Posted 6 years ago
LOUMANAL
(436 items)
The ZigZag pattern vases and probably Covered Boxes were recently identified in a Tango Exhibit in Passau as being from the Franz Tomschick Company operating between 1918-1930 in the Teplice Region. There were many similar items that were uploaded here at CW and in other sites that identified them as from Kralik and the debate continues. This covered jar measures 7 1/2” tall by 5” across and has yellow and red spatter. There are no markings underneath.
I had a problem uploading photos to CW but it seems that the bugs have left my computer. I picked up quite a few other Kralik Covered jars and I include a photo of some of them.RER
The problem with the Tomschick attribution in the Tango exhibition is that they also included the "zig zag" piece which is commonly seen here in the U.S. with the Kralik arched Czechoslovakia mark, and they do not really see those pieces over there with those marks.
Thanks Welzebub! I suppose that when more examples are found and compared that we will be more knowledgeable on the subject. I saw are red covered jar that looked similar to this one but it had only 3 circles/ ribs on the lower section. It may have been made in many sizes or as is quite possible....made by more than one manufacturer. We are still in learning mode and all points of views should be heard. Bob
I love these and would love even more to find some, one even, to buy.
I think this blue millefiori satin glass jar should help put to rest the question of who made this particular yellow spatter jar, it's a Kralik item also found in the Kralik shaped lidded box on a pedestal foot. See as follows:
https://scontent.fybz2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39738494_243368569696996_1497724120534614016_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=6af94a809eb1cb40f202ad7310b15957&oe=5C0C00AB
also here on CW: https://d3h6k4kfl8m9p0.cloudfront.net/stories/JdERZIRq1ZC8e7gRBnuizg-smallw.jpg
Thank you fortapache, kwqd, blunderbuss2,valentino97, Newfld, Ivonne, vetraio50, IronLace, justanovice, bracken3, AdeleC, EZa, sklo42, AnnaB, lisa, kralik1928, Manikin and aura for the loves. Bob
thanks for shearing this beauty and the knowledge
Thanks kivatinitz!
Love the set
Thanks for the comments kralik1928 and thank you Wow22 for the love.
I would still hold an open mind in regards to Tomschick- in regards to the zigzag shapes I have seen bambus and drape patterns in 11" and 12" so I do believe the taller ones are Kralik and the ones 8" could easily be Tomschick. The arched mark does not mean 100% Kralik to me... there is no documentation (from the factory) to prove that especially when the arched mark was for the export market. other companies may have adopted the mark (or a similar variation). with that said I do think a arched mark represents an association (this gets too speculative) with Kralik. When I see the mark I think "likely Kralik" but not always "positively" Kralik.
As far as Canes... That is another story- I do not believe all cane pieces were made by Kralik
Alfredo will be pleased. That was his attribution based on the Tango Sklo Exhibits. Some cane decors are Kralik, nobody said they all were. I still believe my blue cane glass jar example in comment 4. is Kralik, here is another familiar Kralik glass shaped piece with the same decor.
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/7lEAAOSwxGNbhmBo/s-l1600.jpg
Seems my comment 4. link to another zig zag jar in the satin blue, yellow and purple cane glass decor is no longer linked to anything. Here is another try at providing it.
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/84/ee/66/84ee6650b98f5174a772b797200b8fcb.jpg
Thank you truth or dare for your fine comments and research! Bob
Thank you Bob, its been an interesting subject to look into. With the different opinions, I suppose, that is not final for you. No matter, these Czech lidded jar are all great finds, and sought after. :-)
Here is my latest unexpected discovery of another of these jar's in a Kralik decor, as also shared on Facebook, seems Bob will leave the Tomschick title anyway here on CW. Them are the rights of the owner.... Am I befuddled? You could say that.
https://p1.liveauctioneers.com/170/10021/2313626_2_x.jpg?version=0&format=pjpg&auto=webp&quality=50
I'll make it even more complicated. I don't think it's either Kralik or Tomschick, but Steinwald.
Thank you larksel! It appears that there might be more specific info. on the Steinwald Company to come so....time will tell. Interesting times n'est-ce-pas?
So probably Tomschick after all.
So I am thoroughly confused now. Originally this piece was attributed to Kralik, and are seen on occasion with the arched mark also attributed to Kralik. That attribution had been accepted for a long time,
Then they were said to be Tomschick. These claims were largely based on a single piece of glass in the Tango exhibit which was identified as Tomschick. Not this shape, but kind of similar, and a vase... not a covered dish. Then, based on no presented evidence, but possibly based on an arched mark,it seems the attribution was then claimed by some to be Steinwald, seemingly in large part because the mark was "changed" to being Steinwald from Kralik. It is my understanding that was claimed by some, largely I believe due to some marked Bambus examples which were thought to be Kralik and are now said to be Steinwald. It also now seems that all? Bambus is Steinwald production. I guess "everyone made everything" only applies sometimes?? So now it appears that this piece is being said to be Tomschick again, based on something not show in in this forum. So in a relatively short period of time, the piece has gone from Kralik to Tomschick, to Steinwald, and back to Tomschick.
I think that this is a perfect example of why I personally insist on evidence being presented to support claims of attributions and/or attribution changes, and don't just listen to "opinions". A "claim" without "ample supporting evidence" is an "opinion", and NOT a "fact". It would seem we now have, based on a lack of even the smallest amount of "supporting evidence", next to no idea who made this glass....
From my perspective, this is an excellent example of what largely unsupported attribution claims do for us. I always assumed that the purpose of studying glass for everyone involved, was to clarify what we understand about the glass... I guess that assumption may have been an error on my part.
Sorry... but just my two cents worth.
I am as confused as the rest of the best! There must have been advertising in magazines circulating in the period when these companies existed in Austria- Bohemia- Germany by glassmakers you have covered above. I’m sure that Libraries and Museums in those countries have them in their files/ systems. Has anyone ever placed adds in Newspapers in those countries to see if collectors of memorabilia have any specific information that could solve this enigma. The answer exists; it’s to find it!
I have researched Welz for well over a decade now. In that time frame, I have made quite a few attempts to contact museums in the Czech Republic through the years with simple inquiries. I have even made simple inquiries regarding things that I know they have in their poseession. I have yet to receive even a polite simple decline in response to any of my inquiries.
The politics involved in the regional museums appear to run deep and strong, and my experience is that their desire to share information with folks outside of their country seems to be close to nonexistent.
The greatest amount of help I have received, aside from making contact with Welz family descendants, has come from a contact I made that used to live in Hrob, and is very interested in the history of the region. He was the source of the post card which showed a line art drawing of the Welz production facility. He also provided me with other images of post cards showing the production facility and their home next to it. He has provided me regional historic information, to include images of buildings that are still standing that Welz owned and/or built. He was even familiar with where the Welz production facility Antonienhütte had been located. The other help I have received has been from the folks that revived an historic publication, and wanted to use my first Welz article in All About Glass, as the foundation for an article in their first issue. They were directed to me by my contact who used to live in Hrob. So it seems folks interested in the region's history will help, but those involved in archives, museums, and the glass seem far less willing.
I am of the opinion that there is a lingering shame regarding the treatment of many of the "glass families" post WWII. Many of those families were German Jews who had migrated to the region fairly early on.
It is my understanding that some of the Rindskopf family were killed by townspeople after WWII. The entirety of Ruckl records to include business records and design books were destroyed by the family, as they knew they would become part of the nationalized industry, and their preference was that the results of the family's hard work not be turned over. Franz Welz's brother Joseph, along with Joseph's wife and son, committed suicide at the end of the war, as opposed to knowing what the communists would do to the family. Franz Welz was detained in Czechoslovakia post WWII by the communists because of his extensive knowledge of the glass industry, much of which was nationalized if the companies survived the war. He was only allowed to leave the country when his health was failing, just prior to his death in 1970. He was then allowed to go to Germany, where he died and is buried in Eichstadt.
History such as this is extremely difficult to uncover. Welz history I only know because of the family and my contact in Hrob. Most of it is found in small snippets in obscure articles in regional publications of the period. Locating infrequently seen ads of the period are in almost all cases, quite tedious to find.
Bottom line, as sad as it is... If you control the "information", you control the narrative.
Thank you welzebub and larksel for your comments, opinions and research. BOB
I am not really trying to be combative here, but in all fairness, I must speak my mind on the subject.
I am aware of the design books, and of their history. I have read the article talking about them. Among some of the many concerns I have regarding the design books, which I believe would take substantially more than a few days to analyze, is why are there 20 books, when the owner bought 40 and had them restored and rebound? Are they all there? Are some now missing? Were they combined in a manner which would cause their contents to be misinterpreted? If none of that, then where are the other 20? I think there is a whole list of questions regarding their origins, their time frame, what they represent, and what glass work(s) are represented in them. I certainly agree that these are an important resource to aid in the understanding of some of the regions lost glass making history. Without a full research project to determine their source and content, I think that with their use, there is the danger of inadvertently creating an incorrect narrative regarding what they can potentially teach us.
I am also of the opinion that the use of phrases such as "most likely come (almost certainty)" is a combined phrase of vastly differently meanings. “most likely” means more probable than not. “Almost certainty” implies that there is very little chance it is not accurate. The two phrases mean two completely different things. They are neither interchangeable, nor complimentary terms. The documents represent one or the other. I am also of the very strong opinion that it would take far more research than a few days to arrive at supportable conclusions regarding drawings such as these.
To keep it in perspective, these books likely contain hundreds of pages of drawings, and at a minimum, several thousand shapes. If the 20 books have, say 50 pages each, that would be 1000 pages of designs. If there are 8 shapes per 2 pages average, such as the two pages I saw, that would represent at a minimum, 8000 different shapes. The book pictured in the article appears to be quite a bit thicker than 50 pages.
Although I have watched much of the Steinwald claims unfold and have remained largely uninvolved, I have also watched what I consider to be some unsupportable claims made. It took 40 or 50 years of research by folks to arrive at some of the accepted conclusions regarding Czech glass production. In the last 18 months I have watched well over 100 decor attributions be reassigned, or in many cases given a dual attribution. Dual attributions only occur because one can not soundly prove the production is one or the other. To me at least, that is not work that is moving our collective knowledge forward.
I believe that in the long run, those types of activities are counter productive to our arriving at supportable accurate conclusions which advance our knowledge. This piece of glass in this post is a great example of that. You state “There are an estimated 100 such shapes in books.” , so this piece is “probably Tomschick after all”. Similar is not the same. Never has been. Never will be. I would be interested in knowing if a drawing of this actual form is in those books. If it is, then I would agree with the reassignment. If not, then the reassignment of the shape to a different house is unwarranted because it can not be supported with evidence. I am, and always have been a sticker for facts.
My research has faced constant unsupported criticism, and claims that the work I have done can't be done.... all from a small group of people almost the entire time I have done it. As a result of that, and my personal beliefs regarding publicly stating attributions for glass, I am well versed in what needs to be done to make supportable claims about findings.
Shortly after seeing them, you posted a couple of pages from a book somewhere, I would guess the Bohemian Glass group, and one of the drawings bears a resemblance to a basket that Welz made. It is a basket design they made a huge number of, and is memorialized in a large building cabochon over the front door of a Welz built and owned structure built in Hrob in 1920. The details in the drawing you posted are such that it is not possible to tell specific things about what it represents. Simply put, the Welz baskets invariably contain obvious details which are not really represented in the drawing. Is it possible that someone else made a similar basket to the Welz form? Of course it is. Within a day or so of your posting a couple of pages from one of the books, one of my favorite critics was declaring Welz research (once again) to be fiction because of the “Tomschick” line art you posted. Without a complete understanding of the artwork, the use and interpretation of the drawings are left to the subjective interpretation by people who in many cases, are far from qualified to do so. For research purposes, the knowledge that the books exist, comes with the responsibility and obligation of making sure they are studied and understood as well as possible.
I am of the opinion that something as potentially important as the documents you have seen, should be studied in great depth to develop as much in the way of supportable conclusions as possible, before they are used publicly to make claims of attributions and reassigning production. I am also of the opinion that such documents, if used incorrectly and without a full, accurate, and complete understanding of what they represent, can potentially cause more harm than benefit to the understanding of Czech glass production.
Again, just my 2 cents worth.....
Please delete my comments at this post. Thank you.
My comment #23 was in response to a comment which has now been removed from this forum. That comment mentioned newly seen design books which are owned by a glass artist in the Czech Republic. Their source and contents are not completely understood, yet it appears that they are now being used, to suggest production attributions. My comment reflects my strong opinions about what I consider to be the potential issues with that.
You're probably right. Until we work it out and publish a book about it, there's no point in mentioning it. Next, think that everything is Kralik. By the way, have Welz documents already been published somewhere? Not just details, but conclusive evidence that these are indeed Welz documents.
I believe that most of the Welz documents in question have indeed been published "somewhere" and, personally, I do not doubt the provenance. Also, I believe that most of us are perfectly willing to accept that not all that has been called Kralik has been correctly attributed. We are just hoping for more than a feeling and a similarity before buying into a different attribution.
I am not sure what your question means about Welz documents.... I am always a little surprised when a conversation about one subject boomerangs back to a conversation about my research. We appear to be going from discussing unstudied documents and their use, to questions regarding my research. If you doubt my research, I would suggest removing Welz examples from your website. I would not expect anyone to post on their own webiste, something about which they have any doubts. There are a lot of folks that have watched my research evolve for many years now, and find no faults with what I have arrived at as far as conclusions thus far..... And those folks include researchers, authors, and very advanced collectors. That being said.....
By my own admission, and of fairly common knowledge to people that have followed my research for the last 10+ years, actual factory documentation for Welz is not really known to exist. The first documentation found, and only known factory production documents, were discovered in very late 2014 by myself, when I made contact with previously unknown direct descendants of Franz Alois Welz.
Included with that discovery of two pages of factory production literature, I was provided copies of historical documentation to include the previously unknown floor plans of Antonienhutte from 1894, detailed and date notated mining maps for the coal they extracted from the 2 mining claims on the same property as Antonienhutte. Geological studies and surveys of the region dating to 1880, a map showing the mining claims in the valley below Klostergrab, and maps of Klostergrab and the surrounding region. I was provided with a copy of a hand written family tree starting with Heinrich Weltz in 1668 (before the "t" was dropped from the family name) and continuing to about 1930. I was also provided copies of a variety of other historical documents to include a copy of their Gold Medal award for a large 48 inch tall cut crystal vase in Brussels in 1910. An award that was not previously known in the glass world to any great extent.
In the case of the 2 pieces of production literature, using empirical methods, I had identified all but one of the shapes and decors prior to the discovery of the documents. there were 21 varied pieces of production in a wide variety of decors. Of those pieces in the production literature, one was a shape found in Passau in the Welz case.
Some of this type of documentation has been revealed publicly in some forums, but not all of it.
I think another noteworthy point would be that I am not "reassigning" production that was previously attributed to other firms, but have actually attributed in large part, glass that was considered unidentified. Of that glass, a small portion was suspected to be Kralik, but almost all of it had not been firmly attributed to them. The research started because I was provided an image of a vase for my website which was described as a "Kralik Knuckle vase", but with an "FWK" label on it. My curiosity about the label is what started the project, which I thought would last a couple of months and be over.
Most recently I have received a large number of photographs taken by Franz Welz from a family photo album, to include glass of all kinds in Leipzig and other cities, and also some images that show him with his glass displayed at their displays at the Leipzig fair. I have posted a handful of those pieces, but the vast majority need to be studied to determine what they are. Much of it is competitors glass, and not Welz production.
In terms of actually reassigning attributions, I have have shown with strong empirical evidence (the only kind you can use if there are no factory documents) that Welz made some of the draped production attributed previously by Alfredo to Kralik, and have reassigned some of the Spiraloptisch production to Welz that he assigned to Kralik also. In neither case have I made the claim that only Welz produced those decors. In fact, I have stated publicly on many occasions that I consider both houses to be sources of the production, and in many cases have left as Kralik production, some of the production which can not be linked to Welz. There are also a couple of others that I have researched for many years, but the supporting evidence I have located thus far, does not meet my personal threshold for making such a claim publicly.
In the case of both of those reassignments, I did several years of work before stating either attribution publicly. I also did about 2 years of research on Welz production before I made my first public statement regarding attributions of glass they produced. It was at that point that I added a handful of their decors to my website. Most decors that I have attributed publicly are decors which have been verified through multiple paths using in most cases, relatively unique shapes. Some shapes of course have been identified through very unique decors produced by Welz.
I have never made the claim that my work is perfect. All I have ever done is to be as meticulous and careful as I can be, and be prepared to support the claims. I have also openly welcomed anyone to provide any information that indicates that I have made a mistake in my research. To date, the best I can say is that evidence of that has never been provided by anyone... even the small crowd of my most die hard critics, who don't believe my research because they have a personal dislike of me... Which is really of no concern to me.
I am one that believes strongly in being able to support an attribution before making the claim in a public forum. In today's world, attribution bells can not really be un-rung.... We see examples of that all over the world of glass. The list of those is long and distinguished.
My only intention in this conversation was to question the rapidly changing attributions of this piece, and the implied use of documents which are not understood, as they have only been seen in part quite recently.
My intention is not to stop research by anyone, only to question the pace at which it occurs, and the accuracy of those claims before they are made. This piece of glass went from Kralik to Tomschick to a claim it is Steinwald, and back to Tomschick in about 3 years. A solidly researched attribution change would not have done that.
We are already seeing pieces of glass being offered on ebay as Kralik-Steinwald, and I am of the belief that pollutes our knowledge, and does little to reinforce solid attributions. One of my greatest critics is already a practitioner of that practice.
I think that a slow methodical pace is best in research. Changing an attribution is fine, if that change can be supported. This attribution has changed 3 times now, without any real supporting evidence at all, at least that I have seen presented.
I hold myself to the same research standards that I would expect of anyone else, maybe even a little more for myself.
That is just my opinion.
I agree with Harry. My hesitation is not based on a desire for everything to remain the same. I am only looking for, at least from my perspective, some supporting evidence actually be provided to support the claims.
By no means do I question your merits in identifying the glass of the Welz glassworks. It just struck me as strange that you questioned my (and not only my) view that the books I had the opportunity to view came from the Franz Tomschick glassworks and that some patterns (since 1939) refer to the Steinwald glassworks. It is obvious that these shapes were used by both glassworks. That is simply a fact. Your questioning of this view struck me as strange, especially in the context of the fact that it is not entirely clear that the two pages you obtained actually contain Welz products. Or do they just match the products of this glassworks assigned to you? But again, I really appreciate your research.
It strikes me as strange that you would question 2 pages of production literature in the possession of Welz descendants. First let me ask exactly where it was that I stated that I doubted that the books are Tomschick and/or Steinwald artwork. I did not question that fact. What I did question, I thought very clearly, was their use in identifying production a handful of days after they were first seen, and making claims such as the now deleted one here which stated:
“There are an estimated 100 such shapes in books.” , so this piece is “probably Tomschick after all”.
I asked, among other things, if the exact shape of this piece was in the line art, at which point it seems the discussion has now turned to my research, Welz documents, and the authenticity of 2 pages of Welz production literature. That very specific question about the drawing of this piece was not answered. I was quite clear in my position that the 20 volumes need to be studied to determine their actual contents, and which companies are represented in the artwork. That simply means that I wonder if others are included, and which drawings apply to which company and in what time frame.
That is a far cry from stating that I do not believe they are from Tomschick and/or Steinwald. It would be completely irresponsible of me to make that claim having never even seen them... That would be why I didn't.
It simply appears to me that we approach attributions and glass research differently. That is fine.
So let's look realistically at the differences between the design books and the Welz literature. Let's look at where they came from, and what we know about them.
The books which you are referencing were purchased at auction in the Teplitz region in the 1990's. They have been “rebound and restored” since, and in the process the number purchased (40) has now become 20 volumes. I also understand the the owner thought they represented Rindskopf production, so his concern at the time for keeping it all exactly as found may not have been at the forefront of his mind. I also understand that he has used them as an inspiration for contemporary art glass production. I estimate, very conservatively, that there are in the region of 1000 + pages of production art in 20 books of 50 pages each, which first came to light a couple weeks ago. I question exactly what they represent, and how we would know that so shortly after they appeared. If one spent only 10 minutes studying each page of the designs, I would estimate that the work involved in simply reviewing them that quickly, would require about 167 hours. That is 167 hours to simply devote 10 minutes to each page. If there are more than 1000 pages, then that number increases by 1 hour of time for every additional 6 pages. The books certainly require and deserve more than 10 minutes of study per page to arrive at any reasonably supportable conclusions, but I use that time frame to make a point. I actually think, based on the image of the book in the article, that each book likely contains more than 50 pages. If one spent 40 hours a week doing that simple review of the artwork, that would take just over 4 weeks of full time study. Yet here we are.... This piece is likely Tomschick because there are similar designs in the books.
My position regarding those documents is that rushing to conclusions regarding what they contain is an unwise path to take. I thought I was pretty clear about that. Your claim that I questioned the fact that they do not represent Tomschick and/or Steinwald, is simply a mis-characterization of what I actually said. I have an exceptional visual memory, as did my father, who had a photographic memory. My memory is a very effective tool in my research. If I had 1000 pages of new documentation, I could not possibly review them and arrive at conclusions which are supportable in a few days. Is it possible to determine that both Tomschick and Steinwald are represented in the books? If some pages are labeled with their names... sure. Is it possible to determine what all of the contents represent in a few days? IMHO, such a claim would be foolish. So we know, based on what you have said, that the books contain Steinwald and Tomschick artwork. Based on what you have stated publicly, we do not know at this point if any other glass company is represented. We do not definitively know what artwork is Steinwald, and what is Tomschick. Some? Yes. All? no. We suspect from models numbers and some labeled pages, that it appears both firms may have used the designs, or quite similar designs. Do we understand which firm used which drawings and when? Some maybe, but all of it? Absolutely not. These are simply a few of the multitude of questions that I strongly believe need to be answered before claiming we can responsibly use them to make attributions.
So now let's look at the Welz pages. You stated “Your questioning of this view struck me as strange, especially in the context of the fact that it is not entirely clear that the two pages you obtained actually contain Welz products. Or do they just match the products of this glassworks assigned to you?”
The 2 pages of Welz production literature were provided to me by the great granddaughter of Franz Alois Welz. They have been in possession of the family for almost 100 years. They are stamped with a 1928 date. The images match production that I had assigned to Welz production over 6 years of research prior to their discovery. You ask if they are Welz documents, or are they simply documents which happen to match production I had assigned to Welz.
So let's look at what it would take for them to not be Welz production literature, and the chain of events that would have had to happen over a period of years to create that scenario.
The Welz family would have had 2 pages of literature from a competitive company that produced glass, which they had hung on to with actual historical Welz documents for 100 years or so. Some as long as 140 years... 93 years for the production pages. Over a period of 6 years, in attempting to develop an idea of what Welz made I detremined examples of glass I assigned to their production. Among those examples were decors and shapes, a number of which had FWK labels on them indicating that they were produced by Welz Welz Klostergrab. Other examples identified were in decors that are strikingly unique in their appearance. After 6 years of research I uncovered the production literature. The literature shows 20 matches out of 21 pieces, to shapes/decors I had already identified as Welz. In order for the 2 pages of images to not represent Welz production the following would be required to be true:
1) The family has literature they kept for 93 years that was not their family's glass production.
2) Many pieces of glass in unique decors and bearing Welz labels are actually not Welz production. Other labeled examples are also seen which have FWK labels. These would all have to be mislabeled production from a firm other than Welz. They would also have to all be from the same firm to match the literature.
3) Starting with a handful of examples in museums and Truitt I, I identified glass production which was all from the same company, but I was incorrect, and it is all not by Welz, but by one firm other than Welz, who also happens to be represented in production literature held by Welz descendants.
4) Museums such as Passau, who hold examples of the production with Welz labels, and on shapes seen in the production literature are also mistaken in their identification of Welz production.
5) Examples seen in the production literature having been seen in real life with Welz labels, would also have to be production from a singular different firm that were erroneously labeled Welz.
So for them to not be Welz pages, I would have had to identify glass from a different firm that is not Welz, and coincidentally, the Welz family would have happened to have 2 pages of production literature from that firm, and not the family's company. Sorry, but the possibility that they represent production by a firm other than Welz is pretty slim. I think the chances of me winning Powerball are many times greater, and those odds are actually around 292 million to 1.
When I was first doing Welz research I was told over and over for years by my favorite band of critics, that there is no Welz documentation, so I could not prove any of what I claimed as research findings. When the literature was uncovered and I posted a piece of it, I was then told that there was no proof that it was Welz. That claim seems to persist to this day, continually echoed by a small group of naysayers, most of which block me in facebook and hide in groups to which I do not belong, or am blocked from seeing.
Through the years there have been a plethora of absolutely inane claims about Welz and my research by these folks in “educational public glass forums. There were claims that Welz did not even make glass, but developed the 2 patents they held for glass formulas, and then traded their patent use for glass to export under their name. At one point there were claims that Welz worked for Seimens on electric railroads, and did not make glass. There were claims that the Antonienhutte facility was in reality not a glass production house but a coal refinery.... Then it became a dual use facility to mine and produce coal while at the same time making glass. They used Seimen furnaces which utilized brown coal glass from local deposits. I have been accused, by the same small crowd of vocal critics, of photo shopping images to create false supporting evidence for my research. I have been accused of hacking a website to alter information on it I did not agree with. The same individual claimed I was hacking her computer and phone in Canada to wreak havoc with her “research”. One of the individuals registered on an international discussion board as a woman from Canada to attack my research, but the IP address of the registered name was not in Canada, but at the same location as another registered member of the forum who lives in Maryland. It was a man and not a woman. Their username was the same as an email name for an account they had. Their writing style was also such that they were easily identifiable as to who it was. The location of the IP address was confirmed by the board's admins when I reported personal insults and attacks, which are not allowed in that forum. A Facebook group admin has forbid the topic of Welz being discussed in her group, and uses automation to remove posts almost instantly if the word is present. She did so based on a completely delusional belief that I threatened some folks with physical violence over the topic of Welz. Apparently a claim made by some who feel that I am actually threatened by their opinions. When the Welz literature was first posted in CW, one of the first comments made by my critics, was it would be a great find... if it was real. I do not say these things because I am a victim, but because they are representative of the types of actions these folks have participated in over the last decade. These are a very small sampling of actions taken by some who question the validity of the research and more importantly, the origins of the Welz production literature. Your question regarding the literature unfortunately seems, at least to me in this context, to echo some of that rhetoric.
If you do not see the difference between 20 design books, and 2 pages of production literature from the Welz descendants, then I am at a loss for words, and this discussion is futile. I would also suggest that “vetting” the sources that you appear to be conversing with at times, would be highly recommended.
Believe my research or not... It really matters little to me. Accept that the two pages of production literature showing 20 pieces of production I had previously determined to be Welz are authentic Welz... or don't. Use the design books you saw and obviously took some pics of, in whatever manner you deem fit. I speak up because I think it is important for people reading these types of posts to be given a “different” point of view regarding those claims. If I agree with the claims that are made based on the books, I will state so... If I don't, you obviously know that I will also speak up.
Because of the methodology I use, and the meticulous nature of what I actually do, I am reasonably confident that the vast majority of my Welz research will stand the test of time. Is it 100% accurate? I hope so, but there is no way to know.... and in reality, there is always the possibility that some of it may be in error... only time will tell.
Could you put those two Welz pages on your website or on CW?