Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Topic started by: josordoni on February 11, 2006, 01:40:34 PM
-
I am thinking of bidding for a faceted ( 5 puntys to the sides, one on the top) millefiore weight with a date cane for 1974 with an I in it, the base has a slightly concave raised disc in the centre, with curved outer edges, rather like a Monart vase if that makes sense?
Is this likely to be a Monart paperweight? It is in a group of Strathearn weights, so I guess it might be another Scottish one?
thanks for any help
-
Hi Lynne,
It sounds like a Whitefriars weight date cane, the i in the middle is supposed to represent a friar, white friars was bought in 1982 by Caithness glass who continue the name with a range of Whitefriars paperweights, mainly lampwork flowers using the whitefriars date cane.
Best of luck with the bidding :)
-
Thanks so much Riki, I have the Charlton Caithness book, so hopefully the Whitefriars will be in there and I can check them out. I didn't realise the backs on them were so lumpy!
-
Lynne, I fear I may have slightly misadvised you, your description of a lumpty base with pontil sounds very like a "fake" Whitefriars, sorry :(
I have a "funny" one with a date cane for 1984 which sounds very similar.
It has a pontil which extends below the base and causes it to sit lopsided, the actual millefiore also has a kick upwards at one side.
It is in a box but I will try to find it and post photos of it tonight.
-
The base that you describe is standard Whitefriars. They are made with the central base part containing the colour and the canes being covered with the main glass gather and treated in such a way that on the base they seem like two distinct bits - a central piece with a bulging outer rim. Plus the pontil is then ground out leaving a one inch wide round dish in the centre. The 1974 date indicates pre Caithness. It will not be in Charltons guide as they only cover the Caithness period.
See sweetbriars http://www.sweetbriar.co.uk/weightlist.php?maker=Whitefriars or Bob Halls http://www.bobhallpaperweights.com/paperweights.html?cat=2 sites for samples - they both have 5 & 1 facetted concentrics to compare
-
Or here's one of mine
http://i1.tinypic.com/nmds0m.jpg
-
Hi again Lynne,
Here is a photo of a real Whitefriars date cane, notice that it is crisp and clear
http://i1.tinypic.com/nmdow7.jpg
and a photo of a real base,
http://i1.tinypic.com/nmds0y.jpg
This is the dubious one note that the date cane is fuzzy and not so well made
http://i1.tinypic.com/nmdt13.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/nmdtfa.jpg
and this is the base
http://i1.tinypic.com/nmdv9w.jpg
Ain't paperweights fun :twisted:
I hope you can manage to squeeze some help from this. :wink:
-
First I heard of fake Whitefriars weights, not surprised but do tell more.
-
I am possibly be overstating the facts, it came along with a small lot of weights bought at auction and I know nothing of its history,it may have been a trial,appretice or perhaps a backdoor piece when the canes etc transered to Caithness but it is not of great quality,and not at all what you would expect from a Whitefriars weight. :?
I did see an identical one on Ebay around a year ago and was tempted to bid
so there is more than one out there, it's interesting to have but one of these is probably enough in any collection.
-
Hi,
This is the first time I have seen a fake Whitefriar as well.When I joined Caithness after Jay Glass went bust Colin Terris told me that they had not done anything with the Whitefriars name since they bought it.I certainly do not remember seeing any samples around the glasshouse.The date cane is so bad that I seriously doubt if it was made at Caithness;we took great care to follow the style of the original cane designs,Colin insisted on it.
On the subject of bases,the original Whitefriars were made by making the base then picking up the millefiori then forming that into a button of glass onto which a gather of crystal would be dropped from a helper.The maker would then shape the crystal into the finished paperweight,this would leave the tell-tale ridge underneath the weight between the base and top crystal.I recently had the pleasure of watching Ray Annenberg do this at Perth for us.
-
The Powell Whitefriars up to 1980 have nothing in common with the Caithness Whitefriars (CW) which were issued from 1981 onwards except for the name and the use of a monk cane and no comparison can really be made in the way they were done. Allan has descrived it far more eloquently thamn I did. Looking in Charlton there are quite a few millefiore CW designs in the early 80s. The one shown above is not in Charlton but the design is of the similar style and the canes are scottish rather than Whitefriars. In fact the design seems to copy Pethshire styles of the late 70s early 80s (see PP34 for example). Personally I don't think they quite got it - but then fortunately the Whitefriars brand was then used mainly for the lampworked botanicals which we all know as being wonderful weights.
Oh - and the other one seen on ebay a year ago. I bought that - and it is the same unfinished state - and the setting is poor but I would not say that the monk cane is that different to other early CW examples. I would still go for a trial design that didnt quite work so was not an official issue
-
thanks for all your comments, most informative. The base certainly looks right, there are two weights, one is concentric, the other closepack, I think they are very definitely Whitefriars, and as such, well worth a bid!
-
... I bought that - and it is the same unfinished state - and the setting...
Can you post a/some pics so Kevin can do his archaeology, please.
-
I think Martin's own "trowel work" on the one in question has given us all we need to know. I could add nothing of value. I agree with the idea of the weight(s) being likely trial pieces, hence the unfinished base.
-
As part of my (very slow) work, on behalf of moderator Frank, to identify and mark possible messages for archiving, this one caught my interest again.
Snce the photos of the weight with the doubted signature cane are placed in Tinypic, we may lose them at any time.
Riki ... could you please repost the photos to Anne's "Yobunny Glassgallery" site. Or if you prefer, I can do that for you with copies of the Tinypic ones.
(I have a couple of pre-Caithness Whitefriars, so if I need images for the real thing for archiving with this message, I can use my own.)
-
Well I did manage to buy one of the weights I talked about, and I have finally got around to putting some pics together. Would you call this a carpet ground or a close pack? This pics are a bit big, so I have given links rather than put the pics on. The piece is a 5 facet plus top. The first link is the facet that shows the date cane (1974) the second link is a close up of the central bit, and the third the base.
http://www.clarkagency.co.uk/whitefriars%20facet3.jpg
http://www.clarkagency.co.uk/whitefriars%20close%20up.jpg
http://www.clarkagency.co.uk/whitefriars%20base.jpg
thanks for any help
-
Nothing wrong with this.
Very nice Whitefriars using complex canes.
The signature cane is unusual for two reasons. Firstly, it is white with a blue monk and date. This is less common than the conventional white on blue. Secondly, it seems larger than usual. But then there can be variations in size.
The faceting is the most common 5 & 1
All in all a nice example.
Oh - and carpet ground is when the canes are the same - ie looks like a carpet.
-
Riki, is it OK for me to transfer your images to our Glass-Gallery so that they do not get lost when the thread ages.
-
Thanks Martin, I forgot to respond earlier, hope you excuse my rudeness.
-
In my personal opinion, the maker of the "dubious" weight is really taking the pee out of the Whitefriars collectors. :evil:
First of all look at the date - different coloured numbers, and the stars include blue which aren't in the usual run of the mill Whitefriars I've seen and all that on top of the fuzzy friar cane.
-
Kev, My appologies for not noticing this earlier, please do what ever you wish with the pics.
I don't keep most photos :oops:
-
Simone, I am a little puzzled now as at first it seemed to be suggested to be a fake and then Riki said that he thinks it might be an apprentice piece. Yet if the date cane is so different how could that be, an apprentice would surely not get the job of making something as important as a signature cane - so why would he not use the same as other makers?
Caithness bought the name in 1981, do they also make Whitefriars signatures canes and use the same techniques as Whitefriars did?
I can recall in 1989 when I bought the first batch of PY type 1 fakes, about a dozen. The quality of those was superb although they had the lower dome and base finish that became signals of the fakes apart from the dropped Y. It is intriguing that that signature cane also was two-coloured. Surely the letters/numbers are composed of solid coloured canes so it would mean a deliberate decision to use two colours. But did Whitefriars always use a single colour and did Caithness continue in the same way?
A few weeks after the first batch of PY fakes another batch turned up. This time the dealer said that he had got them from the same source as the first and that the seller had large collection and that he had seen at least a hundred in a box in the dealers car. But the quality of these seemed odd, R. B. came and had a look and the hairs on the back of his neck stood up he thought they were odd. I then got in touch with Colin Terris to see if some seconds had been sold of from the factory but he told me that everything Paul made was inaccesible to anyone while he was at Caithness and that apart from a few stones for jewellery Paul took everything with them. We also now know that Paul would smash any weights that did not reach his standard, including those of his assistants. Next photographs were sent to Paul who said "They include some canes of mine but I did not make the weights". Which caused even more confusion. Further investigation revealed that some of Paul's weights had been stolen while at Caithness but everything was recovered by the police. At this point it was clear that the weights had to be fake. It certainly took months for people to accept this as it was hard to see why anyone that had such skill would do such a thing.
From reports of collectors buying these around the country it became apparent that several hundred had been made and also that the metal used was the same as used by nearly all of the Scottish Paperweight makers. It was the Cambridge paperweight circle, before Kevin's time I think, that managed to unravel the rest of this story - a most impressive network of collectors.
So the point of repeating this... If there is an outside chance that this weight is a fake and that some distinguishing features exist then there must be more out there. Can I ask you all to check your own collections and let us know if you find more. Where and when you bought it could be helpful in putting together a history. Careful study should look for other inconsistencies, is there a UV reaction and how does that compare with the weights of Whitefriars, Caithness Whitefriars and any other paperweight producers. There is no Paul Ysart but perhaps there still exist some old Whitefriars makers that could give some input?
With the fake Ysart glassware, the quality keeps improving and apart from a couple of details that cannot be faked they could eventually be almost perfect. I think that such a situation with paperweights would be disastrous as if these prove bad and around in quantity values and confidence will be damaged. This in turn could hurt our last few remaining paperweight producers in Scotland and as some of you know I am relentless in bringing them to peoples attention.
What must not be done is to start throwing names into the hat, rumours can do more harm than good and will prevent the gathering of hard evidence. Hopefully, this weight is just an oddity, but let us be very aware that fakes have been found before and will probably be found again.
If you do come up with some hard evidence then do not post it here, please pass this on to the Cambridge Paperweight Circle or to me. You can use this thread to give your personal opinions and details of any other weights that give rise to suspicion. Better safe then sorry.
Thank you.
-
Frank, what should I be looking out for when buying at auction to avoid fakes - I am a rank amateur but I like paperweights, and enjoy buying and selling them. I don't really want to stop in fear of picking up fakes.
:cry:
-
I know very little about Whitefriars weights but after the tooing and froing of opinion I am hoping that those that do will deepen their analysis in this thread.
As long as you don't pay too much, getting a fake is not a bad thing and they can even appreciate. Part of the learning process with glass is through comparison of different makers work. Fakes add a dimension that can really help to focus on the different methods used by the original and the faker and through that you end up with more undestanding.
The community on these message boards have uncovered several fakes although mostly signatures. Fortunately fakes are not big business in paperweights, to emulate the quality pieces requires a highly experienced and skilled glassworker. Motivation cannot be entirely money but for sure they might not do it if they could not get more for a fake than for their own work. Other motivations can be frustration at struggling to survive (gas bills of several thousand dollars per month are the norm for a paperweight studio), irritation at their own older work selling for more than they can sell current production, in some cases just for the challenge and in others perhaps for spite.
In the case of the PY fakes the ones that made the big money were dealers. They probably persuaded the makers to do it in the first place. Amusingly some of the PY fakes got altered a few years ago by adding facets and polishing the bases to conceal some of the give-aways - but the cane is now instantly recognisable.
-
It is very easy to jump to conclusions on circumstantial evidence but such conclusions can be erroneuos. Mud sticks and witch hunts only ever satisfy the hunter.
From your response, simone, it certainly sounds clear that this is a fake. The question then is where and when was it made? Presumably if it was made pre-81 someone would have noticed sooner. Certainly they would have been trickling on to eBay soon after they were produced... so perhaps in the last year or two and thus possibly still being made. I assume one signature cane goes a long way - thousands of weights, certainly hundreds.
With the PY type 1 the best estimate was several hundred weights and in the Type 2, late 90's either the original cane was used up or it got destroyed when the police started investigating.
One trick used in the PY scam was to sell the weights outside of Scotland which ensured that due to legal differences that complaints to police had no effect on the makers as there is no appropriate crime on English law books. In Scotland there is a very specific part of Forgery law that can be applied. So for the most part origin of an individual puchase is little help. However, in the original investigation all of the dealers involved were proven to have direct contact with each other.
Interesting that you made that connection with the different colours being used in the PY and date canes. A common aspect of forgers is to include some feature that they can recognise as their own concealed signature. So all that tells you is that they follow conventional forgers psychology, I think it would be hard to state with certainty that it is the same maker of both on those grounds. If it was that means someone who had master skills in 1989, I would have thought that any master remaining active over that length of time would have received sufficient recognition to have no need to resort to forgery. You cannot discount as the motive might not be financial gain as is often the case with good forgers.
Personally, I think it would be great if the makers of any of these fake weights was to stand up and say "It was me". What would happen, people would be shocked at first, the maker or makers might get arrested but it is very unlikely that they would be imprisoned - perhaps some community service. That could only help to elevate the value of the forged weights and the forgers own work. Notoriety has its benefits. The publicity that would be aroused could have a beneficial impact on paperweight collecting as it makes more people aware of the topic and how the community of collectors polices itself through collectors organisations.
I would be interested in what the others involved in this thread think too, but please avoid any inferences to particular companies.
-
Hi,
I thought I would just say that we (at Caithness) have used "monk" canes with dates,based on the original Whitefriars designs.These were usually used in special editions ,ie.royal events and the millenium weights.I have a load of old canes at work which pre-date my time at Caithness so I will print out a pic of the "fake" and compare it to the canes and see if I can find a match(you never know :lol: ).I can certainly guarantee that it was not made at Caithness after October 1983 , as I was in charge of making the canes and Whitefriars weights from then.I cannot think of why anyone at Caithness would have made a fake like that as we have all the formers etc,from the original factory,including the "monk" former that they used.We also have a large number of original Whitefriar canes that someone could have copied to get a good fake.They could not use the originals as our glass was not compatible(and still isn't).So I will do a bit of detective work and see what I can find out,but I doubt if I will find anything :)
Allan
-
Here are images of three of my Whitefriars which all have white canes
http://i4.tinypic.com/10e34wo.jpg
http://i4.tinypic.com/10e36lg.jpg
http://i4.tinypic.com/10e37gy.jpg
These are of various sizes.
As I previously suggested, Whitefriars canes from the 70s, whilst always being white and blue, can be positive and negative, and as can be seen can contain stars in the outer circle.
And here is a carpet ground with a "conventional" signature cane. There are some very similar canes
http://i4.tinypic.com/10e3arr.jpg
-
Hi folks,
I have just returned from a holiday in Poland with no paperweights in sight, but in the company of eagles, storks, cranes, large woodpeckers and so many wonderfully coloured birds that it will take a while for me to get back into the gist of these messages!
But for now, I will arrange for Riki's images to be set up in the Yobunny site (thanks for the go-ahead, Riki).
On the point of "fuzziness" vs "sharpness" of the Monk cane, I do not think this is a truly relevant factor. I have seen several genuine pre-Whitefriars signature canes that look "fuzzy" and I have an actual example of one. The inclusion of stars (and whorls) at the top of the cane was a feature of genuine pre-Cathness Monk canes.
I do agree that a multi-colour date in the cane rings warning bells as I believe that the originals were always in blue in a white background. But perhaps somebody (Martin, maybe?) can confirm this.
It may be the case that the Caithness ones are always crisp, but I have not studied these so cannot comment on that.
The topic is certainly of interest but it is unwise to try to track down a specific maker without first gathering more evidence from other examples and other sources. Although I have not yet had a chance to properly digest all that has been said in this message, I would caution against drawing any conclusions based on little actual evidence.
I have emailed a friend who knows quite a bit about Whitefriars weights and have asked if any other "dubious" examples have been seen or heard about in the past.
I will ask Frank to archive this message at a time when the comments have settled down. This way, we will not lose the information and the basis of any future enquiries will be preserved.
-
found it in the book "Paperweight Signature Canes" by Andrew H Dohan
(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/yorkshirebob/ea1c8231.jpg)
(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/yorkshirebob/8bb1ac72.jpg)
-
No one else checked that :o It fits in with the dates Allan talked about too.
Still it is an exciting end and I am relieved that these are genuine, the John Deacons connection and the obvious rarity could make these amongst the most desirable of the Caithness Whitefriars weights. What a wonderful ending. :D :D :D
-
Hello everybody,
after studying this thread I realized, that I am the "German seller" who get a message from Simone :lol: :oops:
Here are the pictures of the weight, which I sell on ebay.com at the moment:
http://www.paperweights24.de/bilder/caithwhiteproto/index.html
I´ve bought this weight many years ago at the Cambridge Glassfair from a paperweight-dealer, who told me, he got this weight from a Caithness employeer. The weight was not polished and in a really bad condition. It had the top window, but this window also was not polished, so that it was not possible to see the canes clearly.
I let the weight repolish in the Birmingham area and get it back in this fantastic condition.
As all the canes, except the Monk, was very similar to the well known Caitness Canes from the 1980´s I never thought it was a fake and thought the dealer was right, that it will be a prototype.
Now it seems, that this weight is a real Caithness/Whitefriars made by John Deacons.
Please tell me, if I´m wrong with my oppinion.
All the best
Nadine
-
Ray let us know that the 1982 cane we have discussed was
found in the book "paperweight signature canes by Andrew H Dohan"
And Frank commented: No one else checked that
I admit it - guilty as charged :) I think I was swayed by a) the views expressed in the course of this message and b) the fact that this particular cane is seemingly not well known.
So, well done Ray, for doing a more thorough job than me on thumbing through the books.
But there's more that can now be added to this ...
Nadine's weight is very recognisable in having canes which, as she says, are known in other Caithness weights from [at least] the 1980s. But those same canes are also known in the weights from Edinburgh Crystal - which is not surprising as those weights were made at Caithness Glass.
Not only that, those same canes are a regular feature in St Kilda weights (having the StK signature cane) which were made by John Deacons during his Jay Glass years. This is also not surprising as the general canes were also made by John Deacons (a point that John confirmed to me at the Perth Conference last year).
So the tie-in of John's production of the 1982 Whitefriars cane for Caithness and the general canes used for his StK weights and the same canes being used for Edinburgh Crytsal weights is now clear.
Also, it is clear that the general canes (with the star centre in a thick rimmed cog sleeve) are very similar to original Whitefriars (pre-Caithness) canes that were often included in their weights. The original Whitefriars canes had six-point stars (and perhaps five-point?) and the outer sleeve was smooth or "wavy" but not noticeably "cogged" as in John Deacons' versions. However, at a distance, the canes all look very similar, which may have been a deliberate design consideration.
But ... there is still an outstanding question ...
The information from the Dohan book about the connection with the Caithness Glass "Whitefriars" weights seems reasonable. So why is it that the Charlton Caithnesss Paperweights book does not include any 1982 Whitefriars weights that look like the ones we have seen here? Maybe these weights (the "Whitefriars miniatures" that Dohan mentions) were all "experimental" and never made it to the regular production?
If that's true, then can we say that these are even rarer than has already been suggested? On the other hand, it has been said that a number of these have been apprearing on eBay recently, so perhaps they are not so rare after all - but if there are so many (whatever the actual number may be) why would that be, if they were just "experimental" ones?
Hmmm. Are we really at the end of all this?
And for extra info ... a maker by the name of Robert Wetzel (not well known in paperweight circles) visited Scotland and John Deacons helped in producing a signature "RW" and 1985 date cane - with different colours for each numeral. This info is also from Dohan''s Signature Cane book. So there is yet another example of a multi-coloured date cane with the John Deacons influence.
-
Hi,
Well ,this has just proved that my memory is officially RUBBISH(in some instances anyway :D ),I did not recognise the cane untill Nadines pic,I mean, I only sat and helped set up hundreds of them after all.There were a lot made and John,Harry,myself with the help of our two helpers Caroline and George,not to mention Archie on the facetting, were kept quite busy doing them.Eventually around the time when Andy Lawson left Perthshire paperweights to join Caithness,they started making them themselves and we continued to cut them untill Jay Glass folded in early 1983.This has been a nice jog of my memory :lol: .
Allan
-
Does anyone know how many of these with the different coloured numbers in the signature were made?
-
Example now on SG link (http://www.scotlandsglass.co.uk/cms/index.php?page=shop.product_details&category_id=81&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=4383&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=6)
-
The slide of the muli-color date cane that is in my book was given to me by Colin Terris, as was the information related in the text.
-
Thanks Andy, was there more than one cane?
-
Not sure what you mean Frank. Colin provided me with many slides at the time - mostly of the "Royals" initial canes. The 1982 date cane illustrated in my book in the Deacons section was the only "multi-colored" one that he sent - if that is what you meant.
-
Sorry was not explicit - I meant was there only one multi-coloured date cane made. I presume one would have been ample for a year cane. But you never know for sure. Your answer would tend to confirm this.