Welz or Kralik or what? | ||
| IanBrighton's loves1430 of 1643 |  |  |
Radegunder loves this.
aura loves this.
IanBrighton loves this.
Moonstonelover21 loves this.
Belmont loves this.
Slave-to-glass loves this.
ho2cultcha loves this.
mrmajestic1 loves this.
austrohungaro loves this.
vetraio50 loves this.
scottvez loves this.
inky loves this.
walksoftly loves this.Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate
Posted 12 years ago
Londonloet…
(47 items)
This is another piece I'd like some help with. A bowl with four legs, not designed for a lid. It looks like red spots on black, but as can be seen from the third picture in fact the body and legs are dark amethyst. Completely unmarked. The glass feels closer to my Welz knuckle bowl than to my post WW1 Kralik pieces, but I know there's a big debate on this ...
So - thoughts?
Help us close this case. Add your knowledge below.
Create an account or login in order to post a comment.
Thank you Walksoftly and Czechman.
Thank you ks85 and Czechman, glad to know I'm not barking up the wrong tree for once!
And thank you Inky, scottvez and vetraio50.
And thank you Scandi. I believe that this clematis is a Niobe. We're really getting through them!
Surely somebody must have some 4 legged pieces? They can't all have come to England! Obscurities, ks85, Czechman - what about the blue one? Does that help - or make things worse?
Czechman, the blue I was referring to is the other piece with 4 strutted legs I posted just after this one - sorry not to be clearer. It's at http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/58276-another-four-legged-bowl?in=441
Thank you ks85 - I will go and have a look!
Thank you Obscurities, Bellin68 and Austrohungaro.
No problem, Czechman, I should have been clearer!
Kralik, I have a lidded jar...By the way no top for this one it is a vase- (the angle of the lip would make nearly impossible for a lid
Thanks Jericho! Glad you agree re the lid - as I said, I am absolutely sure it was never designed for a lid. Any chance of a posting of your lidded jar? Also, any thoughts on my blue with four feet? - http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/58276-another-four-legged-bowl?in=user
Thanks!
I understand that all the Welz strutted pieces on Kralik-glass have three legs - as indeed do the Kralik strutted pieces I am aware of, such as my meteor vase at http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/54944-kralik-meteor-vase--i-think?in=user. Both Kralik and Welz do strutted tripods. It was the 4 strutted legs that was throwing the attribution, hence the importance of the decor, as I understood the comments above.
Absolutely, Charcoal. No question - and every single one has three strutted legs, not four.
But also, as you have previously alluded to, not every Kralik piece or decor is yet on the site. But if you look at the kralik meteors posted on this site, several have three strutted feet - see mine, and Czechman's at http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/57935-kralik-meteor-vases-two-totally-differen
Then there's Al's Kralik meteor on three strutted legs - posted with the catalogue - http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/42491-kralik-hosch-meteor-silveria-vase
So, there is some evidence Kralik did three strutted feet as well as Welz, even if not yet on the site.
The problem is, if it is significant at all, no-one has yet pointed to any other piece with four strutted legs - except the other blue piece I posted. So - who did 4 legs as well as 3? Or instead of 3? I think that is the question that Jericho was seeking to answer by reference to a known Kralik piece in the same decor - but I am sure he can and will speak for himself!
Charcoal, it may seem like it might be unusual or unique and be something that is strong enough on it's own to be relevant but I really don't think it is. These glass houses all were doing the same thing at the same time. It was a popular style so all the houses that did hot worked glass would have been doing this. Some of it probably came down to whim of the individual glass blower.
Thank you, mrmajestic1 and ho2cultcha, for the loves!
Charcoal, I really don't think this is a lamp base. The shape of the rim and the lip would not work and there is no sign of any wear where one one would expect at least a little if something had slotted in/on top -as there is wear on the feet. As Jericho said, and I agree having handled it, it wasn't even designed for a lid, let alone a reservoir.
As for the rest, as this is my post, may I just say I welcome comments from anyone who wishes to make them. I would not want to discourage Obscurities, Greatsnowyowl or anyone else from posting on my item. I do not regard posts which don't make an attribution as unhelpful. It all contributes to the debate, which is what I, for one, am here for.
I would also like to say I am looking forward to Charcoal's own first post. I'm expecting something pretty special!
Charcoal, even I know the difference between age-related wear and ground down feet! And actually I have three-footed pieces that have been ground. While it is true that the tripod base is stable without grinding, if they aren't level it does still leave the vase "wonky", for want of a better word.
Charcoal, you need to borrow a camera, or a camera-phone - get inventive, we want to see! All my photos are taken with my iPad ...
Thank you, Al.
I have the West Virginia Museum of American Glass Butler Bros monograph, but haven't found any other catalogues in England. I couldn't find any four-footed pieces in the Monograph ...
Thank you, Slave-to-glass.
Jumping in on this sorry, I need all the help I can,... which Butler catalogues? I've found about 4, is there a specific one I should get?
Over to you, Al! Slave-to-glass is ahead of me on catalogues.