Author Topic: Better Bowls  (Read 1661 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline horochar

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 555
Better Bowls
« on: April 27, 2006, 12:22:05 PM »
I've collected Murano bowls fairly indescriminately until recently, because they are (relative to other glass objects) SO easy to find.  Anyhow, here are three of what I'd consider to be the "better" bowls.  Can anyone help with identification?  It's difficult to see in my picture, but the 3rd bowl actually has gold dust within, as well as perfectly symmetrical bubble pattern.
Thanks,
Charles.
(http://i3.tinypic.com/wk2150.jpg)
(http://i3.tinypic.com/wk23ko.jpg)
(http://i3.tinypic.com/wk23py.jpg)
(http://i3.tinypic.com/wk23v4.jpg)


Offline paradisetrader

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 937
  • Gender: Male
    • Vetrissimo
Better Bowls
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2006, 05:38:19 PM »
Hi Charles
I could be wrong but all of these seem fairly recent to me (ie post 79 ....poss post 89) and generic in that maker will be difficult if not impossible to ID.

To understand the reasons for this you need to acquaint yourself with Murano glassmaking history. I recommend Murano Magic for this - that will give you a glimpse into how complex it all is.

I also strongly recommend that you read as many of the threads here as you can and view the associated photos to develop an eye for the more identifiable stuff. Pina's books on Fifties glass and Italian Glass Century 20 will also help.

For online resources try here http://glasslinks.yobunny.org.uk/articles.php?lng=en&pg=32 but use them cautiously. Don't take what is said at face value until you are sure of the bona fides of the site owners.
Pete


Offline horochar

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 555
Better Bowls
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2006, 07:20:22 PM »
I believe that they are vintage and quite old, as all have significant base wear, are heavy and (to my eye, for what it's worth) display good artistic and technical quality.  I have several reference books, one being Pina's "Italian Glass," which is a wonderful compendium - one of the best - full of a great variety of examples, but which I'm led to understand isn't always reliable in terms of identification of producer.  Extremely similar examples of my 1st two bowls are described as being produced by A.V.E.M.  (Hope springs eternal).  Nothing like my 3rd bowl is pictured in the book.


Offline paradisetrader

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 937
  • Gender: Male
    • Vetrissimo
Better Bowls
« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2006, 08:37:02 PM »
Charles
Anything which is remotely tutti-fruiti looking gets attributed to AVEM just as anything brightly colored, heavy and with a polished flat base gets attributed as Murano. Of course, as we know, that doesn't make it cirrect.
See Laura's comments in this forum about AVEM.

The murrhines on your first piece look particularly squashed and distorted if colorful.

I personally like the second piece better because of the unusual colorway but I cannot understand the artistic justification for just three lonely murrhines. Also their more traditional style seem at odds with the more modern ethos of the rest of the bowl. On other words, to me, they look like an afterthought.

The third piece looks a good weight and the bubbles look reasonably well done (not nearly as difficult for the glassmaker as you might imagine incidentally) but I am not convinved it's Murano and looks fairly recently made to me (ie post '79).

These are just my opinions. I'd sorry if they don't concur with yours. I welcome counter arguements, corrections and opposing opinions. That's how we all learn.
Pete


Offline chuggy

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 826
  • Gender: Male
Better Bowls
« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2006, 09:38:53 PM »
Charles I think the first two are both by Fratelli Toso from the 1960's, the third I think is far more interesting, any chance of a picture of the base.
Paul
There is no distance on earth as far away as yesterday.


Offline horochar

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 555
Better Bowls
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2006, 02:57:59 AM »
Thanks for all the helpful comments.  So much for L. Pina attributions!  I photo'd the bottom, but I don't think it's useful for IDing purposes.  The bottom's a disaster, as though it was sandpapered and then scrubbed with gravel. :cry:  (At one point in its life, it was polished.)  I also included a picture of the transition between colors, showing some of the gold dust.

(http://i1.tinypic.com/wvbgba.jpg)
(http://i2.tinypic.com/wvbi88.jpg)


Offline chuggy

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 826
  • Gender: Male
Better Bowls
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2006, 09:31:12 AM »
Be interesting to see what Laura thinks on this one, as it's obviously nice quality, as you say the base reveals nothing really, but there is just something about this one that I think is better than the norm.
Paul
There is no distance on earth as far away as yesterday.


Offline svazzo

  • SVAZZO
  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 773
  • Gender: Male
    • www.SVAZZO.com
Better Bowls
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2006, 09:46:20 AM »
oooh, it has gold in it?
Didnt notice that fom the first photo.
I'll check around and see if its in the books I have.
Javier
Offering Vintage and Antique Murano Glass  Free Shipping Worldwide!
www.SVAZZO.com


Offline Max

  • Global Moderator
  • Members
  • *
  • Posts: 3473
  • Gender: Female
Better Bowls
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2006, 10:57:14 AM »
I thought the third bowl looked the most interesting too.    Aureliano Toso sprang to mind.  Would that be worth considering?
I am not a man


Offline chuggy

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 826
  • Gender: Male
Better Bowls
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2006, 04:47:13 PM »
I would say Aureliano Toso unlikely with the controlled bubbles, could be Seguso, but could even be someone like Barbini, but it does look real quality.
Paul
There is no distance on earth as far away as yesterday.

 

This Website is provided by Angela Bowey, PO Box 113, Paihia 0247, New Zealand