Posted 8 years ago
IanBrighton
(573 items)
I recently obtained these green to go with my spatter with leaves. Fish, Al and Anne have both similar vases with 5 "petals" and trails with these reverse S-shaped prunts. MacArt posted a gold Kralik vase a few years ago with very similar.
A link is in the Butler Bros catalogues from the WVMAG - however the photographic reproduction isn't brilliant yet what looks like a honeycomb or spatter like the middle vase is shown amidst a group which would until very recently have been definitely Kralik.
This and one other group on p22 (1930) is annoying for having very Kralik-y vases shown - like applied flowers - yet the vases themselves aren't very reminiscent of other Kralik glass. Does the paradigm that single companies are represented in these vase groups need challenging?
Certainly the pinched handled jug in the same picture looks very similar to an accepted Kralik décor but an example in my possession has no pontil mark, making me doubt it is Kralik, unless they moved away from techniques that left pontil scars, which doesn't seem likely at present.
So some parallels but more questions than answers on p22! The one thing we can be sure about at present is that these are Czech!
The vases are 10.5 and 12cm.
If anyone has any similar silver marks, I would be grateful to see them or be reminded!
The two green vases are very uv-reactive, and the one on the left has the sort of bubbles which we associate with soda glass - maybe it could be called an aerogrun?
The green ones are just gorgeous!
Thanks, Peggy!
Al's trio are an interesting group of shapes.
Questioning that paradigm would be one reasonable approach of many. Questioning some older attributions would reasonably be another. Most of the attributions in this add were made by a single researcher. At that point he believed that multiple marks were Kralik, including the silver ink double line on your piece..... a position he no longer espouses.
These pieces in this shape with this rim have been looked at and questioned for quite some time...... years actually
The link between applied flowers etc and Kralik is also the work of a quite small group who through repetition for years may have blinded us to other possibilities, and seemingly based it on Monograph 59 from WVMOAG.
Here's Mac's example:
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/107894-kralik-vase-with-prunts
And Al's with two interesting shapes:
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/63299-kralik-tango-a-permanent-color-riot
Another example by Mac
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/79926-kralik-uranium-tango-vase
And yet another of Al's which seems to link them all:
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/27288-kralik-in-butler-brothers-catalogs
Nice. I have this http://lustrousstone.co.uk/cpg/displayimage.php?pid=1472 and these http://lustrousstone.co.uk/cpg/displayimage.php?pid=1473
Some observations from looking at these pieces for quite some time now as part of my Butler studies.
The vase in link 1 from Macart is an example which has been attributed to Kralik by some. I actually had and sold one of these, the same as Macarts's, which had a label on the underside which has never been associated with Kralik production pieces. The association to Kralik was made I believe, with the prunts, which I would say is not a good pointer by itself. I am also not aware that the Chevrom decor on the vase has ever been solidly linked to Kralik, although claims abound......
The post in comment 9 states this:
"Transparent pink glass, with blue or pink/white applications was a Kralik trademark"
I do not believe that this can be used as a marker for Kralik production as was done by the individual for many years. I had my doubts then, and we now know for a fact that Welz, likely among many others, also used pink glass. That fact alone would invalidate the methodology. That would be undeniably supported by this description from an 1892 US patent granted to Franz Welz. The patent number is US479689 A, filed on 1/11/1892 and published after being granted on 7/26/1892.
" The invention relates more particularly to the manufacture of colored glass the tint of which varies from a rose to an orange or orange-red color; and it consists, essentially, in the admixture with the molten glass of selenium or of selenium and cadmium sulfide; If selenium alone is added and incorporated with the molten glass, the latter assumes a rose color, the depth of which can be varied by varying the proportion of selenium. On the other hand, the proportion of selenium for a given depth of color will depend upon the composition of the vitreous mass, which composition differs for the various grades of glass.
To distinguish the rose-colored product, I have called it creme-rose or rose-cream. "
This statement is also made in the same post in comment 9.:
"the basket is marked with the semicircle"
I agree the basket form is Kralik, but the basket is not shown in the grouping that the other shapes are shown in. It appears that the link is made through pink glass and the colored trim.
In the same grouping as your spatter piece, the tall pitcher, seen in a blue and orange combination, and also yellow and brown, is also found with the same two line metallic ink mark, both in silver and gold. It is also worth noting, that the pitchers like that have a fire polished rim, and no pontil. This is not a production technique currently associated with Kralik production.
At one point I believed that some of these, and some related shapes were likely Kralik production, largely based on earlier work by another researcher. I no longer find that to be true. I am now not at all sure who produced them. Could it be Kralik? Sure.... but not based on attribution methodology applied previously. I think it will take a completely different set of links to establish that.
Also, just to be quite clear, I am not even remotely hinting that the production is Welz, only that the previous attribution methods used to say the production is Kralik are not claims I think will now stand up.
The pink quilted could possibly be a link to Kralik - if one can be found with a trademark foot - like the swirled tadpole foot - however, I think you and others would say that there is a bit of a mix-up of shapes and styles going on in the Art Deco... Maybe an eternal mystery!? In terms of pendulums (which I know you don't do, Craig) mine is *towards* Kralik!!!
But that's not to forget any one of 100 companies that could have produced these!
The glass on most of my pinched jugs is "lightbulb" thin - not something we normally associate with Kralik, like the lack of pontil marks.
Oh, but I do use pendulums..... Mine sits un-moving, pointed directly down at "unknown" until I feel there is solid enough evidence to point in the direction of a reasonably supported attribution. :-) LOL
LOL indeed!
This was a very interesting discussion between everyone - thanks for the food for thought!
Hi, Ian-I just bought what looks like the middle tall thin vase from the old catalog picture. It was posted on my site yesterday. Another member told me it was posted in this catalog
I especially like your green pieces :)