I understand that it does not mean that they were made in the 17th Century. My concern is that you are using the term harlequin generically when the term has a very specific meaning. It seems to me that your are using the term harlequin to describe all Murano glass figurines dressed in old fashioned clothes. I'm asking you to refer us to sources that support your usage.
I'll admit immediately I know very little about 17th Century Venetian Glass. However, I do know that the harlequin (arlechinno in Italian) figure is a stock character in the Italian theatrical form Commedia dell'Arte. I also know that there are conventions about how the harlequin is portrayed and dressed. Usually, he is black-faced and wears a colourful costume of made up if diamond shaped patches of different coloured material. In other words, the conventional portrayal of the harlequin looks nothing like the figure that Ardy referred to at the beginning of this thread.
I do know that Commdia dell'Arte glass figures have been made in the 20th Century, most famously by Bianconi. However, you would never mistake Bianconi's figures for glass figures made before the 20th Century. Neither Barovier and Toso's nor Seguso's figures seem to bear any relationship to Commedia dell'Arte.
I've commented before that people of this board seem concerned (and in my case preoccupied) with using terms correctly. When I see a term that I'm not sure about I do a little research. When you used the word "Harlequin," I did some looking around. On the Internet, every reference to harlequin glass figures from Murano led back to you. So I asked you the questions in my previous post in this thread. I assure you it's nothing personal, but I do feel that a person who sells such magnificent Murano glass does has an obligation to use terms correctly.