Posted 6 years ago
sklo42
(897 items)
I've always liked this décor but it's taken me five years to buy this, my second example. I followed this one for well over a year whilst the seller listed them (he had two) and relisted them again and again, as they didn't sell. Sometimes they disappeared altogether for weeks on end. Then about a month ago I chanced on them once more, but now at half price! The other one is now back to full price and, as before. described as Murano!
Quite incidentally I think that this set of images shows how easy it is distort the true shape of a vase. And from that how important it is, when comparing shapes for identification, to compare like with like. The true shape is in image one where the rim is flat looking i.e. horizontal.
Height 20 cm./8 inches
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/121144-kralik-rose-bowl
SO funny - I did the same watching the two vases : )
lol probably as well we don't know who else is watching......
Rather like my pair from about a year ago, though mine have three colours in the spatter - one of which has uranium - have you tested it?
My rose bowl has three colours in the spatter too and orange lines. Possibly more variations out there too! I've not tested it IronLace, as I've never understood why anyone does that! Clearly not a proper collector lol.
I must confess that I'm something of a nerd...always enjoyed the scientific aspect to glass as well as the aesthetic/historical value...& thus the uranium exerts its own strange allure. Over the years have discovered quite a lot of it lurking unsuspected in glass that doesn't have an obvious "vaseline" glass look. For example, in many white glass buttons for some odd reason.
Regarding your comment about true images, I could not agree more. If comparing images which are not exactly alike, one must study and look at enough images to understand what different perspectives do to the shapes in those images.
I admit, IronLace. that if, for instance, the Stourbridge makers used uranium and the Bohemians didn't that would interest me.
Though the 'different' shapes were not intentional I thought it worth remarking on as a visual explanation of a principal can, at times, be striking.