![Dugan Art Glass: Pompeian [1906]](https://d3h6k4kfl8m9p0.cloudfront.net/stories/onMcfk.sbSP4oR5VRVne4g-thumb.jpeg)
Posted 6 years ago
artfoot
(367 items)
This has thin walls, a beaded rim, and an orange and yellow decor that makes me think this could be a Welz product but it has no trace of an export mark and I don't think I've seen quite that shape. I'll stop short of a definite attribution and wait for another opinion.
It stands just 4" (10.2 cm) tall and is also 4" (10.2 cm) across the lip, a little bit wider at the elbows.
Side by side comparison of these two pieces shows considerable difference between the two application techniques.
I think it's Kralik, they had their own yellow and orange spatter. There are many styles and decors with this basic jar shape. I just posted a pink one, which I believe belongs to all the translucent Kralik optic glass pieces with added colored glass accents. IMO.
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/253669-the-translucent-kralik-decorative-glass?in=user
Thank you Lisa - sure looks to be the same shape.
Gloriously Bright, gorgeous vase.
Youre welcome, it sure does look a lot like your other new post in the decor spatter colors. Here is a grouping from Ian, that shows 2 other ones in plain green, these were also produced in tango red and orange. Some have said Ruckl (not me), some have said Kralik, there are some taller vases with the same upper rims that are considered Welz, not much is simple in this category to this day.
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/194821-butler-bros-conundrum-and-more-questions
I know little other than personal experience of handling Czech glass .... but I am in the Welz camp! The preplexness comes when one stands in the camp of traditional marks of Welz and Kralik, as I have not found any marked as of yet. Time has proven to keep an open mind and never say never in Czech glass identification. We are all in this together and to draw lines in the sand just make no sense when trying to increase knowledge. Happy Friday!!!!!!
The absence of a pontil mark, combined with applied "wings" and an applied rim does not really support a Kralik attribution, as this technique would have required the use of "gadgets".
Kralik is not really known to have used "gadgets" in production, and their known production does not seem to support the idea they did.
Based on that, I would be inclined to look to a company other than Kralik as the maker.
If we just look at one of the Kralik glass products, the glass flowers and glass vases with flowers, the glass work and manipulation with tools or gadgets is evident to everyone. That is only one type of decorative glass group where they excelled.
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/221878-kralik-vase-with-applied-flower-and-leav
"Tools" are not the same as a "Gadget". You may want to make sure you fully understand the topic before engaging me in a conversation.
In reference to glass production the term gadget applies to the use of a device also known as a "snap tool". Snap tools were initially developed for use in early bottle production. The advantage of a "gadget" in art glass production is that it allows the gaffer to manipulate and decorate a piece of glass without having to apply a punty rod to the base of a piece when it is cut from the blowing pipe.
As an example, if a vase has a fire polished or decorated rim and no pontil mark, it is an indication of the use of a gadget (snap tool) in production. Kralik production is not really known to exibit this production technique. This was what I was referencing in my first comment.
My remark had nothing to do with the production tools and/or techniques employed to decorate and manipulate glass, such as cutting and crimping rims, applying flowers etc....
I just thought I should clarify what I was referring to which was apparently misconstrued by my "critic".
I have been largely absent from this forum for 2 months because of an interstate move..... I did not really give much thought to how much I did not miss this type of ridiculous nonsense...
I heard this commercial, it goes, " it is okay, Big Lou is on mess too!!!!!" Please be mindful that this is an open discussion for all opinion!!!! Thank you
Welz: I've seen pictures of this decor on a poly-lobed cup on three-footed black glass with an 'F.W K' label attached.
Bambus, the orange and yellow spatter glass decor is shared by several glass houses. The Welz version usually has an orange interior lining, and a yellow spatter applied on top of that, with a clear glass exterior layer finish. Ruckl also has an orange and yellow combination, they also have an orange layer base.
Kralik has several versions, one of which is this one, with no opaque glass interior color, but a clear glass base. It's easy to mix them up, I have done it myself, till I was corrected for my mistake.
Here is another example of the Kralik orange and yellow spatter on clear, I have been working with these decors in the last year. The shape of this vase is a familiar recognized one for having several other accepted Kralik glass decors.
https://nebula.wsimg.com/b2682168a6a1771018e3cd75af56ef2a?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
Your Kralik example is nothing like the above. In the Kralik the red is too elongated and yellow spatters too small. The 'FWK' example I have seen is much more like the above. Am sticking with Welz attribution.
My goal here is to provide good pictures. If I can learn something after that, it's a bonus. Thanks everyone.
Gorgeous and a beautiful size for its design !~
I agree with Bambus as far as the decoe comparison goes. The two decors are absolutely not the same..... as far as who made this example, I continue to withhold judgement. I have been looking at these for many years and have never felt very comfortablle with an attribution. I can say that I am reasonably confident that Kralik did not make it, for the reasons stated in my first comment.
I agree with artfoot, that no matter what we believe it is still a learning experience for us all, the people who are reading our comments and our explanations for our opinions and beliefs.
I woke up with a new idea about this, another tool that may have been used in the Kralik glass plants, there were 7 of them as far as czech documentation, something that would hold the glass piece in place, while it was applied and worked on, with several reheating steps to do so.
As far as the glass spatters, there are so many types, and so many examples, that to be definite about what is and what is not by one maker is risky, especially if you talk about the bulk of the glass exports Kralik made to USA for example, and the BB ads, where you find this particular piece in the spatter decor. Part of a glass selection which I feel are all Kralik. See my link on comment 4. last image.
IdentifyIng Czech production is not really "risky". It is a methodical prrocess which can be tedious and time consuming if one wants to produce accurate and supportable results.
It is simply not a process where loose comparisons and broad generalities produce usable results which will hold up over time.
The spatter decor of this item is not remotely like the spatter decor of the link provided in comment 22.
I previously owned this piece in a different spatter decor. I remain unconvinced of an attribution for these, and do not feel compelled to find one. However, If I were pressed, I would lean towards Welz. For me, these are not Kralik.
It's obvious now that the 2 Czech spatter posts side by side, had a role, comparing the decors, would make this a potential Welz glass item. :-)
Thanks Harry!
That shows exactly what I suspected it might. Same photo and they look pretty different. As a result of this comparison at least, I am very comfortable maintaining the position that the winged piece is by an unknown house.
Could it be Welz? Sure..... but there would need to be a number of strong links developed to support a Welz attribution for it. This added image shows why I feel that spatter decors, especially very simple ones, can be difficult to identify as to maker, and why shapes become a critical factor in maker attributions that will stand the test of time.
Thanks again!
I though that in light of the conversation about this winged example, and attributions, that a comparison of a known Welz example, this unknown piece, and an example presented as being the same, but by Kralik would be useful for members here to see.
Understanding that the single vase image, presented as an example of Kralik production, was taken under different conditions, I think there are enough other obvious differences to support the contention by several people involved in the conversation, that the decor is not even remotely similar to Harry's piece, and the Welz example on legs.
Here is a link to the three pieces for comparison purposes.
http://www.kralik-glass.com/images/3Spatters.jpg
Amazing how the group photo illustrates your point. Seems like the quick "looks like" attributions quickly drop off when true study/ analysis is done.
Thanks welz.
scott
My example is still a Kralik glass shape item as is this piece IMO, if the spatter does not resemble Harry's glass item, that is not a huge issue, the point was the colors on a recognized Kralik shape not the type of spatter applications.
Then even the colors can be deceiving, depending on how the image was taken, and on the spatter itself, how it was applied, there are multiple variations. I agree it is a difficult way to identify Czech glass, and it's best to have all the glass pieces in hand to do so.
Here is another Kralik yellow and orange spatter on clear. I think we should consider size as well, a 4 inch high piece will vary from a 9 inch high piece, comparisons side by side should take this into account.
Here are 2 more Kralik glass spatter pieces, in another 2 tone combination, the same jar as we see here, and a lobbed jar, about the same size.
https://nebula.wsimg.com/6ecc64c4846eb62c863552cc9fe4e2a0?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
https://nebula.wsimg.com/685bc182b5ec04267e9c2cd46671abff?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
Since I seem to have started all this, I thought I would throw another two cents into the pot. First, let me address the two links in comment 24 - second link first - I'm pretty sure that is a Welz piece. Now the first link - again a piece that is the same shape as mine. Now we know this shape came in several decors but I'm not seeing a connection to either Kralik or Welz.
Let's refer to the link in comment 4 (repeated here for easy reference) https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/194821-butler-bros-conundrum-and-more-questions shows an identical piece to mine with a mark on the underside. You know me, I like marks. I could ask a higher authority but as far as I know that mark has not been assigned to any definite production house. It is a two-line. all-caps CZECHO- on top, SLOVAKIA below (rubber?) stamped in silver enamel. It does not show up on any known Welz products that I've seen. So let me twist this in another direction. That printed mark, to my eyes, has a very similar font and layout to the impressed mark on this piece (look quick - it'll probably be gone soon) https://www.ebay.com/itm/ANTIQUE-CZECHOSLOVAKIA-GLASS-ORANGE-BOWL-VASE-w-COBALT-BLUE-SIGNED/292712656178?hash=item442708ad32 Technique look similar?
Ok, since my links are discussed again, the last link provided on 25. is another Kralik piece with cobalt blue wings or leaves, this glass piece was handled in multiple ways by Kralik. Here are 2 examples, I have about a dozen unique decors and applications to this Kralik shape, lidded and not lidded.
https://nebula.wsimg.com/0d11bae3c6b2db15991091f677b562c8?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
https://nebula.wsimg.com/e9f46fec2b2c2eb8b86fc08843381c7a?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
with the Butler Brother ad which includes all the shapes we are discussing or related shapes such as the vase top left, that I consider Kralik glass export items.
https://nebula.wsimg.com/12eba981d090a8cdcb3f87b414ada8fa?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
I think my examples used in 24. is the small jar top right.
"My example is still a Kralik glass shape item as is this piece IMO, if the spatter does not resemble Harry's glass item, that is not a huge issue, the point was the colors on a recognized Kralik shape not the type of spatter applications. "
Colors were made by a handful of companies that sold color rods. If a shade of red or orange (as example colors) is found on a couple of production examples that appear different as far as application goes, that does not provide an indication that the same house made those examples. It proves at best, without additional supporting evidence, that both firms making the pieces purchased color rods from the same sources..... of which there were not that many.
I love a good debate and very nice people can disagree
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/146588-another-documented-welz-shape-8930--15
This shape from a Welz production catalogue in the only documentation of an ear-like application, Kralik has no documentation and that might be proof enough for some. I certainly wouldn't hold it against anybody for believing that. In addition Welz produced more confetti application types than kralik- Also they made many more a snap tool pieces than kralik did (although they did make piecec like that ie Lava.
I think this falls under Kralik however because this series is more closely related to the tango types with (twisty) prunts. Kralik also produced these types in depression glass colors (pale colored or clear with cobalt applications). In any case they are fun pieces to collect. If you look at the Welz ear-like application fron the side its straight (like a fish fin) these look to me more twisted to me.
I'm only 70% kralik sure....
Some very interesting contributions to this discussion. Kralik 1928's link shows a piece which certainly appears to be more closely aligned to the hexagonal piece on legs, but the more elongated spatter of these two Welz pieces is looking more and more different to me from the piece in this post. And, as Kralik 1928 observed, the 'wings' or 'ears' are very different. Earlier, I mentioned a similar piece I once owned. I had forgotten, but when I checked, I found it also had the 2-line silver mark Artfoot mentions (comment 25). So, I am now leaning further from Welz, but no closer to Kralik. Agree they are fun pieces and an attribution is worth chasing, but completely irrelevant to their enjoyment.
That silver (and sometimes white or bronze) is a mark seen on some gluechip pieces but I don’t know if it’s a 100% Kralik mark. The problem with Kralik is how prolific they were, widely exported, collaborative with other companies and hardly any documentation’s. Best we can do is be mostly sure...
That silver (or bronze) mark is seen on some gluechip pieces but I don’t know if it’s a 100% Kralik mark. Is my theory that the Arch mark is 80% Kralik then this one is 50% to me
I do think this rim shape is the key- look at all pieces with this rim and they include tango, embossed transparents and confetti styles... now in those three decor types show me s definitive Kralik decor—?— we know these series (decor types) are related but we can’t connect them to the main body of Kralik production
The problem with Kralik is how prolific they were, widely exported, copied, collaborative with other companies and hardly have any documentation. Best we can do is be mostly sure...