Featured CAMEOS: Show & Tell or Ask & Answer

The black definitely feels solid. From my peek underneath I wonder if the white bit is shaped on top and hollow underneath but not enclosed hollow if that's makes sense?.
Does resin mean it's old plastic?!. I'm fine with it if that's what it is as I've learned quite a lot from her!

 

Yeah, resin is just sort of code for plastic of unspecified, non-brand name type. Used now routinely for modern plastic.

 

It did until that last bit. It was no doubt assembled of 2 & maybe 3 separate pieces. Guess the other way to put the question is whether or not the figure sounds solid or as though there is air space under it. Starting to have a glimmer of what you might mean by 'enclosed hollow'. I don't think that if you could separate the figure from the rest of the piece you would find she had a closed back & was hollow inside. Question is more whether we are looking at a solid piece attached to another solid piece or one big piece with a repousse figure, if that makes sense? Was the figure made by a liquid poured into a mold or from a sheet of semi-hard material being pressed into a mold?

 

This is correct I think.

 

My first thought was that the blobby bit used to be a button shank.
What's the size of this piece?

 

Cameos made with Celluloid or similar are made that way. However, all the little bumps say bubbles, & bubbles say liquid. Overall, she looks made by some process that wasn't terribly successful when more plastics were becoming available. A bit of an experiment.

 

Just over 5cm tall and 4cm wide

 

I was going to offer that she was made from two different materials, but I really try not to write forum messages while I drive and I had a time sensitive errand to run.

I do think the front is celluloid (it degrades in any manner of ways and who knows what it has been exposed to) and the back some early resin/plastic. It reminds me of some early Cracker Jack type toy material.

 

Celluloid blisters sound very painful!.
Thankyou all for your interest in this odd little cameo.

 

I'm on the run too, but looks like the inquiry is saying that Celluloid is not working well for them in some process that also involves gold & silk & intense heat. The cameo of Ceres I just added to the other thread about the 1920s cameo is Celluloid. Back is perfectly smooth too, no blisters.

 

Is it terrible of me to have stopped caring about @KSW piece?

 

Multiple cameo discussions + Cross references to discussions among threads + Small-ish phone screen = Probable confusion for me!

(Really, I love all the discussions. )

 

I have been missing this page. Bronwen, I found this today at an outdoor show. What do you make of it? The seller thought it was camphor glass, but I haven't seen one like this with the another pane of iridescent glass added to the back to give it color. I also photographed it inside my car, I guess the glass prevents certain sunlight rays, it came out clear. I think it is brass, old C clasp.

 

https://www.christies.com/lotfinder...2076&sid=9bf0fb74-4831-447f-9d3b-8ffa895fa5c9

Check out this Cameo on Christie’s of Mughal origin. Some cameos are worth serious money or is it because it has links to the king?

 

I have seen the glass cameo before, & think I remember seeing ones on which the figure had a slight iridescence, but not like this. Photos may not have been taken in sunlight. Backing of this one looks like MOP to me? Your car windows are polarized & do filter out certain colors.

 

I'm surprised they did not give more provenance (history of ownership). I'm not sure how they're coming up with a 17th century origin. There is this blanket statement:

These objects are offered from The Al Thani Collection. From next year, works of art from this encyclopedic collection will be shown at a new museum space in Paris. In addition to new acquisitions, sale proceeds will support ongoing initiatives of The Al Thani Collection Foundation which extend from exhibitions, publications and lectures to sponsorships of projects at museums around the world.

They cite this one in the V&A, even crib some language from the description:

http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O16062/shah-jahan-cameo-unknown/

I have seen both Christie's and Sotheby's get it seriously wrong when it comes to cameos. I'm away from my own computer at the moment, so can't show you a relevant example right now. Will try to remember next week.

It annoys me no end that in the world of engraved gems, no matter how superb the work, one that is not signed is always worth less than one of similar or even somewhat lesser quality that is signed; that same signed cameo would be worth even more if ownership could be traced to someone famous or royalty, even obscure royalty. For me the value is all in the piece itself; investors don't see it that way.

 

Forgot to say, Welcome, Roshan. Are you interested in cameos?

 

Car windows are not polarized,it can have stress-induced birefringence and can be seen when wearing polarized sun glasses. All glass can block ultraviolet sun rays to some extent.

 

I just know that the windows on the bus & some, but not all, sunglasses have the same effect on what you see when you look at a color change sapphire. Thought sunglasses' lenses were polarized & so vehicle windows too. My bad, as they say.

My point really is that Marko is right about the difference in the appearance of the cameo & how her camera sees it is due to how her car windows are filtering the light.

 

I think we have done it to death so don't feel guilty and move on