![Fritz Heckert 'Silberband' Bowl [by Otto Thamm, c. 1901] in Yellow on a Clear Ground](https://d3h6k4kfl8m9p0.cloudfront.net/stories/uNSpgNzIuYW3hIXBTdJb0g-thumb.jpeg)
Posted 6 years ago
artfoot
(367 items)
My last post seemed to encourage a good conversation and I'm going to try do it again. The two pieces shown here (the second piece shown are internet images borrowed here for hopefully educational reasons) appear to be the same spatter decor. Both have red, white, and yellow particles on a clear ground. It is a simple, non-distinctive decor. The first one shows the two-line printed mark discussed in the comments of my last post. The second has the printed mark that I call the "smile mark". I think it is possible these two pieces were made in two different glass workshops and just as possible that both of these marks were used by the same company. In regards to the "smile mark", it shows up on a lot glass that doesn't seem to reconcile with any of the studied makers. But, my real concern, and my question for today - is it possible that these two marks are post-WWII marks?
My thoughts exactly!
Are you referencing post WWII?
Yes, thank you. Post has been clarified.
Can't imagine these could be anything other than interwar production (for all the reasons in Welzebub's comment), but always good to keep the questions coming! Thanks for posting.
Thank you Welzebub and Wow22.
Really, I have no doubts that the two-line mark is an interwar mark. It's that darned "smile" mark bothers me. It seems that every piece I have that is marked that way only shows wear to the mark. None of them have any of the normal sort of wear I would associate with glass of that age. Most of the other Czech glass pieces I have show some shelf wear.
And thanks to LOUMANAL as well - it's good to know that I wasn't the only one.
Keen observation although I think the silverized marks aren’t permanent and can be rubbed off pretty easily. Another reasons for shelf wear is the wheight and shape of vase
These marks were introduced to me as Kralik years ago but I am doubting this now
Thank you Jericho - I'm betting you have more experience with and images of glass with that "smile" mark. From what I've seen, there are consistent shapes and consistent decors, many not even remotely similar to the known work of an identified facility. I've seen what looked like what was left of this mark on the underside of a "glue chip" decor that was on a low bowl well beyond my ability to identify as Kralik - I'm thinking it was a versatile facility and large enough to be exporting to an English speaking audience. So I guess I'm wondering when this mark first showed up in your collections.
Thanks all for the views, loves, and participation.
There should be an understanding here on CW, that there is a very basic difference of opinion about these marks. That is some believe they are distributor marks, and some believe they are producers. Also, some believe they are applied at the source, the maker's plant, other's believe that is not so.
These particular marks on this post are found on many unidentified Czech interwar pieces, on different styles of decorative glass, many with a satin finish, many with a spatter decor, many with applied glass foot rests on plain translucent vases. This fact points to a more likely scenario of a distributor mark. As I have said before, on my own post, the larger the collection, the more complex these issues become.
In reality, nothing really points towards these being distributor marks any more than pointing towards being a manufacturer applied mark. To state so simply presents an idea as fact that is really not supported with any solid information, and is the result of supposition.
The second Loetz book actually contains information regarding their placing marks on items for export, and doing so in a manner that the company ordering the items requested.
That would really be the only known "documentation" pointing to an answer to the question.
Finding these marks on a variety of unidentified pieces in different aesthetics points as much to a maker with a diversified aesthetic as much as it points to anything else.
The idea that glass was packed into cases and crates for export, shipped to a location where the glass was unpacked and then marked for export by a distributor is simply one that flies in the face of common sense logic regarding business practices. Having it marked before packing makes substantially more sense than unpacking marking and repacking glass before exporting it.
I have asked repeatedly through the years for someone to explain any benefit of a distributor unpacking and marking glass, then repacking it..... as opposed to makers doing it before packing it at the production facility....... and yet we find ourselves many years down the road without any feasible or plausible explanation having ever been offered.
From the second Loetz volume regarding a New York customer:
"Relatively large consignment(sic) included lampshades, usually delivered by dozens of pieces, or various vases, bowls, candleholders, and the like. Ordinarily it had the goods designated as “Made in Austria” or Made in Bohemia”. The company consignments were packed in Klastersky Mlyn for the dispatch to a particular branch."
So this is a documented example of a U.S. customer having glass marked in a specific manner at the factory by Loetz, prior to crating and shipping to a retail location. It is not much of a stretch to get from that documentation to believing that Loetz (and many others) marked glass prior to packing, for export to markets such as the US that required provenance marks on individual items in order for them to be imported.
Are there any records, or even mention, of a distributorship large enough to have done this?
Not that I am aware of.
Here are the three scenarios for marking glass that I can come up with.
1) Production house marks glass with provenance marks indicating country of origin, or with a mark specified by large customers. Packs the glass and ships it to the country it was sold to. Marking the glass may involve a small additional fee being charged to do this. For the US, individual pieces of glass were required to be marked. For the UK, only the master carton containing the glass was required to be stamped with the country of origin... Individual items did not require marks.
2) Production house packs glass for transport to a distributor facility, who then unpacks the glass, marks the glass, and then repacks the glass for export to the destination country. This requires that the distributor have a warehouse facility large enough to accommodate this type of operation, and the manpower and supplies necessary to do so. This operation would certainly cost substantially more than a fee charged by a production house to mark pieces before packing them. Personally, I see absolutely no benefit for a distributor to do this.
3) Production house allows employees of a distributor to mark glass on site prior to packing for shipping. I consider this scenario to be the least practical and least likely.
I am, and always have been open to any suggestions that would provide a reasonable alternative to these scenarios.
A distributor such as the Butler Brothers would certainly have had the resources and ability to have a facility to mark glass, but they did not get as large as they did undertaking bad business practices. Paying a fee to have it marked before packing for export would be the logical solution for them... or simply demanding it be done because of the volume of business they were doing....
The major London firm that exported Welz products to the UK, USA and Australia would have had to unpack only predetermined portions of production to mark, as the marking requirements were different for each destination country.
Concur with welz-- option #1 seems to make the most sense for a company that was actually producing glass with an eye on efficiency and PROFIT.
scott
My comment was to give the short difference of opinion that exists, one that is familiar with the other collectors here, and one that has not changed. I did not expect it to. Silence is not a sign of concurrence on CW, members would rather say nothing than to be lectured about all the reasons their opinions makes no sense.
We have discussed this topic back and forth before, and it did not matter, any difference in opinion and the reasons we stated were dismissed. I remember what was said. For me, the idea that these glass exports stayed in their original packaging from the plant to their final destinations is not practical. There were many links in the chain of distribution, not all goods went to the same place, not all shippers dealt with goods that came from the same place.
There certainly had to be some rearranging of cargo when ships were used overseas, with only so much space available.
If I did not address how the marks were applied, I did not mean to write as long a comment as I did. I feel the glass that needed to be identified for the USA, were handled separately. Just like the Royal Art Glass labels, that have been found on at least 6 different brands of glass, pressed and blown. The representants of the Royal Art Glass business obviously dealt with many producers during the interwar period before shipping to the required destinations.
Rearranging cargo is a very different suggestion from unpacking/ marking and repacking.
To me, what makes sense in the glass export business is the most cost effective method in terms of ease of marking and limiting breakage.
scott
I think I was more concerned about the when than with the who - at least for now.
interwar 1919-1939, Butler Brothers still used the hyphenated version in 1929-32 ads.
How about posting the names of the 6 different producers found with Royal Art Glass labels here?
Some of us don't facebook.
scott
And provide a link to the facebook posting for those who use the site?
scott
The issue is with speculation/ opinion represented as fact.
This site is used by sellers as a source for online sales. Often representations and attributions show up on other (sale) sites (ebay, etsy...). Some become so often believed that many folks no longer question the validity (post mortem photography and posting stands are a great example):
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/143689-posing-stand-often-attributed-to-post-mo
I don't see it as an attack to question opinions or disagree. It does the collecting community a great disservice to let opinions and speculation go unchallenged.
Most who present on here are ready and willing to "show the work". How else is the validity of a posting assessed?
Learning requires study and questioning not blanket acceptance.
I am of the opinion that if you can't support what you are saying and are offended when questioned, then maybe the issue is with the opinion/ speculation vice those questioning.
scott