Topic: OE Atribution Help

[hunter-g]

I'm wondering where opinion falls with this one, which was attributed to Bacchus - and according to the previous owner, originally carried that attribution at the time he purchased it around 13 years ago.
Dimensions are 3 15/16" d x 2" h, and the dome rises very tightly almost straight up from the base, (making it difficult to pick up easily from a flat surface & weighing half a ton - well, actually ~1 kilo). Slightly concave base w/ neatly snapped pontil (not firepolished), and very gentle seam where main gather joins the ground/setup. Wear on rim is even and approx 3/32". Also see how center cane stands above others (profile). Curious. Thanks to all...
/ h-g

[tropdevin]

***

Hi.  This does not look like Bacchus to me - I am fairly sure they are Richardson canes.  If you are able to measure the density I think it will fall within the Richardson range, rather than the Bacchus range.  The shape suggests that it has been quite heavily repolished - it may have been a bottle that suffered severe damage - such pieces often end up as rather unusual shaped paperweights.

Alan

[chopin-liszt]

  What does "OE" stand for?

[tropdevin]

***

Hi Sue.

OE = Old English.

Alan

[chopin-liszt]

Cider? 

Thanks, Alan.

[hunter-g]

Hi, Alan, et al & thanks for the input.
It hadn't occurred to me that it may have been re-shaped. Is there any way of "reading" the dome and striae for signs? In following your comment, I do notice a few (broad) irregularities in the surface which could indicate innaccuracies in the finishing, but I'm inclined to feel (quite literally, if you'll pardon the pun) that they're consistent with the original marvering and shaping since they are extremely subtle and appropriate to the size and proportions of the piece. Optically, it also seems as close to perfect as one could expect, and the striae seem essentially concentric (and diminishing) right up to the dome. There are also a couple of small / shallow dings at about 45 degrees and light scratches which could be new or old, but don't hint at being remnants of older, deeper damage.

So to your next point: Is there a relatively straightforward method for determining SG that could be practical (and accurate) for a home- or self-test? I've never attempted it, but think I understand the principle and would be willing to give it a go... with a little guidance &/or encouragement.
btw/ Fluorescence under a SW handheld (UVP Mini UVG-4 254nm) is virtually identical to Antique Baccarat on average, and if anything a bit Less Blue / leaning slightly toward Green, as do three other likely Richardsons pieces I have, and just compared against. (Always makes my eyes hurt no matter how I try to limit my exposure, so the observations are brief.) Hope that's helpful.

Once again, thanks, and no doubt, I'm here to learn!
Bruce / h-g

[tropdevin]

Hi Bruce

You can measure the SG at home without too much difficulty.  What you need to be able to do is measure the weight of the paperweight in air and also when submerged in water (which provides a means of calculating the volume).

The difficulty is constructing a way of doing this that allows you to keep the measuring process and set-up identical when you make the two measurements.  I do it by suspending the paperweight on the end of a hinged arm which rests on a knife edge on a set of electronic kitchen scales.  This allows me to measure the weight in air, then to surround the paperweight with a jug of water, brought up from below, and to get a measurement of the weight in water without having moved any of the measuring equipment. See images below.

These are not 'real' measurements of the actual weights, because the hinged arm magnifies the figure, but that does not matter provided the set-up is identical for the two reading.  If the weight measured in air is Wa, and the weight measured in water Ww, then the Specific Gravity (SG) is calculated as:

SG =  Wa / Wa - Ww

Those who recall their basic physics will see that it does not matter what 'units' you make your measurements in, as long as they are the same for both readings, as the 'units' cancel out.  There is a minor issue about temperature, as glass and water have different co-efficients of expansion, but if both the paperweight and water are at room temperature you will get a fairly accurate result.  You can check the repeatability of your system very easily - if everything is stable, then you ought to be able to get it consistent to 1 part in 250.

Regarding fluorescence, I think it is quite good at telling you if glass has lead in - when you get the blue you have observed - but I think there needs to be a proper objective and rigorous study with professional spectrometry equipment before I will be convinced it can tell you much more. It is very subjective if you just shine a UV lamp on it and report what colour you think you see: we are different people, with different eyes...and we know that eyes vary - eg colour blindness.

Alan

[tropdevin]

Hi Bruce

I forgot - here is an image of a Richardson weight I used to own, using a similar blue colour to yours.

The SG of this is 3.13, well within the Richardson range of 3.10 to 3.17.  The 20 Bacchus I have measurements for range in SG from 2.96 to 3.10.  If you measure a weight at 3.10, then it could be either of those - and also Arculus ( 3.08 to 3.12), and (of course) yet another, unknown factory!

Alan

[hunter-g]

Hi, Alan,
In that I don't have a balance-beam scale, I went about it in a slightly different way, but am hoping that it was valid: I determined the volume of the PWT by displacement (All @68 degrees F / 20C) and then went to three different places locally to have it weighed and taking the average, then divided the volume into the weight. The result: 2.9496. (!) Yikes (!) I figure my accuracy was within a half of a percent on the volume at worst - and if anything I would say I erred on the long side in my measurement. If I reduce / correct the volume by 1/2% I come up with 2.9545, so either way, it would seem I'm right at the far low end of the range, which I would guess is more telling than if it were at the higher end? As long as my method was valid, I'm encouraged by the numbers to say the least... 

As to fluorescence, I know it's very subjective (though I do have a very keen eye for color), but thought anything that might be useful as an observation is data nonetheless, even if it's not entirely possible to quantify it.

One other thing regarding the canework, and in particular the outer row and to a lesser degree the inner one too, have almost transparent white ruffles. They are so delicate you can see through them, and that is one quality I only recall seeing in Bacchus (and Gillinder) weights to the best of my knowledge. Not to be contrarian, but I am again encouraged by this detail as potentially significant.

Needless to say, my optimism rarely goes unpunished, so I remain cautious (knowing that as a pessimist, I'd welcome a pleasant surprise over constant disappointment any day!)

And today was a fun one, I can assure you, no matter where it all ends up! Thanks for the refresher on the technical approach - it has been a while since I've applied anything from my school days with any discipline - and was a nice boost to confidence as I doublechecked my work. Yes, it looks good to me... So....?

[tropdevin]

***

Hi Bruce

I tried the water displacement method for volume, and in the end could not get accurate enough results - but maybe that was my method that was at fault.

Anyway, I have posted below images of four classic Bacchus weights. What I feel is that neither your weight nor my weight have much in common with the style of the canes in these - and  the near transparent white ruffles appear in quite a lot of Old English weights, if you search around, so I don't think they are definitive.  The canes in your weight have more in common with Richardson - but none of this is conclusive evidence that your weight (or mine) is not Bacchus - and I would love several of my 'uncertain' Old English weights to be Bacchus.  However, in my heart, I do not think they are!

It is this sort of uncertainty that makes OE weights fascinating for me.

Alan