Featured Eyes Have It: Are These Intaglios the Same?

It is hypnotic, fascinating.

 

Just my observations Bronwen ...
Amethyst has more muscular tone in the torso.
Also hair has more definition than the glass one.
Arm and hand at different angle.
The musical instrument is more upright than the glass one.
The two pieces at the bottom of the strings are together on the amethyst one and apart on the glass one .
Blanket he is sitting on has gentler folds and less of them compared to the glass one. .... Joy.

 

Great! This is the sort of stuff that gives my eye specific places to check out & compare. The red line following the back of his neck down along the shoulder has wandered off course on the glass; the lower end goes down, as on the amethyst.

The 'signature' on the British Museum's carnelian has one of the most easily spotted differences from the amethyst: the size & position of the first pi is different, no matter how you look. It is known to be a more recent copy, but a really, really good one.

Thank you for putting in all that work, & so late in the day (it was after midnight here). I really appreciate everyone's effort & input. This is not only for my entertainment. If a case can be made that the paste is an impression of the amethyst, not an impression of a copy, it will matter to a few people. Oxford will be tickled; Paris will be chagrined.

For reference, this is the impression of the carnelian, which is much easier to see, even though an impression of an intaglio becomes a reversed cameo image:

The paste is a far from perfect record of the gem it was taken from. Features that are missing, unless they are missing in an area that is otherwise crisp, & lack of definition can be attributed to sloppy casting. The places where the amethyst is most deeply engraved, parts that are meant to be more distant from the eye, such as his right (in the intaglio) leg are where the paste is most accurate.

This is the sort of stuff that should stay constant & can be measured. Thank you ma'am.

 

@clutteredcloset49 It wouldn't let me add as a quote:

I don't think what I have marked line up correctly from one to the other.


Some of the little wobbles are because my hands shake & this freehand drawing is really hard for me. The blue lines are where the engraving goes. The green circle is where there must have been a bubble. It's very round & no reason for someone who otherwise did such an excellent job to add a line there deliberately. The roughly vertical blue line is where the rightmost string is.

I had also noticed what does look like a discrepancy in the finials on the cross piece of the kithara, so that's one that definitely needs investigation. Places that just look, in photos, lumpier than the original are again apt to be poor casting, but worth looking at again. Thanks!

 

Think this photo answers a couple of questions about the kithara. You can see how features come & go, depending on photo.

 

maybe it is just the angle of the photo, but there is a larger gap between his leg and the object (not sure what it is) on the brown coloured one

 

That was one that really bothered me & the first thing I could find that looked like a genuine difference. (The thing is the bottom end of his sword sheath, which is hanging off a tree branch.) Let me go see if I have a comparison that gives it a different look. The trouble here is I think that the way the amethyst channeled the light, the top of his thigh looks farther toward the sheath than it is.

 

Better?

 

Same 2 pix with some fussing. Still looks to the eye like there's a slight difference. But. To make another intaglio copy of an intaglio, you first have to take an impression in relief & use that to make a mold for the glass. You can see how this would lead to a bit of expansion in the final copy. The curvature of the glass may also be contributing to the greater spread between sheath & leg.

 

yes, quite a difference depending on the angle. lol, would be so much easier if you had both in hand to do the comparison, maybe a road trip in the new year?
I had turned the photo to get a better look. Going with the thought that yours is a copy of the amethyst one, I agree there would be subtle differences, but (of course there is a 'but') I'm still not convinced. I'll come back and have a better look at all the photos later this afternoon. This is fun, thanks for posting it

 

Glad someone is enjoying it. Does this help?



The BnF, CdM really would not want to find out this is a copy of their gem. If it is, it would be strong evidence that the name Pamphilos was put there later, either by an owner, which sometimes happens (Lorenzo de Medici had LAVR MED cut into the face of his gems), or by someone who was enhancing the value of the gem by adding a signature. It actually says Pamphilou; the genitive case makes it 'of Pamphilos', which could mean 'by Pamphilos' or Pamphilos', the possessive. The CdM prefers the first interpretation & makes no mention of the second possibility. It has got into the literature as being the genuine signature of an actual engraver.

 

I don't have a really good photo to illustrate this, but musculature is one thing that is very much the same, if a little less sharply defined. What do you want? He's glass that's the better part of 2,000 years old, if Dr. Lightfoot is correct. You expect him to be cut & buffed with washboard abs?!

 

I don't want anything Bronwen .. you asked for anything that we saw that was a difference in the two pieces .. I am a bit hurt that you called me Ma'am in one reply, and "what do you want?" in another ... I wanted nothing. I do wish that I hadn't joined in on all of this, I was enjoying it all. Nevertheless hurt feelings pass .. I think they are both lovely ... Joy.

 

Oh, Joy. I'm so very sorry you took What do you want as being some expression of annoyance directed personally at you. E-mail syndrome. It was the joking C'mon, whaddya want from something tiny & nearly 2,000 years old, the body of an Equinox regular? Please accept "ma'am" as an expression of my respect for you & appreciation for your observations.

Having the input of other members helps me to know where I need to bolster my case if I want it to have weight in the professional glyptics world. My trying to counter the various objections to the conclusion that the glass is a direct copy of the amethyst is just academic debate undertaken to get at the truth with limited evidence available, not about making anyone wrong.

Hope the hurt feelings will dissipate quickly, along with the snow & you will continue to enjoy this thread, although think it is pretty nearly down to the point of needing to take measurements, not trust to visual impressions.

I really do hold you in very high regard. And you gave me one of the warmest welcomes to the site among many friendly ones.

 

Especially for @shallow_ocean_spectre who wondered about the glass.

In ordinary light, to the unaided eye, the glass intaglio is a dull dark brown:



My photo editor picks up on things my eyes do not see, that the brown is really somewhat red:



Under the USB microscope & the glare of its LEDs, it is different again:



From the depths of his knowledge, Shallow raised the idea that it is frit, fritted or sintered glass, made of little glass globules heated just enough to stick to each other when pressed together. The granular appearance of the overage visible on one side would seem to corroborate that:



That highest of authorities, Wikipedia, assures me that this technique was already being used in antiquity.

Doesn't 'frit' sound like what butterfries do? And not just the fritillaries.

 

Thank You Bronwen .. I believe I did take things the wrong way and for that I am truly sorry. I was sitting here spotting all the thigs that looked different from the other and then promptly forgot them LOL .. so I started to write them down in a notepad and then posted them thinking my replies would be of great help to the subject .. I don't know WHY I thought that but I just did, . I love you dear friend ... Joy.

 

I really should flag that as best answer. I know you all have better things to do with your time, so the serious attention that has been given to this thread means a lot to me, even if it probably seems like one of those threads where the OP is determined to hear zebras while everyone else hears horses.

I would never take a swipe at any of you, none of you would even come close to giving me cause, and you, Joy, you, have to be one of the sweetest people alive. Hope any upset will quickly be gone. I know feelings can linger when the head knows better. Wishing you a warm, cozy evening.

 

I was just being sensitive and rather silly Bronwen .. all is right with the my world again ... Joy.

 

Too late to edit OP, where I just noticed, after a nap, that I wrote that the glass intaglio is slightly concave when I should have put convex. It is a little bit domed, which makes it impossible to pick up all of the details in any single photo.

 

This is the edge of the shield:






Good match or not good match? In case you can't tell what they are meant to be at all:



Being experts now, you will immediately recognize that the drawing is far from accurate, but artist was correct that there are horses on the side of the shield. With all those legs, I thought I was seeing snaky tresses, until the drawing prompted me to look again.