Topic: Caithness/Selkirk Glass

[Rosie Beal]

I have a quite a large selection of Caithness/Selkirk from their early days of production and even though they are not prized nowadays, I still think there are some lovely lampwork designs from the early era, especially work by Manson, Scott, McDonald etc. 

Does anyone agree with me or is everybody past the Caithness stage due to the high volumes they have latterly produced?  (I must admit I have subsequently moved on to limited edition Perthshires and American artists but still would not want to sell my Caithness/Selkirk weights - Rosie

[KevinH]

... especially work by Manson, Scott, McDougall etc

I don't think Peter McDougall had much connection with Caithness Glass or Selkirk Glass.

As for people's collecting habits, I suspect there is still a strong focus for many folk on both Caithness and Selkirk, and at both the specialized and generalized levels.

Personally, with my rather blinkered view towards "all things Ysart" I do not actively collect either Caithness (non-PY) or Selkirk items although I have examples of both.

[Rosie Beal]

Sorry, I meant McDonald at Caithness and Holmes at Selkirk - Rosie

[paperweightrow]

 Rosie, I agree that  some limited edition Caithness examples are sophisticated. expertly designed and well made paperweights. I favour the William Manson era myself, and they form the bulk of my 55 piece Museum Pieces Collection. But some other pieces are fine paperweights, and that extends to a few of their recently made pieces, which indicates a move back to reasonable quality. This is now aided by the fact that Allan Scott and (surprise) Peter McDougall are both designing a few weights for Caithness - see my forthcoming Newsletter- which is good news. 

[Rosie Beal]

The interesting thing is that some many years ago Caithness produced a weight called "Camelot" and the demand for it at the time was unbelievable - pieces were changing hands at £300 plus even then because of its popularity - how times change - I am now informed that this particular edition sells for £80-100 at best. 

What I do love about paperweights is that, as they develop in complexity of design and the number of Paperweight manufacturers increases, they become more and more appealing  to add to individual'collections (not to my bank balance or my bank manager though) LOL. Rosie.

[chopin-liszt]

Allan Scott is a member here. I have some images of LE weights he made for the 2005 Scottish Glass Society Exhibition, which I recently posted in another thread, (which I now cannot find).

[Wuff]

The interesting thing is that some many years ago Caithness produced a weight called "Camelot" and the demand for it at the time was unbelievable - pieces were changing hands at £300 plus even then because of its popularity - how times change - I am now informed that this particular edition sells for £80-100 at best.

Hello Rosie,

You can view two images of Camelot on Scotland's Glass. Issued in 1983 the Original price was £35 (edition size 750) .... in 2004 Charlton estimates its value as £100 - which then had to be considered an optimistic price - and in the age of ebay it will be even more optimistic. £300 may have been an asking price, or a price tag in a shop - but I very much doubt it changed at this price. If it has, one of the two parties (guess which) had a very good deal .

[Rosie Beal]

Dear Chopin-Liszt/Wuff - Firstly, thank you for the Allan Scott pictures - his work is really lovely and is a worthy asset to any collection.

In response to the email about Camelot costing £35 - I know, I bought one but for some reason the weight became desirable and I do know of at least two Caithness collectors who paid "over the odds" at that time.  To be truthful, it isn't even that nice a weight when you look at it in the cold light of day - but if there is a demand, up goes the price (and then just as quickly, falls out of favour).

As a newbie to this forum, may I ask whether "abstract" weights are now completely out of favour? 

[Wuff]

May I ask whether "abstract" weights are now completely out of favour?

The term "abstract weights" is difficult to define strictly - let's take a look at a couple of the most recent Caithness weights: Enchanted Fire or Mother of Pearl. Are these "abstract"? I would assume they will certainly appeal to collectors more than (what I call) "swirly-whirly" weights, which could come from any place around the world.

You had mentioned Camelot, which I don't have - but I have Moonscape (attached): also 1983, also edition 750 fully subscribed, also originally £35, with £85 (Charlton) estimated a bit lower than Camelot - I acquired it for £32 a couple of years ago. Is that an "abstract" or an "inspired" weight?

[Rosie Beal]

Wuff, your weight looks really nice - similar colouring to Camelot in many ways.  What other types of paperweight do you collect?