Dragon in a jar.
I thought the dragon in a jar was wonderful. It should be yukky, but there is a charm about it and it's look of serenity that somehow stops it from being revolting and makes it strangely
beautiful. Is it Victorian though? If it is, we are looking at an astounding, and probably pretty valuable, example of the modellers art. The Victorians were skilled and enthusiastic wax modellers, wax flowers and plants in glass domes were a standard item on the Victorian middle-class mantlepiece, so a Victorian wax dragon is not improbable. If it is Victorian, then who made it? And why? What about the look of the dragon itself? What does it tell us about the European mind of the late 19th century and the battle between the mystical/romantic and the rational/scientific? And how does it compare to the popular image of dragons in contemporary art and literiture?
The jar would appear to be of the right type for the era as well, but why is the wax seal around the top so new looking? The article does not explain. Surely if it is new fake, then more care would have been taken to age it. Or had someone already been into the jar before the picture was taken, and resealed it? If they had, then the real make-up of the dragon is already known.
If it is a hoax of a hoax, then perhaps its maker should consider smaller versions , as a dragon in an old Kilner jar at the back of my larder would provide years of amusement for me at others expense.
And of course, what if it really is a dragon?
The enigmatic little beast begs so many questions, and I know my spelling is dreadful, but please, please, FT, follow this story up! How about a bigger article?