Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests > Glass Paperweights

Books on Paperweight Canes

<< < (2/4) > >>

karelm:
Whilst looking for some information on what book would be a good place to start I came across this old thread.  Does KevH and the other contributers still stand by this or are there newer or "better" books on the market now?  I am looking to buy a general reference book suitable for a beginner that will help with general identification, even if just pointing one in the right direction.
I have had a look at Paperweights by Sibylle Jargstorf (http://crunruh.zoovy.com/product/0887403751) and it does look ok.
Any suggestions of other books or to paraphrase a question asked earlier in this thread, if you where to buy only one book whta and why would you buy?
Kind regards,
KarelM

KevinH:
1. Newer and better books?
In the context of my list above, I know of no newer books covering paperweight cane details.

2. For a starter book, covering almost all areas of paperweight collecting:

Pat Reilly, Paperweights: The Collector's Guide to Selecting and Enjoying New and Antique Paperweights (Collectors Guide Series) This title is a 1999 softback version of Pat's original, 1994, hardcover version with the slightly different full title, "Paperweights: The Collector's Guide to Identifying, Selecting, and Enjoying New and Vintage Paperweights"

This is an inexpensive book but extremely well written with lots of good photos.

Glassic:
Did E.M. Elville have anything of value to say in Paperweights and other Glass Curiosities?
 
 

KevinH:
Yes.  ;D

KevinH:
But being a little more helpful (now that I have located my copy of the Elville book) ...

Although there is almost nothing said about cane details in the way that I like to discuss them (!), there is a good amount of information on desirability, rarity, and general prices achieved for weights as at 1954. Paperweigts are covered in the first 48 pages, with the remaining 64 dealing with the other curiosities - and in this context, "curiosity" was used with its earlier meaning of "fascinating, interesting, etc." rather than the more modern meaning of "odd, strange etc.".

As with any of the older books, there are parts that now clearly show as "errors" but at the time were simply the accepted knowledge. Also, there are some views expressed which I might disagree with - such as on page 29 where it is said of some St Louis millefiori weights, "Prices vary considerably ... but are not at all influenced by the figures [i.e. silhouettes] or by the initials and dates [i.e. signature canes]". A previous owner of my copy annotated that sentnce with the simple comment, "Nonsense". But perhaps in 1954, Elville's view was indeed the accepted view of collectors and it's only in later years that us "newcomers" have a revised idea of things.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page