Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Topic started by: Roger H on July 23, 2011, 09:55:49 PM
-
I have a most beautiful Perthshire dish and from the design therein I guess it must be the same year as the weight 1997B annual collection. I understood the dishes were often made when a weight colour or setup went a tad wrong but I can find nothing wrong with this one as hard as I look, in fact it looks remarkable. Any comments. Roger.
-
It's interesting that the Mahoney / McClanahan book on Perthshire does not mention "paperweight dishes" in the section for "Related Items". That might suggest that all such dishes were made using paperweights that were "a tad wrong".
So, looking closely for something that could be a bit off ... the stem of the opening bud at the top is a bit long and appears to be sprouting horizontally from a petal rather from behind the flower as an extension to part of a hidden stem. Maybe that caused it to be regarded as "dishable"?
-
Hi Roger
I am sure when a paperweight went wrong during the making process at Perthshire they would turn it into something wlse rather than waste it. I have a large disc or plate of the 1974 Dragonfly Bouquet weight - picture attached
dave
-
Hi Kev, the 1997B in the book doesn't look much better with regard to the top bud situ, but I will say there is a very small bleed over on my left hand flower. Seems a very tiny error to me but perhaps enough.
Hi Dave, your dragonfly looks a bit out of position compared to the book weight , once again a tad difference. (wonder where tad came from). Tadpole?
PP82 an PP66 are the only official items I can see as a dish. Have had one other previously but no noticable defect in that either. Anyway makes sense not to waste a lovely "dishy" piece. Regards Roger.
-
Amongst the images I have collected over the years from the internet, I have images of dishes in the designs 1983C, PP5, PP14, PP81, PP121.
-
I am not to happy with the idea that dishes were weights gone wrong, is their any first hand, or other, evidence of this? After all Strathearn were deliberately making a variety of dishes as a product. Did PP ever produce a catalogue of their glassware which was mostly in the 'Ysart' style by Chic Young - I think not as that appears to have only been sold in the Crieff showroom. I know cups were included in some weight catalogues.
-
Hi Frank, as a practical item the dish was very good,can be and could have been used for many things whereas the paperweight was either decorational or holding down paper. Can you imagine trying to put peanuts or pins or olives or olive stones or smarties or loose change or ash etc etc into a paperweight. I am surprised the decorative dish isn't or wasn't used much more.
As for whether the dishes of Perthshire on occasion were made from a slightly faulty weight only someone from the factory would know for sure I guess.
Perthshire, vasart, Deacons and maybe others have certainly made dishes as a first choice, and would certainly make a nice practical present for a friend.
-
***
I llike the French description for these items of 'vide-poche', which indicates that you 'empty your pocket' into them. So your coins, keys etc are dumped into them at night, ready for the morning, and a different pair of trousers. ( Aaaggh! Grommet! Wrong trousers...!).
Alan
-
Hi Frank
I have a number of these little bowls, both millefiori and lampwork which I purchased direct from Peter Mcdougall and he told me that they were weights which had gone wrong during the final phase of production and the choice was between throwing them away or converting them to bowls whilst still on the pontil rod. This was both at Perthshire and at his own glassworks
Roy
-
Hi Roy
I can vouch for that, as I was actually in Peters Studio when this happened. Something not quite right with the dome so rather than waste it, a few seconds work converted into a pin dish. I know that John Deacons also does the same thing and both he and Peter are ex Perthshire.
Best regards
Derek
-
Hi everyone,
For the record John Deacons is now making first quality bowls also. Just thought that I should put a (little) spanner in the works!!! >:D
SophieB
-
That is all good to know, makes a lot of sense to - so in summary some are failed weights and others were intended as bowls. Now did Strathearn get their bowls in the same way? Probably not as they were an Angus Sillars design... but perhaps they also converted failing domes to one of designed bowls as any commercial glassworks needs to avoid waste. PY being perhaps an exception.
-
Hi all
Dave Moir has confirmed that Strathearn did make small dishes from paperweights
that were not working out and that these dishes were sold in the showroom/shop.
Best regards
Derek
-
Hi everyone,
As some of you may know, I own a lovely Strathearn bowl with a blue flower (see picture). According to everyone, it ought to be a second/paperweight gone wrong. However, there seemed to be nothing wrong with it... So I always wondered, too.
SophieB
-
Regarding Derek's info from Dave M., note that it does not confirm that these type of dishes and bowls were only made from "weights gone wrong" - just that some were.
-
Hi everyone,
As some of you may know, I own a lovely Strathearn bowl with a blue flower (see picture). According to everyone, it ought to be a second/paperweight gone wrong. However, there seemed to be nothing wrong with it... So I always wondered, too.
SophieB
That bowl must be a weight gone wrong, no attempt to follow one of their organic designs and finished like a frigger. Clearly as a weight something was not going right and a quick paddle to flatten then a pulling out of the edges... a few minutes of work to save scrapping the weight but to waste no time on it. So a unique piece of Strathearn Glass.