Yes, I’m not arguing that all lustres are pineapple holders but that some of them may well be. If 95% of them are lustres, that’s no reason to dismiss the 5% that might be pineapple holders.
It’s inconvenient if sellers describe them all as pineapple holders if that seems like the more desirable object, but that’s no reason to call them all lustres if they are not. Just like some of the stuff sellers guess to be Murano actually will be Murano.
It’s still not proven that any of them are indeed pineapple holders but it seems likely. If so, I should think there must be some link or evolution between lustres and pineapple holders as they are so similar.
I can’t see that there can be a set height (10mm? 20mm? 30mm?….) of the cup that it can be said that any deeper it becomes a lustre, but would depend on how they were described or used when original sold. Conversely, some lustres with flatter tops will just be lustres. You could say that the deeper the cup, the less likely it is to be a pineapple holder. Andrew’s lustres could have easily held and displayed a pineapple (before conversion and if the internal diameter is big enough) but it is more likely they were just lustres due to the depth of the cup.
The DeGaulle’s birthplace museum showing the pineapple holder in use would date from his birth, 1890, so they think it was still a thing. The one on the table has a similar up turned cup but not as deep as Andrew’s. I also think that Andrew’s lustres are earlier than 1880s 1890s, closer to 1850s.
Topic: Blue Mantel Lusters - Assist with Age & Origin (Read 579 times)
