Glass Message Board

Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Topic started by: raj on March 18, 2012, 12:59:32 PM

Title: OE1, OE2 or ???
Post by: raj on March 18, 2012, 12:59:32 PM
Hi, I think this is an Old English pwt - any help with identification would be greatly appreciated.

Regards, raj
Title: Re: OE1, OE2 or ???
Post by: raj on March 18, 2012, 01:01:18 PM
Some close up photos of the canes. - raj
Title: Re: OE1, OE2 or ???
Post by: RAINBOWGIRL on March 18, 2012, 01:50:15 PM
I think it's Gillinder, late-19th century American.
Title: Re: OE1, OE2 or ???
Post by: tropdevin on March 18, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
***

To me, the canes look similar to some Old English ones - but so too do Gillinder canes.  But I am never sure that all the weights that one sees attributed to Gillinder are really Gillinder as opposed to Old English. The canes do not match any I have seen in OE1 or OE2 group paperweights. So I offer a definite 'maybe' on the Old English question!

Alan
Title: Re: OE1, OE2 or ???
Post by: raj on March 18, 2012, 06:10:49 PM
Thank you for the responses so far! I'd be thrilled if it was a Gillinder. It does seem similar in coloring to those I have seen recently while browsing on the web and I did get it here in the States. Are there any recent publications on Gillinder? I do have the Hollister and Hall reference books...
Title: Re: OE1, OE2 or ???
Post by: tropdevin on March 18, 2012, 07:47:29 PM
***

Hi Raj

Do be careful when using both the Hollister and Hall books. I have great respect for the work that both authors put into them, and they are very useful guides...but...they both have a number of very significant errors.

Hollister, for instance, was not aware of and does not mention the main producers of Old English paperweights (such as Richardson, Arculus, and Walsh Walsh) and he  perpetuates the myth of antique Whitefriars. Bob Hall relegates Richardson to a minor producer, and attributes many paperweights to Bacchus that were, IMHO, made by others.  The concept of 'I have never seen any Bacchus that looks like this paperweight, so it must be a unique Bacchus' is, to me, a completely bizarre argument.

Alan

Alan
Title: Re: OE1, OE2 or ???
Post by: MagicInGlass on March 19, 2012, 06:39:38 AM
Wow, talk about insulting two noted and well-respected paperweight experts and authors.
Title: Re: OE1, OE2 or ???
Post by: Lustrousstone on March 19, 2012, 07:41:48 AM
Quote
I have great respect for the work that both authors put into them, and they are very useful guides

True experts acknowledge their errors in the light of further research and advances in knowledge. Alan is a more up-to-date "expert" in this field and isn't insulting anyone. The cost of publishing "limited sale" works such as glass and paperweight books means that errors in print rarely get corrected.
Title: Re: OE1, OE2 or ???
Post by: tropdevin on March 19, 2012, 07:58:36 AM
***

I don't understand why my comments are seen as an 'insult'.  However dedicated and thorough authors might be, understanding improves, new information comes to light, thinking moves on, errors are identified and corrected by later researchers and authors.  It would be a very sorry state of affairs if we just accepted whatever anyone wrote in the past without thinking any further about it.

Paul Hollister's book was published over 40 years ago, and his background work conducted before that: we know a lot more now than we did 50 years ago, so it is not a surprise that his book contains errors.  He did the best he could at the time, and his book is still very useful.  But that does not mean we should treat everything in the book as correct, or that it is some form of heresy to challenge any part.  For example, he is wrong about the early life of William Gillinder: I have written articles for the PCA Bulletin and addressed the PCA Convention about William's true background, and for whom he worked in the UK, and when. But Paul did not have access to the genealogical records and Trades Union records that I have now examined, and nor could he contact living Gillinder descendants, as I have done. It is not an 'insult' to identify or to correct his factual errors.

Bob Hall's Old English Paperweight's book was published in 1998, based in part on studies that Bob carried out during the previous 20 years and in part on research by Anne Anderson starting somewhat earlier. Again, the information and thinking reflected in the book is now at least 20 years old, and some of it older.  It is not an 'insult' to point out that some of the paperweights shown in the Bacchus chapter would now be attributed to other makers, or to point out that he shows the same image twice in the chapter, treating it as a different paperweight and giving slightly different dimensions. It is a mistake - and we all make them: but mistakes in reference books need to be identified, to prevent others who cannot or do not want to question the status quo from perpetuating myths.  I know Bob very well, and before his illness we had talked about the errors that could and should be corrected if there were a second edition, and also whether all my work measuring densities of Old English weights, and what it showed, should be included.  Sadly, a revised edition will now not happen.

Alan
Title: Re: OE1, OE2 or ???
Post by: MagicInGlass on March 19, 2012, 12:08:41 PM
The phrasing and choice of words in the original post about Hollister and Hall could have been better, could have been less harsh. Additionally, there is no confirmed sourcing other than a personal opinion. The writing style is of the "I love you dearly, but..." school of criticism. Hollister and Hall are published professionals and deserve better than off-hand remarks they cannot defend, not to mention a reference to alleged private conversations with the writer of the post. There are better and more polite ways to say things than the bull in the china shop approach, or in this case, the bull in the glass paperweight shop.
Title: Re: OE1, OE2 or ???
Post by: tropdevin on March 19, 2012, 01:15:55 PM
***

There are better and more polite ways to say things than to refer to 'alleged private conversations' when you are talking from a position of total ignorance about my friendship with Bob Hall. Mind you, total ignorance of a topic is not known for stopping people talking about it.  Regarding Bob being a published professional, he has certainly had books published, and was a professional in respect of running his own heating business - but I don't quite see the relevance of the latter.  I think my professional academic qualifications and experience are somewhat more pertinent to rigorous and careful research.

As for lack of confirmed sourcing, if you bother to read my article about Gillinder in the PCA Bulletin you will find all the references, even to the specific records in the UK National Archives. You never know - you might even learn something.  And to find the repeated images in Bob Hall's Bacchus chapter, don't take my word for it...just have alook at the book.

Alan
Title: Re: OE1, OE2 or ???
Post by: alexander on March 19, 2012, 01:34:24 PM
As far as I know Alan counts in the published and respected category.

That aside - this particular paperweight seems be have been repolished at some time if the base is anything to go by?

The canes are certainly in the style of OE, it's well set and the colors are typical.

I don't think it's a Gillinder weight, the Gillinder weights I have seen (mostly seen in pictures) have a "lighter" look to the canes.
There is one mentioned here that I'm confident enough calling Gillinder.
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,19298.msg117421.html#msg117421
Title: Re: OE1, OE2 or ???
Post by: raj on March 20, 2012, 01:28:51 AM
Thanks Alan for your insights on the available reference books for OE pwts; are back issues of PCA publications available, perhaps digitally?

Yes Alexander, I had the paperweight restored, the scratches on the top were quite extensive and made the dome cloudy in appearance. The photo of your pwt is what I think of as typical Gillinder canes, which are clear/hollow in the center, most of mine aren't; so probably, as you stated, not Gillinder.

Since my earlier post, I've been reviewing Bob Halls' book, and think I have found 2 (!) possible matches for the center cane in my pwt - would love to hear comments back if you agree...or I need to have my eyeglass prescription updated  ;D
I think the possible matches are a) pg. 174, bottom left, cane is repeated in several areas, most prominent view is first row, 3 o'clock position and b) pg. 180, bottom left, canes in the second ring.
I've reattached photo of center cane in my pwt. -raj
Title: Re: OE1, OE2 or ???
Post by: tropdevin on March 20, 2012, 09:21:54 AM
Hi Raj

The canes certainly look very similar to me too, and could be identical.  As for who made the paperweights that contain the cane, you will note that Bob has included them in the ‘Unknown Makers’ chapter.  He does note the similarities to Bacchus, but that whole area of similarity of canes is a complex area that needs careful and detailed study. No one has done that in sufficient detail yet as far as I know.

Some years ago, after I bought the large Old English paperweight shown below, I showed it to Bob Hall -  who said he felt sure it was ‘an early Bacchus’. You will see it has the same large cross canes as the one you mention on page 174 of his book.  A few years later, when I began to research Old English paperweights, and measure their densities, it became clear it was most unlikely to be a Bacchus product (the glass had far too high a proportion of lead):  but it was quite likely to be a Richardson piece - the glass was the same density. Also, the white/red cross cane near the edge is typical of Richardson.  That does not rule out a different unknown maker who used around 32% lead, of course.

Regarding PCA publications, I think you would need to approach them direct via their website. You do see the Bulletins offered for sale from time to time on eBay.

Alan