Topic: Caithness Orchid - but which one?

[jakgene]

I just received this which I bought a few weeks ago.  The seller said it was a William Manson design issued 1996.

There are several orchid designs on the Scotlands glass website but none with photographs. There are two limited editions of 150 listed - Orchid - Style 3
1991, Alan Scott,  and Orchid Style 1 1996 William Manson. I have googled too but cannot find any photos of this weight. I'd like to be sure which I have. Does anyone know for sure which this is? I bought it from the UK so think it probably is the William Manson one. There is a letter cane at the base of the stalk, but even with a loupe I cannot make out what it says - looks like 3 letters or numbers, or the centre one could possibly be a small bubble. If anyone can tell me what is says I'd appreciate it!
regards
it measures 5 1/2 cm wide (2 1/4 inches) and 4 1/4 cm high (1 3/4 inches)

JAK, West Oz  :usd:

[KevinH]

Your weight is the William Manson one, from 1996. The cane may be "cg 96" or perhaps "wm 96", but the info I have (Charlton Catalogue) does not mention a signature cane.

[Wuff]

Yes - this is the 1996 Orchid by William Manson, and
Yes - the 1996 catalogue is not (yet) online.
Other orchids (or with orchid in the name) are online WITH images, however, the only one with a "no image" signature I could find is "Orchid Style Three", Allan Scott of 1991: this was a commissioned weight for the Arts Institute of Chicago, and like all commissioned weights it doesn't show up in Caithness catalogues - neither have I seen one in an auction so far (to ask for permission to use the image for the catalogue).

Talking of permission to use images for the catalogue: as you have offered other images previously - may I assume your permission for the images in this thread as well ?

I would be nice to have a clearer image of the cane. At the moment I can only guess it is a wm cane plus a bubble, as I have never seen a cane with 3 characters. There were wm canes plus two digits (for the year, I have examples for 80 and 81) - but they would be wm over nn (two digits) - could not be mistaken for three characters in a row.

[jakgene]

Thanks Kev and Wolf, nice to know.

Certainly you may use the photos Wolf, I will try and get a better one of the cane and will send it. - I was looking for it to be WM but still couldn't make that out - will look some more.
regards

JAK

[ahremck]

If the signature cane is in a difficult spot to photograph you might try the water method suggested in ' http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,35346.msg191541.html#msg191541 ' it worked well in removing distortion.

Ross