Featured Faenza Maiolica Bottle Vase C1800

Hi, Thanks for your reply....Like you I am not really into Italian tin glaze....I would like to own a few drug jars but they are out of my price range!! If you have an extensive collection of eighteenth century wares, then you are only too well aware that feel and touch are everything, photos do not show everything....I know that Walter has a good knowledge, but even experts can be wrong...we all get it wrong sometimes. The problem is not that I am offended, but the sheer frustration of trying to show a poor impress mark on the limited media of a photo. If you could see it, you would see that the part of the mark that has taken could not be a glaze imperfection, and then why would there be a patch of tin glaze in the centre of an unglazed bottom, if not for a reason. However. I stress that it was not the mark, but the vase that convinced me it was C1800. I'm sorry, Say it slowly, like I said before, this is not for me....and I plan to unsubscribe....but thanks for your interest.

 

I live with older stuff every day. My dining table was made in about 1780. I've been handling old stuff for decades.

Walter's knowledge isn't simply good, he's an acknowledged expert in the field.

Your photo is good, but that mark bears no resemblance to the one in the book, sadly. If you really want to get this validated, and care enough about it, take it to the British Museum. Or the MoL - they love looking at stuff. Or, get someone to stick a spectrometer or radiometer on it. Glaze can be dated by its radiation signature as can pottery.

You also said that photos don't tell everything, and that you had it in your hand. Value My Stuff, who are, frankly, useless on anything not mass market, will also not have had the piece to hand, so I'm not quite sure why you don't value the opinions here. Walter has more knowledge of Italian faience than VMS any day.

Sorry you didn't get the answer you wanted, but as I said, if you really want to know, take it to one of those above.

 

Saw that mark, but just couldn't reconcile it to what appears on the bottle - personally, still can't make out a mark and can only see a passing resemblance to the mark in Chaffer's...



~Cheryl

 

As I see it one of the great advantages of these boards is that we can discuss what is posted. It's a give and take, back and forth. Items should (and must) be challenged when particulars about that item do not appear consistent with the stated identification. I rather thought that was the purpose. We won't always agree and that's okay. I have learned many, many things about how to research items from our discussions here. And I have found whole new avenues of collecting that I didn't even know existed from the posts here.

And we depend on our experts to help us get the correct identifications. They, more than anyone, are aware of the damage that incorrect identifications can cause. Once those incorrect identifications get into a book or onto the web it is almost impossible to get that information corrected. It must be incredibly frustrating for them to see incorrect information repeated as fact on and on and on.

Please note that I am not referring to this thread specifically. I don't have a dog in this fight (although I am a huge fan of Walter). But so far I have learned, just from this thread, that it's possible to date glazes and pottery through radiation signatures, and all kinds of information regarding blue carnation pottery. I had never heard of blue carnation before but I will certainly know it now when I see it. Thanks to both the OP and the board folks that have posted responses.
Don

 

Oh Dragon.....you're too kind !
I too see a 'passing resemblance ' , but only after the bird was shot out of the sky, fell on the highway and was run over by an 18 wheeler doing 80 mph...in the rain !
Only then does that blotch resemble a wing.

 

Don, you can also sometimes tell where the clay is from. It's fascinating!

 

And a PS. If you measure the refractive index of paperweights, it can ID them.

 

I was thinking that MAYBE the dent beside the chip was the wing mark.