Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Resolved Paperweight Queries => Topic started by: Max on March 11, 2005, 10:01:48 AM
-
Here's my pink paperweight. I know it's nothing fantastic, but can anyone give me a little more info? I must be honest and say I'll be selling it on ebay soon, as it's not really my cup of tea! I don't know where to start with describing it though!
Thank you. :D
http://tinypic.com/22zsew
http://tinypic.com/22zsih
-
I think Perthshire, as I said last night :wink:
No doubt Kevin will put me right though. I think there's something about the rows of canes - the pattern can be one, one, two, two, like yours or one, two, two like mine and I'm not sure of the significance with regard to ID, dating, etc.
I still think a good description of the colour is 'surgical appliance pink' :lol: :lol: :lol:
Leni xx
-
Yes....Perthshire or Deacon 80/90's era....too crisp for the Ysart family...
.. Hopefully very shortly someone will supply you wiyh the PP number
Regards
Gareth
-
I think there's something about the rows of canes - the pattern can be one, one, two, two, like yours or one, two, two like mine
Is the way the canes are distributed a means of identification then? Do different companies stick to certain ratios?
<scratches her chin with interest>
(Surgical appliance pink...ROFL!)
xx
-
yep leni 1 1 2 2 and i think pp5 or pp6 kev will know for sure
-
The logic both with Strathearn and PP confounds me, here are two examples from 1988 and 1995 of Perthshire PP5
(http://www.ysartglass.com/forum/PP005_88.jpg)(http://www.ysartglass.com/forum/PP005_95.jpg)
-
Hi folks,
> ... kev will know for sure
Really? I wouldn't go as far as that. :!:
But I will try to answer all the points raised with a bit of analysis:
Yes, the clear, crisp setting of the weight marks it as likely Perthshire Paperweights rather than Vasart or Strathearn - but there are some very nice Vasart and Strathearns of a similar pattern that hold their own in the quality stakes.
Yes, the way canes are distributed makes a difference, but not such that we can definitely rule out one or other makers. And within maker, it's quite confusing too!
Anyway, the thing I note first is the crispness and "cogginess" of all of the canes. When I see this, I start looking in the books for Perthshire Paperweights to see if there is a matching pattern, and yes there is. It could be one of: PP1, PP2, PP5 or PP6 (and in each of those there are variations in the patterning).
The fact that there is no central "P" cane (according to my eyes) helps to sort this out, as does the base finish, which is often an important factor in paperweight id. Another factor we need to know is the size (diameter).
There are two PP6 patterns and one is the same as PP1. But PP6 was made from 1972 and had a central "p" cane as well as a hollow ground base. No "p" and a fire polished base says it's not PP6.
PP5 is confusing because there were various designs within that designation. As with PP6 one pattern is similar to PP1 but as with PP6, the base finish counts this one out.
What about PP2 or PP1? The basic difference between these is the size. PP1 is "large" (3 inch) and PP2 is "medium" (2 1/2 inch). For both of these designs, before 1978 there was no "p" cane and the base was fire polished. If it was from 1978 or later it would have the "p" cane and hollow ground base. From 1982 there was a visually different pattern for PP1 and the one we are considering is not one of those.
So, if its 3 inch it's a PP1 made from 1969 to 1977. If it's 2 1/2 inch, it's PP2 also from 1969 to 1977. These were regular production weights rather than limited or annual edition pieces.
I did not focus on the number of twist canes as this is one of the confusing points. It seems that most of the PP1 / PP2 patterns before 1982 had either 13 or 14 twists canes forming the spokes. But weights with greater or fewer numbers of spokes also exist. Max's weight has 12 spokes and I have one with 15. I will also say that my weight is 2 7/8 inch diameter, so it's probably a case of nearest size when considering "medium" or "large".
I hope I've got that right ... there's nothing easy in this game. :)
-
Snap :lol:
-
Thansk for all that info Kev! :D
I'm really pleased I got Pershire right, anyway :lol:
My 'early Pershire' weight (at least that's what I was told) is very like Max's but in greeny colours (not 'that' pink!) It's 2 & a half inches, has a fire polished base, no P cane, 1,2,2, pattern and eleven 'spokes'! Which type does that make mine?
What would we do without Kev's brain to pick? :roll:
Leni
-
Dear KevH
I read your posting with the air of a child seeing algebra for the first time. My synapses are still jangling! :shock:
I'll simply have to get a couple of books, and try and sort this out. I have no idea what PP1, PP2 or any of those other PP numbers mean. All I can firmly say is that this paperweight is 2.78" diameter, so I'm not quite sure where that leaves me!
Thank you for your posting, I can see you went to a great deal of trouble for me, unfortunately I simply don't have the paperweight wherewithal to understand it very well! .....but I will one day. x
-
Max ...
I know how you feel :)
In simple terms, for the purpose of an eBay sale, I suggest a description along the lines of, "Perthshire Paperweights, design number PP1, unsigned, pre-1978."
The "PP" numbers are just design numbers for the various patterns.
-----------------------
Kev's rationale for wordiness:
The recent increased interest in paperweights within the Board has begun to show that attributions can be just as tricky (UK meaning, as opposed to possible US variation) as with much of the other Art Glass.
Therefore, one of my "reasons" for all the analytical stuff is to put folk on warning that when it comes to paperweight identification, many items really do need careful consideration to justify an attribution. I also like the sound of my own typing - so lots of words makes me feel good. :D
Seriously though, I could have just said, "Sorry, Ray's wrong with PP5 or PP6, it's a PP1 design." But without the evidence, somebody else could then have said, "But I have a PP1 design weight and it's different". Frank's example photos of two completely different PP5 designs shows how confusing it can be.
-----------------------
Leni ...
Your weight that is "very like Max's" could well be a Perthshire Paperweights PP2 design, pre-1978. But without seeing a pic, to check the canes, can we really rule out Strathearn or Vasart? Dunno.
-
Max ...
I
The "PP" numbers are just design numbers for the various patterns.
.
Hi Kev
Would it be too obvious or perhaps naive on my part to suggest that PP
refers to Perthshire Paperweight.....or am I restating an earlier suggestion that was proven incorrect.?
Regards
Gareth
Morgan48
-
Max ...
I
The "PP" numbers are just design numbers for the various patterns.
.
Hi Kev
Would it be too obvious or perhaps naive on my part to suggest that PP
refers to Perthshire Paperweight.....or am I restating an earlier suggestion that was proven incorrect.?
Stunning question....next stop Specsavers I think..!!....what a numbnuts I am
Regards
Gareth
Morgan48
-
Stunning question....next stop Specsavers I think..!!....what a numbnuts I am - Gareth
Don't be silly you little sweetie! I thought PP stood for Perthshire Paperweight too. Anyway, if I think I've dropped a clanger, I try and edit my posting quickly and hope no-one's read it before I could change it. :P :lol:
KevH...Thanks so much for your idea for a description for my auction, I really appreciate it. Thanks also to your thoughtful explanation, I can understand where you're coming from on your previous posting too.
Wow. Isn't this board great? The only problem is, I think I'm getting RSI in my right hand from clicking with my mouse here so much... :lol:
-
Stunning question....next stop Specsavers I think..!!....what a numbnuts I am - Gareth
Don't be silly you little sweetie! I thought PP stood for Perthshire Paperweight too. Anyway, if I think I've dropped a clanger, I try and edit my posting quickly and hope no-one's read it before I could change it. :P :lol:
Thank you Max....I really was embarrassed at that.....and it was only the previous posting.....a good lesson that I really must log in and then at least I could have edited it out and gone phew....as a guest I was stuck with it....blush!! , head for the corner and pray no one read it.
Regards and thanks
Gareth
Morgan48
-
head for the corner and pray no one read it.
I did :twisted:
PP stands for Pink Paperweights or Postman Pat, or is it Perspiring People.
:wink:
-
head for the corner and pray no one read it.
I did :twisted:
PP stands for Pink Paperweights or Postman Pat, or is it Perspiring People.
:wink:
Or in my case a Plateasmic Pillock more than likely.
Gareth
-
Ah, but ... strictly speaking ... I suppose we ought always to define what we mean when we quote the initials PP in connection with weights ... because there was more than one "maker" with those initials - but it was not (usually) Perthshire Paperweights that used them :!:
Phoenix Paperweights (which only existed for a short time, working out of Willie Manson's studio, after the closure of Perthshire Paperweights) used a PP cane. Fortunately we can tell the difference because at Perthshire Paperweights, on the few occasions that PP was used it was always (I believe) in conjuction with a date in a combined cane, whereas for Phoenix Paperweights it was just the PP letters.
So asking what PP stands for is actually a good question. The truth can sometimes seem as elusive as that wonderful creature, the Pink Panther.
-
I think there is one aspec of paperweight identification not covered... individual cane recognition.
As far as I know, all paperweight makers make their own canes - probably at company level rather than individual.
This means that you can match weights by comparing canes to known examples.
Of course like the whole field of glass ID it has limitations. An example using Monart:
Some of the earliest Monart glass was decorated with millefiori or twist canes and also ink/scent bottles sometimes had stoppers with millefiori (see Monart catalogues - Millefiori canes page.
Here we have a unique resource that indicates these canes were ONLY used by the Ysart family. This can be a great resource for identifying Monart paperweights. However, canes were made in very long pieces and subsequently cut up many would last for a LONG time. So you could find 'Monart' canes in Vasart and Paul Ysart paperweights. Some of these canes from as early as the 1920's could in theory also be found in Strathearn, Perthshire Paperweights, Fake PY and fake J weights as well as those of independant paperweight makers who had access to the canes.
A CPC member told me that on one visit to PP, Stuart Drysdale had shown her 3 boxes full of Vasart canes.
So you can see the potentials for error in just using cane ID. But when you are able to match multiple canes you are more likely to find a good attribution. But other aspects must also be consistent.
-
However, canes were made in very long pieces and subsequently cut up many would last for a LONG time. So you could find 'Monart' canes in Vasart and Paul Ysart paperweights.
How interesting! Thanks Frank.
The more I hear, the more I'm beginning to think that paperweights are perhaps the most confusing and difficult glass subject. Would anyone say that's true, or is it just me, looking from the outside?
-
I would think that for a paperweight collector the opposite is true of glassware. Paperweight collectors are relatively spoilt :twisted: by having so few producers and so much documented. Although there is plenty still to be documented. Much production of the last thirty or so years is sadly undocumented.
One of the main benefits of collecting weights is that you do not need quite so much space and can get a hundred weights into the sapce that a dozen or so pieces of glass would need, they are also a bit more transportable.
-
The following comments are given for the sake of pedanticism.
Frank's general point about early Ysart (pre-war Monart) canes possibly making it all the way to Strathearn and other places is correct. But certain points, when taken out context, or when individually quoted - as in Max's well stated response - are not strictly true.
For example:
As far as I know, all paperweight makers make their own canes - probably at company level rather than individual.
This means that you can match weights by comparing canes to known examples.
Perhaps true for many studio / individual artists. But not true for several makers.
My understanding is that Caithness Glass made the canes - as well as the weights - for Edinburgh Crystal millefiori items. Many of the canes seen in Edinburgh Crystal weights are also found in Caithness Glass items - and many of those canes are very much like ones seen in John Deacons' items with the StK signature cane, and perhaps others.
Also, Murano canes have been used by many non-Murano paperweight makers including some Americans.
Then there's the modern Chinese weights that have canes so similar to some Murano ones that it really is difficult to know where some items were made.
Also:
Some of the earliest Monart glass was decorated with millefiori or twist canes ... ... Here we have a unique resource that indicates these canes were ONLY used by the Ysart family.
I think I know what you are getting at Frank, but to say those canes were used ONLY by the Ysarts is not true (as you rightly state later in your comments).
Then one of my "favourites":
... So you could find 'Monart' canes in Vasart and Paul Ysart paperweights. ...
Well, yes, but the generalised use of "Monart" is something I have always had difficulty with. Had the statement been "... could find pre-war Monart canes in Vasart and PY weights ...", then I would agree. But other than "personal" items, surely all of Paul's post-war-pre-Caithness weights were Monart. Canes pulled by Paul in those years are not - to the best of my knowledge - found in any other makers' pieces.
I hope to generate more on all this "tedius detail" :) at the Perth event.
------------------
As for paperweight collectors being "relatively spoit ..." - yeah, maybe that's right. But as we have already seen, unless somebody has access to the relevant books, it is all too easy get tied up in knots over a supposedly simple id of a Perthshire Paperweights regular production weight. :!:
One thing that is certainly true for me is that my paperweights are easier to display than my general glass. The weights even form alleys across my floor space ... all very decorative and adjustable :D