| Original Message: 15th 16th century bead. |
|---|
|
I was pleased enough with my tentative identification of Degumeh’s bead to want to share it . It’s turns out that it is not an early modern millefiori bead from the first half of the 19th century but a precursor to those beads produced 4 or 5 hundred years earlier! As Sarpellon points out with regard to the example he shows. For me, the point is that my understanding of the development of Venetian beads has taken a step forward. I knew, thanks to the work of interested and enthusiastic bead lovers and researchers not least Mr Allen, that rosetta canes and beads have been produced since the late 1400s. I also knew that most of the millefiori beads in circulation were produced in the 20th century. I knew from Sarpellon’s books that millefiori cane, which is a development of rosetta and latticino cane was reinvented by Domenico Bussolin in 1838 in imitation of ancient glass. Sarpellon says that by the end of the 1700s the glass industry in Venice was close to extinction due to the fierce competition from glassmakers in Bohemia, Stiria and Carinzia. For example latticino in blown glass was no longer produced. However cane for bead production both with and without holes was still relatively vital. Cane for bead production without holes could have been used either for producing “strica” (see below) or for lampworking. The only polychrome and or non circular canes with holes ie bead canes that were in production were “strica” and “angolari”. Strica were canes that had longitudinal coloured lines and angolari were monochromatic polygonal canes. These two canes and the resulting beads sound like, in the first case drawn striped beads some of which could have been heat rounded and, in the second case, Russian blues. This presumably means that all? millefiori cane decorated beads (as opposed to rosetta cane) are either ancient Greek and Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, early medieval (Germanic tribes, Vikings) or post 1838 and more likely post 1850. What I still don’t have a very clear handle on is what the earliest large scale and increasingly large scale millefiori beads look like. In other words I’m looking for a mental millefiori time line between 1850 and the first appearance of millefiori on dated sample cards. There are two clear differences between the 1900s millefiori beads and three Italian renaissance examples (Degumeh’s, the Sarpellon illustration and the bead in the Billy Steinberg collection). The 1900s beads are covered completely or in part with murrine which are marvered into the base glass but not covered with a layer of clear glass and they use millefiori and/or rosetta cane. The renaissance examples use only rosetta cane and are covered in a layer of clear glass. The first beads produced by the 19th century pioneers, Bussolin, Bigaglia, Franchetti etc appear use both rosetta and millefiori but appear to have a thin layer of clear glass. They were not produced in commercial quantities. They appear to tend toward a darker colour palette, like the renaissance beads. Presumably there are intermediate stages in development from the earliest 19th century beads to the flood of 20th century millefiori beads. Is it possible to identify them? Two further question for anyone who has bothered to read this far. Giorgio mentions the earliest known dated sample card “that of Giorgio Benedetto Barbaria who donated a splendid sample card of his production to the Austrian Franz I in 1815; this sample card is kept in Technisches Museum in Wien, and two partial pictures are to be found in "Glass Beads from Europe" by Sibylle Jargstorf, Schiffer Ed., 1995, pages 60-61.” Are there any millefiori or rosetta cane decorated beads on this card? Which are the earliest dated sample cards which show millefiori and/or rosetta cane decorated beads? I suspect they are from the end of the 19th century but hope not. Anyway, I quite enjoyed this little voyage towards my own slightly clearer understanding and hope that sharing it might be enjoyable, provoking, productive for others. I welcome comments, discussion and disagreements in the interests of my education. Oh, by the way Domenico Bussolin died in penury, having had to rely on the charity of a group of glassworkers who gave him a little each month to live on. Giovanni Battista Franchini on the other hand went mad. All that time and effort trying to produce portraits in glass 3cms in diameter using tens of different skin tones. All to produce a cane 12cms long. And nobody appreciated it at the time! Best wishes to all, most especially to David and Joyce and Joyce and David :) for making this possible and to Jamey for sharing his time and (despite his protests) expertise. All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|