Aha! That Bonhams weight is one that I have seen before but forgotten about. I like yours more though.
The question of design / pattern of PY weights and their first production is an interesting one, and the two experiences below (with lots of words filling some "Virus Avoidance Time") might be usueful to bear in mind.
It was thought by "everybody" that a latticnio / lace ground in PY weights was a feature started at the Harland works. And I accepted that, too. But then I checked the uv result for an unsigned patterned millefiori design - marketed as "Mili Fiori" in the Harland leaflets and shown as
ref PY3007 in the YsartGlass web pages. The uv result was BLUE under shortwave = Caithness period! I still have the weight. I then changed my mind about strict divisions of pattern across the three main PY periods! (Or do I have the one and only "trial weight" for a pattern that was made just before PY's move to the Harland works?)
As for the stave basket design, like other folk, I also thought they started in the Caithness years. And then I picked one up (it has a left-facing 2D fish) which had a Monart label on the base and which also showed signs of a small, projecting round pontil scar beneath the label. That type of pontil scar is well known for 1950s / early 1960s Monart years.
However, the dome of what I call "a basket of fish weight" showed a distinct yellow cast in daylight which seemed different from the yellowed look of some Monart weights. Eventually I matched the yellow cast of the "basket weight" to other items clearly from the Harland years - and the UV results also confirmed this. So my thoughts of a pre-Caithness "basket weight" were put to one side in favour of a Caithness period item with a falsly applied Monart label.

However the two experiences made me choose to keep an open mind about some of the accepted datings. And let's not forget the recent research that has proven the innacuracy of the long-standing "1963" as Paul Ysart's start date at Caithness Glass.