Featured Eyes Have It: Are These Intaglios the Same?

I just noticed, with all the to-and-froing between the intaglios. There is a specific part of the male anatomy that seems to be more realistic in the amethyst one, and possibly the impression of the carnelian one as well, than on your intaglio.

 

That is how maddening trying to know what's there - anywhere - in these intaglios with only photos to go by. And the photos are easier than looking using a loupe. I thought mine actually gave the more explicit view:



He actually has a bit of his chlamys pulled into his lap, you can see some folds on his right thigh. Most of the time this sort of drapery is used for modesty. I just took a quick look with the microscope & here he's resting the base of the kithara on it, but it does not seem to extend far enough to give him some coverage.

 

ΠΑΜΦΙΛΟΥ

 

I would have thought this simply a label - for, "Pamphilus," either as founder of Pamphylia, or as artist.
.

 

The figure is Achilles, playing his kithara, sulking in his tent, so not that kind of label, which is seen on some gems, the identity of the subject. If by 'the artist' you mean the person who designed the art work, not the one who engraved the stone, that's a very interesting thought. These genitive forms are usually seen as being the name of the engraver or an owner.

 

Sorry for being obtuse. As the ownership mark of a Patron.

https://www.geni.com/people/Pamphilio-Pamphili/4722083112690060786

 

Certainly conceivable, if you accept the premise that the name was not put on immediately after the gem was finished.

 

Finally figured out how to overlay one image on another.

Amethyst over glass:



Glass over amethyst:

 

@Bronwen - "Ghosted," or did you set the eraser tool at 50% opacity for the image in the second layer?




J

 

It is a slider for opacity. I see the eraser tool can also be used in some way, but didn't try that. Second layer had to be below 50% to really see lines from both; I don't remember exactly what the setting was for each. I'm only just figuring out how to do this, so if you have pointers...

 

@cxgirl @Christmasjoy @i need help @sabre123 @shallow_ocean_spectre

Need your eyes & thoughts again. I was put in touch with someone who takes a special interest in ancient glass gems & has a huge collection of them. He is convinced the glass intaglio I have derives from the amethyst, even if perhaps some generations removed.

What is more difficult to determine by eye alone is whether or not the glass copy is ancient or modern (modern in this context is Renaissance up to today). A former Met curator told me that even with it in hand he probably could not be sure, but, largely because at the time this little fob seal was put together genuine paste gems were plentiful, he thought odds were the intaglio is a genuine antiquity.

My other contact leans toward modern. A major reason is the extreme scarcity of ancient gems that have come down today of which we have both the original & an ancient glass copy. Not impossible, highly improbable.

He also feels the intaglio does not have the right look for ancient glass. The blue & green intaglio in this photo is one he has no hesitation in declaring ancient. He sees the brown one as looking nothing like it in terms of surface texture. To me they are very much alike. What does everyone else see?

 

@Bronwen - I see a need for getting the "experts" to stop guessing. The technology for dating glass objects in the same fashion as Obsidian hydration dating, is now more than forty years old.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17778709

 

To my untrained eye, the surface textures look pretty similar. The only thing I see is the fine texture in the field (not the figure) looks a bit 'more defined' in your piece. Albeit, we're looking at two different magnifications.

 

I agree with SOS . Thanks Bronwen for tagging me but my knowledge of the makeup of the objects is absolutely zero .. I only understood the "difference from each other part" ... Joy.

 

@Christmasjoy - You're a step ahead of me. I got lost around, "Need your eyes & thoughts again...."
.

 

that is a tough one Brownwen Different people will see different things when looking at photos or even when they have it in hand

that is interesting, I wonder how someone could get a piece tested? With the thought that this piece might have some real age to it, maybe it would be possible to get it done? How exciting that would be

 

@cxgirl - It's a little on the steep side from what I understand, and intrinsic hydration rate dating does have its detractors - or skeptics, I suppose might be more accurate - but it's the sole non-destructive course, despite its ratio of absolute accuracy - generally +/- about 3 - 7 % of total age on smaller, thinner samples.
.

 

@cxgirl - It just struck me that maybe you were asking where testing was available. I know that the University of Wisconsin has a Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometer Laboratory where hydration can be evaluated for dating, if that helps.
.

 

First, thank you all for coming. None of us is an expert at distinguishing ancient glass from glass that is closer to modern. Christopher Lightfoot, until spring of this year, was the glass expert in the Met's Greek & Roman department. He was kind enough to reply to an inquiry. One of the first things he said was '...as regards your glass intaglio I would be reluctant to say, even if I handled the piece, whether it is ancient or of more recent manufacture.' His conclusion that it probably really is ancient was based on the ready availability of genuine Imperial Roman era paste gems during the Georgian period, which meant there was no profit to be had in fakes. Evidently nothing about it screamed 'modern' or 'fake' at him; he did not discard the possibility of antiquity right up front. I don't expect us, alone or collectively, to be able to come to a firmer conclusion.

However, Dr. Lighfoot's expertise is more with glass vessels than glass gems. Someone who has made more of a study of ancient glass gems is inclined to see the Achilles intaglio as modern (still maybe 300+ years old) for what is also a circumstantial reason, so wants to see the physical evidence as supporting this view. He does not see for Achilles, as he does for the blue & green intaglio of the drunken Silenus, sufficient 'bubbling' of the surface. I surmise this is a symptom of the surface hydration the test S_O_S mentions measures more precisely, & that the greater the degree of bubbling, the older the piece is seen to be.

To my eye, just as inexpert as any of yours, Achilles is every bit as bubbly as Silenus, & the corrosion in a spot that got dinged also looks very similar. So. With the blue & green intaglio as your standard, would you say the brown intaglio meets it or falls significantly short? You can see some other examples here:
https://www.pinterest.com/cameotimescom/ancient-banded-glass-intaglios/
The banded glass intaglios seem never to have been faked; the process is very involved & there are still lots of genuine ones around. They were being made 1800 - 2000 years ago, which makes them a good index for other ancient glass.

What say ye? Doth the gentleman bubble enough (compared to Silenus)?