Whereas the previous photograph is composited from six digital images from my camera, in this shot I composed two high-resolution scans together, for a closer view.

JDA.

In this detailed scan, we can see two places on the lower side of the bead, where the cross-sections of two canes can be isolated. Note that the cane patterns have seven layers (typical of chevron beads of this time), if we include the red center as a "layer." The color sequence is fairly parallel to typical early chevron beads, of the blue group. The third layer is or was probably translucent green, but has decayed. It might have been another color.

JDA.

Intricasy plus earthiness! What a combo. You take pretty good pictures Mr Allen! Oops, I meant "DAS GURU"!!!!!!!!!!! Steve

From a purely historical perspective and considering the rarity, plus the remarkable condition it appears to be in, I can see this bead being one of your most treasured! I am looking forward to seeing more, thank you,
Thomas

Jamey, it would be one of my favorites too. And it looks sturdy enough to wear, carefully. Do you wear it sometimes?

Hi Joyce,

I am so weird about stringing beads, since I do this for a "living." ("This is living?") I have wanted to string this bead for a long time, but I have so few other beads that are in the same class and that deserve to be with it. However, recently, it occurred to me that the strand of beads I got from Jim Lankton at the end of our trip to West Africa might be the IDEAL group to frame this wonderful specimen. They are largely 17th C. a speo beads (star beads, most striped, with some "Dutch cane" beads), but the sizes and colors are very good. Soooooo....

One of the reasons I wanted to shoot the bead at this time is because I plan to string-it-up soon.

Cheers, Jamey

This is the strand of beads I am thinking of combining with my millefiori bead.

JDA.

I can see it with the ones with the translucent aqua outside layer.

Going out to dinner wearing a stripped shirt and a millefiore tie -- a helping device to imagine the necklace...

Will be interesting to see how many bcn members will be able to make it there...

Hi Jamey,
What an exceptional bead! I hope we get to see more interesting pieces of your collection.
Hendrik

In the composited shot of six images, I accidentally placed the "lower perforation" shot at the top, and the "upper perforation" shot at the bottom.

Ooopppps....

JDA.

Jamey , i'm not arguing with you but this bead looks to me ancient
Master Piece , ( nothing to do with Chevrons ) ....
Tibor

The bead is about 500 years old, and skirts the time that divides ancient from modern glassmaking. So, yes—it looks very old because it IS old (!). But no ancient glass beads have molded star canes; and particularly not star canes like rosetta beads. Rosetta beadmaking was invented by Venetians in the mid-15th century.

Be well, Jamey

Dear Tibor,

I think you do not understand a few primary and important details of glass art. I recommend the three articles I have written about these issues to understand them better. (My articles for Ornament in 1982 and '83, and for the Rochester Conference in 1982.) You might also read the article posted here on Millefiori that I produced about two years ago.

Here is a repeat of some of the things I have said (many times!), that are accepted fact:

Millefiori is an ancient glass art, that achieved its first height of production in the Ptolemaic Period in Egypt (the so-called "Egypto-Roman" wares, made in Egypt, and then spread to the rest of the world largely because of Roman demand).

Millefiori work is based on a specific exploitation of compound canes that have patterns running through their length—and specifically the canes are divided so that the cross-section patterns can be used to compose or decorate an object. There are several ways canes were made in antiquity, but the most complex ones are Composite Canes (made from elements that are fused together). This is also called "bundling."

In the 15th C. Venetians REINVENTED this work. (I believe it was Angelo Baroviero and his daughter and son who did most of this work.) However, Venetians devised entirely new ways to made canes for millefiori work. Specifically, they devised Molded Canes. A molded cane does not rely on cane-bundling for its pattern, but rather the hot glass is inserted into a mold to acquire a desired shape. This is something that was NOT practiced in antiquity.

The canes Venetians made for millefiori work, being molded, most often featured a "star" pattern—and typically this was a twelve-pointed star, in (usually) seven layers of red, white, and blue glass (but also other colors and other variations).

Someone got the brilliant idea that if one would make a star cane with a hole running down the center, the cane could be divided into pieces, and each piece could become a bead itself (thus dispensing with the need to apply small cane pieces to beads to decorate them). The canes they made for these beads were molded STAR canes. Consequently, there is considerable similarity between the Venetian millefiori work of this time and the earliest chevron beads.

In art terminology, any decorative figure that is flower-like is called a "rosette." (With a two-syllable French-like pronunciation.) It also happens that when Venetians named their millefiori work, in the 15th C., they called it "rosetta work." (Rosetta is three syllables, in the Italian style.) The plural of "rosetta" is "rosette." (Also three syllables in the Italian pronunciation, and not to be confused with the art-terminology word "rosette"—of two syllables.) In Italian, "chevron beads" are called "perle a rosette." ("PER-leh ah ro-SET-teh.")

The name "millefiori" was not devised and used until this work was revived a second time at Venice in the mid-19th century. Since it was devised, the name has been used to describe all such glassworks from ancient, antique, and modern times, of this type.

In the pages you show us, the operative phrase is "...a wheel rosette made from bundled overlay canes...." The author is telling the reader that the elements used in these ancient pieces are BUNDLED canes (even if they are called "rosettes").

As demonstrated in my articles on these topics, in viewing any mosaic-glass object composed from or decorated with compound canes, if we can determine that the canes are molded, the object could not exist from before the 15th century. That means there are no ancient chevron beads. And it means it's possible to distinguish between ancient millefiori (predating the 1500s) and modern millefiori wares (post-dating the 1500s).

It's as simple as that.

No one—certainly not I—is saying there is no such thing as ancient millefiori work. CLEARLY there is. However, not all millefiori work is ancient—and thanks to my research, we have one reliable way of distinguishing. By the way, my article from 1982 was listed in the Journal of Glass Studies for that year, as new significant historical work on cane manufacture and classification systems.

I hope this helps.

Jamey

How to distinguish the molded canes from the bundled ones at first sight?

This is the article, posted here, that tells just about everything you need to know to do that.

Jamey

Thank you.

What are you scared of? Make a case -- you have one!

Hello Jamey,
Are these beads (12 x 10 mm.) somehow related to your Favourite One?

Hi Neshidha,

These are Venetian millefiori beads from the late 19th or early 20th century, that feature star canes. So they could be considered as later versions of the bead I showed.

Whereas many Venetian millefiori beads were cylindrical and found their way to the West African trade, these products went to many places, and your beads demonstrate that alternate shapes were created too.

I think they are very handsome beads.

Jamey

First Kirk challenges me to "Show us a modern one!"—even though I didn't bring up the topic of modern beads of this type;

Then Nishedha shows us a modern version of the bead in question;

And all Kirk can say in reply is that they're similar because they're all round.

Let's not forget, he also tried to incite Tibor to argue with me, on a point that perhaps by now Tibor concedes....

Hysterical!

(In the clinical sense.)

JDA.

...THESE ARE NOT ROUND! Are they related?
I had not realized before these canes looked so much like chevron beads... I understand now that if we manage to wear a hole into one of these, then we have a chevron bead.

Hi Nishedha,

The primary group is Drawn Beads or Cane Beads.

Drawn beads may be monochromatic or polychromatic. Polychrome drawn beads include those that are layered (cornaline d'Aleppo beads, for instance), and/or striped beads; and/or internally patterned beads. (And combinations of these.)

Internally-patterned beads are called "rosetta" beads by Venetians. The primary types are derived from star canes. A smaller group come from flower canes. All of these have analogs to millefiori canes, except they are made with a central channel that become the beads' perforations.

A star bead is derived from a star cane.

A chevron bead is a star bead that has been ground-down on its ends to expose the inner starry layers—creating the "chevron" design.

A star bead that is not ground-down is not a chevron bead. Only a star bead.

A polychrome drawn bead that does not have internal patterns is not a rosetta bead. It is only a striped bead or a layered bead, or a striped layered bead.

A bead made from a cane that is not perforated is not a typical drawn bead. For instance, you could take a piece of solid millefiori cane, and you could drill it to make it a bead. (This has been done with Venetian elements; and is now routinely done in China.) But this would not be a conventional rosetta bead, nor a conventional drawn bead.

So, no—you cannot "wear a hole" into a millefiori bead and call it a rosetta nor a chevron bead. At least, not a conventional one. But the substance is correct. This IS the relationship between these bead types.

Jamey

Thank you for your labors, Jamey. It is better understood now -- although I suspect my unruly brains will never take it in as resident knowledge.