Your phrasing sounded as though you were suggesting that.

I happen to be the first person to suggest that typical (19th C/20th C) Venetian millefiori beads were inspired by certain (mostly smaller cylindrical) Islamic Period millefiori beads. And, the specimens shown by Panini on p. 164 are a very good example of that. Nevertheless, though the multiple-eye pattern is not uncommon (sometimes called "watermelon"), the vast majority of Venetian millefiori beads are not imitations of ancient patterns—because they are rendered via the molding technique. But finding apt comparisons is an intriguing pursuit. In my Istanbul paper I show a few specimens that are cogent.

I likewise recommend and refer to Panini's book—and I'm glad he was kind enough to send me a copy. As I have mentioned a few times, Panini referred to my work to present the context of the beads he discusses in his book. It is a shame that our language barrier prevented us from collaborating on a book that would further explore the history of millefiori work.

What sort of "dispute" do you anticipate? I think, having made a compelling comparison, I have demonstrated that this happened. I am not aware that my ideas have been challenged by anyone.

JDA.