Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: dirk. on July 31, 2011, 04:47:38 PM
-
Hello!
An IMHO rather spectacular addition to my collection is this unfinished trial piece,
exploring an old technique...
No further clues but these pictures and the dimensions:
ca. 10.5cm tall and 10cm wide
If you guess the right technique of this piece, you´ll possibly come across the designer
who made it and wrote an article.
;D ;D ;D
-
Is this 'Krautstrunk' style from the 15th-16th century,not a clue on the new piece though :huh:
-
Thanks for your suggestion, Keith. :)
A Krautstrunk has indeed similar prunts (I think they were meant to prevent letting your
glass slip from your greasy hands while eating).
These prunts however are not just prunts... ;D The pontil scar gives an important clue
about the general appearance of the vessel; the pictures also show how the prunts are
applied....
-
Are they 'Pointed Drop Prunts' Dirk??
-
Nipple prunts, Nuppenbecher? But cant work out what went wrong on the base, guess it was meant to be a wine glass bowl...
-
Look inside the pontil scar.
How do the prunts look from the outside, how are they attached (look at the inside of the cup).
There´s a thread about this technique on GMB by Frank (2005).
:)
-
I am getting gold, I didn't LOOK at the inside pics. :pb: :-X
-
Possibly too hard to spot from the pictures:
The vessel is hollow, forming a cup within a cup...
Reallly can´t give any further clues.
:hi:
-
Do you know if any were actually finished? It would be nice to see the different stages... odd seeing the real thing instead of drawings. As that would surely stir the 2 camp debate, or has it done already since 2005. Must go and refresh my memory and see what new info there is about these today.
-
Ok, I can see a cup within a cup - but the prunty bits penetrate the space between the cups - they're actually on and between both cups.
Last time I saw anything remotely like this was a stunning Czech piece that was owned by Terry - (glasswizard, very sadly no longer with us) and I can't track it down right now.......
-
Some sort of "Graal" technique? -- Just guessing 8)
Michael
-
:cry: :cry: Please can we have a smiley for 'tearing your hair out' ??
-
@Rosie: :kissy: I´ll tell this evening...
@Michael: Sorry it´s not Graal technique, although you´ve come close unintended literally (you´ll get the joke
when I solve this puzzler)
@Sue: You´ve got the essential point! :clap: Try to imagine only half of it left... ;)
@Frank: I see you´ve got it. :) Doesn´t it change the view on this weird and wonky piece once you´ve
figured it out? This isn´t however a recent piece, so it´s highly unlikely to stir up the debate anew.
It´s from the 1960´s or 70´s. I don´t think any of the ones made in this technique were finished - I
must assume we knew!
To be honest I can´t reveal much more than the technique and who made it, because the piece is so brand
new to my collection and I´ve only managed to get a fractional picture about this topic so far.
But I´ve found and just ordered a copy of the article the ´glassworker´ wrote about these and I look
forward to read about this matter...
-
The only 'cup within a cup' technique I'm aware of is 'Zwischengoldglas' but I don't think it is :huh: :huh:
-
It's not Wiedmann trying to recreate a Diatreta, is it?
-
Sorry it´s not Graal technique, although you´ve come close unintended literally
Should we look towards Gralglas then? :)
Michael
-
Ivo´s completely right! :hiclp: :hiclp: And so is Michael. ;D
It is indeed a trial piece made by Karl Wiedmann during his time at Gralglas.
If you know about the provenance, you´ll even recognize the colour:
https://picasaweb.google.com/108140812446658939096/Gralglas#5631469226234606562
I feel so very proud to own such an intriguing object.
Ivo, do you know if he ever got any further with this technique? Were any of
these objects (partly) finished? Why was this theory of manufacturing a diatrete given up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cage_cup
http://www.google.de/search?q=diatretglas&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a&channel=np&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=de&tab=wi&biw=1280&bih=681
-
I know he did try to overthrow the theory of how these amazing objects were made, and I know he didn't quite manage. But I know nothing of the attempts or of the precise reason he gave up.
-
And here is the thread that brought the two camps face to face, well not quite...
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,1015.0.html
-
Many thanks to the both of you, much appreciated! I´ll see what the Wiedmann
article states and surely keep you informed. As well I´ll try to gather some more
information from the source of this lovely piece.
Side note: Quite fascinating how heated the discussion about their technique is
held. Is there no grey amongst this black and white or a space of doubt to be filled
with further thinking I wonder?
-
It's a gorgeous thing and I'm very, very jealous. :thup:
-
Thank you, Sue! :kissy:
A short thought: All the ancient pieces seem to have an outurned rim. While the two other
methods won´t require the necessity for this, it´s an almost natural result of the
Wiedmann technique.
-
Is there no grey amongst this black and white or a space of doubt to be filled
with further thinking I wonder?
Not at all! Once a respected authority opinion becomes accepted opinion, it becomes historical fact. Touch that if you dare. I was roundly criticised before the Scottish glass conference for including a talk on Jacobite engraving, but this time it changed Scottish history receiving almost full acceptance.
Personally, I believe that the Lierke or the Wiedmann approach are the ones that the Romans are most likely to have used. Since 2005 we now have water-jet glass cutting technology which could produce cage cups with the greatest of ease. Could probably even include the tool marks if copying an existing piece :) I guess if the Romans had used a second colour for creating the posts the solution would have been different.
You must be very pleased to have obtained this oddity and I am intrigued as to how you found it.
But is your piece made by casting or blowing and inverting to form the double walled vessel... followed by piercing and adding the pillar prunts? Now, how did Wiedmann do that, the principle of creating a double walled vessel can be seen in this post about flashing http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,1247.msg7855.html#msg7855 having then shaped his vessel he had to pierce it and insert the pillars, prunts. It is possible that this was done at the same time by piercing both envelopes and then adding the dark glass... yet the interior holes do not look like they were done that way. Also, how would he prevent the two walls from touching and fusing together as well at the same time maintaining vessel shape! So presumably the vessel was first cooled and the holes drilled, then coloured glass rod inserted with whole then being reheated to fuse everything together. Nightmarish complicated, moulding might have been easier. Look forward to hearing from you after you read the article. What is the article?
-
And here is the thread that brought the two camps face to face, well not quite...
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,1015.0.html
Well I don't feel such a numpty after all....I did read this thread, but couldn't really relate it to the piece you were showing Dirk.
I also looked up Cage Cups. but again, couldn't see how it was the same as what (to me) looked like a double walled glass cup covered in pointed prunts, even when you explained that they went through to the inner lining. I could only see caged cups as being carved glass......Oh, I still have so much to learn......I hope I will eventually understand this technique, but at the moment it is making my brain hurt!!
I love these quizzes (quizzi?) they really make me think, and I always learn something.
Thank you Dirk. :kissy:
-
Sorry for not coming back earlier....
Like I said this is an unfinished piece, Rosie. So the outer layer of the vessel was meant to
be cut away to leave that lace-like pattern of a cage cup.
I had a phone call from the previous owner yesterday. Don´t want to be too mysterious...
It´s from the possession of Mr. Günther Hofmann, whose daughter was selling a few bits
and blobs on ebay. I contacted her after I had bought a few things and asked wether she
was absolutely sure about the origin - and so this wonderful connection turned up. Indeed
Mr. Hofmann is the last living of the Gralglas designers, so I need to gather a few questions
for his next call.
So the first hand information about this piece is the following: Karl Wiedmann was successful
with his attempts and several cups were indeed finished, but they turned out to be much less
elaborate than the old examples. In Mr. Hofmann´s opinion the cut from a solid blank theory
is still the most convincing for the making of the old examples.
But - we´ve left out the method of Kristian Klepsch, who makes his examples in the lost form
method, where the outer layer of his cage cups is applied around the earlier made inner vessel
by pate de verre.
Karl Wiedmann however tried this completely blown method. The clear bubble was inverted to
form this double-walled shape and cooled down to a certain temperature, where the inner
vessel was already stable enough to resist the following step. The prunts of hot glass are
applied and remelt the outer layer. Then a very thin piece of glass <1mm is stuck into the
prunt to form the connection between the two vessels and immediately pulled out again.
For the finishing the hollow form is filled with wax to make the thing stable enough for
cutting.
My copy of Karl Wiedmann ´Die Herstellung der römischen Diatretgläser´ has not arrived yet,
Frank, but it will surely add some further info.
-
Please do not take this the wrong way,i am nothing but a lover of glass with no idea really!
When i first saw this piece i wondered if some-one had stuck those fairy stones on to it (sorry) :ooh:
I have just read through all the answers to your thread & have gone back to have another look at it by zooming in.
It is not until you see a piece like this & read through the tech etc to make this piece that you think
"WOW,HOW TALENTED THESE PEOPLE ARE" IT IS TRUELY AN ART FORM!
As some-one said i am still trying to get my head around how it was made.
Thank-you kat
-
Don´t worry, Kat. It wasn´t so different with me... When I first saw this piece, I simply
thought along the same lines: what a wonky, prunty, weird thingie.
But it was advertised as a Diatret trial piece and the name Wiedmann was mentioned plus
it really didn´t cost an awful lot, so I simply bought it. The reaL AHA-effect didn´t happen
before I could lay my hands on it.
And still - from the outside it may simply appear as a prunted beaker, but once you know
where and how to look at it, it reflects such a great creativity and skill.
:)