Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Topic started by: adam20 on October 09, 2011, 12:11:26 PM
-
Just bought two Peter McDougall paperweights for under £15.00 each - brand new but I am thrilled with the craftsmanship, they even have tiny signature canes on the base - along with John Deacons I think this glass studio offers great value for money.
Thanks Adam
-
Really like the blue one.
Ross
-
For accuracy in cane making and setting up Peter is probably the finest in the world. Take a look at this one and tell me what you think. Better than a classic period Baccarat I conclude. Regards Roger.
-
I think it depends on individual taste.
Peter McDougall's work is definitely of very high quality, but I sometimes feel that his weights are technically "too perfect" for my own preferences. However, I do tend to focus on the more rustic look of earlier Ysart work!
And I do think there are some antique French weights that are of an equal visual quality to those of some of the modern makers. And some Americans, such as Jim Hart [Edit ... please see correction below], also produce superb millefiori weights (and Jim has only been working in glass for a relatively short time).
Mike Hunter's work is another case of techinical excellence in cane structures and setting.
-
Hi Kev
Did you mean Jim Hart???
Roy
-
Errr ...no! Must go and find my "sensible head".
Ok, got my right head on now ...
... I meant Jim Brown
:spls:
-
Jim Hart does make nice rose canes, tho.
-
Yes, he certainly does. :)
-
***
I'm with Kev on this. I much prefer an antique closepack with its lack of precision to a near perfect modern set-up that looks machine made. That is not to deny the skill of the maker - just that different people prefer different things. For me, Jim Brown's weights have enough variation in the set-up to be very attractive.
Alan
-
So what several are saying is that they like the character of a less exact setup and pickup because they can see or feel the character of the maker of the weight therein. OK, but I like marmite ( dont even try to work that one out).
Yes ,I also like the freeflow of other weights I have. I have mentioned before I love the character of Pauls weights in general throughout his career but when I see a centre closepack of his for instance that is not very symmetrical I am not excited by it. errrrrr Anyone interested in a dartboard with the bullseye an inch off centre? Going cheap. An absolutely perfect weight setup I suppose could well be boring so I will ask my father not to create one. Regards Roger.
-
***
I think the point is, do you want a mathematically precise layout, or something hand made by an artist, showing a human being was involved? It is not a case of right or wrong - just what you prefer. For darts, I would like a symmetrical, machine made board please! For a paperweight, maybe something a tad more artistic?
Alan
-
Interesting discussion... me, I would love an assymetrical dartboard maybe I could get more bullseyes :girlcheer:
The connoisseur loves perfection and that is what cut glass is all about but then when an artist gets the feel for cutting glass some remarkable things happen. So it is fundamentally the old craftsmanship vs artistic expression. Luckily for all there is a much difference in taste as there is arts and crafts.
-
I suppose getting back to the theme of the thread. PMcD, good value for money. Regards Wodger Wabbit.
-
At the 2005 conference Ray Metcalfe put on a display of weights for sale. My daughter then 6 was enchanted and bought her first paperweight - a Peter McDougall miniature for about £10