3 Art Deco Thorn vases - Franz Welz decors | ||
| AnneLanders's loves886 of 1698 |  |  |
EZa loves this.
Deano loves this.
Vintagefran loves this.
Budek loves this.
AnneLanders loves this.
inky loves this.
lisa loves this.
scottvez loves this.
Justanovice loves this.
smiata loves this.
antiquerose loves this.
Michelleb007 loves this.
Rick55 loves this.
racer4four loves this.
vetraio50 loves this.
welzebub loves this.
Ivonne loves this.
aghcollect loves this.
sklo42 loves this.
SEAN68 loves this.Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate
Posted 10 years ago
IanBrighton
(573 items)
They are all 5-footed, with a hexagonal cased tube worked into a twisted double stem vase. The two plain spatters could be by anyone but I think that the oxblood, turquoise, green, blue and yellow is a Franz Welz spatter signature.
I expect there will be more pink/white and blue/white out there as well as who knows what other colour combinations?
They are 17.8, 18.5 and 18.8cm tall.
Create an account or login in order to post a comment.
Lovely group, Ian.
Very interesting to me as well because the green one has colour, hexagonal rim and five feet in common with my 'frog leg' thorn vase! Perhaps you've given me an attribution?
Great grouping... I would agree with you that they are all most likely Welz production. To think that Kralik was the only Bohemian/Czech house that made thorn vases is, at least to me, a little doubtful. (which is what you would think based on marketplace attributions and also in CW previously).
I think it is reasonably safe to say that these three pieces are by the same house.... and I agree with you on the multi-colored spatter...
Love these for sure.....
I love these Ian... The shape, the colors=WOW!
Wonderful, Ian. And they sure all look like they are by the same maker to me! :)
Stunning pic!! W ~ O ~ W
Great Thorn Vases !!
Lovely no matter who made them
I think we all agree that the "frog leg" thorn vases are Kralik atm. I think the yellow and green above are difficult to place, without the spatter in the middle, which is Welz-y, unless any better décor links come to light. The "Ruckl" thorn vase recently posted is a completely different spatter to the vase it purports to be like.
That's funny, the shape labeled Ruckl in my posting is attributed to Welz too.
No, An extremely similar version of that shape is attributed to Welz in a décor solidly linked to Welz production. Not only did houses make unique shapes, they also made quite similar shapes.... in some cases almost identical. I offer the tri-footed bowl shown in the following linked post as an extremely good example of that.
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/156462-the-pesky-problem-with-pretty-simple-sha?in=user
No one has ever contested that the labeled example is Rückl. I must admit honestly though, that I question most of the attribution leaps made in this forum using that single labeled example as supporting evidence though......
But we have been down this road more times than be counted...... :-)
The decor on that single labeled Ruckl piece and the decor on the "extremely similar" shape are found in other like shapes. Although the Ruckl decors are currently attributed to Welz, postings here on CW and elsewhere indicate that the two decors are related. As there are no known examples marked Welz and no primary documentation to indicate they are Welz, the logical manufacturer is Ruckl per the manufacturers label.
"Extremely similar" is based upon your desired "research" results, not logic or documentation.
Yeah... I know Charcoal.... You have said all of this dozens of times here in the last couple years...... Apparently it is all strongly supported by your contention that Welz research is wrong.... :-)
I would.....
When it comes to it, I like so many, am not emotionally tied to this whole Welz debate. I see Craig's comments (read Welzebub) and posts and can see a coherence, whereas in other posts and comments I see an inchoate and fatuous mess. I have learnt a lot from all the posts and communications I have read on CW and other sites, and this learning can sometimes be how to sell a discursive argument and how not to.
Can we cut the ordure out please?
Lisa: I cannot disagree that this point must be considered but I wouldn't have posted them together if I didn't think there could be a link.
The casing is the same on all 3 as well as the deformation of one of the hexagons as it is twisted into shape. I am sure this would have been the case whoever made it so it becomes a question of belief. They are in my hands and I believe them all to be Welz.
The 'all' who agree that 'frog's leg' thorn vases must perforce be Kralik doesn't include me.
The presence of a frog leg example in the Butler ad liked below, which I believe shows Welz production, would also preclude me from adhering to the concept that the design is Kralik's. Did they make some? Sure..... With as early as they were produced, and as long as they were produced (1900-1929 in Butler offerings alone), it would seem only reasonable that many more companies than Kralik produced thorn and tube vases of many kinds.... Frog legs, double twisted, single sticks and thorns, multi-clusters..... etc....
http://www.kralik-glass.com/welzbutlergroup.html
Haha! Let my comment re Kralik and frog legs stand but let me stand corrected! :-)
Great vases Ian & an interesting post. I learnt a new word today 'ordure', I must use it the next time its appropriate, no one will know what I mean :) leaving the attribution 'debate' to one side, may I ask if its usual for thorn vases to be hexagonal inside like this? I wondered as the green one I posted the other day is the same, if that could mean they're likely by the same maker?