Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: rocco on December 17, 2015, 01:29:01 PM
-
I don't know if Chalcedony is the correct term to describe this piece, but it is the closest I could find.
Height 12 cm, diameter 16 cm, weighs 600 g (so definately not lampwork), totally opaque.
Broken pontil mark.
Doesn't look like the pieces made in Hebron, but other than that I am clueless...
So any help highly appreciated :)
Thanks,
Michael
-
Could plausibly be a c.1930s calcedonio piece by Barovier, Seguso & Ferro - I've had a few pieces in the past with the same base finish and the same 'muddy' colour combinations.
-
I have a set of streaky muddy glasses which.must be close. These have a sticker from a decorator firm. Never managed to find out who made them - though I suspect China. Not at home, unable to make and supply pix at least until January.
-
Frustratingly, I can't find any photos of the muddy-coloured calcedonio I've had - it was a long time ago - but I did find pictures of the base of a lovely Seguso brick red vase.
-
Thanks a lot for your thoughts, very much appreciated :)
Unfortunately I am not much wiser...
I couldn't find anything about Chalcedony glass from Barovier, Seguso & Ferro, more about older pieces.
I did have the vague hope that the vessel could be from Murano, though.
And I know nothing about Chinese glass in this style, so I am curious to see Ivo's glasses.
Michael
-
There's a single illustrated example within Heiremans' Seguso book.
Design & Arts had for sale a small cache of it from the Pauly & C. stock rooms some years ago - there were some absolutely wonderful pieces, as well as more workaday items.
-
Chalcedony is a name of a mineral combined with a stone. Rock collecting. Bob
-
Also the name given to this type of multicoloured glass that was originally developed to imitate chalcedony by Italian glassblowers (called calcedonio in Italian).
John
-
When I saw some old chaldecony pieces in Holland I was completely surprised at how transparent they are. For some reason I had expected them to be opaque glass.
m
-
This is a photo of one set of the three pieces in the collection I saw.
They were described as Agate glass but I believe they are Chalcedony.
It's very hard to get a picture or photo that shows how transparent they are because they are sort of dichroic, but I was completely taken by surprise when I saw them in real life at their transparency. I'll try and add a larger picture.
edit
ok, pic 2 is a bulbous vase/vessel and was the best picture I could get to try and show the transparency, but still not good enough (they were badly dimly lit in small 'cases' or shelves in a large cabinet.
Pic 3 is the last vessel or cup and shows the design of the chalcedony effect in the glass, but also makes the piece look opaque and it very definitely was browner/more amber 'y' than that in real life and transparent. You can probably see the amber reflection in the photos of the bowl and cup.
I guess the bone ash or whatever was used to create the opalescent streaks is the dichroic bit (actually, I'm sure dredging my memory,that I read somewhere that arsenic caused that ??) causing the camera to reflect off them and make them look paler and opaque.
ok scrub that - I think it was lead arsenate I was thinking of which causes the opalescence in girasol glass I believe.
I couldn't find a reference to that in Chalcedony glass, so perhaps it was the silver used that causes the dichroic effect in chalcedony (can glow red under transmitted light)
These are all 18th century glass.
I think there is also an 18th century piece of Chalcedony glass in the Corning. I'll try and find it for comparison.
So, whilst yours may be created to resemble stone, I don't really think it looks like these 18th century pieces is what I think I'm trying to say :-[
m
-
See my pics and photos in the post above this and also
18th century Chalcedony set also here (think this is from the Corning)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unforth/3276849897/
and here another that shows the transparency a little better.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unforth/3276849673/in/photostream/
edited to add -
oh the irony, oh the ignominy
This link states that Chalcedony was opaque glass ....
http://museovetro.visitmuve.it/en/il-museo/layout-and-collections/glass-18th-century/
quote
'THE PLEASURE OF IMITATION: CHALCEDONY AND “LATTIMO” IN THE EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH CENTURY Created so they looked like different materials, various kinds of ‘imitation’ glass were very appreciated in the eighteenth century. Examples include opaline glass, which looked like opal; opaque white glass, called “lattimo” (from the word for milk “latte”), which looked like porcelain and chalcedony, a variegated opaque glass with multicoloured veining, which looked like semi-precious stones such as banded agate, onyx, malachite and lapis lazuli. Known already in the Roman age, chalcedony glass appeared in Murano during the Renaissance; it was made by mixing the remains of white, coloured or opal glass and crystal and adding different mixtures of substances once fused (such as copper, silver, cobalt, etc.) which resulted in its multicoloured veining. At times, from the seventeenth century on, aventurine fragments were also added, resulting in further patches or streaks, for example in the two-handled eighteenth-century cup on display here. The “secret” of chalcedony was lost at the end of the century and it was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that it was revived; this was thanks to Lorenzo Radi who, in 1856, developed the same sixteenth-century composition, creating objects with simple, linear forms of the greatest effect owing to their vast chromatic range of the veining.'
http://museovetro.visitmuve.it/en/il-museo/layout-and-collections/glass-18th-century/
... But I'm telling you absolutely, that the photos I have uploaded are transparent glass. The only reason they appear opaque is because the light reflects off the glass in the photos. Close up, in person, you can see through them.
According to that link
' ... this was thanks to Lorenzo Radi who, in 1856, developed the same sixteenth-century composition, creating objects with simple, linear forms of the greatest effect owing to their vast chromatic range of the veining.'
I'm busily trying to hunt down a definite Lorenzo Radi piece because the two pieces I have seen id'd as his (look thick and very opaque) don't appear to be the same composition or effect as those 18th century pieces I have linked to.
m
-
I have a chalcedony gass from the west bank and yes it is partly transparent - like the stone it imitates. .. Ttbomk chalcedony glass is not fully opaque.
-
I don't think the two pieces I've found id'd as Lorenzo Radi (mid 19th century) look anything like the earlier (18th century) Chalcedony / Calcedonio pieces I've linked to.
Off to try and find examples of Lorenzo Radi pieces in a museum collection for comparison.
Ivo, it is isn't it? it's one of the few times I've seen a piece of glass in the flesh and been properly shocked at how different it looks to what I had in my mind from photographs.
The other time was in the same museum looking at a glass lemon made in the 1700s - I found it extremely hard to believe it wasn't made in late 19th or 1960s or something. ( I was playing a game, guessing descriptions and id's/dates before looking at the descriptions ;D )
m
-
I'd love to send you a pic but I'm up north and not near my glass.
-
I think you've up loaded here on the board somewhere.
I'll have a look through.
m
-
Another example, the urn is big and even the quite thick glass here is not entirely opaque: http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,57145.msg323861.html#msg323861
The third photo of this little thinly blown vase (from West Bank) shows it well: http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,53544.0.html
John
-
The mind does funny things doesn't it? your 'thinly' blown Hebron glass looks thick to me. I would have assumed thick and heavy partly because of the rounded doughnut type foot I guess and the way the rim looks thick.
And that is one of the reasons why I ask for weight when describing glass, as well as height and width etc.
As soon as I know the weight I have a much better picture in my head of the type of glass it might feel when held in person.
m
-
There is a v large collection of Lorenzo Radi pieces here
http://www.archiviodellacomunicazione.it/Sicap/list/any:radi/page:4/?WEB=MuseiVE
page 1,2,3,4..14 (14 pages)
They look like the swirly Chalcedony pieces I photographed in the museum but in the Museo del Vetro pictures they do look opaque. I have never seen one in real life , but if you look at the piece at the top of page 8,
http://www.archiviodellacomunicazione.it/Sicap/ENG/ArtWorks/293197/?WEB=MuseiVE
broken at the neck, you can see the transparency of the vase.
none look like this piece
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/493355334158052520/
which is what confused me.
m
-
Ttbomk chalcedony glass is not fully opaque.
My experience has mostly been the opposite. With the exception of one piece, all of the Muranese calcedonio I've owned - late 19th century, 1930s and 1990s - has been fully opaque.
-
Sorry for the delayed reply.
Very interesting (and varying) information about chalcedony glass, thanks a lot.
Not much wiser regarding my humble pot, though ;)
Michael
-
Here is the stuff I told you about earlier.
The transparent foil label which reads "PTMD collection (R) home accessories" is from these people
https://www.ptmd.nl/en
As the style will tell you, it is recent production.
Still no clue whodunnit - just whosoldit...
-
Sorry again, I missed your reply somehow.
Similar colours indeed, but I don't really think they are from the same maker as my vessel.
Different surface finish, and very different style -- I am not convinced my handled pot would be found in a contemporary home furnishings store ;)
Michael