Featured CAMEOS: Show & Tell or Ask & Answer

Isn't that what we've been writing here?

The biggest problem I see with the books that are out there is that they try to be comprehensive - Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Cameos - tackling everything from the etymology of the word 'cameo' (no one knows for sure) to modern cameos in man made materials. Not too surprising that no single book is equally authoritative on all topics.

The subjects of cameo art are mentioned along the way, not always accurately. I started my web site specifically to address this matter. Nothing there relies solely on other people's books on cameos.

The other big problem is that even the best books were edited by someone who was not an expert in the field & probably received little or no fact checking. How could they, when there is so little reliable literature out there? Scholars have largely confined themselves to the engraved gems of the ancient world. The worst books are those that are self published; they have had no editing or fact checking.

Will see what I can do with the article in question. Limited time this morning.

 

the history of cameos and their popularity are well documented.
No, it is not.

kameynye shell
This beast is completely unknown to Google, unless it's a typo for Kanye West. The photo is of a shell in the Cassis family.

Shell cameos, relatively new in the history of cameos, became popular six- to seven-hundred years ago during the Renaissance
We do not know to what extent shell may have been used for cameos in antiquity as these would not have survived as well as their stone sisters. I have not seen them to have been at all prominent in the Renaissance, when the quality of the mounts tends to outstrip that of the cameos they hold.

the height of their popularity occurred during the Victorian era. Victorians, especially British Victorians, were enamored of Italy and all things Italian including cameos.
Napoleon & his court were wild for cameos before Victoria, although the Order of Victoria and Albert she created does use a jugate cameo of the two in its badges.

The vast majority of Victorian cameos depict the profile of a woman with intricately arranged hair
Well, maybe, if you're counting the many profiles of goddesses, not just pretty lady types.

and possibly a diamond. Cameos depicting women with jewelry such as a necklace, bracelet, earring or diadem are known as habillé, which means “dressed,” “clad” or “dressy.” Habillé cameos became popular during the 1840s.
I refer you to the catalogue pages above.

Originally the word “cameo” referred to relief images of contrasting color
We have no idea whether or not this is true; the only requirement is that they be in relief. Plenty of monochromatic glass Roman Medusa cameos out there.

lava, which is not actually lava but gray, brown, white or putty-color igneous rock such as felsite, rhyolite, basalt, or andesite.
'Lava' is a non-specific term, & some cameos described as lava are basalt, but the stuff we most often apply this term to is calcium carbonate based, from the sedimentary rock limestone.

Hardstone cameos are characteristically not as large as shell cameos with the majority being in the dime- to nickel-size
Must not have seen many hardstone cameos to say this with a straight face.

This late 18th or early 19th century glass cameo depicts the head of a Roman soldier
The scaled armor suggests this is meant to be Athena/Minerva, a far more common subject than anonymous soldiers.

Banded agate, which is multicolored, and sardonyx, which has parallel bands of brown to red alternating with white or black bands
Sardonyx is banded agate that has layers of sard (dark brown chalcedony) & white. It has to be dyed to achieve a black layer. Not sure what these 'multicolored' stones are that the author has in mind.

There are other nits I could have picked, but maybe these are enough. PA will perhaps add some others.

 

Thank you SO much for your time and attention in answering my question. I appreciate your efforts to educate us all here. I continue to learn.

 

so, do we all !!

 

Do I just reply here about my cameo?

 

Yes, please do! (Or post in your already-created Queen Victoria Cameo thread... either way is fine.)
I have a Queen Victoria cameo, too, and would love to see how ours compare. (Mine is of QV as an older woman and is unsigned.)

 

See the answer I just left you. Please choose just one thread. It gets confusing & less useful when a conversation about the same item gets going on 2.

 

I’m sorry I’m very confused now myself, I just clicked on the notification thing at top

 

hi I’ve added picture

 

I would love to see your Victoria

 

Then read through this thread and find it for yourself.
Maybe you'll learn something while you're doing that.

 

It’s all a learning curve..

 

@Bronwen @PepperAnna

Not mine, just came across it while browsing.
A portrait cameo of an entire family... seems unusual?

 

The Cheeky Family ???....

 

The Squeeze in Closer family? Looks like Mom got the short end of space allowance. The carver wasn't a real expert.

 

The Weird family- little girl feeling up her sister and Mom had a hand amputated. All joking aside, it is very unusual to see a family portrait. I think I have only seen one of 4 brothers. I havent seen an entire family portrait that I can remember. Definitely an amateur, but still a very charming cameo.

 

Yes, having the whole gang is unusual. The cutter had the sense to know that s/he (shell cameo cutting was promoted as a suitable hobby for well bred young women) did not have the skill to carve all those faces looking to the front, so they are all positioned in profile. Maybe cutter also had a camera & was able to take a pic of the composition to work from. Surely not a professional studio portrait.

When researching John Nicholson, found this on line:



And I love this one:



These are the only multi-family member ones I can come up with, so yes, pretty rare.

 

A little bit sorry - but only a very little bit - that the thread on the cameo of Victoria got shut down. Would have added this excerpt from something OP put up:



If the cameo in question was a commission by the Prince, would there have been need to ask permission to present it? The letter is from John Gibson, not from Saulini, to some intermediary. I can find only one Gibson bust of Victoria on the Internet. The cameo does not look like it.

This is closer, although still not the same:

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/...lty-free-illustration/538768678?adppopup=true

OK, enough of that. Too bad, potentially an interesting discussion.

 

Maybe we need to establish a category for cameos that qualify as primitive, or naif, or fauve or something.

 

you don't just walk up to a Prince and say here's your cameo...
there were formalities to be worked out !!