It can hold X mL, it it is X cm high, X cm in diameter, cup walls are X cm thick, and it weighs X grams. As far as finding any relitive use from this, it is bare; one mistook art for an commoners drinking cup. No thought more then some "pretty" thing stuck behind glass. How are we to know anything USEFULLY DEEP if we cannot ourselves, today, recreate in exact dimention(sp?) what 5c. Attic Greeks made, and make it as they did? This is not some parlour-game laughing over barbarians, this is all western civilizaion. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- You sound as though you should be contributing to WP. I agree, we should take these things seriously if truth is to emerge anywhere and not just be a murder victim in a drowning. The first thing to take seriously is your spelling, as no one can understand you if they cannot read you.Dave (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes...is a skyphos.
The Warren cup is indeed classified as a skyphos and is said to have originally had two ring handles. Even without the handles it is referred to as such by John Pollini in one art journal and his notes list his a range of academic as his source.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Not done yet
Well, this article really is only a stub. The first commenter above is correct. There isn't too much here yet. However, it is not going to get here until someone puts it here. You can't put it here without running the gamut of criticism. Sorry. That is how it works everywhere but on WP one is especially vulnerable. On the other hand we don't put anywhere near the effort the scholars do. Write an article! Whew. That take weeks if not months. I put this in a standard format but I did not fix everything. There is only one source, Pollini. Dr. Pollini, you may not put your resume up on WP. Sorry. Them's the rules. I suggest registering as a user under your name and then telling us all about who you are on your user page. You can't, however, publish your own work on here. Verboten! Many have found it not worth while to open themselves to the kind of harassment you get here. Anyway, the article really needs to be done. I'm not sure the double notation system is necessary, as we have only two notes. Moreover, they seem interrelated. Let's see how it goes.Dave (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)