To answer the question about the work of the masters. Most of the amimals are far from perfect. A good example of imperfection is the work of Napoleone Martinuzzi. The faces of his animals tend to be well done, but the tails look like a child was playing with play-dough. Even the greatest masters had imperfections in their work. (Sometimes it seems to me that the greater the name, the more the imperfections back in the old Murano days.)
Eyes that are made by cutting bits of cane, then melting in the furnace often have pulls and inconsistencies. Some of the birds end up with eyes in different places on the face, making them look crazy. Tails are often made by flattening a pieces of glass, then snipping, shaping and reheating. It is okay for them to show evidence of the treatment. Many birds have squared off feathers. Some have feathers that are cut unevenly. All of these things are okay, though it is always good to try to find birds that have the most attractive features.
IOW's bird is a good one. Tooling marks are completely okay with art glass as long as they don't mar the beauty of the piece. There are certain fields that are important for viewing, so one wouldn't want a large tooling mark there, but in out of the way places, they are expected and acceptable.
Thanks Anita for a very useful, general comment that will inform my decisions to buy or not when tramping around. I have generally not bought animals with wonky eyes as my ignorance made me think this may make an item undesirable.
But I'm pleased to continue to learn by taking part in these forums. When IoW posted this I saw it before anyone commented. I thought I'd recognised it as a Seguso piece and went to check - when I came back Rosie had chipped in so I felt confident to comment.
If I haven't said so far, it's a lovely find. I tend to go for ZBS animals rather than Murano, but I like Neodymium glass and wuold love to see this one in both lights.
Topic: Can anyone ID this little bird?? (Read 971 times)
