Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Topic started by: toedeloe on April 26, 2007, 08:12:18 PM
-
I recently bought this nice paperweight at an antiques fair in Brussels. I was especially interested in this weight due to the complex rose millefiori inside and also for the special design with laurel leaves (I think) which I have never seen in a paperweight.
See pictures :
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-6693
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-6692
I also have another closepack paperweight with exactly the same rose cane, see :
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-6695
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-6691
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-6690
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-6689
I think I am able to attribute this closepack paperweight to the “second period Clichy” because it has exactly the same “spoke” millefiori as the one pictured in the book “La Cristallerie de Clichy” from Roland Dufrenne, Jean Maës and Bernard Maës on page 374 paperweight nr. G.
See following picture :
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-6694
and the comparison of the two different spoke millefiori :
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-6696
Since in Roland Dufrenne’s book there is no picture of a complex millefiori rose I was not able to attribute the “laurel leaves” paperweight to Clichy. But with the combination of the “spoke”-cane and complex rose cane in my closepack paperweight I think this could also be a late Clichy paperweight.
I would be very pleased if someof the experts could confirm my findings. Any comment would be more than welcome.
Thanks and kind regards
-
this should help you out
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,5232.0.html
-
Thanks Ray for the link. It took me some time to read it.
The latest post from "addg" was confusing since the link seemed wrong (wrong paperweight picture). The strange thing is that i was the buyer of this paperweight and the seller did change the picture after the sale.
I am still convinced that this is a late Clichy paperweight.
Kind regards.
-
You have a very nice weight there. I can't help but notice it has that real old look to it. Personally if I had $12,000 or so to plunk down for a Clichy etc it would be one of this type, with this bonified, no matter what someone says, old look. There is too many perfectly clear, no bubbles at all "perfect" ones on the market for all to possibly be real (original from France 1800's), from my personal observation, when most are known to be in private collections. I just can't get around that FACT either.
Chris
-
Thanks Chris for your input, i completely agree with your vision. I also tend to seach for the "special ones" - whatever that means - and that's why i always end up with antique ones.
Regards, Eddy
-
Ahha. So Toedeloe=Piepedei. Nice to meet you after having run up against you in bidding on a few weights. The link in my post from the earlier discussion was changed and is now meaningless.
Your close pack is a beauty. I was the underbidder on it as I recall. I would love to own it if you ever decide to part with it.
I do not believe it to be Clichy or late Clichy. I believe it to be better than that. I am leaning towards some lesser known Belgiun maker, with Bohemian as a distant second choice. The compound rose cane, and the blue crimp/star type canes with yellow centers are key canes for me. Bubbles as decorative elements just doesn't fit with late Clichy; and the color palette (if I spelled that correctly) is not Clichy or late Clichy. Have you tried specific gravity testing to see if it matches any known makers? Colin Mahoney (former PCA newsletter editor) has tons of data on known specific gravities; and John Hawley has done aritcles on how to do the testing. You might also try writing to George Kulles (author of the ID books) and who advertisies as a glass restorer in the PCA newsletters.
-
addg, is it the link that now points to a QEII sulphide? We can delete that link if it's now useless or confusing.
-
addg, nice to hear from you too.
I partly agree with you : the bubbles in the closepack are certainly not Clichy style, but i still cannot explain why the "spoke" cane is such a perfect match with the one from the book of R. Dufrenne :
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-6696
I will try to do specific gravity testing and UV testing and let you now a.s.a.p.
Eddy
-
Cathy - yes it is the QEII sulphide link that is wrong.
-
Consider it gone. :)
-
addg, i did find the John Hawley article about the specific gravity testing on the internet. Since i do not have the same professional equipment to measure it, the testing has been done in a "kitchen" environment and will be less accurate. The resulting densities are :
- Paperweight with Laurel leaves = 2.49 g/cc (Possible factory according to the tests by John Hawley : Bohemian1, Pantin2, Boston & Sandwich)
- Closepack paperweight = 3.13 g/cc (Possible factory : Clichy, NEGC, St.Mandé, Pantin1, Bohemian2, Bacchus, Boston & Sandwich)
If it is true that the two paperweights are from the same factory , the resulting possible factories are Pantin, Bohemian or Boston and Sandwich.
I am not shure if one can make any conclusions as a result of these figures and also i am not shure the "John Hawley" article is complete since i did not find any figures relating Belgian paperweight s.a. Val Saint Lambert or Cheneé (which also produced low and high density paperweights).
Any advice or suggestions in interpreting these densities would be much appreciated.
Eddy
-
addg, i did find the John Hawley article about the specific gravity testing on the internet.
Care to share the link? The only reference I could find was to a 1992 PCA bulletin....if somebody has a scanned copy.....
Thanks,
-
karelm, the link i found is :
http://www.paperweight.org/05_convention/JohnHawley.pdf
Regards, Eddy
-
Eddy,
I think it is good that you have gone to the trouble of obtaining density measures of your weights. But could you please let us know how you did this - in other words, what "kitchen" method did you use. I ask because this has often been discussed amongst members of the PCC and, as yet, I have not heard of an agreed "kitchen" method that could be easily used, with a fair degree of accuracy, by other folk.
For my own density measures, which I made using a setup similar to that outlined by John Hawley, I found a variety of discrepancies, not only between results of other people, but also between my own repeated measures of the same weight!
One aspect that could well be important is the temperature of the water. There is a table of adjustment factors that are used by "professionals". When I tested this with the same item, with all other conditions the same, I did get some differing results in the decimal places.
Another factor that is suggested by some folk, is the "purity" of the water. However, I have found no differences when using "pure" water (as sold for use in batteries) and "hard" tap (faucet) water containing loads of chalk, and no doubt other odds and ends too!
-
Hi Kev
For what its worth - here are my experiences. Its a bit long winded !
My rig is based on the one Tropdevin (Alan) uses.
It is based around a beam made from a 24" length of ali - cross-section 2 1/4" x 1/4" . In one end is drilled a hole though which a steel pivot rod passes - the pivot rod is secured via a wooden cage to the contiboard base.
At the far end of the beam another hole is drilled and through this is suspended a cage made of plastic covered garden wire in which the paperweigt is suspended.
A set of digital kitchen scales sit on the base board and the beam bears down onto the scales though a fulcrum made from a small triangular shaped piece of brass.
I use a LARGE measuring jug for the water - straight sides and about 8" diameter.
Weighing process is as follows :
1) position the rig on the draining board with the suspension point for the PW over the sink . Position the jug of water in the sink under the suspension point.
2) Zero the scales
3) Carefully put the PW in the sling and weigh again - air weight
4) Without moving anything carefully bring the water jug up from the sink until the paperweight is totally immersed. Take a second reading - immersed weight.
5) Lower the water jug and remove the weight. Check that the scales still read zero - if not then do not use this reading as something has moved
I take a series of readings until I get 2 or more identical ones. This is the reading I use - I do not average out. Then perform the calculation.
Points to note.
1) The beam must be rigid with NO flexing under load.
2) Ensure that the fulcrum postion is adjusted so that the air weight is near the maximum for the scales as this will reduce the errors caused by reading the scales. A 1g error on an apparent weight of 1800g is of less concern than a 1g error on an apparent weight of 800g.
3) Some scales only read to 2grams - if the reading flickers beween two readings use the average - eg 860g and 862g use 861g
4) Put the weight into the cage dome side down - this will prevent an air bubble affecting the readings.
5) Always dry the PW between reading.
I believe the reasons for inconsistant readings are 1 or more of the following :
1) Fulcrum has moved on the scales.
2) Scales have moved on the baseboard
3) Friction at the pivot or cage suspension point.
Points 1 and 2 can be easily overcome by taking several readings
Point 3) cound be cured by better engineering but providing several readings are taking until 2 or more consistant results are achieved then I dont believe it is necessary.
Hope this helps
Regards
Derek
-
... i did not find any figures relating Belgian paperweight s.a. Val Saint Lambert or Cheneé
Kulles quotes 3.03 to 3.05 for Val St.Lambert
-
kevH and derek,
Thanks for the inputs, i will explain my humble method :
I take a plastic container and fill it with water in such a way that the paperweight can be fully submerged . I put it on a kitchen scale and set the scale to zero. I then fix the paperweight with a strip of secure tape all around in such a way that a small handle is available to hold the paperweight by hand.
I put the paperweight in the water untill it is just fully submerged and hold it still until the scale reading is stable = immersed weight(1) including tape = W1
Then i drop the paperweight including the tape gently in the water = air weight including tape = W2
Then i measure the paperweight after drying and without tape = air weight = W3
The density will then be calculated as follows : W3 / (W1 - (W2-W3))
I performed this test with a known 'Saint Louis' weight and my findings where : 3.37 g/cc.
According to the predicted 99% range calculated by the "John Hawley" report "Saint Louis" was between 3.20 and 3.41, so my measurement is in the predicted range.
May i suggest you do the measurement as i described and compare it with the method you are using and let me know your findings.
(1) : this immersed weight is not the same as the "water weight" in the "John Hawley" report.
Regards, Eddy
-
Thanks Derek & Eddy,
I have a couple of questions, but I need to think about something first.
In the meantime, for Eddy's description, is there a "typo"?Then i drop the paperweight including the tape gently in the water = air weight including tape = W2
Air weight measured by dropping the object gently into water?
-
Yes KevH, my choice of words was not correct. I meant : "lower the paperweight with the tape gently into the water untill it reaches the bottom".
Sorry for my English, it seems not as good as i thought.
But anyway the result is the same as measuring the "air weight" (including tape)
Regards, Eddy
-
Hi Kev and Eddi
A picture of my rig is at this link - http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=4ytqivs
No water but should illustrate the rig in action. Note how the fulcrum is positioned only 1/3 of the way from the pivot point - effectively increasing the apparent weight of the paperweight 3 times.
Best regards
Derek
-
Thanks Kev for the pictures of you rig, it seems easy to use, i will try to replicate it.
Thanks Wuff for the input, with the help of the rig i will be able to measure the density of all of my Val Saint Lambert paperweights.
Best regards, Eddy
-
Hi Eddy
The picture of the rig was my rig (Derek) not Kev's !!! - I dont know what he uses.
Best regards
Derek
-
Hi Eddy. Interesting weight and results. I understand how you are estimating the specific gravity, but I think there is a risk of significant experimental error - however, maybe you have tested the same weight several times using your method, and knows how large or small that is.
I carry out specific gravity measurements using the weight in air / weight in water method, using a pivot / beam / knife edge / and electronic kitchen scales (similar to the setup Derek uses). I measure the paperweight in air, then without changing any aspect of the measuring system, I bring up a container holding water from below, to immerse the paperweight. Those are the only two measurements you need. I have discussed in detail the various experimental measurement sensitivities in an article in the recently published PCA Bulletin 2007. Apart from accuracy and repeatability of the equipment, the next most important thing is to work at constant temperature - the water and weight need to be at the same temperature (for example, 20 deg C). Water purity is of very little importance.
I have measured over 150 Old English weights, but have not measured any VSL or Clichy yet - I will do so in due course.
Alan
-
Let me try to describe my method for the determination of specific gravity ("density").
I started out with a kitchen scale and a measurement beaker: measure the weight of the paperweight, the weight of the beaker filled with water to a given level, and finally the beaker with the paperweight immersed (making sure the water level is the same!). Basic arithmetics will then give you the volume and the specific gravity of the paperweight in question.
Advantage: no sling, also a volume determination.
Problem: determine (reproduce) the exact water level.
To overcome the problem I modified a surgical device (used to suck off liquid during an operation):
(http://www.seelentags.de/pw/sg-gadget1k.jpg) (http://www.seelentags.de/pw/sg-gadget1.jpg) (http://www.seelentags.de/pw/sg-gadget2k.jpg) (http://www.seelentags.de/pw/sg-gadget2.jpg) (click on images for larger views)
Because of the small diameter of the tube the total volume (water or water plus paperweight) can be reproduced with great precision. Great care has to be taken, however, to avoid air bubbles in the water: this is the same for the method described above - but the jar needs to be emptied/refilled each time - less time to just let it settle down. The other limitation is the display resolution of the kitchen scale, which is not "magnified" as with the "lever principle".