Editing Portland Vase (section)

====Vandalism and reconstruction====
[[File:Thomas H. Shepherd - The Portland Vase fragments.jpg|thumb|The Portland Vase fragments – watercolour by [[Thomas H. Shepherd]] (1845)]]

At 3:45&nbsp;p.m. on 7 February 1845, the vase was shattered by William Lloyd,{{sfn|Brooks|2004|pp=16–18}}{{sfn|Painter|Whitehouse|1990|p=62}} who, after drinking all the previous week, threw a nearby sculpture on top of the case, smashing both it and the vase. He was arrested and charged with the crime of willful damage. When his lawyer said that an error in the wording of the act seemed to limit its application to the destruction of objects worth no more than £5, he was convicted instead of the destruction of the glass case in which the vase had sat. He was sentenced to either pay a fine of £3 (approximately £350 equivalent in 2017<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator|title=Inflation calculator|website=www.bankofengland.co.uk|language=en|access-date=31 December 2018}}</ref>) or spend two months in prison. He remained in prison until an anonymous benefactor paid the fine by mail.{{sfn|Brooks|2004|pp=16–18}} The name William Lloyd is thought to be a pseudonym. Investigators hired by the British Museum concluded that he was actually William Mulcahy, a student who had gone missing from [[Trinity College Dublin]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=McNally |first1=Frank |title=Portland stoned – An Irishman's Diary about the Dubliner who broke one of the world's most famous vases |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/portland-stoned-an-irishman-s-diary-about-the-dubliner-who-broke-one-of-the-world-s-most-famous-vases-1.3382500 |access-date=6 March 2024 |newspaper=[[The Irish Times]] |date=7 February 2018}}</ref> Detectives reported that the Mulcahy family was impoverished. The owner of the vase declined to bring a civil action against William Mulcahy because he did not want his family to suffer for "an act of folly or madness which they could not control".{{sfn|Brooks|2004|pp=16–18}}

[[File:Portland Vase BM Gem4036 n8.jpg|thumb|Detail]]

The vase was pieced together with fair success in 1845 by British Museum restorer [[John Doubleday (restorer)|John Doubleday]]. At the time, the restoration was termed "masterly"<ref>{{cite news | ref = Morning Post | title = The British Museum | newspaper = The Morning Post | location = London | department = Fine Arts | page = 6 | date = 11 July 1845 | url = https://newspaperarchive.com/anonymous-other-articles-clipping-jul-11-1845-610031}}</ref> and Doubleday was lauded by ''[[The Gentleman's Magazine]]'' for demonstrating "skilful ingenuity" and "cleverness ... sufficient to establish his immortality as the prince of restorers".<ref>{{cite journal | ref = {{harvid|''Gentleman's Magazine''|1846a}} | date = January 1846 | title = The Portland Vase and the Sarcophagus in which it was Found | journal = The Gentleman's Magazine | volume = XXV | pages = 41–44 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Hj1DAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA41 }} {{open access}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | ref = {{harvid|''Athenæum''|1856a}} | date = 2 February 1856 | title = Our Weekly Gossip | journal = The Athenæum | issue = 1475 | pages = 139–140 | url = https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858029267303;view=1up;seq=154 }} {{open access}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | ref = {{harvid|''Gentleman's Magazine''|1856}} | date = 1856 | title = Obituary: Mr. John Doubleday | journal = The Gentleman's Magazine | volume = XLV | pages = 431–432 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=gEZFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA431 }} {{open access}}</ref>

However, Doubleday was unable to replace thirty-seven small fragments of the vase, which had been put into a box and apparently forgotten. On 5 October 1948, the keeper [[Bernard Ashmole]] received them in a box from G. A. Croker of Putney, who did not know what they were. After Doubleday's death, a fellow restorer from the British Museum took them to G. H. Gabb, a box maker, who was asked to make a box with thirty seven compartments, one for each fragment. However, the restorer also died and the box was never collected. After Gabb's death, the executor of his estate, Amy Reeves, brought in Croker to assess Gabb's effects. This was how Crocker came to bring them to the museum to ask for help in identifying them.{{sfn|Painter|Whitehouse|1990|p=82}}

By November 1948, the restoration appeared aged and it was decided to restore the vase again. It was dismantled by conservator J. W. R. Axtell in mid-November 1948. The pieces were examined by D. B. Harden and W. A. Thorpe, who confirmed that the circular glass base removed in 1845 was not original. Axtell then carried out a reconstruction, completed by 2 February 1949, in which he was only successful in replacing three of the 37 loose fragments.{{sfn|Painter|Whitehouse|1990|pp=82–84}} He reportedly used "new adhesives" for this restoration, which some thought might be epoxy resins or shellac, but were later discovered to simply be the same type of animal glue that Doubleday used in 1845. He also filled some areas with wax. No documentation of his work was produced.{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}}

By the late 1980s, the adhesive was again yellowing and brittle. Although the vase was shown at the British Museum as part of the ''Glass of the Caesars'' exhibition (November 1987 – March 1988), it was too fragile to travel to other locations afterwards. Instead, another reconstruction was performed between 1 June 1988 and 1 October 1989 by [[Nigel Williams (conservator)|Nigel Williams]] and Sandra Smith.{{sfn|Painter|Whitehouse|1990|p=84}} The pair was overseen by David Akehurst (CCO of Glass and Ceramics) who had assessed the vase's condition during the ''Glass of the Caesars'' exhibition and decided to go ahead with reconstruction and stabilization. The treatment had scholarly attention and press coverage. The vase was photographed and drawn to record the position of fragments before dismantling; the BBC filmed the conservation process. Conservation scientists at the museum tested many adhesives for long-term stability, choosing an epoxy resin with excellent ageing properties. Reassembly revealed some fragments had been filed down during the restorations, complicating the process. All but a few small splinters were integrated. Gaps were filled with blue or white resin.<ref>{{cite magazine | last = White | first = Roland | title = Original Sinclair | magazine = Punch | location = London | page = 45 | issue = 6766 | date = 23 June 1989 | url = http://tinyurl.galegroup.com/tinyurl/57jd88 | access-date = 18 August 2017 }} {{closed access}}</ref>{{sfn|Williams|1989|pp=6–21}}

Little sign of the original damage is visible, and, except for light cleaning, it is hoped that the vase should not require major conservation work for at least another century.{{sfn|Williams|1989|p=29}}