Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Rande Bly of Birmingham wrote in last week a piece of about the beginnings of Intarsia. He addressed seeking examples of the beginnings of Intarsia by seeking pieces that used the “cintra” method; something contrasted with “Controlled Cintra.” Well, let’s let Rande explain.

When I use the term cintra I am talking about the method of construction not Steuben’s Cintra. Small c and capital C. Small c being the method and capital C being the proper noun for Steuben Cintra. I hope I have not used the term cintra (method) carelessly. I considered it to be a method like crackle, cased, cire perdue(just means lost wax), or acid cut back that could be used by any glassmaker. On top of that I have not checked my original article to see if every small c and every capital C was used properly in every instance. I am calling any time you pick up powdered glass with a gather of glass cintra(method). You can even pick up chunks or small pieces and it does not have to be screened and it will still be cintra method. Cintra method also does not have to have the final layer of clear on the outside. This would make it a 2 layer cintra method and give the surface a coarse texture.

I asked for a controlled cintra example. Here is one.

http://wichitaartmuseum.org/acm/detail.php?action=v&id=1280952471987536

I can easily see now why I have failed with some to get my point across. I am really at a loss and see no other way but to start from the beginning.

Gardner was describing an experimental Intarsia of 1916-17 that went into production 1920-21. We need to view his 1929-30 Intarsia to understand where his experimental pieces started and ended up. What were his goals? Even though some thick pieces exist it was his general goal for the finished pieces to be approximately 1/16 to 1/8 of an inch thick. He wanted a trapped design. He wanted 3 layers of glass. He wanted the design to be transparent colored crystal. His preference was to trap the design between two layers of clear crystal. This was not an absolute requirement because we know he made a French Blue piece with Amethyst trapped design. In this piece however the open field was still transparent French Blue and the design was transparent Amethyst.

OK now where he started with experimental Intarsia was to use a cintra method. A controlled cintra method. The catch was he did not want the finished product to look like His other Cintra pieces. He wanted the pieces to be very transparent and very delicate. He wanted pieces that resembled his 1930 Intarsia pieces nothing at all that resembled his Cintra pieces. As far as I know his trapped designs came in only two kinds. Geometric patterns and flowers. The parameters have been set. To me the geometric designs would be easier than the flowers. The simplest of the geometric patterns was the 1930’s zig zag I showed in the shape 7052 line drawing. The flowers would be the hardest. He had to start somewhere with his experiments and I see him starting with simple narrow straight line stripes and or a geometric zig zag. Nonetheless using a cintra method these designs were hard to control and very difficult to keep the distortion down throughout the entire process. In a larger design such as a flower pedal the trapped design would begin to lose its color and sharpness through expansion as it was blown. No matter whether Carder was fully satisfied or not these experimental pieces were placed into production 1920-21.

Later in 1929-30 he devised a new method. It was through a casing and cutting method. Simple in idea but very difficult to produce. A gather of clear glass(French Blue in one example) was taken and a small bubble was blown to inhibit distortion by limiting expansion of the design. This was cased in colored transparent crystal. The colored crystal was cut away leaving the desired pattern. The piece was returned to the pot to be cased one last time in clear crystal. The piece was then blown into the finished product. Yes sounds simple but was not due to the limitations of 1/16 to 1/8 thickness of the finished product. Matter of fact it took the best of the craftsman Johnny Jansen. Enough on the perfected Intarsia we all know and let’s return to this search for the experimental pieces.

What we are looking for is. Trapped design in geometric or floral, most likely geometric because of its simplicity. A cintra method. Three layers of glass. Finished product 1/16 to 1/8 of an inch thick. Design trapped between two layers of clear crystal. Or a transparent colored crystal such as French Blue or Topaz, with transparent colored trapped design, then cased in clear crystal. Design must be made from fragments or powdered and sifted glass. Finished product must be delicate in nature. Even though a cintra method was used the piece will not resemble Steuben’s Cintra in appearance at all but will display an overall distinct transparency.

I apologize for perhaps using the term cintra loosely. The chance is there I have also used it incorrectly and that Carder is the inventor of Cintra and it was not a term used to describe a method of production that existed before Carder’s time. We find this same mistake when the term Aurene is used today to describe non Carder glass. I will research this and report back.

Linda Feuer, of Linda’s Unique Antique of New York, N.Y. adds her thoughts on the economy:

I have been following the discussion of the economy effecting Steuben glass. A few months ago I bought a collection of high end pieces of Steuben glass.. I found that there was no problem selling them, and have sold most of them.. I agree that the high end Steuben will continue to be collectable.

Then Carol Ketchum of Genoa, New York adds an electrical shop name to our repertoire:

On a small basis, there is such a shop in Aurora, NY, but MacKenzie-Childs there does a much larger business with locals. Carol

Any opinions expressed by participants to the Gazette are the opinions of the authors and are not endorsed by or the opinions of the Carder Steuben Club