Posted 11 years ago
rniederman
(347 items)
My brother and I purchased this from an antique store for our parent’s anniversary when we were young teens ... okay ... we’re talking about 40+ years ago.
It is a nice form with a removable silver top rimmed with roses and arched lattice work on top that looks like knotted ropes. Height is roughly 6 inches tall and there's no marks on the glass. We were attracted to the muted colors and silver (now tarnished) cover.
So all of you glass experts ... any ideas of what this is?
Thanks, pops52!
Rob, my daughter who is in the trade, says:
Czech/ Bohemian spatter glass vase with wire frog. C1920's possibly slightly earlier.
If the top is silver it could be hallmarked which would give more details. It is probably not though, they are usually base metal.
Several companies produced these.
Czech glass 1920-30's, made by Kralik, Ruckl and others...
Thanks, Phil!
Thanks, czechman! I hadn't thought of looking under the roses (frogs?) to see if there is a marking.
stunning:)!
Thanks, bratjdd!
Probably Rückl. Love the design on the frog!
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/78351-czech-glass-furnace-decorated-vase-with?in=442
Given I'm not a glass expert (only pre-1900 American cameras), can someone explain what a 'frog' or 'flower frog" is or means? Thanks. - Rob
A flower frog it the top metal part on this vase.
The line drawings are from the manufacturer and show the available Ruckl decors.
Thanks, charcoal ... I was thrown by what the part is called and kept looking (literally) for a frog. Is there a reason it's called a frog? Now you've got my attention and I'm in 'learning' mode.
Hi all ... I really appreciate all the input and I've learned a lot. The one thing everyone agrees on is that this is Czech satin glass probably 1920s - 1930s (or earlier). The discussion if this is Ruckl or not is certainly interesting. But one thing I've learned after nearly 30 years of camera collecting is sometimes a camera refuses identification. I consider myself quite good with pre-1900 American equipment yet there are times when a camera cannot be singularly labeled to a specific maker. I used to consider these situations as a personal defeat, but came to realize there will always be situations of ambiguity. Even the great art critics of the world sometimes cannot identify a painting’s artist. This glass piece might be like that. I've voraciously read the discussions and all have really good points. So a big thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion ... besides, I learned what a frog is!
Comment 15 has the proof your are looking for. That posting helped confirm my attribution, not build it. Please feel feel free to comment on that posting if you disagree. Here's the link again for your convenience:
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/78351-czech-glass-furnace-decorated-vase-with?in=442
Thanks bratjdd, Moonstonelover, vetraio50, smiata, and David!
Nice glass, rob!
I have to agree with Welzebub.
Saying this is Ruckl doesn't make it so. Links to other pieces (that you also claim to be Ruckl) doesn't reinforce the attribution. The links have proven to be more of an endeavor in "tail chasing" than actually showing attributions!
scott
Collectible Bohemian Glass 1, by R & D Truitt, copyright 1995 mentions Welz and says the factory closed around 1910. Are you now agreeing that the information Truitt provided on Welz is inaccurate because Welz wasn't on the radar until sometime after 2003? Wouldn't that be a clear indication that both the text and examples shown in the above book should also be questioned? Or, is that an indication that after 1910 Welz was a broker of wares manufactured by others?
So that readers can better understand what is happening here. Someone doesn't like Ruckl attributions because no consideration was given to their decor tables when forming a Welz website. Several decors DOCUMENTED on these tables and the shapes associated now clearly contradict current Welz attributions.
You know what documentation or decor tables I am referring to and it isn't those published in the Truitt book. Maybe you could explain yourself so I don't sound like I'm getting personal.
STUNNING RUCKL!! ROB:) LOL Alfredo!!
Hi all ... WOW ... I never thought my post would generate this much discussion. Let's call it quits for now. The posts are now repeating and getting somewhat terse in a bad way ... I think everyone understands each others' positions good or bad. But for the record, I am learning a lot. Attribution with documentation or not is a very common problem - it's one of the things I love about cameras - there is lots of ambiguity which means reasons to do research. I don't think we'll solve this here. And for everyone how visited and 'loved' ... MANY THANKS!
Thank you rniederman for allowing this discussion. Please feel free to delete any comments as you see fit. The glassware above all else is very lovely, of outstanding quality, and you should be very proud to own it. I know I would. Thanks again, Charlie
Thanks, Vintagefran and catteann!
Thankyou Rob and Good Morning! beautiful Ruckl:)
Thanks, wpj and Eric!
Hi all ... I'm somewhat amazed. Twice I’ve gently tried to cull back the comments. Now I’m deleting comments that are not productive to identifying the vase or celebrating its beauty. I know a lot of you have strong opinions, but this – dare I say it - Czech vase post was never meant to be a philosophical vehicle for dissertations on who is or is not an expert, what makes an expert, tomes about definitions of proof, etc. My participation here is simple. Show rarely seen items in my collections and occasionally ask for assistance. Friendly questioning is always welcome.
FWIW, I've been on this forum since the absolute very beginning. I’ve seen a lot of great posts and amazing commentaries over the years. In the beginning, there simply wasn’t any of the narrative contention I now see. Yet don’t be fooled, there were serveral A-list collectors posting during those early years. Some are still here and posting. Sadly, some left Show & Tell because of the clashes.
In summary, CW is an amazing forum and I’m glad to have it. And the good news, interesting posts continue. Please, just enjoy the vase and celebrate each other’s posts. Many thanks! - Rob
Hi Eye ... humor is always appreciated! I recall your post but there was some other stuff in front of the humor ... but it was a funny comment. I laughed a lot.
Moonstone and JayHow ... no worries ... the odd conversations came to pass at a very strange time ... I am an independent IT consultant (executive level) and this hit when I was in a "hold no prisoners" mode to straighten out some serious issues with major projects (it's been a tough but productive week). I hold no grudges yet truly appreciate the 'loves' and that you took the time to stop by. :)
Leah ... many thanks for the Butler Bros info and reference. I'll post the catalog entry a bit later. Although unattributed as to the maker, I always enjoy a period reference and this is a goodie.
Everyone ... I'll get to individual "thanks" at some point for the 'loves', but I definitely appreciate everyone stopping in.
Welzebub ... I too have the image from the Butler catalogue (along with the group ad) and there is similarity. As an aside, with cameras there is always some degree of variance as to what is shown in a catalogue and what arrives in the real world. From a camera collecting point of view, I've yet to find early wooden apparatus advertised in a catalogue that is exactly the same as what is purchased. 99% of the time there is variation in dimensions, proportions and so forth. Wood cameras start from solid materials and you’d think they models would be exactly the same. In truth they are not. Glass is a completely different matter and it’s amazing how makers and artists manipulate the material. Yet, I agree with your overall observation that the catalogue image is not same as my piece if the point you are making is the assertion of the two being exact matches.
I’ve e-mailed with Leah and can confidently say that she was merely referring to similarity in shapes even though she said “the shape is in the Butler Bros catalogue.” She didn’t say exact shape or THE shape. To my unpracticed eye the ephemera looks like the shape of my piece, yet I can see minor differences as you point out. As an experienced glass collector, I am fully aware you see much more than me. This is expected. But that was not the intent of Leah’s kind hearted intentions.
I admire your passion and drive to prove yourself right and educate. There is nothing wrong with that. In camera circles I am very well known and published worldwide and known by museum curators. But our styles are completely different. My approach to education and enlightenment is less heavy handed. My point is that hairs are being split over a single sentence. The American language is like that; full of ambiguity and innocent intentions. IMO, a more appropriate feedback would have been to ask if Leah was conveying the shapes were THE same or if she was simply offering an example of something similar shown in a catalogue. No effort was made to clearly understand the intent of the original thought. In my line of professional work, this is intolerable. Disagreement without due diligence for clarification sake is unpalatable. This is one such example.
At this time, I’m very tired of these disagreements and contentiousness. If separate post is warranted, then there should be other examples of vases similar to mine that might work; maybe something in your own collection. IMO, using my image as the basis for a new post seems has the feel of a one-off commentary. Respectfully, my image is not available for reuse as I believe there are others that could represent the same discussion.
Ugh ... too many grammatical errors in my last post ... sorry about that.
Welzebub ... Okay ... consider it done ... I'll remove your posts as you wish. I'm rather confused that you feel what I "suggest doesn't work." What doesn't work? Using another example of a nice vase for your post? Okay ... whatever.
Thanks, Sean and DrFluffy!
anytime Rob:)!
Thanks, rlwindle, blunderbuss2, charcoal, and Leah!
Thanks lisa, kerry10456, and JayHow!
Hi valentino97 ... I appreciate the 'love' ... yep ... it got kind of frisky with everyone's input.
Thanks, geo26e!
Thanks, ozmarty!
Thanks, pickrknows and Welzebub!
Thanks, Aimathena!
Thanks, Justanovice!
Thanks, freiheit!
Thanks, VictorianVicky!
Thanks, Michelleb007!
Thanks, pawsitrack!
Thanks, ks85!
Thanks, inky!
Thanks, tom61375!
Thanks, bratjdd!
Thanks, Vintagefran!
Thanks again, charcoal!
Thanks, AnneLanders!
Just going to throw this out there.....
Having Seen a few of these, and having a few myself .... Has anyone ever tried to do research on the Design on the Metal (flower) Frog to see if certain makers used certain Frog Designs. EG. Roses, bars, scrolls.
I just think it would be interesting to start making some documentation on the metal frogs on these pieces to see IF that leads anywhere down the road when it comes to dates, maker, hallmarked or whatever.
That's all.....and ME just thinking out-loud. Thanks
Thanks, nittygritty1962!
Thanks, aghcollect and EZa!