Posted 5 years ago
sklo42
(897 items)
Image 1 This was sent to me by Craig to identify the yellow Tango vase as Welz.
Image 2 A Welz Spatter pair in the same shape as the yellow Tango version and Craig's original Welz green/yellow Spatter vase.
Image 3 A vase posted here by Iwona five years ago.
I think it highly likely that Iwona's vase is in the same décor as the pair in image 2........large white spatter on clear glass with amber splodges superimposed on top. Of course that would make Iwona's vase Welz too!
Fingers crossed you're pleased, Iwona :)
Wow,a day of surprise!The spatter seems to be the same and what is more the dark blue finishing also confirms Welz attribution.But what about the shape of my vase?Is it known as a Welz shape either?
A décor link to a known shape may be enough and that is why I started with the id for the yellow one. Does the base of your vase have a snapped off/rough pontil scar?
Yes,it's snapped off but not very rough,rather smooth
It's good that it has a snapped off pontil......makes it more likely to be Welz.
This may throw a wrench in the works, but if I remember correctly, the shape seen in the last image has been long considered to be a Kralik shape. If I remember correctly, Alfredo declared it to be so. :-) I believe it is a shape seen in a Butler ad thought to show Kralik production.
A spanner in the works may be, but only if anyone has the shape in a Kralik décor rather than Tango glass version I remember. And that would be interesting!
There are more similarities to kralik in my view. I file these types under “organic shapes”. The series appears in BB catalogue. I’ll try to show what sub-groupings I have too. The signature is the Czechoslovakia (silver) a straight line. Part of the problem with ID is the decors match other shapes that kralik made but the glass quality is is different. The. I don’t think the two baskets in the post match- probably Welz. Both Welz and kralik suffer from the same problem: they have main ”Line” products and more distant relatives that might be copied from another producer or later (cheaper production methods). I believe the broken pontil-type shows this
I hope you do find time to come back to this in a fuller way as parts of your comment weren't clear to me at all.......
Ah ok.
1-In picture 1 I don’t think the two baskets match the to vases. I would say 2 Welz baskets on the left and two Kralik related vases on the right
2- Pic 2 and pic 3 are of the same grouping, all Kralik related pieces
This post brings up a topic about the the type of pieces that are easy to identify (by shape, color, technique, size, texture and features) and those I find “related” such as these..... that’s why I will start referring to them as “Kralik related”. I think these pieces are very beautiful and very interesting... If the link between kralik and kralik related pieces can be strengthened I would be very happy! I am no one to decide what is kralik or what is kralik related - it has to do with our own comfort level.... Welz has the same issue. There are for example pieces Craig can prove 100% by documentation (and shape, color, technique, size, texture and features)... but their our ones coming up all the time that have less than 100% certainty - those should be called Welz related in my opinion because they may share some features of documented pieces but don’t completely fit in.
Thank you Jericho, I appreciate you coming back with further comment.
What you said in comment 9, 1. would mean, effectively, that the basket and the vase, though the same colours, are not the same décor.
The three vases in image two are owned by me. It has always niggled at me that the creation of the square top, and indeed the application of the cobalt trim, is very poorly executed. Certainly not of a standard you might expect from Welz or Kralik.
Is it possible that the 'related' pieces were simply made 'in the style of'' ????? by an unscrupulous glassmaker out for a quick profit?
Finally as to the shape of the vase in image three, do you have any images of it in other décors......not counting Tango?
I ask only to better understand!
I’m inspired, I think that punched in bowl (deflated football) shape has many decors and so does that tall knuckle shape. I’ll look and post
I'll look forward to it.....whatever way it turns out........
For now I will add this: The baskets in image 1 are both Welz. The decor on vase 1 is the same decor as the 2nd Welz basket. This is not a decor that I have ever seen linked to Kralik production. The overall size and shape of the yellow vase is basically the same as the spatter vase. The foot and stem sizes are proportional to each other. The upper bowl of both vases is similar, yet different. These forms are basically mold blown and then manipulated with tongs and other tools to shape the top. In knuckle vases and bowls, differences in the similar forms are more prevalent. That is the nature of the production technique for all knuckle pieces to include vases, bowls, compotes et al.
Vases like those in image 2 above are regularly found with at least a couple of different marks, in varying decors, with and without pontil marks, and in similar, yet varying shapes. Personally, I see them as a “land mine”, simply waiting for someone to step on it and “blow things up”. The statement “I don’t know who made it” is a much easier statement to make than “No, it is not XYZ as we thought”. There are enough similarities to be able to easily say they are “Welz related”. There are also enough differences to say that they are likely by different houses. I find “I don’t know”, to be both applicable and quite accurate, for most of them.
Maybe how I approach this is different, in that I not only look to develop new information when supportable, but I also, and always, look to past concepts to see if they were correct. I think there are good examples of where that has been effective…. At once point there was a décor on the original Loetz.com, that is now absent from that site and is the décor I refer to as Diamond Bubble. Looking back and questioning the “knowledge” allowed me to show that in fact the décor was not theirs. That study took me several years, and when I was convinced, I shared the findings. For a long period of time, Pepita was a “marker” for Rindskopf production. I questioned that concept based on glass I was seeing, and lo and behold, Kralik made some glass that was quite similar also, as did Pallme Kònig. Considered heresy at first, it is an accepted fact at this point. So that "marker status" was not actually accurate, and as a result of that, we likely have numerous incorrect attributions floating around. At one point Kralik made all of the Spiraloptisch that was not Loetz. Questioning that showed it to be untrue, and that Welz produced some also. It was once thought that commonly seen draped decors were by Kralik. We now know that Welz also produced some of those pieces. It was once thought that Welz went out of business just post WWII, and we now know that to be completely false….. I only point these things out, because in an area of research where there is little in the way of factory documentation for most of it, I think that looking back as data evolves, is as important as looking in the “here and now”.
If we look at the shape in image 3, Jericho's recollection is that this is a Kralik form. It was declared to be by Kralik quite a few years ago..... over 10 if memory serves me correctly. If one looks at the decor on that piece, and then look to duplicate the decor on another well known Kralik form, then the chances are much better that the attribution to Kralik was correct. By well known, I would look for it on a form known with a couple of definitively Kralik decors.
I have never been 100% sure that the form in image 3 is Kralik's, hence my hesitation to provide additional information about these pieces.
Here is another image of a group of 5 vases as seen in the last image.
http://www.kralik-glass.com/images/5Vases.jpg
They have all been classified as Kralik for a long time...... Knowing some of the things I know about research and attributions now, as compared to 10+ years ago, my hindsight tells me that the originating attribution did not have the evidentiary support that I would apply before making that declaration. Before I would start using this shape and it's decors to make links to Kralik, I would want to go backwards and make sure that the starting point was correct. I am not convinced it was.
As far as Welz, and Welz related, Kralik and Kralik related, I simply try to avoid the “like” descriptions, as people tend to drop the "like" portion of that, and it becomes Welz or Kralik or “Brand X” without any real supporting evidence to back it up.
Using Welz as an example,. I have identified about 85-100 decors they produced interwar and before. In my files I have another 50-60 decors that I suspect may be theirs, but can’t prove it to myself adequately, hence they are not discussed anywhere. I prefer to not have to "put out a fire", that I inadvertently started. The problem is that those “fires”, once started, are never completely extinguished. We have many examples of that around us, such as “end of the day” glass which are actually designed spatters. We have Tango glass being designed for Loetz by Michael Powolny. We have massive amounts of Bohemian glass that is Stevens & Williams production.
I have also identified about 600 shapes. Of those 600 shapes, I would say that 500 of them are solidly linked. The remaining ones have not been. From my perspective it would be irresponsible of me to propose that things are “Welz like”, when in fact they are only strongly similar to their production, and have as much of a chance of being a different house, than of being Welz. To me, this applies to all production that has not been linked to any one house.
As collectors, many of us want all of our glass to be identified. I am not exactly sure why that is, but it is that way. I am perfectly comfortable saying this over here is all Welz, this over here is all Kralik, this over here is Loetz, or Harrach, or Reidel, or Josephinehutte, or Hantich, or Rückl, or Oertel, et al. We then have to follow up and say this massive pile of glass over “there”, is at this time unknown. That does not diminish the glass in any way, but it does create defined boundaries about who we know made what, who didn’t make what, and all of the stuff that we do not know the source of.
I am active in Facebook in a large number of glass groups. I am constantly interjecting in conversations where someone says, that looks like Welz… When in fact it may “look like Welz”, but it has never been linked solidly to their production. The reason I do that is because after 20 years of collecting and researching glass, I have seen an uncountable number of instances where “That looks like XYZ”, morphs into “That is XYZ”. The tendency for that to happen is always present, and I am of the belief that avoiding contributing to that is a better way to approach glass research.
I hope this all makes sense. It is early Sunday am, and my coffee may not have been completely successful in clearing the cobwebs of sleep. ????
Makes sense to me and good to discuss......
you inspired this post:
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/273208-kralik-related--organic-shapes
I am partially to blame for some mis-attributions. When we had our glass email group we would collect some examples with marks and without marks and come to conclusions that did not stand the test of time. Some Czech marks are shared by different companies, some glass techniques are shared with different companies and some shapes are shared by different companies etc...
Its good to look backwards as well as forwards.
Jericho: We have all made mistakes at some point. It is inevitable. I think the only thing we can really do is strive hard to avoid them when we can, and be open to accepting and correcting them if we did.
Looking back has led me to arrive at some conclusions that I think were more sound than some made previously..... It has also resulted in my being accosted verbally by those that do not like to see change.... for whatever reason...