Reference my confusion re dates here
I have a couple of questions about the Rosenborg collection.
I'm researching another piece of glass(not red), where I have a query, which is why this question below is relevant.
I have come across a piece of information published in 2013 that says:
'no ruby glass vessels are known to have been formed in seventeenth-century Italy' .
Now, as far as I could see there are a number of red glass pieces in the Rosenborg Collection.
The Rosenborg collection if I recall correctly was presented 1709?. So could this comment in the research mean that it is not definitively known if the red glass in the Rosenborg collection was produced in the 18th century i.e. 1700-1708 or whether it was produced in the 17th century and was later given in 1709.
Or, could it be that there are items in the Rosenborg collection that are not Venetian? Is that possible?
Source:
Reviews on Glass No2 2013 on page 11
‘... The recipes for ruby glasses, both with copper and colloidal gold, are of Germanic origin18. Dedo von Kerssenbrock-Krosigk correctly noted that the Italian Antonio Neri (1576–1614) already mentioned the manufacturing of ruby glass in his famous Arte Vetraria, published in 1612, however, no ruby glass vessels are known to have been formed in seventeenth-century Italy, implying that translucent red was used primarily, if not exclusively, for glass beads’
http://network.icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/minisites/glass/review_on_glass_2_W_01.pdf
On page 10 and 11 in this article it appears to say two things:
http://network.icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/minisites/glass/review_on_glass_2_W_01.pdf- 1)the ruby glass in the Rosenborg collection was not made in the 17th century Venice
'
The recipes for ruby glasses,both with copper and colloidal gold, are of Germanic origin18. Dedo von Kerssenbrock Krosigk correctly noted that the Italian Antonio Neri (1576–1614) already mentioned the manufacturing of ruby glass in his famous Arte Vetraria, published in 1612, however, no ruby glass vessels are known to have been formed in seventeenth century Italy, implying that translucent red was used primarily, if not exclusively, for glass beads, canes, and applied decoration rather than for entire glass vessels as in Germany (19)'
- 2) the ruby glass in the Rosenborg collection was made in the 18th century in Venice
Listed under Source references:
'
20. For early eighteenth-century Italian ruby glass see the famous and well-documented and – dated 23 (now 19 surviving)pieces Frederic IV of Denmark (1671–1730) brought with him to Rosenborg Castle from Venice in 1709. See Gudmund Boesen,
Venetianske Glas på Rosenborg, Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gads Forlag, 1960, cat. entries 82-85. '
Point no 2) appears to be borne out by the comments on the Corning article on the website.
This is further information I found on Hein:
Found on the Corning website - Rakow grant for research
https://www.cmog.org/bio/j-rgen-hein'The Rakow Grant for Glass Research was awarded to Jørgen Hein, curator of the Royal Danish Collections at Rosenborg Palace, Copenhagen, Denmark for use in completing a catalog of about 250 unpublished glass objects at Rosenborg Palace and Amalienborg Palace. Sixty percent of these objects came from the Glass Room at Rosenborg Palace, which was installed in 1714 and inventoried in 1718. They included Bohemian, German, Dutch, Swedish, and English glass dating from about 1640 to 1714.'In his application for the Rakow Grant, Mr. Hein wrote that his goal was “to publish the best of the glass in the possession of the 17th- and 18th-century kings of Denmark–Norway, a North European power, which did not have a nationwide glassworks until the Nøstetangen glasshouse in Norway in the 1740s.”
The way all these items are written is not self evident.
- The Rakow grant precis appears to say in the way it is written, that some of the objects in the glass room came from countries other than Venice.
- I'm not positively sure to which ruby glasses Hein refers in the JStor article but it does seem to me from the way it has been written that he is referring to those in the Glass room which are ruby glass.
- I am not positively sure whether there are other ruby glasses in the glass room that might have been Venetian hence the Corning article 1. and the other article 3. posted above.
In that same Corning article it does talk about South German ruby glass with Augsburg marks on the mounts, but in that paragraph it does not refer to any in the Rosenborg Collection. It's weird. Hein does, and also mentions the mount marks.
Yet the Corning refers to the ruby collection in the Rosenborg as being Venetian.
So I am wondering if all those ruby glasses in the Glass room at the Rosenborg have been found to be Venetian now, hence the Corning article and the article in no 3. thereby negating the JStor article reference in no 2. posted above that appears to say they were South German?
Why would Hein mention South German ruby glass with Augsburg marks in the Rosenborg collection but the Corning not?
Topic: Glass in the Rosenborg Castle Venetian glass collection - is it all ... (Read 1647 times)
