Topic: Bowls with cherub prunts/handles. One repaired with staple.

[david31162]

Any help as to date, origins etc would be greatly appreciated. Should I have put this on the Murano/venetian page? It was my first instinct but I'm not sure. The bowls all have the same clear glass cherub 'prunts' . One has wavy, crimped sides the other doesn't. They have fairly neatly snapped of pontil marks  and all have streaks of aventuine. I was interested by the staples in one of the bowls. I have only rarely seen this as an old repair technique and even then usually on china. Does this help with age?
Many thanks ,
David

[Ivo]

The Venice and Murano Glass company Ltd (Salviati & C./ Salviati Dott. Antonio) , London 1872-1895;  I have 2 similar finger bowls bought in Cambridge. Sheldon Barr's "Venetian Glass, Confections in Glass  1855-1915"  has one on page 78.

[david31162]

Thank you Ivo for such a speedy identification!
I bought 5 of these today in 3 colours, only two are without any cracks though. The others seem to have internal fractures near the prunts. Have you often seen stapled joins? Although I like the bowls I was surprised to see this type of repair on such a fairly insignificant piece.
David

[Ivo]

these are not "fairly insignificant" - in any case, the previous owner who had them repaired did not think so.

[TxSilver]

Weren't the staple repairs done in the early 20th Century, Ivo?  I have had a few of these bowls in filigrana. Ruth Webb Lee has them and other Venetian pieces listed as being made by Nicholas Lutz in Plate 30 of her book Nineteenth Century Art Glass. This caused me a good bit of confusion for a while. The Sheldon Barr book is very helpful. I believe that Barr is correct in his attribution.

[david31162]

Thank you Anita, I'll have to look out for those books. Do your bowls have the same cherub faces?

Ivo, yes I agree the first owner obviously valued theses a great deal. I stand corrected. I  was surprised by the expensive repair to what I thought were decorative but functional table items,which, even in those days would be replaced when damaged. I suppose the lack of definition in the faces made me think they weren't too high quality. I really do appreciate the blue- green aventurine one, great colours the fact that it is undamaged helps.  I did  save these from the bottom of a box full of heavy metal junk where they were totally unappreciated at the auction today. I'm amazed there are no chips at all - just internal fractures. Do the applied pieces cause stress in the glass?
David

[obscurities]

If there is too large of a disparity between the temperature of the bowl and the applique, then there can be internal stress cracks generated when the decorations are applied or the items cool at different rates. You will see the internal stress fractures around the handles of pitchers with applied handles, generally on the pitcher body as it is produced first and is cooler. This can also occur if the item is not properly annealed in an oven as it is cooled. The annealing, it is my understanding is more critical with thick glass. 

A few years ago I picked up a thick bodied contemporary Italian duck at an auction I managed to turn it over and look at the base, and it fractured into many large pieces in my hands as the internal stress from incorrect cooling released. I must have applied  just the right pressure in just the right spots. I picked it up with both hands by the sides of the body to roll it over. It did not get bumped or anything when I handled it. The body itself, which was a singular large piece of glass is the part that came apart. It cut me very badly as the pieces of the body were sharper than any razor or knife I had ever handled. Being glass, my first reaction was to try to grab it as I had not realized yet that it was in pieces in my hands. I thought it had simply slipped from an incorrect grip. By the time I realized it had actually come apart I had already been sliced badly. It was quite an amazing lesson about glass. I have never looked at a very large piece of art glass the same since that happened. It made me realize the types of pressures that can be stored in a piece of glass like that.

Craig

[TxSilver]

Thank you Anita, I'll have to look out for those books. Do your bowls have the same cherub faces?
David

I can recommend the Sheldon book, but I don't find the Lee book very helpful. She shows a wide range of glass, most without precise attributions and a few with attributions that I question. I like books that are more informative. I don't fault the possible mistakes. Even the best of books can have a few that often get corrected with time.

Yes, the bowls have the faces. Some people call them cherubs. I just call them masks. The bowls were made with underplates if a couple of pictures I've seen are correct. I matched my bowls with underplates that were near matches, trying to get back the original look. The sad thing about things being sold piecemeal is that pieces get divorced from their mates. And, of course, some are widows of damage. I wish that sellers would try to keep sets together, especially pieces that have underplates. I get upset when I see a bowl and its underplate being offered on eBay in separate auctions. Seeing candlesticks separated nearly makes me postal now. I better stop ranting. I could go on and on about it.

[Ivo]

Here is a pic of one of mine - not a lot of detail in the heads I'm afraid; I have always taken them for lion prunts. Mine have an aventurine thread around the rim, none in the glass. The one shown in Sheldon is multicoloured Vetri a Reticello, but with an identical rim.
As far as I know, these have been made by Dottore Salviati both in Murano and later in London which may account for the differences in appearance.

[Mosquito]

Didn't Sowerby also make similar bowls with Lion prunts? See Glass museum article here: http://www.theglassmuseum.com/sowerby.htm