.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The inscription, while formed of real letters, is impossible to read.
This is one of four vessels of this shape and large size to have been published. The other three are in the collection of Mrs Edouard André (G. Schmoranz, op.cit., fig. 30, p. 33), one in the 'ancient collection of the Löwenburg at Welhelmshöhe' (G. Schmoranz, op.cit., pl. 30, fig. 30) and one with Prince Yusuf Kamal (C.J. Lamm, op,.cit., Vol. II, pl. 182.2).
Schmoranz, while discussing the present piece, does a beautiful dissection of Garnier's effusive description (op.cit., p. 33, note). He put his own comments in square brackets. Quoting from Garnier, he begins: '"One of all the principal pieces of this interesting series is an immense goblet on which yellow and red enamel predominate" [nothing more now remains of the yellow than we found on the other glasses of the group bearing variegated enamel, that is, very little. Of the red there is only too much, and it is applied and gilt in the same way as on the goblet of the Cassel Gallery]. "The mantel is at the middle of its height dominated by a large Cufic inscription of rich polychromatic interlaced ornament with fantastical endings in zoomorphic heads" [the inscription however is not Cufic but in round characters]. He goes on to say that "we see a heraldic lion painted red" [the lion is blue!]. "The same lion is also found on a big long-necked bottle of blue glass (lot 10). These two pieces are, the one for its extraordinary size" [it is really not larger than the two tumblers above described], "the other by reason of its blue colour" [it is simply the deep ultramarine blue of all pieces of dark blue oriental glass] "quite unique examples, nothing analagous to which can be found in any other Museum or collection. Yet they are even more distinguished by the perfection of their ornament and the richness of their enamelling and gilding, than by their inestimable rarity; and we place them in the front rank amongst the finest productions of the glass-industry of all ages". The description and the appreciation, as may be observed, are inexact in many points'.
Schmoranz obviously was not enamoured of this beaker. Lamm however included it in his survey, even while noting that one of the two other large similar vessels, formerly in the collection of Mme. Edouard André, illustrated by Schmoranz was a 'modern fake' (op.cit., p. 406). All the motifs can be paralleled in fragments found in archaeological sites. The animal headed vine is found in gilt on the British Museum pilgrim flask (G. Schmoranz, op.cit., pls. XX and XXI) and in polychrome colours on a fragment (C. J. Lamm, op.cit., col. pl.D.9). Even the twin heads that terminate the eagle's tails are also on a fragment (C. J. Lamm, op.cit.., pl. 159.5). One could go through further motifs in a similar fashion, but at the end of the day we must agree with Schmoranz's doubts, thereby following Migeon who conspicuously omits it from his publications, even as he includes the blue bottle with the same provenance four times.
This is one of four vessels of this shape and large size to have been published. The other three are in the collection of Mrs Edouard André (G. Schmoranz, op.cit., fig. 30, p. 33), one in the 'ancient collection of the Löwenburg at Welhelmshöhe' (G. Schmoranz, op.cit., pl. 30, fig. 30) and one with Prince Yusuf Kamal (C.J. Lamm, op,.cit., Vol. II, pl. 182.2).
Schmoranz, while discussing the present piece, does a beautiful dissection of Garnier's effusive description (op.cit., p. 33, note). He put his own comments in square brackets. Quoting from Garnier, he begins: '"One of all the principal pieces of this interesting series is an immense goblet on which yellow and red enamel predominate" [nothing more now remains of the yellow than we found on the other glasses of the group bearing variegated enamel, that is, very little. Of the red there is only too much, and it is applied and gilt in the same way as on the goblet of the Cassel Gallery]. "The mantel is at the middle of its height dominated by a large Cufic inscription of rich polychromatic interlaced ornament with fantastical endings in zoomorphic heads" [the inscription however is not Cufic but in round characters]. He goes on to say that "we see a heraldic lion painted red" [the lion is blue!]. "The same lion is also found on a big long-necked bottle of blue glass (lot 10). These two pieces are, the one for its extraordinary size" [it is really not larger than the two tumblers above described], "the other by reason of its blue colour" [it is simply the deep ultramarine blue of all pieces of dark blue oriental glass] "quite unique examples, nothing analagous to which can be found in any other Museum or collection. Yet they are even more distinguished by the perfection of their ornament and the richness of their enamelling and gilding, than by their inestimable rarity; and we place them in the front rank amongst the finest productions of the glass-industry of all ages". The description and the appreciation, as may be observed, are inexact in many points'.
Schmoranz obviously was not enamoured of this beaker. Lamm however included it in his survey, even while noting that one of the two other large similar vessels, formerly in the collection of Mme. Edouard André, illustrated by Schmoranz was a 'modern fake' (op.cit., p. 406). All the motifs can be paralleled in fragments found in archaeological sites. The animal headed vine is found in gilt on the British Museum pilgrim flask (G. Schmoranz, op.cit., pls. XX and XXI) and in polychrome colours on a fragment (C. J. Lamm, op.cit., col. pl.D.9). Even the twin heads that terminate the eagle's tails are also on a fragment (C. J. Lamm, op.cit.., pl. 159.5). One could go through further motifs in a similar fashion, but at the end of the day we must agree with Schmoranz's doubts, thereby following Migeon who conspicuously omits it from his publications, even as he includes the blue bottle with the same provenance four times.