| Original Message: Addendum |
|---|
|
Regarding Eisen. Actually, Eisen did not specifically say that Venetian canes were "molded." A German author, Tischler, did discuss this in an obscure article, also about 100 years ago. However, Eisen did clearly recognize that Venetian canes represented a departure from the canemaking of antiquity, in not depending on composite types of production—and he referred to these works as "star bead glass." When I began studying chevron/rosetta beads in the late '70s, it was routinely believed that the canes were either composite, or had been "rolled over a corrugated marvering board" to become starry. This is an absolute mistake, in that the process would not function well. (In other words, is practically impossible.) A very few authors referred to "dipping" and canes being "dip-molded," based on Medieval illustrations of processes and tools. (I referred to these woodcuts too.) When I presented my synthesis on canemaking for Venetian beads, it was the first time that the technique was accurately described, and compared to previous mistaken ideas. The only other arena where this was understood was in the manufacture of millefiori paperweights. At that time, I had some lively discussion with Paul Hollister—who was the reigning authority on paperweights, and whom I found to have ideas very similar to my own. JDA. All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|