Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => Murano & Italy Glass => Topic started by: horochar on February 07, 2010, 06:40:16 PM
-
This is a very large (9.5"/25 cm tall) and heavy vase. It does not have the "cordonato d'oro" twisted bands, but I think Barovier produced this style of vase with sprinkled gold dust. The trapped air bubbles are irregular in size. Any help identifying vintage and producer will be appreciated.
Charles
-
Don't know much about Barovier apart from a bowl I own. Don't think it is A.Seguso as I haven't seen this form before but that is not a definite.
Someone will know more about Barovier and give you some ideas on that line hopefully. Barbini also used a form like this and that might be an avenue you could check out.
-
Could you enlarge the pics please?
-
Charles:
I'd be a little concerned about the use of a straight cut to create of the rim of the vase. The rims I've seen have been more a nicely worked scallop. The shape seems a little off, too. Just noticed how big it is, and most of the pieces I have seen are much smaller.
It looks like Murano, from 50's or 60's, but I don't know enough to suggest a maker.
BTW, I read once that cordonato d'oro was the most copied style of the day, so a piece being cordonato d'oro doesn't automatically means it's Barovier and Toso. But all the cordonato d'oro I've seen has been pretty good,
-
The shape is very similar to a Barbini vase that i own and it is pictured in a L Pina book in a claret colour.JP
-
Thanks all for responses. I have a good degree of confidence that it's a Murano piece of indeterminate age, but if I had to guess 1950s (I've come to mistrust wear or lack of it as an indicator of age). I'll try to upload a larger picture tonight, but this message board only seems to accept tiny pix from my computer. :'( From John Phillip I'd love to know (1) which Pina book? and (2) does yours also have irregularly shaped controlled bubbles? I love this vase, but 2 things I don't like are that the controlled bubbles are irregularly sized and shaped (not perfect, round, evenly spaced bubbles) and they didn't use as much gold dust as one often sees in very high end pieces. Based on responses and further researches, I'm now thinking it's likely a Barbini rather than Barovier piece. By the way, when I bought it from the antique store, I passed on the matching ashtray. Maybe I should have bought it.
-
Charles:
I had the same question for Johnphilip re the Barbini. What book and what page? In Italian Glass, the Barbini piece closest to yours in is on p. 28., but the lip of the vase is gently scalloped, not cut, which was one of the elements that concerned me about you piece. More pictures would help. What's the width of the mouth of the piece versus the width at its widest point?
David
-
In answer to question, the width of mouth is 8 1/4" (21 cm) and 6" (14.5 cm). Here's larger picture.
Charles.
-
... and another close up, based on questions about the lip.
Again, thanks for any help.
Charles.
-
Charles:
Much clearer pictures! The lip of the vase looks much better now. It looks more like a lip that Archimede Seguso would do, and he did some pieces in gold like this.
The vase has vary sharply defined waist, almost like the vase is made of two separate pieces, which is why I thought the overall shape was a little odd.
David
-
I did say similar as mine was packed away so from memory it is a cross between the two on page 28 Italian glass century 20 the colour is like the one bottom right the shape like bottom left with the top pulled up a bit more , in the same book page 31 top right is a Barovier one with slight similarities .
-
It does seem to be unlike Barovier pieces I have seen due to the irregularities, Barovier seems to always be under control and structured. Looking at the edge it does remind me of Seguso bowl edges. But there again can't see him making this piece.
I am with John Phillip and would go with Barbini until that avenue collapses under the weight of lack of information.
-
I have to say that there are a lot of Murano companies that have existed over time. Some were very small and lasted only a short time. Many of them do not appear in Murano Magic or other books. We also have to think about more recent furnaces that are making "classic" or "traditional" forms. So, without a label and without finding the exact design, we really have no way of guessing who did the vase. Trying to fit it in the Barbini or Barovier category may be good places to start research, but chances are high that it was made by someone else entirely. So it is not useful to go with Barbini until it is proved otherwise. It is more useful to consider it simply Murano until a company name can be put on it.
-
Anita you nasty girl. You would stop all of us from our speculations.
Fancy bringing logic into this discussion, shame on you! :o
-
Has the piece been made in two parts? From the large pic it looks as if the neck has been applied the base? How irregular is the bullicante? Sorry for the extra questions and hopefully pics? :o
-Nothing wrong with speculating!!! You may be right sometimes!!! :spls: or wrong :cry:
-
Speculating is fine as long as one keeps the mind open to possibilities. I was reacting to Ardy's words that he would go with Barbini until the avenue collapses. It is better to just say Murano until the design is definitely attributed. To me the vase looks like it could have been done by anyone, including the companies mentioned in this post.
I read an article about why doctors make mistakes in their diagnoses. Two things that were mentioned were "anchoring" and "availability." Anchoring involved seeing one symptom and making a decision, not weighing other possibilities because the mind is set. Availability involved familiarity with certain diseases, so thinking of them first. Attributing glass can run into the same problems. Glass can look superficially like a design by a certain company, so we fix our search on the company (anchoring). And there are only certain companies we are familiar with (availability). I imagine a lot of misattributions in the literature come about because of this.
It is okay to just say Murano until the design can be attributed. This vase reminds me of the work of several of the Murano companies. But I don't think we should lean toward one company by default. I hope the vase does turn out to be one of the good companies. It is like finding treasure to get a good attribution. Probably somewhere down the road someone will find this exact vase with a label. Until then, all I can say is it looks Murano. Gosh, I am getting to be a stickler. (The zoo did it to me!)
-
It's not two pieces joined, although I see how it gives the appearance. The bullicante (air bubbles) aren't really as "irregular" in spacing so much as size; they're oblong (not round), sort of like grains of oats. Looking at a Barbini lamp I own, they're really not that different in shape. I'm tending towards Barbini now, although this would be an "attribution" at best until a catalog picture or labeled piece is located. It actually is a high quality piece, which leads me to think it's by a "better" producer. Although I based on further researches and these posts my initial hunch that it's an Archimede Seguso or Barovier is placed in doubt. As mentioned, there was an matching bowl that I declined to buy. The fact that it was produced as part of a set alone makes me highly doubt it's a recent re-interpretation, i.e., 1980s or later. I do think it's circa 1950s, despite a lack of significant base wear.
-
Unfortunately Anita most of the Murano pieces fall into your definition which sounds a lot like Alex's, maybe that is where we will all end up if we work on this long enough. We all know that if one maker made a successful piece it was copied by other Murano designers.
Without a label or the same design with a label (still tricky due to copies) then we are stuck. This takes all the fun out of guessing and really we could just put a note at the top of the site regarding this and say it is highly unlikely we can positively id any Murano glass without a label, which is close to the truth.
A couple of the members here are even concerned about id's on pieces with known labels. I understand the difficulties and I guess this is just the nature of all things Murano.
-
Speculating is one of the fun things about Murano glass, so I think it is fine. The only sentence I had objection to was the one about going with Barbini until the avenue collapses. The only way we would know for sure if it was or wasn't Barbini is if we find a documented example, so the avenue would stay open until that happened. (Another thing that horochar can do is write Barbini and Barovier to see if they might recognize the vase. If they reply it can save a lot of research time.)
-
I would probably look into either Seguso or Barbini. You might add Poli to it. I am tending to find Poli pieces are hard to attribute and he seems to be mostly known for his Sommerso designs. He did make quite a few pieces in the gold foil and clear glass, however, I have not stumbled upon a bullicante Poli piece yet. The ball of the vase reminds me of some Seguso lamp bases. I have a piece (sommerso) with a similar crimped rim but unfortunately no id on that.
-I think as long as we can provide possible leads for unidentifable pieces to help people along in there discovery of a possible maker, hopefully to the benefit of us all in the long run, as they might discover makers for our pieces as well. Keep the discussions fun, but to the point! ;D