Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Topic started by: ckscot on July 23, 2010, 10:17:31 PM
-
You'll gather I have no idea quite what to call this, as I've never seen one quite like it before, but I'm sure someone on the board has. It looks like a paperweight but it's about 6" tall (15 cm) and according to my bathroom scales it weight around 3 kg. I've also just noticed for the first time that it has a number - C5844a. From the state of the green beize on the base it has a bit of age. Can anyone point me in the direction of a maker, country, age etc? Many thanks, Iain
PS. If a moderator thinks this should be in the Paperweights section maybe that kind person could move it for me? Thanks.
-
Very pretty - that is quite the size 6" tall......any bigger, it would have been a bowling ball.
Very nice, I am sure someone with much more knowledge than me will be able to help ;)
-
hi, as you are right up there in scotland and the marks start with a c, maybe this is Caithness but never seen a weight this big,
-
Gorgeous...it probably is an oversized paperweight. Years back I saw 3 huge ones in an antique shop. Probably about the same height if not larger than this one. Can't help you with maker though as my knowledge of paperweights only goes as far as noticing chinese ones :usd:
-
These are just guesses from this link: Sort a similar a bit (but just ignore them as they are guesses.. :huh:)
http://www.rafa.com/graphics/zl640barker.jpg
http://www.rafa.com/graphics/zl553nourot-cmb.jpg
http://www.rafa.com/paperweight.htm
Or these Caithness ??:
?? Click here (http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.antiquesavenue.co.uk/ekmps/shops/antiquesavenue/images/caithness-glass-paperweight-pretty-bubble-swirl-852-p.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.priceninja.com/decorative-arts-1208-c.asp&h=651&w=652&sz=82&tbnid=EIaVkZEXBlUTVM:&tbnh=138&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3D6%2Binch%2Bglass%2Bpaperweight&hl=en&usg=__kPIvReCPD0uIcZvjRzNCPLpyKB0=&sa=X&ei=SSlKTISKEIKhnQfur5DjDQ&ved=0CC0Q9QEwAQ)
Talks about a 7 pound PW here: Click Here (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2ag525V9bW8J:www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/an-interview-with-strathearn-art-glass-paperweight-collector-richard-more/+glass+paperweight+weighs+12+pounds&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca) ??
-
Thanks to everyone for your input. Although I see lots of Caithness glass around here it somehow didn't cross my mind that this might be from there, so I'll do more ferretting around their output, particularly to see if their numbering system matches this bowling ball. The reference to a 7 pound Strathearn paperweight is interesting, so I'll follow that up too. I'll probably take it to the Antiques Fair in Edinburgh in August and see if it catches anyone's eye.
-
I've no idea if Caithness made them this size - it would certainly be unusual, but it has a very, very, very Caithnessy look to it, and they do use a lot of neodynum glass.
Have you checked/trawled Frank's site?
-
I've started to trawl Frank's site, but there are almost 5000 images of Caithness paperweights alone, and a search of 'huge paperweight', or 'heavy paperweight' brings up lots of lovely but irrelevant images, so I'm struggling :huh:. I'll keep at it. I notice that there a forum on the site so I'll join up when I have a moment and ask on there too.
-
;D
Another reason for just avoiding pws as much as is humanly possible for a glassie! :ooh:
(although by definition I "collect" Caithness pws - I do, somehow, have more than 3 of them :pb: )
I'm honestly not sure about records for Caithness, I do visit the factory in Crieff fairly regularly and I'm afraid the staff know very little indeed about any of it. I don't suppose it's in the remit of a salesperson's work, but it's very frustrating. I bought a nice collection of cards showing photographs of various glassmakers at work, and they couldn't even tell me their names.....
However, the number on it should help. It being there means it's an official design and not a second, I think the number refers to the actual number of pw that was made in it's year?
and could it read C 58442? and are there initials after it? Might be an idea to clean the green stuff off it to get a better look.....
-
I'd definitely remove the green stuff, because it will likely have Caithness and the design under there as well.
-
Good thinking, :bat:
-
I've taken off the green stuff, but there's still some of the glue there - any ideas on how to remove that are most welcome, but so far, there's nothing to see :cry: and I have a feeling that there isn't going to be... :huh:
-
Make sure the pw is at room temperature, and have some water on a flattish saucer also at room temp, try soaking it.
If that softens the glue, but doesn't actually get it off, you can try, very gently, with a razor blade or scalpel - being careful to keep the blade almost flat against the surface of the glass.
Failing that, try some biological washing liquid in the water, soak, repeat the blade technique.
If all water-based methods fail, you can start on things like nail-polish remover.
Christine's right, though, it should have Caithness and the name of the design etched onto the base.
-
Hi Iain
Caithness did a series of around 16 double magnums between 1983 and 1999.
These were abstract and I believe they were around the size of your weight.
The also did triple magnums which weighed in at around 14lbs.
From the pictures on Scotlands glass web site, I think your weight is the double
magnum from 1989 called Double magnum Azure designed by Margot Thomson.
All the Caithness double magnums were unlimited editions.
However the code is confusing me as Caithness unlimited editions should start with U
and as it was released in 89 I would have expected the code to start U89. Wuff who
runs the paperweight side of the Scotland glass web site is a member of this board
and I am sure he will be along soon to clarify matters.
Best regards
Derek
-
"Unlimited edition" makes it sound like loads were produced, but annealling muckle great things is fraught with difficulties, and you don't see a lot of them around - were 100s or 1000s produced, do you know?
As far as I know, numbers on Caithness pws refer to the total produced in that year....
-
Hi all
Unlimited just means that there was no limit to the number produced and supply will be geared up to meet demand. If an unlimited weight was not selling there might be very few produced.
Caithness at their peak were producing in excess of 150,000 paperweights each year!
Wuff may have information on numbers produced but I think it unlikely.
The code number I think refers to the number of the DESIGN for a particular year rather than the actual number of weights.
Best regards
Derek
-
:thup:
Your first comment was as I suspected, thanks, and thanks also for clearing up the number business.
I'm a member of the SG forum, but get in a complete tangle trying to log in (mostly without any success, though thankfully, I managed to register for the conference before it all went awol for me again. I can't find my way around the site either.)
Recently at Crieff, (folk who know my opinions of pws had better sit down) I bought a completely fabulous weight, a "second" of a very limited edition (50, I think) series.
So ,while limited editions may be restricted to their limited number, there can be very similar bits which are also "out there"......... which is nice for folk like me who are only interested in displaying stuff and admiring it, rather than fretting about cataloguing and having the "right" things etched on them.
-
Having been mentioned by Derek, I can't stay aside - can I ? ::)
First I have to say that I don't know the weight - but it certainly has a "Caithness look" to it - and the size (6") would fit their double magnums.
Before I go on - a short detour to their numbering system, introduced in 1983 for unlimited weights: The leading letter indicates the year of manufacture with A = 1983, B = 1984, G = 1989 ...(a few letters not being used)... Z = 2002, A = 2003 again, ... This letter is followed by a number (up to 6 digits) - a running number for all (irrespective of design!) unlimited weights made this year - so your weight will most likely be marked "C58442" (not a).
Back to the series of double magnums (mentioned by Derek) - the "C" would indicate 1985 - which would be Double Magnum Emerald (http://www.scotlandsglass.co.uk/cms/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=4489&category_id=52&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=6) - which it clearly is not!
Double Magnum Azure (http://www.scotlandsglass.co.uk/cms/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=1272&category_id=56&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=6) of 1989 looks indeed much closer - but then it should be marked G :huh: - and the C on your image doesn't look like a sloppy G.
Conclusion - I don't really know. So let me turn to another point:
I'm honestly not sure about records for Caithness, I do visit the factory in Crieff fairly regularly and I'm afraid the staff know very little indeed about any of it. I don't suppose it's in the remit of a salesperson's work, but it's very frustrating. I bought a nice collection of cards showing photographs of various glassmakers at work, and they couldn't even tell me their names.....
One problem when visiting the factory today will be that only few of the earlier people are still there. Could you scan the cards (with at least 300 dpi) - or send me the cards for scanning (you'll get them back, of course!): this would not only be interesting for the Scotlandsglass web site (http://www.scotlandsglass.co.uk/) but may help you to get names attached to the people on the cards.
-
Thanks to everyone for all the detective work. I have now looked again at the number under a strong jewellers glass and it looks to me that there is the faintest trace of a downward slant at the bottom of the C, which would make G a possibililty - it just didn't catch the light at all in my photo. I'm not sure it's so much sloppy as just faint. and the squiggle that I took for 'a' could easily be a 2 as suggested. So i think the mystery might be solved :chky:
But I have one more question. I have cleaned the base using washing up liquid as you suggested Sue, to leave a flat smooth surface but with still some cloudy streaks of glue. Under certain lights I imagine there are letters half visible on the two straight lines on the base, but it might be wishful thinking on my part. So my question is - might I damage/erase the mark if there is one, by scraping more or by using nail polish remover, or can I safely work on without feeling too nervous? Maybe I should just quit while I'm ahead.....
-
Hi Iain
I would not recommend using anything metallic on the weight you are likely to add marks !
Nail polish remover is diluted acetone with some additives. Far better would be to pop into your local chemist and get a small bottle of pure acetone which will be far more effective at removing the glue. Acetone is perfectly safe to use on glass and dissolves the glue. It will NOT damage the paperweight or any marking whether they are scratched on the surface or etched. If may be necessary to repeat the process several times to remove all traces.
A useful tip for making scratched marks more visible is to dust the base with talcum powder then wipe it off with a tissue.
I will be interested to hear what the final conclusion is about the marking !
Best regards
Derek
-
I would suspect that this weight is in fact from the USA and is not Caithness. I have a number of Caithness weights(c.16) and none as far as I can remember have anything but a smooth bottom. American artists tend to sign at the edge of the base. Also I know of artists like Josh Simpson who makes a range of weights from 1.5" up to 6".
Removing glue here in Australia is easy. Just get a bottle of Eucalyptus oil and wipe it on with a cotton bud. Most glues soften promptly and you can scrape them off and then use a paper towel to tidy up.
Ross
-
Patience and longer soaking if it's that crusty yellow glue...
-
Hiya Wuff,
I haven't got a scanner, and I haven't a clue what a dpi is, but I can be very tenatious when it comes to tracking info down. I was rabbitting so much to the salesfolk they got fed up and eventually got one of the glassblowers out from the back to help me.
The makers on the cards are Sarah Patterson, Scott Miller, Alan Scrymgeour and Franco Toffolo.
I can probably do better than scanning them too - next time I go, I could get more, if they have them, and send you your own set - or bring them to the conference if you're going to be there.
( >:D and why aren't you asking for pics of my weight????? not a snob about seconds of very limited editions are you? :ha: )
It's a Helen MacDonald design of Edinburgh Castle. I grew up in Edinburgh, and the castle was right in the middle of the view from the sitting-room window.
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b227/chopin-liszt/more%20glass/HMac1.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b227/chopin-liszt/more%20glass/HMac2.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b227/chopin-liszt/more%20glass/HMac3.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b227/chopin-liszt/more%20glass/HMac4.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b227/chopin-liszt/more%20glass/HMac5.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b227/chopin-liszt/more%20glass/HMac7.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b227/chopin-liszt/more%20glass/HMac8.jpg
-
another little tip for getting glue off is a solution called 'sticky stuff remover' (i keep a few gallons in the house, as i have a 5 year old boy :thud:), they sell it in either the betterware catalogue or the other one (cant for the life of me think what its called now :huh:.. not avon, the other one that you get put through the door every month or so)
Anyway you could probably get it on ebay also, its great for getting label marks and so on off glass
michelle
-
Hiya Wuff, ...
( >:D and why aren't you asking for pics of my weight????? not a snob about seconds of very limited editions are you? :ha: )
It's a Helen MacDonald design of Edinburgh Castle. I grew up in Edinburgh, and the castle was right in the middle of the view from the sitting-room window.
Your weight was mentioned in another contribution - missed that - sorry ... and thank you for the images! BTW - the catalogue name would be "Edinburgh Rock", issued 2008 with a planned edition size of 100 (which doesn't mean they actually made 100 of them).
Another question: is it marked at all on the base? I was always told that with LE weights there were no seconds - either perfect or destroyed (which would have been a pity with your weight!!) - but this one definitely was not finished (front facette missing).
If you could get me my own set of cards, this would be very nice! I'm planning to come to Edinburgh in October (flight and hotel already booked).
BTW - dpi stands for "dots per inch" and desribes the resolution of an image file during scanning or printing.
-
:24:
Edinburgh Rock is a very specific confection Wuff, - a sweetie, not a pw. :spls:
You'll have to try some when you're over (the ginger stuff is the best!).
There are no marks on my weight at all - the base is not completely polished either - it's slightly satinised. I prefer it without the facet, it came in a proper box and has the sticky label warning you not to put it in direct sunlight.
If I can't get more cards, you can have mine - it was with Scotland's Glass and specialist interest such as yours, that I had in mind when I bought them.
In Crieff, they do have the remainder of the unsold weights which came from the previous glassworks, there are some stunners, and there are seconds like the one I bought.
There are only a few on show, but more seem to keep coming out. Some of the ones on show (for sale) include the absolutely MASSIVE things - sort of flat topped, about 7" in diameter, designed by Helen MacDonald (I think) but made by Franco Toffolo.
Franco Toffolo has finally retired completely from glass - he's no longer working with John Deacons and Willie Manson. He's moved down to England now.
Sadly, I never got introduced to him, but I did see him hurrying out of the Strathearn Gallery a couple of years ago - it wasn't until he'd gone I was told who he was.
-
Hi Wuff and Sue
An unmarked LE Caithness could well be a pre-production weight.
With abstract weights especially they would make many versions of the
same basic design to see which method was quickest and gave the
best match to the design. There would be no point in completing
the weight as it was not a final design.
Cost was everything in Caithness, they needed to find the cheapest
way to make the weight and another important factor was to get the
weight to fit into a particular price bracket. I have a copy of 1993
Midnight Orchids, the only quadruple overlay design Caithness ever
made -pictured below. My copy has an additional row of 8 facets
cut through to the white layer of the overlays which do not appear
on the production design.
Reason? Caithness obviously wanted to get the retail price under the
psychological £500 mark - by cutting out this row of facets they were
able to market it at £495 !
Re Franco - I was lucky enough to be at John Deacons when Franco popped in.
John got him to make one of his glass horses for my wife - He didn't have his
own tools or the correct glasses but he made it in under 2 minutes!
Best regards
Derek
-
A simply method you could try is diluting some salt in water, place in a saucer and allow to soak.
This is one of the reasons glue (even the strong stuff) is removed from skin after sweating.
Not sure if it will work on glass though as it is a different substance...
-
An unmarked LE Caithness could well be a pre-production weight.
This is correct, of course - especially with unlimited weights I have seen lots of them, usually marked "CIIG".
I have a copy of 1993 Midnight Orchids, the only quadruple overlay design Caithness ever made - pictured below. My copy has an additional row of 8 facets cut through to the white layer of the overlays which do not appear on the production design.
I have just copied your image for my personal use - may we also use it for Scotlandsglass ? :rah:
-
Hi Wuff
No problem re using the image - I will email you the high res version
Derek
-
I'm a little uncertain about my Castle Rock being pre-production, I only bought it very recently - possibly this year, maybe the end of last?
On the other hand, they are just selling off all the old stock in Crieff .....
(You may well be interested in visiting Crieff when you're in Scotland, Wuff? They're open 7 days a week, but you can only see the glassmaking monday to friday.)
I must remember to take the camera with me next time I go, and ask if I can get any images of some of the more unusual bits. You're welcome to use my images for SG too.
-
To bring you up to date with my little cleaning job. I tried eucalyptus oil that I happened to have in the house, and it cleared just enough off to allow me to imagine that I could dimly make out the odd letter. Then yesterday I bought some acetone and it cleared most of the remaining gunk off and.........nothing :cry:
So it looks like it is Caithness double magnum number G58442 Azure, BUT most contributors seemed to expect the base to be marked if it was Caithness. Does the lack of marking signify a second or have any other significance maybe? I have managed a slightly better pic of the number this time.
-
The base isn't polished, so it's likely that it was a sample and purchased from the factory shop. Seconds are usually polished and either scratched CIIG (or perhaps C2G) or etched CIIG.
-
Derek said:
I have a copy of 1993 Midnight Orchids, the only quadruple overlay design Caithness ever made ...
Sorry to be pedantic Derek, but "Woodland Glade", made 1994 was also a quadruple overlay. Two versions are shown in the pages for the CPC 1999 Exibition:
http://www.pwts.org.uk/exhib99/Modern/Scottish/Caithness/ModCaithnessFloral42.htm
http://www.pwts.org.uk/exhib99/Modern/Scottish/Caithness/ModCaithnessFloral01.htm
Were there others?
-
Here's another quadruple overlay that Caithness made:
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/m1asmith/crimprose-caithnessquadrupleoverlay.jpg
-
Hi Kev and Mark
I stand corrected - not for the first time I was taking too much notice of hearsay!!
Talking of overlay weights John Deacons is now making quintuple overlay weight! and Daveweight has one - an amazing technical tour de force
How about a picture Dave.
Best regards
Derek
-
Hi there,
You can see three of these 'tour de force' paperweights on the paperweightplus website (unsurprisingly they are all sold out) at:
http://www.paperweightsplus.com/phdi/p1.nsf/supppages/pwp?opendocument&part=8
They are quite something, indeed :hiclp:.
SophieB
-
Call me a peasant but, although I appreciate the skill involved in overlays and then the cutting, I'm not entirely convinced that more than two or three overlays actually add anything apart from too much fiddlyness to an already complex interior.
-
And what about the truly apalling "Mesmerise" weight. (Only Ivo's nauseating vase excells that in ugliness.)
pic shortly. I'm not exactly sure how many casings that has, it depends if you're going to start counting the decorations on the internal casings....and I'm going dizzy (and nauseous) trying!
-
Oh I like Mesmerize. I see it as a wonderful example of pop art :)
I have one in my collection. Got it on ebay for not very much and it's a huge sucker too.
Possibly, I'm the only one...lol
-
I have one myself - it was a lesson. I bought it new, reduced from ~ £90 to ~ £50. I, in my naivety, thought I was being "clever", not many sold, not popular, will eventually become popular because of rarity. Went for the ugliest - the pink - now they've got tons of them for £10 in the Crieff shop!
It was a long time ago I bought it, and I haven't bought anything I think is awful since.
Taste is subjective, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is a fairly complex piece.
I haven't yet decided if it's so awful that it comes out the other side and becomes acceptably bad taste. :usd: Maybe 'cos I hate pink. >:D
Is it not too recent to be "pop art" though?
-
Possibly...I can go with Pop Artesque :)
-
;D pop grotesque, surely!
see for yourselves!
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b227/chopin-liszt/wave/SGS/caithnesseye1.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b227/chopin-liszt/wave/SGS/caithnesseye3.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b227/chopin-liszt/wave/SGS/caithnesseye2.jpg
(sorry, loaded them before remembering to crop them, memory awol :pb: )
-
Love it! Paperweight on acid...lol
-
Heh - I think it's a fun weight - to paraphrase from Pulp Fiction - it's got personality, and personality goes a long way ;)
I'd give a tenner for that :)
-
:24:
Ok, concensus seems to be that is IS so awful that it has reached a depth of gloriousness.
I'd not part with it for a tenner. (not after paying what I did :pb: )
-
Oh! No, Sue. I, for one, really like it. It is gloriously iconic... 8)
In fact, I was thinking that when I managed to get to Crieff, I must remember to check out whether Caithness still have some for sale.
Sophie
-
:pb:
I can't say! We went there at 4.36pm yesterday - it shuts at 4.30 now!
Just a few weeks ago it was open until 5. Grrrrrr.
If we go back soon I can see about getting some for folk - or why not try contacting them directly?
http://www.caithnessglass.co.uk
I can't find Mesmerise listed, but you could try writing or calling them.
-
Hi All,
Just to say on the original topic,the double magnum is a Caithness,Wuff flagged this up to me to have a look at.He also asked Alastair McIntosh as well.I remember we had to put the felt base on to protect whatever people put the big weight on,Alastair confirmed that we had to put the base on as we could not smooth polish a weight that big at that time.No signature would be under the felt but engraved usually round the edge.
Allan
-
Thanks, Sue. I will try and find out from Caithness.
Hi Allan. Nice to hear from you.
Sophie
-
So we are back to the original question :thup:
Hi All, Just to say on the original topic, the double magnum is a Caithness, Wuff flagged this up to me to have a look at. He also asked Alastair McIntosh as well. I remember we had to put the felt base on to protect whatever people put the big weight on, Alastair confirmed that we had to put the base on as we could not smooth polish a weight that big at that time. No signature would be under the felt but engraved usually round the edge.
Allan
I had a further discussion with Alastair about which of the double magnums it would be. To repeat - if you check the images on Scotlandsglass it will definitely not be Emerald (1985 = C). Azure (1989 = G) will be closer, although the colour would not be quite correct, and it takes a lot of imagination to read a G instead of a C.
Now - to date no images of the double magnums 1986/87/88 are online on Scotlandsglass (still waiting in the queue). Therefore I attach an image of Violet (1986) here: Alastair agreed that this would be the most likely candidate. There could have been fair variation in the amount of bubbling along the trails, and it would have been produced towards the end of 1985 (hence the C) to be issued in 1986; there have been other examples with the "production year letter" indicating the year prior to official issue of a weight.