Topic: CIIG signature? ID = Caithness seconds

[David E]

Thanks Karen, that was remarkably quick!

I did wonder about the leaves...

[Derek]

Hi David and Karen

Maybe Davids design is the standard design for seconds!  as here is a picture of of my "Flower in the Rain"

I find it hard to believe that Caithness would go to the trouble of sandblasting a complete frieze around the base of a second - Interesting that the leaves of the frieze on my weight appear in an identical position to Davids.

Flower in  the rain was issued in three styles - original by Jack Allen in 1974 - Colin Terris revised the design slightly and reissued it in 1994 and a third variation again designed by Colin was commissioned by the Royal Mint in 2001. The same design but with a white base was issued in 1983 and called "Flower in the Snow".  Caithness used this upright flower idea many times making the odd change here and there such as an extra row of petals - Fantasia and the various Floral Fountains are examples.

Best regards

Derek

[David E]

Thanks for the update Derek.

Interesting - so does anyone know when the CIIG signature was used? This might then date these and whether it is a later one by Terris, or not.

[cobweb]

To add my own little bit of info on the caithness "seconds" matter...........I live in Glasgow and fairly often visit Oban on my motobike. Oban has a nice visitor centre at the Train Station/Ferry Port where Caithness used to have an outlet shop. I would often pick up a couple of bits of glass when I was up there and on a couple of occasions got chatting to employees. Once I was lucky enough to catch a lampwork display and got chatting to the man doing this afterwards. (Please don't ask for a name as this is lost in the mists of time as it was about 15 years ago). I distinctly do remember being told that there was, nine times out of ten, no difference between the so called seconds that were being sold at roughly 50% off on the unlimited weights. If weights were badly enough misshaped or malformed then they were destroyed.

Make of that what you will be if you check many caithness marked "CIIG" weights it's nigh on impossible to tell why they would have been declared a second.

Slainte.

[David E]

Thanks, most interesting. If so, then it would have been a marketing ploy to encourage people to buy 'slightly inferior' products.

However, the Moonflower 'weight does have a bubble included that could be construed as a second. The 'Flower in The Rain' 'weight does look fine to me, apart from those sand-blasted leaves, which are not quite even.

[Leni]

As I've said in a recent post on the Glass board, sometimes it seems as if the only thing that makes a piece of glass a 'second' is that it just didn't turn out exactly how the maker intended!  So I guess if a weight wasn't near enough to the original it would be rejected as a 'second', even though it would look just fine to anyone else! 

Of course, bubbles, pieces of 'frit', distortions in the dome, slipped canes or lampwork are all obvious faults.  The ones where you can't see any reason for a piece to be rejected, I would guess are the ones that just don't come near enough to the original design! 

[josordoni]

The other possibility with the frieze of leaves is that they were added by a restorer to disguise small chips around the base?

[KevinH]

It may be useful to compare David's example with my identical one that was not regarded as a second:

Profile view - this shows that the bubbles fill the entire dome even from this view. David's example does not do this, unless it's just the way the photo was taken.
Oblique Base view - David's seems to show a distinct ring where the colour of the ground is seen and this could suggest there was not much clear between the colour and the base, which in turn meant that polishing removed the normal effect of the colour being evenly spread in that view [long-wnded explanation but I think it describes what I mean]
Straight-Down Top view - David's appears to have one petal that is markedly smaller than the others.

I suspect that any of the points I have given could have been reason to mark David's weight as a second.
And Leni has already made the important point I would also have added.

[Frank]

Really needs input from someone from Caithness, or should one say formerly with 

I would expect a designer to determine if a weight was a 'first' of their design or a second, this could easily be almost unnoticeable for many people but glaring to the designer.

[David E]

It may be useful to compare David's example with my identical one that was not regarded as a second:

Having seen a 'good' one, I can now appreciate the differences. The base is also not completely polished so leaves a very faint 'herringbone' effect. There is a bevel on the base rim, but that also looks present on yours, Kev.