Posted 10 years ago
IanBrighton
(573 items)
I am saying Ruckl for this one owing to the pastel blue and pink confetti but would think the tadpole pulls Welz-ian...
Most Ruckl though. I was a bit put off saying that for definite as my shimmy vases (Ruckl or not) are all with very deep blue "black" pulls, whereas this is amethyst.
Its weight as well, I have mentioned that before, is more like those shimmy vases that are thought Ruckl and borrow from Schneider.
It is 10.5cm high x 15cm in diameter.
Its Kralik imo.
Here's one with the kralik mark.
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/78640-art-deco-ruckl-lavender-shimmy
Nice piece btw.
Cool :-)
It's probably Ruckl. Here's a similar Ruckl spatter decor for comparison.
http://rover.rajce.idnes.cz/Tango_sklo/#44_tango_sklo_Antonin_Ruckl_a_synove_1918_-_1925_.jpg
The pulls in the link actually look like the pulls represented in Truitt, but look nothing like this piece imo.
Yes, the pulls are different, but the rest of the decor is a close match!
Horseshoes and hand grenades ;)
The tango link probably has a deep blue base - but it's impossible to say from the pic. The shape in the first link is spot on...
Thanks for all the looks and comments.
This is a Kralik décor and shape. The example in the first link bears a recognized Kralik mark. In addition to having a recognized Kralik mark, the shape is not likely a shape produced by multiple companies.
Close: Bearing strong similarities.
Match: Being the same.
So a "close match: would fall under the language classification of an "oxymoron".
Oxymoron: A figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.
IMHO, attributions of spatter decors based on a "close" similarities, while ignoring recognized marks and shapes, is extremely problematic and potentially leads to the development of misleading or incorrect attribution information.
I agree with Yesterdaysglass..... Horseshoes and hand grenades...... the two times when close really counts...... :-)
Still finding these spatters problematic! Just when I thought I was getting better!
It's the "Kralik" semi-circle that's problematic & leads to incorrect attributions. It is not documented as being exclusive to Kralik or even applied by Kralik. It's a providence mark, not a manufacturers mark.
It would appear that you may be among a very very small crowd of people in the world, possibly even limited to only this forum, that do not recognize the arched mark as being a Kralik mark. Nothing anyone can do about that except counter the assertion with an opposing opinion.
Truitt I recognized the mark as Kralik 20 years ago. At that time they believed it to be a 70% attribution. In the twenty years since then, it has been accepted to be a mark which was used by Kralik, and no other company. They made the same claim for the Loetz oval..... and that mark is now considered to be 100% Loetz also.
As I have said before, the repeated practice of ignoring known information in order to assert different attributions, without providing supportable evidence to support or sustain those assertions, leads to misinformation being provided as unsupportable "facts".
If in fact, you can show a item known to have been produced by a different company, bearing an arched Kralik mark, then that would be some extremely interesting information.
Until then, simply repeating that it is not documented does not really support a Rückl attribution for this piece.... or any other for that matter. Much of what we know about this region and period of glass is not "documented".... yet amazingly we know it to be true.....
It is the easiest thing in the world to claim something is not true....... it is a completely different matter to actually prove it.
That's correct. The semi-circle providence mark is 70% Kralik / 30% others as documented by Truitt I 20 years ago. Where is it documented that the semi-circle mark is 100% Kralik?
They did not "document" that it was 30% others...... Stating a 70% attribution does not imply it is 30% someone else..... just that 30% (at the time) is unknown when they wrote the book. It would appear that time and additional information have changed that in the last 20 years.
As with the common acceptance that the Loetz oval is 100% Loetz, it is not documented anywhere that I am aware of....... much of the accepted knowledge is not "documented"....... but even when it is, you seem to like to ignore that also...... especially when it appears inconvenient to your "agenda"........ and as I have said many times before...... we have been down this road before.
I am not going to argue it with you Charcoal. If you choose to ignore or misconstrue accepted information regarding Czech glass, then I leave you to it...... Good luck with that approach...
But when you choose to do so and state it as "fact" publicly in a forum such as this where people are actually trying to learn, know that I will always be prepared to comment immediately with a reasonably informed, but opposing opinion.....