Featured CAMEOS: Show & Tell or Ask & Answer

I purchased this cameo because of the joyful movement of dancing figures. It is signed Michelini on the reverse and dated 1819.

 

I feel I'm being gaslighted a bit. If you scroll way down at this link, you find an option to report an item:

https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/...mbers should contact their nearest USFWS port.

Did that & found it talked in terms of something you have already bought. Went ahead anyway & got to a form that had pre-filled some fields using the item number I provided, but did not allow me to fill in some fields, even though they're there. Selected 'Animal Products'. There's no drop down choice for ivory, so wrote that in & submitted. Got a confirmation screen saying form had been submitted & that I would receive an e-mail about outcome. This obviously only makes sense if submitter is a buyer. Last I knew they did not give follow up to third parties, & they have no way to know who the submitter was because the form does not ask for that. Doubt it will go anywhere.

Meantime, if you go to

https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/...eporting-product-violates-ebay-policy?id=4838

it's back to that question mark icon and there is no option to file a report on the page. So they want to appear compliant with the laws by having a policy, but don't really want to enforce it. Maybe now is the time to sell the 2 ivory bracelets I inherited from my mother.

 

Can't even describe the shade of green I am. Not that I don't have my share of Michelini cameos, but I have always loved this scene of a maenad dancing with Dionysus.

I have a lot of photographic examples of his work. Looking at them again just now, I observe that he rarely dated his work in shell. In fact, I have the only one I have seen so far, from 1830, & that seems to be related to his move to Paris, a new start. He does, however, sometimes number pieces. I don't know if this was keeping track of his own output, or done in his role as shopkeeper, for inventory purposes.

Your work is much too accomplished to be an early Michelini. I'm inclined to place it into his late phase, when he was studying with Girometti.

 

Well, I was wrong on 2 counts. EB did know who submitted the report & did let me know their decision:

We looked into your report and didn’t find the listing to be in violation of our policy. This determination was made by a customer service agent.

Suspect 'customer service agent' is some form of AI. Shows eBay is not capable of enforcing their policy on ivory. At least, not pre sale. I try to remind myself that someone willing to pay $1,000+ for a cameo probably has some knowledge. If someone does fall for it, up to an authenticator.

 

looks like 1719...?

 

To me too, but that wouldn't be consistent with Michelini's life dates. He made perfectly legible 8s. This is the one I have dated 1830, where he added to his name the proud declaration "Parissiene [sic]". Still learning the language.



It looks to me like there is a 3 under the name, above the P. The third cameo he made in Paris? This is the front, no competitor to Pepper's lovely piece:

 

funny....that looks like 1800, to me..

and not to shabby a carving either !!!!!!

 

That's what I usually get if reporting something on Fartnook. Getting harassed by a scammer? Not against policy. It's a common scam/gaslight attempt/fake male profile catfishing? Not against policy. If you request a second look, you get the same response. It's all AI and the scammers and scumwads know how to escape the bots.

 

1800 would definitely be too early. The upper part of the 3 is above that stray horizontal line. The 3 is a bit raised & tilted compared to the numbers around it.

The one I have I think is earliest, because he misgauged the depth of the top layer of shell & because it's in a cheap Italian silver mount (Michelini started out in Rome, then moved to Paris) is this Achilles, based on one engraved by someone named Grew:

 

I don't intend to pursue it farther. I suspect the AI just reviews the language of the listing, that it's not like it has a data bank of photos it can use to compare.

It's hard to believe the seller doesn't know what it is, but of all the possible dodges around coming out & naming it, why, of all materials, would you go with lava? Either knowledgeable potential buyers will pass it up or someone not so knowledgeable will buy it & then on to the authenticators. Wonder if they're under any kind of pressure to find things as being as described?

 

That's possible; after all NADs that get stopped at the authentcators aggravate both buyers and sellers. As for why call ivory a lava? If the buyer knows what it is and wants it for what it is, it makes sense to use a term that assures it will be seen without using something the Bots would flag. Lava isn't on anyone's EEK list and sails right through. The authenticators aren't well-trained and won't know the difference, or so the seller hopes.

 

I have lately had to reconsider one of my Michelinis. I always assumed it was a portrait of a woman of his own time, then, as is so often the way, I stumbled into some additional info.

This is in a ring in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, an intaglio signed Gnaios, one of the most famous names among gem engravers of antiquity.



The image is a bit easier to make out in the impression:



The cameo:



He left out the scepter, but took exceptional care with the neckline, as he did also with the Achilles. To me the figure on the Gnaios gem appears to be looking straight ahead (one could say 'stonily') while Michelini's lady seems to look upward a bit.

The Met says she may be a Ptolemaic queen, and I have seen speculation that it could be Cleopatra Selene II, daughter of Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony. She is shell, but the material used is so thick, flat, large & evenly colored that I originally thought she was in hardstone. I think she probably dates to his later years when he did begin to work in stone, the 1840s - 50s. She is in a simple gold mount with Soviet hallmarks.

 

I have seen a couple of very angry feedback comments around this. Even when an item doesn't pass authentication & money is refunded, buyer is P.O.ed.

I'm a bit freaked out that they knew which member had submitted the form without asking me for that info. I would have had no issue with supplying that info if it had been asked, but I'd rather be asked!

 

If the authenticator who handles it doesn't know either that it is ivory or else that it is not lava, even just one or the other, then the service is worse than useless. How can you trust them about anything? The GIA somehow instills in its grads that they know everything & are infallible, even though we have seen time & again how easily they get tripped up by cameos.

 

good thing then , that we have you here !!!!!!

sometimes...... I get the feeling that we should be charging for membership !

 

We could set up a booth, something like this:

 

Or 17 1G or 17 IG

 

Heaven help me, but I just bought another little inexpensive, unmounted Schmoll. Looks like early work (read: not that skilled) but a figure I have not seen from him before. Hoping she'll look better when she's had a bath. Will unveil her then.

 

@PepperAnna From a Liberotti set:

 

I thought about getting the training years ago. I don't think they cover anything but gemstones. GIA people can handle nice rocks, grade diamonds, etc, but they don't teach them about cameos at all. Coral or pearls either, methinks. Scary thought, I may know more about those than the average GIA graduate. (really scary, since I know where I rate.)