Topic: Intricate Covered Jar

[horochar]

If possible, could someone please help me identify maker and vintage of this covered jar?  It is finely made but impossible to determine age.  It has light base wear, but not as much as I'd expect from a piece that's 50-60 years old.
Thanks,
Charles.

[langhaugh]

Charles: How is the base finished? Size?  Finally, is the handle on top aventurine?

Nice little(?) piece.

David

[horochar]

Yes, aventurine finial (gold inclusions).  I'm not at home, but it's modest size, about 4 inches wide and tall.  Bottom is polished smooth, as you would see with Murano as opposed to Chinese.  The glass is somewhat thicker and heavier than other examples of these kinds of forms I've seen.  However, still a "better" quality piece.  It would be good to know if it's vintage (50s/60s) and better to know if it's by an identifiable maker/designer.  None of my reference books show this piece.

[langhaugh]

Perverse as I may seem, I was hoping for a roughly finished bottom, as I have a couple of similar pieces that are Salviati. They have quite rough finishes, or rather, they are not finished much. I find that pieces like this don't have as much base wear as the ashtrays or geodes. As I said, it looks like a nice little piece, which could have been made by a number of companies in Murano. It's the kind of piece that TxSilver is really good at i.d.'ing. Are you out there, Anita?

David

[TxSilver]

I'm always at a bit of a loss when it comes to the latticino pieces unless there is a label. So many talented artists have made them. The latticino reminds me of pieces made by Barovier & Toso, Salviati, and AVeM, but the spacing of the latticino seems wider than the vases and bowls I've seen. As David said, the smooth base is also not usually found for these companies. The jar in this thread looks like a good quality bowl that someone spent a good bit of time on. Is there any indication about how old it might be?

[horochar]

It has light to moderate base wear, so if it's recent, it's not "new new."  I have as few bona fide 1950s pieces of art glass with no wear at all, so I suppose the presence or absence of base wear needn't signify anything.  Now that I'm home, I can report it is 5 inches (12.5 cm) tall by 5 inches wide.  And the base in its original state (i.e., minus scratches) was polished as smoothly as the other surfaces.  I actually like the wide latticino effect of the bowl - it reminds me of DNA strands.  For comparison's sake, posted here is a picture of a tiny, more finely stranded piece with mint green bands that I love.  The glass is thinner than that of the jar, and it has a rough pontil (not ground).

Thanks for all the responses,
Charles.