Topic: Huge numbered doorstop? Paperweight?

[chopin-liszt]

Good thinking,  :bat:

[ckscot]

I've taken off the green stuff, but there's still some of the glue there - any ideas on how to remove that are most welcome, but so far, there's nothing to see  :cry: and I have a feeling that there isn't going to be... :huh:

[chopin-liszt]

Make sure the pw is at room temperature, and have some water on a flattish saucer also at room temp, try soaking it.

If that softens the glue, but doesn't actually get it off, you can try, very gently, with a razor blade or scalpel - being careful to keep the blade almost flat against the surface of the glass.

Failing that, try some biological washing liquid in the water, soak, repeat the blade technique.

If all water-based methods fail, you can start on things like nail-polish remover.

Christine's right, though, it should have Caithness and the name of the design etched onto the base.

[Derek]

Hi Iain

Caithness did a series of around 16 double magnums between 1983 and 1999.
These were abstract and I believe they were around the size of your weight.
The also did triple magnums which weighed in at around 14lbs.

From the pictures on Scotlands glass web site, I think your weight is the double
magnum from 1989 called Double magnum Azure designed by Margot Thomson.
All the Caithness double magnums were unlimited editions.

However the code is confusing me as Caithness unlimited editions should start with U
and as it was released in 89 I would have expected the code to start U89. Wuff who
runs the paperweight side of the Scotland glass web site is a member of this board
and I am sure he will be along soon to clarify matters.

Best regards

Derek

[chopin-liszt]

"Unlimited edition" makes it sound like loads were produced, but annealling muckle great things is fraught with difficulties, and you don't see a lot of them around - were 100s or 1000s produced, do you know?

As far as I know, numbers on Caithness pws refer to the total produced in that year....

[Derek]

Hi all

Unlimited just means that there was no limit to the number produced and supply will be geared up to meet demand. If an unlimited weight was not selling there might be very few produced.

Caithness at their peak were producing in excess of 150,000 paperweights each year!
Wuff may have information on numbers produced but I think it unlikely.

The code number I think refers to the number of the DESIGN for a particular year rather than the actual number of weights.

Best regards

Derek

[chopin-liszt]

 :thup:

Your first comment was as I suspected, thanks, and thanks also for clearing up the number business.
I'm a member of the SG forum, but get in a complete tangle trying to log in (mostly without any success, though thankfully, I managed to register for the conference before it all went awol for me again. I can't find my way around the site either.)

Recently at Crieff, (folk who know my opinions of pws had better sit down) I bought a completely fabulous weight, a "second" of a very limited edition (50, I think) series.

So ,while limited editions may be restricted to their limited number, there can be very similar bits which are also "out there"......... which is nice for folk like me who are only interested in displaying stuff and admiring it, rather than fretting about cataloguing and having the "right" things etched on them.

[Wuff]

Having been mentioned by Derek, I can't stay aside - can I ?

First I have to say that I don't know the weight - but it certainly has a "Caithness look" to it - and the size (6") would fit their double magnums.

Before I go on - a short detour to their numbering system, introduced in 1983 for unlimited weights: The leading letter indicates the year of manufacture with A = 1983, B = 1984, G = 1989 ...(a few letters not being used)... Z = 2002, A = 2003 again, ... This letter is followed by a number (up to 6 digits) - a running number for all (irrespective of design!) unlimited weights made this year - so your weight will most likely be marked "C58442" (not a).

Back to the series of double magnums (mentioned by Derek) - the "C" would indicate 1985 - which would be Double Magnum Emerald - which it clearly is not!

Double Magnum Azure of 1989 looks indeed much closer - but then it should be marked G  :huh: - and the C on your image doesn't look like a sloppy G.

Conclusion - I don't really know. So let me turn to another point:

I'm honestly not sure about records for Caithness, I do visit the factory in Crieff fairly regularly and I'm afraid the staff know very little indeed about any of it. I don't suppose it's in the remit of a salesperson's work, but it's very frustrating. I bought a nice collection of cards showing photographs of various glassmakers at work, and they couldn't even tell me their names.....

One problem when visiting the factory today will be that only few of the earlier people are still there. Could you scan the cards (with at least 300 dpi) - or send me the cards for scanning (you'll get them back, of course!): this would not only be interesting for the Scotlandsglass web site but may help you to get names attached to the people on the cards.

[ckscot]

Thanks to everyone for all the detective work.  I have now looked again at the number under a strong jewellers glass and it looks to me that there is the faintest trace of a downward slant at the bottom of the C, which would make G a possibililty - it just didn't catch the light at all in my photo.  I'm not sure it's so much sloppy as just faint.  and the squiggle that I took for 'a' could easily be a 2 as suggested.  So i think the mystery might be solved :chky:

But I have one more question.  I have cleaned the base using washing up liquid as you suggested Sue, to leave a flat smooth surface but with still some cloudy streaks of glue.  Under certain lights I imagine there are letters half visible on the two straight lines on the base, but it might be wishful thinking on my part.  So my question is - might I damage/erase the mark if there is one, by scraping more or by using nail polish remover, or can I safely work on without feeling too nervous? Maybe I should just quit while I'm ahead.....

[Derek]

Hi Iain

I would not recommend using anything metallic on the weight you are likely to add marks !

Nail polish remover is diluted acetone with some additives. Far better would be to pop into your local chemist and get a small bottle of pure acetone which will be far more effective at removing the glue. Acetone is perfectly safe to use on glass and dissolves the glue. It will NOT damage the paperweight or any marking whether they are scratched on the surface or etched. If may be necessary to repeat the process several times to remove all traces.

A useful tip for making scratched marks more visible is to dust the base with talcum powder then wipe it off with a tissue.

I will be interested to hear what the final conclusion is about the marking !

Best regards

Derek