Topic: Selkirk super magnums

[SophieB]

Hi Wuff,

Thanks for that.

I agree: I do not think that 'Mistral' is a super magnum. The same goes for 'Jester' that you mentioned above.

Sophie

[paperweightrow]

Interesting thread, Sophie.
I have to say that from size and weight, I had always regarded my Jester and Fantasy weights as potential super-magnums, but the dividing line is certainly debateable. my Jester is marked 1988 and is 116mm diam, and 99mm high, with my 1987 Fantasy being 117mm diam and 96mm high. I also have an un-named weight which has a similar but more rounded, taller profile, so gives measurements of 114mm diam and 105mm high,
how about weight as an indicator? my Jester is 1.886KG, Fantasy is 1.877Kg, my un-named is 1.951kg. I would have said they were all super-magnums, but it may be that Selkirk made some as Magnums and some as Super under the same name.

Another Question, What is the term for the next size up? The largest paperweight I have is a Selkirk with a ph cane, (no name again, but a common style) it is 1340mm (approx.)diameter, 1380high (difficult to measure these large beasts), and weighs 3.568kg. !!!!
Steve

[SophieB]

Hi Steve,

Your Jester is definitely a super magnum. It may be that for some LE the weights may be made in either magnum or super magnum. This is not helping me much though...

I would love to see a picture of your very large weight if you have one.

SophieB

[tropdevin]

***

Hi Steve.

Errr...1340mm is over 1 metre diameter, and the paperweight ought therefore to weight around 2 tonnes (which would be very impressive). Has a factor of ten crept in to the measurement when you were not watching?

Alan

[paperweightrow]

Woops, where did those noughts come from? So divide the last set of diameter and height measurements by ten.
 

[Wuff]

Sizes with paperweights are always somewhat tricky, i.e. not really well defined.

Selkirk catalogues only occasionally give sizes. Standard size is around 80 mm dia, miniature about 65 mm dia. I do not recall "super magnums" - but e.g. in 1997 "Intrigue Magnum" is mentioned with an average diameter of 130 mm (5").

Another Question, What is the term for the next size up? The largest paperweight I have is a Selkirk with a ph cane, (no name again, but a common style) it is 134 mm (approx.) diameter, 138 mm high (difficult to measure these large beasts), and weighs 3.568kg. !!!! Steve [dimensions corrected]

Should 134 mm dia. be considered close enough to the average(!) of 130 mm to be still called a magnum (not super magnum) for Selkirk?

Caithness gives more info on sizes - slight variations if you check different catalogues, but the sizes given in 1995 are fairly representative. This also gives the name used by Caithness for larger than Magnum: Double Magnum. And in the Reflections Magazine 1987 you'll even find a description of making a Treble Magnum.

[SophieB]

Hi Wuff,

I do not think that you regard a Selkirk weight of 13.4 cm/5.2 inch but be a mere magnum. I agree with Ian Selkirk's super magnums are rare, while there are plenty of Selkirk magnums around.

I think the real problem is that super magnums can be made on the basis

1.of a limited edition that does not comprise of super magnums but now and then one is produced.

2.of a limited edition that produces super magnums only.

However, under this scheme, it is difficult to be sure one way or the other.

Sophie

[SophieB]

Your Jester is definitely a super magnum. It may be that for some LE the weights may be made in either magnum or super magnum. This is not helping me much though..

I just re-read this statement of mine and cringed. I did not mean to say that your post/information was not helpful (although it sounds like it...). I was only expressing frustration at Selkirk's (lack of) categorisation with regard to this question. I apologise if you felt that I was 'striking at you'. You were actually identifying a possible problem that I had not fully perceived and I thank you for doing so.

SophieB

[paperweightrow]

 "I apologise if you felt that I was 'striking at you'

Where did this come from Sophie? Certainly not myself. This is a significant area for discussion - I had previously noticed the differences in terminology and can say that Deacons Glass is different again in interpretation of Magnums, super-magnums, double-magnums, treble-magnums etc. . Any views on weight rather than dimensions?? 
I'll send some photos of these monsters to you shortly.   Steve

[Wuff]

I'll send some photos of these monsters to you shortly.

Preferably post them to the forum - then I can copy them as well - for later use with Scotland's Glass (provided you give your permission, of course).