Topic: Selkirk Paperweight

[adam20]

Selkirk paperweight I picked up in a charity shop - label to base and in original box with leaflet - not signed to base - any idea of age and designer?

Thanks Adam

[Wuff]

These whirly-bubbly weights are difficult to identify for sure, especially if the year of manufacture is not inscribed. You also have to keep in mind that many "non-production" weights left the factory, which cannot be attributed to any of the catalogued weights - this might especially be the case for weights not inscribed at all.

What is the size of your weight?

If standard (about 3") Pierrot (Peter Holmes) comes closest.
If miniature (about 2.5") Satin (James Brown) comes closest.
Both were issued in a number of colourwas, including blue.

[adam20]

Hi Wolf

The weight is app 3" diam - thanks for information.

Adam

[Lustrousstone]

Not Pierrot http://lustrousstone.co.uk/cpg/displayimage.php?pid=1156

[Wuff]

Pierrot came in several colourways:
Christine's weight is the "original" Pierrot, first issued in 1995, and later called "Blue" (although, to me, it seems to have more green in it than blue).
"Blue" was added to the name in 1999, when "Crimson" and "Gold" were first issued.
Neither really fits the weight in question - which is why I said "comes closest".

Satin is a fairly similar weight, though smaller. Also comes in several colourways - including "Sea Blue" issued in 2004 - this one would fit the colouring of the weight in question quite nicely - but is the wrong size.

As I said, the fact it is not signed, might be an indication of an "non-production" weight - like a test to do a Pierrot in Sea Blue ?

[pooleandpaperweights]

Im afraid more likely IMO is that it is one of the cheap tourist weights which were not signed, just labelled.  I have multiple examples with no enscription and just a label.  Still a nice find in a charity shop though!!!!

Ian

[Wuff]

Hi - I have discussed this with Peter Holmes. This is a Satin-Blue ... though a bit larger than the usual Miniature Collection weights. It would probably be a sample, as most samples were made at three inches. Then, if it was decided the paperweight should be part of the Miniature Collection, the others would be made smaller. Peter also has a plausible explanation for the weight not being signed: as a sample it was just kept (unsigned) ... and when the receivers wound up Selkirk in 2005 they started selling off the stock at Selkirk for very little money; they put labels on them and didn't bother signing them.

[adam20]

Thanks Wolf. Thats great info.

Adam