Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Topic started by: flying free on February 28, 2013, 12:56:05 AM
-
This has probably been on the board before so apologies but I thought some might find it interesting if they've not seen it previously.
In this book 'The Curiosities of Glassmaking' written by Apsley Pellatt and published in 1849, he shows on page 140 plate 6 or VI, which is a coloured plate with an example of:
1) what he describes on page 141 as a 'Venetian Ball' which seems to be a scramble weight with filigrano cane scraps in it.
Interestingly this was written in 1849 and on page 109 and 110 he describes these 'Venetian balls' and adds '...Some of the ancient specimens have apparently been decomposed on the exterior, but can be again restored by the Glass-cutters polishing wheels' .
What does he mean by 'Ancient specimens' ?
2) a section of what is described on page 141 as 'Specimen of modern French Mille-fiori glass - formerly made by the Ancients and the Venetians: it consists of slices off the ends of cones, of various colours, enclosed in white transparent glass, as described in the manipulatory portion of the work (see page 110)' .. and also page 109
link here
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FCwGAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=apsley+pellatt+glass&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y5YuUc6XN8Wn0QXlxYDwDA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA
m
-
1)
"Ancient specimens" may simply mean 15th century (and earlier?) Venetian "balls" and other objects which include millefiori and filigrana canes. The millefiori techniques are what are often referenced in modern books as being "rediscovered" or "reinvented" at Murano / Bohemia in the early 19th century.
The early Venetain "balls" were used as decorative elements for such as the top of maces.
2)
The reference to "cones" in that extract is very likely a misprint and should have been "canes".
At the time that Pellatt wrote the book, French millefiori paperweights (based on the "rediscovered techniques" at Murano / Bohemia) were clearly not properly understood. The making differed from that of "the Ancients" in that the paperweights were solid, not blown, [ * ] and the canes were added to the solid gather and covered with a clear layer then shaped as required.
[ * ] [Mod, April 28 2016: Please see reply 26 below for a correction to this statement.]
-
thank so much :)
I was confused as I was under the misapprehension that millefiori weights were a mid 19th century 'invention'.
m
-
They were a 19th century "invention"! Usually stated in the books to be the "invention" of Pietro Bigaglia but now accepted that Dr Fuss in Bohemia got there first in the 1830s.
The misapprehension is thinking that earlier items (Venetian balls, plaques and whatever) were millefiori paperweights - they were not.
-
ok, so just totally misapprehensive on all counts then ;D
I've now got it clear ... but didn't know about Dr Fuss either, so thank you for straightening it all out for me.
m
-
In referring to ancient glass, I believe Apsley Pellatt may have been referring to truly older samples of Roman and Alexandrian glass canes and mosaics dating from as early as the first century B.C. These were most likely made by murrini techniques similar to those used by modern day murrini makers like Dinah Hulet and Loren Stump. More recently, there are examples of Murano beads and bowls that have millefiori formed in molds dating from the 15th century.
That said, paperweights came later and the millefiori paperweight is now believed to have first been invented in the 1830s as stated above.
-
This posting shows an old Italian millefiori item that predates the Pellatt publication by a few hundred years.
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,45664 (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,45664)
-
thanks for linking it. I love that piece of glass. I remember when you first posted it and it has been included in an article that I've read somewhere I think? The canes remind me of dried pasta. They have an odd opalescent look about them and I often recall that piece wondering about how the glass of the canes was made for that colour and effect.
m
-
Have another question :-[ sorry
Kev in your response to my first question you said
'At the time that Pellatt wrote the book, French millefiori paperweights (based on the "rediscovered techniques" at Murano / Bohemia) were clearly not properly understood. The making differed from that of "the Ancients" in that the paperweights were solid, not blown, and the canes were added to the solid gather and covered with a clear layer then shaped as required.'
In fact on rereading the book, the reference I made to the Venetian ball actually says that it was a solid ball, not hollow.
The explanation says
'Fig. 1. A solid ancient Venetian ball, consisting of fragments of filigree cane, placed in a hollow, transparent, white Glass pocket, and collapsed by extracting the air as the mass fuses together by the heat of the furnace'.
It doesn't say the ball was hollow :-\ It says it was solid and describes a process that means it was solid I think? It also doesn't say it was blown I don't think?
[ * ]
If this is the case, then is the only difference between an 'ancient' Venetian ball and a millefiori paperweight, the fact that one is called a paperweight and the other not?
I'm just wondering why neither the Pellatt book nor the 1852 book I mentioned on the other threads, both of which discuss Millefiori and the construction of what I guess would be canes of some sort, don't call them paperweights?
It sounds to me he is discussing a solid glass object with millefiori in it not a hollow ball despite it being called a Venetian'ball'.
If the items were the same but their usage was just different, then when was the term 'paperweight' denoted?
I know the words ' flogging' and 'dead horse' spring to mind, but please humour me ;D
m
[ * ] [Mod, April 28 2016: Please see reply 26 below for a correction of Kev's statement.]
-
Sounds like an unnecessary and somewhat bizarre way to make a solid ball. Perhaps trade secrets were being protected? I can think of other somewhat less generous explanations why the author may have had it wrong.
John
-
I agree with John's thoughts about it being a bizarre way to make a solid ball.
But I will get back to you on this when I have reviewed Pellatt's book a few more times. :)
-
It might have been a bizarre way to make a solid ball, but he (Apsley Pellatt) was definitely talking about a solid ball i.e. what we now call a paperweight judging from the picture of the item (it looks to have a flattish base to me, not to be a round ball but I could be wrong).
Anyway, if, let's say, he was talking about an item that we now call a paperweight, I wonder why that term is not referred to either in his book or in the 1852 book. And therefore when did that term become the 'term' for the item?
Just wondering ...
m
-
I am researching .. more info will be given soon ... please wait. :)
-
***
I thought the first clear reference to a 'paperweight' like object with millefiori in a glass ball was by Sabellico in 1495. But what you actually call them is another matter. Around 1845 - 1850 in the UK they were called 'letter weights', more often than 'paperweights'. I do not know when that latter phrase was first used, or became popular, but it was not an obvious choice, to my mind.
Alan
-
A few weeks ago I was admiring a 1st century Roman glass dish, in the local museum, moulded out of cane-like structures.
The individual "canes" were a deep opaque blue, with an (uneven and a bit square - like those minty black and white sweeties) spiral of white running through them.
-
I am still "meandering" through various books, but getting close to being able to give an answer to the questions. The answer(s) will probably be brief, but the list of book references and selected quotes (and maybe some earlier GMB threads?) might fill up my post. ;D
-
Hah! I have been around a few circles and rushed off on a couple of tangents.
My research, for what seems to be a couple of fairly simple questions, is getting more interesting (for me), but is needing much more time than I first imagined!
When I have reached a conclusion I will post again ... and also tidy things up by deleting "progress comments" such as this one.
;D
-
hmm, this is what happens :0 and why I post and then disappear for months and suddenly repost endlessly long comments ;D
I have found out that Sabellico 'recorded' his observations - so somewhere in Latin, is a recorded version of an early solid Venetian ball. I have a contact who reads Classics, so I might get in touch and suggest that as an area to look into for me :o
In the meantime, I'm travelling at the moment but am ploughing through Apsley Pellatt and lo ... page 110 mentions paperweights.
m
-
Sabellico 'recorded' his observations - so somewhere in Latin, is a recorded version of an early solid Venetian ball.
Some of the references in paperweight literature point to: Marc Antonio Sabellico, “De Situ Urbis Venetae”, written around 1494/5.
And at least one reference gives the Latin text: “primo venit in mentum brevi pila includere omnia florum genera quibus vernantia vestiuntur prate.” The often repeated translation is, “But consider to whom it did first occur to include in a little ball all the sorts of flowers that clothe the meadows in spring.” It is usually stated that the "brevi pila" (little ball / column) referred to a "Venetian ball" of the 15th century.
... Apsley Pellatt and lo ... page 110 mentions paperweights.
Yes, but the reference may be debatable in the context that Pellatt made it!
-
I don't understand what you mean by the last comment ? But that's probably because I've lost track of where we are now :)
It reads to me that what he calls Mille-Fiore (sic) he says are the same as the Venetian Balls, but as he defines it, the Venetian Balls were constructed of scramble canes, and he describes the Mille-fiore as being more regular in design ie. having a set pattern of canes. He shows a drawing of the set pattern construction. (the drawing is very confusing I think)
He then says that once the shape with the set pattern of canes was made it could be formed into a paperweight or a bowl (he calls a bowl a 'tazza'). That isn't improbable is it? I'm sure I've read that some Strathearn paperweights became little bowls?
So it seems to me that at least in 1849? (was that when he wrote the book?) when the book was written, there is a mention of paperweights and in the same breath as a Venetian ball. So it could be taken that they are the same item (paperweight) but one is a scramble weight (Venetian Ball) and the other a formed from a set pattern design of canes(Mille-Fiore paperweight item).
Given there appears to be a lack of mention of 'paperweights' in contemporary mid 19th century writing about the Great Exhibition for example, I take it to read he was writing of Venetian Mille-Fiore (sic) paperweights of a much earlier date and not contemporary items being made at the time of his writing. His phraseology is written in past tense when describing the Mille-Fiore work - 'It was formed by placing...' and does read as though he was describing much much earlier work no longer being made.
His description of how it was made is a bit weird though.
m
-
list from the Great Exhibition
https://books.google.com.do/books?id=OfMHAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+great+exhibition+glass+1851&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigj8Dg85TMAhXBFz4KHZxyBDk4ChDoAQgpMAM#v=snippet&q=paper-weights&f=false
page 203
no 584 Buquoy
'...paper-weights(sic) of wavy hyalite glass'
'paperweight' as a search term threw up nothing - changing it to 'paper-weights' throws up the above!
However, having done lots of research on hyalith and lithyalin glass, I'm not entirely sure what they are describing especially since this is now the 1850s and Buquoy had been making Hyalith glass for a long time by then.
It might possibly be a hyalith glass base with a lithyalin stain on it in a wavy pattern (that's all I can imagine it must mean).
m
-
You might consider looking at the Giovanni Sarpellon book titled Miniature Masterpieces Mosaic Glass 1838-1934. The author describes in detail the method of constructing millefiori, mosaic, and murrini canes. The three methods are different. The focus of the is not paperweights, but the canes themselves.
I consider murrini the most difficult technique to comprehend until you've seen it done. The cane is built in layers of glass by the artist "painting" each cane on its side until he / she has a complete cane that when sliced will yield the desired image on each slice. 20th century artists practicing the technique are Richard Marquis, Dinah Hulet, and Loren Stump. Now there are many artists using the technique.
-
I will explain things, including what I mean about Pellat's context, when I have finalized the details.
As for the 1851 exhibition items, not all "paperweights" (or "letter weights") were made of glass, but for those that were, many may well have been simple, small, decorative glass blocks or perhaps moulded items of some form. Those items are not what I am thinking about here.
-
ok, my brain has caught up. I will wait for your explanation.
Re the mention of Buquoy paperweights - I only added it because it's the only mention I have come across for that period of the Great Exhibition, where glass paperweights were mentioned.
For information, I think the Buquoy pieces I have seen that are like paperweights are pyramid shapes and also I have seen an octagonal shape paperweight that is hyalith lithyalin glass. (for anyone questioning this description 'hyalith lithyalin', it is an important distinction as lithyalin finish was also done on transparent coloured glass pieces. Hyalith glass is completely opaque and looks like stone, and then in this description would have the lithyalin painting finish done over the top.
I own a hyalith piece without a lithyalin finish on it but gilded instead (Buquoy) and have also owned a hyalith lithyalin piece.
m
-
Only one item comes up listed as 'presse-papier' in the Great Exhibition list :
and that is for BAUTTE T.F. of Geneva - the item is not glass from the description given. It appears to be enamelled on gold with a mechanical singing bird.
So out of the Great Exhibition list of exhibitors that I can find online the only glass mention of paperweight is Buquoy and is hyalith glass.
This does at least give written contemporary period evidence to the fact that there were glass paperweights in 1852 and calls them paperweights.
No mention of 'letter weights' that I could find in that list.
m
-
***
You can find a reference to " letter-weights ( mille fiori) " on page 1038 of the Illustrated Descriptive Catalogue of the Great Exhibition. This refers to Joseph Pfeiffer & Co, Gablonz, Manufacturers. I think that they actually bought in various products, the paperweights coming from Josef Riedel, who had factories around Gablonz.
Alan
[Mod: Edited to add: For anyone interested in the 1851 Exhibition catalog entry, Alan's reference is in Part 3 of the catalog. To view all (four) parts I recommend the web page by Sarah J Young (http://sarahjyoung.com/site/2011/05/18/great-exhibition-catalogues/) which gives direct links to all parts and has brief info on each section.]
-
On the question of whether the "Venetian ball" was hollow or solid ...
I do not know why I said (or implied) earlier that the “Venetian balls” were hollow. I may simply have been mistaken and did not think too hard before posting my comment. However, I may have been strongly influenced some years back by something I read in a book I never purchased, but for which I have recently seen a copy of some relevant pages …
Paperweights, Michael Kovacek, 1987
In his lead-in text discussing the “Genesis of Paperweights” he briefly covers the work of the ancient Egyptians and Romans and goes on to say:
… the first period of Venetian glass-making. One glass ball dates from this time, and this can be considered the ancestor of future paperweights. It is a hollow ball made of millefiori segments with gold leaf applied behind. … This beautiful ball is fitted into a Gothic reliquary, which is at the Fürstlich Hohenzollernsches Museum in Sigmaringen.
… Most probably this hollow millefiori ball is identical with the little balls mentioned by Marc Antonio Sabellico in his “De Situ Urbis Venetae”, written around 1495: “… include in a little ball all the sorts of flowers which clothe the meadows in spring.”
… The question of whether the Venetian glass-makers … of the 19th century … knew these hollow glass balls of the late 15th century … cannot be answered … There is, however a striking similarity between the hollow ball in the Sigmaringen reliquary and the Venetian paperweights.
And from the part of Kovacek’s text that I have seen, which is actually just a general summary of developments from ancient to more modern times, he makes no mention of “Venetian balls” being solid!
So, perhaps I can use Kovacek's text as my excuse? But that would be unkind - the mistake was mine!
What I am sure of, however, is that most of the literary references I have recently reviewed (based on at least 30 books / articles) indicate that the “Venetian ball” was (normally) solid and often drilled through. The drilled hole was probably to provide a means of fitting into an item such as a reliquary or a table / pedestal ornament.
For confirmation, the "Venetian balls", rather than being just a mass of canes smoothed out in some way, all seem to have had an outer layer of clear glass and the final shaping seems to have left the surface quite smooth. This is similar to many modern paperweights that have the decoration set just below the surface of the clear glass - including the so-called "scrambled" weights of Bigaglia & co.
Also, it is interesting that the various authors either make little comment on a clear definition of "Venetian ball" or they point to various types of item as fitting the "conglomerated mass" (as stated by Pellatt). Dates for the "balls" are usually suggested as 15th or 16th or 17th century.
[Some comments on Pellat's book entry and on "letter-weights" to follow]
-
Thank you Kev.
Three observations:
1. It seems that a 'Venetian ball' ( referring to those Venetian balls apparently dating to 15th/16th/17th century as dates are suggested in current literature references) and as discussed in Pellatt, appears perceptively from the description to be the same as a millefiori paperweight in the sense that:
a) it is a solid curved shaped mass of glass
b) which incorporates millefiori canes
2. It might also be however that, although a Venetian ball appears perceptively from descriptions to be the same as what we know as a millefiori paperweight, it actually differs from what we know as a millefiori paperweight in the sense that it was actually always produced as a completely spherical item rather than having a flat base as a millefiori paperweight would have.
3. I'd love to know:
a) how the 'Venetian ball' that Kovacek describes (the one which is fitted in the Gothic reliquary), was actually made.
b) what this item really looks like.
From the description ' It is a hollow ball made of millefiori segments with gold leaf applied behind' I'm not sure how you would make a ball of millefiori segments without something solid to place them on to in the first place or how you would apply gold leaf behind the segments.
Is this Venetian ball which is set into the Gothic reliquary actually completely spherical? Does anyone have a reference for showing a picture of this item?
I'm curious because Kovacek makes numerous references to it being 'hollow' . Was he just mistaken - or is this particular item really hollow and therefore not a Venetian ball as Pellatt describes?
-
I hope to soon cover all of the above, together with my "personal confusion" about Pellatt's details.
Hopefully I will get this done in the next few days.
-
millefiore ball - top item on this page I think?
1500's
http://www.museen-in-bayern.de/das-museumsportal/museumssuche/museen/museum/kunstsammlungen-der-veste-coburg.html
http://www.museen-in-bayern.de/uploads/tx_landesstelle/images/53556.jpg
'MILLEFIORIKUGEL
The Millefiorikugel from the 16th century was made in Venice .
Bundled colorful glass strands are fused such that there is an ornamental pattern in cross section . Thin sections of glass rods are placed in a further operation to each other and merged again .
The artful ball is crowned by a figure Mohr and originally served as table decorations .'
And a different one here: 'Historisches Museum Basel'
http://www.hmb.ch/sammlung/object/kugel-in-millefiori-technik.html
Glass
BALL IN MILLEFIORI TECHNIQUE
Venice, after 1500
Glass Stained Glass and gold deposits
Dm. 3.25 cm
Inv. 1917,824.
Amerbach Cabinet
Image Resolution:
3625px x 3090px
CHF 40.00
Add to Cart
The resultant from the glass processing ability to draw from the heated glass mass finest glass threads, led in antiquity for decorations in construction and inlay technique. However, it took the far more sophisticated glassmaking Venice to merge thread rods of different color so and to profile the resulting colored strand that the cross section of this extremely fragile formations tiny stars and rosettes incurred. These semi-finished products as well as spirally wound portions of glass ribbon and gold foil were melted in the ball to be decorated. Millefiori - thousand Flower jewelry - the decor in 1495 described by the Venetian Marcantonio Sabellico is called, the glass spheres decorates centuries and even today in far coarser form as a paperweight. This rare early example of millefiori Ball is listed in Amerbach inventory A 1578 as "1 Venetian specialties Kugelen", it stands as a curiosity rather than as a treasure for the variety of civil Renaissance rarities cabinet.
p
-
See also: http://renvenetian.cmog.org/object/millefiori-ball for an example of a "Venetain Ball" said to be made "about 1500"; 5.1 cm (2 inch) diameter.
Note that in the video in that link the CMoG "millefiori ball" is made by blowing a bubble and then covering with millefiori and a final layer of clear. The result is a "hollow millefiori ball". The "Venetian ball" illustrated in Pellatt's 1849 book is, of course, stated as "solid" and according to Pellat, made by "conglomerating the millefiori".
And as an extra point for the general discussion in this thread, the first example of "Venetain ball" that M linked to in the previous post is illustrated in Paperweights by Sybille Jargstorf, 1991, page 11. The illustration is included in a chapter headed "Hollow blown glass spheres". That was another of my earlier "reasons" for saying that "Venetian balls" were hollow - but as with my reading of the Kovacek text, I should have thought a bit more about that - it might be hollow, it might not.
-
Interesting.
I wonder if Pellatt assumed they were solid (perhaps he thought of them as a bit like a giant bead), hence his description of how they were made?
Or, perhaps he had seen a millefiori paperweight (mid 19th century) as we know it and assumed the 15th/16th/17th century Venetian balls were made in the same way?
I was thinking that if the ones that have come to light are pierced through the centre, it would be more likely they would have been hollow. i.e. it was probably possible to pierce a hole top and bottom in the them, but to drill a hole through a 2 inch diameter ball was less likely to be successful in that day and age.
However, they managed to pierce through a bead so perhaps used the same technique that was used in that era, to pierce the larger millefiori balls?
I suppose it is possible that Pellatt assumed they were solid because he only read about them but never saw or handled one, but later research has proved they were hollow?
-
I've now read Jargstorf.
-
In many books I read, I find that it is vastly irritating and probably the cause of many 'myths' not to include sizes (at the very least) when referencing items - and more helpfully weight as well.
In this case it might be what has caused distinct confusion for 500 years among those discussing Venetian Balls for example. Starting with Sabellico who should have given the size of the item he was describing. (I've deleted that as having tried to translate Sabellico, I wonder if the misconceptions have arisen down to the way what he wrote has been translated, rather than the fact he didn't put sizes of items).
Having tried to do a translation from a text in the PK article I have linked in my post below, I'm curious as to whether Sabellico was actually describing a ball?
Jargstorf appears to also query this but questions whether he was actually referring to 'little recipients made in such glass' (Jargstorf, Paperweights pp13) by which I understand she means small bowls etc.
My query from the translation would be was he actually really referring to the millefiori canes themselves, not balls or small glass millefiori items like bowls etc.
-
http://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2015-3w-romont-2015-baumgartner-reflets-venise.pdf
Information on that link discussing the item (Museum inventory number from Basel I linked to above in post 29 . It gives a different diameter size to the piece if I have read it correctly (the inventory number is the same 1917.824.)
It says the spherical item is 3.7mm not the 3.25mm given in the museum link I gave above.
Aus dem Katalog: Kat.Nr. 44, S. 124-127
Millefiori-Kugel
Venedig, 16. Jhdt.
Glas farblos und in verschiedensten opaken
und transparenten Farben. Gold.
Fehlstellen, geklebt, kleine runde Abplatzungen
D 3,7 cm
Basel, Historisches Museum, Inv.1917.824
It appears when translated via google (always difficult to ascertain whether the google translating is correctly done and correctly read by me) to say that these balls were solid.
The PK also gives a written Latin version from Sabellico. When I translate that I find it hard to see where he is describing a ball? It looks like he was describing millefiori canes?
-
I have amended my reply no 33 (just in case it had been read just after I first wrote it).
I have just looked at the Sabellico translation again.
He appears from the translation I am reading, to describe a 'short ball'. I wonder if that might be a flat cut cross section of cane, which could be described as a be a 'flat circle' (i.e. a 'short ball'?) - with 'short' being the translated word for a 'flat slice' (which would be low in height and hence short) and 'ball' being the translated word used to describe it being 'circular'?
Just wondering ... ::)
-
Ha ha. It's fun isn't it.
I agree entirely that having no sizes stated in much of the literature is a problem. And having little in the way of provenance does not help either. However, so many books are "summaries" rather than "aids to analysis" - and that could easily be influenced by the publishers and their deadlines.
But, yes, to those of us who try to understand the details, a lack of size, weight, provenance etc. can lead to all sorts of guesswork and assumptions.
Sibylle Jargstorf is, in my view, a breath of fresh air in terms of raising alternative ideas and possibilities (and not just with "Venetian balls") instead of simply repeating long-held beliefs.
Another author, Paul Hollister Jr., in his 1969 book, The Encyclopedia of Glass Paperweights, gave views on a number of points that some people at the time probably found rather challenging - including the idea that classic paperweight making began about 1842 and was probably simultaneous with work in Silesia-Bohemia. And his first comment (on page 1 of the book) relating to the "Venetian ball" stated: The glass conglomerate of the Venetian ball, cylinder, or cube of the early 1840s is not a paperweight in the Classic sense.
The way I read that, is that Hollister was making a distinction between a) what collectors now call a "paperweight" and b) some decorative items that were probably based on the older "Venetian balls" mentioned by Sabellico. But even so, Hollister's sentence, taken out of full context, could appear rather contentious - "What? Did he just say that 'Venetian balls' were from the 1840s?"
But I digress (again). I must get back to my research notes and preparation of "brief comments" on all the questions.
But then again ... how about a comment on translation of Latin ... see next post.
-
As stated by M, earlier, Sibylle Jargstorf gave an opinion that the Latin word “pila” could not only translate as “balls” or “columns” but also as “recipients”. And by “recipients” she was alluding to “little buckets” [cups, vessels etc.?] and “small bowls”. The implication, in the way I read it, is that the “Venetian balls” of Sabellico (c1495) were therefore not actually the “conglomerated mass” that Pellatt wrote about in 1849 but were simply the millefiori canes decorating some “vessels” of the 15th century. If that is true then Pellatt’s illustrated “Venetian ball” may not have been as early as the 15th century.
Some of the literature indicates that the early “Venetian balls” were attributed (by museums etc.) through cane matching to “known wares” including cups, bowls etc.[vessels], from around the 15th / 16th / 17th centuries. And that would reasonably fit with Jargstorf’s idea.
Whether Sabellico, the Venetian historian who wrote the Latin term “… brevi pila …” actually meant “little balls” or “little columns” or “little bowls and things [vessels]” is still not settled – at least, not in the literature. So, in preference to Google translate and various online Latin dictionaries, I checked a Latin-English dictionary that I just happen to have at home: Cassell’s Latin Dictionary, 1955 edition, first published 1887. It gives …
Latin
1. pila – a mortar
2. pila – a pillar
3. pila – a ball (I – a ball to play with; II – any ball or sphere-shaped substance, a balloting ball)
English
a) mortar = a vessel, pila, mortarium
b) pillar, columen, pila (=support for a bridge, etc.), columna (= column)
c) ball, 1, pila; 2, the __ of the earth, terrae globus; the eye__, pupilla; a musket __, lapis (as thrown by a ballista); 3, = a dance, saltatio
This appears to give credence to Jargstorf’s thought. The meaning of “mortar / a vessel” [bucket, bowl etc.] is certainly included. And if the entries in the dictionary are weighted by primary usage, then “pila = a mortar” is the primary meaning. But does “mortar” really translate into “vessel”, in the sense of a millefiori decorated bowl or cup etc?
No other author that I am aware of has made the link that Jargstorf did. Other authors touch on the “sphere / column” question, ignoring the “vessel” idea, but without definite conclusion. However, Hollister, in The Encyclopedia of Glass Paperweights, page 12, says in reference to the Sabellico text:
(Translation by Paul Perrot Three Centuries of Venetian Glass, Corning, New York, 1958, p.17.) Perrot says, “The word ‘ball’ might refer to a type similar to the late 15th century enamelled millefiori globe at the Sigmaringen Museum, Germany, or it could be translated as ‘column’ and refer to the millefiori canes themselves.”
The idea of “column” meaning “length of [millefiori] cane” is mentioned by various authors. And it would tie in with Jargstorf’s idea. But others seem to favour a meaning of “pedestal” or “stand”, which seems odd to me because it would suggest that some people believe Sabellico’s “… brevi pila …” were all “little stands”! [I will have to review those references, as the idea of “little stands” does not make sense to me.]
-
I do see what you mean and it is quite possible that doing a direct word by word translation will give the correct meaning.
Alternately however, analysing a direct translation of one word individually takes the words out of the phrase of context. And it could well be that within the context of reference, the phrase has a different meaning.
So for example- I directly pasted the Pressglas Korrespondenz latin transcript into Google translate.
and what came up was the translation below. You will see I have highlighted the word 'weapons'. That word taken on it's own, and put into google, translates as 'vessels'. However, I think the use of the word 'weapons' fits just as well within the context of the fact that maybe he/they saw the technique of 'millefiori' development as a secret weapon in their arsenal of glass developments. (It mentions 'apart from the price' - perhaps indicating they were expensive to make and hence sell?) It does read to me as though he is 'bigging up' the glass industry on Murano. What do you think?
On the other hand the word vessels might transform the sentence into ' what about the Murrine vessels'? Except for the price. ' Perhaps indicating he was talking about vessels with Millefiori or murrines in them and they were expensive.
Unfortunately the following sentence including the word 'Age' is difficult to translate. Age just keeps coming up as 'age' which doesn't fit.
If I lift the whole sentence but take out hte word 'Age' it reads:
'
vero cui primo venit in mentem brevi pila includere
omnia florum genera, quibus vernantia vestiuntur
prata?'
translating to:
'may include the first ball of truth which has come to your mind in a short time
flowers of all kinds, in which the greening clothing
Meadows? '
or on a second translation where I move the gap between the word 'Age' and the next word giving one space only it translates as
'Age, however, which first came to mind include a short ball
flowers of all kinds, in which the greening clothing
Meadows? ''
Full text copied and translated as one on google here:
'Murianum From this village, but those buildings
majesty and grandeur of the city is far away
belonging to it. The length of a mile
clear. Vitrarius factories especially highlighted.
First, he shows a fine glass can be found
crystal white lie, as soon as they are procacia
the tempers of men, and to be added it has found,
no inertia, in a thousand different colors innumerable
forms of matter began to flex. Hence cups
on the bowl, pot, pots, pitchers, candlesticks, all
kinds of animals, the horns, the segments, with chains of gold, on the other
all areas of human pleasures, whatever they may be on the one side
and that hardly dared to delight the eyes of mortal life
you would expect. There is a kind of precious stone,
that there is vltraria industry immitates. pleasant
Man and nature of the conflict. What about murina
Here are the weapons? Except for the price Age is the first to come to mind include a short ball
flowers of all kinds, in which the greening clothing
Meadows? But all of these things with the sea
subiecere business, so that no one else credible
thought that the excessive use of worthless occeperint. nor
One family house auf novice stuck found
a large part of the village glows like factories.'
-
Just for information:
with regards my comments quoted below about the 'Venetian Ball' in the Basel Museum, the PK article also says it has a continous drilled hole through it of 4mm diameter.
'http://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2015-3w-romont-2015-baumgartner-reflets-venise.pdf
Information on that link discussing the item (Museum inventory number from Basel I linked to above in post 29 . It gives a different diameter size to the piece if I have read it correctly (the inventory number is the same 1917.824.)
It appears when translated via google (always difficult to ascertain whether the google translating is correctly done and correctly read by me) to say that these balls were solid.'
-
M, when using google translate, always edit the copied text to ensure that line breaks (as initially shown in the google box) are corrected. When the full quoted Latin text in the PK article is tidied up for the line breaks, it produces the translation below.
Note that in this revised translation there is no reference to "weapons". And it starts to make a lot more sense throughout. But note the words I have highlighted in red. In most cases they are unrecognized as Latin and may be the result of incorrect scanning. Some highlighted words seem to be an odd translation attempt - such as for "vltraria" and "immitates" and also "Age" which actually is a Latin word meaning, "come!, go to! well!, all right! and "auf" which is another real Latin word meaning, "bear, carry, take, fetch etc."
Google version of translated text:
Murianum From this village, but those buildings belonging to the magnificence and grandeur of the city is far from clear. The length of a mile above. Vitrarius factories especially highlighted. First, he found a fine white crystal glass can lie, as soon as procacia men's minds and are not to be found on site of inertia, in a thousand different colors innumerable forms of matter began to flex. Hence, cups, bowls, pot, pots, pitchers, candlesticks, animals of every kind, the horns, the segments, with chains of gold, on the one side all areas of human pleasures, the life on this side, and that scarcely dared to amuse the eyes of the mortal nature we can everything that you would expect. There is a kind of precious stone, which is not vltraria industry immitates. Pleasant man and nature contest. What is more, they are the vessels of murina on the one side to you? Except for the the price. Age, however, which first came into my mind a short ball to include all kinds of flowers, which are blooming meadows dressed? But all of these things with maritime subiecere business, so that no one else had thought credible, it cheapens the excessive use occeperint. Not a single family house auf novice stuck found such a large part of the village glows factories.
-
I think it reads pretty well Kev to be honest, in either version.
To me I think:
It talks about there being a mile long area of glass production on Murano (or that Murano was a mile from Venice?), and that much of the industry in the area is involved with glass production (that many of the houses glow with the flames of producing glass (however that might be I suppose- i.e. furnaces or lampwork?), that no one is a novice as they are all involved?). That everyone is involved with it. That they produce a crystal clear glass that imitates rock crystal (i.e.man taking on nature - crystal glass versus natural rock crystal). That they also produce glass of many colours. They produce items of any kind/shape you can think of. That they produce items with murrines in, which might be expensive ?
and then also perhaps
That no other country thought these things were possible or that no other country knew how to produce these things? Or it could be a reference to the fact that the glass production was protected ( I think from memory that they were not allowed to divulge their secrets or to work elsewhere at that time other than Venice).
However
I'm not sure it helps the solid Venetian Ball question ;D and whether or not he really was talking about a spherical glass ball incorporating millefiori?
It does appear he wrote 'Well! however, which first came into my mind a short ball to include all kinds of flowers, which are blooming meadows dressed?' but it's the 'short ball' translated bit (brevi pila) that is the problem.
Did he mean a small ball (i.e a bead?)
Did he mean a short column (i.e. a cane?)
Did he mean a flat round circular slice (i.e a millefiori?)
The PK article does raise a question about something called a 'Rosette' - did you notice that?]
And 'brevi pila' translated from Italian means 'short stack'.
The more I think about it the more I think he was describing canes! which represent any different type of flower you could find in a meadow. (don't quote me)
And also - I keep meaning to say I'm really curious as to why the Corning showed how to blow a Millefiori ball (which would make it hollow) when it seems they were solid? The one they show on that page that dates to 1500 and 5.1cm diameter. But why would they show how to blow a hollow one? Is the 16th century one they show hollow? it doesn't mention that at all.
-
this from the British Museum
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=27626&partId=1&technique=17292&page=1
It is described as a 'ball' and is 1 inch in diameter.
Curators Comments say:
'There are other millefiori balls in the collection: OA 5196, WT.1153, 1154. See Baumgartner 2015 cat.44 for discussion.'
ball
1/166
Next
Back to search results
Object typeball term details
Museum numberS.803
DescriptionBall, millefiori glass; canes of blue, red, green, purple and white embedded in background of pale, semi-transparent blue.
DateEarly 16thC
Production placeMade in: Venice(Europe,Italy,Veneto,Venice (province),Venice)
Materialsglass term details
Techniquemillefiori term details
DimensionsDiameter: 2.5 centimetres
Curator's comments: There are other millefiori balls in the collection: OA 5196, WT.1153, 1154. See Baumgartner 2015 cat.44 for discussion.
BibliographyTait 1979 161 bibliographic detailsBaumgartner 2015 cat.44 bibliographic detailsTait 1991 p. 164, fig. 209 bibliographic detailsNesbitt 1871 p.134 bibliographic details
LocationNot on display
Acquisition nameBequeathed by: Felix Slade biography
Acquisition date1868
DepartmentBritain, Europe and Prehistory
Registration numberS.803
See also this link
Where they say there are 4 other balls in the collection - there are two photographs
The one in this link is 2" in diameter - the description says it is 'slightly flattened and worn around the pontil mark.
Dates to 17th century.
Looks suspiciously like a paperweight to me ;D
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=27627&partId=1&technique=17292&page=1
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=27627&partId=1&technique=17292&page=1
This one is 3.5cm - has a hole pierced through the middle
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=27208&partId=1&technique=17292&page=1
This one is 4cm - also has a hole pierced through it
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=27207&partId=1&technique=17292&page=1
Obviously I'm just adding these so people can see what items are called 'balls'. But it doesn't help us know if this is really what Sabellico was referring to.
And in fact on this one the notes say (my bold of an interesting comment) :
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=26614&partId=1&technique=17292&page=1
'There are four other millefiori balls in the collection.
Others can be found in Veste Coburg and elsewhere. For one of these see E. Landolt and F. Ackermann, 'Die Objeckte im Historischen Museum Basel', Basel, 1991, no. 61. These authors quote Marcantonio Sabellico, 'De situ Venetae urbis', 1495, as saying that these balls were a speciality of Venetian glassworking; they also note others in documents including an inventory of 1578.This ball is described by Payne Knight in his Manuscript (under Bronzes), where he records that it was given to him by Sir Joseph Banks and describes it as 'a specimen of those works in this material, for which the ancient Phoenicians of Sidon were once so famous, and which they brought here to exchange with the barbarian natives for the gold of Ireland and the tin of Cornwall' (quoted Clarke and Penny 1982), but a note by J.B. S. Morritt added to Knight's catalogue reads 'I have since bought beads exactly similar, also perforated like this at Florence. They were of old Venetian manufacture, & adorned old Italian cabinets as knobs. They are no longer made now & I was told that the secret by which the enamel was embedded in the glass without being fused was now lost'. Apsley Pellatt in 'Curiosities of Glass Making', London, 1849 records them as having been made in Venice in 1500. (Clarke and Penny 1982).'
m
-
Kev, what did you think of the doorknob comment in the V&A notes?
m
-
Sorry m, but I have temporarily lost touch with this info (a couple of other projects claimed precedence).
Which comment about a doorknob are you referring to? And did you mean "V&A"?
-
I know ... I post too much information :-[ sorry ;D
But this info in the V&A notes on Millefiori Balls
[Mod: edited to point to earlier post rather than have another copy of text - see Reply #42, final paragraph]
-
Thanks, I missed reading that full text (even though you did highlight it.)
1. The info comes from the British Museum site, not the V&A
2. The comment about "beads exactly similar" seems to me to simply refer to similar canes in larger sized beads. I would not want a cabinet with a not-really-spherical "ball" as a drawer-pull or cupboard-knob. I would much prefer a well made round bead. But without a drawing or photo of the "knobs", we can't really say what Mr Morritt was describing.
3. Also of interest is Morritt's final comment: "... the enamel being embedded in the glass without being fused ...". How could the enamel (canes) be "embedded" in the glass but not "fused"? Did he mean the canes were loose? Or perhaps he was he in awe of how the canes were seemingly all whole and not fully squashed into each other?
-
1. Sorry
2. But what sized bead are we talking about here? A drawer pull or knob is hardly likely to be useful if it is the size of a bead on a beaded necklace (which is what I think of when someone mentions the word 'bead'). Am I under a misapprehension of what other people think of as a 'bead'?
3. I think he just meant that they appeared to be 'separate' and individual cane bits suspended in the glass ball. Rather than a series of murrines/canes placed next to each other and fused to form a solid layer as you might find in murrine/millefiori bowls for example (items that he might have had an understanding of how they might have been made). And was in awe of 'how did they do that' as you say without the canes misforming or squashing.
Perhaps he really had no idea how it was made - that's eminently possible given Pellatt (in 1849) thought it unknown enough to explain to his audience/ readers how a millefiori ball was made (at a time before millefiori paperweights were on the market big time)
Or perhaps he understood how they 'might' have been made, but was questioning the detail of the technique for making them and looking for specifics on how they really were made? Most people (friends unconnected with glass) have no idea who a millefiori paperweight is made at all and couldn't even begin to conceive how it might be made.
By the way, just for dating context on that paragraph -
Payne Knight (1750 -1824)
Payne Knight was I believe Richard Payne Knight (15 February 1750 – 23 April 1824) who left a collection of items including bronzes to the British Museum. So his Manuscript, referred to within that para, obviously was written within that period i.e. not later than 1824.
Morritt (1771 -1843)
The British Museum says of Morritt:
'John Bacon Sawrey Morritt (politician/statesman; British; Male; 1771 - 1843)
Also known as
Morritt, John Bacon Sawrey
Biography
Of Rokeby; MP; traveller and scholar. From 1794 to 1796, accompanied by his tutor, Robert Stockdale, he travelled through Austria, Hungary, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, where he acquired a number of antiquities. Morritt inherited a large fortune, including the estate of Rokeby, which his father had purchased in 1769 from Thomas Robinson. The so-called Rokeby Venus, a seventeenth-century painting of the toilet of Venus by Diego Velázquez, now in the National Gallery, London, was formerly in his possession.
Bibliography
J. B. S. Morritt, The letters of John B. S. Morritt of Rokeby … in the years 1794–96, 2nd edn (1985) [with introduction by P. J. Hogarth]'
Neither appear to be specialist glass collectors or authorities on glass. Therefore I wonder if their comments are of the 'general' observational nature of a collector of rarities of interest, rather than coming from a 'expert or specialist glass authority' point of view?
I don't wish to be rude to them, but the fact they had lots of money or had many rare items doesn't make their comments an authority on how something was made does it?
It also leads me to question:
a) how similar really were the beads Morritt bought to the Millefiori ball left by Payne Knight to the British Museum?
b) Did they even date from a similar period to the Millefiori Ball? He does say '
They are no longer made now & I was told that the secret by which the enamel was embedded in the glass without being fused was now lost.', and clearly since he died in 1843, that comment was written before then. However, they might have dated to late 18th (when he was on his travels and collecting his antiquities- or were they no longer making beads or millefiori bead in Murano by that time?), or 16th century when the Millefiori Ball dates from. We don't know.
We all know items that look superficially similar to other items but could be centuries apart in age.
-
Which comment about a doorknob are you referring to? And did you mean "V&A"?
As for Apsley Pellat doorknobs, I happen to own one, it was just referenced ->((Featured in article by Tad McKeon and Jim Barton in the 2016 ANNUAL BULLETIN OF THE PAPERWEIGHT COLLECTORS ASSOCIATION, INC. , Page 11, figure 17 }}
For reference, here are some quick shots of the doorknob:
Size is 2.58 inches wide, by 2.85 inches long, 11.4 ounces in weight.
-
Thanks Tan.
Good to have an image in the GMB of a doorknob by Apsley Pellatt. However, the "doorknob" under discussion, was a millefiori type "Venetian ball", or perhaps a larger Venetian bead, possibly dating to around 1500 that was supposed to have been used as a knob for a cabinet.
-
rather unfortunately this report is not dated but appears to have been done after 1979 since that is a dated reference source on the report.
file:///C:/Users/usr_16355/Downloads/EXAMINATIONOFAGLASSBEADFROMWINCHESTERHAMPSHIRE..pdf
It appears to read that the ball was solid because of discussion about the surface iridescence on the inner surface of the bead where it had cracked from what I can see.
It calls it a 'bead' and says it was 45mm in diameter and had an hole drilled through the centre with a hole diameter of 6.5mm.
This appears to be larger in diameter than one I found online (see Bonhams link) and which was described as a millefiori 'ball' with a diameter of only 35mm
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/22839/lot/8/
It also reads as though it were solid.
m
-
Although I have not yet returned to the things I said I was looking into, I thought the following might be of interest, regarding "Venetian Ball" (and paperweights in general):
The Glass Collector a Guide to Old English Glass (https://archive.org/details/glasscollectorgu1919perc), by Maciver Percival, New York, Dodd, Mead & Company 1919. I have a Second Edition copy, published by Herbert Jenkins Limited, London (no publication date). The text and image I refer to below are the same in both the New York and London editions.
Using the link above, search for "Venetian Ball" then click on the indicators at the lower edge of the display. Or use the page navigation (point and click on the grey page edges) to locate pages 151 & 320. Page 151 is the start of the chapter titled "Curios". The first reference to "Venetian Ball" is on page 152 but it is worth reading from page 151 to get some context in preparation for the section titled "Paper-Weights". Having looked at that section, check out page 320 and the associated image plate for Item 3.
And there we have it ... text on the "Venetian Ball" and an illustrated example to show how it was used in the late 18th / early 19th century.
Well, that was what at least one author told folk almost a hundred years ago! :)
-
;D
bottle made late 1700s? :-\
or was it ? :-[ Never seen one that early.
Actually an interesting comment - but what about the sucking out of air, that appears to be what Pellatt wrote.
It's a bit strange but perhaps they were trying to communicate that it wasn't hollow. And perhaps that was the only way they could communicate about the glass being in liquid state when it was being worked, or something?
m
-
not a 'ball' or big 'bead' but a bowl
Interested to see this one is labled as
'Millefiori dish ; Presumably Catalonia to 1550-1600 ; Formerly collection Thewalt , Cologne ; Photo : LVR - Centre for Media and Education ; Stefan Arendt , 2011'
http://www.smkp.de/sammlungen/glas/bestand/
-
http://www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de/aktuelles/pdf/pk-2015-3w-romont-2015-baumgartner-reflets-venise.pdf
did I post this previously? It's exhausting trying to translate it but does it raise a query over the date and the place of production definitely being Venice?
I think it also reference Sabellico's writings - is there more information in there perhaps?
I 'think' although someone will need to correct me, that it says these were all solid?
I 'think' it says that there may be mileage in all these piece being compared to see if it is possible to match any of the canes/filigrana they contain?
Looks like this might be an ongoing project :) somewhere maybe?
m
-
Yes m, you linked to the PK article a couple of times: Reply 34 (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,51678.msg351849.html#msg351849) & Reply 39 (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,51678.msg351866.html#msg351866).
-
oops - sorry.
m
-
I have created a new thread "Letter Weights (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,62881.0.html)" with some cross references back here.
-
At last - my thoughts on “confusions” in Pellat’s Curiosities of Glass Making.
(Sorry for the length, but I have tried to make it fun as well as serious.)
Pages 109 & 110 cover short sections of text for “Venetian Ball” and “Mille-Fiori”. Pages 141 & 142 cover brief text describing Figures in colour plate VI. Fig 1 is a “Venetian Ball” and Fig 2 is a piece from either the bowl or foot of a 19th century French tazza formed from close-packed millefiori canes.
The text on page 110, for the “Venetian Ball” refers directly to Plate VI, Fig 1. The text for “Mille-Fiori” has no direct reference to Plate VI (but it does have its own line drawing).
After reading about the “Venetian Ball”, I had a look at its Plate VI image and then went back to page 110 to read about “Mille-Fiori”. The line drawing in the “Mille-Fiori” section shows a “double transparent glass cone” with millefiori canes inserted in the cavity between the walls of the “cone”. The text for that section describes how the “cone” is worked and can then be “shaped into a tazza, paperweight & co”.
First confusion – why would a “double-walled cone with canes in its cavity” be the method used to make a paperweight? I could understand that a bowl or foot of a tazza might be formed that way, but even then there is a problem …
Having returned to the Plate VI details, I noticed that the Fig2 was, in fact, a piece of a millefiori tazza (19th century French). The corresponding text said the “cones” [a misprint for “canes”] were “inclosed in white transparent glass, as described in the manipulatory portion of the work (see page 110).”
Aha! Back to page 110 then.
There it is: “the air is sucked out of the double-walled case [or “cone”], as further explained in the cameo illustration”. Checking the reference to the “cameo illustration” confirmed the method of enclosing a sulphide in a bubble of glass from which the air is sucked out to collapse the glass around the sulphide. So, no doubt, then. When the air is exhausted from the “double-walled cone” the walls will collapse and hold the millefiori canes as an “homogenous mass”.
But hold on a minute! I recalled the text from page 109 about the “Venetian Ball”. It definitely said that it was made by “conglomerating” pieces of filigree packed into a “pocket” of transparent glass. And the “conglomerating” was achieved by sucking the air out of the “pocket”.
Second confusion – was the “pocket” of glass, as used to make the Venetian Ball, the same thing as the “double-walled cone” as shown in the line drawing for the “Mille-Fiori” work? After all, the “Mille-fiori” section did say the “homogenous mass now conglomerated” could be used to form a paperweight.
Third confusion – switching my thoughts quickly back to the tazza, I re-examined the image for Fig 2 of Plate VI. Yes, sure enough, the millefiori canes were not set up as a jumble of pieces all lying in various directions. They were set very neatly such that the pattern on the ends of the cane slices could be seen through both the top and underside of the bowl / foot. So … how did the glass worker manage to drop the tiny pieces of cane slices into a double-walled “cone” such that they fell (or slid) adjacent to each other and always in the same plane?
Something odd is going on. In fact, it all sounds a bit odd to me!
Conclusion
The “double-walled cone” process for encasing millefiori canes (and also lengths of filigrana?) may possibly have been used as described by Pellatt to form a type of paperweight. But I doubt it. And I doubt its use for such as a tazza, also.
I feel sure that the two sections on pages 109 & 110 of the book, and their own corresponding images and descriptions in the Plate VI details, must be kept separate. There should be no mental link between the two sections via millefiori canes, or by any similar sounding “air extraction” process.
Pellatt’s “cameo incrustation” process for encasing a sulphide by sucking out air from a single-walled “pocket” of glass was successful for his own products. And, instead of the “double-walled cone” procedure, the “single-walled pocket” idea could conceivably have been used to form the basis of the “Venetian Ball”. It is feasible that a blown cup could be constructed such that the outer layer of canes and filigree were kept in the desired position while the central, and less visible, part just consisted of a compressed mass.
However …
When I think about how the “Venetian Ball” may have constructed, it seems much simpler for the “ancients” to have used a procedure similar to modern ones – and also similar to those of Bigaglia for his so-called “1845 first paperweights”. I have asked someone about this – they have handled some Bigaglia weights and they kindly told me how they appeared to have been made. The process was checked by looking through the base of the weights, which showed a small section of clear glass around which a few layers of canes and filigree (and aventurine?) were set. My interpretation is as follows:
Start with a small gather of clear glass on the iron. Now pick up a layer of millefiori canes and filigree such that the clear glass is fully coated. Apply heat, then pick up another layer of canes and filigree. Maybe each layer would be marvered to make it smoother before the next layer is added. Repeat the layering as necessary and add a final coating of clear. Now shape into the sphere, cube, or whatever. Voila! A solid ball of jumbled canes and filigree.
(I am still keeping an open mind on all of this – I might be mistaken in my ideas.)
-
I haven't followed it very well and it's very late but that's going to have to be a very tiny 'start' gather for a large 'bead' of 2.5cm or 3.5cm diameter isn't it, which is the size of a couple of them (c.?17th century) I've linked to?
It is however, exactly the process I used to make my paperweight, although that was not rolled in millefiori but in coloured 'frits'(2 layers). I've just attached mine because I'm proud of it and managing to get it to hold a nice shape ;D not because it adds anything :-[
m