Topic: Mystery ID - Magnum Harlequin

[SophieB]

Hi Erhard,
Hi Kevin,

Sorry for the long silence and many thanks to you both for all your research (and Erhard for the pictures)... I am always amazed how much expertise there is on this board.

I must admitted that I have read your posts many times just now and I am increasingly confused  . I had come to think that this large double Harlequin (or layered weight as per Colin Mahoney) was likely made at Caithness by Paul Ysart. And now, I am less sure...

I would tend to agree regarding ruling out Strathearn. However, I own an unusual double harlequin (I suspect a trial weight or frigger) with a Strathearn label that has made me think that there is an outside chance that our mystery magnum could be Strathearn (a very outside change...). I have posted pictures below for your opinion. What do you think?

Also I have asked the owner of the weight whether we could have a close-up of the cane details, the base of the weight and a side view with the bubble tunnels. I will post when I get them.

Many thanks again for all your help.

SophieB
 



 

[w8happiness]

Hi Sophie,

thank you so much for your kind comments, and I really envy you for this stunning Strathearn "double harlequin"- as I never saw one in the list
of Strathearns by Richard More, my thought is too it must be a frigger or one off...

Strathearn's use of aventurine is rather infrequent, at least as "spoke core" it can be found sometimes- chunks of aventurine as visible
in the mystery weight I did never see in Strathearns...

The other confusion I cannot solve, is in the 6+1 bubble but one layer weight I showed under "Addendum"- but maybe it's diameter (almost magnum) is the reason for the 6+1 bubbles. With a second layer, it surely could have been granted with 4+1 bubbles.
Nevertheless I think the Addendum weight is very likely from the same source as the mystery... 

Looking forward to detail pictures, best wishes Erhard


 

[SophieB]

Erhard - I agree that the addendum weight looks very similar to our mystery weight. I'll post the images as soon as I get them: these may help us make a more definite ID.

Regarding the Strathearn double Harlequin - I got it from my local junk shop !!

SophieB

[SophieB]

Hi all,

Here are more pictures of the weight and its decoration.

I hope this will be helpful.

Sophie

[w8happiness]

Hi Sophie,

thank you so much for detail pics.

The shape, the 4+1 bubbles and the used fillings are consistent with Paul Ysart's Caithness time&style and material, but- confusion does not get better:

there seems to be a throughout fill of translucent blue layer in the whole area above the bottom, and this is absolutely
unusual - not seen so far in Paul's harlequins;
this type of filling is common and usual in the later (mostly CG or PH signed or unsigned, and acid bottom etching CAITHNESS HARLEQUIN in variations )
harlequins at Caithness, ca. 1974 and later, after Paul had left! Maybe it is an early frigger of Caithness, using up remaining PY colour & cane material?
 

best wishes, Erhard   

[Derek]

Hi Erhard, Sophie and KevH

I have checked on the double Harlequins with Dave Moir who was with Strathearn from day 1 until the brand disappeared in 1980.

Dave said that the double harlequins were definitely NOT production items but they were made as lunchtime friggers and  so should
NOT have a Strathearn label.

Best regards

Derek 

[SophieB]

Hi all,

Derek - Many thanks for the info from Dave Moir. I agree my Strathearn Harlequin was not a production weight but rather a frigger or trial piece (I got it from a junk shop in Glasgow that has a steady supply of cheaper Scottish weights - some unusual). However, what you say about the label is interesting (i.e. that there should not be one). Mine was certainly labeled from the start and Richard More states on his website that he has picked up non-production weights (that he calls experimental) with a Strathearn label or even with the impressed leaping salmon mark... It may be that some of these trial weights were sold to customers (it would explain the presence of labels or impressed marks).

Erhard - Many thanks for your thoughts and yes, I agree. The blue fill of translucent glass in the base puts doubt in my mind as to the weight being by Paul Ysart. I certainly have never seen a PY Harlequin with this feature before. I wonder what Kevin thinks about this though.

Sophie

[Derek]

Hi Sophie

The point Dave Moir was making was that the labels were intended for items made in the company time. These items were production items and also trials (or experimental weights as Richard More calls them). Production items and trials became part of the Company output and were labelled as such. The trials were generally sold in the shop.

Friggers were made in the glassmakers own time - during the lunch break or after hours. These weights became the property of the glassmaker - Strathearn were happy for this to happen as it increased the knowledge and skills of the glassmaker resulting in higher productivity on production items.

The Glassmakers had access to the labels and although they were not supposed to, as the paperweight  was not make in Company time, sometimes put a label on their frigger as it would make it more saleable!

Best regards

Derek

[SophieB]

Hi Derek,

Well I am pleased that glassmaker put a label on his lovely harlequin; without it, I may never have been able to ID it!!


Sophie

[KevinH]

In Reply 16, Sophie said: .

.. The blue fill of translucent glass in the base puts doubt in my mind as to the weight being by Paul Ysart. I certainly have never seen a PY Harlequin with this feature before. I wonder what Kevin thinks about this though.

Kevin says: Ooer, I am still confused about this whole matter.

I have litlle experience of PY / Caithness / Strathearn varieties of these "harlequin"-type weights. I have not seen enough of them to draw any conclusion by colours of ground or even types of cane and bits and blobs.

I wish there was an easy way to get a look at loads of examples of all catergories under both Longwave and Shortwave UV light.