Posted 7 years ago
jericho
(236 items)
Here are shape comparisons to other Ruckl attributed shapes. Nothing is as certain as holding the piece of glass in your hand- I have held many of the pieces (Kralik marked Czechoslovakia) in hand, I know this decor well. the mottled "uncased confetti" come in mainly ruckl shapes. There can be many explanations as to how a Ruckl made piece was marked by a Kralik stamp
Nothing is as certain as having the companies literature in hand, so until that gets unearthed I will go with probabilities. I love collecting Czech glass because new information is always coming out.
SHAPES: the confetti uncased pieces are off to the left
never perfect but close enough to make you wonder...
Pretty collection
the collection with such connections dynamic
respect given freely my friend jericho !!!!!!!!
In my interpretation, the "uncased confetti" bath salts bottle is surely a Kralik piece because of, if nothing else, the mark. By your admission, you have held other pieces marked Kralik with this decor. I don't doubt that it is Kralik but I don't see the same shape relationship to the other three pieces in the first picture. The "cased peloton" piece to its immediate right is a decor I have seen with an oval mark that I think of as probably Ruckl and seems to be the same shape as the vase in the upper left. The upper right vase looks to be a slightly different shape again, though the decor makes me also suspect Ruckl. I'm having trouble accepting any of the reasons I've heard that a Ruckl piece would have a Kralik mark.
I agree that many of the questions will be answered when (or if) the production literature begins to surface, but until then, careful examination is all we have to narrow down those "probabilities". To my eye, shape studies are most useful when the shapes are all shown from the same angle. Without that, especially regarding simple shapes, they may be the least reliable as stand alone information and may need additional support before making any conclusions.
While your other two comparisons may make a case for all those pieces being Ruckl products, I do not see a decor match between the "uncased confetti" of the Kralik bath salts bottle and the "uncased confetti with peloton" shown in these pictures.
Thank you so much for your comments... reminder Jericho posts are images from many sources not my collection. Kralik1928 posts are my pieces. With regards to matching it is a stretch - I agree but there is much more to come as I question what’s is commonly believed about marks in general... which marks are 100% Identifyers and witch are 90%. Take the Welz faint scid stamp “made in Czechoslovakia” I believe that mark is 100% but Welz has a mark (decal) also seen on Kralik pieces and occasionally on Ruckl so I would give that mark a 90%. It doesn’t mean that pieces with that decal are all suddenly reattributed but it does show that that mark is not 100% reliable. My intent is to try to find a reason for the marks, which are production marks, witch wholesalers, retailers etc. I would also like to study migration patterns (why some pieces go to some country’s and not others) but that’s gonna take a while...
I really stay out of Ruckl discussion any more, but will voice a couple of opinions.
My first opinion is in regards to marks and labels. Marks and labels can be indicators of origins of glass, but should not be used , in almost all instances, as the only basis for an attribution. In using the Welz mark discussed above, although I feel the mark is most likely one used by Welz, I generally avoid it's use in my research. It can serve as a supporting confirmation for an id, but I never use it as a sole reason for an identification of a piece. This is a rule I follow in almost all cases of marks.
We do see things that pop up like a Royal Art Glass label on a piece of Stolzle pressed glass. To me, these types of things are more indicative of a glass house like Welz, ordering and selling a type of glass they did not make themselves, possibly to fill an order inquiry. These aberrations only show that the use of labels and marks should be used as secondary supporting pointers, and not as a primary pointer. There are many examples of this in the world of Czech glass. I see them as statistical outliers, some see them as proof of other things.
My second point, and the reason that I refrain from Ruckl comments is that I have issues with many of the attributions, as I feel that the basic groundwork needed to make links to the production house are missing in many cases. Czech glass research is like an inverted pyramid, in that a "family" of attributions have to start with a known and identified entity. From that entity, an inverted pyramid can then be built. I am of the opinion that many of the "Ruckl" attributions and shapes that were initially claimed were not well supported at all. If the foundation of the research is not rock solid, then each branch of the tree is suspect.
My first several years of Welz research were painstaking research which moved very slowly and produced very little in the way of usable results. This was due to the fact that building solid links to advance identifications was very difficult. I had a handful of identified examples from which to work.
I see a large number of Ruckl attributions that have no real solid foundation. That started in this forum, in a movement initiated by several members who are not really active any longer. We now see attribution links being built that are based on shapes not solidly shown to be by Ruckl, and decor links being claimed that are also not supported well.
Do I believe Ruckl made some nice art glass? Absolutely. Do I believe that the vast majority of Ruckl attributions people see are correct? Absolutely not. I asked for years in this forum, that the groundwork for an attribution be shown when these claims were made. Much of the ground work has never really been shown in a supportable manner, but many of the attributions made without supporting evidence still remain..... and from those we see additional links being made.
I am of the opinion that while some of the Ruckl attributions may be correct, a large number are not supportable in the long run, and do not stand up now to serious scrutiny.
Thank you and I look forward to your continuation on this subject. Like I said on the first installment, I put a lot of stock in the marks and their eventual ability to provide definite information and a link to the manufacturer. Of course, I am relying on researchers with a good deal more experience and knowledge than I have but the arguments for a certain arched mark being a Kralik indicator seem pretty thorough. There are a couple sizes and configurations of a particular font "Made in Czechoslovakia" acid stamped mark that are, to me, always suggestive of Welz but occasionally appear on shapes or decors that haven't been confirmed. (Funny how I'm less suspicious of oddballs with an arch mark - https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/244376-channeling-schneider-kralik-as-youve-n?in=user ) Anyway, what I am not familiar with are "Welz marked" pieces on confirmed Kralik or Ruckl decors. I would be very interested to see those.
I should add (since Craig's response wasn't there when I wrote mine) that, for me, it always takes more than a mark to make a definite attribution and applied labels are always more suspicious than permanent marks.
Thank you for these well thought-out principles to attribution
I thought I would comment once more using an example shown here to review my position stated in my comment above. I am going to discuss the decor shown in the bottom right image. This is a decor I refer to as Diamond Bubble, a name I assigned to it, and shown on my website as unknown, regarding the maker.
This decor was on the original Loetz.com as Ausf 140. Honestly, I have likely studied this decor longer, and in more detail that any other researcher of this type of glass. It is a decor I have studied for well over a decade. I would also point out that a large number of the images used to discuss this decor on the internet, Including the one above, and a large number of them on a site claiming it to be Ruckl, are images which I personally took of a collection that was shared with me. Of the 23 images shown on a website page discussing the decor, 19 of 23 images are actually mine, and were copied from my website article on the decor.
That being said, there has never been a solid and irrefutable link made for the decor to Ruckl, but the decor is now widely discussed as being theirs.
By irrefutable link, I am referring to a series of links starting with a piece which is known to be Ruckl in origin. If this has never been done, then any claims of it's origins are, in the long run, unsupportable.
Its always an interesting exercise to read accounts of past events on CW. People do say what they remember, based on their current perceptions.
From the missing irrefutable links to most attributions of Ruckl glass, compared to all the easy recent attributions for some glass pieces as Welz, based on various decor elements only, not on complete shapes or complete decors. The extensive research over these many years should be credited to people behind the scene as well.
The Royal Art Glass label still discussed in spite of the fact that after 5 years we now have a dozen different glass items with this label found on it, the majority being Kralik. The latest, a large glass box with a green and orange confetti iris finish glass decor, was found in the Netherlands. I have the images to prove it.
https://nebula.wsimg.com/bad0a54d690e78f09d3cb876d77f2e67?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
The Stolzle pink pressed glass piece is the only one with a RAG label, and it would be strange that a pressed glass piece would be made in another furnace type blown glass facility. More likely a distributor label, applied for the English speaking markets.
As far as the diamond bubble decor items, these were also copied by Jericho here. They were then reused, as he kindly distributed them to other collectors for that purpose.
I might point out that we all use each others internet images, as I have learned a few months ago. Loetz.com is not happy with the use of their images on another site either, yet they remain....
We each have our own set of beliefs and opinions, no issue there. I needed to set the record straight about a few 'facts' pointing in my direction and my site one more time.
Welcome back LISA. So nice to hear from you.