Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Topic started by: LesBeatiques on October 17, 2014, 09:38:15 PM
-
Hello all,
A little help would be much obliged. This bowl is roughly 2-3/4" tall with a 3-7/8" diameter across the top. It has a white and green overlay with three levels of faceting, window cutaway round the outer circumferance & two levels of faceting round the lower third portion. The canes are set in a transparent emerald green and the bowl rests on a semi concave polished base.
Hopefully the photos show enough detail. I've tried every trick in the book to get detailed photos of the canes at the bottom of the bowl.
Thanks,
Eric
-
Detail:
-
Those spikey canes around the centre makes me think this is a Murano piece - let's see what other think !
Dave
-
I'd have to say Perthshire.
-
I agree with Perthshire Paperweights.
Many subtle colours, including hints of grey, and with very tidy "cogginess" in many of the canes.
-
I've seen such dbl overlay cutting from Murano & those sure look like Murano canes.
-
I have looked at this again and it definitely looks like Murano to me. I have loads of Perthshire canes and a lot of their weights but none have canes like these. Only Murano made those spikey canes around the centre - so I have placed my bet !!
Dave
-
Only Murano made those spiky canes around the centre ...
Hi Dave,
I'm not going to place any bets ::).
I assume you are talking about the first ring of canes around the complex central canes - the ones with 20 spikes - correct?
If you have a look on page 162 of the Mahoney&McClanahan book there is an image of a P1989G as an example for complex Perthshire canes - including several spiky canes: I have not counted all of them, but all the ones I have counted have 20 spikes. Now - this does not contradict Murano (also using canes with 20 spikes frequently) - but IMHO doesn't contradict Perthshire either.
-
Hi Wuff
Thanks for your very pertinent comments - at least it is only a two horse race and this bowl is either Perthshire or Murano. The only thing I am thinking now is if it is Perthshire - why no P cane as they seemed to sign virtually everything the made after the early years
Dave
-
Thank you all for your input.
I agree that the piece shares many qualities with both Murano and Perthshire and I'll admit I was very apprehensive in pulling the trigger on this one. I went back on forth for a long time but in the end I couldn't get over the complexity of the center cane.
To Dave's concern I would point to unsigned "eBay item number:121465120908" - which shares many characteristics to this bowl.
- Pinned here for future reference: http://www.pinterest.com/pin/446630488020021701/
Excluding my vote we are at tied 2-2. Anyone else?
-Eric
-
***
***Hi.
I have been reluctant to comment as there seem so many uncertainties. The bottle referred to above, with a Perthshire certificate, is odd in that the Edition size is shown as 250 on the certificate, but 350 in Mahoney & McClanahan (which is usually correct), and it should be signed with a P1975 cane in the base - but is not. The canes in it are consistent with Perthshire canes, and it is worth noting that some Perthshire canes from the mid 1970s resemble Murano canes. I wonder whether the bowl (and maybe the bottle) are some of the one-off / trial / prototype pieces that were sold (in reasonable numbers) through the factory shop?
Alan
-
The bottle referred to above, with a Perthshire certificate, is odd in that the edition size is shown as 250 on the certificate, but 350 in Mahoney & McClanahan (which is usually correct), and it should be signed with a P1975 cane in the base - but is not.
The auction mentions 1975 - which is not on the certificate - so I assume there is a 1975 cane in the setup, though not explicitly mentioned.
The edition size is odd, indeed - unfortunately the Perthshire certificates don't give any detail about the design (just that is is a "bottle"). Consequently they can easily be exchanged by accident ... but: I am not aware of any Perthshire bottle with an edition size of 250 (none mentioned by Mahoney an McClanahan, anyway).