Posted 5 years ago
larksel
(130 items)
This is an advertisement from the book Kur- und Badestadt Teplitz-Schönau from 1930, which started a discussion on the topic of W. Kralik or Ernst Steinwald.
In addition to the Houston Museum of Fine Arts (see: https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/vase/egHnY_Pi0-RlZQ), another example of the Ernst Steinwald glass vase is published in book Das Böhmische Glas Band VI - pic. VI.69. This vase (see photo 2 from the Passau Glasmuseum - I apologize for the quality) is referred to by collectors as "Caged" from the production of the W. Kralik glassworks. The book adds information about this vase that the same vase is in the Museum of Glass and Bijouterie in Jablonec with a paper mark E.Steinwald and with the production number.
----
Added June 24: Photo number 4: Passau Glass Museum - Ernst Steinwald.
Great work, Larksel!
An important advert Ales !!! Those illustrated pieces are just awesome.
I'm so confused. There seem to be other shapes in that ad (first image) which appear to be ones usually attributed to Kralik. What does this all mean?
Yes, it looks like that. I try to put together as much information as possible. But it will take some time.
Great Ales, glad you made a post of the important information you had, this is where the inspiration for my own posts came from on FB. Here is the link to my CW post about the Houston Museum and the book they published with Jan Mergl as a collaborating author for the glass chapter.
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/283756-an-attribution-to-steinwald-that-is-ques?in=user
Here on CW we can have a really good close up view of the image 1, the band of glass pieces, I recognize 7 that are or could be Kralik, the drawing of the plant shows cars in the forefront, that would date it 1920? What a find!
I think the advertisement is from 1930, when the book was published. There are several other glassworks ads that also link to the Leipzig Trade Fair.
Given that E. Steinwald was founded in 1870, one can only speculate as to what they produced pre-WW1 that is attributed to other glassworks!
Yes, I agree. I think there will also be something that is attributed to the Josef Rindskopf glassworks.
Another question is the use of the "semi-circle" mark Czechoslovakia, which is attributed to the glassworks W. Kralik.
Gosh - I can see many Kralik attributions may come crumbling down based on this new information... Please continue to post the outcome of further investigations for those of us not involved in other discussions. Thanks.
Wow... Telephone No. 89!!
This is an amazing find Ales ..... let's have more info on this please!
OK- don't all freak at once.... but in the above ad after the 'Erzeugt werden:', which I assume means Manufacturing/making: and then after Spezialität Kunstgläser: (Special Artglass) you can see Pastilla, Aquarin, 'FLOWERALL'......
Now let me point you to this post: https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/240773-kralik--flowerall?in=442-activity
Here it is menioned that this mark has been seen on a marquetry piece and is shown here as a paper label on a Kralik Pebble 'flashed' piece!!!
Food for thought...? The words Pandora and box come to mind!!!!
here's another link to a Marquetry 'Flowerall' reference: https://www.ukauctioneers.com/auction_catalogue.cfm?d&itemID=20E9CB0FD7D62DFED3E2FECEFF5909E9E82BA3CF&auction=21EBC80AD2&showLots=50&sortBy=lotsort&lotView=list&imagesOnly=N
This is now my Flowerall vase marked at the bottom of Flowerall (I will take a photo of the bottom with "Flowerall" by the end of June). https://www.bohemianglass.org/katalog/vaza-marquetry-4170/detail/
The glass technique is very similar to the glass technique of the "Caged" vase from the Museum of Glass and Bijouterie Jablonec (except for those flowers, of course). The second vase on the right from above on the E.Steinwald ad could look like Kralik "Marquetry". (??) So probably not the name of the Marquetry decor, but Flowerall and not Kralik, but Steinwald.
Yes Ales - it was the illustration on the right hand side of the ad (2nd down) that I thought was possibly a marquetry piece.
This is not a simple all or nothing situation in MY mind, If, and let's say IF, this glass is not Kralik but Steinwald, why would it have been attributed to Kralik for 30 years. I know this happens, but usually based on company glass designs and drawings.
The image of the glass plant presents a HUGE glass production complex with 3 furnaces, and multiple buildings for whatever function the plant was used for.
How can it be possible that so little is know or seen about this glass and about this plant? Could it be a subsidiary or sub contractor, for many glass plants in Czechoslovakia.
I agree Lisa - it's not all or nothing....but it is fascinating....!
thanks Phil, I am driving myself nuts trying to remember which book also had a piece of glass marked Steinwald on the base, I think there was a mention of a Czech glass plant called Regenthutte, or something close to that spelling.
Si far I have gone trough some books several times, the Passau band IV and VI publications, and the Truitt volumes 1 and 2. I know I have seen this, the picture is in my head, a modern looking black and golden yellow decor coupe. Hope somebody reading this triggers their own memory.
LOL, the joke is on me it is Steigerwald I remember, Regenhutte in Bavaria or Bayern, Passau band V, page 49 if you are curious. Sorry, close but no cigar.
So, none of the 1990s publications have Steinwald in their lists of glassworks, and the chapters pertaining to them. The mystery continues.
I can't help with the Steinwald id. But interestingly Josef Rindskopf and a company called Fischman Söhne are also assciated with Teplitz Schönau. F and R were producing what is descibed as 'carnival glass' window, bottle glass and glass bars. Exactly from when to when is not entirely clear. This area seems to have been a little hive of the glass industry. Their factories were also significant in scale.
The kralik attributions are interesting in themselves. In the sense that if you say something long enough and if enough people hear it often enough then they will come to believe it. With little or no written/paper identification for what is actually Kralik, then most of us will rely on the knowledge of others to identify art glass, which most just admire for it's aesthetic. This has always been my view. I'm much less interested in the attribution, and much more interested in the aesthetic.
I am very interested to see where this all leads. Could it be that this company produced items on some kind of licence with Kralik, that others may have done the same? Or are we likely to revise our entire view of attribution. In which case, and in the most, revelatory revision, we me be asking ourselves ..... what is it that Kralik actually produced inter-war, if anything?
Just 'blue-skying' this and putting it out there as a thought... : ?
Here's a reference to a serpent-coiled piece, not usually assocaited with Kralik although indicated in the Steinwald (product illustrations) advert above. But referencing The Rindskopf connection with Tepliz-Schönau as above: https://www.antiquitaeten-schlemmer.de/gross/vase-mit-schlange1.htm.
I'm gonna pour myself a long dring and take a back seat on this......
Fischmann was one of the companies that were in the hands of Mathilde Hirsch (née Steinwald ) when her properties were taken over by the Nazis in 1940.
My apologies it was not Mathilde Hirsch but Hedwig Hirsch. Mathilde was her mother.
But I also should note that at the time of the confiscation of their property in March 1940 it was Hedwig Hirsch who is noted as not only a principal in the Steinwald company but in another three companies that include :
a) Josef Rindskopf ?s Söhne, Glasfabriken in Kosten, Dux und Tischau
b) Glasfabriken Fischmann Söhne
c) Glashüttenwerke "Emmahütte" Otto Löwy & Co. in Mstisov.
It was one of these companies that made rods that were used for jewellery making in Jablonec.
The Glasfabriken Fischmann Söhne included a works originally called Barbora the "Stangelglasfabrik" and founded in 1868 - it was nicknamed "Štanglovka". It was outside Mstišov aka Tischau. It was bought by Fischmann in 1890 I think. Štanglovka - Initially it focused on the production of flat glass, but over the years its production range changed. In the 20 years of the 20th century production focused on the production of rods, which served as material for jewelry in Jablonec. Hence the ingrained Štanglovka name, which is derived from the German 'die Stange' - rod.
PHILMAC’s discoveries are extremely interesting indeed !!!
This discussion is fascinating. I, too, immediately saw the image second down on the right as the highly-prized (and highly-priced) "Kralik" marquetry decor. Could it really not be Kralik at all? The beauty of all this is to keep the collaborative discussion coming and keep open minds. I am eager to hear further developments.
Philmac, excellent work and I am excited to dismantle the huge kralik group of glass between 1925-1938 (but cautiously). I have maintained that there were kralik signature pieces and fringe kralik pieces (knock-offs, commissions or later- production) - I call them Kralik related...
This revelation is different, it cuts into the core a Kralik attributions! Has anyone noticed the dark shape on the right in a spark plug shape in black glass with millifiore with (orange inside)?
I do think timing could be a factor though...
if you look at google.books you will find Czechoslovakia glass was sometimes hit with reappraisal (reappraisement) of taxes in the US courts.
Many firms producing Czechoslovakian glass were subject to these legal challenges including Kralik, Welz, Palda and Ernst & Steinwald
Question: Kraliks case is dated 1925-26- and in the case of Ernst & Steinwald their case is dated 1936-38 - could Kralik have folded at some point sold factories or inventory to E&S ?
Could Kralik have produced pieces that were refined by others and sold as their own? I pointed This out before in a post with monochromatic confetti decor- I indicated that when the same decor was gilded with gold or silver it had an oval mark (Ruckl) but when it was not gilded it had the arched mark (kralik).
Most of Kralik’s written history is destroyed all that’s left is the museum in Lenora and I didn’t notice Bambus pieces there... but that’s not conclusive
Let’s work together and unravel the mystery
Also... the picture from the museum is dated 2012, so could these attributions be “evolving” the same way as Passau’s attributions evolved when the curator changed?
Not to pick nit here but ... In the tax reappraisal, in the case that mentions Ernst Steinwald and Co., it is the Customs Dept. that is being sued. Steinwald is only mentioned as providing an affidavit describing some products that was used for comparison to products by A. Mayer & Sohn and by C. Rasch & Sohn. The synopsis makes it clear that the products of all three firms were nearly identical. This says more to idea that Czechoslovakian glass makers were doing a good job of replicating each other's work than anything else.
Also in the synopsis, Steinwald and Mayer are cited as manufacturers, Rasch is cited as a refiner. All three companies apparently had experience exporting to the US.
The lidded jar shape on the left of photo one was offered by Butler Brothers in their 1931 catalog.
https://d3h6k4kfl8m9p0.cloudfront.net/stories/19rOyobTWk6flDmUMi5SUQ.jpg
A few of my own notes from research pm the press-glass German site, and other sources. Myer's Neffe was sold to Gotlob Kralik, the oldest son who mpved to Germany to work as a director for Schreiber & Neffen, that company went bankrupt, and the oldest Kralik son asked brothers for funds to start his own operation in the same place Furstenburg, they agreed and the two youngest Kralik brothers in Czechoslovakia would soon regret that decision, as the new Kralik plant in Germany failed, and their financial status was severely depleted after 1929.
Perhaps other new arrangements needed to be made with healthy glass plants. As they stayed in production and were asked bu the Germans in 1938 to supervise the country's glass industry, till they were forced to close by the Soviet occupation, and exhiled in 1946.
There was one daughter, who has exhiled with her mother, they ended up at Poshinger's home and business and stayed. By this time they were in their sixties. Their brother stayed with his wife and surviving son in East Germany.
The picture of the 4th item was in the BB catalog too and was owned by Jericho in the black millefiori decor.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/ae7caf50854e14d39eb30c7c3d2c6c28?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
with 2 more decors in same shape
http://nebula.wsimg.com/d25cb845e356be7c6dbc4930e796bb34?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
http://nebula.wsimg.com/3909ce653bd67315a531728d1e5fe537?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
According to the Ernst Steinwald advert. above the firm was founded in 1870.
It was round up by Nazi edict "Auswanderungsfond für Böhmen und Mähren" established by the Reich Protector on March 5, 1940 as a component of the Central Office for Jewish Emigration (Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung). The liquidated property of Jewish foundations and associations, especially financial ones, was transferred to this fund. The fund then financed the deportation of Jews to concentration camps.
This gives a period of production from 1870 - 1942.
From ancestry data on the net Ernst Steinwald was born in 1844. He died in Teplice (Teplitz) on November 4, 1920. His wife was Mathilde Karpeles (Dec 30 1852 - Mar 08, 1926.) They had two children. Their son Oscar died young (1872 - 1893). Their daughter Hedwig was born August 19 1881 and her death date is not known.
The Steinwald and Karpeles surnames are thus importantly linked. Mathilde's brother Josef died in October 1924 almost four years after the death of Ernst Steinwald. On his funeral notice he is described as being : "Mitchef der Firma Ernst Steinwald & Co., Glasfabrik." His son was Paul (aka Pavel) Karpeles (Oct 14, 1896 - April, 1984).
When the firm was taken over on March 5, 1942 the principals of the firm were given as Paul Karpeles and Hedwig Hirsch (nee Steinwald).
From what I can make out so far. the only one to have survived the Holocaust was Paul Karpeles.
We also have mention of him in a 1938 court case in the USA : "Posy holders"
Decision 1938. Clemens Rasch of Ullrichsthal.
“Plaintiff the introduced in evidence an affidavit of Paul Karpeles, partner of Ernst Steinwald & Co., as Exhibit 7”.
His name appears as a Glassworks Superintendent - 30 Westcotes Drive, Leicester. 22 April 1949.
(https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/38647/page/3066/data.pdf)
Hedwig did have three children to two husbands. None of them have known dates of death.
Paul Karpeles did marry briefly but soon divorced. I am not sure if he did have children.
The Ernst & Steinwald was in the north and Kralik was in the south, I wonder if there is a difference of opinion between those two museums, although I don't remember seeing any Bambus or Marquetry in the museum of south Bohemia.
In another note BB has bambus but no Marquetry -there are no documented marquetry pieces that I know of except the Ernst & Steinwald etching, very glad to see that.
Steinwald is definitely from the north just over the border with Germany. The border is a physical border of mountains referred to as the Ore Mountains or Erzgebirge. They were the coal resources used to fire the furnaces in the North of Czechoslovakia. At the Tango exhibition of 2013 Jitka Lnenickova had a note on one of the cabinets which read :
“
The text on the glass reads at this first exhibition :
“Significant but little known center of Tango glass manufacturewas in the 1920’s especially the Teplice region. The Tango inspiration was peculiarly taken by the firm of Franz Welz from Hrob u Teplic (A). The Tango Glass production of the two Teplice firms Otto Loewy (glassworks Emma ) and Ernest Steinwald may be identified only to the limited extent, However better to be illustrated is the Tango Glass of the firm of Franz Tomschick from Kost’any (B.C). The production of Teplice firms in hot techniques was often influenced by the Bohemian Forest Tradition (sumavskou, since many glass makers came to the Teplice region from there in the early 20th century.”
To Lisa - message no.33.
I also considered that shape 5 down rhs to be Kralik. But it is actually different. I know it's only a rough illustration, but one would have expected the illustrator to get it right - drawing probably from the real thing or copying a manufacturer's drawing.
The illustration shows a flared rim, Kralik shape rim is not flared and turns in. The illustration shows perhaps just 4 ribs below the main body and the foot, Kralik piece has at least 5 ribs.
We know illustrations are notoriously unreliable. The shapes on the ad may be artistic interpretations and as such I dont think we could reliebly say that any specific shape on these 'postage' size illustrations are definitively Kralik.
Personally, I think the bowl (5th down lhs) is the most useful shape to ID - it has clear vertical ribs - perhaps horizontal threading and a distinctive foot with a collar. Anyone recognize this shape?
Yes, perhaps it's the hexagonal bowl shape usually attributed to Kralik. I have one in webbed decor (blue on transparent pinkish) with semi-circular mark. The ribs look a bit more pronounced in the ad's sketch but I think it's just trying to indicate the sides are curved (concave), rather than straight.
e.g. 4th example under Kralik 'Spiral'
http://www.kralik-glass.com/frametemplate.html
@Phil 37.
Sorry for the typos, yes I meant 5th item on right side, and the drawing even looks like the black millefiori vase.
The odd thing is some of the drawn pieces are exactly right and were Kralik, I can illustrate them, but others have small variation, such as the bottom right trumpet vase with snake is one Jericho has been posting more recently, but without the snake, I think.
The middle bottom row large bowl, is one of the Tango glass pieces, produced in several color combinations, I had one in black exterior and bright orange interior.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/179c2ae9f01563baa2cae36848aae514?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
Here are a few more examples I have from bottom row and both sides.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/e80413e8761b4b09e5a8a346cf507e28?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
http://nebula.wsimg.com/2821ffde26eb5484bd5c04740aa0c15a?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
http://nebula.wsimg.com/f52f561f3671abca282ed5be54a2c18c?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
http://nebula.wsimg.com/92c18c5194a45e42cd03045af7412e41?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
The lamps are not familiar to me.
I added another photo from the Passau Glassmuseum - a display case with glass by Erns Steinwald - the bowl in the foreground has the same decor as the bowl on the link above from Lisa.
Thanks Ales, there again, the shape seems to be the same, but the decor is semi translucent at the Passau Steinwald cabinet, instead of having a black glass interior surface.
I thought the exterior decor was the same or similar.
I don't think this is the bowl we could be talking about as, if you look closely, it has 3 ball feet - very Loetz/Kralik like. Awesome piece - but not the same shape or illustrated in the ad I'm afraid.
Also.... if this is the cabinet of Steinwald pieces - the green vase looks like a WMF IKORA piece, odd shape, but décor definitely looks like Ikora to me.
This Cabinet of Steinwald pieces is starting to look a little suspect to me - just saying....
I do not judge the shape or color of the glass of the PGM bowl with the bowl on the right at this link. I consider only the same or very similar exterior decoration of the decor.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/e80413e8761b4b09e5a8a346cf507e28?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
Yes, the vase with the predominant green is often referred to as WMF. I have this vase in my collection and I don't think it's WMF. I tried to look it up in various WMF literature, but I didn't find it. On the other hand, a kind of "pseudo-craclé" decoration appears in the decor, which is known from the decors still attributed to the W. Kralik glassworks (for example: 8th vase in Kralik Grand Marquetry decor at http://www.kralik-glass.com).
https://www.bohemianglass.org/katalog/vaza-vrstvene-sklo-se-zatavenymi-skvrnami-370/detail/
Thanks for that Ales - My apologies, I thought we were considering shapes.
So do you think that both your piece and the one in Passau are damaged? missing their tops? Or that they are finished like that. The rim on your piece looks very rough, almost like it has been cut post manufacture, I would have thought that the rim would have been polished if it was meant to be finished in that shape. It does imply, if it has been cut, that you are correct in regard to the shape on the kralik-glass.com marquetry piece.
I would definitely agree that the décor on the bowl looks very like that typical Kralik décor.
@ales 43.
Here is a grouping from my site which has a combination of shapes for Kralik glass, with what some of us call the webbed decor, in various colors and applications, I did notice the ball feet, but decided to talk about the bowl shape and decor.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/a608230437797e68e02523da5becc3a7?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
You will notice, all the webbed decors also have a dark color surface some opaque, some semi translucent. These pieces have a very nice glass fabrication, I owned a few. The mark on these is usually the strait Czechoslovakia Kralik mark.
I also believe these marks were applied by another entity, not the glasshouses.
Phil: I think that both vases (like WMF) have the same shape and the edge design is original from the glassworks. On my vase is some damage - chips.
Lisa: That PGM photo is bad. I'm not sure if the glass is transparent. Maybe something is reflected there and it just looks transparent. But I still think it's the same decorating technique. On a similar principle as decorating Bambus. Maybe someone has another photo of this showcase from PGM. What form of marking Czechoslovakia have those vases from your site?
Of course, the webbed (sometimes called 'muscle') decors, usually attributed to Kralik, come in a vast array of colours - not just with dark colours. They are seen with grounds of yellow, blue, orange, red.... and also transparent (often with pinkish hue). Some have no mark, some straight line, some semi-circle.
Did anyone agree with the similarity of shape between the sketch of hexagonal bowl and the often seen 'Kralik' version in a variety of decors? (comments 38/39)
Can I suggest that you number the pieces on the illustration, Ales ???
There are 19 pieces. Top left could be 1 moving down to 6 and then across 7 to 13 and then 14 up to the top lamp as 19.
It would make reference easier for everyone.
Hi Ales,
will provide an image of the marks, in a straight line with a rounded font. I was also surprised that the PGM was not that far off the webbed decor, as I found a few pieces which were also semi translucent, if you looked inside.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/8523f9ff05b8420fbe88bffa5dcadabe?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
http://nebula.wsimg.com/5279caae0627293c3646dccbfb965251?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
vetraio50- yes, this has been suggested that glass houses shared workers and that there was a period when the economy of the northern glass factories was stronger than the southern ones and that migration did happen. This was told to me by a very good author and curator in Bohemian glass
I think it also relates to the invention of coal fired furnaces. Since Roman times the glassmakers headed north from Venice in search of sand deposits and trees for their furnaces - a process of deforestation and movement north. But with coal deposits in the Ore Mountains so easily obtained by open cut mining the Teplice region was a great place to start new factories. I've seen photos of glassworks next to (on top of) a coal mine.
I think I may have come across mention of the "caged vases" in one of the university theses of the UNIVERZITA KARLOVA V PRAZE. The author I believe is Bc. Monika Monhartová and her topic was : PROM?NY OBLASTI V OKOLÍ KRUŠNOHORSKÉ ŽELEZNICE V DOB? INDUSTRIALIZACE.
Because of CW problem with accents in Czech I have created a text without them.
I think I may have come across mention of the "caged vases" in one of the university theses of the UNIVERZITA KARLOVA V PRAZE. The author I believe is Bc. Monika Monhartová and her topic was : PROM?NY OBLASTI V OKOLÍ KRUŠNOHORSKÉ ŽELEZNICE V DOB? INDUSTRIALIZACE.
"The diploma thesis deals with the changes of the cultural landscape and people's lives during the period of industrialization in the area around the Ore Mountains Railway."
It deals with a variety of sites including Hrob but it also deals with Mstisov (Tischau). As I mentioned before Hedwig Hirsch (nee Steinwald) also owned glassworks in Mstisov including those of Fischmann. There were two Fischmann glassworks there : "Stanglovka or "Borbora" mentioned above and the other was "Nový Mstišov" initially set up by Karl Brandenburg but taken over by Fischmann in 1890.
In her thesis Monika Monhartová mentions that : "Flat glass was produced here by hand blowing and a small amount of cast glass with a wire insert, as well as frosted and frosted glass."
"Vyrabelo se zde ploche sklo rucnim foukanim a v malem mnozstvi lite sklo s dratenou vlozkou, take sklo matove a ledovane."
"That translates to something like : lat glass was produced here by hand blowing and a small amount of cast glass with a wire insert, as well as frosted and frosted glass."
I am wondering if the "small amount of cast glass with a wire insert," refers to the caged pieces by Steinwald ???
The thesis can be seen here in full:
https://docplayer.cz/40307042-Promeny-oblasti-v-okoli-krusnohorske-zeleznice-v-dobe-industrializace.html
No, that's not it. These are flat glass with a sealed "wire mesh" (so that the flat glass retains its shape after breaking and does not break into small shards) and flat glass with a frosted finish.
Great, LARKSEL. Thanks.
Wow@49
Yep - I agree it is very probably the Kralik shape.
I managed to get the names of other decors of the Ernst Steinwald glassworks: OSIRIS, KAKTEE, VESUVIO and CARINTHIA. I have a feeling that I have at least 1 vase with a paper mark OSIRIS in my collection, but I have not found it yet. Unfortunately, I do not have a Hartmann Lexicon with me to see if these names are not listed there.
WOW! At last they have not named IRIS yet..... (joke)
As far as bambus, I have noticed that the colors and applications on the vase with the label, are a cream glass color base, and the decor is a dark brownish glass color. since there are so many variations with this decor, from the translucent glass base, to the many colors f the glass background, and then the many variations and colors of the decor. Would it be logical to say some a re Steinwald and some are Kralik?
There is a combo of several 'bambus' decors, from my website, it is possible to enlarge the images if you go there and see last grid at the bottom of the page http://www.rucklczglass.com/kralik---more-decors.html
the Steinwald Bambus:
http://nebula.wsimg.com/214c9eda641b1544dcc6405a32f34486?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
http://nebula.wsimg.com/21aa3ec1b0f839a20053d1ebfbe22c6d?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
http://nebula.wsimg.com/543456bc823b201237ed7ab8270eaa39?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
It is awesome. I think we have a lot of work to do when shifting from W. Kralik to E. Steinwald. It's like a chain reaction. As soon as we allow one decor, thanks to the shapes, it leads us to a different decor .....
I think it is possible to have two or more producers of Bambus - if you look at the examples with labels they are cheaper (thinner, smaller) examples. So these could easily be a copy of Kralik pieces marketed under a different names. There is also an even thinner, cheaper version of Bambus - some of you might remember the transparent blue with purple-over-white applied leaves and vines.
I never felt right about all flashed pieces being Iris, maybe the same for Bambus...there might be a dividing line that’s not as easy as smaller-cheaper. To date there are about 10 red Bambus, two blue, and one purple one - I will add that no significant shapes have been marked Bambus
Thanks Ales, it is mind boggling to try and divide what we felt was Kralik glass pieces with another identity.
Jericho, you are the biggest Kralik collector interwar glass here in the USA. You have the advantage of handling many pieces, that might become crucial with this new challenge. Thanks for your participation.
why does the Passau glass cabinet paper identify Steinwald as 'huttengeformte glaser glasfabrik', which translate to 'hut-shaped glazier glass factory', when Beranek is called a glashut, and Hantich too?
1 / Jahrbuch der österreichischen Industrie 1914 I. Bd., Page 248: Ernst Steinwald & Comp., Hohlglasfabrik, Dampfschleiferei (1876), owner Ernst Steinwald, Josef Karpeles, 140 workers, Dampfm. 35 HP, production: Färbiges Luxusglas, spez. Lighting glasses, mounting articles
2 / In the same yearbook from 1918 - the same text is given
3 / Compass Industrie und Handel Tschechoslovakei 1930, page 518: Ernst Steinwald & Comp., Teplitz-Schönau, Friedhofstr. 908, Hohlglasfabrik (1876), owner Paul Karpeles, Hedwig Hirsch, procurator Josef Stier. Spez.Erz .: Hohl -, Krösel, Tango-, Faden- u. Transparent-Glas wie: Vasen, Schalen, Dosen, Eisschälchen u. Toilettesätze; Art glass: Flowerall, Kaktee, Vesuvio; Lighting glasses in light, matt, opal, colorfully relaxing, sliding and overhang. Assembly article.
4 / Industry, agriculture, trade in Czechoslovakia 1938, page 184: Ernst Steinwald & Co, hollow glass factory, Teplice - Šanov, founded in 1876, 300 workers. Lighting glasses in all designs; colorful colored luxury glass, such as vases, bowls, boxes, cupcakes, cups, candlesticks, toilet sets, decorations. bowls and cut glass for el. lighting, assembly products, etc., export to all countries of the world.
5 / Czechoslovak market 1928: page 2374 states the same data, 200 workers.
information was provided by the State District Archive Most, workplace Most-Velebudice
Perhaps we could move on based on this catalog of lampshades by Ernst Steinwald. Unfortunately, it is unavailable to me.
https://cmog.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma99543883504126&context=L&vid=01CORNING_INST:01CORNING_INST&search_scope=MyInstitution&tab=LibraryCatalog&lang=en
Interesting to note also that a similarly sourced reference notes, in 1998, that maquetry pieces could be attributable to Kralik OR Steinwald. I haven't seen the article:
https://cmog.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma991730654704126&context=L&vid=01CORNING_INST:01CORNING_INST&lang=en&search_scope=MyInstitution&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=LibraryCatalog&query=any,contains,steinwald&offset=0
Anyone in New York?
Longshot, but...... CORNING opens on 1 July - perhaps someone can get a look at the Catalog of Lampshades referenced in Larksel@67 comment above?
It would be interesting to see the décors used - there are 19 colour and B&W plates!
I have been able to download some Corning glass catalogs from their archive, as pdf files, I just went through a list of couple dozen catalog for lamps, including one for Steinwald, some for Riedel as well, anybody familiar with this source of information online?
Hi Lisa - did you manage to download the Steinwald lamp reference??
Hi Phil, I tried various ways and no, I simply accessed all the information about it, but no pdf file with the catalog images. I would guess Ales tried the same thing. The Corning Museum opens July 1st, the site informs us.
There is more interesting information from American sources, some CUSTOMS document from Steinwald 1928 having to do with a demand for a reevaluation of the Tax applied for Imports.
Anyone seen the article referenced @68? If Steinwald was proposed as contender for making 'marquetry' pieces as far back as 1998, why has the Kralik attribution persisted without question, until now?
Here a few things I think happened:
1. Well respected authors, curators and auction houses credited Kralik as far back as I can remember so... follow the PHDs and trust they have their sources
2. Kralik did produce pieces with flowers (and cherries, plums etc...) applied to the surface in the older style. If you get a discription of that kind of vase you could infer Marquetry is the same thing
3. We know Kralik had a patent for golden flash iridescence, if you see pieces in Iris decor you might connect the two and then take Iris and match them to Bambus and Marquetry... connect the dots
4. We know Kralik made glass similar to Loetz in the later part of the 1800's, Kralik pieces used to be sold as Loetz or Tiffany because there was a profit. When I started this hobby (obsession) everything was Kralik and I bought loads of unknown glass (still do) as Kralik- even all of Welz was Kralik at one time because Kralik sold for more... in the past there was no incentive to prove a piece was Kralik, that thinking is still true and (for some) there is no advantage to prove a piece Ernst Steinwald & Co. We might dream about researches (PHDs) logging in and seeing documentation, We might dream of a German Museum having an Ernst Steinwald glass show... we might dream of compiling all the research to auction houses, museums, web sites and galleries but it won't work because there is no money in it. It will take time to turn this ship- jm
That is if the interest builds and many more future collectors evolve into Bohemian and Czech glass.
Frankly I dont see that happening, we are from generations that learned and appreciated art and art forms, decorative styles, antiques, etc.
The base of knowledge we have is immense about this, compared to many younger people, just as their knowledge and familiarity of technology and its uses supersedes ours by a huge leap in general.
I think as some pragmatic experienced collectors have done in the past, there is a point you accept the fact that there is and will be only so much you can learn about past events, we certainly have seen much progress there since 1990. It has been a difficult adjustment for many who believed information that was innacurate.
Here are more links that show the image 1 garland of glass pieces, still feel the fan shape is not quite right to attribute all similar shapes to Steinwald, when we had Rindskopf, and Kralik in many decors, but no glass ring on the narrow stem at the base.
https://d3h6k4kfl8m9p0.cloudfront.net/stories/NZt-TMitKQ.S9wc1YX642g.jpg
https://d3h6k4kfl8m9p0.cloudfront.net/stories/pEaFnFAfZDbW8iAQphxxrw.jpg
The same shape of the vase appears in the "Corrugated" decor, which is still attributed to the Rindskopf glassworks. (I do not mean very similar to the "corrugated" glassworks of W. Kralik). In the Teplice Regional Museum, the "Corrugated" vase, together with several other objects, is marked with a sticker with the inscription Steinwald and a numerical designation (possibly an increment number .. ??). This designation was most likely made by a museum employee in 1910. It is therefore not a company mark, but it is still a fairly credible argument. Here is the same vase as the vase in the Teplice Museum:
https://www.bohemianglass.org/katalog/vaza-sec-1-corrugated-1242/detail/
https://www.bohemianglass.org/katalog/vaza-sec-1-corrugated-4515/detail/
I believe that I will get the approval of the Museum to publish their photographs of vases marked Steinwald.
Hi Ales, granted the corrugated decor is still considered Rindskopf, I think the shapes of the actual glass vases might determine if there is any difference. Since this has to do with the molds used, they might have been bought from Rindskopf once they switched to pressed glass production only.
So, if this can ever be done, a real side by side image of both fans at the same angle, one in a Kralik/Steinwald decor, and one in a Rindskopf/Steinwald decor might be very informative. :-)
It's possible that the glass ring near the bottom is an applied feature, not part of the mold.
See the second vase in the 3rd row down:
https://d3h6k4kfl8m9p0.cloudfront.net/stories/rk8vrnJIpNV3rztu4WVz6g.jpeg
Here is another rare line and spot glass Czech decor, but in a Kralik shape, I have about 6 of them in different decor styles, some marked with open O arch mark:
http://nebula.wsimg.com/1d26ee6475801beeb8278fd87b144d3c?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
I do not agree that information is correct. The 'Kralik' version of that shape has a round base and a round rim (and is also a little taller). The base in your example is clearly hexagonal - This is the line and spot decor of WELZ. If you have a version of this shape with hexagonal base, marked with the arched mark, please show us. I have never seen one.
See final image in this post for comparison of Welz and Kralik interpretations:
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/273690-welz-mini-hexagonal-vase----another-s
the vase is Kralik or Steinwald IMO, in the 81. comment, it has a ROUND upper rim and an hexagonal foot. so different.
The line and spot decor has different colors and type of base spatter, with a much more delicate powder glass line, and the colors are unique.
This is the Butler Brother ad it is shown in, 3rd vase from the left, I believe the whole line-up is all Kralik and or Steinwald.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/3805eea436652ddd741175786e62df93?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
The vase in the ad linked in comment 84 has a ROUND foot. The linked vase in comment 81 has an octagonal foot. They are absolutely NOT the same.
The decor on the linked vase in comment 81 has the same decor as found on the 2nd vase in the 4th row of this linked image.
http://www.kralik-glass.com/welzfanscalloparray.html
Don't bother trying to claim that example of the scalloped fan vase is by Kralik.
There is absolutely no evidence, empirical or otherwise, supporting the claim that Kralik made that shape.
This must be another exception.....
I think the fan is similar but not the same, if we are going to be comparing vases to the last detail, my glass example is much lighter and mostly with single fine lines not double, and the base does not show the lines going all the way down to the base.
Its always interesting to see how particular some attributions are, and how differences dont matter in others, as long as it is from the same house.
love the way you woke up the room with your post .. really nice post ...