Topic: Murrine maker info?

[alpha]

Anybody have any ideas on who may have made these sunshine face murrine? The rods from which these canes were sliced were purchased in Venice but the seller did not know the maker nor the time frame. My guess is that they are from Murano second quarter of 20th century but beyond that I'm lost. The third cane with the hole in the middle is probably from a chevron bead making bar. Again any ideas of who and when?

[alpha]

Anyone think these are identical enough to the canes in Sarpellon's book - English edition - page 45 figures 420-421 to say that they are attirbutable to Franchini circa 1846 and not 20th century?

[KevinH]

I was going to check the Sarpellon books (the bigger one and the smaller one) but forgot all about it!

The overall design of the face canes is certainly similar to Franchini ones but it's what I would call "the modern cartoon" appearance of the actual faces that makes me a little uneasy.

I will check the books soon.

[KevinH]

I have now looked at every cane and every plaque in the Sarpellon books (Miniature Masterpieces Mosaic Glass 1838-1924 (Eng trans, pub 1995) and Venetian Beads, Mosaic Glass and Murrine (pub 2003) ). Sadly the only two "Sun" canes are those on page 45 of the 1995 book and also shown once each (or appear to be) in plaques on page 53 of that book. The same cane slices are inlcuded in the later book but there are no other details. That makes it difficult to draw any good conclusions.

However, if the ones in Sarpellon are fairly typical of the Franchini way of working then I would say that the canes slices in question are not by Franchini.

The faces in the Franchini examples are both formed with coloured background to the eyes, relatively thick lines for the shape of the nose and mouth and the mouth is formed with an "upper lip" shape. In the queried canes, there are clear outlines to the eyes with a central "pupil", the nose has a very geometric outline with quite thin lines and the mouth is more like a modern "smiley" shape. The "Sun Rays" could be considered as reasonably similar to the Franchini ones but to me they look "chunky" rather than the more "delicate and fire-like" ones of Franchini.

[alpha]

The mouth shape is definitely a not a match. But look at the cane on the right on page 45 with a magnifying glass and you will see that it does have the beady pupils.

Any one have an email address for Mr. Sarpellon?

[alpha]

Here's what a glass artist friend of mine had to say:
"I'm leaning toward another maker. I agree with Kevin, that the shape of the eyes and mouth are of a cartoon appearence, and Franchini seemed to steer clear of that "cartoon" look.  As a murrine maker I can say that you would most likely build one face for several attempts, Franchini's face's are from the same pull, each of the illustrated slices have different faces, which would mean Franchini would have to pull three faces to have made all the slices.  ... I almost wonder if these could have been made by the same unknown maker that made so many scent bottles with the gondola, the Rialto bridge and the many faces.  If so I think this would lead me to believe that this maker was trying to "copy" Franchini murrini, and maybe Franchini's work had seen a surge in popularity and value to create this market for "fakes".  It's really hard to say, and I'm surprised anyone would spend so much time making another persons artwork, without trying to greatly improve upon it."

[KevinH]

Yes, the page 45 right-hand example does show pupils in the eyes. However, the overall look of the eyes in the Franchini canes are not the "spectacled" [scary?] look of the "cartoon" ones and they do not have an obvious outline.

... trying to "copy" Franchini murrini ... ... to create this market for "fakes".

I prefer copy (without quote marks) to "fakes", as even with quote marks the word 'fake' implies an intention to deceive, and that is not something that can be deduced from so little information.

It's really hard to say, and I'm surprised anyone would spend so much time making another persons artwork, without trying to greatly improve upon it.

Fair point. But if the canes are simply made in the style of Franchini, without an intention to mislead, then why try to improve on them?