Featured Imaginings about our Stuff

I just read an enjoyable post by @Ex Libris concerning an imagined possible link of a found item to Vincent van Gogh. I, too, have sometimes imagined an interesting connection concerning some of my finds. We can't be the only ones...

How about sharing some of your (plausible) stories? Hopefully, there is some little oddity about your item that actually makes the story possible, or even probable, such as where it was found, a marking on the item, etc. And if your research proved your imaginings to be true, even better!

Here's my little story:

Late in 2013, I purchased this ladies suit, c.1915-1919, from a Detroit-area estate sale, the sellers could offer no history on it. The only label inside was from a Chicago store called Carson Pirie Scott Co. In setting the suit up for my rather amateur photos, I noticed it had a few scattered tiny purple dots, like dye had bled, diagonally across the front of the jacket. (Unfortunately, I didn't save a photo of them and they were really only visible upon close inspection.) The silk jersey suit would have been expensive in it's day and was likely a custom order.



I thought it an odd, rather outlandish, color... a sort of mustard gold (my photo is poorly lit). It would be strikingly noticeable when strolling down the lane! And what could have caused those little purple dots?

In researching the Chicago store, I happened to come across this photo, which had the caption, "Janet Ayer Fairbank, of Chicago, center, was a prominent suffragette who had the honor of being the grand marshall for the suffrage parade held on a rainy June 7, 1916. More than 5,000 suffragettes marched in Chicago to the Republican National Convention in a heavy rainstorm to push for woman to have the right to vote."



Apparently, some well-to-do women even had outfits designed for themselves for this parade... including trousers!
"A woman models her marching costume for Chicago's suffrage parade, June 6, 1916. The parade was held on June 7, 1916, during the Republican National Convention in Chicago. More than 5,000 suffrage supporters marched during a large rainstorm."



During my research, I found out that, unlike the UK where the suffrage colo(u)rs were purple, green, and white, in the USA suffrage colors were golden yellow, purple, and white.

Maybe my original suit-owner was a suffragette who wore a golden yellow silk jersey suit and a purple sash during a rainy day march/parade! That could explain those little purple spots that ran diagonally across the front of the jacket.

There is no way of knowing for sure, of course, but it's an interesting possibility!

 

Just thrilling! The secret life of clothes.

Debora

 

That's a pretty suit.
Did you sell it or keep it?
In my younger day, I would have worn it.

 

Very nice suit, and it could be possible.

Love that one, and her big grin too. Yay suffragettes!

 

The Carson Pirie Scott Building, designed by one of the most prominent architects in U.S. History, Louis Sullivan, is also fascinating. The building is still there in Chicago, although I think it may be called The Sullivan Center or something similar these days.

Cool story!

 

I sold it... but often wish I didn't.
I purchased it for only $25 and it sold for over $300.
If I still had it today, I wouldn't let it go for under twice that amount.

 

Be sure to watch (or record if your schedule requires) "The Vote" on PBS, July 6 and 7! https://www.pbs.org/about/blogs/new...feminist-leaders-and-modern-day-changemakers/

 

@bluumz A story behind an old object makes the object so much more interesting! A great story, even when you cannot 100% prove it is a suffragette's dress.

 

There are several specials on this month that deal with the Suffragettes & the Woman's movement. My ETV program guide shows programs on 4/2 @ 9:30 PM, 7/10 @ 9:00 PM, 7/12 @5:00 PM & 7/19 @ 5:00 PM.

 

Interesting, Peggy. Our local channels must be working off different schedules and programs.

 

7/2 - By One Vote: Woman Suffrage in the South - about the vote by Tennessee to ratify the 19th amendment.

7/10 - Unladylike 2020: American Experience - explores the stories of pioneering women in America.

7/12 - Daring Women Doctors: Physicians in the 19th Century - about women who faced resistance to their medical educations.

7/19 - Carrie Chapman Catt: Warrior for Women - A suffragette who was president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association & started the League of Woman Voters.

 

Ah! They are showing Unladylike here, but at a different time and under the "American Masters" banner instead of American Experience. Haven't found the other 2 yet. They may have been shown here during Women's History Month or might be available on Passport.

 

What I am imagining: that I have a Roman glass intaglio that is a copy of a celebrated amethyst intaglio in the Paris national collection, made before the name Pamphilos was inscribed on it, & that this has implications for the authenticity of the name as an actual signature, which it is accepted to be. I am still litigating this one.

Eyes Have It: Are These Intaglios the Same?
The posted question was whether this drab little glass intaglio is an exact copy of the amethyst, except for the signature. The community was invited to point out discrepancies.



A second important question was one we could not answer here & even the experts I was able to contact had to punt on whether or not the glass is ancient Roman or closer to us in time. A third question has been raised by an eminent scholar in Germany of whether the name, which this scholar is certain is the signature of the gem engraver, is too delicately inscribed to have been picked up in the replica.

The most exciting outcome for me would be: for the glass to be declared such a faithful copy that the mold from which it was made must itself have been made using an impression taken directly from the stone; for it to be decided that with the level of detail shown in the glass being so great, it is impossible not to find some trace of the name; & for the glass gem to be confirmed as ancient, made before the name was added.

The least exciting outcome would be a judgement that the gem is modern (Renaissance or later) & was taken from some other gem with the same scene.

An ancient glass gem taken from a different stone would still be something to treasure. A modern glass gem taken from the Paris amethyst could only be explained, without either kicking a hornets' nest concerning the authenticity of the signature or spinning highly improbable stories to account for its absence, by the shallow inscription hypothesis, that other delicate details were preserved, just not the signature.



Two people consulted only about the age of the glass, a former curator in the Greek & Roman department of the Met & the ancient glass specialist at the Corning Museum of Glass, both said they could not be certain, even with the piece in front of them, that the glass was Roman, but nothing about it ruled it out. For circumstantial reasons, such as the poor profit to effort ratio of making a fake, they felt the odds are that it is Roman.

Another person, the friend of a gem collecting friend, who regarded himself as an expert in ancient glass gems, was convinced the glass is the same as the amethyst. However, because of the extreme rarity of ancient engraved gem-ancient glass gem replica pairs, he worked very hard to deny the age of the glass.

An emeritus professor at Oxford, a big name in the field, feels strongly that the glass gem copies the amethyst & is equally old.

The latest opinion came a couple of days ago from another big name in the field, an honorary professor in Bonn. She does not question the glass gem's being a copy of the amethyst; she could go either way on the age of the glass; she seems inclined to the idea that the signature was already present on the amethyst when the glass gem was made, getting lost in the process of taking an impression of the amethyst then creating another intaglio by making an impression of that. (Intaglio to cameo & back to intaglio.)

On the age of the glass: 2 for probably ancient; 1 for almost certainly ancient; 1 for maybe/maybe not ancient; 1 for definitely not ancient.

On the source of the image: 2 not asked; 3 for a copy of the amethyst; Antiquers community was mixed pro & con.

Only the German expert brought up the possibility that the glass gem was taken from the amethyst after it was signed but did not preserve the inscription. This would solve the difficulties posed by a modern glass gem, eliminating the need for some implausible story to explain the complete absence of the name.

Although it is difficult to see how the glass gem could have picked up so much fine detail from either side of the space where the name is on the amethyst without also capturing at least fragments of the name, this is worth further exploration.

Unfortunately, the real test is not likely ever to be performed. There may be just as much wishful thinking & investment of reputations in preserving as unquestionable truth that Pamphilos is the name used by a gem engraver working approx. 2,000 years ago, who engraved the amethyst & signed his name to it as there is in my believing that the name may not be original to the stone & that my eBay purchase shows it.

 

Thought you might enjoy a bit about suffragists who were not well-to-do. Love that on one day they had to share the front page with a groundhog:

https://blog.cmog.org/2020/07/02/women-in-glasshouses-a-new-blog-series/

 

This looks very interesting, thank you!