Posted 11 years ago
jericho
(236 items)
1 doz. In pkg…………………….Doz $4.00
12 kinds of pieces, imported from Czecho-Slovakia- Artistic shapes, some with modern-istic touch, genuine double or cased glass, all in bright and mottled colors, contrasting color fancy decorations, Asstd. vases, bowls, covered candy jars, comports,flower holders, handled baskets, etc.
I was inspired (Tom) to show a real-picture grouping taken from of the 1930's Butler Brothers ad. Butler Brothers were importers and distributors of European glass across the US. The language of the ad is interesting as well; I tried my best to print it as it was written.
Words like modern-istic (1), cased glass(2), covered candy jars(3), flower holders(4) and handled baskets(5) demand attention.
1. Modern-istic implies “new style”... not in the way of “Art Deco” per se, but just different from overly dark iridescent, enameled or ruffley; Cleaner lines, brighter colors
2. Double or cased glass: I’m not sure what “double glass” is exactly but “cased glass” is a great way of describing most later-Kralik pieces where the color décor is trapped between two layers of crystal glass. Cased glass is what many companies have in common in this period (1918-1938)of collecting
3. I was never sure glass lidded dishes should be called candy dishes. Now I feel right in calling them that because that is how they were marketed to us; Lidded dishes may have any number of uses or names
4. Comports – I have no idea what these are
5. Flower holder = flower frog pieces with a metal lid or pieced with a glass grid applied to the top of the piece to separate the flowers for better display
6. Handled baskets, well... that is just redundant and kind of funny
I have to commend Thomas for his post, these posts take time and energy in fromt of the computer, in time saving images can have an impact on research (especially if we share images)
#4 "Comports"-- I believe that these are bowls on a stem. They are often called "Compotes"-- don't know the reason for two words. I usually use the term compote.
Although if it is Italian glass, I might call it a tazza!
scott
In your Butler image, I would think the piece far right top row AND 2nd from right bottom row; would both fit the name. Maybe the definition should be "bowls on a stem or base"?
scott
If you could just forward those pieces my way, I'll send you the four bucks via PayPal :)
Warren, I am right behind you with the PayPal ....but you have me beat ...my best would be three bucks! :0
If we could only go back in time...
Hi Jericho, great post. Are these pcs from your collection or just pics from the internet? Great Glue Chip vase.
The Kralik bowl in photo #2 is found in Truitt II, page 59. It is shown as part of a console set with two short candle holders. The bowl is also shown in the Kralik Butler Brothers assortment, picture 1 above. Here's that same console set, including the bowl above, with multiple "Royal Art Glass" paper labels.
http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/3pc-czech-royal-art-glass-bowl-candlestick-set
I am curious exactly what your point is Charcoal?
Here is what see.
The set matching Truitt II, shown in your link with the Welz Royal Art Glass labels would seem to indicate that the unidentified set in Truitt are actually by Welz. The pic of the bowwl in imagte 2 appears to also be a Welz bowl.
It would also seem to indicate from the Butler ad, that Kralik made a very similar shape bowl. I have images of what I believe is the bowl shape in the ad in a Kraik millifiori décor.
The bowl in the link below is a Kralik bowl in a recognized Kralik décor. The foot design of that bowl seems to be a better match to the drawing than the more vertical foot side on the bowl that Jericho matched up to the ad.
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/77750-kralik-bowl-with-label?in=activity
B&B Assortments were a variety of shapes by a variety of manufacturers. That's my point...
OK.. Maybe you could show something to show how you arrived at that opinion, as my findings after 4 years of studying the question, seem to indicate that many of the ads are quite the opposite, and seem to support the idea that many of the Czech glass groups offered by Butler were by a single house.
Jericho showed an incorrect match above. The link I added would seem to correct that, by adding a known Kralik bowl in the ad shape to complete the group match to Kralik.
I look forward to your post supporting your opinion. I always welcome the opportunity to learn from robust and supportable research.
Every piece Jericho posted here, with the exception of the bowl in question, were identified as Kralik production long before being matched to this ad.
As these are hand produced product, mostly made in wood molds, the glass itself varies from piece to piece also.
In some cases companies made quite similar shapes, in which case the decor itself becomes a determining factor. The bowl in question would seem to be just such an example.
Maybe at some point someone will actually provide some examples of Welz and Ruckl production that actually match some of these shapes...... aside from the bowl Jericho used, which it seems Charcoal has successfully linked to Welz production......
The bowl in comment 9 isn't a match by decor but Jericho's bowl is. The whole reason for the posting was to show live examples of the decors as represented in the wholesale catalog. He's very good at matching up examples like that.
Spatter decors in multiple colors are certainly not completely matchable using black and white line art. Showing the same shape in a Kralik decor would certainly show that the shape was made by Kralik. That would complete the point Jericho was making, in that all of the shapes/decors in the ad were produced by Kralik.
Interestingly, it is the most simplistic shape in the group that is the only one that comes into question. The bowl in comment 9 is a Kralik example in the shape as shown, and a known Kralik decor.
So would you be so kind as to provide some examples of the other shapes in known Welz or Ruckl decors? Or was that the only one that you questioned.
By the way... Thanks for showing the link of the decor and shape to Welz production. I appreciate it.
I was quite clear I thought, in my explanation of the deletion of our "discussion".
Lisa. If you are gong to put things in quotation marks as you did above, you should not "quote" your paraphrasing. To me at least, that seems to misrepresent that the information has been "quoted" and not paraphrased. I find that to be more than a little disingenuous.
Regarding your "quote" above, I was talking about "research" I presented and conclusions I have drawn as a result of it..... you are talking about "opinions".... Personally, I do not really see those two things as very similar.
For those interested, comment 9 of the following link is what I actually said, and it is substantially different from quoted paraphrasing of it here.
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/139281-butler-brothers-ads--an-interesting-ear?in=user
For what it is worth, as a researcher, I never believe opinions which are presented without supporting evidence of any kind...... unless of course, I know the source and have a high degree of respect for their opinion based on knowledge of the work they have done. In that case, I know that if I asked why they believed something, they would have no problem at all providing evidence to support their position.
When Jericho posted this, he was actually quite familiar with my Butler research which started more than 3 years prior to this post bu Jericho.
We do not need to have a survey. I trust those that are actually interested will go read my comment, compare it to your paraphrased quote, and make up their own mind.
Maybe Royal Art Glass imported glassware manufactured by Kralik. What was their address?
For clarification, and resourced from a Purdue University online writing lab, regarding the use of quotation marks:
"The primary function of quotation marks is to set off and represent exact language (either spoken or written) that has come from somebody else. "
I called you on it, because you presented your quite abbreviated paraphrasing, seemingly as a quotation of something I said.....
Royal Art Glass is a product line manufactured and labeled by Welz..... One you seemingly continue to confuse somehow with the Royal Art Glass Co. of New York. A company that produced lamps and has never been directly linked to any Czech glass imports by any form of supporting evidence.
"Maybe Royal Art Glass imported glassware manufactured by Kralik. What was their address?"
You mean the american lamp maker with no links to czech glass? :)
No, the Royal Art Glass, Czechoslovakia. What was their address?
If you are talking about a czechoslovakian company...why would they "import" kralik? :confused:
Royal Art Glass did not have an address. It was not a company, but a line of glass made by Welz..... at least according to the Glasmarken Lexicon....... but you know that...... so again, I am not exactly sure of your point.
"Glad to know someone else who is not easily deceived with opinions of empirical research."
Isn't the second link you provided based on "empirical research"?
I'm just pointing out the never ending hypocrisy on here. It gets REALLY old.
I'd love to see some meaningful discussions on here, but it's pretty much impossible until the hypocritical nonsense stops.
One of the critical aspects of empirical research is to pay close attention to everything, but very specifically to the small details.
Although the shape of the Worthpoint example with the Royal Art Glass label, and the Truitt example referenced above, are quite similar to Warren's example, they are definitely not the same shape.
In assigning possible attributions using empirical methods, "close" does not count..... especially when the shapes are, for the purpose of empirical research, not even really that close. This should not really surprise anyone, but the reliability of findings using empirical methods is actually directly dependent on the strictness with which the process is applied. If I thought that the three shapes being discussed were the same, I would not believe in the validity of a time proven research technique either.
Luckily, I personally don't think they are really even that close and apparently I appear to apply the process in a substantially more discriminating WAY than some.
Here is a link to a comparison of the three discussed candlestick examples. Readers can decide for themselves if "the shape of the candle sticks is a nice match up with a Kralik posting".
For the purposes of my research and observations, there is no way that I would classify both shapes as anything other than similar..... something we know came out of different glass houses in some instances.... similar, yet still uniquely different products.
Here is the link for the shape comparison.
http://www.kralik-glass.com/CandleShapeComparison.html
I made nothing my own, other than to address what I feel are incorrect observations regarding the similarity of the the three shapes, and their being the same.
You found the shapes to be a "nice match up", I find them to be quite different.... just showing why.....
Back to the usual I see!
Those willing to look will be enlightened.
Thanks for providing the information welzebub.
scott
Thanks Scott, and you are welcome.
Always my pleasure to provide something of interest.
Hey, this was just a fun excersize trying to find actual pieces that match BB catalogues. It's was fun but not scientific, Craig has done more for Welz collecting than anybody, I credit him with higher prices and more collector interest in Welz... This is all good for the future of our collections so I don't understand the animosity even if you disagree with him. Jericho
Thanks a lot for that Jericho, as I appreciate the support.
To be honest with you, the nonsense has gone on for so long that when I feel it is appropriate, I simply respond with my research findings, information, and questions.
It is the easiest thing in the world to make unsubstantiated claims. It is infinitely more difficult to actually do the work to support those claims with evidence. As you are well aware, I simply try to do the latter. That apparently is upsetting to some. :-) C'est la vie
For those that read this post and find that the comments do not seem to make sense in some parts, it is due to the fact that the account of one of the people involved in the "conversation" has been deleted from CW.
I have added a correct looking Kralik bowl in this group in the post located here:
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/139281-butler-brothers-ads--an-interesting-ear?in=user
I have also added some notes about it in the comments.