Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Resolved Paperweight Queries => Topic started by: David E on January 13, 2008, 03:51:43 PM
-
Anyone recognise this "CIIG" sandblasted signature on this weight? Ground and polished base and a simple design: four bubbles forming a spray, purple core.
The CIIG logo is my interpretation - it might be upside down!
-
Caithness second, David.
-
Thanks Frank - they made sure there was no mistaking the seconds! ;D
-
I found this interesting on the Caithness site (http://www.caithnessglass.co.uk/about/faqs/)
As part of the production process some unlimited edition paperweights do not meet the strict quality levels required of a first quality Caithness Glass paperweight and these items are classed as second quality and sold through our Visitor Centre and factory outlets. These paperweights can be easily identified as second quality as they carry no markings on the base. In previous years we have also used the markings CIIG on the base to denote a second quality paperweight.
so some of the unmarked pieces we see, may well also be second quality Caithness...
-
... or reading it anotehr way: only those with markings, but not CIIG, are first class.
Also, if you look at the marking on this paperweight, it would appear they had the mask the wrong way round (G upside down). Does this make it a 2nd class reject, or something? ;D
-
David, if you were able to look down and see the mark from the top it'd be the right way round, wouldn't it? ;D
-
Nope, not with the purple ground in the way! :)
-
Maybe it's a second, second with the CIIG going the wrong way? ;D
-
Nah, that should read CIIIG! ;D
-
David - with your upside-down CIIG mark, the weight must therefore be worth much more as it will be more "unique" than other examples.
I think the statement by Caithness Glass about the marking, or not, of "seconds" is perhaps a bit of a generalisation and can be misleading to many people. It may be true that, from some undefined date, only unlimited weights not of good enough quality have not been marked on the base. But does that imply that rfom that same date, limited weights that were not up to scratch have always been destroyed? And anyway, I two examples of the same design weight ("Latticino", 1976), one of which has a CG cane in the base as the form of signing but the other does not, and yet the latter is not marked CIIG as a second! If I were new to collecting weights and was not aware of the particular design and when it was produced, I could assume that my weight-without-a-CG-cane must therefore be a fairly modern second item!
-
Thanks Kev, so it's now "rare and unique" when listed on eBay <tongue firmly in cheek> ;)
That's interesting though - are there anymore CIIG weights to compare the sigs? I was only assuming they got the template inverted.
Anne could be right about it intended to be visible from the top, but this would totally spoil the weight's effect, if no ground was used, IMHO.
-
I agree with your initial thoughts, David. For that weight, the stencil was upside down (and there could well be others with the same "feature", but there are lots (many thousands, probably) with the regular CIIG. There are also differing forms of the CIIG letters over the years - such as with a space after the "C" and before the "G" and with the "II" being slightly smaller than the "C" and "G". Occasionaly, the CIIG is applied as script rather than stencilled.
Even if a weight had a clear base, it would not be normal to apply a an inscription of any form such that it should be read through the weight.
-
Hi all
Just to make this subject even more incomprehensible - at one stage Caithness
used an "S" etched on the bases to indicate a second and I also believe that another
method was to etch the base so that it had a frosted appearance but NO markings.
Best regards
Derek
-
They would not need to etch the base, just miss the polishing stage after grinding.
-
The design is Moonflower by Colin Terris by the way :)
-
Many thanks Stellar!
-
Stencils like this are made from fairly heavy duty rubber* which are mounted in a special sandblasting cabinet designed for the purpose. Basically the piece is placed over the stencil and a foot pedal operates a blast of abrasive (aluminium oxide usually) that creates the logo. It looks as if the stencil arrived and someone put it in the wrong way round, which would be very easy to do with such a symmetrical logo. I wonder how many they blasted before it was noticed?! ;D
*They are designed to be used for thousands of pieces.
-
Here is another 'second' showing a yellow flower surrounded by controlled bubbles. The difference here is that the sandblasted mark is the correct way around.
Also has sandblasted stylised leaves around the base.
But can anyone tell me the pattern, please?
-
Hi David, it's Flower in The Rain by Jack Allan (early 70's). Caithness did a later version which they called Petals.
-
By the way, the leaves around the base isn't a standard feature of either weight, I suspect there was a bit of damage so it was decorated to hide it :)
-
Thanks Karen, that was remarkably quick! :D
I did wonder about the leaves...
-
Hi David and Karen
Maybe Davids design is the standard design for seconds! as here is a picture of of my "Flower in the Rain"
I find it hard to believe that Caithness would go to the trouble of sandblasting a complete frieze around the base of a second - Interesting that the leaves of the frieze on my weight appear in an identical position to Davids.
Flower in the rain was issued in three styles - original by Jack Allen in 1974 - Colin Terris revised the design slightly and reissued it in 1994 and a third variation again designed by Colin was commissioned by the Royal Mint in 2001. The same design but with a white base was issued in 1983 and called "Flower in the Snow". Caithness used this upright flower idea many times making the odd change here and there such as an extra row of petals - Fantasia and the various Floral Fountains are examples.
Best regards
Derek
-
Thanks for the update Derek.
Interesting - so does anyone know when the CIIG signature was used? This might then date these and whether it is a later one by Terris, or not.
-
To add my own little bit of info on the caithness "seconds" matter...........I live in Glasgow and fairly often visit Oban on my motobike. Oban has a nice visitor centre at the Train Station/Ferry Port where Caithness used to have an outlet shop. I would often pick up a couple of bits of glass when I was up there and on a couple of occasions got chatting to employees. Once I was lucky enough to catch a lampwork display and got chatting to the man doing this afterwards. (Please don't ask for a name as this is lost in the mists of time as it was about 15 years ago). I distinctly do remember being told that there was, nine times out of ten, no difference between the so called seconds that were being sold at roughly 50% off on the unlimited weights. If weights were badly enough misshaped or malformed then they were destroyed.
Make of that what you will be if you check many caithness marked "CIIG" weights it's nigh on impossible to tell why they would have been declared a second.
Slainte.
-
Thanks, most interesting. If so, then it would have been a marketing ploy to encourage people to buy 'slightly inferior' products.
However, the Moonflower 'weight does have a bubble included that could be construed as a second. The 'Flower in The Rain' 'weight does look fine to me, apart from those sand-blasted leaves, which are not quite even.
-
As I've said in a recent post on the Glass board, sometimes it seems as if the only thing that makes a piece of glass a 'second' is that it just didn't turn out exactly how the maker intended! So I guess if a weight wasn't near enough to the original it would be rejected as a 'second', even though it would look just fine to anyone else!
Of course, bubbles, pieces of 'frit', distortions in the dome, slipped canes or lampwork are all obvious faults. The ones where you can't see any reason for a piece to be rejected, I would guess are the ones that just don't come near enough to the original design!
-
The other possibility with the frieze of leaves is that they were added by a restorer to disguise small chips around the base?
-
It may be useful to compare David's example with my identical one that was not regarded as a second:
Profile view (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-9145) - this shows that the bubbles fill the entire dome even from this view. David's example does not do this, unless it's just the way the photo was taken.
Oblique Base (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-9144) view - David's seems to show a distinct ring where the colour of the ground is seen and this could suggest there was not much clear between the colour and the base, which in turn meant that polishing removed the normal effect of the colour being evenly spread in that view [long-wnded explanation but I think it describes what I mean]
Straight-Down Top (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-9143) view - David's appears to have one petal that is markedly smaller than the others.
I suspect that any of the points I have given could have been reason to mark David's weight as a second.
And Leni has already made the important point I would also have added.
-
Really needs input from someone from Caithness, or should one say formerly with ::)
I would expect a designer to determine if a weight was a 'first' of their design or a second, this could easily be almost unnoticeable for many people but glaring to the designer.
-
It may be useful to compare David's example with my identical one that was not regarded as a second:
Having seen a 'good' one, I can now appreciate the differences. The base is also not completely polished so leaves a very faint 'herringbone' effect. There is a bevel on the base rim, but that also looks present on yours, Kev.
-
Hi all
As Frank says the only real way forward on this is to get the facts from a former employee of Caithness - David/KevH - I have looked at my "second" weight and note that one yellow petal is distinctly longer than the others and the end of one leaf is slightly ragged.
I suspect that Caithness adopt various tolerances to faults from no faults on very low edition sized limited edition weights through to a very lax standard on unlimited edition weights. It would be interesting to hear whether - as Leni says - they treated pieces of 'frit', distortions in the dome, slipped canes or lampwork any differently to poor design interpretation.
Lynn - The frieze on my weight in 1/2" up from the rim and from the photo of Davids weight I suspect his is the same - so the frieze cannot be to hide chips on the rim and the only other place you are likely to get damage is on the waist of the weight if two weights touch together and the waist is a good 1" above the top of the frieze.
My own theory is that Caithness produced some of the these weights with the frieze when they were developing the design. Everything is down to cost in a factory operation like Caithness and when the totted up the total time taken WITH the frieze included, the weight was just over the time limit to fall into the price band at which they were aiming to sell it. So something had to go - in this case the frieze. They then marked all the trial ones with the frieze as seconds as they were different to the production design and sold them off in the factory shop. I know this practice happens as I have the triple overlay "Midnight Orchids". My copy came from one of the design team staff and has an additional row of facetting which I suspect just pushed it over the £500 issue price - take of the row of facetting and you can price it as Caithness did at £495 - just below an important psychological barrier.
Best regards
Derek
-
I have a CIIG shamrock weight that has a couple very tiny bubbles on the colourground. Other than that it looks perfect. I think I got it for about £10. It was a good price to me!
-
As to design interpretation, as I have been processing their catalogues I come across different images of the same weight that would test an observer to match them for design. You will find this extra shots included sometimes in the extra pics.