't know where to start :D

Anyone any good ideas on firms in the UK who are good on paperweight polishing?

Regards

Hazel
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: karelm on July 25, 2007, 02:44:58 PM
I'll try, I haven't had a weight polished before so I don't know where to start :D"snip"
That is the same a s most of us and that is why I made the request...you are the guinea pig  >:D ;D
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: glasseyed on July 25, 2007, 03:01:15 PM
Oh dear, not again - my older sister always used to make me test things out to check they were safe (if I refused I wouldn't be allowed to tag along next time) :P
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: Leni on July 25, 2007, 06:42:34 PM
I would recommend Bob Hall most highly.  He charged me £30 for re-polishing a weight (albeit much less damaged than this) and did an excellent job.  His website is http://bobhallpaperweights.co.uk/ and you can find his contact details there.

I look forward to seeing the results.

Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: glasseyed on July 25, 2007, 06:46:55 PM
Thanks Leni, I will speak to him a.s.a.p.

Regards

Hazel
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: Leni on July 25, 2007, 06:58:40 PM
BTW, I love Charlie's Blog!  It's on my list, just after 'Dooce'  ;)
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: glasseyed on July 25, 2007, 07:04:23 PM
I'll pass your comments on to Charlie (wags all round), he was just about to write an update on 'training the humans'.  ;D
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: KevinH on July 26, 2007, 12:06:12 AM
An extra plug for Bob Hall as a weight repairer ...

Bob developed a method of grinding that generates very little heat and therefore is much safer for items that may have unreleased stresses. He is only able to work with with domed pieces, so faceted weights for example are outside his scope - which means for this interesting item, he probably could repolish it.

He will always give an honest view as to whether any damage is too much for him to achieve a good result. The problem is that it only needs one chip to be "too deep" to mean that excessive amounts of glass need to be taken off all over the weight, resulting in a loss of magnification or perhaps even a distortion of the interior elements.

Occasionally, a restorer will take more off the top than from the sides if this does not affect the overall look of the weight. But as I said, Bob will give a true opinion on what he feels can be done.
Title: Re: Terrible condition but maybe Clichy?
Post by: flying free on October 07, 2013, 10:53:03 PM
I 'think' (open to correction) that my weight in this linked  thread has similarities with the weight on this thread?

http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,47540.msg267525.html#msg267525

http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,47540.msg308383.html#msg308383
m