Topic: blue vine cameo

[BSevern]

The so called "faux cameo" or "pseudo-cameo" was made by the Bohemians to capitalize on the highly successful English cameo glass of the time.  They are typically marked "Florentine Cameo" or "Cameo Art".  These ware's from a distance resemble English cameo but upon close examination are not very high quality.  The cameo part is actually white raised enamel, and many of the blanks were done in similar colors and shapes as Webb and Stevens & Williams.  The inexpensive Bohemian copies were so successful, that the market for authentic English cameo glass plummeted, and it was discontinued due to it no longer being profitable.

Here's a few examples currently on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7410919680

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7410490093

Ivo your piece was made by Baccarat c 1860, thus it predates cameo glass as we know it.

Cal

[Ivo]

Thank you Cal I'm absolutely positively delighted with the news; it confirms all my suspicions about design, quality and workmanship on this piece. You've made my day.

[Bernard C]

... except you can feel the countours on the inside as if it were mould blown. ... Is this what is known as "faux cameo" ?

Ivo et al — It is with some relief that I discover that I am not the only one thoroughly confused by both the published literature and the terminology.   I had hoped that the interesting cameo pieces displayed at the Wallace in 2003 would help, but I suspect that Martine Newby, the author of the book, was as mystified as the rest of us.   To make life even more confusing, I haven't been able to throw any light on whether any of these terms are old antique dealer jargon.

Back to your interesting piece, Ivo.   The first of four ways I can envisage it was made was in a similar way to John Sowerby's first ever patent, No. 2433 of 15 September 1871, for Ornamenting pressed glass with designs in glass of a different colour, see Hajdamach pp338–9.

The "mould blown" impressions on the inside could be for two reasons.   If the whole vase was pressed, it could be that reheating for a variety of reasons produced slight distortion.

I have photographs of two scarce Sowerby plates made under John Sowerby's 1871 patent, one with green decoration, the other with blue, but they don't really help, other than proving that the patent was for a process that actually worked and went into production, information not available to Hajdamach in 1991.    (another margin note!)

The second was as the first but the first stage would have been the production of a thin-walled blue pressed vase incorporating the ornaments.   Then as the first, but with a final stage of removal of the thin blue layer by the use of acid or mechanical means.

The third was as the first but with a blown clear glass second stage.   Here the first stage shape would have had to have been cup-shaped.   I can't see how the pressure necessary to bond the ornaments to the vase would have been achieved here, but it is still a possibility.

The fourth was as the second but with a blown clear glass second stage.   Here the first stage shape would have had to have been cup-shaped.   The process of reshaping would have produced the internal impressions.  

Sources: Cottle, Newby, Hajdamach, & Thompson.

Bernard C.  

[Bernard C]

I have added some more ideas to my previous reply.   Please tell me if they are impossible.    At least I am trying!

Bernard C.  

[Ivo]

Thanks fort the technical observations Bernard.
I think the piece was blue flashed before being mould blown, and the flashing and mould lines were subsequently removed by acid etching. The genius part of it is the matt background which has a pattern of planks, as if the vines are crawling along a partition, all achieved by varying depth of etching.
Bit I am not excluding the piece was made an another way...

[Frank]

Perhaps it is worth pursuing with Baccarat?