Posted 11 years ago
jericho
(236 items)
Here is one of the first decors I recognized when I began collecting a few years back, I call it the pulled thread. I have seen it in many variations so I tried to show a few (but there is realy no definitive patterns I can see just a few techniques)
They can have stunning decor but most of the time they look badly done (but this is just an opinion of looking at the 100 images or so of this grouping) so if you see a good one buy it!
Base colors: crystal, clam broth, orange, custard, uranium green
Threading colors: black, white, red and blue
Thread techniques: spiral, vertical lines, flames and three-vertical lines
Finishes: satin, glossy, flashed
Other applications: Canes, Confetti
...my personal favorites are cluster applications of confetti
Love them!
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/Kralik-Signed-Czechoslovakia-Vaseline-Lidded-Glass-Jar/202721537151?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649
Felt you might find this box in this decor interesting. I did.
Probably not Kralik, but Steinwald.
Charcoal. I was wondering if you could provide any evidence to support your claim which in effect would move all of these from Kralik production to Steinwald?
I am also curious what ever became of the "You can't make that claim, because many companies made the same things? Is that ideology being discarded now, or is it just being temporarily set aside because a different line of glass is being discussed.
Really curious, and will anxiously await your explanation. :-)
I agree with charcoal that this is most likely (close to certainty) the production of the Ernst Steinwald & Co. glassworks. The shapes of all the vases in the above 3 photos (except for the 3rd vase from the second photo) I know in the design of Steinwald's decors Flowerall and Bambus. The design technique also points to this glassworks.
Yes Welzebub, The Kralik empirical research was inaccurate, to put it nicely. I guess many Kralik attributions made sense at the time, but information has changed.
I am sure you do agree with him. I am extremely interested in seeing someone making these claims provide, at a minimum, empirical evidence to support the claims. There are about 10 different variants of decors here. Maybe someone can show some work on how they ALL lead to Steinwald, and how all of the shapes link to Steinwald.
We have heard from several in this forum for years that claims of attributions can not be made using decors and shapes, because they all made the same stuff. I myself know the difficulty of discerning similar production by different production houses, but know that in most cases it can be done.
I am curious to actually see something that supports these attribution claims. I hear that these are "Flowerall and Bambus shapes"... This decor in "bright red spatter with dark webbing" matches this line art in a completely different color... and then everything even similarly resembling that decor is proclaimed to be by Steinwald.... Decors being shifted with little to no evidence to Steinwald.
You want to make these types of claims in a public forum, maybe you can start by answering a question regarding how all of the examples in the image group in the following link are all Steinwald, and if they are all not Steinwald, how one tells the difference. Is it with the colors? Or the shapes? Or something else? It seems everyone wants to make lots of claims.... No one seems to want to show "the work", which makes me wonder if it is being done.
http://www.kralik-glass.com/cwimages/VeinedSpatter.jpg
Sorry, but as someone that has spent well over a decade researching a line of glass with little in the way of documentation etc.... I know the work required to make supportable attributions. Sorry, but I have serious doubts about many of the claims being made in this forum regarding Steinwald production.
As long as claims continue to be made and left pretty much unsupported.... I will be the guy asking to see some actual evidence. I am not big on simply taking people's word for it. I am not saying the production is not by Steinwald.... I am saying that without supporting evidence, the claims ring hollow to many.
And to be clear, I am not asking for anything more than I have willingly supplied when asked about Welz attributions.
Gee Charcoal, maybe you could explain where the Passau, the Tango Exhibition, Truitts, and others made mistakes in the empirical research. Sorry buddy, but you saying the work was wrong is beyond being completely laughable to me.
Knowing how to spell the word Steinwald is a good start to you doing your own research on the topic.
Why would I chase Steinwald production when I have my own research to do? I make Welz claims, and I provide empirical evidence to back them up.
You make Steinwald claims, and then run and hide from presenting any actual facts.
Lots of claims being made in this forum. Little to no supporting evidence being presented... Especially by you Charcoal... The expert on all things he does not research... Have a nice night Charlie... Say hi to the lovely Mrs Charlie for me. :-)
Not like you're gona take my word for it, therefore you should really go do your own Steinwald research.
It looks like that empirical evidence you speak of may have let you down with your Kralik research.
If you present supportable empirical evidence, then I do not need to take your "word" for it. Empirical research speaks for itself... But in the last 10+ years, I have actually never seen you post a single supportable piece of it regarding any claims you have made in this forum.
Apparently you are not aware that the bulk of the Kralik research was not done by me, but by your good buddy Alfredo, and some others. By 2008, before my website was even published, I was involved in Welz research, and others in the glasshounds had contributed Kralik content for my website. But if I remember correctly, you were not a part of that effort, so it is not surprising you have no idea what you are talking about. Thanks Charlie. It is always entertaining reading your "input".
Seven years ago these Kralik decor attribution seemed very clear, I would love to declare all this glass Ernst Steinwald because of the small amount of evidence of it, but then we could be making the same mistake again and disproving Ernst Steinwald for a new companies design archives- I don’t want to be fooled again. I contributed to the problem with newer Kralik and I’m not in a hurry to change all the posts- much easier to delete them all but then I’ll get too lazy to post any of them again and that will be a loss images important to collectors. When you look at seven years ago we had better attributions by far than what was there seven years before that- the future will tell
I agree with Jericho, but 7 years ago there was empirical evidence and references to many museums to support the work folks were doing.
I see none of the current "work" being shown, and as a result of that, I have many serious doubts, and apparently a bunch of questions that no one making these claims seems interested in answering with anything but unsupported and unsubstantiated opinions.... and we all know what opinions are like.
I have always said that I believe that if you are making claims that people are seemingly taking as valid, supporting them with some form of evidence, either documents or strong empirical evidence should be an obligation.
We are already seeing sales on the internet on ebay which claim attributions as "Steinwald - Kralik". So the question then becomes if the claims are being made to actually help people understand glass, or for some other reason. Unsupported "research claims" are "opinions" and nothing more.
We saw a very similar chain of events with Ruckl... and look where that got us.... :-) A now defunct site that was taken down due to the webmaster deciding that it was potentially laden with mistakes.
Arguments for classifying Flowerall decor (referred to by collectors as "Marquetry"):
A: in favor of Ernst Steinwald:
- the name of the decor is given in the statistical yearbooks Czechoslovakia from the 1930s in the description of the production of this glassworks
- the name of the decor is given in the ES&C advertisement (there is probably also a simplified drawing of a vase with the same decor)
- at least two vases with the title decor are known, which are marked Flowerall on the bottom (1 vase in ground referred to by the collector as "Powder cased" and the other in an opal glass design)
B: in favor of Wilhelm Kralik:
- some literature from the period after 1980 - unfortunately in none of the cases I did not find in this literature a reference to any specific evidence for such classification
- probably some museums - I don't know an example where it would be supported by concrete evidence.
This is, of course, one of the basic arguments for assigning other decors to the ES&C glassworks. (Bambus, "Powder cased" - appears in a combination of variants of the Flowerall decor.) And on the basis of shape studies (for example also at http://www.kralik-glass.com) it is possible to assign other decors previously assigned to the W. Kralik glassworks to the ES&C glassworks.
Other arguments for Ernst Steinwald are:
- a vase with a decor referred to by collectors as "Caged" with a paper sticker Arnošt Steinwald a spol. .. in the Museum of Glass and Jewelery in Jablonec (this vase is also presented in GM Passau, incl. literature) - by the way, this "decor" also appears in "powder cased" design)
- advertisement from the magazine Die Schaulade ... with examples of the Osiris decor of the Ernst Steinwald & Co. glassworks Here are presented 4 shapes, which again appear in the design of a number of other decors, which are presented on http://www.kralik-glass.com as a production of W. Kralik
- a vase in the decor design referred to by collectors as a "giraffe" with a paper sticker (identical to the "caged" vase in the museum in Jablenec) and a vase in the Osiris design, again with an identical sticker
- catalog of lampshades Ernst Steinwald & Co.
- a vase in a decor called a "webbed" with a paper sticker of the Chicago 1933 trade fair - the Ernst Steinwald glassworks participated in this fair, while the W. Kralik glassworks did not participate in the fair
Posting images and showing what supports the claims was what I was hoping to see. There are certainly some reassignments which can be supported, but reassigning 100+ decors to Kralik based on Flowerall, Bambus, and a couple other decors is simply, without lots of supporting evidence, a stretch too far. Especially when it was basically done in 6 months from the first ad being posted. I for one, am much more of a "show me why" than "tell me why" kind of researcher.
I am curious why the arguement used for years in this forum, that houses making the same production, is a claim that seems to fall by the wayside in the Steinwald discussion.
I am also still interested in someone making or supporting these claims, addressing my questions regarding the linked image in my comment 7 above.
Additionally, decors such as webbed are actually known to have been produced by multiple houses. Ruckl line art shows at least one example. If both Ruckl and Steinwald made the webbed decor, wouldn't we actually need to examine the similarities and differences in decors and shapes on a vase by vase example to try to clearly differentiate their production. A blanket attribution to Steinwald of the Webbed decor is simply not, IMHO, the least bit supportable.
No offense, but in this forum, we have been down this path before.
I would like to see the evidence presented.
Maybe a posting that guides us through (line art/ museums/ labels/ and analysis...) to SHOW how the attribution was determined for ONE particular piece that was thought to be kralik.
scott
I am working intensively on the study of the production of the Ernst Steinwald glassworks, but I hope to obtain further information for its publication, e.g. from the Regional Museum in Teplice. In connection with the covid, I was also forced to postpone visits to various archives, etc. Before publishing the study, I will also consult with experts in the field of bohemian glass from the Czech Republic.
I approach the publication of partial information because I hope that some collectors will be able to obtain additional information that would contribute to the research of Ernst Steinwald (by the way, it really works).
But otherwise. Can you prove that the "Marquetry" decor belongs to the W. Kralik glassworks? Do you have any evidence that the Bamboo decor was made by the W. Kralik glassworks? Do you have any evidence of any other decor from the 20s and 30s
which you attribute to the W. Kralik glassworks, did this glassworks actually produce?
And as for the speed with which I approached the transfer of decors from the 1920s and 1930s from the W. Kralik glassworks to the Ernst Steinwald glassworks in my collection, there is a relatively simple explanation. I mainly used your research, presented at http://www.kralik-glass.com, where these decors are correctly attributed to one glassworks. Today, however, I am convinced that it was not the W. Kralik glassworks, but the Ernst Steinwald glassworks.
There are some good arguments here... what little evidence we have we need to build on an cross-confirm. It is my belief that we now have a good mark for Ernst Steinwald, a good ad from Germany with the Osiris decor (shapes too).... there is also a good cross-over of mark and decor on a cage piece from the museum. We need to build on this and connect some dots but not all the dots at one time.
The “everybody made everything” is a theory that sounds like a frustrated searcher from 14 years ago but it has a strong point. These many companies were friendly (intermarrying, using the same glass suppliers and maybe hiring people who had worked at another factory) but they were also competitive (infringing on patents and stealing decors).
So, I’ll tell you what The dilemma I am in.
1. I do believe the mark from the Museum is real (I want to visit it soon to confirm). So Kralik loses most of the caged pieces
2. I do believe Ernst Steinwald has the advantage on marquetry by their advertisement showing the a marquetry (flowerall) design. But this has to be confirmed in my mind too. But I will add very importantly that neither the mark on caged or the identification of a single flowerall justify that all marquetry and cages are Ernst Steinwald. I find both those groups mixed. In both camps and because Kralik can’t rise up out of history to defend themselves we are stuck with different opinions.
To me, most marquetry are in ES&Co folders but not All... most Caged are in ES&Co folders BUT NOT ALL.
There is now a newer issue with ES&Co and it’s not going to make me popular for saying it. ES&Co lamp catalogue is showing what appears to be a few Franz Welz decors and shapes along with actual EBay purchases seem to support they were actually produced.
I find it Ironic that history is repeating itself like the Ruckl images where we could dismiss them because there was almost zero evidence they were produced.... but now some years later the Ruckl catalogue looks a lot better in my eyes but that is a different chapter.
The question for me is: are we going to get along while we move forward (even if some won’t want to budge) or are we going to stay in our locked position ?
If you read this far.... the Ernst Steinwald company seems to have made “everything” but I know that’s not the case we just have to figure out where those lines are... I do think that Ernst Steinwald make some things we would call Welz but we need to find the evidence with caution... because if Welz is documented and Ernst Steinwald is documented then we may never agree and go back to “everybody made everything” and nobody wants that
The attributions of Marquetry (Flowerall) and Bambus to Kralik is not work I did, but was done by Alfredo. Those attributions, and many more, preceded my even working on my website. At the time, and still, much of it is in Passau as Kralik. That being said, I also believe that Passau has many mistakes in it. There was a group of people that initially contributed to my website. There is a list of founding members on the site.
The only work on the site that I can take full credit for, is the Welz research. It was aided by collectors all over the world, but the research and it's conclusions are mine. I stand by those completely.
I already stated that I am not saying production is or is not by Kralik or Steinwald... or both possibly... I am simply asking to see some work supporting the claims. I do not think that is unreasonable.
Here is a great example of what I am referring to in this forum. In this post of Tom's, the vase is a piece of Kralik Webbed. We then had mistaken claims by Charcoal (With no supporting evidence really) that the shape and the decor were Ruckl. Now, based on claims of webbed decor now being Steinwald, this would be Steinwald production. The mark on the piece is an America importers mark.
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/83316-beautiful-kralik-webbed-ball-vase--red?in=activity
I am still interested in someone addressing the linked image in comment 7 above, as I think that image pretty directly addresses my concerns about the manner in which attributions are being done.
I understand what it is you are trying to do... I simply think the methodology needs to be much more concise and definitive to make the claims being made. Like I said before, we are now seeing Kralik - Steinwald production being sold on ebay. To me at least, that is not a good thing, and represents a giant step backwards in regards to Czech glass attributions. The production is one or the other. I believe that which one needs to be proven with some form of empirical evidence or documentation... and proven before claims of attribution are made publicly... That's all.
Jericho, We are going to get along, but I will always press for evidence to support claims. It is something I have been prepared to do, and have always done regarding Welz research.
I am of the opinion that although the Steinwald lighting catalog shows a couple of decors that resemble Welz, they are different to my eye, and simply lean into my beliefs that companies did make similar production, but those can be differentiated if one takes the time to understand them well. I have previously shown, and can still easily show this to be true. The Japanese clone of the Welz "lines" decor is a good example. Line art for both would make them look quite similar, but they are provably different.
As another example of the point I am trying to make, this linked image shows a decor in Ruckl production line art. So the question then becomes, which of the webbed decors here are Ruckl, if any. Which are Kralik, if any. Which are Steinwald, if any. Are any other houses represented here? This is the problem with blanket attribution changes based on a handful of examples.
http://www.kralik-glass.com/cwimages/drawingcompare2.jpg
You are right about decor copies and I’ll post the Welz look-likes soon
ad 7 - scottwez: https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/284110-ernst-steinwald-and-co--decor-flowerall?in=441-activity
ad 7 - scottvez: https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/283823-arnot-steinwald-a-spol-ernst-steinwa
To paraphrase the late Donald Rumsfeld - there is the known unknown and the unknown unknown. If I have picked up anything in the past six months from this Kralik-Steinwald discussion, it is to be less certain about either attribution.
Well said Artfoot. Couldn't agree more.