Posted 5 years ago
artfoot
(367 items)
I love this decor. It is like a volcano erupting in a tar pit. It is made up of fairly large shards of orange, red, and yellow on a clear ground. Over that, a dark cobalt blue spatter has been added at the base and pulled up the sides. The piece is clear cased and very glossy. It stands 6½" (16.5 cm) tall and has a diameter of 3¾" (9.5 cm) across the top; 3¼" (8 cm) across the base. There is a thoroughly ravaged and unreadable remnant of an oval-shaped, acid-stamped mark on the underside.
I realize there has been a fair amount of discussion about this decor with most deciding in favor of a Rückl attribution. I can neither confirm nor deny that claim but hope this is another shape to add to the picture.
Possible Ruckl, but not quite in my opinion, looks like the mark was applied twice with poor results.
I have both he Kralik version and the Ruckl version of this decor, and the difference lies with the shade of orange and yellow, they are different, and consistently so.
Maybe I will do a comparison post with them.
There are likely a number of houses aside from those 2 that made production in a decor like this. I would not rush to a maker unless the shape of the piece has been solidly linked to a specific production house through decors that are well established and recognized as their production.
I did some comparisons yesterday and took some photos. Discovered that one of my vases is much like your's Harry, my large vase in a shape I felt was Ruckl. Back to the drawing board on that one, the first vase on the left in my link has a base exactly like yours and body decor like yours, so I am still thinking if not Ruckl, probably Kralik, as they also made a smaller version of this vase shape with recognizable decors.. see 2nd link. Will post a summary soon.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/cc16ddb46f6e4ac6c7def5c8a9d3a6ea?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/250532-two-vases-same-shape-same-maker-no
Personally, I find the conclusion that the two vases in different sizes but the same shape in your second link in the comment above to be by two different houses, to be un supportable. You claim the difference is obvious in the techniques used to make two spatters. You may be the only person I have ever seen that can look at two spatter vases in different sizes of the same shape, and determine the makers are different based on a glass technique. I would propose that the different techniques may just as easily be ascribed two different skill levels of gaffers at the same production facility, or simply two different techniques employed to make a satin finish piece of glass and a different decor. I find your basic premise to be unsupportable, therefore I find the declaration that one is Kralik and the other Ruckl, to be an extension of that flawed premise.
I also would question, that based on these images in the following link, it would be possible, as you claim above, to determine that these two decors are the same. Similar? Sure... The same?.... I don't think that claim is supportable either.
http://www.kralik-glass.com/images/Image20a.jpg
In the case of this next image, all of these examples are said to be Ruckl on a Ruckl website:
http://www.kralik-glass.com/images/ruckl-ID-Group.jpg
If we look at the upper right image in the image group in the above link, in my opinion there is a problem that comes to light. The problem is that in the next linked image, the vase on the left is Ruckl, and the vase on the right is ID’d as Kralik on the same website. I find that to also be very problematic. Those examples are shown in this linked image.
http://www.kralik-glass.com/images/Image20b.jpg
Lastly, the two vases in the next image reflect a vase ID’d as Ruckl on a Ruckl website, and in this comparison, it is next to Harry’s vase in this post. My position would be that there is not currently enough evidence to support an attribution, and the key to this puzzle will lay in locating a vase in the same shapes as Harry’s in a decor which can be solidly linked to a production house, or with a mark which solidly identifies the source of the vase. I am of the belief that both of these vases are from the same, as of now, unknown source. I also believe that there is also a possibility that the production house could also possibly outside of the two choices that are presented here. Only time will tell.
http://www.kralik-glass.com/images/Image20c.jpg
I leave forum users reading the post, the comments, and making image comparisons, to arrive at their own conclusions.
Great analysis welzebub of what appears to be guess work attributions with contradictory postings on the website.
Far from being "negative reflections"-- the observations reflect basic analysis/ comparisons of the glass.
scott
Thanks for this discussion. The last comparison is a good one. So not a new shape after all. I'm still convinced - either this is Ruckl, or it isn't. :+)
I agree Harry.... It isn't.... or it is... :-)
That is my position and I am standing firm.....