Posted 8 years ago
IanBrighton
(573 items)
This post is another in a series of unexplained mysteries, which have puzzled and entertained/infuriated for longer than I have been collecting.
The main focus is the glass jug, far right, with tear drops, petal trailed rim, and shaped handle. It has been made with the use of a snap gadget, leaving a dappled circle at base. It appears in 3 Butler Bros ads of 1930/31 with a very similar selection in each instance. Common to all 3 is the cushion-form vase shown here. This, I think would be held to be Kralik, at present, in a number of different décors on CW.
So, does this mean that BB were mixing companies' production in their ads by this date? Or does it mean that Kralik had adopted some mass-production techniques they weren't formerly thought to use? We might never know for sure, which doesn't trouble me as much as it might.
The red jug is 19cm to the top of the rim.
There is a third question that is also a possibility. That would be if the attribution of that shape to Kralik was an error.
Yes, both possibilities.
Here's Al's post on the interesting cushion or organ shape:
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/23665-kralik-one-shape-many-decors
And Jericho's:
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/64642-kralik-shapes9--organ-shape
"some of the glass was finished with a snap off tool at pontil site"
The actual term for the tool is a "snap tool" or "gadget".
By nature, if a "snap tool" was used, there is no pontil site. That is the purpose of using them.
There is no evidence whatsoever to even remotely suggest that Kralik marketed product under a different name.
That particular ad is one I have never said was Kralik or anyone else. I have never used it as an example in any article I wrote about the subject. . Why is that? Because I question the attributions in it. I did not make any of them.
I explain in my bio why the posts are deleted from this forum. Has absolutely nothing to do with a change of mind. My non Welz related posts are gone for a reason I spell out why quite clearly there.
If I did change my mind about the ads, I would post an explanation of why.
Do I think that ad is representative of one house? More than likely. Which one is the question..... I never said Kralik. Others did.
What is your point? I remember quite clearly what I posted. Still have a copy of it actually. What I never said was that ALL the Butler ads for Bohemian and Czech glass were either Kralik or Welz and no one else. What else I did not say was that I had identified all of the glass in all Butler ads. What I also did not say was that this group was by Kralik , or anyone else for that matter. You see, unlike you, I like to have actual supportable evidence to support things I say in the forum. Any of that ring a bell?
What I did do in that article was to show some assortments I believed to be by those two houses. 7 ads amounting to a grand total of 40 pieces of glass. Divided into the two houses they represented. 7 out of a quite large amount of glass ads from Butler Bros. between 1901 and 1940. What I did not do was to voice broad sweeping unsupportable generalities expounding on claims I could not support.
And yes, I removed 4 images from one ad group because I inadvertently used Welz images from 2 people who do not like me to use their pics. Not sure of the value of bringing that into the conversation, but I am sure you have some reason for it.
I am still baffled about what the point is you are trying to make. Does what I posted regarding some ad groups other than this one, somehow now make you right about something and me wrong?? SMDH
My statement from above in your quote of me, with my "all cap" highlight, in reference to Butler ads.
"I am firmly convinced that SOME of these groups represent single houses"
The post title you provided also used the word SOME.
I am flattered of course that you COPY and follow my posts and opinions so diligently, but that quote above accurately reflects what I still think.
I think that if you are going to try to use my own words against me somehow in the future, that you possibly read them in a manner allowing you to develop a more complete understanding of what I am saying before trying to do so.
"Why are any of these 5 ad pieces not Kralik?"
Actually the question should be, "Why are they?". That is the one I am asking.
You state they are in other larger Kralik ads in Butler. You seem to be assuming that if there is Kralik in the ad, it all must be Kralik. I never made that assumption, and also did not makes attributions to a company solely based on the presence of a piece in an ad. I attributed pieces, and then assigned them to the ad in which they appeared, if they did. I have never used any of the very large ads as examples, because all the pieces in those ads have not been identified to my own research standards to allow me to make the same claim. At this point they would fall outside of the SOME parameter I used.
Are they Kralik? I do not know. Did Kralik use snap tools? I am not aware of a single solidly identified piece of production by them that would suggest they did. Find an example of work bearing evidence of snap tool use in production (applied or polished rim and no pontil mark) with an arched mark accepted as Kralik, or prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the two line mark is Kralik's provenance mark..... and you have a starting point for the idea.
Is it possible? Sure.... anything is possible..... but the mere suggestion of something, and then repeating it does not make it real.... only suggested... and I recently did a post relevant to that subject also..... You may want to take a look.... It is about Josephinehütte and Rückl.
Is the two line mark on some of these examples a Kralik mark? I am not sure it is, but the attribution to Kralik was made by someone that believed at the time they were. Someone that now downplays provenance marks as being placed by exporters only..... except for a specific couple.
Again, I am not really clear on what your point is, but I do still agree with what I said above in your graciously supplied quote of me.
I was discussing "Josephinehütte" in the post. A company located in Schreiberhau (Selesia), and built in 1840 by Count Schaffgotsch. Employed 100-150 glass workers and 300-400 refiners. At least according to Truitt I.
You have apparently confused it with the company "Elisabethütte", located in Kostany near Teplice. About 150 km as the crow flies from Schreiberhau. Built in 1899 by Wilhelm Habel. Produced colored glassware and also crystals for Pallme König's chandelier factory. Also information from Truitt I.
I thought the difference would be pretty clear. Sorry to have confused you... My apologies.
The gadget is not used to attribute glass, but it can be an indication of origins if it has obviously been used to produce a piece, and a particular company is not known to have used it in production. Some would refer to that as "empirical evidence."
I am done discussing this with you.