Posted 5 years ago
truthordare
(369 items)
Here are more glass pieces that I have acquired in the last year or so. I always have an interest in something different that I believe has not been discussed or identified yet.
First 2 vases in magenta, purple and white spatter. Their shape is unusual and their spatter color composition as well, the one on the left has a matching shape in the line and spot decor in orange and black, which I have attributed to Ruckl (not Kralik). The right one is rarer, might be Kralik, but I have no concrete basis for that identification, except the fabrication.
Second, odd spatter vase with clear glass footings struts, has a type of decor I recently understood once examining it closely, and it is a yellow spatter which has a red glass color application which frames the rounded spatter areas, to form a sort of beehive look. I believe this vase was cropped by 1/2 cm at the upper rim, and it belongs to the Kralik family of decors, more of these were done in red and grey as well as orange.
Third, a Kralik vase shape that has been used with many of their decors and their arch stenciled mark. This one is unique as it has a rare spatter color combination with an irisdescent finish. Very interesting to see and find.
Fourth, a small auction lot I won, with an antique Harrach brown paneled vase with applied striped blue prunts, and a modern floral design in between. I knew I had seen this decor before, and found it again in the Truitt Volume I chapter about Harrach, I took a picture of it this time. It does not match the image of the small container in clear glass, but the decor has been inspired by the same idea, several turquoise glass tear drops or lines, with floral enamel accents using gold, on the shoulder of both glass pieces
This is an edit and correction, as well as a new image. I was notified my dates are not in line with my comment,issue is the same we don't know exactly when this glass was designed, only if it was important enough to display at one of the competitive exhibitions. Circa 1900 might work better, this means about 1900, or from 1890 to 1910.
I plan to pursue the Harrach glass history in detail on a new post with examples, and explain what L. Moser's role was, over several decades, starting in mid 19th century. It is a fascinating and complex topic.
thank you for the loves CW members, always appreciated.
New image 4, to illustrate the identification. An interesting fact about the relationship of Moser and Harrach Moser created new glass colors during early 20th, specifically a brown and aqua blue.
I find it a good sign about their collaboration, that Harrach used a combination of the two new glass colors in many new decors he produced for his Art Nouveau line.
stunning!!!! and agree with your comments!!
Thanks Sean, it's always interesting what went on with these glass companies. Best.
"From Neuwelt to the Whole World - 300 Years of Harrach Glass" Edited by Jan Mergle 2012
ISBN 978-80-7467-008-4 (Arbor vitae)
ISBN 978-80-7101-113-2 (Museum of Decorative Arts in Prague)
The references to Moser in the Index are as follows:
Moser (glassworks) 7, 383, 387, 394, 400, 403, 404, 416.
These references to Moser all refer to the post WWII era of glass production. They contain no references to brown or blue glass, nor to Moser working for Harrach.
Moser, Ludwig, Karlovy Vary 34, 35, 37, 161, 170, 178, 201, 218, 248. 280, 328, 330, 331, 341, 366
These primarily note early Moser purchases of Harrach products to resell at his shop in Carlsbad (Karolvy Vary), a known fact in light of Moser not producing his own glass until 1893.
Having re-read every word in the 23 pages where Moser is discussed in the Harrach volume, I find there to be absolutely no mentions of either the brown and aqua glass you reference that Moser created and Harrach used, nor do I find any mentions of collaborations between the two companies.
What is mentioned mostly, and early on, are records of types of Harrach glass, such as Alt Deutsche production, that Moser purchased to sell at his shop in the spa town of Carlsbad (Karlovy Vary). In some instances the purchases were products that were finished products for resale, and in some instances, blanks which Moser refined himself.
There are absolutely no mentions or references to any records indicating that Moser worked for Harrach Glassworks at any point. He was a customer that purchased glass and blanks.
In the later portions of the Moser mentions, it is generally as a reference to similarities in their production, or Harrachs reactions to some of Moser products, such as Harrachs production designed as a reaction to the Moser Oroplastic production as late as the 1920's.
I certainly look forward to clarification of your claims, in the unlikely event that I missed anything in my second reading, but as far as I can tell, your claims are not supported by the reference you claimed as your source.
Before you reach your final conclusion, "your claims are not supported by the reference you claimed as your source" you might consider I have my laptop and not my books this long weekend for us on Canada Day.
A time for some of us who have a life, to get away and enjoy nature and this pleasant time of year. I am really impressed with your or a friend's efforts with this. It will have to wait till next week. Thanks.
Not a friend's effort. Just me. But I appreciate your subtle attempt at a "jab". LOL Take your time..... I am never in a hurry. Facts just kind of sit there without any need to rush....
I took my time to travel during the week. Being retired, I kind of do what I want, when I want to. That pretty much describes "my life".
Thought I would mention, none of it appears to be mentioned in Truitt I either.....
After much consideration, I have decided to create a new post just for the HARRACH-MOSER topic, their interaction from mid 19th century according to many footnotes and chapters in the Harrach boo, as well as a full paragraph in Truitt Volume I, regarding L. Moser's invention of a series of new colors in 19th century.
It may be semantics that we read the same information and understand it differently, that is what I want to elaborate on with back up from the published sources as my facts.
I have reviewed many sources during a short period a few weeks ago, and I would hate to have any of the resulting conclusions I made be deleted here, as it is not quite in line with the spirit of this post.
Because I expect you to disagree with me, and this would be viewed as another argument between the two of us that may be removed. Thanks.
I have never contested that there were interactions between the two firms. The Harrach volume makes that quite clear. Moser purchased blanks and finished production to sell in his shop in Carlsbad post 1857. He also purchased such materials from other production houses. That is not in doubt.
Your claim that Harrach developed 2 colors used by Harrach in Art Nouvea production (ca 1900), and a previous claim that Moser worked for Harrach early on are the claims I felt were inaccurate and needed to be addressed. Your claims were very specific, my objections to those inaccurate claims were also quite specific.
Your claims from above:
"Moser created new glass colors during early 20th, specifically a brown and aqua blue.
I find it a good sign about their collaboration, that Harrach used a combination of the two new glass colors in many new decors he produced for his Art Nouveau line."
Another claim in your post has now been removed/modified to read differently.
For what it is worth, the colors developed by Moser were developed in the 1920's at the urging of Josef Hoffman. There are not any other mentions of color development by Moser in the Harrach volume. This quote below is from Truitt I, pg 91.
"At the urging of Viennese professor Josef Hoffman, Leo Moser worked with Professor Auer at theResearch Institute of Glass in Berlin to develop new colors, obtained by the inclusion of rare elements to produce the desired color. These colors included: Alexandrite, Amber, Heliolite, Turquoise beryl, and a dark Royalite, A display of Royalite won a grand prize in Paris in 1925. Also developed were their very popular Smoke Topaz and Lemon Yellow."
The comment I made regarding Moser and Harrach initially were based on the memory of previous reading materiel, which left me with more or less accurate information.
For instance the location of Carlsbad, was in the South of Bohemia and that was due to the joining of Myer's Neffe in 1922 with the Moser's glass plant. I expected them to be close by and I was wrong.
The association with Harrach was based on their glass production, where they shared several styles of glass decorations, for decades. In what exact capacity where they involved, again it was a conclusion based on their mutual businesses and their involvement together of marketing their goods and others. Does it mean that Moser worked for Harrach, in a certain way he did, even before he established his own Carlsbad glass finishing and then his glass production.
If I can I would like to use an example of separate glass product and decoration applied to the same glass items. Westmoreland produced blank glass plates, and then sent them to Czechoslovakia for a white Mary Gregory type of figural enamel application. Did this merchandise then become Bohemian, no, it did not. It was an American product and was sold as an American product. This information is available in the Truitts earliest booklet about this decor.
There must have been several types of arrangements when glass pieces were sent to be decorated. Some were blanks and belonged to the consumer who paid for them before decorating them. Some studios were hired to decorate the glass, or worked for a fee, and these were returned to the original glass production company when completed.
The same process and it's variations were also applied to ceramic goods.
TOD says: "Does it mean that Moser worked for Harrach, in a certain way he did, even before he established his own Carlsbad glass finishing and then his glass production. "
Moser did not work for Harrach in any capacity. Not in any way.... He did not refine glass for him. There is absolutely no record of him having done so, at least that I have ever seen. Had he worked for, or refined production for Harrach, "300 Years" would have certainly discussed it and provided records of it. Even with 23 pages in the book discussing and/or mentioning Moser...... They didn't. They only discussed shipments of production to Moser that he purchased to sell.
What happened between Harrach and Moser has absolutely nothing to do with Mary Gregory painting style done on Westmoreland plates, or any other random refining contracts in that region. This is a very specific historical fact, and making "it may have happened this way" comparisons does not really apply.
Moser either worked for Harrach, or he did not..... Not really a gray area....
Harrach and Moser are among the two best documented glass companies of the time and regions, and I have never see anything that even remotely supports your claim that Moser worked in any manner for Harrach, regardless of how you try to massage the hard facts.
Nor is there anything I have ever seen documenting in any manner, that Harrach used Moser colors in Art Nouveau production. The only mentions of Moser color development that I have ever seen, are discussions of it occurring in the 1920's.
Feel free to provide citations from any known publications on the subject that would indicate my recollection of glass history to be incorrect, either in relationship to Moser working for Harrach, or Harrach using Moser colors in their Art Nouveau production.
You will have to look to sources other than the Harrach "300 Years" volume, or either Truitt volumes, as the information is not in any of those references.
Until that occurs....... I think the topic has been exhausted.
There it is, the fact I find significant is the long term association between Harrach and Moser, you want a black and white statement stating it never happened, it does not exists, unless I manage to find something new that says so.
My attitude is maybe it happened, and we have not seen that information yet. I live with a lot of gray areas, that is how I think. I't possible, show me it's not posssible, you can't.
You say show me it happened, I say I can't. You are right this is the crux of our many discussion, we have exhausted this topic at this point, but I was not done. I was willing to go back to the German website and see if we have more about this subject.
For me, the fact that Moser was mentioned so many times in a book about Harrach is a big red flag. Not for you. One of the comments in the Harrach book was the main competition when it came to exhibitions was Loetz, Moser, and Myer's Neffe. What about all the other export glass houses.... no mention. Any more questions that need to be answered.
You think I am fluffing the truth to make an impression, that is not the case, I don't care about what people think of me, I care about getting it right. That is funny to you probably, I guess with age my memory and concentration are not what they were 10 years ago and before.
I do not think you are fluffing the truth to make an impression. I think you are making claims which are in reality false, and can not be factually supported. Big difference.
There is absolutely no evidence to support your contention that Moser worked for Harrach at any point. That is not "fluffing the truth", because there would have to be some form of evidence it occurred in the first place for it to be "fluffed truth".
23 mentions in a history of Harrach, does not in any way imply that Moser worked for Harrach.
You claim that Harrach used 2 Moser colors in Art Nouveau production. There is absolutely nothing that supports that claim either.
You are correct. We look at things differently. I look at what can be shown to be factual when evidence of it is found, or speak to what is known to be factual based on what is already known.
You speak of "possibilities" as if they are factual without clarifying that it is a "hypothesis", and defend those positions by stating they "can not be proven to be false."
You said above: "I't(sic) possible, show me it's not posssible(sic), you can't."
In the world of logic, proving something to be false, that has never been shown with evidence to be true, is referred to as an "Argument from ignorance" or an "Appeal to ignorance". Ignorance in this case being defined as a "lack of contrary evidence". Google it if you like, it is an actual term.
Logic and reason do not work that way. Facts are facts when proven to be so, and not until those "claims" are proven to be false. From Wikipedia - "In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof".