A Christian saint and the mother of Constantine the Great.

While surfing for info on Tommaso Cades, I came across an article entitled “Helena’s Hidden Gems” on a website called “WRITING HELENA”.

In the article the author, Julia Hillner, describes her beginner’s introduction to engraved gems, which sounded very familiar. She is writing a book about Helena, a Christian saint and the mother of Constantine the Great, which is scheduled to be published later this year.

Julia (the web immediately puts everyone on a first name basis) was searching for images of Helena in Delbrück’s Spätantike Kaiserporträts. She came upon photographs of two intaglio plaster casts purported to be Helena (Middle row in the image at left). They were labeled ns. 4 & 5.

As usual, I immediately went down the rabbit hole.

As part of  her introduction to the glyptic arts, Julia located a plaster cast copy (on the left 2nd row, 2nd from left) of the first image, by Tommaso Cades, (photo n. 4) in the Akademische Kunstmuseum in Bonn. The museum’s ancient gem expert agreed with other authorities that it did not represent Helena. New mystery — who is this woman?

She found a plaster cast copy of the second image, again by Tommaso Cades, (photo n.5) in the German Archaeological Institute (DAI) in Rome.  The find is documented in her tweet, “Cades Dactyliotheca at the DAI in Rome…” In the photo at the right, top row third from left is a cast of a gem showing Helena, bottom row third from left is Fausta (Helena’s daughter-in-law, the second wife of Constantine the Great).

In a comment below the article Julia wrote: “…although further research and conversations with gem specialists have revealed that it (cast of photo n.5) probably isn’t Helena at all.  Having said this, I would be very interested if you find other copies of this portrait and the Fausta one on the row below….”

What a challenge — I set to work.

First. was a search of the trusty James Tassie 1791 Catalogue by R.E. Raspe and the related Beazley Archive image database. This one was easy because the search for “Helena” in the Catalogue (Vol II p.664) quickly led me to,  “HELENA, wife of Constantine.   12121] CORNELIAN. —–(With a bezle.)   A bust of Helena FL. HEL. “

Searching for No. “12121” in the Beazley Archive’s James Tassie databas found images (original and one with alternate light) that were quite similar, if not identical, to both the photo n.5 in  Julia’s original publication and to the Cades’ Helena found at the DAI in Rome. (See images below.)

The entry in the 1791 Catalogue clearly identifies the subject of the gem as “HELENA, wife of Constantine.”

The 1791 Catalogue Indices, “A Reference from the Numbers of the Old (Tassie) Catalogue (1775) to the New.”, indicates that the impression was listed as No. 2404 in the previous 1775 Catalogue (at right). The entry in that Catalogue on p.84 reads, “FLAVIA HELENA, mother of Constantine the Great. Cornelian”

Next, a very good likeness of the n. 5 image was found on the Cades database, also located on the Beazley Archive website. This image seems to be a photo of the trays that Julia viewed at the DAI in Rome. The manuscript catalogue, referenced in the Archive’s introduction, is not available on the Beazley Archive website, nor could it be found on the DAI website. It may provide additional identification information, although Cades was active after Tassie and other possible sources (about 1800 to 1850) so his documentation would probably be based on theirs – recall that the cast was listed in Tassie’s 1775 catalogue.

Helena or Julia Procla — Who?

The mystery of the identity of the subject of the number 4 cast was also solved through the perusal of the Beasley Archive’s James Tassi image database. The image was found to be number 12597. The identification text in the Raspe 1791 Tassie Catalogue states that this was a cornelian in the Florentine Cabinet “Called” Julia Procla, the wife of Probus. The reference to Lippert II 304 was not found. Again, using the old to new numbers index in Raspe, the stone is identified in the Tassie 1775 Catalogue as No. 1478, an “unknown queen” cornelian gem in the Grand Duke’s cabinet (Florence).

“Lippert II 304” (Lippert’s Dactyliothec 1767, .pdf 486/924) in the Tassie entry indicates that, “…the present stone looks very much like…” the bust of Julia Procla as seen on a coin identified in “de Wilde Numism (?)” selection t.8. n. 45. [MyI: Jacob de Wilde (1645–1721) was a coin collector and apparently had authored a catalog]. Lippert continues that, ” The scholars, such as Seguini, Strada, Harduinus and others, are not unanimous as to whether they see Proclus as the wife of the raiser Probus, a grammarian and consul under Marcus Uurelius.” [MyI: The original passage is in German – this is the usual very rough translation].

Fausta or Faustina?

As to the image of Fausta shown below on left, that of Helena in the Cades’ collection viewed by Julia in Rome, it also was found in the Beazley Archive James Tassie database at number 11839 (shown below on the right). It is identified in the Raspe Tassie Catalogue under the sub-heading of the “Heads of Faustina” (main heading “FAUSTINA MINOR”), a cornelian with a reference “Lipp. II. 758). Faustina Minor (c. 130A.D. – 175 A.D.) was also an empress of Rome, but lived about 150 years before Fausta. There is no corresponding image listed in the Tassie 1775 Catalogue.

No reference to Fausta could be found in either Tassie catalogue

The middle image below is from the Beazley Archive Cades database that corresponds to the one Julia viewed in Rome.  The apparent differences between the two Cades images is probably due to camera lenses – the cast is located in exactly the same position in both collections, no. 628.

The reference “Lipp. II. 758” from Lippert’s 1767 Dactyliotheca only identifies the gem as being carnelian with no identifying narrative, however, this image in the Tassie database is very similar to one found in the Beazley Archive Lippert database (Lippert’s 1755 Dactyliotheca), First Thousand, Part II, no. 403, also identified as Faustina Minor. You’ll have to take my word for it, as far as the image goes, because there is a reuse restriction plastered across the image. The text identification translates roughly as, “403 Another image of Faustina the lesser, from another source, now certain, is an image in a small gem.”

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of the gem in the Tassie Catalogues, as being Helena, would most certainly be based on the inscription on the stone — “HEL.” on the ground at the front of the bust and “FL.” at the rear. This would have been an abbreviation for “Flavia Helena”, Flavia being the family of her husband and often used in her official title. “FLHELENA” was used on many of the coins with her image (click on coin image to enlarge).

In addition, in both the Cades and Tassie collections, the cast is placed among others that depict Constantine and his family.

It’s curious why, as Julia mentioned in her comment, “…further research and conversations with gem specialists have revealed that it probably isn’t Helena at all.”

There is no source, i.e., possessor or cabinet noted in either Tassie Catalogue description, therefore it seems probable that the mold was not an original taken by Tassie (who usually listed that information, if it was known or if he made the original mold), but obtained from some other molder such as Lippert, Stosch or Dehn. Regrettably, a quick scan of the available databases of works by these individuals did not result in finding a copy of the impression.

The indication that the original gem was “cornelian” suggests that there was some documentation with the mold, whatever its source.

It’s very possible that the original cornelian gem is not contemporaneous with Helena but, in fact, was engraved at some later date, based on images on coins, etc. It would take examination by an expert to opine on the likely date that the original stone was engraved.

Also, it’s interesting to note that the inscriptions would have read correctly on the original cornelian stone. Normally, letters and symbols are shown in mirror image on the intaglio so they read correctly on a cast or seal.

The “Fausta” image.

Its clear that Cades identified the woman’s image as Fausta because the impression is placed amongst other impressions of Constantine in his collection, however, it’s difficult to understand why he would do that in light of the identification as Faustina Minor by at least two molders who went before him and of whose collections and catalogues he was keenly aware. Just a difference of opinion?

Based primarily on the fact that both Tassie and Lippert identify the image as Faustina Minor and that they made these assertions some 50 or more years before Cades opined it was Fausta, it is highly likely that this is an the image of Faustina Minor

The other indicator that this image is of Faustina Minor and not Fausta is demonstrated through comparison of hairdos. The coins of Fausta have a completely different hairdo whereas the coins of Faustina have ones quite similar to the plaster impressions.

On October 14, 2021 there were seven lots of various types of intaglios up for bid at Dominic Winter Auctioneers. (Scroll down a little to see and expand each lot). They included some rather unique collections of red sulfur and Original and paste intaglios. They seemed to go at attractive prices; ones which I would have been very interested in. What do you think?

In a letter written in Pisa to Thomas Love Peacock dated 21 Mar 1821 Shelley had the following request,  “I want you to do something for me: that is, to get me two pounds’ worth of Tassie’s gems, in Leicester Square, the prettiest, according to your taste; among them the head of Alexander; and to get me two seals engraved and set, one smaller, and the other handsomer; the device a dove with outspread wings, and this motto around it: 

[ MyI: If anyone, who may be conversant in Greek, has the translation of the motto, please leave it in the comment area below.  My optimism is unabated!]

From: SELECT LETTERS OF PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY, Edited with an Introduction by Richard Garnett, D. Appleton and Company, 1896, p157;  online at  https://www.google.com/books/edition/Selected_Letters_of_Percy_Bysshe_Shelley/1cvTAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=shelley+tassie+gem+motto&pg=PA157&printsec=frontcover 

These references to Tassie are no doubt to William Tassie, James Tassie’s nephew who, himself an engraver of note, took over the Tassie business after the death of James in 1799.  This interest by Shelley, who was in Italy at the time, further attests to the popularity of these seals in the first part of the 19^th century.  Now all we need to discover is that Lord Byron also was a Tassie aficionado — the story would be complete.

12 October 10:00 AM EDT | Live auction 19992

Antiquities

New York

On May 12 & 13, 2021 Dominic Winter Auctioneers, based in the Cotswold Water Park in Gloucestershire (UK)  held an auction entitled “Printed Books, Maps & Documents, Numismatics: The Patricia Milne-Henderson Collection” which included three lots of 19th century plaster intaglio impressions.  As shown below, the prices realized for the impressions were impressive! 

The hammer price was quoted in GBP with the days bank exchange rate at about US$1.44/1 GBP.  Buyer’s premium was 24% for Lot 202 and 20% for Lots 242 and 243.

First was lot No. 202  Lot 202 – Grand Tour Plaster Intaglios, 19th century (dominicwinter.co.uk)  “Grand Tour Plaster Intaglios. A collection of approximately 2,750 miniature plaster intaglios of classical and neo-classical subjects, contained in 49 trays, Italian, circa 1820-40, each intaglio edged in pale yellow paper, with rope twist gilt border, manuscript number in ink to each, contained in 49 deal wooden trays, each lined with blue-green paper, many trays with a number of intaglios no longer present….”

Based on the pictures the trays appeared to have little value and the condition of the individual intaglio plasters varied from quite good to poor ones with more age staining than physical damage.  The hammer price was £8,500 or about US$15,200 (including buyer’s premium).  Average price per piece comes to about US$ 5.52.  If one had the time and inclination to list and sell the individual pieces online at the going rate of around US$30, there could possibly be a nice profit in someone’s future.

Next was lot 242. Lot 242 – Paoletti (Bartolomeo and Pietro). A (dominicwinter.co.uk)  “Paoletti (Bartolomeo, 1757-1834, and Pietro, 1801-1847). A collection of 300 plaster cameos (or intaglios) presented in seven leather-bound double-sided faux book boxes, Rome, circa 1820, 300 white plaster intaglios, or impronte, being miniature impressions in relief of ancient gems, cameos, coins and medals, as well as modern sculptures and portraits, each bordered with pale yellow paper (with manuscript number added), and edged in gilt… spines gilt-decorated and each lettered in gilt PAOLETTI, rubbed, and some scuffs and marks (generally in good condition), 8vo (24.5 x 16 cm)”

The books and plasters appeared to be in “antique aged” good condition. The lot hammer price was £9,000 or about US$15,500 (including buyer’s premium); that comes to about US$2,200 per book.

Last was lot No. 243 Lot 243 – Paoletti (Pietro, 1801-1847). A collection (dominicwinter.co.uk)  “Paoletti (Pietro, 1801-1847). A collection of 158 plaster cameos (or intaglios), presented in five leather-bound double-sided faux book boxes, Rome, circa 1835-40, 158 white plaster intaglios, or impronte, being miniature impressions in relief of ancient gems, cameos, coins and medals, as well as modern sculptures and portraits, each bordered with pale yellow or black paper (with manuscript numbers added in ink), edged in gilt…spines gilt-decorated, and lettered in gilt PAOLETTI IMPRONTE, (5th volume lettered Paoletti, 6, Munumenti in Vari Luoghi), some intaglios loose, one or two with a little damage, bindings generally rubbed and with some marks, 8vo (24.5 x 16 cm).”

The books and plasters appeared to be in fair to good condition.  The lot hammer price was £4,200 or about US$7,250 (including buyer’s premium); that comes to about US$1,450 per book.

Similar sale:

A set of three comparable Liberotti “books” in similar condition, containing 102 impressions sold at auction in March 2021 (Nadeau’s Auction Gallery  https://www.nadeausauction.com/lot-details/?lot=187667  ) for US$3,050, including buyer’s premium.

Other Goodies:

The Dominic Winter auction was a treasure trove of original documents and books related mainly to Numismatics, but with some real finds in the engraved gem area.  There were, for example, two lots, each with original copies of Mariette’s “Traite des pierees…” dated 1750.

Lot 226 – Mariette (Pierre-Jean). Traité des pierres (dominicwinter.co.uk) “Mariette (Pierre-Jean). Traité des pierres gravées / Recueil des pierres gravées du Cabinet du Roy, 2 volumes, 1st edition, Paris, de l’imprimerie de l’auteur, 1750, [10 including engraved title and dedication leaves], 468 [plus 447*-448*]…” 

The lot sold for US$4,150 (including buyer’s premium).

And  Lot 227 – Mariette (Pierre-Jean). Traité des pierres (dominicwinter.co.uk)  “Mariette (Pierre-Jean). Traité des pierres gravées / Recueil des pierres gravées du Cabinet du Roy, 2 volumes, 1st edition, Paris, de l’imprimerie de l’auteur, 1750, [10 including half-title, engraved title and dedication leaves], 468 [plus 447*-448]… together with:“Caylus (Anne Claude Philippe comte de), Recueil de trois cent têtes et sujets de composition, Gravés par Mr. le comte de Caÿlus d’après les pierres gravées antiques du Cabinet du roi, [Paris]: Se vend a Paris ches Basan [1775?], engraved title and text leaf, 300 engraved images on 150 plates, some toning…”

The lotsold for US$2,300 (including buyer’s premium).

All in all a fun auction.

While numerous books and papers have been written about the engraved gems and their impressions, virtually nothing is available about these “frames” which, like the frame on a magnificent painting, provide a means for mounting, and, compliment the beauty of the impression. 

Right: Impression in MyI collection with detail showing bottom of paper wrap. Click on image to enlarge.

Today, the gilt-edged wrapping is mentioned as an identifying element in descriptions of antique pieces.  Michelle Robson of IntagliosUK on Etsy.com and Hunnypot21 on Ebay.com, when describing plaster or sulfur impressions for sale, often states, “All gilt paper wrapped and numbered as they should be.” 

Bonhams, the auction house, not too long ago, when describing the lot, “A COLLECTION OF LATE 19TH CENTURY GRAND TOUR PLASTER INTAGLIOS” included the following in the narrative, “…PLASTER INTAGLIOS Of classical scenes, each wrapped in a band of yellow paper, ropetwist gilt edge…”

In fact, one of the features that aids in identifying a modern reproduction is, in most cases, lack of the gilt-edged paper wrap, as shown on the right

I have only found one dealer that uses modern day gilt-edged wrap on its plaster reproductions in today’s market.  Tiberian Design  https://www.tiberiandesign.com/  producer of “Award Winning Framed Intaglios” advertises, “…each intaglio is individually wrapped with a gilt band and antique paper–a mark of quality not found elsewhere.” Their beautiful high-end pieces are clearly marketed as reproductions. A while back I inquired about the source of the paper wraps and was told that it was confidential information.

In the Grand Tour days, the gilded edge was a selling point.  In the Catalogue listing over 15,000 pieces entitled “…ANCIENT AND MODERN ENGRAVED GEMS, CAMEOS AS WELL AS INTAGLIOS … CAST IN COLOURED PASTES, WHITE ENAMEL, AND SULPHUR BY JAMES TASSIE…”, the author, R. E. Raspe, states in the price list, “Impressions in red or other colured Sulphur, with neat gilt Borders…”.

Where did this paper wrap come from?  Who made it?  How was it made?  What was the method for attaching it to the impression?  I wish I could answer those questions, but I can’t.  Over my years of collecting, when, periodically, I’ve sought to find the answers to these questions, I’ve always come up empty.  The closest that I’ve come are in references to “the paper strips” in the 18th and 19th century letters of James Tassie (described in more detail below), where his frustration in finding a good supplier is evident, but no real answers

So, the purpose of this blog post is two-fold:

1. Set forth in one place what I do know about the paper wrapping, and
2. Solicit the input and assistance of anyone who may have some insights into this topic, asking them to share their knowledge with others who may be interested, like me.

BACKGROUND:

For those who are knowledgeable about paper and its manufacture but may not be familiar with the impressions that I have mentioned, a brief bit of background may be helpful.  The impressions that I refer to were plaster or sulfur casts of impressions of engraved gems.  These impressions were produced throughout Europe during the Grand Tour period in the 18^th and 19^th centuries.  They were collected as reproductions of unattainable engraved gems and as souvenirs of travel.  They were also used as teaching aids in classes on the classical arts.  Specimens, both singularly and in collections (sometimes numbering in the thousands), are now found in museums throughout the world.  In Great Britain, the most prolific producers were James Tassie (1735-1799) and his nephew William Tassie (1777-1860). 

FUNCTION:

The wrap served two purposes:

• It gave the piece a finished look, just like a frame sets off a great piece of art.
• It provided a smooth surface on the bottom of the piece which facilitated mounting on a backboard or cabinet drawer bottom.

To today’s collector or dealer the paper wrap aids in the identification of the age of the impression and, possibly, gives a clue to who its maker was.  Michele Robson, the prolific dealer of impressions mentioned above, periodically will mention the wrapping in her descriptions.  For instance, in a past Etsy post for sale of an “Antique grand tour circa 1845 plaster intaglio cameo 24 by Franchi shows Niobe”, the description includes, “I have only had one group by this maker before but what makes me believe they are by him is the paper.  All the earlier more famous makers used thicker paper, by the mid 1800’s mass produced machine made paper was getting far more common than the hand made paper wrapped around these and all the early intaglios.  All gilt paper wrapped and numbered as they should be. But the paper is much thinner on these later dated ones.”

CHARACTERISTICS:

The earliest gilt-edged wrappings that I have seen are on impressions by Baron von Stosch (1691-1757) and his assistant/contemporary Cristiano Dehn (1700-1770) dating to about 1750.  They could very well have been in use before that.

The most common wrap was yellow paper with a textured gilt top surface.  The wraps were also produced in varied colors.  They are seen both in black with the gilded edge and in black with green edge on impressions by Bartolommeo Paoletti (1758-1834) and his son Pietro (1801-1847), well-known producers of gem impressions in Rome.  I’ve also seen a plain finished black edge on black paper.  There probably were other combinations.  In almost all cases the edge was finished in a stippled or “twisted rope” fashion.  This gives the edge a “sparkly” effect, which is quite pleasing.  The texture effect may also have been done so that any cracking of the gilt surface while bending the paper did not become apparent. 

The paper is heavy and, in its finished state, stiff, almost brittle.  The paper has a surface finish on both sides. As can be seen in the image of the “tail”, the surface of the paper is a different color than the inner material.  The finish is fairly smooth, about the same as common printer paper. 

Another feature found on most of the wrapped impressions is that the paper’s ends start and stop with a taper so that a bump does not appear at its beginning and end.  See the image of the “tail” piece at the left.  On this piece, where the wrapping has started to come lose, it can be seen that the paper is tapered over a length of about 1-1/8 in (29 mm).  A guess is that, once the strip is cut to length, the ends are sanded to produce the taper, which also removes the surface finish.

There is at least one set of impressions that have a unique identifier on the wrapping.  In 1839 John Tyrrell (1790-1868) bought the majority of the engraved gem collection of Prince Stanislas Poniatowski (1754-1833) that had come up for auction at Christie’s in London.  Soon after his purchase Tyrrell had a catalogue printed of his collection (Explanatory Catalogue of the Proof-impressions of the Antique Gems Possessed by the Late Prince Poniatowski, and Now in the Possession of John Tyrrell, Esq…) and started to sell impressions.  As a marketer, he was far ahead of his time; in addition to putting an identifying number on the wrap, he taped on a small “ad” with his name and the image of a cat.  Every time someone viewed one of his impressions they knew exactly where it came from – genius!  (The story of Prince Poniatowski and his gem collection is fascinating.  His “fakes” pretty much were the cause of the crash of the engraved gem market in the mid 1800’s.  The story is well presented by Claudia Wagner in the article “Explaining the fable and history taken from the classics: Prince Poniatowski’s Neoclassical gem collection” )

DIMENSIONS:

The paper is usually about ¼ in (6 mm) wide, although on larger pieces it can be up to 3/8 in (10 mm).  It appears that Tassie only used strips of one width because variations are never mentioned in his letters.  Differences in thickness of the strips can also be seen, varying very roughly from about 1/64 in ( 0.4 mm) to 3/64 in (1.2 mm)

The length of the strip would have had to vary.  Some smaller impressions have barely two thicknesses of wrap while some larger ones may have up to four.  The smallest impressions wrapped two times would only require a piece 4 ½ in (114 mm) long, whereas a larger one wrapped four times would require a piece over 24 in (61 cm) long!

MANUFACTURE AND ATTACHMENT: 

Not being familiar with the manufacturing process of paper, I can only hazard a WAG (technical engineering term) about how the strips were made.  The finished sheets of paper would have been bundled and pressed together in a vice.  The gilt edge material would be applied and textured.  Once dry, a strip, the width of the finished strips, would be cut from the rest of the bundle.  The individual strips would then be separated using a very sharp knife.

When it was time to attach the wrap to the impression, it probably was soaked to make it pliable then wrapped around the piece and glued in place.

THE TASSIE LETTERS:

As promised earlier, included here are the references to the “paper strips” made by James Tassie in his letters.  These excerpts are from, THE LETTERS OF JAMES AND WILLIAM TASSIE TO ALEXANDER WILSON 1778 TO 1826, by Duncan Thomson,  Published in The Volume of the Walpole Society, Vol. 65 (2003), pp. 1-87.  Accessed at  https://www.jstor.org/stable/41829656    

The recipient of almost all the letters, dispatched (with one exception) from London was the Glasgow stationer and bookseller, Alexander Wilson, who was an agent for their materials in Scotland.  The text is true to the spelling and grammar used in the letters.  I have added several comments noted as [MyI: ======].

Page 5. “… there was sent … 500 stripps of gilt paper² that you have not mentioned the receiving of them.”

Footnote on page 5, “2. These strips of gilt paper, which caused endless difficulties, were bound round the various types of impression and the lower edge glued to the base of the drawer of the collector’s cabinet.”

[MyI:  Invoices and other comments indicate that Tassie would ship the impressions and the strips of gilt paper separately; Wilson, his dealer in Glasgow, would then wrap them before mounting and selling.]

Page 11.  “…sorry your obliging orders has been again so long in hand. I had no paper ready to make gilt strips…”

Page 12.  “Recd your Letter of 29th last month in due Course, am very sorry your obliging order has been so long delayed. I have been much destressed for want of good paper for the gilt stripes. I had got a learge quaintity from the paper Makers, but unfortunatly turned out as bad or reather worse then thos you returned. I was under the necessity to have some made on purpose, which I hope will now be to your liking, those you returned came to me in good stead, (at any time when the paper is inclined to split we commonly rend it open and uses the one side before the other) I cannot get it to purchase under the extravagant price of one penny each stripe the length only of Common Card paper…  [DLG: This is probably much more meaningful to someone familiar with the paper manufacturing process and may be helpful in further research.]

Page 20.  “Unfortunately the paper I got now in hand for making gilt borders, slits in winding about the impression in the same manner as some that you returned to me sometime ago. I shall soon have a fresh quaintity made which I hope will be better…”

Page 39.  “…I took to Mr Robinsons the gilt strips, to see if the length of them would suit in your parcel. They were Just a packing, and were so good to alter the form to suit the papers. It being so much more safe than bending them…”

Page 63.  “…am rather in haste I must defer writing you more fully till I send the enamels – I don’t know if you would like the gilt paper borders round the enamel, but as you have often had Ens. without I shall not put any – I am Sir  [MyI: Of the Tassie pastes or enamels that I have seen, there has never been one with a paper wrap, probably because, due to the nature of the paste the edges are more finished and more importantly, for the colored ones, the edges would need to be open to light to show the color better.]

That’s it.  That’s all I have.  I hope that a reader or two can shed some light on the questions surrounding this long lost, albeit minor, craft.

If you’re interested in James Tassie, it’s worth a look.

code

The widespread use and popularity of seals, especially Tassie seals, is attested to in a letter from John Keats to Fanny, his younger sister, dated 13 March 1819:

“…On looking at your seal I cannot tell whether it is done or not with a Tassi – it seems to me to be paste—As I went through Leicester Square lately I was going to call and buy you some, but not knowing but you might have some I would not run the chance of buying duplicates—Tell me if you have any or if you would like any—and whether you would rather have motto ones like that with which I seal this letter;  or heads of great Men such as Shakespeare, Milton &c—or fancy pieces of Art; such as Fame, Adonis &c—those gentry you read of at the end of the English Dictionary.”

This above excerpt was taken from “THE LETTERS OF JOHN KEATS 1814-1821” Volume Two, 1958, edited by Hyder Edward Rollins

An article entitled “Christmas Day 1818” by Aileen Ward describes in substantial detail Keats’ use of and (yes) emotional attachment to Tassie seals. Much of the story revolves around a Tassie seal of a lyre with broken strings which John Keats may have received from his love, Fanny Brawne, on that Christmas Day (if you go there, the good part about seals starts on page 22). The article was included in the Keats-Shelley Journal Vol. 10 (Winter, 1961), pp. 15-27 published by: Keats-Shelley Association of America, Inc.

Details of a few seals are shown below.  Most are described in Tassie’s “Catalogue of Devices and Seals” of 1830, which included almost 1600 items.  They were usually small paste rectangular or oval cubes about ¼” to ½” thick and about ½” across.  They were made in this shape, thicker than the usual engraved gem, so they could be used easily as a seal without the need for an attached handle. 

The first eight seals were part of a group I recently acquired from Lauren Markland of Clayton Antiques located in Williamsburg, VA.  They had been in a collection of her father and (I think) she was glad to see them find a good home.

The webpage of the lot with a number of good pictures can be found at https://auctions.stairgalleries.com/lot/fourteen-wedgwood-black-basalt-seals-3900026

Sure wish I had seen this one.