Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Topic started by: pooleandpaperweights on January 01, 2014, 03:27:53 PM
-
More for Wuff than anyone else :)
I had 2, now I have 3 :) Brought the one in the middle at Dunstable today for £35. PH cane in the base, pedestal, dated 1982. Left weight is dated 1984 and right hand weight 1979. Did we know there are 3 different ones? Pedestals are different, and one is faceted new one isn't....
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r267/pooleandpaperweights/20140103_150228.jpg
-
Any chance you might post images directly to the board, pretty please?
Photobucket has has a nasty habit of corrupting folk's computers, I and several others simply will not click on any link to it.
Also images vanish, leaving a thread meaningless.
-
Sue, do me a favour. Go here
http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player.html
click the Check Now button then copy in here what version of flash player you have.
Photobucket doesn't cause any problems. It is a web browser based using flash, that isn't anything out of the ordinary so I would suspect you have an old version of flash.
Afraid I use Photobucket for all my pictures and my account goes back years so it keeps a record for me. I don't find the size you can upload on here anywhere near good enough so don't upload......
Ian
-
Saying that I suspect photobucket only uses flash when uploading pictures. The link in the post is simply to a picture and your computer should be fine handling that!
what browser are you using? That could easily be outdated and causing the problem. PM me if you want see if we can solve the problem....
Ian
-
The more important point is that images hosted off the gmb disappear, leaving the whole thread meaningless as far as any future reference is concerned.
As a whole, folk here far prefer images to be posted directly, it is something we are trying to encourage everybody to do, it makes it far easier for folk to help if they don't have to keep going to new links (which may or may not corrupt their computers) to see something they might be able to help with.
(My pc is ancient - cobbled together from second-hand bits and bobs. It can't cope with a load of new stuff. I'm a technosaurus, incompatible with computery stuff, I can't cope with all the new stuff. ;D )
-
As I am not an imbecile I knew that was your point but, as I said "Afraid I use Photobucket for all my pictures and my account goes back years so it keeps a record for me." Photobucket has all my uploaded images going back years. I don't delete images.
Afraid I won't be bending or changing my ways as they suit me. If your computer can access this board it can sure as hell access a direct linked image on photobucket.
Sorry, but the masses rule otherwise there would be no progress.....
-
"The masses" vastly prefer images hosted on the board.
Even to the point that yet another plea has recently been discussed in the cafe. Not started by me.
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,55105.0.html
I'm only trying to help everybody here, pass this important message on.
You may not remove or shift your images - but how is another member to know you can be trusted not to, over all the others that do?
-
More for Wuff than anyone else :)
I had 2, now I have 3 :) Brought the one in the middle at Dunstable today for £35. PH cane in the base, pedestal, dated 1982. Left weight is dated 1984 and right hand weight 1979. Did we know there are 3 different ones? Pedestals are different, and one is faceted new one isn't....
Hi Ian,
I assume you don't mind me including your image in a comparison - if you do ... >:(.
There is only one footed crimp rose in the catalogue: 1979 / LE 450.
I have an image of a similar one, with a more fancy foot: signed (= made) 1984 / LE 450 (edition number unknown)
So far I had assumed this to be the same design - just the foot becoming more fancy over the years ... but your dates contradict that.
There is another similar one: signed (= made) 1983 - but LE 250; however, the person sending me the image did not confirm the 250 (signing/reading error?) and has not responded to further queries. So I am not assuming this to be a different design.
Now you have an unfaceted one - could just be unfinished, couldn't it? Is there any indication of it being LE?
Are there green leaves in any or all of them?
-
Hi Ian,
Hi Wuff,
Happy New Year!!!
I have two of the weights shown by Ian. I have the limited edition footed and faceted crimp rose (1980 – 290/450 – PH cane) and an unfaceted and footed version of the same crimp rose (1980 – PH cane). I bought them together in an auction lot in Scotland with other Selkirk weights. I suspect that the collector/seller had acquired both versions at the same time. He/she had liked the limited ed. footed and faceted crimp rose so much that she/he asked for an unfaceted version too. So there may not be many of these unfaceted footed crimp roses around.
As for the third one (i.e. the 1984 one), I have no idea.
SophieB
-
Hi all,
I have now located images of my Peter Holmes' crimp roses.
The top one is the limited edition (n. 290/450) and the bottom one appears to be the same but unfaceted (also there is no star cut on the underside). Both have PH canes.
SophieB
-
So, 1979 is 110 of 450. 1982 is not numberd but signed in the normal way. 1984 is 154 of 250. All have PH canes (well I think I can see one on the weight with no pedestal but its under the sticker and I'm not about to remove it!) . Seems the PH canes are the one with the green outside layer so they have been used as stalks to the roses....
Ian
-
Sophie, does your top weight have etched lines on the foot? One of mine does, one doesn't. I did have 2 of the 1979 weights, but recently put on into an auction (not ebay!) which you will find if you look around slightly!
-
Hi Ian,
Yes, my limited edition faceted weight has a star cut base, but I have seen others without it (and the image for the catalogue does not seem to have a star cut base either).
Also, my unfaceted weight is marked in the usual way (i.e. Selkirk Glass Scotland 1980).
This means that I still need to find an example of the crimp rose belonging to the 250 limited ed. Do you remember where you got hold of yours?
SophieB
-
Suspect ebay, quite a while ago. Only one I've seen of it!
-
First - I may have to apologise: looking at the image of the "1983 LE 250" weight, I may have been wrong to put this in a comparison image with footed weights ... likely not footed at all (not quite clear on image, and no indication in correspondence). Possibly there was just an unfooted version as well (not shown in catalogues, with lower LE).
Now - let's summarize information on the footed weights:
1) There are two faceted versions - one with plain, the other with star cut base. Unless Ian has mixed up years on his image, there is a star cut version already in 1979 (first year of issue - no star cut indicated in catalogue image) as well as later (1984) ... where both produced in parallel?
- Cazza has shown us a star cut version signed 1979 128/450 (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,22873.0.html)
- Sophie mentions a star cut version signed 1980 290/450
- so it could well be that the same design was still made in 1984
- Ian: what edition numbers are your 1979 and 1984 facetted weights? Sorry - just note that I had missed second page of this thread with your info: 1979 is 110 of 450 ... and ... 1984 is 154 of 250.
2) The 1983 weight is signed 96/250: doesn't fit in (290/450 in 1980 already) ... another indication it is a different (e.g. unfooted) design. But would fit in with 1984 is 154 of 250. Do we have 3 different footed versions after all?
3) The unfaceted weights seem not to be limited ... likely just unfinished for one or another reason, but still considered sufficient quality to be sold.
4) There doesn't seem to be any green leaves in the design - just the green encased PH cane "acting as stalk".
Any comments or corrections?
-
Hi Wuff,
I would summarise as follows:
1. There are two known LE editions of the crimp rose: one footed & faceted of 450 (that began in 1979) and one without a foot of 250 (that had began by 1983 at least).
2. The unfaceted version does not belong to a LE.
I would postulate one hypothesis though:
I am not convinced that the presence or absence of a star cut base indicates a different LE. I have seen variations between different issues of the same LE before (and like Ian I have seen another footed crimp rose without a star cut that was dated 1979 with a low number of 450)
Still, if you wanted to be sure, you could ask Peter Holmes.
SophieB