Topic: Pompeian Small Dish?

[oldglassman]

Hi,
  Quote ==These comments exclude certain first half C20 Italian workshops which produced high quality impossibly thin glass wares==

  also 17th century and earlier glass I would suggest.(edit) though this is not one of those , (I thought I might add)

  cheers ,
             Peter.

[Paul S.]

many thanks Peter, and very interesting - suspect you might be referring to John Greene's purchases of thin soda glasses from Morelli, and those of a 'Venetian style' made in London by Mansell.

However interesting, think we'd better stop digressing, otherwise we'll be going too much off-topic and Otis will be more confused than ever
 

[oldglassman]

 
 Yes that would be them and here is one of mine ,sorry couldn't help myself 

cheers ,
            Peter.

[Otis Orlando]

Firstly, thank you for your contribution to this post Peter.   I must point out that quality is not my forte'  especially when referring to this particular piece.  My initial query was mainly concerned as to the originator and period and I might not have made that quite clear.  A considerable amount of glass pieces were made by conventional methods in different parts of the world and the quality in a final end piece was sometimes none important.  Having inspected this particular glass, yet again,  I am more than certain that this is not a modern piece.  There is too much ware to the base area to suggest otherwise.  The purpose or use of this item also comes into question as I am surprised it's not damaged.  The only reason I threw Pompeian into the subject, was solely based upon my previous post.

There's a keen metal detectorist with a shop in town who sells similar reproductions of Classical glass, and I've seen a few in museum and National Trust shops. Not sure where they get them from (if it was reproduction medieval pottery I could give you a bunch of names). I'll ask, next time I'm there.

I would be very interested in any factual evidence to support your reasons and will not disregard your possible prognosis on the subject matter.

Your right about that Paul  .

[Paul S.]

I just knew Peter was going to say he actually had one of those very rare glasses.................... but to say "and here is one of mine" simply implies greediness
 

[Otis Orlando]

Sheer greediness!    

[oldglassman]

Hi,
  Guilty as charged lol.
  Otis you have lost me, support  what reasons ?, so far all I believe I have said is that I dont believe that this is a 17th century item
       Cheers
              Peter

ooops its late and the glasses have been used , i now realize you were not asking me but to another poster sorry 

[oldglassman]

However  ,
                           I think I would support the opinions already given that this is probably not very old and possibly recycled glass ,quite a few items of table ware much like this have popped up on eBay in the last year or so , I actually bought one , a shallow bowl with folded rim , almost the same colour bubbly glass and folded bowl rim , it was new !!!!, I gave it away so don't have a photo to show , I think the Middle east origin is very lightly , museum replicas I come across frequently on my European travels but they are generally of better quality than this piece . ware can be faked !!!

  cheers ,
                Peter.

[Otis Orlando]

'Possibly' is not stating it is or it isn't.  It could possibly have been made in the Middle east, like you said, that we will never know, unless there is a new shed of light .   I entirely agree with you that ware can be faked.   There is no evidential fact that substantiates that this piece is fake other than visual awareness (posted pics), that in some cases cannot be relied upon unless the product is in specialist hands.   Having taken your information as an important factor in trying to ascertain the origin, I took it upon myself to put this dish through an extensive test program .   By placing the dish on a flat smooth surface, I gave it the paper test, yes! the paper test. I must point out at this stage, this took a lot of my time .   Something I have never done before.  by sliding the paper between the base of the dish and the surface, I was able to mark the areas where the paper would not slide through.  I found that the areas where the paper would not slide through are the same areas that shows extensive ware.   Had this not occurred I would be enclined to agree with and your prognosis.   For such a small dish with no 'quality' or great value, ........................who in their right mind would go through the trouble of faking it by paying attention to the areas I have just mentioned?  This is only a question as a none specialist.   In order to avoid purchasing 'fake' items, your info. is of great value.   

[oldglassman]

HI ,
            Sorry Otis but your paper test is of no value,to fake ware the object is placed on an abrasive surface,concrete or rough sand paper to name just 2, the object is then pressed down and moved randomly around which creates ware looking marks on the 'high' points,the points your paper test detects ware,this takes but moments to do so is no trouble to anyone,you don't have to pay any attention to the under surface to achieve this  the high points will make contact and produce the results , I have seen this done on pieces like this in Spain.
 You also say that this piece has extensive ware ,in my experience pieces from the 17th century and earlier and of course later which like your piece are very light and of non lead glass the signs of ware can be very minimal because the object does not have the weight  that would be needed to create extensive ware from normal daily use even over 100rds of years,in comparing ware on pieces from the 17th and 18th century which are non lead to pieces of lead glass from the 18th c the lead glass will show a far greater level of ware due to its own weight and the effects of daily use.lead glass of course being softer than non lead glass,in comparing lead glass and non lead glass from the 18th century non lead always shows less ware than lead ,its harder.
so extensive ware on a very light piece of glass is always suspicious.
 You previously commented that the' quality of a final end piece piece was not important' , I have to disagree with this, when considering if an object may be from the 18th c or earlier quality at this time was paramount, the world was after the best quality available everyone was trying to beat the Venetians who until the last half of the 17thc had the monopoly of quality glass world wide which is why so much effort was put into the research of new recipes which in the end produced lead crystal.

Your piece display none of the attributes I would associate with early piece of glass , the form , the colour and the bubbles along with the fire polished pontil all suggest a much later production , that is not to say that it does not have some age , others here will be better placed to give an opinion as to the possibilities of it being along the lines of Walsh or some other from that time period who produced bubbly pieces like this ,my interest in glass I am afraid ceases around 1800.

In conclusion I would say that this item is not from the 16th 17th or 18th c. My visual awareness(re the posted pics)is I believe pretty well honed from 25 yrs of collecting, buying, selling and personally handling thousands of period pieces in collections and museums both at home and abroad,and as this is a forum that can only judge from photos I can say no more unless you would like to send it to me to personally inspect though I am certain this would be a waste of both time and money .

cheers ,
             Peter.