Talk:Engraved gem

Merger proposal

This article discusses essentially the same process (the cutting and carving of gemstones) as the much older article Lapidary, but this article seems somewhat better referenced. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I've renamed the other Engraved gem and they cover related but different subjects in different ways. I think they nowe different enough to remove the merge tag. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Well-constructed Wikipedia articles nest within one another. The article Lapidary, if written well, encloses sub-articles such as this one, Tumble finishing and Diamond cutting, to give two parallel example. This article should be represented in concise summary at Lapidary, with the usual hatnote.--Wetman (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

National collections

I mentioned Paris, London and Vienna. Should the Hermitage Museum be included as on a par?--Wetman (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably, although I have no informed knowledge. They have the Gonzaga cameo & the Orleans collection, which was apparently famous - this might tell us. I'd overlooked this source, excellent as always, which certainly suggests so. They are in the text already. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sistine ceiling

Michelangelo derived two of the seated ignudi from engraved gems, but I couldn't tell you where I read that — before any of yez were born, probably.--Wetman (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't count on that! Also Donatello & plenty of others. Haskell might have something. At least we have a half-way decent explanation of the form up. I've set up Category:Engraved gem artists for various people previously made to seem gemcutters in the modern sense. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still in awe at how quickly you shape up these big subjects that still seem to form lacunae at Wikipedia, Johnbod. That Grove's article does set a high standard.--Wetman (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Possibly it's just as well I didn't come across the vast Beazley Archive site until the thing had taken shape. I relish the semi-greengrocer's apostrophe here. Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Engraved gem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150526135142/https://antiquities.library.cornell.edu/gems to https://antiquities.library.cornell.edu/gems

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Engraved gem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090408023951/http://forsyth.tamu.edu/cameobackground to http://forsyth.tamu.edu/cameobackground
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://antiquities.library.cornell.edu/gems/plaster-perspectives-on-magical-gems

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Aachen Germany Domschatz Cross-of-Lothair-01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Types

I have started it with nicolo. If many will be eventually added, worth forking them off, as there are dozens or hundreds of terms and they would add masses of text, but not yet.

Pls check out the next thread. Arminden (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe "types" is not the best choice of words; classification might be better. I was thinking of diamonds, which have names according to the way they are cut. Here there are several ways of classifying the engraved gems:

• by gem type
• by relief: positive (cameo) or negative (intaglio), broadly speaking
• by shape
• by size
• by technique

For some types, 2 or more criteria are relevant. The nicolo for instance fits at the intersection of gem type (onyx, blue-and-black) and technique (using layers, blue for image and black for background).

There is a good book at Wikimedia (here), and the already cited C.W. King book is a classic. But I'd first try to find a concise, systematic classification in a reference work.

A classification is very much needed and a main feature of an encyclopedia or any reference work. On Wiki it would allow redirects, and such cross-reference is essential and vital for any reference work. Arminden (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Superstitions, amulets etc.

I see only the Engraved gem: Types: Nicolo section I've just added deals with the belief in their energy, supernatural powers etc. It has to be expanded on in a dedicated section! This was throughout the centuries a big motivation for using them. Arminden (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Use of terms 'sculpting' and 'carving'

The relief page makes a strict distinction between stone sculpting and wood carving:

When a relief is carved into a flat surface of stone (relief sculpture) or wood (relief carving)...

On the relief carving page however, the distinction is completely suspended:

In wood carving, relief carving ... carved in a flat panel of wood; the same term is also used for carving in stone, ivory carving and various other materials.

For all I know, stone can indeed be very much 'carved', not just 'sculpted', but could a native-speaker please sort it out and clarify the use of the two verbs in a consistent manner on all the concerned pages? Thanks. Arminden (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree at all that the relief page (which I mostly wrote) makes a strict distinction between stone sculpting and wood carving. In fact the article begins: "Relief is a sculptural method in which the sculpted pieces remain attached to a solid background of the same material." The words are not exactly synonyms, and "carving" is certainly used more of wood and ivory than stone, but either can be used for all these materials. Not sure where your impressions come from. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing the reason you're confused is that you're thinking of them just as verbs, whereas English -- being the inconsistent language it is -- uses different terms for them when referring to the activity (verb) and its output (noun).

Both materials can be carved (the verb form). But I don't think we usually refer to a carved stone piece as "a stone carving" -- it's not a completely invalid term, but the common noun for carved stone is "sculpture". Whereas "a wood carving" is more vernacular than "a wood/wooden sculpture". Both are legitimate noun forms for wood, but "carving" is somewhat more common than "sculpture" for fully 3D works and much more common for relief works. At least in the particular dialect of American English I grew up with and was taught in. -- Avocado (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Functional and decorative pieces in wood are certainly carvings, but when you get into the realms of art history with statues and the like in wood, or for that matter ivory or wax, you certainly get sculpture, and sculptures. There's an element of the hierarchy of genres here. You certainly get "stone carvers", but they are likely to be doing gravestones and basic architectural work, whereas a "sculptor" is an artist. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Right. It's not that a wooden piece can't be or never is called a "sculpture". It's just that "carving" is the term that pops up most often in general, including for many pieces that are more than, say, words carved into a plank.

The key point being that the usage of the noun forms "carving", "carver", "sculpture", "sculptor" doesn't correspond directly to the usage of the verb forms "carve" and "sculpt" in terms of the name of the action matching the name of the outcome in English. A sculptor sculpts either wood or stone by carving it, producing a sculpture. A carver may or may not be sculpting their material, and their process of carving may produce a sculpture or a carving.

And more wooden than stone pieces are called "carvings" even if they're equally functional (even a typical gravestone, though it's been carved rather than sculpted, is neither "a sculpture" nor "a carving", vernacularly, and differs little in form and arguably not all that much in purpose from a carved wooden sign). -- Avocado (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I expect we've now got Arminden totally confused, and should probably leave it there! Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Lol, you're probably right.

To weigh in on the original question: both quotes are idiomatic and correct, and they do not contradict one another.

The reason is that the specific clause in the relief carving article that mentions stone uses "carving" as a verb, not a noun. Granted, the sentence is not the cleanest (using "carving" as both noun and verb in different clauses) and might benefit from copy editing. I'll make a small tweak, and maybe someone who doesn't have a meeting in a couple min can do more. -- Avocado (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Folks, thanks, that much I knew, but that's precisely why I was shocked to find the sentence quoted in my 1st posting, so Johnbod, sorry, but why should you ask where I got it from? Here it is again:

When a relief is carved into a flat surface of stone (relief sculpture) or wood (relief carving)...

The conclusion here would be that this categorically sounding distinction should be removed, right? Thanks, and I hope this tempest in a cuppa ;) will be over soon. Arminden (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean: it should be amended in a way that makes it sound less like the Oxford Dictionary for Beginners correcting people's vernacular mistakes from up on high :) Arminden (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that we have an article on relief (the source of that quote). Relief sculpture redirects there. But we have a separate article (relief carving) on the technique as applied to wood. The sentence would make a ton of sense if "relief sculpture" were a link to an article by that title focused on the technique as applied to stone.

And then, of course, the rest of the paragraph also mentions reliefs produced using additive media like stucco and papier mache, most of which I would consider to be sculpted -- they're certainly not carved.

I'll make a tweak to the lead for that clarity. LMK if it reads better to you? And feel free to revert. -- Avocado (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, there's an argument to be made that relief carving is too broadly titled and that the article by that title should also cover stone and other materials, while the current article might be called wood relief or something to that effect. -- Avocado (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks.

Real life caught up with me, so I'll have to leave it to you.

I did come across "carved stucco" plenty of times in archaeological contexts. So definitely valid.

Thanks and keep up the good work, Arminden (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)