Topic: try again - can anyone explain why..... Caithness v Wedgwood ?

[jakgene]

Sorry if this posts twice - am having trouble with photo uploads 

Hi all. I have just gone back to my first love, paperweights and started buying some again, after buying vases for a long time.

 I buy what I like, however am stumped to understand the huge variation in prices between different companies/designers.  I show as an example two I bought recently. Both good designers, Colin Terris - Caithness, and Ronald Stennett-Willson, Wedgwood. Both about the same age,  around 1974, both in good condition, and both with makers mark.
Why then does the Caithness one cost so much more than the Wedgwood one? I am hard pressed to find a reason?  I think they are both gorgeous - that is why they are now mine  - but can anyone explain to a novice why the disparity in price? The Caithness one cost me about 10 times the price of the Wedgwood one. Is it technically much more difficult to make perhaps - or is it just fashion?

I wait to be educated........... hopefully  :pb:
regards
Jackie, West Oz.

[tropdevin]

***

Hi Jackie

In absolute terms, paperweights are worth a fraction of a cent each as scrap glass.  Taking an admittedly simplified approach, the price you have to pay is determined by the market - ie what other people are prepared to pay to buy the particular item. It does not matter one jot whether the item is easy or extremely difficult to make, once it is no longer a 'current' item with a retail price. What matters is supply and demand - and as you rightly suggest, fashion.  That drives prices in most if not all of the art market, and much more besides.  Why can a few daubs of oil paint on canvas command a price tag of $20 million, say? Because two or more people really, really want to own it!

But in general terms, if there are fewer examples of an item in circulation (eg antique paperweights) then the price is higher than for a modern swirl and bubbles piece produced in its thousands.  The fact that a Caithness piece may be hard to make and designed by Colin Terris does not mean, per se, that it will sell for more than a modern Chinese import - it might, but there is no absolute reason why it should.  The great majority of Caithness pieces sell for well below the issue price - but there are a few that now command a premium, because they are 'sought after'.

Hope this sheds some light on the bizarre way that the world works!

Alan

[KevinH]

To add a bit more to Alan's comments ...

The Caithness weight "Cascade Rainbow", was, according to the Charlton Catalogue, designed by Peter Holmes and the first issue had a "PH" cane, but from 1975 had a "CG" cane. It had an original price of £17.00 (with the PH cane) and £19.50 (from 1975), but the stated "value" in the catalogue (as at c2004) was £100. For what was essentially an unlimited issue, as opposed to a specialised limited one, £100 might seem rather a lot. But, as Alan has hinted, collector desirability counts more than most other factors.

In terms of technical issues, I guess the Caithness design would be more technically difficult than the Wedgwood one, but I agree with Alan that from a collector's viewpoint, that might not count for much unless the technical side of things is known to be really difficult.

Another point is that, as far as I can tell, in the collecting world, Caithness has always had a greater following than Wedgwood - the latter being often (although wrongly, in many people's minds) thought of as a producer of lower-level gift items as opposed to "better quality designed" items (at least, for the paperweights). In fact, I think it is possible that many people who have a Wedgwood paperweight will not have heard of Ronald Stennett-Willson and will not know of his importance in the general scheme of things. But more folk will have some knowledge of Colin Terris - even if he did not actually design many of the weights produced at Caithness Glass.

[jakgene]

Thank you both very much for the explanations.  As I continue to buy what I like I can only hope that my taste continues to lie away from the crowd with the likes of the Wedgwood and not with the Caithness - it will be easier on my pocket    and i will get just as much pleasure from them.  Thanks again. Jackie, West Oz

[Rocksmom]

My 2 cents is that, in many areas, percieved value and collectability is often driven by talented marketing.  Caithness marketed themselves brilliantly (compaired to other paperweight factories) at the height of their popularity, influencing many people into collecting their product.  They were the Beenie Babies of the paperweight world!  Prices on most of their weights have settled into a more reasonable price point in recent years, however there are some weights that will always be more sought after, and will command higher prices.       

[tropdevin]

***

Hi Rocksmom

Spot on! Thank you for the insight.

Beenie Babies sums it up - it is not to criticise the Caithness product, but to identify the marketing strategy, ethos, and collector response relevant to the situation. As others have noted, the sought after Caithness weights will continue to appreciate in value, the over-hyped weights and run-of-the-mill weights, of which there are tens of thousands....well, who knows...

Alan