| Original Message: Actual Gooseberry Beads |
|---|
|
Hi Patrick, In the morning, I have to disconnect my computer and take it in for a diagnostic—to see what its problem is. In the meantime, if I don't crash, I'm trying to post something. I have discussed all this a number of times in the past, so I hope those of you who recall will bear with me, for the sake of clarification. The name "gooseberry" presents us with a very typical problem, that we face time and time again with beads and bead-naming. The subject beads were made for a long period, in various—let's say—"editions." What we might call the "true gooseberry beads" were essentially 17th and 18th C. products, apparently made at Venice and most likely Holland. Later beads of similar production (though not actually "the same") have also been called "gooseberry" beads, and are often also misrepresented as being from the first wave of production—these being 19th and 20th C. beads that were made differently. I suppose some people might like to characterize these beads as being "true" or "old" or "original" or "authentic"—as opposed to "late" or "later" or "revival" or "pseudo" gooseberry beads. I am inclined to say that only the "original" first-wave beads are true gooseberry beads. And if I had to characterize the others, I would be inclined to say they are "similar to gooseberry beads"—and to list these similarities and differences. The original gooseberry beads were made from canes of nearly clear colorless glass, that typically may have been grayish, yellowish, or greenish in tone. The canes had submerged thin stripes of white glass, typically eight to twelve of them. The beads made from these canes were produced by the a speo method, and they range in shape from short oblates to spheroids and ovals with some tendency for one or both ends to be slightly pointy. Because of the a speo method of reshaping the cane segment, there is also some tendency for the ends to be "closed." That is, for the pattern to slightly constrict toward the aperture(s). It is THIS effect (combined with the tiny stripes and color) that makes the beads look like little berries. Later beads were more usually NOT finished a speo, but were finished "a ferrata"—in an iron pan—the ancestor of what eventually became hot-tumbling; or they were actually hot-tumbled. Then also, the canes of the later beads OFTEN feature superficial stripes. Finally, it has come to pass that almost any bead/cane that has multiples of thin white canes has been compared to or called "gooseberry" beads, regardless of the color of the base glass. My very first communication with Joyce (before BC.N existed) was about some bright red cane beads with white stripes, that fit this bill nicely. Some would be inclined to call them "red gooseberry beads"..., but this tends to miss the whole point of the name and the original intent in applying that name to specific beads. The fallout from all of the above is that the name "gooseberry" has come to be applied to many different beads that are NOT gooseberry beads, or at best might be "late" or "revival" gooseberry beads—but, nevertheless, part of their misidentification will be the proposal that these beads date from the time of the first wave of production instead of when they were actually made. It is a mistake to identify a 19th C. bead as a "17th C. bead." The problem becomes a non-issue as soon as one is willing to call the bead a "late revival edition," or whatever. Your beads appear to be made from glass that is not colorless/clear, from canes that do not have submerged stripes, and are not finished by the a speo method. So I would say they are NOT "gooseberry beads" and are not from the 17th century. The photo I have posted here shows an actual group of 17th C. a speo beads, of which some are the classic gooseberry type, and the others are plain striped beads and star beads. These are ALL typical of this time and of Venetian (& Dutch) production. I hope you appreciate the difference. Jamey All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|