Featured CAMEOS: Show & Tell or Ask & Answer

@Bronwen
Bravo! That’s a very profound study and well digging! Now that you brought it up, I’m the one who acquired this Ariadne, which I knew the dealer marked it wrong and suspected it was by Filippo Verge. Also I was fond of the theme and the dealer offered a pretty good deal so… Anyway, here’s the photo of it. It accompanied me through my wedding, so it’s kind of special to me. This Ariadne was previously private collection of a professor in English and poet specializing in Greek mythology. She probably acquired this cameo as souvenir during her field trip to Sicily.


I’ve studied the above cameos mentioned by @Bronwen before made the purchase. One thing that intrigues me is that, the Sotheby’s Antinous was executed with much deeper cut than the others, especially on the drapery, not to mention the hair lines. Which kind of convinced me that it was made by Antonio. Yet the carving did yield a sense of roughness with the relatively bold, indelicate cut comparing to his peer masters. It makes me wonder if it’s a unique style adopted by the Verge workshops.


This Antinous, though signed Verge, has relatively shallower and more gentle cut than the previous. Yet if observing closely, the way hair lines and grape vines was cut do share similarities with the former. I’m guessing it might be some of Filippo Verge’s earlier works under Antonio.


The reason why I suspect my Ariadne was made by Filippo Verge is actually after seeing @Bronwen share of her Psyche. The incised mark looks identical, and the execution of the profile, the nose, the lips, and the similar shallow flowing cut resemble each other. Yet this Ariadne was cut with a strong sense of sculptural modeling by creating deep perspective with its deliberately shaped high relief, casting light and shape. It’s especially strong when put on. Therefore I guess the carver is well skilled yet deliberately kept the cutting that way.

My hypothesis is that Filippo Verge perhaps put a lot effort into commissions in his earlier life, and in later career, during the late Victorian period, he started to produce more affordable cameos for tourists as souvenirs to sustain and develop the workshop, and consequently adopted new carving tools as well, which could explain the shift in style of the signature.

 

Of the 16 cameos signed Vergé in my photo files, there is only one I feel confident is by Antonio:



This is a whole other order of work. The remainder are white on black or dark brown, single figures that were executed repeatedly by Roman gem engravers of the second half of the 19th century: Iris, Psyche, Clytie, Ariadne, Apollo Belvedere, Antinous, Menelaus.

 

Magnificent piece of art! I would also certainly agree the attribute to Antonio, perhaps only by the appearance of this early selection of stone. This type of sardonyx and bloodstone certainly circa dates to late 18th C, and makes the Verge sign convincing. I’m more fond of the classical rendering of faces and profiles therefore my main collection falls into that type. But the human anatomy is another diamond in glyptic word, that’s for sure.


I find it very interesting that I can still see the familiar clue in this scenario cameo comparing to the Sotheby’s Antinous. The subtle and softness of anatomy was well expressed on the two figures, especially the muscle and the belly, indicating the fully capability of executing smooth rendering. Yet when I looked at the drapery, the same feeling that I witnessed from the Sotheby’s Antinous came back. Notice here, the fold of the drapery is merely expressed by two bold, rough cut of lines. The same lines can be seen on the hair and drapery of Antinous. It seems unusual to me because comparing to Antonio’s peer the contrast is so strong. For example, this famous cameo by Pichler, collection of the MET, shows much gentler, smoother, natural transition in the lines of drapery. Or this scenario cameo made by Girometti, also collected in MET, showed a slight different way of executing but expressing the same idea. The point is, I find it interesting that Antonio seems to deliberately choose this style of cutting in my personal perception. It looks like he wants to emphasize lines and impressions instead of like most of his peers masters chose to focus and rendering on the expression of volume, light and shadows. I wonder if he was influenced by the rising Impressionism art of that era for the similar emphasis of the manipulation of lines.

 

The piece by Antonio appears to be an adaptation of one of the Poniotowski gems, & the majority of them are very stylized. See:

https://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/record/B73F949F-673F-4B3E-9341-976B77A50BC5

 

And yet notice how unnaturally Priam's cloak sticks out unsupported behind him and the folds are indicated by triangles. We cannot know whether all the work on a given piece is by the hand of the master, or whether some of it was assigned to an advanced apprentice.

 

you go girls !!!!!!

 

The idea of apprentice work involved is brilliant. I had the same thought as well. What I found intriguing is that many works that bears the same masters name sometimes have their slight differences in refinement. Some of them possibly forgery, but some of them, even though indicates different levels of intricacies, maintained the unique way or hobby of cut that belongs to the engraver. Pichlers differ from Girometti, Girometti differ from Morelli, and Antonio as well. Maybe a lesser Girometti lose to the finest Morelli, but the unique traits of cutting almost keeps the same, not mixing with one another.

 

I just won this. It's not in the greatest condition. But, I found it interesting, and supposedly the setting is 14k gold, and the cameo was advertised as ground shell. I'm guessing that's enamel that's cracking within the gold, and possibly the pearls are real.

If anyone has any info on this type of cameo and setting, please let me know. THANKS!

 

If the price was commensurate with condition & seller's idea of what they're selling, you probably got a good deal. I have no idea what this means:

Or rather, I know what you mean, but not what seller was thinking. Assuming these are listing pix? Think she will look much better after you clean her up. Looks like hardstone to me. Not currently wearable? Must have been brooch findings where that silvery metal is now. The irregular shapes the bezels need to accommodate the pearls is promising for their genuineness. In photo the roughed up places on the front of the mount don't look symmetrical enough to have been enameled, but you could be right. Let's look again when you have it in hand.

Very late 19th - early 20th century my best take on age.

 

Thank you.

Depending on shipping from MS for this, it'll be between $100 - $120. This could be rolled in a piece of bubblewrap, put in a small envelope and sent with tracking for under $5. So, it'll probably be $40 for shipping. I figure the price of gold makes it worth it. Overall it's a handsome piece. It'd be beautiful if whatever is between the gold wasn't falling apart. The background seems to be black, which is harder to find, and usually on the more expensive end.

She doesn't wear her cameos. She has an overflowing display case. She probably has enough to fill two.

 

My money's on sard/dark brown, but we'll know once she has had a bath. I still have no idea what 'ground shell' is.

 

that's a lot of enamel covering up a lot of gold...........

 

Oh, I'm glad you posted that. It reset my eyes & now I think I see what you see, & bald places do look like chipped enamel. I thought I was just seeing glare.

 

I have a somewhat similar cameo in a shadowbox on the wall in front of me, a pinkish Gibson girl type on what does appear to be a black background. On the other hand, I have a brooch, also a pinkish lady, who is on brown.

The little veil on yours could mean she is meant as one of the goddesses conventionally styled as a Roman matron, Juno/Hera or Ceres/Demeter.

 

I can see why it went relatively cheap. I saw the enamel damage immediately. The missing pinback wouldn't have thrown me. Two jump rings later and presto, she's a pendant!

 

I was pleasantly shocked that the auction house only charged me $5.20 for s/h. For this last piece -


I once paid $25 for an autographed Carpenters album, and they charged me $50 for s/h. Since they sent it media mail, that was $4.47.

 

A $45 handling fee is a hair steep, even by auction house standards. Glad she got to you without blood money fees.