Featured CAMEOS: Show & Tell or Ask & Answer

@Figtree3 I'm wondering if it's painted porcelain...

 

It does not look like a cameo to me. I'm probably misreading it altogether, but think it's a photo of a small child.



Other thoughts, anybody?

Edit: Maybe Sarony also took the photo in the brooch?

 

That's another possibility, yes.

 

When I looked at it before, I believe I discussed it in a Facebook group for photo collectors and the tendency was to think it was a photo. But then, these were photo people! I don't think I've discussed it here before because I had not resized the original scan until this morning.

 

That would be really interesting. Too bad I'll never know!

 

I see a young woman with an "up-do", back to us, but looking over her left shoulder at us.

 

Photo or miniature on porcelain? Pretty sure cameo can be ruled out.

 

While fully realizing I don't have enough information to be unequivocal, I'm very strongly in the painted porcelain camp.

 

Would this be considered a cameo?



It's a 16thC hat badge.
http://www.getty.edu/art/collection...badge-representing-prudence-french-1550-1560/

 

The Getty holds such marvelous things. Thanks for showing us this one. As their page says:

This piece used a technique known as commesso --referring to the process by which stones were "committed" or attached together like a jigsaw puzzle--that was often used to restore ancient gems.

Some commesso pieces are more cameo-like than others, but we cameo junkies are happy to appropriate them to our camp.

Mary Magdalen, Miseroni workshop:



Queen Victoria, Paul Lebas:

 

'Committed' is really a secondary meaning. If you are familiar with any of the Romance languages, you will recognize that the fundamental meaning is 'put together'.

 

Here's your girl with a little more paint:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/372421217368

 

Well, so she is! thanks -- the setting is different, but definitely the same otherwise.

 

I'll take this one: https://www.christies.com/lotfinder...9536&sid=92c6aef7-e07b-46f3-9940-36315a926a85

 

Not too shabby. When you get tired of it, send her on to me. Wonder whether all info on who cut it & who set it has been lost or just not included in the on line listing. Rather outperformed Christie's estimate.

 

Just by a whisker. The first auction record shows it came from a Russian princess in 1924. She was evidently living in France and had been for decades. Died just before WWI broke out or months later.

http://godsandfoolishgrandeur.blogspot.com/2014/08/joyaux-de-madame-la-princesse-lobanoff.html

 

Can't really imagine what that life was like. The record of ownership is preserved; what I would like to know is where the stone came from, who cut it, who designed & made the mount, etc. More & more I'm seeing scholarly papers in the field of collectors & collections. Doesn't seem to have an 'ology' name yet. My suggestion of 'acquisitology' has not been taken up.

 

Hoarding works.

I'm not seeing anything like that either. Somebody who knew what he was doing, that's all I know. I'm betting it came from a major jewelry house, and was worn on a Worth dress. It may not have any markings at all.

 

Yes, as we know, so much older jewellery is not marked in any way. Masterfully carved cameos with not a hint of who cut them are one of the despairs of my existence. Sometimes what is known about the makers of luxury goods comes from their owners' detailed financial accounts and/or inventories that have survived.

 

Is there better names? Looks like Emy?