Re: [Ancientartifacts] Re: Cypriot jug ex Passage to Antiquity, USA

No, the tests did not remove the surface down to the clay. So the surface is still the same colour. But the outer layer of the surface came off readily. The jug does not look "altered" as Ernie has suggested.   

----- Original Message ----
From: letitflyantiques1 <>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2008 4:24:48 AM
Subject: [Ancientartifacts] Re: Cypriot jug ex Passage to Antiquity, USA


Did the tests made with adetone leave any readily visible spots on
the surface?

--- In Ancientartifacts@ yahoogroups. com, Stephen Churley
<churley482@ ...> wrote:
> Hello Ernie,
> Rolf Kiaer of Helios Gallery has very kindly examined the Cypriot
jug over the weekend and I am publishing his professional opinion
> You will see that he concludes that the jug is in considerably
worse condition  than your COA suggested.
> In the light of his opinion, I now ask you - for the final time -
if you will PLEASE give me a full refund of $500 as per
your "unconditional" guarantee.
> I have uploaded 3 pics of the Cypriot jug for the Group's benefit.
> Cheers,
> Stephen Churley
> Rolf's opinion:
> "Following your request I have conducted a visual examination of
the pot which you sent to me and the following comments constitute my
professional opinion to the best of my ability based on a visual
inspection only in the absence of any intrusive or protracted
> The pot is a small jug with a single vertical handle, long neck and
widening bulbous body. The surface is burnished and incised with
linear decoration. I believe that the pot complies with an
attribution to the Cypriot Early Bronze Age and I do not suspect its
authenticity if determined to be of this period and culture.
> The majority of the outisde of the pot is covered in a fine coating
of "over-painting" i.e. a pigment applied by a restorer in order to
mask damage or give the surface an even colouration throughout. This
paint is not translucent and therefore the underlying fabric can not
be inspected without its removal and this severely limits my ability
to inspect it accurately.
> I believe that the rim, handle and neck of the pot are extensively
restored (reconsructed with non-ancient materials), the extent is
unclear without removing the over-painting but I believe it
exceeds half of the possible original material.
> The body of the pot is covered by quite extensive over-painting and
therefore it is only possible to inspect the underlying fabric where
it is exposed. In the exposed areas I could not detect any
restoration though this should not be construed as an opinion on the
areas which are unexamined (see below). I believe the over-painting
conceals considerable surface damage/erosion on the body and the
presence of Plaster of Paris would indicate that there may be some
reconstruction or restoration although I'm unable to confirm this.
Much of the white infill in the incised linear decoration is Plaster
of Paris also. Overlaps and alterations in the plaster and over-
painting indicate that the appearance of the pot was altered on at
least two separate occasions, it is not possible to indicate a date
for this but the pigment used in the over-painting appears to be
synthetic and therefore of relatively modern manufacture. Surface
irregularities to the upper
> parts of the shoulder and to the left profile of the body (if
viewing the pot with the handle to the rear) indicate but do not
confirm the likelihood of restoration but this can not be confirmed
without the removal of the over-painting.
> Based on my visual inspection I would describe the pot as
being "restored on the rim, neck and handle, and with extensive re-
painting and surface damage as well as possible restoration on the
body". A fuller examination would be time-consuming and costly, and I
would therefore advise against this action unless no alternative
solution can be found."
> Rolf Kiaer
> Helios Gallery Antiquities
> www.heliosgallery. com
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Passtoant@. .." <Passtoant@. ..>
> To: Ancientartifacts@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2008 10:15:00 PM
> Subject: [Ancientartifacts] Cypriot jug
> Hello all.
> For some strange reason I have received no postings regarding the
subject item.
> Stephen Chruley is partly correct in what I have seen.
> The jug has been restored as stated in my CoA. However, I hold that
the jug was altered by his application of acetone and is not in the
same condition as when it was shipped to him. I also believe he has
an ulterior motive in demanding a refund.
> When the jug was delivered to him he advised me in an
email ......"The piece arrived today and I am very pleased with it. I
have been wanting one of these for some time and they don't often
appear on the market. Although the handle has been re-attached and
there is some restoration to the rim, I think it's a pretty good
example for the price. The burnished red colour is lovely.
> And there were no Customs charges or VAT!
> Thanks again and best wishes."
> I hold that Mr. Churley found a jug in better condition that he
wanted more then the one in which he expressed so much pleasure and
now wants a refund. I will not give him one.. And, the jug was
in "extremely good condition."
> I made no claims that the CoA referred solely to the authenticity
and not to condition. I did state that the jug had been restored.
> Mr. Chruley is correct in that condition cannot be dissociated from
authenticity and that is the reason that both are addressed in my
> Thank you
> Tim, can you explain whey I am not receiving posts?
> Ernie Krumbein


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe


Amazon Video

bUy dvds OnlInE