Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Bronwen, post: 2339327, member: 5833&quot;]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, &amp; that this has implications for the authenticity of the name as an actual signature, which it is accepted to be.&nbsp; I am still litigating this one.</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.antiquers.com/threads/eyes-have-it-are-these-intaglios-the-same.44251/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.antiquers.com/threads/eyes-have-it-are-these-intaglios-the-same.44251/">Eyes Have It: Are These Intaglios the Same?</a></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]260538[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>A second important question was one we could not answer here &amp; 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.&nbsp; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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; &amp; for the glass gem to be confirmed as ancient, made before the name was added.</p><p><br /></p><p>The least exciting outcome would be a judgement that the gem is modern (Renaissance or later) &amp; was taken from some other gem with the same scene.</p><p><br /></p><p>An ancient glass gem taken from a different stone would still be something to treasure.&nbsp; A modern glass gem taken from the Paris amethyst could only be explained, without either kicking a hornets&#039; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]260537[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Two people consulted only about the age of the glass, a former curator in the Greek &amp; Roman department of the Met &amp; 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.&nbsp; For circumstantial reasons, such as the poor profit to effort ratio of making a fake, they felt the odds are that it is Roman.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.&nbsp; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>An emeritus professor at Oxford, a big name in the field, feels strongly that the glass gem copies the amethyst &amp; is equally old.</p><p><br /></p><p>The latest opinion came a couple of days ago from another big name in the field, an honorary professor in Bonn.&nbsp; She does not question the glass gem&#039;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.&nbsp; (Intaglio to cameo &amp; back to intaglio.)</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>On the source of the image: 2 not asked; 3 for a copy of the amethyst; Antiquers community was mixed pro &amp; con.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.&nbsp; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>Unfortunately, the real test is not likely ever to be performed.&nbsp; There may be just as much wishful thinking &amp; 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 &amp; signed his name to it as there is in my believing that the name may not be original to the stone &amp; that my eBay purchase shows it.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in