Talk:Lycurgus Cup

message: May be a bit late but I suggest this article might be complimented by an animated gif that shows light in front, light behind, light in front etc Victuallers (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: With a drawing? By all means, but I haven't a clue how to go about that. A better green photo would help; I may do that one day. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: The text first says, incorrectly, the gold is ground, and then says correctly the gold is precipitated as a colloid.  It is not ground first, but dissolved in the glass, and then precipitated.  See also Colloidal gold to understand the process. Colin McLarty (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm don't think that's what the sources say. Your "dispersed" was next to meaningless to non-specialists without explanation or a link (how could it not be dispersed in the normal sense of the word?). Have you any sources for how the Romans did it? I can't access Henderson now, and this source mentions "ground gold".  What does "dissolved in the glass" mean, in terms of process? I find it hard to imagine that whatever the actual process used, it did not involve grinding the gold as finely as possible at some stage, as the refs suggest.   Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the explanation on p.3 of http://people.uic.edu/~viveks/Publications_files/Sharma_GoldReview_2009.pdf involving Faraday.  That is exactly what the present text means when it says "These particles were precipitated as colloids."  That is the only way it has ever been done.  It is impossible to grind anything to this size that is so extremely malleable as gold or has such good tensile strength. Colin McLarty (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's your ref for that? The specialist sources on the cup steer clear of mentioning salts, and note that they think the gold may have been present only as part of silver. They notably avoid specifying the exact method, and seem unclear how the Romans managed to do it. I have found the new home of the main paper available online, Freestone et al., & added more from that. I also note that references to "Barber", the first paper to cover the nano-aspect of the cup have been added by someone else (with an intriguing user-name I might add), who did not adjust the text previously there.  Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And here's the Smithsonian talking about "ground-down"; the one thing you don't find is talk of the cup and salts of gold. Freestone also talks of "The fine particles of sodium chloride observed (fig. 5) are likely to have exsolved from the glass during the heat-treatment that caused the crystallisation of the alloy particles, ..." Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your quote of Freestone says it:  The sodium chloride was not ground down, it was exsolved from the glass in the same way as the gold alloy crystallized from the glass.  A fun Smithsonian blurb on Roman nanotechnology is not serious history.  Colin McLarty (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well not really. One hardly needs to grind down salt. It doesn't cover in what form the "alloy particles" entered the glass mix. Unless you have specific references, I'm not really interested in more "they must have..." arguments, given my points above.  Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. Anyone who wants to know how it was done can see the Freestone quote you gave, or Colloidal gold for more detail, or the reference http://people.uic.edu/~viveks/Publications_files/Sharma_GoldReview_2009.pdf I gave above for much detail. Colin McLarty (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately neither of those are clear about either the process or even the chemistry used for the Roman glass. I just don't think it is known with certainty, as Freestone implies. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you agree we do not know they ground the gold?  We only know it was somehow dispersed?  Colin McLarty (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't actually said (nor have your sources) how the gold got into a "dispersable" state, but presumably you are thinking of gold salts. But the references concerning the cup are noticably lacking in references to gold salts (as opposed to salt) and some refer to "ground" gold. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not thinking primarily of gold salts.  The article currently gives two ways it might have been dispersed accidentally: it could have been present in silver unknown to the glass makers or it could have been minute bits of gold leaf around the glass shop.  That implies it could have been deliberately added as gold leaf to melt into the molten glass.  It might also have been a minute presence in the sand used or other additives. The light hearted press release saying it was "ground" by "Roman nanotechnicians" is not a serious source. Colin McLarty (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I also linked to Collins above. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The Gold is not ground

message: There is a dispute about ancient Rome's understanding of the process of making dichroic glass. This is not an academic dispute! The issue is whether it is appropriate to include information about ancient Rome's understanding, whether it be a fundamental knowledge of nanotechnology (this is rhetorical, of course), or merely a simple cause and effect understanding of what they were doing (i.e. ancient China could not have known the molecular science behind gun powder, but they definitely knew how to make it by more than mere accident) in an encyclopedia article. I think that this information is speculative, or otherwise unnecessary. That is to say, it is not necessary to point out that ancient Rome did not grasp nanotechnology, and that discussion of whether the creation of dichroic glass was an accident or a known process (that is, the person making the glass knew that it was going to have a "color-changing" effect, and was not merely adding finely ground gold and silver to make it prettier or more valuable) is speculative. My apologies if anyone misunderstood my point and was offended. 74.197.184.250 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article: "To a conventionally composed Roman glass flux 330 parts per million of silver and 40 of gold were added: "These particles were precipitated as colloids ..." and the section above - "grinding" would not be enough to get 40 parts per million as colloids. Even if the Romans had simple magnifying lenses, as some scholars have suggested, the particles would need to be too small to see even with those. The language used in the article reflects the source and is hedged about with caveats and qualifications, which I have bolded for your convenience:  
 The exact process used remains unclear, and it is likely that it was not well-understood or controlled by the makers, and was probably discovered by accidental "contamination" with minutely ground gold and silver dust. The glass-makers may not even have known that gold was involved, as the quantities involved are so tiny; they may have come from a small proportion of gold in any silver added (most Roman silver contains small proportions of gold), or from traces of gold or gold leaf left by accident in the workshop from other work. The very few other surviving fragments of Roman dichroic glass vary considerably in their two colours.
I might add that the quantities surviving, even as small fragments, are much more consistent with an occasional lump of glass turning out this way, and then being re-melted for luxury use, than with an effect that glassmakers knew how to reproduce. Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman Nanotechnology

message: Dichroic glass is a type of glass made with alternating metal or metal oxide thin FILMS, layered and embedded in the glass. It can be done via deposition, sputtering etc and the layering yields a color change when illuminated at different angles due to interference . Lycurgus cup contains colloidal gold and eventually colloidal silver which have nothing to do with alternating thin films of gold and or silver. True dichroic glass changes color according to the angle of incident light, whereas the glass from the Lycurgus cup -a glass akin to "cranberry glass" (see wikipedia article) - changes color when lit from the inside VS lit from the outside, regardless of the angle of the incident light rays. This color change has yet to be named and if some museums or artbooks classify the lycurgus cup as being "dichroic", well it is simply not accurate at all. The Lycrugus cup is a special type of cranberry glass but does not contain any layering of precious metals in film form, as there isn't one single study or analysis that will confirm the presence of metal layers: the gold and silver is only present in colloidal form dispersed evenly in the glass matrix.
(isp, not signed)
*"Accurate" according to who exactly?  Unfortunately there are a raft of sources, including scientific ones, that don't agree with you there about the terminology - do you have any at all that do? Who exactly "revised" the definition of "dichroic" and when?  Any sources? I can't imagine why you would think that the invention of a different new type, with rather different properties, would somehow displace the old meaning, making it "outdated". This is a very strange idea.  "dichroic" simply means "two-coloured" and both types are that. The cup is absolutely not made of Cranberry glass, which has only one colour whatever you do to it. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not me deciding anything - I'm just following the sources. I suggest you do the same. Our understanding of the way the effects happen is the same, as should have been obvious from the start, but you think, on the basis of no evidence whatsover, that the long-established and general term for the Lycurgus effect has become "outdated". It hasn't, and no sources say it has.  You have left a mess over at the other article btw. I'll look at that tomorrow. And learn to sign your edits please. Johnbod (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  the sources say "dichroic". But Freestone says in 1990 dichroic and in 2007 updates with  "Lycurgus effect" . I left a "mess"? The mess is you deciding that Lycrugus glass is dichroic because some authors are imprecise and do not follow the PRECISE definitions of pleochroism .
I gave you an example of stones that have been coined "dichroic" in the past but now are not any more because it wasn't dichroism, I also demonstrated that displaying "two colours" is absolutelyu not a synonym of dicrhoism and that dichroism is only one type of optical phenomenon implying tow colours but only at different viewing angles. The "dichroic glass" article is rather on the right path. by the way, there are MANY sources that cite Lycurgus glass as being a specific type of ruby glass or more precisely a silver-gold alloy doped glass similar to ruby glass . Just read the paper I cited in the article which precisely cites ruby glass production thorugh various historical periods and their methods.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Precise definitions" by who? Where? Similar to cranberry glass is not cranberry glass. You are indulging in original research and synthesis of sources, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You should be devoting your efforts to persuading the British Museum and other sources to change the terminology which they continue to use. If enough of them do, we will change terms here. If you can find ANY reliable source that specifically challenges the description of the cup as dichroic, that would be worth mentioning in a note or the text. Freestone et al in 2007 say in their 3rd para "the glass of the cup is dichroic" and in their final sentence talk of "red-green dichroism"; it is pointless to try to use him as a reference against precisely that statement! You try to use Freestone et al against the BM's "outdated" and "unscrupulous" use of the term, but of the four authors, Freestone is ex-BM and the other 3 were all then and are now BM scientific staff; almost certainly one of them wrote or checked the very BM page you complain about.  Here's a "precise definition" of dichroic glass from the 2005 book Looking at Glass: A Guide to Terms, Styles, and Techniques, By Catherine Hess. But just wrong according to you - see below also, and Nanoethics: Big Ethical Issues with Small Technology, 2009, p.15, and An Introduction to Archaeological Chemistry, 2010, T. Douglas Price, James H. Burton, and The Science and Archaeology of Materials: An Investigation of Inorganic Materials, 2013, Conservation and Restoration of Glass, 2008, Sandra Davison, R.G. Newton.  And so on down this google books search on "Dichroic Lycurgus". But they're all wrong, and you're right. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  All these books simply adopt the ACTUAL terminology which is not only imprecise but wrong, imposed by the British Museum curators ans experts working for them decades ago to call the glass "dichroic" .  The same way the gemstone alexandrite was called "dichroic" (and still is in low vulgarizing books who plagiarize unrevised material) when in fact studies have shown later it wasn't dichroic at all and reacted differently to different light sources ( daylight vs incandescent) leading to a CORRECTION, decades later, stating the effect as ALEXANDRITE EFFECT, specific only to certain types of chrysoberyl. today, any serious book about gemstones will explain the difference between the alexandrite effect and true dichroism beacuse pleochroism is oneof many RADICAL METHODS TO DISTINGUISH GEMSTONES. Reacting differently to reflected or incident light is by no means a definition of dichroism, any search in googlebooks and you'll see for yourself , suffices to check for crystallography and optics books. Educate yourself and understand that some disciplines are profoundly DISAGREEING  on certain grounds. The true experts are those working in optics and crystallography, they'll have the last word  since they are the ones who propose and correct the terminology associated almost exclusively with their field of studies, dot. there are plethora of books written by the British Museum who explained in detail "how to restore greek marble statues" and "their true color" , with plethora of scientists who imposed their beliefs by telling the public the statues and temples have always been marble-whitish. These "experts" who really had a supposedly high education, started to acid bleach and sand the said statues and temple stones from Greece, ruining the outer layers, claiming they analyzed them and that they consisted of dirt and other pollution residues. Truth is, we recently discovered and widely accepted they were wrong and that the outer "dirty" layers  were in fact remnants of POLYCHROMIC PAINTINGS . Museum experts, their "terminology" and their "methods" ... a humble expert relies on labs and doesn't impose his weird terminology, alas to honor certain discoveries and archaeologists,  incorrect terms are hastily chosen ansd remain for too long. Do you need more examples? The layers in Mycenae are still called "Troy I, II, II etc" although there is no proof it was Troy, yet even if it had been some layers correspond to periods that would have predated the fabled trojan wars, but in "honor" of Schliemann, the layers are still called "Troy". Comprende amigo? how will we call the true trojan layers in the ground if ever we happen to discover a city that inspired the greek myths of Troy? "New Troy"? "Real Troy" ? Now those who discovered the Lycrugus cup was made in glass instead of gemstone (another goofy archaeology "expert" assumption hastily made: "it's a gemstone, because I decided it's a gemstone..." ) decided to call it "dichroic glass" and the term has been alas accepted even though it severly deviates from the true definiton, by far.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Leaving us back where we started. The article reflects the sources. You think they are all wrong, and you should try to get this accepted outside Wikipedia, which will then change to reflect them.  Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No this leaves you and the term dichroic (when speaking of roman glass) in an artistic blur. Archaeology specialists decided to coin roman glass that exhibits color changes "dichroic" yet it does not comply with the definition of pleochroism AT ALL. No need to have this accepted outside wikipedia, it's a fact, and I'll have to accept the fact that they accept the term.... Some terms are associated with an array of concepts or things that sometimes do not have much in common, that is also a fact. You completely disregard what I said about the alexandrite effect, that it was erroneously coined "dichroism" until now but still some low quality books plagiarize old sources and repeat the error, although rarely since the term "alexandrite effect" is now the only correct term and is fully understood and explained. The wikipedia article you consider as "yours" does NOT reflect the sources, since the present wikipedia article doesn't mention at ALL the fact that the artisans were attempting to produce ruby glass but ended up with the glass blank that ended up after carving into the Lycurgus cup and that is not acceptable. Many sources including the ones YOu cited, CLEARLY mention what I just said now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

text: "the fact that the artisans were attempting to produce ruby glass but ended up with the glass blank that ended up after carving into the Lycurgus cup..." this is not a fact at all. Nor is it included in the list of possible ways the Romans ended up with the Lycurgus glass by Freestone et al.  I don't think the Roman made gold ruby glass at all, or knew it existed. You yourself quote lower down from one of the refs I produced: "The artisans responsible for these works were not aware that they were using gold nanoparticles to produce ruby glass ..."  We simply don't know how or why the Romans ended up with the block at all, and all the sources are very cautious in speculating about this.  Evidence? Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lycurgus cup is not made with "dichroic glass" 

message: in the paper 2007 by Freestone & al "Lycurgus cup : a roman nanotechnology" , the authors mention and SHOW pictures on page 273 figures 6a and 6bof a blank made RECENTLY by Corning Inc. , as a reproduction of the Lycurgus cup material. it displays the exact same properties as the original glass. Wikiepdia member "Johnbod" decides that this doesn't please him and simply vandalizes this paragraph with no valid reason whatsoever. there are numerous sources mentioning Corning's experiments in duplicating the glass but Johnbod decides to eras anything mentioning that the glass has been duplicated. What remains a mystery is the exact methods used by the ancient romans, NOT how to obtain the same material with modern means. WHICH ARE TWO SEPERATE CONSIDERATIONS.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reverting your insertion of incorrect and badly-written (meaning of "coining" etc) material in the lead. I have no objection to the Corning experiment being mentioned if it is done accurately, which I have now done. It was already referenced. But as you point out, we still don't know how the Romans did it, which is the important point here. Johnbod (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You DID have an objection  about the Corning reproduction glass blank since you reverted all edits. I placed it back in the article and NOW you finally approve, leaving it as it is. The master approved.... you know wikipedia doesn't belong to you, it's open to anyone who follows the rules and writes articles backed by valid REFS, I'm not making up anything here, as opposed to what you're implying about me. This has to change.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corning Glass Works have duplicated recently the Lycurgus glass 

message: "Glasses coloured by colloidal platinum are examples of " ruby glass ", a term applied
to those coloured red by colloidal gold and copper but now extended to cover glasses containing colloidal platinum and silver, even though the colour is different." taken verbatim from the study "The platinum metals in glass" , by M.G. Hawes , The Platinum Metal Rev., 1957. http://www.platinummetalsreview.com/pdf/pmr-v1-i2-044-048.pdf The Lycurgus cup being made of a glass doped with colloidal particles of a silver and gold alloy is thus a type of ruby glass, in addition of being a so-called "dicrhoic glass" in literature as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so your 1957 is not outdated, but my 2013 paper is (pp. 65-66). Right, got that. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnbod, you haven't understood anything. The 2013 paper you're showing me doesn't "prove" the glass to be supposedly "dichroic", it simply admits it as a fact without further proof as the paper is not meant to prove it or not, the subject of the paper is completely different than this topic. NOWHERE DOES IT STATE THE LYCURGUS CUP GLASS ISN'T A TYPE OF RUBY GLASS, INSTEAD THEY EVEN CLASSIFY IT AS RUBY GLASS!! You're genuinely dishonest and have not even read the paper you're tossing me. The paper I put forth (the 1957 one) is a paper specialized in INDUSTRIAL GLASS MAKING with PLATINUM AS A METAL DOPANT  for various uses , effects and applications. I sincerely think this expert is much more AWARE than people dealing with medical imagery (your 2013 paper) as to what is called what in terms of GLASS TERMINOLOGY, my friend, still even the 2013 paper you showed me says the Lycurgus cup is an "EARLY EXAMPLE" of ruby glass. just read the damn paper ! The 1957 paper PRECISELY names what is what in terms of being "RUBY GLASS" and it states that gold, silver, platinum, and other precious metals (other platinum family members) as dopants , precipitated as colloids in the glass, make the glass a RUBY GLASS. You CANNOT DELETE MY VALID REF as you are trying to do. Do you want some unworthy refs? look for the ones you added on the wikipedia article "dichroic glass" : the definition you put comes from a CATALOG of glasses, a book dealing with the artistic classification of glasses, with no scientific opinion whatsoever, nor inline refs. That's worth nothing in terms of scientific credibility. Worse, their definition of "dichroic glass in that book is that of ancient (supposedly) "dichroic" glass (the one with gold, copper or silver colloids in the glass matrix) , not that of modern dichroic glass which is semi transparent, a stacked composite of glass and foil, and is truly pleochroic. Outdated, not aware of what existed in the times that the book was published and zero scientific value, this resumes your book about "glass" : a vulgarizing simplistic book for museum lovers and artists . If the expert in the 1957 paper says that in the GLASS TRADE ALL GLASSES DOPED WITH PRECIOUS METAL COLLOIDS ARE TYPES OF "RUBY GLASS" , then it is true unless YOU find another paper stating the opposite clearly, black on white. Unfortunately for you and your odd beliefs, you'll never find such a paper. If you imply I'm lying, just check MY ref in google, the entire PDF is available on the web, LEGALLY.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  glass from Lycurgus cup is really a type of ruby glass, with valid ref 

message: This article gives a slightly different description of the production of the glass in the Lycurgus cup:
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2009/JM/b809646e
The cup is only discussed in the first paragraph (inc. pictures), but the authors describe intentional use of gold in glass:
:The Romans formed these highly coloured objects by adding “for good luck” coins into the glass forming melt, these coins dissolved in the high temperature of the glass forming process and adventitiously formed alloyed nanoparticles embedded within the host bulk glass matrix to form a composite.
This varies somewhat from the current description in the article, which mostly implies that color properties arise from accidental/unknown inclusion of noble metals in the glass.  It seems a stretch that the significant (and frankly wondrous) properties would be produced completely by accident. 
The authors in this case are chemists/nano scientists, and not archeologists.  Unfortunately, there is no other reference given for the glass-making process.
ScottHW (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very different method from that all the other sources suggest. Would a gold coin in fact melt at glass-forming temperatures? The addition of even a single coin would be enough for a really massive quantity of glass, given the tiny quantities in the nanoparticles, and yet only a handful of pieces are known. Johnbod (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

text: ScottHW (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Romans never put "gold coins" in a glass melt. It is an inaccurate description far from the truth: as the previous books -from which I've taken the refs- explain it clearly, it is highly probable that the only source for small amounts of gold was debris from goldsmith  shop such as bits of gold foil along with the presence of gold salts in the same place as well as contamination with tools that had been in contact with gold powder.Whether it was intentional or not is not a scientific matter but a question of opinion and history: some may have done it "by chance" while others purposely produced coloured glass, as for the effect in the Lycurgus cup, since there are only very few gold-silver colloidal doped antique glasses and only in the state of fragments, it is even more difficult to decide what was the eaxct intention of the artisan. As for the gold coin to the melt myth, it suffices to read the chemical analysis of glasses made with either gold, silver or both. Minute amount measured in ppm are the cause of the colouring, whether it's intentional or not, and the mass equivalent of a few coins would have to be "dissolved" in a mass of melted glass so big it would be bigger than the whole neighbourhood and beyond. To get an idea, do a simple conversion from an estimate in volume of one roman gold coin to the equivalent mass in gold, then compare this amount to a reasonable estimate of a full batch of glass melt ( as used during the process of  glasses similar to the lycrugus cup) and then compare this ratio with the ppm percentage of the actual amount of gold in the lycurgus glass. Coins being added are just an urban myth. It is the equivalent of saying that the domes of russian orthodox chruches are being made golden in appearance because someone poured molten gold on the said roof, when in fact artisans painstakingly flattened out gold with hammers to produce gold leaf then applied it with brushes. Similar beliefs such as "gold coins to produce cranberry glass" can be found concerning descriptions of antique and biblical monuments: some doors were said to be made of "solid gold". Yeah sure: archeological findings systematically proved that thin gold plates or foil were used instead, solid gold was only found in much smaller artefacts such as crowns, torcs, earings, hilts etc. Solid gold chariots, palaces, doors and whatnot belong to religion and myths, while gold coins added to melting glass belong to urban myths stemming from genuine attempts to (poorly) explain how colloidal gold and silver glasses were made in ancient roman times. Midas was the name of actual rulers of Phrygia, but does that make the mythological "Midas touch" real? It all comes down to putting myths and beliefs aside as well as innacurate descriptions made by people who didn't spend their time in scrupulous analysis but only wrote what they believed was true or wanted others to believe as such.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree - none of the more specialized sources echo "The Romans formed these highly coloured objects by adding “for good luck” coins into the glass forming melt,...". Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intentional coloring of glass 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lycurgus Cup. 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://archive.is/20120712072805/http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/MXhw69CipdpzgXlez5u3Wg to http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/MXhw69CipdpzgXlez5u3Wg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The main article shows its size, on the top right area. I suggest to also add the weight, below the size. Right now I can not seem to find the weight of this cup at all
int he main article, but it may be interesting for visitors to know how heavy the cup is. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: Right now there is not that much history in the main article. I understand that most of the history is lost (nobody made recordings I suppose), but perhaps we can still indirectly infer, e. g. who might have created the cup based on technique, and determine the age somehow. I think if links are used for the speculation then it could be added to the main article if it makes sense (and is based on these facts rather than merely speculation). Right now there is little to no information about WHO created it or WHERE it was created. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:DC5B:D810:7F56:116D (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you actually read the article? Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History