The previous vase had four sides, while this is a six lobed vase. As it is of a very similar pattern and size it may even have been part of a set of different shaped vases ‘boxed’ together. Is there therefore anything new to see? Perhaps just a couple of new observations.
ref 26.1 
ref 26.2
The design is immediately recognisable from object 25. It also confirms that the application of enamel, for example on the butterfly in image 26.1 is very similar to before. Nobody was trying very hard to work to the boundaries of the wire, so they were producing quantity not quality. Turning to the area at the neck now we get some new information.
On the previous vase it appeared that the makers were confident about their enamel, and strength wiring was not so important. Here however the neck of the vase is completely covered with unattractive wiring. In fact this vase simply has a shorter neck than the other, so the design pushes all of the wiring together. Sometimes the design is perfected on one shape of vase, and then look wrong on a slightly differently shaped one.
ref 26.4 
ref 26.5
The patterns on the vase are, as on the previous one, very simple but with nice scrolling decoration in places. Note though the boundaries that separate the lobes, on the left and right of these pictures. A sort of ‘brick by brick’ design is used, where more confident designs manage a long unbroken rectangle along the whole border. Is this because it is a preferred design, or because it is the safer option?
Object 26. Vase height 9.5 cm weight 75 gm.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _