Topic: ARCHIMEDE SEGUSO

[soledivo]

just a quicky,

when the above has been signed, has it been archimede 1st or seguso ?

like all of you i've seen a few examples but a recent 1 has me confused.
probably me being dense, thought i'd ask.  :chky:

[ardy]

I am always nervous of signatures on A.Seguso pieces as most of them appear to have been put on by ebay sellers.

I saw one online on an exhibition piece with A.Seguso and a date and number that looked like it could have been the real thing. Leslie Pina has an example in her book Archimede Seguso but that may or may not be the real thing.

I have noted the amazing increase in signatures on glass over the last 3 years. It is very bad in my book.

[soledivo]

thats what prompted me to ask, the 1 was looking at looked like it had been painted on, out of focus, i gave it a wide birth.
I was interested to see if any of you had seen variations of the signature.
thanks ardy  :chky:

[ardy]

Meant to say Leslie Pina's example is enscibed as 'Archimede Seguso 1952'. The 1952 looks like it could have been done a fair while ago due to how the 9 was written but still it is all a guess. Give me a label any day.

[langhaugh]

Marc Heiremanns in Murano Glass: Themes and Variations has five examples of the Archimede Seguso signature. Two are Seguso Archimede, which he states is diamond engraved on exhibition pieces in the 50's. Three are Archimede Seguso engraved in the 60's and later on "artistic series." So the signature would be very likely to forged if it's on a production piece. I've found Heiremeanns to be very accurate.

Hope this helps.

David