Hi Kevin,
Well, I was surprised by the bidding activity at that auction (Moore, Allen & Innocent on 7 August).
I expected competition over the lots of traditional paperweights, i.e. the Whitefriars, the Clichy, the Salvador butterfly, the Caithness Whitefriars and the first two lots of Selkirk, but I was more than a little surprised by the competition over those of abstract paperweights (Caithness and Selkirk). They made good money. I thought this success at odd with the present market (as exemplified by the prices seen on Ebay). Indeed, we often advise sellers (rightly in my view) about the modest resale value of these weights.
While I am partial to a Selkirk abstract myself, I thought the abstract lots at Moore, Allen were going for a lot/too much money.. And I am at loss to account for this bidding activity: of course, there would have been paperweight collectors and dealers in addition to the 'normal crowd' at that auction and that tends to push prices up, but both dealers and collectors would be aware of what abstract weights are worth... So how come... It is a bit of a mystery to me. And, yes Alan is right, there seemed to be a very determined bidder in the room but there needs to be underbidders too to bring the prices up. Furthermore, I had observed something a little similar at the Cheffins auction the week before where a few lots of Caithness and Selkirk came up for auction.
May be there are 'new collectors' coming unto the market, and they do not distinguish between abstract and traditional paperweights (any more than the author of the blog above it would seem). I wonder whether the recent statement by one of the dealers on the TV show 'Secret Dealers' that glass paperweights were the antiques of tomorrow is affecting the market (and Tim Hogarth good to his words bought a lot of 4 modest paperweights - Murano and abstract Caithness - for £100!!!).
Anyway, this is what I meant by the auction being odd.
SophieB