Topic: High dome P/W ?

[malcmat]

Hi, could anyone I/D this high dome P/W please. It weighs a substantial 1.235kgs , 9.3cm dia and 7 cm tall. 5 circles of canes. It has a snapped off rough pontil mark on a concave fire polished base.
Many thanks
Malc

[Greg.]

Not really my area, however, taking a guess I would say possibly Old English and perhaps Richardson.

[chopin-liszt]

 

Is it the angle of the photograph or the optical effects of the dome that make the canes look all out of shape at the edges on the second pic.?

If it it is the dome - could it have been ground down from something even bigger?

I find it odd to think that a good quality weight (such as Richarson) would put on a dome that did not enhance the canes nicely.

[malcmat]

Hi Sue, it is a optical illusion as the canes from the outside edges are all even and spaced together as they should be. I don't think it has been ground as it still retains all the knocks and scrapes/ scratches it has gathered over its life.
The only observation I have just noticed is that the blue / white base canes are laying approx. a few degrees from horizontal as per 3rd image.

[Roger H]

Yes I would go for Richardsons also as the canes are very well made compared to many old english. But there is a collector of old english and he will know.
     Regards Roger

[tropdevin]

***

Hi (says the collector of Old English paperweights)....

It looks very much like a Richardson piece to me as well - the white cruciform canes are typical of their paperweights , as is the well structured design. The shape is consistent  too.

Alan

[malcmat]

Hi Alan, I wanted to ask you approximately what age could it be and would it be worth it to have it re polished or would that destroy its credibility for want of a better word.
Also many thanks to everyone for their input
Malc

[tropdevin]

***

Hi Malc.  I believe that this style dates to the early 1900s (and possibly late 1800s, but there is no hard evidence for this earlier date). If the surface damage spoils its visual appeal, then personally, I would have it polished.

I know that there are purists who dislike that approach, but given that the shapes and sizes (and quality) of the pieces varied so much as they came out of the factory, I don't understand why it matters.  Old paintings get restored by removal of discoloured varnish, and repair of damaged areas - I don't see any real distinction between that and restoring a paperweight by polishing off scratches.  I do feel though that some of the bizarre shapes you see where pieces are heavily facetted to remove bruising are a mistake.  There is a smashed Richardson bottle coming up at auction later this week, in the guise of a flat top paperweight with a square foot! But someone may buy it....

Alan

Alan

[chopin-liszt]

You say the canes are fine - I did think that was probably the case 

- what I don't understand is the use of a shape of a dome which distorts them.

(pwt ignoramus here - I thought that the whole point of the dome was to creat optical effects which enhance the decoration, not simply "be over it". I'm just curious.)

[tropdevin]

***

Hi Sue

I think it took a few years for people to realise the optical benefits of the clear glass dome (and the constraints and potential problems): Bigaglia seemed to have missed the idea, and the very early Baccarat have canes set near the top of the dome.  I do not understand why Richardson and others sometimes put quite so much glass over the canes, although it is possible that one like this was given enough clear glass to make a bottle, but ended up as a paperweight for some reason we do not know.

Alan