A tiny gentleman
Jun. 26th, 2008 08:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I have come to realize that I love the word "tiny." If something is described as tiny, I can't help but be attracted. Just now I found this on ebay in the medical and scientific antiques category.
And speaking of ebay scientific antique instruments, look at this, nautical people:
AN 18TH CENTURY KIT OF NAVIGATIONAL INSTRUMENTS TOOLS.
Pretty pretty. And I love the porte-crayon and the ruling pen. I wonder if the ruling pen fits into the porte-crayon? It looks like it must, and that would be handy.
ETA: And don't miss out on your chance to own:
19 antique human glass eyes!!!!!!!
They're beautiful. And creepy, I have to admit.
RARE, TINY, UNSIGNED, COMPLETE SCREW BARREL MICROSCOPEHeehee, tiny gentleman. Misplaced modifier. But still, TINY! (Like Stephen's tiny sneeze!) I also like the word "little." And doesn't that description just sound so loving?
A very rare and early screw barrel microscope with ivori (sic) simple lens on ornate brass arm and 4 numbered and capped objectives. Although unsigned, it is most assuredly from a fine 18th century maker. The flared simple magnifier eyepiece, the roping of the brasswork, the capped objectives, the shaped forceps, etc. would indicate that this was a tiny gentleman's pocket/field microscope of the highest quality. The bone sliders are numbered, the caps and objectives match, there is no damage to any part of this set including the forcep tines and black/ white disc. The threads and spring of the barrel (5/8 " or 20 mm. in diameter) are flawless, as are the optics. All beads of the objectives are intact. The case too, is flawless and is composed of black sharkskin with push button closure. It measures only 118 x 58 x 26 mm. (4 5/8 x 2 3/8 x 1" high) and every space is filled! An asset to any serious collection.
And speaking of ebay scientific antique instruments, look at this, nautical people:
AN 18TH CENTURY KIT OF NAVIGATIONAL INSTRUMENTS TOOLS.
Pretty pretty. And I love the porte-crayon and the ruling pen. I wonder if the ruling pen fits into the porte-crayon? It looks like it must, and that would be handy.
ETA: And don't miss out on your chance to own:
19 antique human glass eyes!!!!!!!
They're beautiful. And creepy, I have to admit.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-28 02:12 am (UTC)Of course, it WAS flickr, specifically for photos, so maybe that doll group just attracted a certain type of bjd lover. The obsessive kind who wishes she were a magazine photographer of real people. (And has a boyfriend named Jimmy who's off at sea trying to earn his fortune...)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-28 02:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-28 02:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-28 02:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-28 02:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-28 06:20 pm (UTC)It feels strangely irreverent to have a TEL doll. (Of course it's ok with the Beatles and Bowie. looool.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-28 10:39 pm (UTC)I guess a TEL doll would be hard to do without looking tacky. I kind of feel that way about Jack and Stephen dolls. Poppets, however, are so self-awarely-unreal that they don't exist on the same plane as tackiness.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-28 11:13 pm (UTC)It's 23 inches :D which is nice and makes the sculpting more easy.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-29 12:11 am (UTC)With my poppets (how I keep harping on them!) Jack and Stephen are the most important, of course, and they're the ones I really wanted. But the ladies were so rewarding to work on, because it was so much fun to make them PRETTY. I loved making their hair and dresses. It's harder to make a male look grand but still masculine.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-29 12:25 am (UTC)I prefer male Georgian clothing because it's more subtle. If it's well done and looks elegant it's because of some tiny fitting variation in the cut, or a wrinkle in a starched cravat rather than for sparkly things. (ahem. this statement ignoring the existence of Les Incroyables.) But I have no idea of female fashion of that time or even now, so I dunno really. :D
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-29 12:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-29 03:09 am (UTC)