Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests > Glass Paperweights
New Acquisitions!
Leni:
Thanks very much for the book info fellas, and for the Allan Port link! Another site bookmarked! :D
Just heard from the vendor of the weight - he says it's fine to use his images, as he's interested to know an ID himself, so here they are. http://tinypic.com/4j9i4h http://tinypic.com/4j9i61 http://tinypic.com/4j9i7b
Hope somebody can help with an ID :shock: :?
It's very pretty and I'm thrilled with it anyway, but I do like to know :roll: :wink:
Leni
Images copyright Roger Widdows
RAY:
a miniature clichy
Leni:
--- Quote from: "RAY" ---a miniature clichy
--- End quote ---
:shock: :shock: :shock:
Do you think so, Ray? :? I thought 'lightning never strikes twice' :roll:
I know I'm no expert, but I was comparing the canes with my Clichy weight and couldn't see any which look like a 'match', although the quality is certainly as good!
I thought Bohemian because there are one or two with similar canes in the Sibylle Jargstorf, particularly some of the Riesengebirge complex canes which contain 'Clichy-like' roses.
I must admit, I did think Clichy when I first saw it, but I told myself, "Don't be silly! Your'e seeing Clichy weights everywhere!" :roll: :lol:
Leni
RAY:
i'm no expert either Leni but the shape of the dome strikes me as clichy, go to go and pick kids up now, will write more later
KevinH:
One of the fun things about paperweights is that without a definite signature cane or a cane that can easily be confirmed, it's just not very easy in many cases to give an identification.
But - just as with anything else - one of the benefits of discussing the pros and cons of a considered attribution is that the process can give us a wealth of knowledge that cannot be gained by a quick and simple identification by an "expert".
Ray's comment about how the shape of the dome steers him towards an attribution is an important point. With all paperweights of the type discussed here, the dome shape, base finish, individual cane details, overall setting of the canes, as well as the internal clarity of the glass, are all crucial aspects to consider.
And then, after considering all the points, we may still end up with no firm conclusion. :roll:
I think it would be a good thing to let Leni and Ray, and anyone else who wants to join in, discuss their thoughts on this weight, preferably with as many book and website references as possible also being given.
I may think I know the answer to this one, but I will have to do some checking myself before I give an opinion. So ... thoughts, reasonings and references ... over to you folks, but I will raise one question - what's the height and diameter?
Oh, and Leni, in the Jargstorf book you may find a comment on Clichy profiles that is worth throwing in to the debate. And for everyone who wants to join in, don't forget to check out the PCC 1999 Exhib photos at:
http://www.kevh.clara.net/exhib99/exhib99.htm - there may be a clue in there.
:)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version