Talk:Corinthian bronze

Comments
An important issue is not explained clearly in the article: Is there any actual corinthian brass known today, or is it only known from historical works. If it's known today, what is an example? Deuar 12:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll add the info. The answer is: no known examples exist today. --  BRIAN  0918 14:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture?
This article is really interesting; I've never even heard of this metal. Could someone provide a picture of what it looks like? It'd make it more identifiable.


 * There are no known examples of it today. Start digging :) --  BRIAN  0918 16:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Brass or bronze? And what is it?
Corinthian brass or Corinthian bronze? Brass usually means an alloy of copper and zinc; an alloy of copper and something else (typically but not always tin) is usually called bronze. This link suggests that "aes" (or χαλκός) is bronze, not brass, and is this article also uses the term bronze. In any event, there is a duplicate article at Corinthian bronze, and one should be merged with the other.

Secondly, I have seen a Roman article of bronze, inlaid with gold and silver, described as Corinthian bronze. Is it possible that the term actually refers something like this, rather than an alloy? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While "corinthian brass" gets far more results than "corinthian bronze" on Google Books, the latter gets far more results on Google Scholar. So, bronze is probably the proper term, although several legitimate sources I've seen used "brass". This glossary also lists both terms as synonymous. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2006-07-03 18:50


 * Thanks - although both are clearly in use, my impression was that "bronze" was more widely used and possibly more correct. But anyway, what about my second point - are we sure that this is a homogenous mix of the metals, rather than some sort of inlay technique?  I would be surprised if the person who gave the description was mistaken - he is a well-known scholar of the Roman period. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of all the sources I've seen, both classical and modern, every one explained it as an alloy, or mix of the metals, in one of three ratios. None of them claimed it as a simple inlay technique. Perhaps you are misunderstanding your source? Maybe the piece is made of bronze, from around Corinth, or in a Corinthian style? For example, this item has the phrase "corinthian brass" in it: . &mdash; BRIAN 0918  &bull; 2006-07-04 15:01


 * Snort - no, it was not one of those reproduction helmets! It was a small bronze box, unearthed in Herculaneum (IIRC - could have been be Pompeii), with an inlay of vine leaves in silver and grapes in gold.  Very pretty.  And he distinctly said "Corinthian bronze", and something about how valuable it was in Roman times - I remember because it was quite not long after this page was on DYK.  Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to provide a good reference - it was a passing remark by the Andrew Wallace-Hadrill (the director of the British School at Rome) at the end of this hour-long live TV documentary on Five on 28 June 2006. He could be wrong, of course, or I could have misunderstood what he meant. I agree that the ancient sources are pretty unanimous about it being a more or less homogeneous alloy. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He could have meant that it is bronze, and of a Corinthian design-- a Corinthian box of bronze, not a box of Corinthian bronze. Or, the item could have been made of Corinthian bronze, but then inlayed with leaves of silver and grapes of gold. Although, I'm not sure that there are actually any known example of Corinthian bronze still in existence. If there was, it would be very easy to determine what is in it. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-04 17:51