Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: flying free on May 05, 2016, 12:50:02 PM
-
Small glass large foot despite the deceptive photographs which refuse to show the real dimensions.
The diameter of the rim is 1 1/2" max(4cm) and the diameter of the foot is 1 7/8"or 4.85cm.
The height of the whole glass is only 10.5cm or 4 1/8" so it's not very big - a liqueur of some sort.
The faceting is hexagonal rather than diamond shaped.
I'm sure it's Bohemian but the foot is polished completely flat and I can't work out how it was made so was just wondering whether this might date into the 19th? Does the completely polished foot preclude it being earlier?
Have seen a larger version dated 1780 but not sure how mine compares in detail of making and whether that would put it earlier or later.
http://scottishantiques.com/bohemian-gilded-facet-cut-goblet?filter_name=facet%20stem#.Vys9lYQrLIU
Any ideas - many thanks for any help:)
m
-
base pic - highly polished with a mark left after polishing.
Rim is cut polished and bevelled on each side on all facets. Very nicely made.
Foot has wreathing on it and is large.
m
-
hello m - Continental not really my scene, but.....................
I'd imagine such coloured pieces (for Rhenish white?) were made in similar fashion to U.K. wine glasses, although what the origin, and why the need, for a completely flat base I've no idea, but unlike the U.K. it's a common feature on Continental drinking glasses. In terms of manufacture, your glass may well have been made in the usual three parts - bowl, stem and foot - looking at it can you see if this sounds plausible - and then the bowl would have been ground/polished to produce the flats, finishing off with the bevelling to the rim. After detaching from the pontil rod the entire base would have been ground/polished flat. Gilded when all was polished, but don't know how to tell if yours was finished in a muffle kiln or cold gilded - perhaps since you've lost some then the latter - am sure you'll find all the relevant info. on the Board's search. I also did a load of spiel some couple of years back re the use of gold in colloidal solution to make red glass, and something about selenium not being used until 1920 ish. ........... can't find it at the moment.
The hexagonal cutting on the stem - in British pieces - would date this to latish C18 - early C19 I seem to remember, but on Continental glasses this may have been a decorative feature until more recent times. Have a feeling that Peter picked me up on this and said it also occurred much later. As I say, my meagre knowledge is based on British glasses - I suspect Ivo will be much more accurate than me.
Nice glass - don't suppose you have the other nine or five ;)
-
not that I think it would help remotely re dating, but I'm unable to see the 'wreathing' you say is on the foot? Do you mean in the sense of a floral wreath i.e. leaves etc.?
If I had to take a punt on this one I'd go for mid C19 give or take a little - and my thoughts are that the imperfectly finished grinding on the underside of the foot, plus the rather naïve gilding might suggest not a high end piece - although the cutting does lift it up from being run of the mill.
Would agree your suggestion of Bohemian, but then we always say that, don't we :)
-
hi Paul :)
Thanks so much for your info and response.
I do think it's Bohemian - but might not be possible to date it specifically. It could date from 18th to 19th I guess but was wondering if anything about the making and the facet cut stem would date it nearer end 18th. The decoration was used I believe from at least mid 18th well into the 19th. Certainly I have seen Bohemian faceted pieces with this design on (decanter)that apparently date to c.1840. I have also seen ruby faceted decanters dated to a similar period but again they are not goblets with faceted stems.
The only goblets I've found are on Scottish Antiques and that has an earlier date. I think my glass is no different to that one to be honest having tried to do a complete comparison (their goblet was a wine glass rather than a liqueur size). Mine has a completely polished foot though.
The polished foot is beautifully done.
It is where something was removed - where they attached the foot possibly?
The gilding is fine and not out of keeping with other pieces with this style/design of gilding. It is worn a bit which might make it look less 'perfect' but there's nothing different between it and other pieces with this style of decoration on.
Unfortunately my camera doesn't like red and makes it very dark and I wasn't able to light the gilding very well. I'll try with a different lightbulb so it can be seen properly.
So the quality is very good in terms of the production of the glass. It has a beautifully cut, bevelled both sides, and polished and gilded rim with the cut stem and completely polished foot. But does the foot and they way it's made, put it c.1840s or earlier ;D
Hmm, wreathing - I meant it has fine swirls of glass on it around the top of the foot, i.e. it is not completely smooth perfect, mold made type thing. It's not 'writhen' as it's not contorted or out of shape but it does look hand formed.
m
-
Definitely Bohemian, I would say mid to end 19th century. Not a high quality item in terms of decoration with gold applied to a flat surface, not engraved and filled n as you would expect from more luxury items. Magnificent cutting, though.
-
will leave you to thank Ivo for his knowledgeable opinion :) can see how easy it is to wrongly assess a date by some feature which in other situations might imply a much earlier manufacture.
when the worker snaps/detaches the rod, the scar can sometimes be more substantial perhaps than was intended, and subsequent grinding and polishing doesn't always remove all the damage.
Neither wreathing or wrythen applicable in this instance m, I don't think ........... these are marks caused probably by the workers tools when forming the flat circular shape of the foot - bearing in mind the date of this piece then it's likely to have been the pucelas, rather than wooden foot clappers - but that's only my opinion. A lot of older hand made bowls and feet show similar circular swirling effects.
-
Thanks both:) However a question:
So what is the difference between mine and this one then? This one is dated late 18th. The gilding is the same, the colour of the glass is the same (mine really is bright red but for some reason my camera is making it appear much darker on screen and I don't know how to lighten it so the photos reflect the colour it really is).
The only difference I can see is that mine has a polished flat foot.
It's not a big deal to me, but I am curious as to how one could date them more specifically.
http://scottishantiques.com/bohemian-gilded-facet-cut-goblet?filter_name=facet%20stem#.Vyxh9IQrLIV
m
-
Oh, probably about £250.00 ;D ;)
just for the sake of accuracy, 1780 would be George III (he started I think in 1760) - not George II.
In your link the underside of the foot is described as 'snapped' - and in common with other wines where the scar remains untreated, we make the assumption, generally, that the piece is C18 rather than later - but as you know, this is not a hard and fast rule - it's a pitfall that many people make. There's also the aspect - mentioned above - that the hexagonal stem cutting may have different date lines as to whether Continental or British in origin, and it's not impossible that this may be responsible for the date provided.
For what it's worth I think the snapped pontil and scale type cutting are the most likely reasons for dating your link to the C18 - the mention of lead glass may also have some bearing on that decision. To me the foot in your link looks flat, not conical as stated, perhaps I need Specsavers, again.
As always these are my opinions only. :)
-
Hi ,
Just having a rest from packing for the fair and noticed this thread , and this question ,
"So what is the difference between mine and this one then? " to my eye , not a lot !! , the flat polished foot is no indication of age , if the glass did not sit flat when made the cutting shop when doing the stem and bowl would just polish the base flat which removes both the pontil scar and allows the glass to sit level in one operation .also a pontil scar is not a good indication of age so how the linked glass can be accurately dated without reference to documented parallels I don't know, lead glass ? is it ? is yours lead glass m ? what I do know though is that glasses dated pre 1800 sell better than glasses dated into the 19th c , !!!
19th c would be my best guess,early, middle, late , not sure!!
cheers ,
Peter.
-
OK, so gathering all the information (with thanks :) )
hmm, mine is not lead glass as far as I know.
Mine also only has ten facet cut sides on the bowl not twelve however, given it is so tiny, that's probably not surprising. That linked glass bowl is 3 1/4" and mine is only just about 1 1/2" so much much smaller.
The facets on the stem of mine are cut in the same way as those on the linked glass.
The base of the foot we have covered.
19th century is best guess.
Paul ;D the money is not relevant - I bought it recently (not for £250) because it has a gilded pattern on that has come up on the board a number of times, and where dating is an issue, so just wanted it for a reference point. The fact it didn't cost anything like that was also relevant of course - it is hard getting reference items if they cost a lot of money and it's not an area you collect specifically, as I'm sure you know :) (Although if it turns out to be first quarter or even first half 1800s then it fits my 'randomly gathered' collection perfectly ;D)
And it's small so a different size to others I've seen.
Thanks everyone for your information and help. Very much appreciated.
m
-
hello m ............ sorry if I seemed cynical of your glass - really only joking - what I know of such pieces is very limited. Beauty and desirability are in the eye of the beholder - and I agree yours is a pleasing looking glass. :)
thanks for looking in Peter.
-
not at all- completely understood in tone intended ;D
It's a good glass. No damage and a lovely reference.
I am curious about one thing though - I'm pretty sure it's not cased based on the fact the facets on the stem are quite deeply cut so if it was cased it would have had to have been very thick. If it isn't cased, (and isn't selenium glass) does that make it gold ruby glass?
I've been pondering this ever since I bought a faceted mug - I think that piece is cased so have been wondering how they blew it, cased it and then cut the facets so they still showed red :-\
(One other reason I bought it is because Red is quite lacking in my collection and I always feel red gives a display something special when mixed with other colours (I like a mix of red, blue, green amber and amethyst on each shelf. Yet I've not been able to find a red piece that fits with my other pieces so have bought very few. This one does (symmetrical, old, no handle, fits in well with bowls and vases). )
-
It would be copper coloured rather than a gold dispersion which gives a light or dark cranberry colour. A much runnier version of dark copper glass is used for flashing onto clear. A casing is like icing a cake with a pallet knife and is thicker than a flash- but is not thick enough to cut facets on, so I think your glass is actually coloured through and through in the mass..
-
Hi ,
I dont think your glass is gold ruby, true gold ruby glass as opposed to red glass was very expensive and very difficult to make and was first produced successfully in the late 17th early 18th c by the early 18th c production seems to have stopped , in the 19th c interrest in gold ruby was revived,with competitions to re discover how it was made ,the first to achieve success was J Pohl but production was exceptionally difficult and expensive,
see Glass of the Alchemists published by the Corning Museum of Glass , a wonderfull huge tome with beautifully illustrations and essays on many subjectss relating to glass production from the earlest times ,including a very up to date chapter on 17th c lead glass development in both England and the continent, which I am afraid knocks Mr Ravenscroft a little of his lofty perch
cheers ,
Peter.
-
Ivo, Peter, yes ... I had completely forgotten I knew about copper ruby glass and the history of gold ruby (slaps forehead) ;D don't know what I was thinking by asking what it was (stressful week here).
But Ivo thanks for clarifying about the coloured in the mass. That has vexed me :)
m
-
ah, re copper ruby or gold ruby ... I knew something must have made me ask the question:
Interesting information either re dating this little glass or re what it is made of then-
In the book Russian Glass of the 17th to the 20th Century:
page 164 item 42 Covered mug (Maltsovs' glassworks, second quarter of 19th century)
'Colorless glass with dark red (copper ruby) overlay, blown and cut. ...
... Dark cherry-coloured glass, coloured with copper compounds ("copper ruby"), appeared much later than "gold ruby." It's rarity is evident from an archival document (dated 1841) in which an anonymous correspondent wrote from Prague to St. Petersburg that the chemist Egermann of Haida was ready to sell the formula for copper ruby glass for 300 talers. However, this deal did not materialize because such glass was already made at Russian glassworks. The Journal of Industry and Tradein 1837 documents that copper ruby glass was then made at the Maltsov, Orlov and Bakhmetiev glassworks.'
So ... if my glass was made (or indeed the other linked glass) earlier than 1837, it is possible that it might be gold ruby glass?
Clearly prior to 1837 copper ruby glass was scarce although seemingly in production in Russia. and by 1841 seemingly in production by Egermann.
Or ... if my glass is copper ruby glass, it might help date it to more likely 'after' 1837 or 1841 (if Bohemian) if that was the possible date that copper ruby glass became perhaps more often produced.
m
m
-
Hi ,
From what I read both glasses would have to have a late 17th or early 18th c date to be gold ruby, or after 1835 (Pohl)to be a revival glass in gold ruby, and either date in gold ruby would command a telephone number in £s to buy, I dont think either are gold ruby , cant comment on copper ruby glass but the Corning book says , "Red glass of some sort was made almost from the time that glassmaking began"
Was Egerman selling a ruby glass or a stained glass which he is credited to having invented in the early 1840s ?
cheers ,
Peter,
back to the packing !!!!
-
well if they were made before 1837 and they aren't gold ruby and they aren't copper ruby and selenium didn't come into being as a colorant for red glass until much later, then what might they be?
'but the Corning book says , "Red glass of some sort was made almost from the time that glassmaking began"'
I wonder what they used to make the red glass though if it wasn't gold ruby and it wasn't copper ruby? It wasn't prolific I guess otherwise there would be much of it around and there doesn't appear to be.
They must be coloured with something.
m
-
see my comment in post above and
In 'Russian Glass of the 17th to 20th Century', page 91 shows a ruby gold tazza/ dated second quarter 19th century (i.e. 1825-1850)
I'm not sure how that ties in with this:
'From what I read both glasses would have to have a late 17th or early 18th c date to be gold ruby, or after 1835 (Pohl)to be a revival glass in gold ruby'
Of course it could be that some items in that photo (there are seven from a particular service) that date 'between' those dates and that ruby gold tazza might be one of them and dates to 1835 on to 1850. But equally it may date before 1835 since the dates given ar e1825-1850) . I'll try and find it in the online Website to see if it has a specific date attached.
And equally they also show another gold ruby footed bowl (page 86 no 35.) which is dated 1800-1833.
On page 72 they show a decanter in gold ruby glass dated ' late 18th or early 19th century'
On this evidence 'gold ruby glass' was obviously produced early 19th. Perhaps the Corning meant Bohemian gold ruby glass?
With regard the Egermann question the excerpt from the book is a direct quote:
'Dark cherry-coloured glass, coloured with copper compounds ("copper ruby"), appeared much later than "gold ruby." It's rarity is evident from an archival document (dated 1841) in which an anonymous correspondent wrote from Prague to St. Petersburg that the chemist Egermann of Haida was ready to sell the formula for copper ruby glass for 300 talers. However, this deal did not materialize because such glass was already made at Russian glassworks. The Journal of Industry and Tradein 1837 documents that copper ruby glass was then made at the Maltsov, Orlov and Bakhmetiev glassworks.'
It doesn't suggest from the wording that Egermann was trying to sell a technique, it does say that he was 'ready to sell the formula for copper ruby glass for 300 talers.'
I take from that wording and their surrounding comments about the rarity of copper ruby glass, that he was trying to sell the formula for copper ruby glass.
-
I have edited and added to my post above
-
Hi ,
Sorry cant help with what was used for red glass I'm sure others on the forum will know,
another thing to consider with the 2 glasses is that genuine gold ruby glass was so expensive and so rare that it was only ever cut and decorated by the very best craftsmen which also added to its expense,royal houses used to compeat to obtain examples it was that rare and expensive,the decoration on both glasses is very far short of anything that would be seen on a real gold ruby piece .
cheers ,
Peter.
-
Wikipedia says this
'Striking glasses
'Selenium, like manganese, can be used in small concentrations to decolorize glass, or in higher concentrations to impart a reddish color, caused by selenium nanoparticles dispersed in glass. It is a very important agent to make pink and red glass. When used together with cadmium sulfide,[9] it yields a brilliant red color known as "Selenium Ruby".
Pure metallic copper produces a very dark red, opaque glass, which is sometimes used as a substitute for gold in the production of ruby-colored glass.
Metallic gold, in very small concentrations (around 0.001%, or 10 ppm), produces a rich ruby-colored glass ("Ruby Gold" or "Rubino Oro"), while lower concentrations produces a less intense red, often marketed as "cranberry". The color is caused by the size and dispersion of gold particles. Ruby gold glass is usually made of lead glass with added tin.
Silver compounds such as silver nitrate and silver halides can produce a range of colors from orange-red to yellow. The way the glass is heated and cooled can significantly affect the colors produced by these compounds. Also photochromic lenses and photosensitive glass are based on silver.'
It's an important question - it could help date these glasses. It's also interesting to know, if they were produced prior to 1835, whether or not the current literature is correct. For example, if Russia was producing gold-ruby glass in the early 19th century, then the assertion in the Corning book (?) is not correct.
If these glasses are copper-ruby glass then if the dating is correct on Egermann production and if they turn out to be Bohemian, then it would clearly date them to after 1841 as most likely.
Or are they Selenium red?
-
According to this paper
A patent for Selenium red glass was taken out in 1865 by a French Chemist J. T. Pelouze
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1933.tb19219.x/epdf?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=preview_click&show_checkout=1&purchase_referrer=onlinelibrary.wiley.com&purchase_site_license=LICENSE_DENIED
So ... it could be that in Bohemia they knew how to make Selenium red glass in 1865, although a patent was not issued to Welz until 1892.
So ... if these glasses date, with their faceted stems and facet cutting and gilding (a combination which was around and in fashion from mid 18th) to late 18th century, then it is most likely they are either gold-ruby glass ... or some other red glass that we don't know about (is that likely?).
Otherwise, if they are not gold ruby glass, it means that all these red coloured faceted stemmed drinking glasses with their faceted stems (diamond or hexagonal) and hand made feet and gilding patterns that date from the mid 18th onwards, are most likely to date post 1841 if made in Bohemia and post 1837 if they are made in Russia (don't think they are made in Russia btw, just adding it as an example).
-
Hi ,
" then the assertion in the Corning book (?) is not correct."
Being current and written by current authorities on the subject along with the advances in glass knowledge over the last 15 yrs since the Russian book I would like to believe Corning is up to date, you only have to look at any of the glass books written over the last hundred years and all proclaim Ravencroft with the "invention of lead glass",this has now been proven to be wrong. but that's another story also in the new Corning book .
I dont think after 1840 would be an unreasonable date for both glasses.
cheers ,
Peter.
-
Interesting and yes, the Russian book pre-dates the recent Corning book by a long way.
'From what I read both glasses would have to have a late 17th or early 18th c date to be gold ruby, or after 1835 (Pohl)to be a revival glass in gold ruby'
So this for example would then move the the Russian decanter on page 72 of the book, from late 18th or early 19th century to post 1835 (Pohl) - (or early 1700s but looking at it that is unlikely I think).
I'm no authority or expert on glass in any way shape or form but if there are discrepancies in dating it's quite important to question them I think.
One more point - I don't think the fact that the little glass is gilded directly onto the glass makes it poorer quality than a glass which has been engraved and then gilded btw. There are different styles of decoration and gilding onto flat surface was something that both the Russians did as well as the French ( I have a Clichy piece) and the gilding is superb.
I know the gilding on the little glass is seen on many glasses, I'm not comparing the decorative style of the gilding here, I'm just saying the technique of gilding directly onto a flat surface glass doesn't make it lesser quality :) Perhaps whether it was fired on and burnished or cold decorated might (depending on age of production though).
m
-
Hi
" I don't think the fact that the little glass is gilded directly onto the glass makes it poorer quality than a glass which has been engraved and then gilded btw"
"I'm just saying the technique of gilding directly onto a flat surface glass doesn't make it lesser quality,
Completely agree its the end result that determines the quality and in my humble opinion the end result on both glasses is mediocre and would not be found on gold ruby glass.
cheers,
Peter.
-
Ah, you have misunderstood me - I'm not suggesting these are gold ruby glass (I am suggesting they might date later than the one in the link though i.e. not 1780 but more like 1840 onwards).
However, I'm still perturbed by the dating of the gold ruby.
'From what I read both glasses would have to have a late 17th or early 18th c date to be gold ruby, or after 1835 (Pohl)to be a revival glass in gold ruby'
Late 17th or early 18th century would be say 1675-1725?
The Russian book says on
page 46 ''Gold had been used to produce ruby glass at the Imperial Glassworks since Lomonosov's time, and this type of glass was called "gold-ruby".
Wikipedia gives birth and death dates for Lomonosov as 1711- 1765 if I read it correctly.
If gold ruby glass production stopped early 18th (i.e early 1700s) how does that tie in with that information?
-
Hi ,
Ah!!! I have misunderstood you , and I agree that the 1 in the link is as you say more like 1840 onwards.
Once again from Corning , first phase came with Kunckel c 1684 and ended probably along with the death of his patron in 1688, the second phase began c 1719 and continued in a lesser scale till the 1740s , nothing then till rediscovery c 1835 by Pohl
cheers ,
Peter,
Back to packing crates of 16th 17th and 18th c glasses for all to see at the fair .
-
So, there is a clear discrepancy between what is written in the Russian Glass book then.
The Corning book dates mean that no Russian glass made of gold-ruby was produced between 1740s and the 're-discovery' of gold-ruby glass by Pohl in c.1835.
m
-
This compotier is in the Hermitage Museum as 'gold-ruby' glass dated to second half 18th i.e. 1750-1800
https://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/923326/?lng=en
https://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/wcm/connect/4ee75aa4-8918-43cc-b2c2-06c0da03454b/WOA_IMAGE_1.jpg?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=10092626-b662-48b0-9561-307612f4625f
And also this one a slightly different colour
https://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/917817/?lng=en
and this vase dated 1810-1820s
https://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/802708/?lng=en
https://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/wcm/connect/e2db807d-4498-49fe-b06d-ef369550a18d/WOA_IMAGE_1.jpg?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=57acba08-37be-4c2f-9fab-42f43b95c360
This bowl is just dated early 1800s
https://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/802709/?lng=en
It is in the book page 86 dated first third of 19th century (that would be 1800-1833)
This decanter is the one in the book I believe (book page 72) - it appears to have identical gilding but with reverse side being shown as the one in th ebook has a medallion with initials on the front.
you need to scroll almost all the way down and it is red with a faceted stopper and gilding.
http://cultureru.com/category/russian-art-glass/
There are quite a few gold ruby items from the Russian glass collection that appear to date outside the Corning dates. Are they all wrong?
-
as a suggestion m ....... take your glass when next you go to the V. & A. and arrange to visit on the one afternoon in the month they hold their 'surgery' - at least it used to be just the one afternoon per month, you can check on their web site, I think it was a Tuesday. Hopefully they will be able to nail your glass once and for all. Perhaps they will give you an opinion based solely on pix alone - worth a try. :)
-
I
'm not concerned at all about what my glass is made of or when any more Paul :)
No, I didn't mean that - What I mean is I honestly really don't care whether the glass is copper ruby or gold ruby ( in case you are all thinking that I'm mistakenly thinking I might have an expensive piece of glass on my hands). i'm not, I'm sure it isn't 'expensive', but I am curious as to whether it is copper ruby or gold-ruby and whether or not it can be dated because of that.
These glasses with this cut design and the gilded design come up periodically in clear. They are also in a very beautiful dark green glass occasionally and I think I've spotted a teal blue/green one as well.
There are always a varied selection of dates given and I've been curious to know how to date them to any sort of time frame.
I'm more concerned about the dates being quoted from Glass of the Alchemists about the time-frame production of gold-ruby glass and I'm questioning them with evidence to show why I am questioning them (the dates). I know the people who wrote the book are glass authorities but I thought this forum was about being able to discuss glass. And I think it is ok to question something when evidence is demonstrating something else isn't it? The curators of the Hermitage glass collection are also authorities but perhaps they have their dates incorrect for their gold-ruby glass?
As far as I can tell the Glass of the Alchemists was produced in 2008.
I have found a more recent publication which contains very interesting and lots of,information on gold-ruby glass.
Imperial College Press dated 2012.
It is called 'Gold Nanoparticles for Physics, Chemistry and Biology.'
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2c-6CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&dq=glass+of+the+alchemists&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLsqX8_8XMAhVCL8AKHdlRDKsQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=glass%20of%20the%20alchemists&f=false
It does not, as far as I read, give the date restrictions on the production of gold-ruby glass, that The Glass of the Alchemists is quoted as giving.
There is no reference to it not being produced between 1740 and 1835. It says there continued to be ongoing interest in gold-ruby glass throughout the 18th century. There is nothing in that publication unless I've missed something, that says Russia would not have been producing gold-ruby glass in the second half of the 18th century or as early as 1810 in the 19th century.
(It also states that Bernard Perrot produced items (and shows a picture) containing red gold-ruby glass in France 16 years before Kunckel, but does say that Kunckel was the first to produce gold-ruby glass en masse.)
It's just a lot less prescriptive on the date frame for the production.
If the Hermitage production dates are incorrect I wonder why?
The publication was interesting to me as it answered one of my questions - it says the early red glass production (Egypt and Mesopotamia 1400-1300 BCE) was as a result of adding copper.
It also says
'the production of copper red glass is a real challenge from a technological point of view because it requires a reducing atmosphere; for this reason red glasses are less frequent than other colours.'
m
-
Another interesting comment from that book:
'Gold has such a strong colouring ability that only a minute amount is required even for the deepest colours: 100 to 1000 ppm is sufficient to produce deep pink colour glass whereas the red sang-de-bouef colour provided by copper requires a concentration a hundred times as high as gold.'
-
This discusson seems to be getting out of hand. On the one hand you should not believe that all descriptions of techniques are always correct, because many writers have no real technical or chemical background. Secondly, dates tend to be estimates rather than fact based. And the fact that a technique was discovered and described did not mean it immediately went into production. Colour chemistry is predominantly a Bohemian speciality, the Russian works were alsorans. Real developers were Egermann, Bucqoy and Baccarat.
I can send you a copy of the relevant sections as soon as I am back in NL - i.e. not before the 20th.
-
Ivo, I am just trying to say that to put end and start dates on production is not a good thing. And I am asking 'where is the proof of those end and start dates'?
I am not randomly questioning the information. There is conflicting evidence.
My other comments were because that information is genuinely interesting to me. I did wonder how early red glass was produced and asked that question at the beginning of this thread.
m
-
Hi ,
My final comments on the subject,
M you say you have conflicting "evidence",I don't think you have ,you have conflicting opinions , it seems your preferred source of information is the Hermitage , I can only ask when the attributes for the items recorded in the Hermitage were compiled , recently or when the items came to the collection which could have been more than 100 years ago , if we go to the Hermitage search facility for "Gold Ruby Glass" we will along with the examples you quote also find these,
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/990314/?lng=en
and , http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/802804/?lng=en
both clearly described as Gold Ruby Glass , in fact they are " gorge de pigeon " French glass
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/23557/lot/137/
then there is this
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/990316/?lng=en
I see no gold ruby there,
or here
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/918951/?lng=en
and here ,
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/802803/?lng=en
quote " I thought this forum was about being able to discuss glass. And I think it is ok to question something when "evidence" is demonstrating something else isn't it?
Of course you are quite correct but again I would contest the use of the word "evidence", the items linked to above are clearly wrongly attributed by the Hermitage , and could be very old information , personally I would then question the validity of the other entries
As this is now regarding the conflict of information then the only way for any resolution is for you to cantact both authorities and ask for the current scholarly thought , I for 1 do not have any personal experience in the subject and clearly stated" that from what I can read"and as such was passing on information from a source which I regard as current in support of your questioning the possibility that your glass may be Gold Ruby ,
http://www.cmog.org/article/gold-ruby-glass
I was only the messenger , but now have bullet wounds
Peter.
edited to add more confusing information ,
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Early-19th-Century-Bohemian-Ruby-Gilded-Facet-Cut-Goblet-c1810-/201552569274?hash=item2eed7823ba%3Ag%3AOAcAAOSwGYVW%7EVcj&nma=true&si=84osCOOjLHJdzwJn7b18Ucgysmg%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
http://scottishantiques.com/bohemian-gilded-facet-cut-goblet?filter_name=facet%20stem#.Vy3TlSHLAcd
-
Peter I'm sorry you feel like that.
My apologies.
m
-
I'm very sorry if my writing again offends anyone but I am genuinely confused by the suggestion that gold-ruby glass production stopped c.1740 and didn't restart again until Pohl in c.1830s.
I am also confused about the comments that the Hermitage might have dates incorrect on all those pieces of glass. Yes it might be that they have other information wrong re the gorge de pigeon glass (I was circumspect about one of those pieces on a thread a long time ago) but I don’t see how that brings into question their production of gold ruby glass as being outside the dates above.
I have done some searching to demonstrate why and provided the links to the information I have read as to why I am questioning it.
Please do not batter me and suggest I am adding links for the sake of it.
I would prefer that someone explained why these links are incorrect or why my understanding is incorrect.
1) In 2011 there was a call for papers and an announcement of a conference to be held:
http://www.aihv.org/fr/SecondAnnouncement.pdf
'International Conference on the Chemistry of Glasses and Glass-Forming Melts'
Lady Margaret Hall in Oxford
in celebration of the 300th anniversary of the birth of Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov
As part of the commentry on that link it says:
‘ … Lomonosov was particularly interested in glass colour. He understood the importance of quantitative measurement and of the necessity to perform systematic investigations under similar conditions (temperature, atmosphere, melting time, etc.), and was the first to use a microscope in glass studies. He worked on glass for 17 years and in one period of 3½ years melted 2184 glass batches (~2 per day!). His main goal was to investigate the influence of glass composition on properties and to prepare glasses with specific properties. He produced more shades of colour (including gold ruby glass) than were then known in Europe, and introduced zinc, mercury and bismuth into glasses 130 years before Otto Schott.
Lomonosov may thus be considered the father of glass chemistry, and scientific glassmaking, and was also the founder of physical chemistry and scientific geology. Using his knowledge of coloured glasses, he personally created mosaic pictures that can still be seen in St. Petersburg.’
There is a list on that link, of the organising committee members for that conference.
As far as I have read elsewhere (iirc in the book Russian Glass of the 17th-20th Centuries), Lomonosov turned his recipes over to the Imperial glass manufactory.
2) Also in 2011, a book was produced called Glasses and the Glass Transition
By Ivan S. Gutzow, Oleg V. Mazurin, Jürn W. P. Schmelzer, Snejana V. Todorova, Boris B. Petroff, Alexander I. Priven
It says under chapter 10.4 after discussing Kunckel
‘…Then followed the second re-invention of gold ruby glass by Lomonosov [659] in the eighteenth century in St Petersburg’
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B8JBgLcqeXUC&pg=PT538&dq=lomonosov+gold+ruby+glass&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRi4DelsnMAhWpAsAKHRqGB-gQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=lomonosov%20gold%20ruby%20glass&f=false
The authors of that book are described here on Wiley
http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-3527409688.html
as:
'Description
Written by renowned researchers in the field, this up-to-date treatise fills the gap for a high-level work discussing current materials and processes. It covers all the steps involved, from vitrification, relaxation and viscosity, right up to the prediction of glass properties, paving the way for improved methods and applications.
For solid state physicists and chemists, materials scientists, and those working in the ceramics industry.'
The author is described thus:
'Author Information
Prof. Ivan S. Gutzow, scientist with the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, has served at research positions at various institutions, including the Universities of Jena and Rostock, Germany, and MIT and Case Western University, USA. His work, published in more than 240 papers, has earned him various awards, e.g. the 2002 International Alexander von Humboldt Research Price.
His society affiliations include the German Union of Glass Technology (DGG), and the International Commission of Glass.'
3) Then in 2012:
This paper dated 2012, was a translation of the paper
‘On the Strata of the Earth’ by Mikhail Lomonosov
there is an foreword by Irene G. Malakhova
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FRXlvOxeXMYC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=lomonosov+gold+ruby+glass&source=bl&ots=Jyjr2wH9Be&sig=mcAUFiSewnS4lYj1nPi1E-JowV0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVm9nslMnMAhWpIsAKHeUAAzYQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=gold%20ruby%20glass&f=false
Whilst there is only part paper available to view there is again a small mention in there of gold ruby glass. (no 77 under translation)
4)
From Sotheby's there is a very long description of Lomonosov's experiments in the link below. The description starts by saying:
'The art of coloured glass in Russia and Mikhail Lomonosov’s workshops in Ust-Ruditsa
Text by Emmanuel Ducamp
The activity of the Russian polymath Mikhail Lomonosov, his research on coloured glass and the creations by his workshops in Ust-Ruditsa are now better known thanks to the research done by Russian specialists, especially the synthesis made by L. Tarasova in the catalogue of the exhibition “Mikhail Lomonosov and the time of Elisabeth I” which took place in the Hermitage Museum in 2011.'
It also makes mention of the ruby glass coloured by gold.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FRXlvOxeXMYC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=lomonosov+gold+ruby+glass&source=bl&ots=Jyjr2wH9Be&sig=mcAUFiSewnS4lYj1nPi1E-JowV0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVm9nslMnMAhWpIsAKHeUAAzYQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=gold%20ruby%20glass&f=false
5) And then in 2014
there was an exhibition at the State Historical Museum
There are two reference links I could find to this exhibition.
This link writes about the exhibition and specifically about a gold-ruby cup that was gilded ‘at the turn of the 19th century.’ (i.e. c.1800 -my words) It shows a photograph of the item. That date does not fall within the dates stated of production of ruby-glass finishing c.1740s and not restarting until c.1830s:
http://russia-insider.com/en/russian-glass-xviii-twentieth-centuries-state-historical-museum/5552
In the next link describing the exhibition the wording is for date on that piece is the same:
'For those unfamiliar with the Imperial Glass Factory, this was in operation between 1777 and 1917. The factory remained an authoritative trend setter for the art of the glass makers' craft. Among the works on exhibition, there is a rare cup of glass “gold ruby” painted at the turn of XIX century, ...'
http://our-russia.com/1991491320/russian-glass-state-historical-museum
Given all these pieces of information, and the authority of the various contributors involved, I am confused as to how it can be assumed the Hermitage has the dates completely wrong about the Imperial Glass production of gold ruby glass.
Especially since the cup shown was in an exhibition two years ago and was dated then as c.1800 - surely after all this activity on Lomonsov's work they would not get that date wrong?
I am asking therefore, is it possible that the gold-ruby cup in the exhibition of 2014 at the State Historical museum, is correctly dated as c.1800 (i.e. the turn of the 19th century) and this therefore falls before the suggested c.1835 date for Pohl reinventing gold-ruby glass and perhaps comes under the banner of the comment in the book above of
‘…Then followed the second re-invention of gold ruby glass by Lomonosov [659] in the eighteenth century in St Petersburg’
and likewise that it is possible there may be other gold-ruby glass items from the Imperial Glass factory in the Hermitage collection that also have the correct production dates and that fall before c1835?
Might this information also give credence to the information I quoted earlier from the book
'The Russian book says on page 46
''Gold had been used to produce ruby glass at the Imperial Glassworks since Lomonosov's time, and this type of glass was called "gold-ruby". '
I do understand how producing the recipe for, and producing mosaic glass pieces of, gold-ruby glass in the mid 1700s could be different perhaps to producing blown glass large items, but I don't understand how they could be so completely wrong in their dating given the information they have at hand and that the recipes and information was handed over to the factory by Lomonosov.
I appreciate any comments as to why these linked information sources might be incorrect or might have been incorrectly interpreted by me as support that gold-ruby glass might have been produced by Russia before c.1835.
m
-
Not having my papers handy, and do not want to confuse these issues any further but, from memory, :
- Ruby red was made for some time before the recipe got lost. It was first made in the 1670s by Kunckel, and the preparation of "purple of cassius" was the tricky bit. It involved cooking sulphuric and hydrochloric and dissolving gold at a speific ratio, which no one managed to do for a few hundred years. Then when the interest in coloured glass and artificial gems took off circa 1800, the recipe was re-invented and made by several glass producers.
As gold was an expensive ingredient, thinner solutions were tried out which produced cranberry in various shades - but colloidal copper turned out to be as good as colloidal gold for colouring the mass.
- colour chemistry in Russia is just that. You'd have a different outlook on the history of the world if you went to school in Russia.
Indeed the knowlege of museum curators, auction houses, antique dealers of glass chemistry is not very good. If they say 'ruby red' they usually refer to an approximate colour, not the process used to get there. There is a lot of misinformation out there.
-
I think to get the Reds from copper in the ceramics world you have to create a reducing atmosphere in the kiln,starve the kiln of oxygen,you can also do this by putting the hot object into saw dust or some organic material.
-
'- colour chemistry in Russia is just that. You'd have a different outlook on the history of the world if you went to school in Russia. '
I don't understand the implication of your comment above.
The organising committee for that conference was internationally based.
On reading the information in that link Lomonosov's contribution doesn't seem to be insignificant.
Is there more recent information that refutes the translations of his work and the information I linked to, that I haven't come across?
By the way, I am not trying to prove anything to do with Russia specifically, nor am I trying to prove anything about the little glass that I started this thread with.
I was simply questioning that from what I read, it seems it might have been possible that gold-ruby glass was produced after 1740 and before c.1835, the date that was stated that Pohl re-invented it.
I am going to bow out of this thread now.
I get the distinct feeling that I am being told I 'don't understand' and that the information I provide is rubbished, but the information others provide I should take as read without questioning.
-
Not at all, M, nobody is trying to imply anythng and it would be sad if you think otherwise. In the states, every invention ever made is American, in France it is French...
Many attemps at recreating the old formula have been made, in Germany, in Bohemia, in France and - certainly - elsewhere. It is generally assumed that true gold ruby was not produced by anyone between 1740 and 1835. Of course there were other recipes around - but the trick with the colloid gold dispersion was lost during that period. Red glass made in that period would be most likely a different formula - there are enough recipes around.
-
Jan Mergl From Neuwelt to the Whole World 2012 - for example shows two pieces of glass listed as:
'Ruby Glass (composite gold ruby), cut.'
Is this not gold ruby glass then? would this be a different recipe?
( I know I said I was bowing out of this thread but I would like to know please what this description means)
Thanks
m
-
As said, I do not have my research notes here so I can only speak in general terms and not say anything on any specific item. The gold ruby glass from 1670-1740 may be a rich dark colour but does have a pinkish tinge, more a dark cranberry or pomegrenade. If you have a glass from that period you can safely assume it is gold ruby. If you have a ruby coloured glass, however, you cannot automatically assess its composition and conclude a date from it.
To be continued after I get back. Meanwhile, thank you for coming up with the right questions. Scientific curiosity produces scientific knowledge for which sincere thanks are in order. The timeline is somewhat obscure and deserves an overhaul....
-
Ivo, thank you for coming back to me. I did some more research before I had to go out and the question is answered in his text in the book. It is gold ruby glass (the pieces I was referring to).
His words with reference one of those pieces ' ... one footed beaker made of compound glass (gold ruby) in the collection of ...)
I had forgotten you mentioned you don't have your references with you. That was unfair of me to ask.
m
-
I would like to discuss the comments made on the quote below please.
These are just my observations following the reading I have done. I am open to correction on all points.
But I think this is an interesting area for discussion as I am very interested in opalescent and opaline glass and have a number of pieces from various eras (though rather unfortunately I own no gorge de pigeon which is my all-time favourite) so any knowledge to be gained on these is appreciated.
Peter said:
'M you say you have conflicting "evidence",I don't think you have ,you have conflicting opinions , it seems your preferred source of information is the Hermitage , I can only ask when the attributes for the items recorded in the Hermitage were compiled , recently or when the items came to the collection which could have been more than 100 years ago , if we go to the Hermitage search facility for "Gold Ruby Glass" we will along with the examples you quote also find these,
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/990314/?lng=en
and , http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/802804/?lng=en
both clearly described as Gold Ruby Glass , in fact they are " gorge de pigeon " French glass
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/23557/lot/137/
then there is this
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/990316/?lng=en
I see no gold ruby there,
or here
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/918951/?lng=en
and here ,
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/802803/?lng=en
quote " I thought this forum was about being able to discuss glass. And I think it is ok to question something when "evidence" is demonstrating something else isn't it?
Of course you are quite correct but again I would contest the use of the word "evidence", the items linked to above are clearly wrongly attributed by the Hermitage , and could be very old information , personally I would then question the validity of the other entries'
I've done some more reading to try and understand whether the Hermitage has just wrongly labelled these items. I will try and give links to the information that has informed my understanding so far.
From that reading I have the following observations:
1)
'http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/990314/?lng=en
and , http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/802804/?lng=en
both clearly described as Gold Ruby Glass , in fact they are " gorge de pigeon " French glass
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/23557/lot/137/'
I have, on a previous thread, been careful when linking to one of the Hermitage pink opaline items as a reference , to say that the Hermitage 'labelled it as Russian'. Bohemia also produced lilac coloured agatin glass. I was unsure at that time about whether Russia produced this or not hence defining my comment.
Likewise it seems on the link Peter gave to the Bonhams sale, there is acknowledgement of similar items in the Hermitage
'No other example is recorded with this combination of gorge de pigeon and amber glass. Similar pieces have been attributed to the Imperial Glass Factory in St Petersburg. See the vase illustrated in the catalogue of the Imperial Glass Factory, 1777-1917, 225th Foundation Day Anniversary (2004), p.58'
I have never seen a piece of gorge de pigeon in person, and whilst it does look to me as though this piece Peter linked to in the Hermitage is French, I would not be able to say categorically. The Hermitage may well have made a mistake or not updated their country of origin subsequent to more recent evidence. I do not know if only France ever produced this glass.
Likewise I do not know about the perfume bottle on the second link. It has a stopper that is very similar to a purpurine (Russian glass) umbrella handle by Faberge(something I came across when checking out the lilac agatin on the other thread) is the only comment I can make but obviously that would not constitute an id. http://elogedelart.canalblog.com/archives/2010/11/06/19528967.html
2) Further with reference these items below and the two above, on the use of the wording 'gold ruby' glass in the descriptions on the Hermitage website ...
' http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/990316/?lng=en
I see no gold ruby there,
or here
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/918951/?lng=en
and here ,
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/802803/?lng=en'
... it is my understanding that gold was used in the production of 'gorge de pigeon'.
a) the book Cristallerie de Clichy says on page 235
'On y ajoutait de l'oxyde de cuivre pour obtenir le bleu turquoise ou le verte de eau, et des sels d'or pour le rose 'gorge de pigeon'
Directly translated this reads
It added to the copper oxide to obtain turquoise blue or green water , and gold salts for the rose ' pigeon throat '
b) This description also appears to says that (it is referring to two vases both made of gorge de pigeon and lilac opaline glass:
http://www.lesartsdecoratifs.fr/francais/musees/musee-des-arts-decoratifs/parcours/xixe-siecle/le-gout-sous-la-restauration/paire-de-vases-medicis
'If the processes of glass opalization are known in Venice in the sixteenth century, their application to the crystal - lead glass developed in England in the seventeenth century - is a French invention of the nineteenth century. In ancient inspiration, the classic forms of these two crystal vases opal bicolor - pink, said gorge-de-pigeon, and amethyst - adorned with two birds in ormolu treated in the round, combine exceptionally two colors characteristics of production of the Restoration: bone ash, arsenic and tin are the main components of this opacification, which are added pink obtained by the addition of salts of gold and purple from manganese oxide . '
c) in addition to which Spiegl says( I have used google to translate the original text - please use link to see original:
http://www.glas-forschung.info/pageone/pdf/farbglas.pdf
Glasses with pink overlay were in
the exhibition of 1835 for the first
Time represented. Already in 1831 had the
Harrachsche hut in Prague »pink color stones"
(Artificial rubies) demonstrated in 1835
sent them next to red and green also
pink cased glasses with sanding through
to Vienna. The Harrachsche
"Pink Glass", of the one pound in
Preparation 2 Gulden 40 Kreuzer cost
and thus was only slightly more expensive than
the "Special blue for flashed"
as well as the "Rosa Rubin n. M. E.
Schmid "[6] were lead-free chalk glasses
with gold dissolution.
Then it shows a picture of a pink overlay piece described as;
IV.3 White alabaster glass with pink
Gold ruby flashed , ground and
painted. To 1845th
(original text)
IV.3 Weißes Alabasterglas mit rosa
Goldrubinüberfang, geschliffen und
bemalt. Um 1845.
I have also read that opaline glass is obtained by making the opaline batch in white and adding the colour. I think I have read that gold ruby in small quantities produces a pink? I am not a chemist and I will try and find those links again for reference.
A further source of information might be that I own a number of rose alabaster pieces (pink opaline glass) made by Stevens and Williams. They are truly stunning in their colour although perhaps not quite as amazing as owning a piece of gorge de pigeon would be.
In the book The Crystal Years, Williams Thomas says with regard their 'alabaster' range:
'Two colours are exceptional: rose, made with "gold" ruby, and jade green....'
If this is the case, then I wonder might the Hermitage be correct in their descriptions of these pink opaline pieces, i.e. the glass is made with white opaline glass base and then by adding the gold ruby ? Therefore they are "gold ruby" glass.
-
trying to add quote boxes from previous comments on this thread but it hasn't worked- apologies
Please see my long post directly above which addresses the question of the gold-ruby glass used in opaline glass gorge de pigeon.
Thanks
-
I said on my long post just above that I would add links to demonstrate why I made the comments at the bottom of that post. I read this a long time ago in a much older document. I've not been able to find that reference, however I have now added a very recent reference for my comment:
'I have also read that opaline glass is obtained by making the opaline batch in white and adding the colour. '
This reference link does not show the complete book so it is difficult to give page numbers - however the paragraph that falls directly above the section '1.3.2 Conclusion' is where the information is.
If I read that paragraph and understand it correctly it says that white opacified glass mix mixed with the translucent colour glass will lighten the tint of the colour and the greater the quantity of the white crystals the more the tint will be lightened.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9OunNskEvXYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=modern+methods+for+analysing+archaeological+and+historical+glass&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXwJiK7M3MAhVMDsAKHQLLAa0Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=modern%20methods%20for%20analysing%20archaeological%20and%20historical%20glass&f=false
See also para 1.3.1.3(you will need to scroll through that link to find it but it is readable), where there is available to view some more detailed information on opacifiers in glass.
Source: Modern Methods for Analysing Archaeological and Historical Glass
edited by Koen H. A. Janssens
Edition first published 2013
So perhaps this might explain why those items in the Hermitage are listed as 'gold ruby'- perhaps because they are 'gold ruby' mixed with an opacified glass.
I am open to correction on all my comments - I am not a chemist. But that seems to be the explanation for why.
m
-
I have been questioning the date line for gold ruby glass as given in discussion on this thread.
I said I thought this date line might be too prescriptive.
In reply #28 specific dates were mentioned [note – this quote is taken out of context, please read were whole thread for discussion context]:
‘Reply #28
Once again from Corning , first phase came with Kunckel c 1684 and ended probably along with the death of his patron in 1688, the second phase began c 1719 and continued in a lesser scale till the 1740s , nothing then till rediscovery c 1835 by Pohl’ – Source given as ‘Glass of the Alchemists’
I gave examples from the Hermitage Museum, of items they had listed as gold ruby that appeared to date outside that timeframe (I referred to them as ‘evidence’) (my reply#30)
I also cited a reference document which did not appear to be as prescriptive in dates (reply #32)
It was suggested that the examples I gave from the Hermitage were not conflicting ‘evidence’ but conflicting ‘opinions’ (reply#36).
It was also suggested the validity of the Hermitage reference links I had given might be in question because the Hermitage had incorrectly attributed other items (the links to those items are given in that reply #36):
- Two of those links provided were stated to be not gold ruby but French ‘gorge de pigeon’.
- It was stated that the other three linked items were listed as gold ruby glass but that no gold ruby could be seen in them. (reply #36)
I responded (with linked reference sources - reply #46) asking if it was possible that the Hermitage had actually correctly attributed those items (queried in reply #36) as gold ruby and giving a possible explanation why (reply#36)
I gave further examples of why gold ruby glass might fall outside that date line (reply#38)
In reply#41 I posed the question again [note – this is out of context, please read the whole reply for context]:
‘I was simply questioning that from what I read, it seems it might have been possible that gold-ruby glass was produced after 1740 and before c.1835, the date that was stated that Pohl re-invented it.’
Here are other examples I have come across in my previous reading and which may have triggered me to question the date line as given in reply #28
1)
The book ‘Glass of the Alchemists’ was dated 2008.
There was an exhibition to accompany the book. The Corning Museum website says this:
‘Glass of the Alchemists explored Northern European glass of the Baroque period and examined the technical advances in glassmaking made by alchemists during that time…
…The exhibition ended with the Warrior Vase, a splendid example of colorless and gold ruby cameo glass made in China in the 18th or 19th century, and a curiosity: a gold ingot that Johann Friedrich Bottger produced in the presence of King Augustus II of Poland in 1713, claiming that he made it by transmuting base metal.’
Source:
http://www.cmog.org/collection/exhibitions/alchemists
With regard the date for that Warrior vase, on their website The Corning has it as made in China and dated
‘1736-1795’
http://www.cmog.org/artwork/warrior-vase-stand
2)
In the book ‘From Neuwelt to the Whole World’ dated 2012 (Jan Mergl ) there are a number of examples of gold ruby glass in the book that are dated to before c.1835:
Page 71 - no 46 ‘Ruby glass (composite gold ruby)’ - ‘Beaker execution: c.1820’
Page 71 - no 48 ‘Ruby glass (composite gold ruby)’ – ‘Sugar bowl with lid execution: c.1825’
There is also this one:
Page 91- no 73 ‘Ruby glass (composite gold ruby)’ – ‘Beaker execution: c.1830’
And
Page 100 - no 98 ‘Ruby glass (composite gold ruby)’ - Jug execution: before 1835
There are three more examples of ‘Ruby glass (composite gold ruby) on page 93 dated ‘execution: after 1830’
3)
In a much earlier book Das Bohmische Glas band II:
Page 82 II.96
Karaffe - a gold ruby jug with lid attributed as:
‘Vermutlich Hutte Paulina auf der Buquoyschen Herrschaft Gratzen in Sudbohmen, um 1803’’
4)
The Corning has other examples on their website:
See this Chinese bowl described as gold ruby glass and dated 1736-1795
http://www.cmog.org/artwork/bowl-791
5)
and this one dated 1736-1795
‘B) Gold ruby bowl; minute bubbles and some larger impurities. Cast, engraved in low relief (Hochschnitt), with flaring rim and tapered wall that is rounded toward hollow base; subconical foot-ring. l is engraved with landscape: rocks and flowering plum tree and magnolia and longtailed pheasant. On base, Qianlong’s four-character mark within square, double-lined border.’
http://www.cmog.org/artwork/2-bowls-1
6)
The Corning also has this Russian vase from the Imperial Glassworks, Russia St Petersburg dated ‘about 1829’
They describe it as:
‘PRIMARY DESCRIPTION
Gold-ruby, colorless glasses, bronze, gilding; blown, overlaid, tooled, applied, cut, polished, cast, gilded, ad-hered, assembled. The vase has a narrow flaring…’
http://www.cmog.org/artwork/vase-1097
7)
As noted in reply#, there was an exhibition held in 2014 in the State Historical Museum in Russia.
On display was a covered red glass piece described as ‘gold ruby’ glass and dated to turn of the 19th century
http://russia-insider.com/en/russian-glass-xviii-twentieth-centuries-state-historical-museum/5552
8)The gorge de pigeon glass vases (a question raised now over whether they may or may not be called 'gold ruby' glass) discussed in my earlier post above have a date reference:
The text from the French site says that two vases were given to the Sevres Museum in 1828 by Bercy.
‘In ancient inspiration, the classic forms of these two crystal vases opal bicolor - pink, said gorge-de-pigeon, and amethyst - adorned with two birds in ormolu treated in the round, combine exceptionally two colors characteristics of production of the Restoration: bone ash, arsenic and tin are the main components of this opacification, which are added pink obtained by the addition of salts of gold and purple from manganese oxide . Models combining two hot colors, however, are extremely rare in the repertoire of French crystal opals from the early nineteenth century. Among the few known examples are those given in 1828 by the manufacture of Bercy in Sevres museum.’
Source: http://www.lesartsdecoratifs.fr/francais/musees/musee-des-arts-decoratifs/parcours/xixe-siecle/le-gout-sous-la-restauration/paire-de-vases-medicis
Obviously, these are all examples rather than 'dated pattern book linked evidence'.
But with all these examples taken together with all the previous examples I have given, it appears to me to still raise the question:
'Are the dates given earlier in this thread for the production of gold ruby glass, too prescriptive'?
It is of course possible that all these examples I have given are incorrectly dated. However there are many of them now and enough for me to think the question is a reasonable one.
-
I also think this book raises an interesting point:
Gold Nanoparticles for Physics, Chemistry and Biology (2012)
By Catherine Louis, Olivier Pluchery
Page 14 chapter 1.2.4.2
'How Kunckel managed to produce gold ruby glass on such a large scale remains a mystery. Moreover, although some vessels can be dated to a period where Kunckel might have been the glassmaker (Fig.1.2.), none of them can be unambiguously attributed to him (source: page 123 Glass of the Alchemists)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2c-6CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&dq=glass+of+the+alchemists&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLsqX8_8XMAhVCL8AKHdlRDKsQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=ruby%20glass&f=false
-
I will email you when I get back to my research notes. Until then, I think that ruby the colour is not to be confused with goldruby the process. It is not just dealers and curators who use the term loosely, it is also people who should know better like cmog. And let's not obfuscate the matter with other glass types which may or may not be related. This may be a multiple and complicated misunderstanding. Any testing method for gold content would be a destructive one.
-
HI ,
I did say that I would probably have nothing further to say on this thread through lack of personal knowledge on the subject , but I do have the book and can tell you that these words
"How Kunckel managed to produce gold ruby glass on such a large scale remains a mystery. Moreover, although some vessels can be dated to a period where Kunckel might have been the glassmaker (Fig.1.2.), none of them can be unambiguously attributed to him (source: page 123 Glass of the Alchemists)"
are not on page 123 or in any of the 10 pages of text on the subject,
cheers ,
Peter.
-
I did say that I would probably have nothing further to say on this thread through lack of personal knowledge on the subject , but I do have the book and can tell you that these words
"How Kunckel managed to produce gold ruby glass on such a large scale remains a mystery. Moreover, although some vessels can be dated to a period where Kunckel might have been the glassmaker (Fig.1.2.), none of them can be unambiguously attributed to him (source: page 123 Glass of the Alchemists)"
are not on page 123 or in any of the 10 pages of text on the subject,
Thank you. As can be seen from the link, that was their reference source. So a poor reference for me to link to.
As a matter of interest is there a reference in Glass of the Alchemists that does 'unambiguously attribute' them to Kunckel?
Until then, I think that ruby the colour is not to be confused with goldruby the process. It is not just dealers and curators who use the term loosely, it is also people who should know better like cmog. And let's not obfuscate the matter with other glass types which may or may not be related. This may be a multiple and complicated misunderstanding. Any testing method for gold content would be a destructive one.
I understand. I thought I had learnt something about another old opaline piece of mine. I do now wonder.
m
-
Hi ,
All items mentioned (22 vessels) with some illustrated are attributed to Brandenburg pre 1690,there are a lot of surviving period documents (between Kunckel and his patron) that discuss the items Kunckel was making ,a peculiarity with his productions seems to be the weight of the objects with 1 very well documented though now lost goblet weighing 24 pounds , so I imagine weight would also be another factor used for attributing a glass from that period,
"How Kunckel managed to produce gold ruby glass on such a large scale remains a mystery.
I wonder if what this really means is objects of large scale ? which would fit with the 24 pound 1 mentioned or scale as in quantity,22 attributable items today doesn't suggest production on a large scale , just a thought.
so not a 100% Kunckel without a doubt ticket, 99.999 % attributions with supporting evidence which is not surprising when dealing with unsigned pieces
cheers ,
Peter.
-
Thank you Peter.
I have read about the 24 lb weight goblet. I think I read it was made in three pieces?
I wonder how many people helped Kunckel make that goblet? Handling even an 8lb piece of glass(24lb goblet made in three pieces I thought so I just divided 24lb by 3 pieces to get an average weight for each piece) and getting that gold ruby colour perfect through the right temperature must have been difficult I would have thought?
This blog entry was posted by Paul Engle on 17 February 2016
http://www.conciatore.org/2016/02/gold-ruby-glass.html
It makes very interesting reading. I have quoted a part of it - please see the blog for the full article
Paul Engle translated L'Arte Vetraria
http://www.amazon.com/LArte-Vetraria-Antonio-Translated-Annotated/dp/0974352934
There is a link here on the Corning Website to that blog
http://www.cmog.org/article/antonio-neri-alchemist-glassmaker-priest
'Doubts about Neri's gold ruby glass recipe grew after his death, when it was discovered by other experimenters that the addition of small amounts of tin into the mix produced the ruby color quickly and reliably. This compound of tin and gold chloride was called "Cassius purple" after one of its inventors and its color. In some circles it was thought that the tin was an essential ingredient, a lost secret that had been rediscovered. The argument was that gold chloride alone could not produce the color, it must be combined with tin in the form of Cassius purple. However, this is not the case.
In an 1846 edition of the Journal of the Franklin Institute (ser. 3, v. 11), professor of chemistry and natural philosophy, E. L. Schubarth, cites numerous investigators who demolish this theory. He wrote:
"It must not be imagined from this, as some persons have lately stated, that it is necessary to use gold [combined with tin] in the state of Cassius purple.
Neri, at the end of the sixteenth and commencement of the seventeenth century, stated, that in order to stain glass a ruby color, it was only necessary to employ calcined chloride of gold. At a later period, Libar wrote to the same effect, and Merret certified that he had proved the efficacy of the process. In 1834 Golfier Besseyre stated, in the Journal of Pharmacy, that Douault Wieland colored his paste with perchloride of gold only. Lastly, in 1836, Fuss writes, that in Bohemia all the ruby-colored glass was prepared with chloride of gold only, and that glass might be stained red as well with metallic gold, as with oxide of gold or Cassius purple.
It is therefore a fact known for some time, that glass may be stained red, without either Cassius purple or oxide of tin, with [only] metallic gold or preparations of gold. In the glass-works of Bohemia and Silesia perchloride of gold only is used, without the addition of oxide of tin, in order to produce their fine rose or carmine-colored glass."'
-
Hi ,
In Glass of the Alchemists Neri and his "L'Arte vetraria" is discussed at length in relation to Kunckel , " Kunckel commented on the outcome of every one of Neri's recipes,having tested them all himself "
cheers ,
Peter.
edited to add , the book is readily available from several on line sellers and by today's standards for such a large book covering many subjects with lavish illustrations I don't think it is expensive around £25 should get a copy
-
yes I have read that comment about Kunckel testing the recipes.
I was interested to read this though
'Doubts about Neri's gold ruby glass recipe grew after his death, when it was discovered by other experimenters that the addition of small amounts of tin into the mix produced the ruby color quickly and reliably. This compound of tin and gold chloride was called "Cassius purple" after one of its inventors and its color. In some circles it was thought that the tin was an essential ingredient, a lost secret that had been rediscovered. The argument was that gold chloride alone could not produce the color, it must be combined with tin in the form of Cassius purple. However, this is not the case.
In an 1846 edition of the Journal of the Franklin Institute (ser. 3, v. 11), professor of chemistry and natural philosophy, E. L. Schubarth, cites numerous investigators who demolish this theory. He wrote:
"It must not be imagined from this, as some persons have lately stated, that it is necessary to use gold [combined with tin] in the state of Cassius purple.
Neri, at the end of the sixteenth and commencement of the seventeenth century, stated, that in order to stain glass a ruby color, it was only necessary to employ calcined chloride of gold. At a later period, Libar wrote to the same effect, and Merret certified that he had proved the efficacy of the process. In 1834 Golfier Besseyre stated, in the Journal of Pharmacy, that Douault Wieland colored his paste with perchloride of gold only. Lastly, in 1836, Fuss writes, that in Bohemia all the ruby-colored glass was prepared with chloride of gold only, and that glass might be stained red as well with metallic gold, as with oxide of gold or Cassius purple.
It is therefore a fact known for some time, that glass may be stained red, without either Cassius purple or oxide of tin, with [only] metallic gold or preparations of gold. In the glass-works of Bohemia and Silesia perchloride of gold only is used, without the addition of oxide of tin, in order to produce their fine rose or carmine-colored glass."'
It's interesting to me because I'm still curious as to the date of my glass and as to how they managed to make the colour so beautiful if it is coloured in the mass and is copper ruby glass.
From what I read (do not quote me please) it seems that copper ruby was often cased over clear glass as otherwise it was way too dark.
It appears to me, to be quite difficult to find first half 19th century red glass coloured in the mass.
-
Hi
" I wonder how many people helped Kunckel make that goblet? Handling even an 8lb piece of glass(24lb goblet made in three pieces I thought so I just divided 24lb by 3 pieces to get an average weight for each piece) and getting that gold ruby colour perfect through the right temperature must have been difficult I would have thought? "
I dont think that question has been answered by anyone , though it is said that Kunckel was responsible for both the chemistry and the glassblowing himself , it also comments that his first attempts to make this huge goblet were unsuccessful due to an incorrect translation of Neri and due to the huge size of the piece which apparently had 1 ins thick walls as requested by his patron who had instructed Kunckel to make red glass no matter what time or cost it took,
from your post above
"Neri, at the end of the sixteenth and commencement of the seventeenth century, stated, that in order to stain glass a ruby color, it was only necessary to employ calcined chloride of gold.
also form G of th A
" Sixteen of the 133 chapters in Neri are devoted to red glass,9 of these offer formulas that produce a more violet or brown colour and these are based on the use of manganese, six formulas employ copper, and 1 recipe mentions the use of gold."
"Neri's recipe apparently works (it was tested under ideal conditions in 1930) Kunckle's attempts though to reproduce the recipe did not succeed,misled by an incorrect translation of neri's work.",,,,,,,,,,,,, and a lot more information follows
cheers ,
Peter.
-
yes the Corning article says that Kunckel claimed he made it himself:
http://www.cmog.org/article/gold-ruby-glass
I may get this book but it's very expensive. Might have to be a birthday present.
However, it might have information in on another piece I have.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9OunNskEvXYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=modern+methods+for+analysing+archaeological+and+historical+glass&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXwJiK7M3MAhVMDsAKHQLLAa0Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=modern%20methods%20for%20analysing%20archaeological%20and%20historical%20glass&f=false
Source: Modern Methods for Analysing Archaeological and Historical Glass
edited by Koen H. A. Janssens
Edition first published 2013
Re my comment here
It's interesting to me because I'm still curious as to the date of my glass and as to how they managed to make the colour so beautiful if it is coloured in the mass and is copper ruby glass.
From what I read (do not quote me please) it seems that copper ruby was often cased over clear glass as otherwise it was way too dark.
Perhaps mine is cased somehow - I have a spa beaker with handle that is red cased. But that has a clear engraved panel on it and a clear base so it's easy to tell it's cased. On this goblet it's impossible to see anything that looks like casing. There is the scar in the foot which 'seem' to show red in the scar, and the stem being so slim and still faceted so it's difficult to see how it could be cased without either having very thick casing or cutting through it. The bowl and the foot could both have been cased in and out with clear in the middle but it's very fine and I can't see evidence of that on the cut rim, and it's also faceted completely.
m
-
I'm just adding these photos as they might be of interest to someone at a later date.
The rim of the little likor glass is very fine and only 1/16 " at it's absolute widest (2mm?)(i.e. where the cutting forms a point or angle). I cannot see that it might be cased. Nothing shows on the photos or to the eye.
The rim of the red becher next to it is more than twice as wide in diameter. You might be able to see on the photo where the casing is done and then cut through. The clear layer can be seen inside. It is cased only on the outside as there is a clear picture engraved on the front and the base is clear.
The facet cut panels are cut into the red overlayer but don't go through to the clear so it was a fairly good layer of red.
The foot picture is just to show how streaky the red actually looks when held up against a white sheet. It doesn't look streaky in real life or held up to normal daylight - just looks a pretty red colour. It is clean so all those bubbles and bits are in the glass as well as the streaks.
The stem is cut quite deeply as on previous pics so don't think that was cased either.
None of this probably helps on id but just thought it might be interesting for others to see.
It weighs not a lot. I haven't scales light enough to weigh it properly.
-
Whilst I understand Ivo’s comment in reply #51 regarding my discussion comments about gorge de pigeon glass:
I will email you when I get back to my research notes. Until then, I think that ruby the colour is not to be confused with goldruby the process. It is not just dealers and curators who use the term loosely, it is also people who should know better like cmog. And let's not obfuscate the matter with other glass types which may or may not be related. This may be a multiple and complicated misunderstanding. Any testing method for gold content would be a destructive one.
A reply in #36 was presented in a very conclusive way regarding the references by the Hermitage to their ‘gorge de pigeon’ pieces being gold ruby glass:
Reply #36 Oldglassman said:
'Of course you are quite correct but again I would contest the use of the word "evidence", the items linked to above are clearly wrongly attributed by the Hermitage , and could be very old information , personally I would then question the validity of the other entries’
and I actually feel it is an interesting discussion on whether or not ‘gorge de pigeon’ glass is wrongly identified as gold ruby glass by the Hermitage, since this is on a thread where it has been stated that gold ruby production ceased in the 1740s and then was not produced again until it’s rediscovery c.1835 by Pohl
(and since I have produced other references in reply #30, #38, #49, to gold ruby glass being produced before 1835)
I understand obviously, that all the authors in those references I have given could be wrong, if, as Ivo says, it is not possible to identify gold ruby glass without destructive testing methods. However, should we also consider that it may be that they (there are a number of references now, not just the Hermitage) have concrete evidences, which have enabled them to state that those pieces are gold ruby glass.
In addition to the two references I gave directly regarding ‘gorge de pigeon’ glass ( on reply#46 point 2) - La Cristallerie de Clichy Roland Dufrenne, Jean Maës, Christian Capdet, Bernard Maës; and Musee des Arts Decoratif) and the third less specifically but still related reference on that same reply (Walter Spiegl), I have now obtained the book referenced by Bonhams to whom Oldglassman linked as evidence on the reply #36:
‘Baguiers et Verres A Boire du XIXeme siecle’ - Leon Darnis dated 2014
Under a paragraph on ‘gorge de pigeon’ glass it says the following (google translate has been used, please see the original text which I have added at the bottom of this post, for the French description in the book):
Quote – ‘Regarding the gold salts ,, they are used in the form of 'Purple of Cassius' (which we later called 'precipitate of Cassius'), so called in reference to the Dutch XVII century that invented this preparation. This is a mixture of stannous chloride with a solution of gold in aqua regia (nitric acid and hydrochloric acid). Tin was often used in excess and, when cooked, it led to the emergence of a purplish color called 'Pink Hydrangea' or more commonly 'pigeon throat'. This is the usually accepted on this coloration release. But one could believe that there is another possibility. The glassmakers were wont to use manganese as dioxide, called 'soap glassmakers' because it was like bleach vis-a-vis the impurities. However, the excess manganese gave a tint 'Cerulean roughly Dew', that is to say, purplish, with the colorless crystal. In the same way, the manganese in excess or not, could give a purplish hue in the presence of purple of Cassius. Taking advantage of these reflections, it seems that the opaline 'pigeon's breast' that have milky parts probably part of an associated excess tin perhaps to the presence of manganese. However, opaline 'pigeon throat' of a well purplish red color might stand out more from the presence of manganese.’
I may be wrong, but it appears to me that they used gold in the form of pourpre de Cassius to make their Gorge de Pigeon glass. From what I have read, that appears to be the way the gold is used in the gold ruby glass?
Again I may be wrong, but it appears to me the difference between the 'appearance to the eye' of the colours of the glass (gold ruby (red) v gold ruby (gorge de pigeon)) is explained by the occasional excessive use of tin ('Tin was often used in excess and, when cooked, it led to the emergence of a purplish color called 'Pink Hydrangea' or more commonly 'pigeon throat'.') in the production of the gorge de pigeon and the effect that had in the making when combined with the manganese, thereby producing the bright pinky-purply gorge de pigeon.
So it seems to me reading all the references, that both use the gold in the pourpre de Cassius.
I think this is a reasonable explanation as I said before, as to why the Hermitage have their gorge de pigeon coloured glass listed as gold ruby.
It might go some way to explaining why 'gorge de pigeon' ( French glass) and 'Lilac agatin glass' (Bohemian -Buquoy ) and the other 'Purply-pink-opaline-glass-that-looks-like-gorge-de-pigeon' glass (Russian (?) glass in the Hermitage museum that is not gorge-de pigeon incorrectly identified) is so rare.
M. Darnis has 6 pieces of the gorge de pigeon glass in the book dated at 1820-1830.
I have now provided many references (not just 'opinions') to say why I disagreed with this statement:
'‘Reply #28
Once again from Corning , first phase came with Kunckel c 1684 and ended probably along with the death of his patron in 1688, the second phase began c 1719 and continued in a lesser scale till the 1740s , nothing then till rediscovery c 1835 by Pohl’ – Source given as ‘Glass of the Alchemists’'
If all those references (dating post-2008 when The Glass of Alchemists was dated) are correct then that time frame does not stand anymore.
If however every single one of those references is found to be wrong, then it's probably a good thing we are discussing it.
m
Original script for reference:
‘Concernant le sels d'or,, ils sont utilisés sous la forme du 'pourpre de Cassius' (que l'on appela plus tard 'precipite de Cassius'), ainsi dénommé en référence au hollandais que XVIIeme siecle, inventa cette préparation. Il s'agit d'un mélange de chlorure d'étain avec une solution d'or dans de l'eau regale (acide azotique et acide chlorhydrique). L'étain fut souvent utilisé en exces et, à la cuisson, cela entraina l'apparition d'une couleur violacée appelee 'rose hortensia' ou plus couramment 'gorge de pigeon'. C'est là la version habituellement admise concernant cette coloration. On peut cependant penser qu'il existe une autre possibilité. Le verriers avaient coutume d'utiliser du manganese sous forme de bioxyde, appelé 'savon des verriers' car il agissait comme décolorant vis-a-vis des impurités. Or, l'exces de manganese donnait une teinte 'azurée plus ou moins rosée', c'est-a-dire violacée, avec le cristal incolore. De la meme facon, le manganese, en excés ou non, a pu donner une teinte violacee en presence de pourpre de Cassius. A la faveur de ces réflexions, il semble que les opalines 'gorge de pigeon' que présentent des parties laiteuses participent surement d'un excés d'étain associé peut-etre à la présence de manganese. En revanche, les opalines 'gorge de pigeon' d'une coloration bien rouge violacé pourraient ressortir davantage de la présence de manganese.’
-
see above and
The bowl referenced in the first link below is in the book as 'Attributed Bercy' as it says in the Bonhams link provided.
I could not see the perfume bottle in the book. Is there a reference for this being 'gorge de pigeon'?
Quote:
'http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/990314/?lng=en
and , http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/802804/?lng=en
both clearly described as Gold Ruby Glass , in fact they are " gorge de pigeon " French glass
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/23557/lot/137/'
-
Getting more confusing with every addition. I'm not at all convinced this makes chemical sense. First of all, gold salts do not enter the equasion as the gold in aqua regis is colloidal. Opaline is a strict formula which does not use gold. And Gorge de pigeon actually contains Sn and/or As as an opacifyer - but is not related to opaline, and neither is it gold ruby per se... The notion that glassmakers just threw anything which happened to lie around in the mix is just weird. It is possible that Sn or Mg or As made it to the Gorge-de-p recipe along with some Au in an acid bath - but why? Except for the Au, these are powders which can be tipped unceremoniously into the batch.
We're just sitting on a huge pile of misunderstandings it seems. We need the g-de-p original recipe.
Will resume end of this week.
Anyroads, looking through google images I see a lot of opaline and very little gorge. Anything cranberry with some opacity is filed under the prestigious pigeon name. Just like French dealers will refer to pressglass as pate-de-verre or opaline de foire...
-
are you saying that every single reference I have given is incorrect including one which was published a year ago and quoted by Bonhams for their sale of their £6000- £8000 'gorge de pigeon' bowl?
I have commented that there are very few gorge de pigeon pieces around. I'm not sure where you are finding those that are just called gorge de pigeon without being that. I haven't looked on google for image references. I've gone by the books or museum glass sites. There is not a lot around. What is can clearly be seen as that.
From what I have read gold is necessary to make gold ruby glass and appears to be necessary to make gorge de pigeon. And I can understand that. Who mentioned opaline? 'Opaline is a strict formula which does not use gold.' and ? Opaline is a strict formula? I thought there were many different ways of making opaline glass - or at least there is more than one opacifier.)
And I am pretty convinced that all the Stevens and Williams alabaster range pieces I own are opaline glass (made from 1914 into the 1930s) and the owner of the company said in his book that the Rose alabaster was made with gold ruby.
I think if the information I provide is going to be refuted then it needs to be with references to demonstrate where I have not understood it correctly.
I am not just willy nilly plucking references or comments out of the air without any thought.
I agree having a recipe for gorge de pigeon would be good.
m
m
-
Will send you the section on opalines as well - AFTER I get back.
-
ok
-
I apologise Ivo
... Opaline is a strict formula which does not use gold. And Gorge de pigeon actually contains Sn and/or As as an opacifyer - but is not related to opaline, and neither is it gold ruby per se... .
Who mentioned opaline? 'Opaline is a strict formula which does not use gold.' and ? Opaline is a strict formula? I thought there were many different ways of making opaline glass - or at least there is more than one opacifier.)
m
Clearly I did :
quote
'It might go some way to explaining why 'gorge de pigeon' ( French glass) and 'Lilac agatin glass' (Bohemian -Buquoy ) and the other 'Purply-pink-opaline-glass-that-looks-like-gorge-de-pigeon' glass (Russian (?) glass in the Hermitage museum that is not gorge-de pigeon incorrectly identified) is so rare.'
That underlined opaline should have read 'translucent' glass, since I do not know if gorge de pigeon or Agatin or what might be the Russian (?) glass that looks like gorge de pigeon in the Hermitage Museum, is opaline or not.
I have seen it discussed under the group 'opalines' for example in this article. There is a stunning hanging lamp on there (click to enlarge) that was for sale for Eur.18,000 in 2007:
http://www.gazette-drouot.com/static/magazine_ventes_aux_encheres/cotes_et_tendances/opaline.html
I'm sorry.
m
-
Interestingly the museum has this gorge de pigeon as it's showcase piece on the page titled L'Opalines
http://www.lesartsdecoratifs.fr/francais/musees/musee-des-arts-decoratifs/collections/dossiers-thematiques/zoom-sur/zooms-sur/l-opaline-5544
'At the end of the eighteenth century, the French manage to imitate the English crystal, renowned for its brilliance. Under the Empire, the color of this crystal gives rise to what we call opaline and what was then called crystal opal or crystal opal color. Realized objects - cups, ring assemblies, vases, chimney linings - first adopting the simple forms of return to antiquity. These luxury items are often given a gilt bronze mount.
From the reign of Charles X, forms thicken, to stretch and conform more beautiful under the Second Empire. The soft colors are followed by more violent tones, inspired by the Bohemian glasses. The delicate shades of pink are obtained with gold salts.
In 1840, for reasons of economy, pink glass is not dyed but lined with colored glass. In the early nineteenth century, Le Creusot, Baccarat and St. Louis are the main production centers. Subsequently, many glassworks are created around Paris: Bercy, Choisy-le-Roi, Belleville Clichy ...'
-
Gorge de pigeon is a translucent colour, however it was made. It is French for cranberry and relies on a very small dispersed quantity of colloidal gold in the mix.
Opaline (vrai opaline) is an opaque crystal formula which can come in any number of pastel colours - including pink, green, white, bleu and others. Will look up the formula later - i have it somewhere.
"Coloured in the mass" usually means coloured with chemicals which change the base colour. Gold is dispersed, it does not become part of the glass but remains suspended and changes the refraction. Other red dyes like copper and selenium colour the mass.
Have you noticed how everyone is steering away from this discussion on advanced colour chemistry? It is horribly complicated and before we know it we get quagmired in other peoples misunderstandings. Even big names like Olivié, Mergl and Ricke get their information from other writings and somewhere, along the way, the technical bit disappears under the table. After all, "if it is over my head it must be over everybody else's and people are not interested anyway".
Thank god someone does not take shortcuts here. 😊
-
I am a bit clearer on trying to explain what I mean now so hopefully it is not as confusing.
I am trying to get to the bottom of two questions:
1) Was 'gold ruby' glass produced between 1740 and 1835?
I ask this question because it has been stated on this thread that 'gold ruby' glass was not produced again after 'around 1740' until it was 're-discovered by Pohl in 1835'. (Reference for this assertion - The Glass of Alchemists 2008)
I have disagreed with this dateline and said it is too prescriptive.
To show why I disagree I have given example references (from books and museums and conferences), some of a much more recent date than the 2008 of the book cited above, of glass that is red in appearance and that is stated as being 'gold ruby' glass, along with dates of production of those pieces, the dates of which fall before 1835.
(the colour point of it being red is relevant only because the next question discusses glasses that are pink in appearance)
I have also given a reference that Lomonosov in Russia had a recipe for 'gold ruby' glass (c.2nd half 18th century) that was passed on to the Imperial Glass manufactory (this is relevant also because the Hermitage show a number of items classified as 'gold ruby' glass that date pre-1835 including some in red, along with some in a pink we know as the colour 'Gorge-de-pigeon'.)
Note: So far I have not read anywhere that the colour 'Gorge-de-pigeon' is trademarked and denotes only a glass made in France.
The term Gorge-de-pigeon is also used to describe some silk taffeta for example which is a pinky purply lilacy grey colour depending on the light you view it.
So for example this perfume bottle was put on the Glass Message Board a while ago. It has the same gilding as a piece identified as Bohemian. You can see from the appearance and the translucence of the glass that it looks very like the colour 'Gorge-de-pigeon' http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=53466.0;attach=134984;image
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,53466.msg303506.html#msg303506
2) Is 'Gorge-de-pigeon' glass produced between c. 1810-1830s (dates given from museums and books references) actually 'gold ruby' glass?
This question 2) is relevant to question 1) because:
a) Having read various descriptions* of the making of 'gold ruby' glass and 'Gorge-de-pigeon' glass I think it could be possible that 'Gorge-de-pigeon' glass could actually be 'gold ruby' glass but with an excess of tin in the making, which has given the glass some opacity/translucence and turned the appearance to pink rather than red.
And
b) If this is the case, the datelines given for the production of some 'Gorge-de-pigeon' glass pieces is as early as 1810, which would be another reference for 'gold ruby' glass being produced prior to c.1835.
And
c) it would mean that the Hermitage do not have all their descriptions incorrectly listed as 'gold ruby' glass.
This is only relevant because it would be helpful to know that what we are reading is correct especially when it comes from museums. Not because I am the local PR for the Hermitage ;)
(*Note: When I say having read various descriptions of the making of 'Gorge-de-pigeon' glass, I do mean just 'various descriptions'. I have not come across an actual recipe for the making of 'Gorge-de-pigeon' glass.)
m
-
Just in case anyone anywhere is remotely interested ;D please see my summary post above.
but for now,
Going back to the issue raised by Oldglassman in an earlier reply #36:
1) if we go to the Hermitage search facility for "Gold Ruby Glass" we will along with the examples you quote also find these,
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/990314/?lng=en
and ,
2) http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/802804/?lng=en
both clearly described as Gold Ruby Glass , in fact they are " gorge de pigeon " French glass
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/23557/lot/137/
See also my replies #46 and #62
1) In relation to the bowl item link
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/990314/?lng=en
where the Hermitage have that bowl listed as Russian and where Bonhams have cited Darnis (2014) as a reference for their version (different to the one in the Hermitage) being French:
It is possible the confusion over that Gorge-de-pigeon bowl in the Hermitage has arisen because of the following:
This red glass bowl is in the Hermitage also listed as Russian and dates given as early 1800s:
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/802709/?lng=en
It has birds on the bronze mount, although they are different to the birds on the Gorge-de-pigeon piece.
It is a red glass described as gold "ruby" glass.
It also has cutting on the red glass which is very similar in appearance to that on this vase also listed as Russian and gold ruby glass with dates given 1810-1820s:
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/08.+Applied+Arts/802708/?lng=en
So it may be an error by the Hermitage:
- Perhaps the red glass can indeed be identified as Russian and then the next step has been identifying the 'Gorge-de-pigeon' bowl as also Russian because it has bird handles as well?
- Perhaps that was a wrong conclusion?
Certainly the birds look similar but without examining them minutely,they do appear to have different tails.
- Also, using mounts to identify the origin of a piece of glass is not a good idea (Faberge made mounts for Galle glass - that doesn't make the glass Russian for example). Mounts can be made anywhere.
So as I say it is possible, especially looking at the bowls attributed to Bercy in the Darnis book, that the Hermitage may have mistakenly mis-identified this item ...
...although it should be noted that in their sale given on the link in #36, Bonhams have also made reference to the Hermitage having similar items. Therefore it doesn't seem there is definitive evidence as yet, to make the claim that the Hermitage are wrong.
2) Re the perfume bottle:
- I think it is not, at the moment, possible to jump to a conclusion that it is 'Gorge-de-pigeon' and therefore French.
That would be going down the same route as ' it has bird handles like our other one therefore it is Russian'.
- The lid is not the same as other 'Gorge-de-pigeon' perfume bottles I have found. It is similar ... but it is also similar to a Faberge Purpurine glass handle.
- The glass is similar to a possible Bohemian perfume bottle seen on this Glass Message Board:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=53466.0;attach=134984;image
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,53466.msg303506.html#msg303506
I think the perfume bottle is still in abeyance as to who and where it might have been made.
m
-
This book may possibly be what we are looking for?
Google boooks: L'âge d'or du verre en France, 1800-1830 (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7LVJAQAAIAAJ&q=verre+rubis+d%27or++%22gorge+de+pigeon%22&dq=verre+rubis+d%27or++%22gorge+de+pigeon%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwii6_7A0-HMAhUmL8AKHZoDDY4Q6AEILjAB)
[Mod: Long link converted to clickable text]
L'âge d'or du verre en France, 1800-1830: verreries de l'Empire et de la Restauration
Fernando Montes de Oca 2001 page 387
'Writing in 1825, while opalinee was very fashionable a man of trades indicated how to get the colors called pink, pink hydrangea, pink purplish, ruby is called nowadays gorge-de-pigeon 'De color or purple precipitate of Cassius. It is of gold and tin..'
That is the only text I could get from google snippets. I don't have the book. But possibly someone can find something in French. My French searching for chemical glass recipes is rubbish.
I have no idea what the whole text will be or whether it will reference a contemporary (early 1800) reference. But as per the information in the Darnis book it mentions 'Gorge-de-pigeon' being made with with Cassius precipitate and tin. These are what are used for 'gold-ruby' glass as far as I can tell from some of the scientific references I've been reading.
Original text
‘Ecrivant en 1825, alors que l'opalinee etait tres a la mode une homme de metiers indiqua comment obtenir les couleurs dites rose, rose hortensia, rose violace,rubis qu'on appelle de nos jours gorge-de-pigeon: 'De la couleur pourpre ou precipite de Cassius. C'est d l'or et d'etain …’
-
I have started a thread here on ruby glass in the Rosenborg Palace collection. It has some interest for this thread.
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,60986.msg352509.html#msg352509
m
-
Ivo, I cannot find a recipe but I have come across a forum.
And on that forum someone has retyped an entire (many many paragraphs) and a whole description of:
Le Verre Opalins; (where this section appears to be describing 18th and 17th century white opaline (or opaque) 'milchglas'or 'lattimo' type glass
Le Cristal; (where this describes the advent of crystal glass and how lead came to be used in French glass)
Les Opalines de Cristal;(where opalines were made with lead crystal and where it appears to be discussing 19th century opaline glass made using lead crystal).
I do not know where they have lifted the information from (if it has been lifted?)
but under the section on Cristal, at the end of the section directly before it goes into Les Opalines de Cristal,
it says the following (translated using google):
'Since the crystal is well controlled, why do not try to opaque and colored by applying the old methods used for opal glasses? The crystal will give the opaline acclaim, making it a luxury product. It allows him to acquire a '' weight 'and' sound 'and' flicker 'that has never had the finest glass of milk. When and where did the first crystal opal, c is hard to say, because they are neither signed nor dated. Probably at the end of the eighteenth or the early years of the XIX.
In the early nineteenth arise wonderful pink opaline '' gorge-de-pigeon ", due to the composition employed by the Bohemian glassmakers for ruby glass, a mixture of two solutions, one tin and one of gold in aqua regia (mixture of nitric acid and hydrochloric acid). the turquoise, due to the copper oxide, just slightly later.'
It is not a recipe and I don't know from whence the information originates. It might just be repeating other information, and I guess until we get a Bercy(?) recipe for gorge de pigeon, or a source with a source, then it's not a definitive.
However, I am speculating that 'gorge de pigeon' is made with gold ruby glass and the addition of tin.
And 'gorge-de-pigeon' glass was made prior to 1835.
-
A tiny quantity of purple of cassius (i.e. dissolved gold) makes cranberry glass . Add an opacifyer like tin and you get a semitranslucent cranberry, or gorge de pigeon. So there are only 2 main additives to the batch and there is no telling the quantities.
I think the text is from "les opalines"
-
A tiny quantity of purple of cassius (i.e. dissolved gold) makes cranberry glass . Add an opacifyer like tin and you get a semitranslucent cranberry, or gorge de pigeon. So there are only 2 main additives to the batch and there is no telling the quantities.
I think the text is from "les opalines"
Thank you Ivo.
As far as I can tell from my reading, 'gold-ruby' glass is made the same way i.e. with dissolved gold and an addition of tin.
So the only difference i can see between the two might be the the quantities of each of the dissolved gold and the tin.
If this is the case, then I believe this would answer my question 2) (see quote below) as yes.
I am a bit clearer on trying to explain what I mean now so hopefully it is not as confusing.
I am trying to get to the bottom of two questions:
1) Was 'gold ruby' glass produced between 1740 and 1835?
I ask this question because it has been stated on this thread that 'gold ruby' glass was not produced again after 'around 1740' until it was 're-discovered by Pohl in 1835'. (Reference for this assertion - The Glass of Alchemists 2008)
I have disagreed with this dateline and said it is too prescriptive.
2) Is 'Gorge-de-pigeon' glass produced between c. 1810-1830s (dates given from museums and books references) actually 'gold ruby' glass?
m
Which would mean also:
- with the datelines given for the production of some 'Gorge-de-pigeon' glass pieces as early as c.1810, this would be another reference for 'gold ruby' glass being produced prior to c.1835.
And
- it is probable the Hermitage have all their 'gorge-de-pigeon' items correctly listed as 'gold ruby' glass.
If this is a correct supposition it would lead me to question:
If the French knew how to produce 'gorge-de-pigeon' glass using the 'gold-ruby' method, then perhaps all those other items from Bohemia and Russia dated prior to 1835 and identified as 'gold-ruby', are also correctly identified?
m
-
It is not just about ingredients but about quantities and cooking times and temperatures. Knowing that a cake contains butter, flower, sugar and salt will not help you bake one. Likewise, the knowledge that some ruby reds contain gold does not mean you can, actually, make ruby red. Or cranberry....
-
yes I understand.
However, I think it raises enough query to support my view that the timeline of stating
'no 'gold-ruby' was produced between c.1740 and c.1835 when Pohl re-invented it' is too prescriptive.
m
-
Mergl J., From Neuwelt to the Whole World:
pp67
'The exclusive, prestigious character of the objects made of compound ruby glass is attested to by the orders for flacons with silver stoppers in ruby glass that were made in the autumn of 1826 by the Vienna Harrach Warehouse for the wife of Count Harrach, the Princess of Liechtenstein; it is clear that the technologicaly demanding and probably very expensive ruby-compound items were only produced for the most honoured customers.'
In addition to this,in the preceding paragraphs, there is a description of a gold-ruby beaker dated as:
'It is the use of this particular detail - as Jarmila Brosova has established - that proves the Neuwelt origin of this object and approximately dates it to around the year 1825'.
I think that brings the date forward to at the least 1826 for Harrach production of gold-ruby glass.
sorry, it's taken me a while to find the script because of distractions and because the index of the book doesn't cover things such as 'gold-ruby' or such.
m
-
Which, for the moment, brings me back to my beautifully ;D facet cut, apparently poorly :o gilded liqueur glass.
With regards the gilding, it was gilded directly onto the glass and a lot has worn off. It's not top end decoration by any stretch, but it is gilding that is seen often on glasses of the same design (two of which I've linked to on here) and similar earlier pieces:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,54820.msg310668.html#msg310668
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,54820.msg310669.html#msg310669
I'm not suggesting it is gold-ruby glass but it may well be copper ruby glass.
I don't know whether it is 'cased' red glass or solid. And think further discussion is needed.
If it is solid then these red glasses of this shape (and the faceted jug in Felice Mehlman's book that is very similar) could actually imho, be interesting, because:
a) there appear to be very few solid red glass pieces around up to the advent of using selenium for red glass from the end of the 19th century - most of them appear to be cased (gold-ruby cased because of the expense I presume (btw Berhrens and Rheinische Glashutte produced solid gold-ruby glass at the end of the 19th), and
copper ruby appears to have been used as cased because it is so dark as a solid (this is what I have come across, but am open to correction)
b) So if, as I think,it's copper ruby glass and if it ('they',including the others linked to) aren't cased, then some maker was able to produced very nicely coloured solid copper ruby glass, which appears to be quite unusual.
c) If on the other hand it is cased red glass (copper ruby presumably), then it's quite a feat of manufacture to make such a small piece with such a narrow fine cut stem, in cased glass.
m
-
I came across a piece of research that mentioned that Mayer Oppenheim had patented gold-ruby glass in Birmingham in the late 1700s. ( I can't find my reference at the moment but it was a piece done in the last few years, so recently).
I knew I recalled the name but I have now found a previous thread where this had already been mentioned:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,54267.msg307650.html#msg307650
David said:
'The manufacture of ruby glass has a quite interesting history. It appears that the Romans did make ruby glass, but it was Andreas Cassius, in 1676 who rediscovered it, so Mayer Oppenheim "re-invented" it in 1755 when the patent was granted by George III. ...'
Note - obviously the quote on that link from Encyclopaedia Britannica in reference to gold-ruby glass is incorrect in it's dating of periods of production.
see also this link:
http://historywm.com/wp-content/uploads/issues/issue4/files/res/pages/page_0034.swf
re: Mayer Oppenheim, the first glassworks in Birmingham 'established in 1757 and out of use by 1780/81.'
(I seem to recall reading somewhere, possibly in that 'recent research' (please no quotes, this is just from memory and I could be wrong) that Oppenheim made glass toys and there was some link or reference to the ruby glass being used for those. I will try and find that article/research if I haven't already linked it somewhere on this thread)
m
-
This link gives the information I had read elsewhere about Mayer Oppenheim and his gold ruby glass which he patented in 1755:
(The information is the the descriptor for a clear glass bowl with a ruby trailed rim)
http://museums.fivecolleges.edu/detail.php?museum=&t=objects&type=exact&f=&s=friedrich&record=15
'Description:
Colorless lead glass, cylindrical punch bowl with an applied string of ruby-red glass around rim of bowl; sloping sides molded in a diamond pattern; thick, disk base and applied foot rim; and rough pontil mark on the underside of bowl. This punch bowl is unusual, and its exact origins and date are still unclear; in 1995, the English expert, Martin Mortimer, thought it to be English, possibly early 19th century, and Dwight Lanmon, then director of Winterthur, thought that it was possibly of 18th century Continental European manufacture. Ruby-coloured glass based on a gold-tin solution made by precipitating gold in a tin chloride solution is often called purple of Cassius, named after Andreas Cassius (1605-1673), which his son described in a 1685 pamphlet known as, "De auro." The process is closely associated with Johannes Kunckel (1630/1638?-1703), glassmaker and alchemist to Friedrich Wilhelm (1620-1688), Elector of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia; Kunckel described experiments to calcine gold with aqua regia to make a transparent red color. In 18th century England, only one manufacturer of ruby glass made with colloidal gold is known - Mayer Oppenheim, a Jewish immigrant from Pressburg (Bratislava), Hungary, who emigrated to England where he worked in London and Birmingham. In 1755, he established himself in Birmingham where his name appears, phonetically transcribed from the Hebrew as "Opnaim," in the 1774 and 1775/6 Birmingham directories as being at 92 Snow Hill. Oppenheim obtained a patent for "Transparent Red glass" on a lead base in 1756, and renewed it in 1770; and around 1757, he built the earliest documented glassworks in Birmingham. The "Birmingham Gazette" of February 22, 1762, noted, "The red transparent glass is to be had at the above glass-house, either a light rose of deep ruby colour." However by 1777, he was bankrupt and in the King's Bench Prison between July 1778 and February 1780; he then disappeared to France. Although Oppenheim was known to exploit his patent, very few alleged, 18th century English ruby glass examples have been identified, and none of those seem to conform to satisfactorily to Oppenheim's patent specifications. R.J. Charleston suggests that most of Oppenheim's ruby glass was mainly used by Birmingham's 'glass-pinchers,' who made small pressed objects such as buttons, or possibly by the Birmington enmellers in the preparation of their pigments. However, there is also a small group of ruby lead-glass objects, mostly in the form of sanctuary-lamps, that appear to be connected to Oppenheim's 1756 patent (in the collections of the Corning Museum and Victoria and Albert Museums). Ruby is also found in the twist colors inside enamel twist-stems of wine glasses. Formerly numbered HD 01-HT.'
I have copied the decription verbatim from the linked site. With reference this part of the description 'The "Birmingham Gazette" of February 22, 1762, noted, "The red transparent glass is to be had at the above glass-house, either a light rose of deep ruby colour.", I presume it has been copied over from the found source and the f from 'of' should be an r making it 'or deep ruby colour'.
-
http://www.archive.org/stream/ernstoppenheimco01oppe/ernstoppenheimco01oppe_djvu.txt
This link provides the information I had come across.
It has all the information I've found on Mayer Oppenheim and his gold ruby glass / gold-ruby glass patent of 1755.
You need to scroll down a few pages, to the 'Reading by Anita Engle'
It's absolutely fascinating. Do read it. It also gives both his recipes for his gold-ruby glass that were patented.
With regard to my comment posted a little earlier:
(I seem to recall reading somewhere, possibly in that 'recent research' (please no quotes, this is just from memory and I could be wrong) that Oppenheim made glass toys and there was some link or reference to the ruby glass being used for those. I will try and find that article/research if I haven't already linked it somewhere on this thread)
the link document has this to say as a description of what constitutes 'toys':
These included buckles,
buttons, and "toys", that is, desirable objects such as
jewel cases, snuff boxes, miniature pieces for decoration
and, above all, scent bottles of great variety and charm.
Most of these häd formerly been made of precious metals,
tortoiseshell or enamel*
The Directories show that toy makers were a common
aspect of the glass industry at Birmingham, together with
glass Cutters, f lowerersO (engravers) and glass pinchers.
The glass pinchers were the craftsmen who made the lustre
drops for the magnificent glass table chandeliers (girand-
oles) which were becoming so fashionable that for twenty
years chandeliers could not be bought in the open market,
but had to be "bespoke." (Hughes, 1956, 321-2). The glass
pinchers also worked the glass for the common link
buttons, beads and rings. It was a very considerable trade.
(Buckley, ibid) . Probably much of the crystal and red
glass which Oppenheim specialised in was used in these
ways.
So what I thought of as 'toys' i.e children's toys, is completely different to what they meant when they used the word 'toys' in that era.
In my head I had him adding red noses to glass snowmen (i.e. minute uses of red glass) but in reality the red glass could have been used to make 'jewel cases, snuff boxes, miniature pieces for decoration
and, above all, scent bottles'.
m
-
Just to ensure no links are left undone -
Mayer Oppenheim went down to France and in 1784? took out a patent to produce glass there (see quote below). There is a full description of this patent application on the link I gave above.
'Letters Patent permitting Pierre Le Mercier and Mayer
Oppenheim to establish a factory for making crystal and
white glass one or two leagues from Rouea*. Letter 31, in
Archives of Parlement, Rouen, Rap, Civ. 23 Dec, 1784.
Translated from Les Verrerries de la Normandie, 0. Le
Vaillant de la Fieffe, Rouen, 1873, 321 ff. '
-
Going back to my little glass
this is the same as one of the green ones I'd seen and mentioned on here. Came across this accidentally looking for something else.
Dr Fischer Auctions has identified this taller wine glass version as from Bakhmetev - Russian c1800.
http://www.auctions-fischer.de/catalogues/online-catalogues/197-russische-kunst-ikonen.html?L=1&kategorie=26&artikel=13877&L=1&cHash=9ac38577e4
I appreciate that the gilding on mine is very very worn, but the pattern is the same. Also appreciate that apparently this design can be seen on many variations of glass, but my glass is the same design as this as well. Dr Fischer appears to have identified a number of green and clear versions of this glass all as from Bakhmetev c1800.
here is another
http://www.auctions-fischer.de/catalogues/online-catalogues/207-ii-russian-art-faberge.html?L=1&kategorie=26&artikel=24854&L=1&cHash=1a5d2e28a3
http://www.auctions-fischer.de/catalogues/online-catalogues/194-russian-art-faberge-icons.html?L=1&kategorie=26&artikel=1956&L=1&cHash=bf7e15303e
I assume then that this is correct
Just thought I'd add it.
m
-
Looking for something else I came across this fascinating book published in 1763 - Commercium Philosophico-Technicum, Or, The Philosophical of Arts, William Lewis
In it there appears to be a long description of the making of gold ruby glass -see page 172
click here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TW7iNF_ZP6YC&pg=PA621&dq=gold+ruby+glass&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFxbHSpLrXAhVLCcAKHWOXAC84KBDoAQg0MAM#v=onepage&q=gold%20ruby%20glass&f=false)
-
Sold by Dr Fischer Auctions in June 2020
Russian -Imperial Glassworks late 18th century
https://www.auctions-fischer.de/catalogues/online-catalogues/280-russian-art-icons.html?L=1&kategorie=26&artikel=93509&L=1&cHash=9532907ebf
'482 - TWO GLASS GOBLETS. RUSSIA, IMPERIAL GLASSWORKS ST. PETERSBURG, LATE 18TH CENTURY...
Two glass goblets. Russia, Imperial Glassworks St. Petersburg, late 18th century. Blue-green partial-faceted glass with gilded garlands. Gilding slightly rubbed. 14.5 cm high.
Russland, Kaiserliche Glasfabrik St. Petersburg, E. 18. Jh.'