Posted 9 years ago
sklo42
(897 items)
My last post also concerned a Bohemian vase from the Victorian period. When it transpired that I do not own the books commonly known as the Passau Museum Catalogs Craig posted a link on that post so that I could see all the items under discussion.
Imagine my surprise to find that, on Craig's link, the vase shown in PMC III, plate 152, and attributed to Harrach, is the same shape, virtually the same height and has the same rigaree as the vase above. However the décor is vastly different. You can find Craig's link below.
It was common for a maker to produce the same shape in different décors. I think there is little doubt that this vase and plate 152 in Craig's link are the same vase, except for the décor that is. That said I do not know where the truth lies, as to maker.
Whilst I do not know where the truth lies I do believe that reference books can become outdated (in all spheres of knowledge) as more information presents itself. There will always be periods when new information arrives to upset the status quo.
Would anyone look at this vase and immediately say Harrach? I think not.
This time I would prefer that any comments are factual and confined to glass.
Height 21 cm.
Still more.. I'm so jealous Sklo !....Like pulling rabbits out of a hat... MAGIC ! :)
Hi, mikelv, we all of us collect what we can find. This Victorian glass is deeply unfashionable here and so very reasonably priced on ebay. On the other hand our charity shops (the equivalent of Goodwill etc.) yield little......living here you would have a minimalist home :)
I agree with Mike,but rabbits are so beautiful and have funny wings :-)
Hi, Ivonne and thanks.....if only the metaphor extended to me having magical powers :)
Here is a link to the Passau image:
http://www.kralik-glass.com/images/PMCII.151.152.jpg
I am also working on an interesting image grouping of decors and shapes that I will comment on and post later today or this evening.
Wow -- Gorgeous !!!
@ glassiegirl I don't have any problem with empirical research, as explained by Craig in various posts. I don't think it difficult to recognise the same décor on two pieces if you have them in your hands.
The difficulties arise when you come to a definite attribution without sufficient cross referenced examples. So, referring to my pink vases, I was only prepared to say, "I think the three vases come from the same maker, and that maker is most likely Welz"
Fortunately Welz glass from the Victorian period has many complex shapes and sometimes its enough simply to wait for something to turn up!
Thank you so much, antiquerose, so much said.....and only two words :) Like it!
Thank you for the loves, aura, mikelv, Ivonne, VioletOrange, glassiegirl, brunswick, antiquerose and swfinluv.
Personally, I am not quite so convinced that the example in the linked PMC image is Harrach......
My position, as opposed to accepting the Passau as being the bible of glass, is that they have known attribution mistakes. If one researches from the position that the shape shown in Passau is Harrach beyond a shadow of a doubt, then one may as well simply collect glass and not study it…. and that is certainly OK for some…. While not for others.
Did Welz Harrach and others make similar pieces? Of course they did. One position being presented here is that they are all so similar and indistinguishable from each other that it is almost senseless to investigate it. Harrach is well documented, and yet through all of these discussions over a period of a couple of years where Harrach is thrown in the mix… not one paper pattern, or irrefutable example has ever been produced to show that something is Harrach….. Only statements indicating they made it, everyone made it…. and on and on. Honestly, I for one did not believe Passau and Truitt…. Why would I believe a far less distinguished source of any kind without evidence?
When I started my own personal research project years ago Welz was virtually an almost completely unidentified entity. Some seem to approach research with an objective….. I approach research looking for an answer to a question….. whatever that answer is….. and there is a big difference…. Searching for an answer seeks a “truth”….an objective chases a goal….. and I personally see a big difference in the two… some may not…..
Would it be surprising to me that Welz made production that resembles some of the Harrach production? Of course not. In fact, they did. In the same sense, it would not surprise me that some Welz production would be misidentified aver 20 years ago, since their production was basically unknown at the time. To some this seems to be an impenetrable concept that they will not accept. It would appear that fortunately I am not one of those people. As a result of that we now have an increasing understanding of what Welz produced. Do we know it all… far from it. Do I think every piece of glass in this aesthetic is Welz production…. Of course not….. but it seems that there are some that take umbrage with the truly limited amount of glass that has been identified as theirs, and believe I do think that. For some it seems, their true lack of understanding of what I do and how I do it compounds their lack of agreement with my results. That is fine with me…. I have always said, and will always say….. Don’t tell me I am wrong, prove that I am wrong….. I have spent 8+ years proving what I say before I say it…..
For the mere dozens of things which have been identified as Welz, there are likely thousands that are not only unidentified, but truly unknown. This from a family that was in the glass business for many generations.
My position is that some of the cases at Passau, some information in Das Böhmisch Glas, Truitt books and others, was information garnered with a mid 1990's knowledge base to pull from. Things are distorted over time and concepts change. Truitt is commonly cited by some as a seemingly irrefutable source of glass knowledge, and the work they did was amazing… groundbreaking…. and yet a décor they called Granada in their books, produced by Rindskopf is now commonly called Pepita, and no one can explain why… not even Deb Truitt herself, and she wrote the book. Some just accept it without question… others want to know why, and if that changed, what concepts and understanding may have migrated with it. The furnace decorated glass section of Truitt II is loaded with examples we now know clearly to be Kralik, Welz, and others, and yet the vast majority of it was unidentified in 1995 and 1998. 20 years later we have improved knowledge. Why is that? Is it because we found an archive somewhere that told it to us? Not at all, it is the result of curious people asking difficult questions and doing the work necessary to figure it out as well as can be done with current understandings and without a written roadmap.
Our knowledge base, experience, access to examples to accumulate and examine, ability to share ideas and findings, etc, are so much more advanced and plentiful than they were in 1995 that to not question things in front of us that do not seem right is equivalent to ignoring new information to simply believe in the old. That may work for some, but thankfully there are some it does not work for. I, it would seem, happen to be one of the “questioners”. A boat rocker, an answer seeker, someone who views the status quo as old information which at all turns needs to be examined and re-examined to see if the old ideas stand the test of time. Seems many do not, while the vast majority do.
Some seem to want to classify this glass as unidentifiable Bohemian and stick with old information. That is fine…. If you choose to do that, then that is your way. I have no issue with that at all.
What I have an objection to, and always have, is attempts by some to repeatedly force those ideas down the “learning throats” of those who choose to look to see if there is a new horizon, and if so…. What it will bring.
If you do not like the information that people feel they are uncovering or discovering and posting here and other forums, then do not involve yourself with it…… that is a much more becoming an action than repeastedly informing people of the “error of their ways”.
Better yet, if you do not agree, post some contrary opinions supported with evidence of your own explaining your line of reasoning, and do so for people that are interested to read and form their own opinions. That is what I try to do….. and it seems to work….. Some agree with me… some do not….. I am certainly OK with that….
I can see now what you were doing while disabled Peggy.
Spoiling yourself!! And why not.
I'm not a big fan of ox blood colour but these vases certainly have a stately presence!
And how good are your photos!! Fantastic.
You're right about the spoiling Karen ..... but this particular vase I've had a while. So when I opened Craig's link and saw this shape in a totally different décor I recognised it immediately. It does make you think that sharing your glass is worth while.....set me thinking anyway!
Sun was shining this am and it gives the effect of them being lit from within .... better on the short wide one of course!
So in the process of discussing Welz attributions as presented by Peggy recently, we find ourselves confronted once again with the opinion that many decors are the same or similar and that the use of shapes and décors is wrought with perils... resulting in the conclusion that there is no reasonable way to determine attributions without "proof".
The universe has no boundaries.... it is infinite... a concept we can barely wrap our heads around... yet we accept it without "proof". My point being that apparently we can deduce information and arrive at supportable conclusions without "proof".
In examining décors and shapes I have said before that while some are quite mundane and indistinct, others, both shapes and décors, are such that we know them to be unique.
If I see a yellow and white spatter décor on a vase, I know for a fact that the décor was produced by at least two companies. Welz and Moser. Assertions are made that Harrach did also... and let's throw in a couple more houses that are unknowns. So let's say, for the sake of this discussion, a bunch of companies did.
So how do I determine which house made which examples? Honestly, in some cases I can not.... and those go as unattributed, unknown, or as Ian says. Anonyme.... his largest display area it seems.
Now in other instances we can look to shapes. Did different houses make similar shapes? Of course they did. So something like a ball vase, a crimped rose bowl, or a multitude of other shapes would serve us no purpose in looking to attribute pieces with a decor like a yellow and white variegated spatter. Instead we look to other pointers, like the fact that if the piece is quite nicely enameled it is more likely by Moser and not Welz...... We also look to unique shapes.... and yes... through all of the muddle commonalities we are told we must contend with.... companies actually made both unique forms and unique decors. How do we know this.... Kind of simple really.... We do not see them a lot.... and to be honest, some are just so odd that nobody would likely copy them.....
As an example, I own a Kralik vase in a shape found in other Kralik décors. It also bears the arched Kralik Czechoslovakia mark confirming it's origins. It is the only example of the décor I have ever seen, and know of no one else that has ever seen it on another vase. A singular example..... Do I think for a second that multiple house made it? No. If I saw another one would I reasonably conclude that it was Kralik production, even without a mark or a shape I recognize. Yes I would, as the décor is distinct enough and rare enough to draw that conclusion reasonably. Some things in research are quite difficult to draw conclusions from, others it seems are simply common sense being applied.
So the link below shows us some vases I would like to discuss briefly. I also need to note that there are a variety of ways I can get to these same results... I am simply showing some quick ones here.
The first image is two trophy vases shown in the Tango exhibit as Welz production. The second image (top tow) is a single smooth body trophy vase in the yellow variegated decor like the Tango exhibit example. Next to it we have an example in a decor I have seen maybe 4 times in 8 years.... Did everybody make this one? Highly doubtful... Actually I will go out a a limb here and say I do not think so, and believe it is most likely made by one company. The shape it is on is distinctly Welz though.... so yes... I would think Welz did the décor. Next to that vase we find an example of the extremely rare décor on a shape which is.... wait a minute.... shown in the Passau case as Harrach? Next to that we find a vase in a decor linked strongly to Welz production through a myriad of shapes and décors. And the last image in that row.... Why it is the Passau image.
The bottom row presents a different path to a décor instead. Starting again with the Tango exhibit image we find a ribbed version of the same basic shape. The image in the bottom row shows that same shape in a red variegated décor from my collection. Next to it we have the same ribbed shape in a vaseline decor from my collection, and finally, although the ratio of colors is different than some other oxbloods, this example owned by me shares a common decor with not only Peggy's vase, but with other Welz examples in my collection. The red variegated example and the Vaseline example both bear a "Made In Czechoslovakia" mark on them commonly found on Welz production, but not used to attribute the glass.
So is the Passau attribution of the shape in the top right as Harrach infallible.... I will dare to say it is not..... at least in my humble opinion. In fact, without the Passau reference, one can argue reasonably convincingly that it is a Welz example.
The Passau attribution was made in 1995 or earlier.... The suggestion of Welz as the source is based on research undertaken 20 years later and continuing now....
The conclusion.... ??? Make up your own mind..... I know what I think.
http://www.kralik-glass.com/images/WelzGroupShapes.jpg
Thank you Craig, for the article and the link, particularly the link. What defines a researcher is evidence......collected, collated and retrievable. When the subject is unmarked glass, images and the ability to order them to demonstrate thought processes, are particularly important.
Peggy, well you got that(15) right, an in my opinion, that's the more interesting part.
Love this one. ;-)
Take care.
Regards
Alan
Thank you, Alan......we both know glass can be a minefield, and at times totally astonishing, but always interesting :)
Peggy, let's just eep my words on your vase and post short and sweet. You have a magnificent example there......
I collect a lot of fine pottery, mainly porcelain and then there's glass.. In that pottery world of late in the last 150 years in the less expensive items, say under $400 there were quite a few potters who made for other brands. Especially plates. Artists would buy say 100 plates and paint their patter, have fired and then sell as their design. Which is ok if the plate is about the design and not the shape....
No matter who made your vase it is gorgeous and I'm sure I could find a place for it :)
Hi Anne, so good that you like the vase :) Buying blanks and decorating them was rife in the glass world too, though this one is simply three layers, yellow inner, spatter and a clear outer.
As to finding a place ..... I'm sure you could!!
A lovely vase, Peggy. Again, your photography is terrific - I especially like the group shot! :)
Thank you, Michelle, the photography was greatly helped by the sun coming out! :)
Thank you for the loves, welzebub, Alan, AnneLanders, SEAN, mikelv, Vintagefran, vetraio, VioletOrange and kivatinitz,
Thanks also to Rick.