Featured Blacklight Fun

This is very encouraging for ivory.

The section of grain you were able to capture is really too small to make the comparison, but what I see looks good for ivory. Celluloid meant to look like ivory has long continuous lines that run parallel to each other all the way along. The lines in ivory all run in the same direction, but they occur in segments & are kind of squiggly in shape & course. What I can see of yours has that fragmented look of ivory.

It shows up at the right place too. Thinking about my ivory pieces, on many the carvers chose to use the material in a way so that the figures/scenes do not have visible grain running through them. Any grain is found at a crosscut, such as the truncation of a head or bust, if it is wide enough.

I think this might have been what led us into thinking it was Celluloid or other plastic. That, & the inexpensive mount. Does it seem quite thin front to back?

When I finally examined my piece properly, I found I could see tool marks in the surface. The figure is smoothed out but the background area shows signs of scraping. Check the back of yours.

Just to show what Celluloid can do:



This piece is quite light for its size & sounds plasticky when tapped with a fingernail. Visually it's a real tease.

 

@Bronwen
I'm now quite convinced that my Isabella is, indeed, ivory.
I found a couple little areas of apparent cross-hatching visible under my loupe but unfortunately I can't manage to get a decent photo.
I have always been able to see tool marks in quite a lot of areas but assumed this was the result of the mold used (if Isabella was celluloid) simply replicating the "original".
The one doubt that remains in my mind is the lightness of the piece.

 

Maybe it's pretty thin, with not a lot of material in the background layer? Does light come through when strongly lit from behind?



Also, do you have anything that you know is Celluloid or similar that you could use for comparison? There is a definite difference in how it feels against the teeth when compared with a tooth test of ivory.

 

The degree of translucency is inconclusive. I tried backlighting both an ivory cameo & the Celluloid Ceres & they were very similar on this quality. But Isabella lets quite a lot of light through, so think the whole thing must be on the thin side, which would account for the light weight. Is most of the weight in the mount or in the cameo?

Really think Celluloid is untenable just on the grounds of who would make such a thing? And why don't we see more of them on the market? Mine is a pretty lady type & there are Celluloid cameos out there that aren't so different, but none at all like Isabella. From what I can make out in the photos, she has more depth than you find with Celluloid pieces, which are in low relief with very smooth contours.

 

Yes, the cameo (especially the background) is quite thin. Both the cameo and the brass setting feel very lightweight.

That's just what I wondered when I first got her and attempted to research her. If she were some sort of cheap souvenir, I would have thought I'd find at least a few on the internet somewhere... but nada.

 

She may well be OOAK.