Posted 8 years ago
artfoot
(367 items)
Not only am I able to learn from my mistakes but I am willing to relay what I can to other curious amateurs like myself.
Four pictures of "arch" marks:
1 - Kralik
2 - Unrecognized
This is a better picture of the mark on the rigaree decorated piece I posted yesterday. It does have "open Os" but quite different from the recognized Kralik mark.
3 - Another completely different arched mark
4 - Kralik
Thanks for the reference pics! I have very few Kralik pieces so it's hard for me to place some of the details of the signature without being able to see them up close. The enlarged side-by-side shots make it much easier to compare.
Hey Artfoot, sometimes it's fun to pass on bad info to people who have pissed you off ! LOL !
blunderbuss2 - you made me laugh this morning, thanks amigo.
rcuklczglass - thank you, I always appreciate your input. Truitt ends their paragraph on marks with the idea that "The remaining variations may never be sorted out." and we have all seen that notion begin to dissolve. I think that if people like you continue doing serious research, a lot of the questions will be answered.
The arched marks of this form in general are accepted as being Kralik marks. The variations of this arched style can be found on examples of known decors/shapes that are Kralik production.
I have never seen an arched mark of this type linked to any other house though a known decor or shape made by a different glashütte.
It is worth noting that the Truitt information referenced above is data which was written without the benefit of an additional 20+ years of research which has occurred since then. Bohemian glass research was really in it's infancy at the time Truitt wrote their outstanding volumes. Knowledge of Kralik and other production, combined with continued research regarding the arched mark(s) have resulted, after 20+ additional years of research, in the commonly accepted belief that the arched marks are Kralik.
Although there are some that like to dispute that fact (only in this forum for some odd reason), the handful of people that dispute the commonly accepted facts have never shown anything in the way of actual evidence to support that position.
Evidence.... what research is based on.... whether it be actual documents, or strongly supported empirical.....
Thanks Craig. This is great. When I first started buying Czechoslovakian glass, the only reference available was the Forsythe book (which may explain my fixation with the marks) so I've seen a lot of developments since then. I'm with you that evidence will provide the answers and serious research will eventually uncover it. I truly appreciate the work you do. I've learned more about this glass in the last three months than in the previous thirty or so years.
Welzebub, would you clarify if the mark in photo 2 is accepted as a Kralik mark please. This one is one I have not seen and seems very different to me. The thin lines of this mark appear to terminate in 'blobs' and it doesn't appear consistent. Is this mark commonly seen and accepted as Kralik? Thanks.
Of the marks shown here, the one you are asking about is more tentatively accepted as being theirs, but it is seen on some production considered to be Kralik.
As far as marks go, I should clarify at this point what I believe they represent in research. Very few marks are reliable enough to be used solely as an attribution source. I generally rely on marks as a secondary support for an attribution. In other words, if the décor and/or shape can be shown to be in this instance Kralik, then the mark can support that attribution. If the décor or shape are not known, then the attribution needs to be confirmed using standard research methodology, and not simply attributed based on the presence of a mark.
I am of the opinion that marks were placed by manufacturers of the product prior to packing for export. This is supported by such things as mentions in the Loetz line art volumes, of Loetz marking items for export to the US. There are some that believe that the marks were placed by exporters and not manufacturers. Although there may be isolated instances of that, I believe it is by far, the exception and not the standard practice.
What I do not want to do, or see, is to standardize the marks to the point where people rely on them solely for an attribution. Although these marks above are "generally accepted" to be Kralik, attributions should always be confirmed by other research methods. A mark can help point in a possible direction if the form and décor are not initially known.
As an example, I own a vase in a décor that is the single example of the décor I have ever seen. It is very different from any other Kralik décor. It is a piece marked with an arched acid stamp in the form generally accepted as Kralik's. In this case, the shape of the piece is also found in other known Kralik décors. So although the mark seemingly indicates Kralik production, it is the shape of the piece which leads to a solid attribution, and the mark is then a secondary support for that attribution.
I hope this makes sense and answers the question. It is really not a cut and dry subject.
Thanks Welzebub for your generous response. I agree entirely. I have never seen photo 2 mark previously and I was one who expressed skepticism about it in artfoot's former post. There was no intention to be contentious, just a desire to understand more about this fascinating subject.
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/202009-orange-spatter-with-blue-rigaree?in=user
It was also primarily because that style of applied rigaree is not something I associate with Kralik (more with Welz output actually). So, it was actually the form and decor which led me to question the authenticity and implications of the stamp. Then, upon closer examination, I noticed it showed some different characteristics. I have seen some highly dubious arched marks scratched on to items, but I have learned something new if this different mark is also observed on glass from this period and is considered genuine. I am grateful.
Thank you. The "smile" mark I posted is metallic gold and I have been surprised that the consensus says Kralik. My guess would be that the department that applied the gold and silver ornamentation was separate from the furnace department.
The "smile" mark has never been solidly linked to any known Kralik production I am aware of, and is considered an unknown mark.
As far as Eza's collection goes, I linked some shapes of her pieces to Josephinenhütte in a line referred to as Vinetta crystal. This decor is shown in the Passau volumes on Josephinenhütte, Vol 2. The shapes of the Vinetta pieces were the same as some of the caramel spatter she collects.
So not enough evidence to attribute all, but one source has been identified. There are likely several.
At this stage I am in no position to be drawing any conclusions. I am still at the point of gathering as much information as I can in the hopes that maybe I'll live long enough to be able to draw some conclusions. I appreciate the help from everyone.