Welz Iridescent Swirl "Marbled" Fan Vase | ||
| Art Glass19409 of 23439 |  |  |
GeodeJem likes this.
Crazyguy loves this.
artfoot loves this.
IronLace loves this.
aura loves this.
MALKEY loves this.
jericho loves this.tom61375 loves this.
miKKoChristmas11 loves this.
Mac63 loves this.
Justanovice loves this.
inky loves this.
vetraio50 loves this.
dasullywon loves this.Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate
Posted 12 years ago
jagsrock95
(152 items)
I really like this Franz Welz Iridescent Swirl "Marbled" Fan Vase. It has a great look to it and a nice feel...The yellow, Green and Black color combination really strikes the eye. Does anyone have any styles like this (Iridescent Swirl "Marbled") that they can post? Would love to see the different styles and colors.
Create an account or login in order to post a comment.
Excellent pictures! Nicely done to show the colors AND the iridescence with separate photos in collage. And this vase has terrific color and shape. Great find and photography. Love it!
Beautiful...again!! you have some wonderful glass!...:-)
Thanks dasullywon!
Thanks again Inky
KS85...Yes I have seen those, they are awesome!
There is one out there in rainbow colors with a pronounced wave pattern
That sounds cool...you got a picture?
nope, saw it in a show, there is a collector that also has at least 30 of this exact shape in different decors.... come to czech convention he will be there
BEAUTIFUL Glass!
scott
Thanks Scott
I have always believed that both Kralik and Welz made these fans, there are definite difference in their shapes, and of course decors. This opinion was never accepted or ever will be, I started using theepink translucent with blue rim a[[lications to show, there were many more Kralik decors in my view than WELZ...... HORRIBLE OF ME I KNOW.
Maybe you could provide something other than your saying so that would support your claim..... That would be an extremely novel approach for you to try..... :-)
To date, the Welz scalloped fan is found in about 31 decors. If one ignores the single example in pink glass with a green rim that you keep insisting Kralik produced, the other 30 decors can be solidly linked to Welz production.
The scallops on the rims are hand pulled, so those vary in shape a little from fan to fan. These fan vases are also found with two slight variations in the stem length, but both styles of stems are found in definitively Welz decors. None of those decors can be linked with supporting evidence to Kralik.
It is not horrible that you are mistaken, it is simply a disservice to other forum members that you continue to push that agenda with no evidentiary support... Just your opinion.... repeated over and over and over..... and you know what they say about opinions... :-)
TOD... Do I have a great opportunity for you or what???
Here is a link to all of the currently known decors on the scalloped fan vase. Maybe you would be so kind as to share which of these examples, at least in your opinion, are Kralik. If none of these are, maybe you can provide a link to examples of the shape that are by Kralik.
Feel free to use numbers starting at the upper left corner with example 1., 2, 3, 4... Second row would start with 7 etc.... as you move across each row. Just give us the numbers of each one.
http://www.kralik-glass.com/welzfanscalloparray.html
Thanks for showing the 31 Welz examples!
scott
I will never ever follow any instructions from you, as it is a motivated ploy to pursue your agenda, and use whatever information I provide to do so. Say what you like, but being manipulated for someone else's agenda, is one I am very familiar with in my lifetime experience, which I recognise immediatly and don't fall for, especially from someone that has proven time and time again how desingenuous he is....
I am simply offering you an opportunity to support your claim above. My suspicion is that there are actually no examples there you would claim are Kralik... except for the 1 you own... and claim is Kralik because the glass is pink.... :-)
Disingenuous is making claims as factual you refuse to support when asked. Disingenuous is stating facts that are completely false.. disingenuous is starting an argument, and then claiming to be the victim...
Are we through having fun now Lisa?
Only because I do find this decor in green marbling glass effect very unique, I had already shown anothe example on my website under Kralik, in a lidded container, with othe Kralik examples in the same shape. With the exception of it having an added feature, a sprinkling of mica.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/75b4981a9b4b2cbd5f83f0650f88ad1c?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
Craig, go ahead and use this reply as you usually do, I have uploaded the link, for other members to see.
My claim about the scalloped fans is that there was more than one producer, which I have already discussed with the pink glass and blue tread applications fans.
That decor is not even close to the fan vase decor. If you think it is, then that would go a long ways in explaining why we disagree at almost every level.
Here they are side by side:
http://www.kralik-glass.com/CW/KralikvsWelz.jpg
The covered dish is a different color of green. The pattern in the color is completely different. The covered dish is a clear casing, where the fan vase has an iridescent finish that the covered piece does not have. Visually, the two decors present entirely differently.
I understand that you think Kralik made the scalloped fan also. I have never questioned that you believe that. The real question should be:
"Exactly what, other than a commonality of pink glass, would that belief be based on?"
Welz made pink glass with green and also with blue threading. Welz made uranium glass with blue threading, and also with green threading. Basing that belief on a single color of glass that can be found in almost every other glass makers production, is one of the most UNSUPPORTALBE claims you have ever made in this forum, and done so repeatedly without a single iota of evidence that is robust enough to stand up to scrutiny of the lowest level.
Here is an image of Welz fans , and with matching Welz baskets in the same decors. The fact that the basket shape is identified as Welz, would negate an assumption that the fan is Kralik because the glass is pink.
http://www.kralik-glass.com/CW/BasketsFans.jpg
Pink glass being a marker for Kralik production is an old tale spun by Alfredo long ago.... It is completely inaccurate. Claiming a fan vase is Kralik because it is pink, when it is easily demonstrably that Welz used it, as did many others, makes the claim completely unsupportable.
The only way to support your claim in a manner that is even slightly robust, would be to find the form in a known Kralik decor. Not a different form in a different green decor. After all, if Kralik made it in pink, it only stands to reason that they would have produced it in other identifiable decors also.
Regarding your claims..... I simply point out a differing opinion that I can generally support with robust evidence.
Here goes again: I don't dispute the brand of glass producrion you call Welz, it is obviously a different style of glass, some of it quite attractive.
I do dispute the amount of attributions, which keeps growing, and so far there have been very few that you eventually rejected as not supportable.
Since I have done a similar journey, I can state that with Ruckl decorative glass it has been complicated, and I have had to change my mind several times, the opaque red with green base spatter is a good example, those large Ruckl vases have one with that decor, but most of the other glass pieces ar Kralik, and some are signed with Kralik's arch mark.
The spatters especially and the pink, amber, green and purple textured translucent glass are all Kralik. The recent post with Kralik documentation shows that they used this approach early on. Am I saying they were the only ones? NO. But I am firmly convinced that the pink glass with added glass applications is Kralik, as well as several pieces I have posted here, in other color combination.
You question my adherence to the BB descriptions, at that point in time, that was the colors they were offering, does not mean they did not add some and canceled some over a long period.
One example I can thing of, is the spatter in yellow red/orange and blue/black, you comfortably claim that is is all Welz, I disagree, the spatter colors has also been used by Kralik and Ruckl. I own a few examples, and Joe Mattis had a lidded box in his collection *2nd image top left column, that he used in a small publication where he named some decors.
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/109939-standardizing-czech-art-glass-patterns-v
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/109939-standardizing-czech-art-glass-patterns-v
There is a post here by gluestick, who shows it, years ago.
sorry for the typos no time to edit, dogs has to be fed.
TOD says: “I do dispute the amount of attributions, which keeps(sic) growing, and so far there have been very few that you eventually rejected as not supportable.”
The reason I have not reversed myself on very many Welz attributions is for no reason other than I do not attribute something to them until I am positive it can be supported. Any reversals I did make, were very early, and very few. Welz made glass for around 150+ years, and I have solidly identified around 550 shapes and maybe 125 or so decors. My ID’s cover a period of maybe 40-45 or so of those 150+ years. The attributions keep growing because my research is continuous. It is estimated that Loetz made tens of thousands different shapes and hundreds of decors. Your point is missed on me….
TOD says: “But I am firmly convinced that the pink glass with added glass applications is Kralik, as well as several pieces I have posted here, in other color combination(sic).”
I understand you are firmly convinced of it. I have no doubt. My point is that it is an unsupportable position, with nothing in the way of even mildly robust evidence to support that belief. Yet…. You continue to push that belief as fact in this forum without any supporting evidence whatsoever. I find that irresponsible at best, especially considering many come here to read and learn.
TOD says: “You question my adherence to the BB descriptions, at that point in time, that was the colors they were offering, does not mean they did not add some and canceled some over a long period.”
No, what I questioned is the fact that you claimed that the basket in question is not Welz, because the basket ad did not describe some of the décors I used to support the fact that the shape is theirs. This is not rocket science….. I have identified in the region of about 50 different Welz basket shapes, in a wide range of decors. Two of the examples you posted as Kralik are a couple of them. For some reason you continue under the mistaken perception that I base attributions, as you seem to, on a single characteristic of a piece of glass. That is not accurate, and never has been. I invariably look for several paths to an attribution before I state it publicly….
TOD says: “One example I can thing(sic) of, is the spatter in yellow red/orange and blue/black, you comfortably claim that is(sic) is all Welz, I disagree, the spatter colors has(sic) also been used by Kralik and Ruckl.”
I have never claimed it is all Welz because of certain colors being used. I identify specific decors on specific shapes. Of course the colors are used by others. Only an idiot would claim any differently. Your biggest problem is that you make unfounded assumptions about my research based on your bias and almost complete lack of understanding of how I do it (as evidenced by some of the claims you make about what you think I do), and then try to apply those incorrect assumptions to all of the work I do. In almost every instance your stated understanding of my work is completely off base…. But that does not surprise me…..
TOD says: “Since I have done a similar journey, I can state that with Ruckl decorative glass it has been complicated, and I have had to change my mind several times”
No one ever said glass research was easy….. Yes, it is difficult and complicated. Your journey is in no way similar to mine. First of all, by your own admission you started collecting Czech glass about 5 years ago. 5 years ago I was already 7 years into Welz research, and had been collecting Czech glass and other art glass for around 20+ years before I started my research into Welz. You started making claims of Ruckl attributions almost out of the starting gate….. I researched Welz for over 2 years before I posted anything publicly about it at all. To put your time frame into perspective, with a starting date of 2015 for your Czech glass collecting, when you reach the year 2040 or so, you MAY have spent a similar amount of time on the subject. While you have made claims and then had to change them as you learned, I learned a long time ago to not say anything until I could prove it with robust evidence. If I state something I think is a “possibility” or a “suspicion”, and not a fact I can prove or support with robust evidence, I am clear about that when I state it.
My credibility is one of the most important things I have as a researcher, and I have gone to great lengths to protect and preserve it.
Again I gave my honest opinion and perception as you have been clamoring for, only to treat it lile a grammar exercise (sic), and minimize my efforts and time of involvement, and inflating yours.
Nothing new there. I hope you are satisfied with your long essay about what a better all around collector, researcher and credible ethical person you are. At the same time, I am seen as a foolish mistaken impetuous collector, who has none of your great qualities, and could not possibly compare myself to you.
Just a few FACTS I am aware of, I was collecting glass before 1914, in the Spring when I joined this site, at the insistence of a member.
You published your website and your Welz interest in early 2010+. It was a group effort where you were supposed to equally show the main Bohemian and Czech glassworks, with a large contingent of experts, who knew more than you, and were supposed to advise and participate. This is information you stated yourself over the years.
As we all know, the site is now on the back burner, no longer a priority for you. You spend more time and effort here and on other sites than you do meeting your obligations.
No, I am not impressed with you either, or your ethics.
Hope you are satisfied with your results today, I tried one more time to reach some kind of understanding with you, but to no avail, you only see this as another opportunity to show off at my expense including my typos, which I knew you would enjoy pointing out. Such a petty small man you are.
I don't see the same decor in the linked item (post 17) and this fan vase.
scott
It is not about being an all around collector that is better Lisa. It is about experience and knowledge. If you don't understand that, there is nothing that can be said that would make it clear.....
You don't get it... You will never get it.....
TOD says: "Just a few FACTS I am aware of, I was collecting glass before 1914, in the Spring when I joined this site, at the insistence of a member."
From Facebook on Oct 19, 2019, and I quote you: "5 years ago I was a very ignorant and naive Czech glass collector." So please.... spare me....
You sure like to bring up the early years of the website. You have done it repeatedly through the years. For someone who was not involved at all, you speak like you are actually an authority with an overall view.... You know very little about what actually occurred. Interesting though, that I am the one that ended up teaching myself code to build it, and have maintained and grown it by myself since very soon after it launched. Your site has about 30 pages. My site has about 440 pages, and somewhere in the region of 7000+ images of accurately identified glass. I will let the website speak for itself.
So all of the things I addressed, the vast majority of which was related to research and misstatements by you about what I do and how I do it, and also about unsupported claims you continue to state as facts, your take is that I am pounding my chest over being a better collector than you, and that this was a "peace offering" on your part. That point of view alone should make it perfectly clear why we will never agree about much... if anything.....
You see this as something about you. I see this as something about accurate glass research, and supportable conclusions stated publicly in a forum where folks try to learn..... I guess we simply live in different universes.... I'll stick with mine....
TOD also says: "You published your website and your Welz interest in early 2010+. It was a group effort where you were supposed to equally show the main Bohemian and Czech glassworks, with a large contingent of experts, who knew more than you, and were supposed to advise and participate. This is information you stated yourself over the years."
No, that is your evolving take on what you have been told over the years..... Not information I stated over the years... Once again, there is a difference between your take on something you were never involved in, and what actually occurred.
From TOD (post #22):
"As we all know, the site is now on the back burner, no longer a priority for you. You spend more time and effort here and on other sites than you do meeting your obligations."
Funny that TOD would try and identify YOUR web site as an "obligation" that you are somehow neglecting!
Most would see your efforts on your website/ here/ elsewhere as motivated by a genuine love of the glass and a desire to provide accurate attributions that will stand the test of time due to your scientific analysis and methodical approach to the study of glass.
scott
Thanks Scott. I appreciate that.
THANK YOU.
Keep up the good work... and keep those BASKETS coming!
scott