Bohemian Welz Spiraloptisch Gold Cadmium Iridescent Slow Twist Vase | ||
| GlueChip's loves928 of 1289 |  |  |
MALKEY loves this.
aura loves this.
aghcollect loves this.Parkerhouse loves this.
Moonstonelover.jr loves this.
BohemianCrazy23 loves this.
ho2cultcha loves this.
Vintagefran loves this.
Moonstonelover21 loves this.
antiquerose loves this.
IanBrighton loves this.
GlueChip loves this.
Radegunder loves this.
freiheit loves this.
southcop loves this.
Michelleb007 loves this.
colori loves this.
Deanteaks loves this.
ozmarty loves this.
Katzl loves this.
aldo78 loves this.
lundy loves this.
inky loves this.
Zowie loves this.
SteveS loves this.
DrFluffy loves this.
gargoylecollector loves this.
famatta127 loves this.
Justanovice loves this.
walksoftly loves this.
toracat loves this.
mikelv85 loves this.
Slave-to-glass loves this.
bohemianglassandmore loves this.
SEAN68 loves this.
smiata loves this.
BigTex loves this.
LoetzBuddies loves this.
vetraio50 loves this.Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate
Posted 11 years ago
Moonstonel…
(765 items)
This is one of my finest treasures. This is a vase which I believe is a Welz Spiraloptisch Gold Iridescent vase that is so simple in its beauty..and style. This measures 7 inches and in mint condition.
Create an account or login in order to post a comment.
Alfredo, thank you for your attention and being so fast to love!!!
A very unusual color for this decor. Nice find Lee.
Dave, you have been amazing to me ...and patient! Thank you!!!!
Kevin, XOXO
PhilDavidAlexanderMorris, coming from you that's a compliment!! XOXOXO
smiata, XOXOXO
Sean, XOXOXO
Nice color and iridescence.
Warren, thank you for your thoughts...and love!
BigTex,'thank you
Brat, xoxoxox
I love the color and the shape... This is stunning...
Nadia, thank you for saying that. I am very blessed to own this vase :)
Don, thank you
Zowie, xoxoxo
Gorgeous!! I have never seen one in this color - it just glows!
John, thank you xoxo
Michelleb007, thank you..love this vase too...
aldo78, thank you
Katzl, thank you
Charcoal, thanks for loving!!!
Eye, coming from you...NOW that is a compliment!!! I really do not like the colour yellow....but this vase has changed my mind! This is a rare colour in this Décor and Shape....I got very lucky!
Eye! OMG...I think you solved my mystery of disliking the colour YELLOW! Wow...thank you! Now I will love this vase even more! XOXOXO
Eye, thank you...and doubly thank you for loving one of my postings!!! XOXOXO
Eye, you are kidding.....you look at my postings! WOW...miss your loving on my postings XOXOXO Thank you for loving this one! XO
Eye, so am I! So I get BOTH! And Rindskopf :) Love them ALL! I am a kid in a candy shop...seeing all those colours and shapes!!! Like Gemstones in Glass! WOW! I feel blessed to get the vases ...and hold them! Wait until you get one! I was bitten! HARD! Instead of buying jewelry...now its glass!
Eye, I know...and I have missed you! I love your comments!!! I just posted a rare pair of vases...
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/101836-antique-bohemian-welz-kralik-iridescen?in=user
Ozmarty, thank you
ks85, thank you!
colori, thanks for loving
Deanteaks, thank you
Great Welz!
scott
Prove it isn't. :)
Funny-- the "prove it guy" has identified "THE NIPPLE ON TOP OF THE SHADE IS A RELIABLE RUCKL MARKER":
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/115615-czech-deco-export-ruckl-painted-shade
The same nipple is found on a lot of Palda-- so how exactly did it become a "reliable ruckl marker"?
scott
link to catalog pages that show the reliable ruckl marker" on Palda lamps:
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/117194-palda-and-rckl-lamps-from-truitt--catal
Sorry for jumping in here moon-- just tire of the constant barrage of antagonistic comments thrown at everything Welz.
Feel free to delete, I don't want to take away from the beautiful Welz vase!
scott
Scottvez, thank you for your confirmation of my thoughts and research..... :) Thank you for your help!
Leah, none has been deleted as manipulation is not the topic. And none has been touched nor deleted :)
Very well said, Craig.
Attribute to Welz and the onslaught begins:
- "Prove it-- where is the documentation?"
- " Empirical research is guesswork"
- "Welz never made glass"
One needs to only look at the antagonist's posts to see:
- Numerous attributions without documentation
- Attributions made through empirical research
Why is there a double standard? If you DEMAND attribution proof, why don't you provide it in your own posts? Why is emperical research acceptable to ID glass other than Welz?
Anyone familiar with these exchanges knows it is all about WELZ.
Why would Lee waste her time posting her research and analysis when this has NOTHING to do with a serious query and knowledge to learn?
Why not have the decency to STAY OFF posts and STOP antagonizing?
scott
BUSTED!!!!!
I love this vase Mommy!
It is beautiful, Moonstonelover.jr! :)
Leah, maybe it is because he feels more than 1 maker might have made this decor and feels some pieces still need to be researched further to separate them. Just my guess, but seems pretty logical.
I am interested in your answer to post 50...you seems to have missed that one.
I am even more interested in why someone would bring back up this 9 month old post with a comment of "Prove it's Welz with REAL RESEARCH", but not provide any info themselves.
Especially when they repeated make comments like the one below-seems like more hypocrisy.
"I AM ATTRIBUTING THEM TO KRALIK UNTIL SOMEONE ELSE PROVES, WITH SATISFACTORY ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION, THAT THEY ARE NOT."
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/117856-czech-deco-export-kralik-trellis-vases
Another example:
"PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING COMMENTS THAT HAVE NO DOCUMENTED BASES. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE A PIECE, OR THINK THE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT, YOU MUST PRESENT PROOF, NOT OPINIONS MASKING AS FACTS. RESEARCH IS NOT BUILT ON SPECULATION."
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/80173-ruckl-metallit-decor-1609
What I don't get is the entire Metallit post above is based on some very loose speculation imo.
Using that picture to decide the vase shown is Ruckl...that is just careless imo. I see no reason how that drawing shows that the piece of glass was made by Ruckl. If that is considered REAL & DOCUMENTED research....I'd rather stick with the empirical.
Honestly to the poster I apologise firstly for feeling the need to say this over your lovely vase..it truly is beautiful. You have a lovely collection..and I envy so mny of your gorgeous item....
May I? And May I digress and return to make my point?
The great thing about being a newbie in the glass world or for that matter in any new interest; you have enthusiasm and you also bring a new aspect. You are keen to learn and you ask loads and loads of questions. You gravitate toward the people who you think might know a bit or two but you also spend time with those who also invest in you in the hope that you may learn and one day be just as clever as they are.
When I joined CW I did so at the recommendation of a what I consider a fairly savvy and clever chap. He introduced me to a bunch of you in here. I soon started to feel like part of the family. And the reference material I've had access to and the small amount of minor contributions I've been able to make, especially for fellow "cross-overs" to the Porcelain and Pottery world, I've realised the more you learn the less you really do know. And it's astonishingly frustrating isnt it.?...
In the small time too that I've switched from a serious Porcelain aficionado to becoming an apprentice Czech glass collector, I've spent many hours night after night reading books, looking at websites and private collections, reading some amazing court documents from my families friends from Czechoslovakia whose grandparents, Oswald Weiss and wife owned 98 per cent the biggest commercial glass factory and pretty much village township in Czechoslovakia, reading the heartbreak of murder, land acquisition and property theft and country relocation. After talking to descendents and watching them grow up in a world so totally foreign, I just wonder whether they and their families and other glass producers had any understanding that collectors and admirers of their work in the 21st Century would in turn hold some kind of cold war in proof of who is right and who isnt in relation to their production of a vase...
And do any of the Welz versus Kralik versus Ruckl team have any idea how bloody stupid you really look? I've asked this question so often, 'do you know who made this vase" to which the only real answer is, in 10 per cent we can identify, the rest is guess work and more research....
There are some very serious questions around exporter behaviour and re-badging that I have been made aware of but only one or two here have agreed that there was some type of an issue of which we as a group have a glimpse of but do not know the full extent of. We should not brush this issue under the carpet and hide ourselves in the closet. We need to address it, it really is very very important.
From what I understand a lot of Kralik had Kralik engraved. This was open to fraud in itself. Loetz had a pretty good system from what I'm learning but Welz and other makers had a lot of issues because material was destroyed or that great records weren't kept or available etc etc.
Before any of you start typing can I ask you this please? In relation to this vase and the one Leah just reposted, which is correct and on what basis?
I think people in here are missing the point. It's not about how many books you've published, how many unique visitors you've had to a website. I think Alfredo made a valid point.
I've been told unless you're sure it must be listed as Czech or Bohemian. And in most cases, this seems to suit most. Because we all know there just isnt the original material proof positive. No matter how many well meaning people say they've done the research, it's all comparisons in the main of other peoples opinions of what they feel a particular style of item is.
I've seen a lot of research that quite frankly is clutching at very large straws. I've been sent some very well meaning ppls opinions and photos and drawings and to be quite honest look nothing like my items. And I just really wonder what on earth all the fuss is?
Are ppl basing their arguments in such heat because there is a financial gain? I don't think so. Are people trying to put out an opinion because it makes them look important? Doubtful too. Is it just a little bit of face saving that one won't budge because the other team is actually correct but doesn't wish to admit it? Well maybe. But whatever it is, can you all agree to disagree or take adult steps to sort it out? Please?
Here comes the "me stuff", it's been about you lot for way too many paragraphs....
Interestingly I seem to be "branded in the Czechman, Leah Goodwin and others camp". And my reason for that is, since joining I've had two comments from the various "members" of team Welz....seriously. And yet so many others have been warm, generous and deeply keen to help me in my journey...What the hell did I do? Why won't you like my nice Tango vases or feel comfortable to comment..?.I can assure you I am Switzerland but at the moment others arent being so.
And again, my personal view but watching this crap is embarrassing. Embarrassing to think because some ppl are pushing some type of agenda, not saying who but it really it is very very boring.
Last time I checked the country I am typing in allows a democratic view to its citizens thus allowing me a right to my opinion. I don't believe under the rules of this forum that I have insulted any one person here today. But with the goings ons, the leaving, the returning, the nasty supporter comments from adults who really should know better than to attack ppl personally, there really needs to be a solution to this. Otherwise I and many others are going to view this as some type of sport for the protagonists. And I and I am sure others really do believe it should be sorted at another place.
And finally, Alfredo did have the right to ask "prove it". We would all like the proof. Why become defensive just because someone has asked genuinely for the research. We all share, well most share their research to ppl who have expressed interest. So what is the harm in giving it? I would appreciate those who feel it's not my right to comment. I personally feel it is. I havent been given the full CW experience and personally, I would like to be able to engage in free flowing conversation with all participants on here....if you got this far, you've done well.
Please accept my post today Moon as an attempt to do something to top this destruction and in doing so bring the ppl together who really could in united fashion do such great things together...:) with the deepest respect I thnk you for th opportunity to also contribute to the current conversation...
Anne Landers
"And finally, Alfredo did have the right to ask "prove it". We would all like the proof. Why become defensive just because someone has asked genuinely for the research."
Anne-- if it were a genuine request for information, I believe that moon would have responded in a completely different manner and this discussion would not be happening right now. I would NOT have added comments.
What al stated was: "Prove it's Welz with REAL RESEARCH." A very different tone from "how did you arrive at the attribution?"
Additionally, al made a similar posting just a few days ago that ballooned into a similar exchange. Was this too a desire for information? Of course not! One only needs to look at his highlited words to see that it is antogonistic in nature.
It was another jab at Welz and emperical research (a method employed by al and others; but somehow not relevent for attributions to Welz).
As a way to keep peace, I and many others stopped commenting on glass posted by al and others-- rather than stir the pot with disagreement, we have chosen to ignore. Maybe a good question to al would be: "Why do you continue to make antagonistic posts?".
By the way, much of the current knowledge and accepted attributions of Czech glass were arrived at through that same REAL RESEARCH that is not acceptable when it comes to Welz.
scott
Hello Lee , I do have to ask you this ....
1) How did you acquire this vase ?
2)What made you change your mind to change the title from Kralik to Welz?
3) and Why so of I may ask? was there some more further research you did ?
Sean
You know Lee...I don't really care how you acquired it as it is abosutely none of my business, and as for changing your mind who cares I will make up own mind about it!..and as for your research I am sure like others on here that do it...when you are ready to share you will...in the mean time...it's a beautiful vase!....:-)
I was just wondering that's all , it wasn't like that at all .. because things keep changing with glass ............
and im having a hard time keeping up with all info all of the time .... that things keep changing!!!
well info is change all of the time. and its really confusing me bigtime!! so I hope your understanding where im coming from.
Without prejudice
Craig, if you are referring to me and questioning my motivation then I request that you withdraw that inference. You neither know me nor my motivation. If any of your post is directed at me, then I would appreciate a recant of statement. Anything else other than my motivation to see what appears to be an argument being played out in public to cease is my intent. So I fully expect to see you withdraw the statement in reference to me respectfully. Unfortunately when you make a blanket statement you inpune everyone. In law, probably not the best way to go considering many of us have our legally known names as our usernames..may I ask, was that directed at me.?
At least Scott has the balls to answer albeit with nothing relevant to my post, just about Al's tone. I think this is part of your problem. As we say in Australia, stop playing the man and play the game. Let's focus on the key aspects. The questions about the facts and the answers about a vase. I think it's gone beyond expectations of politeness when I read some of the vitriolic tomes and personal attacks here. But that's the whole reason of my post which you've missed and done exactly what I asked not to be. You all in all honesty have the chance to say, you know what Anne, you might just be right. We had no idea this argument was being viewed by the CW community in this way. We are going to bang heads together and work through a way to get some understanding and some mutual ground on some areas and work hard together to get a resolution of opinion and move forward. For the betterment of Czech glass and the CW Community.
I wish you all would drop the constant criticism of one and other now. Remove the history on this argument and whatever started it and allow us the chance to purely enjoy a vase.
This persecution approach of everybody hates Welz. What is the true foundation of this comment you make? What I personally see is unless you agree with one camp, it's all or nothing.
Sean makes a brilliant observation, why did the poster change the title from Kralik to Welz? Was there some new research? If there is then every one is very keen to see it because we all are passionate about Czech glass. Simple. It's not a game of trickery. I am keen.
Scott, I have a vase, a little one that apparently everyone from a Fenton to Welz to many others did a similar work. Everyone is telling me it's 3 different makers. But the majority of them preface the statement by saying it's very hard to tell without the prof of drawings, photographs and makers marks. That you just get a feel for the work. But they would never say it's definitely something. There would always be a question mark attached to a public statement. With the Welz fans they want none of this. They say it's Welz full stop and become offended that no one wishes to follow suit. So it's not about ppl hating Welz but it's about the way the attributions are given and offence if you might not agree. That for me is where the issue is. The determination of every Welz attribution to stick, be solid and blindly accepted without question. Do you think this is fair either? Looking in, it's not.
Every collector has the right to question. Why is this so difficult for ppl to understand? I think the main issue with this situation is face saving. The "I'm right and please don't question me because it's just so". In generalese!
And don't anyone be implying that I'm writing this in ghost for someone else. I've summized this all by myself by reading as everyone else has the rubbish that is at play here. Surprisingly several ppl who I don't know have written to me overnight applauding my post. That they agree entirely but chose not to involve themselves for whatever reasons. Some don't want the grief, others just say there is no use. Some are genuinely afraid. I disagree entirely. This should be fixed and I'm going to be the pest that gets under your nose until it's done. Sorry about that. And I'm sure that others in here have similar emails, possibly from some of the same ppl saying just who does she think she is, this Johnny come lately. She shows no respect for great ppl who have spent years and blah blah blah...well, when a person in general gets personal and bullies ppl,sending references to private conversations but show it up in public, that is bullying. When someone causes ppl to be deeply and genuinely affected by online comments, then yes, that is bullying. And when good honest hard working ppl stand in here, using their own names as their user names and an anonymous poster accuses them of doing underhanded things, that's just not bullying, that is libel. Dress it up as nothing more or less, when I read some of the previous prose I just have to think why?
The one question above all else I want answered is this and again it is ignored. What is the deal with the exporters? Has there been a discovery that puts in to question a lot of maker attributions? And if so, why is this not being shared with the community as a discovery or at minimum a serious question mark? These are the main questions I've been raising for months but no one has come and answered this. I'm not interested if one person or another used to be good buddies with someone and it's all gone to pot because of it or whatever, which clearly seems to be part of this.
Please answer my question so it really does become transparent in exactly what we are dealing with here.
Love, peace and harmony; Utopia is not just a fairytale. Glass Nirvana is possible but we all have to have a crack at it, not just a selected few. We have many Masters in here. Please harness the dignity in your positions to work through this please.
Anne Landers
I love the vase. I would love one. Or two.
D...............R.................O............O............L..........I.........N..............G
Wow
Ian, this was one of a huge lot of rare vases I purchased from a wonderful seller. I needed up buying 9 vases from him. I treasure them all. I would love to find another one to make a pair :)). Thanks for commenting :)
Lee
I just love the color - you don't see it very often in Bohemian glass - and the twist! Oh, and the pattern...okay, the whole darned vase! ;)
nice try but not going to take up on any attempt to bring in personalities. And the only ones who need to relax are the ppl involved in making it an issue for 12 months...um, guess what, that's not me..
If you read what I wrote you would see that I'm actually trying to close you all down in your commentary,.....you're deflecting from my question at hand and I'll ask you now directly again as its about attribution not personalities...
What is the deal with the exporters? Has there been a discovery that puts in to question a lot of maker attributions? And if so, why is this not being shared with the community as a discovery or at minimum a serious question mark? These are the main questions I've been raising for months but no one has come and answered this. I'm not interested if one person or another used to be good buddies with someone and it's all gone to pot because of it or whatever, which clearly seems to be part of this.,,,
Whilst I relax in the calm of my beachside resort on this long Queens Birthday which unfortunately you Amercians can only dream of celebrating, with my fantastic and well balanced family striking up the BBQ I await, for 5 minutes your response, as I prefer to relax in the company of others if it were 5am in my morning... :) get some sleep, you must be all awash at this time of morning..
ANNE:
"Interestingly I seem to be "branded in the Czechman, Leah Goodwin and others camp". And my reason for that is, since joining I've had two comments from the various "members" of team Welz....seriously. And yet so many others have been warm, generous and deeply keen to help me in my journey...What the hell did I do? Why won't you like my nice Tango vases or feel comfortable to comment..?.I can assure you I am Switzerland but at the moment others arent being so."
---It seems multiple attempts have been made in the past to ID some pieces of "Welz" you have, but you practically ignored all posts and seem to refuse to believe anyone but Al Czechman and Leah. It seems unreasonable to expect people to constantly spend their time to give their opinions when they will simply be ignored.
You just basically tell them "well "other people" have said Kralik". You don't even state why they feel it is Kralik.
I would love to see these "other people" post their info for others to see and show how they came to their conclusion. Example... could you post some of the pieces you've seen that make you and the other people feel the vases below are Kralik.
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/119909-tango-czech-vase-collection
If you and the "others" are willing to spend the time and make a post about why they feel Kralik is the strongest possibility for the pieces, then I would be happy to post examples of why I feel Welz is the strongest possibility.
ANNE:
"And finally, Alfredo did have the right to ask "prove it". We would all like the proof. Why become defensive just because someone has asked genuinely for the research."
I agree with Scottvez, I don't think he was genuinely interested in anything but starting trouble. But, his actual interest here is not even the issue of his post, at least to me.
Why do you think it is ok for Al to come in this 9 month old thread and post nothing but "Prove it's Welz with REAL RESEARCH." and then just disappear. This after posting things like
"I AM ATTRIBUTING THEM TO KRALIK UNTIL SOMEONE ELSE PROVES, WITH SATISFACTORY ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION, THAT THEY ARE NOT."
"PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING COMMENTS THAT HAVE NO DOCUMENTED BASES. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE A PIECE, OR THINK THE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT, YOU MUST PRESENT PROOF, NOT OPINIONS MASKING AS FACTS. RESEARCH IS NOT BUILT ON SPECULATION."
What is it about him that makes him so special that he can make these demands to all users of this site but feel that he himself does not need to follow the same order he gives to others?
I'm very confused, just who are you? Yesterdaysglass?
And I ignored all attempts when I was told I was being lied to.
I don't speak to one post wonders.
You seem to know so much, come out behind your stupid nome de plume. I no longer will speak to ppl who do not use their real names or are personally know to me..
Cheers
Anne Landers
Just who on earth are you today...!!!
Gary ,check your fb messages!!
"At least Scott has the balls to answer albeit with nothing relevant to my post, just about Al's tone."
Anne-- some things you don't seem to understand:
- al's antagonistic approach STARTED this current exchange!
- there is NO genuine interest in the research or documentation
- the posts are all about antagonizing
I also find it interesting that you (anne), someone so critical of the RESPONSES to posts and a self professed cumbaya/ let's all get along person, would be so critical and judgemental of a first time poster (yesterdaysglass):
- "I don't speak to one posts wonders"
- "stupid nom de plume"
Is this part of your welcoming to a new poster?
Maybe you should read your comments in #59 AGAIN:
"Last time I checked the country I am typing in allows a democratic view to its citizens thus allowing me a right to my opinion. I don't believe under the rules of this forum that I have insulted any one person here today. But with the goings ons, the leaving, the returning, the nasty supporter comments from adults who really should know better than to attack ppl personally, there really needs to be a solution to this. Otherwise I and many others are going to view this as some type of sport for the protagonists. And I and I am sure others really do believe it should be sorted at another place."
Amazing!
scott
Alfredo was probably as astounded as many were when the poster changed her post. Rather a rude thing to do when you understand it's provenance ...maybe go back and ask who you bought it from how he thinks about the whole messy dressed up pantomime...fairly disgusting work here . But I'm not the one Scott to ask about the whole messy affair.. Maybe ask your mates.
Seriously if I had for one second known what I know now about the reality behind this I never ever would have attempted to bring you lot together again...sordid is about the best one can think to say.
And don't bother sending your mates to post on mine. I've alerted CW as to what is really going on...childish absolutely ...
"Alfredo was probably as astounded as many were when the poster changed her post. Rather a rude thing to do when you understand it's provenance ..."
It is now rude to others to update YOUR OWN POSTS! Don't know how it is rude to update an attribution on your own post.
"And don't bother sending your mates to post on mine."
As I stated above, I and many others are in the habit of NOT commenting on the posts that we disagree with TO AVOID these type of issues.
Suggest you reign in "your mates" and their continued childish/ antagonistic postings:
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/124789-welz-spiraloptisch-iridescent-cadmium-va
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/110216-kralik-peach-oil-spot-iridescent-slow-tw
scott
Anne, I merely changed my mind after other research that was done. I had no alterrior motive to do anything other than change my original maker....to what I thought was correct. I am so sorry you think that I had one. I for one....do not like confrontation...nor did I mean to get one. As in many other posters...they are definitive as to the maker. I, being new to the glass World assumed it was what the old school said it was...Kralik. As there is new research and since there is no other vase like mine as we know it....and Craig's open research into Welz is new and against the grain of what we knew 30 years ago. A lot has changed in the past few years in research. I believe I am not wrong into thinking this is a nice example of a Welz. My opinion only......no one elses....but mine!
Lee
As longS it as you believe this then for you this is what matters...
Lee, my error was to think I could broker some sort of peace between this all. And now your friends seem to take great delight in twisting my words.
Can you pls remove my posts.i no longer wish to express the same views asi had earlier today. You don't seem to mind removing others and leaving mine out of context so kindly remove and let you get on with it..:)
Anne, thank you for your open mind. I am not imposing my thoughts on other CW members posting unless they are asking and I try to help..and I don't degrade or trash there piece
...I am only human and make mistakes too.....but love helping. As when you post I love your vases...I hope you don't mind...
Lee
Anne, I have not touched any of the comments...nor will I ...as I do not think that opinions are bad...they are just opinions...and greatly appreciate all and any...
Lee
Well Lee,I personally would like to state, after experiencing first hand what I have tonight and after learning some information that had not been previously made available that I herewith withdraw my support of seeing some type of brokerage of an end to the current situation.there appears to be a great amount of issues here and at first I believed there could be an easy fix. But after further information has been given to me, I doubt that my involvement would make a y difference to the agendas at play here...really sorry to say this but hey,it happens...good luck with it all..
"And now your friends seem to take great delight in twisting my words."
I take offense with the characterization that I have twisted your words--
WHAT WORDS DO YOU FEEL WERE TWISTED?
I cut and pasted your EXACT wording-- HOW DOES ONE "TWIST WORDS" USING A DIRECT QUOTE?
scott
Look forward though to seeing your research...are you posting this to share as others do?
Hi Moon, well this seems to caused quite a stir. I must admit to not reading all the comments. I just wanted to say what a stunning vase this is. It could quite happily sit in any era and not look out of place. I love it and to think its as old as it is is quite amazing, ahead of its time.
Scott, not your issue and nothing to do with you.my husband has reported this incident so your days as a copy and paster can be limited to things that matter..in due course all will become evident..for now, no need to concern yourself with...it's in the hands of our ISP.
Like I say it your issue, nothing to do with you, as it's not about you..
Cheers
Anne
Really Craig, I found the comments quite libellous. BI
It maybe like me you need legal training to understand that point.
If I came on here and said Craig was liking to someone about something, how would you feel?
Butt I copy and paste too, so perhaps it might be best that I look at a little research and pull to pieces everything you have to say in isolation to make my point?
Sorry, say lies not liking,
Please link YOUR RESEARCH to PROVE the kralik attribution for all to see.
scott
My thoughts exactly, welzebub.
The standards was set by al-- where is the original documentation?
Additionally, I find it very ironic that someone who has gone on the record (NUMEROUS TIMES) stating that emperical research is guesswork and ineffective; would then site emperical research as proof!
For the record, I DO BELIEVE emperical research and analysis is an indespensable tool in glass attribution (as it HAS been for years).
scott
Love the shape and the colour is amazing!
Anne
Thank you everyone for being so kind and understanding....I really appreciate your kindness and loving of my piece! I am grateful for the feedback and will continue to learn as I go.....
peace and blessings
Lee
Moonie, love ya!!
Beautiful, Lee!
Parkerhouse, I am grateful....thank you!
Great post, idcloisonne - thank you.
idcloisonne, I understand your point of view. The reasons I kept the messages with the heated debate was to show I was not favouring one or the other side in this argument. And to be as neutral as possible. Also I would like to point out that because I or someone else changes there mind on a maker does not make them wrong ...or sometimes right. We are all here to learn and be taught by open minded teachers.....at least for me I do. I respect every and all thoughts and opinions.....as I am sure the teacher or top collectors do also. We, all should be learning and not thinking that 30 years ago...the research is still the same and not changed with new time of technology. I have and was in the horse industry for the past 35 years.....teaching and training. I for one would and, have been told by my Olympic teachers to never end with one conclusion...as that final conclusion maybe out dated at some point. That knowledge is ever evolving and new books are being written by experts all the time.
Lee
I agree, Lee - we all evolve, research & technology evolve, so attributions must, too. That's what keeps us all fresh & interested in learning! :)
Michelle, thank you for understanding and being my friend in glass. I am always open to knowledge...and you of all should know that :) Thank you my friend.
Lee