Topic: Unsigned Caithness paperweight "Traditional Pool"

[Wuff]

Caithness has used or is using several methods to "sign" their paperweights:

1. Signature canes - like CG or PH (Peter Holmes); also wm canes are in several weights designed by William Manson during his time at Caithness; and then there is the Whitefriars monk cane, of course. Only the monk cane seems to have been used recently.

2. Etched (or sandblasted?) signatures on the flat base - scroll down about half way on http://www.glass.co.nz/Caithness.htm for a schematic drawing.

3. Scratched signatures were used a lot before the advent of the etched ones, and are still being used on non-standard shaped weights, where the base is not suitable for an etched signature - as on Cornucopia.

4. Seconds have been marked "C II G" (either scratched or sandblasted) - but I remember Allan telling us in another thread that this has been abandoned, and seconds just don't get their base polished nowadays.

Under which circumstances could a paperweight have no identification mark at all? I have recently acquired a "Traditional Pool"

designed by Colin Terris in 1998 with an edition number of 350. With a limited edition I would expect a certificate and some sort of signature, including the serial number of the individual weight. No certificate was included - which is plausible after a weight may have changed hands several times. But no signature at all? ... Or is this weight not really a "Traditional Pool"?? In the Charlton catalogue this weight is listed as "spherical" - whilst mine is a disk

Does anyone own a "Traditional Pool" or has seen one directly and remembers the shape? The internal design looks correct - compare with the catalogue, where it is listed as "low dome" - but unfortunately no dimensions given (mine is 120 mm dia and 39 mm high).

[stellar.artois]

It looks like the center of one of my weights that I've just sold called 'Tranquil Pond', Wuff, and also like a weight called 'Summer Flight'.

Item 190100067229

Link

[stellar.artois]

It is odd that yours is so flat, I wonder if it's supposed to be like that, or if it was repaired?

[karelm]

It is odd that yours is so flat, I wonder if it's supposed to be like that, or if it was repaired?

Looks to me like they have just used the same or similar lampwork in the two weights if you have a look at : http://www.mellorsandkirkcatalogues.co.uk/Catalogues/SS160107/lot627.jpg
I think it shows that the weight is about right.  Unfortunately they dont say anything about marks!

[Frank]

This is yours Wolf, no idea why yours is unmarked but I presume a second.

http://www.scotlandsglass.co.uk/cms/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=293&category_id=21&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=27

Could you send me a few views to add to this record, thanks.

[Wuff]

Dear All, thank you for your remarks and information!

A general comment first: Colin Terris designed a whole range of "... Pool" and "... Flight" paperweights in reminescence of Monet's (one of my favourite painters) garden pictures - all consisting of waterlilies and dragonflies - all very similar. I have a "Summer Flight" - really gorgeous - and now this one - whatever it is.

It was sold to me as "Traditional Pool" - but I tend to agree with Frank, that it is more likely a "Lily Pool" - which is listed as disk (which mine is) and not spherical or low dome (which mine is not). As for photography, Frank: right now I only have the two above (though with higher resolution), but will try to take a few more, including the somewhat unusual base (if I manage to show that on a picture).

I am still left with the question, why there is no signature on my weight - a second? Did Caithness sell (unmarked) seconds of limited weights? Or was it supposed to be discarded due a flaw (which I can't find) - but someone took it home instead? Was it an experimental pre-production piece? ...? Or just a production weight - where the signature got forgotten for some unknown reason?

[stellar.artois]

Allan Scott was asked this question on the Glass Forums and he said that as a rule 'seconds' from limited editions are destroyed, particularly the more modern ones, occasionally though they will slip through the net as it were and find themselves on the second hand market, so I would guess that as a second (Simone says it IS Traditional Pool as she has one - it is pretty rare

[Frank]

Allan has discussed seconds here several times

[Wuff]

Simone says it IS Traditional Pool ...

Hmmm ... Simone writes "Traditional Pool is supposed to be quite a flattish disc". I wouldn't describe mine as "flattish", however, but really flat (on the top - slightly concave on the base) - so "disk" (as for Lily Pool) just describes that much better than "low dome" (as for Traditional Pool). I also got out my old Caithness catalogues - where I find a grey symbol next to Lily Pool (as the only one in several years) looking like an ice hockey puk (that little black thing). Unfortunately I couldn't find Traditional Pool in my catalogues (and the Charlton catalogue is just useless for that - pictures are too poor to differentiate two somewhat similar weights). I guess, the only way (short of getting signed examples of both to compare with each other) to make sure would be to get dimensions and/or weight: so, if anyone out there owns either of the two candidates, could you please measure them?

[Wuff]

So here are a few more views (click on images for larger view) ...
- from above and side:

- from below and side:


Frank - which ones do you want (originals = 10 MPix = 3 MB each)? Or just all of them on the next DVD - once I get on with scanning the Reflections magazine?