Posted 11 years ago
jericho
(236 items)
This is another shape from Kralik Cir. 1920-30. I really like the consistency of this shape even when you account for the different sizes. So far I have seen three sizes 7 1/2, 10 and 12". I will add more descriptions to individual pieces if requested although this series is mostly for the shapes and the variety of decors that were produced in those shapes. Please see my other shape chapters in this series.... "shape studies" help with the quick identification of the Kralik art glass.
1- A purchase from the first Czech collectors convention I attended
2- Purchase from the Australia
3- Pair from France
4- Germany, the Marquetry one was about a grand but now worth much less
I suck as photography, and they are boxed away to avoid earthquakes here in Southern California... If there is an interest in any specific piece Ill post them in the Kralik1928 with plenty of pics...
Cir. 1920? They're more likely October 1931 per the Butler Brothers, Monograph Number 121, Page 25, Item C-6010.
1931 is totally accurate and precise without documentation proving otherwise. This decor doesn't appear in any Butler Brothers Catalogs prior to 1931 that I'm aware of. Collectible Bohemian Glass II, R&D Truitt, page 55 also denotes this decor as 1930's.
Also, for clarity, I'm referring to the decor represented in photograph #1 above.
The decor represented in pictures 2&3 was first shown in October 1930 but on a different shape, a footed bowl. It is shown again in March 1931 and in the October 1931 edition as well on the same footed bowl shape. This cane tango decor doesn't appear in any of the earlier B&B Catalog pages that I'm aware of. That indicates that the cane tango decor shown in pic 2 and 3 was first introduced in 1930. The decor represented in Photo 1, being first introduced in 1931, indicates that the shape presented above is 1931 production at the earliest.
I suppose you can guess Cir. 1920 if you you want. I personally prefer to say Cir. 1931 as clearly documented. Can you provide documentation or a link showing otherwise?
Whenever i find a shape that includes marquetry i go more 20's than thirties
Import catalogs aren't something I'd consider "documentation" for anything precise. circa 2o's vs 30's is pretty much the same thing. +/- 10 years is pretty standard for the assumption in date range. There is no reason to think these patterns weren't made before they were imported into America. Americans were notoriously behind fashion.
Jericho, There is no documentation showing that marquetry, as you call it, was produced in the 20's. That's just your blind opinion considering you don't own Monograph 121.
GSO, I somewhat agree but wholesale catalogs is a good guide for date of production until something better comes along. Especially considering a new catalog was issued by Butler Brothers every season if not more frequently. Butler Brothers wasn't successful by offering stale "behind fashion" goods in my opinion.
I also agree with Welzebub in the extent that it can in no way be used to reasonably construe that it is a specific timeline relative to "Kralik" factory output. That's a whole different topic.
I am however sure you know what I'm seeing having full knowledge of my current study topic when combined with the 1931 production date and page 75 in Truitt II which shows Kralik wasn't the only manufacturer of crackle glass with "pull ups".
It wasn't stale and behind fashion for american tastes. Americans WERE behind fashion at that point in time. things happened in Europe before they happened here. we WERE the backwater.
with no other information in place I still don't think butler bros or any other import catalog should be used as some sort of definitive guide. too many variables in the equation.
Thank you GSO! I do appreciate you opinion.
Jericho, I love the marquetry.
I am not...and have never been a professor or student of Czech glass. I want documentation (the date) as much as anybody...but i don't get carried away with dates because that is not important to me. as you can see i made a concession and included 1930 into the production window...thank you
if you have some information like "Monograph 121" share it with us, death loves the stingy... I hope my "shapes" series help the overall enjoyment of collecting Kralik... I want to do 10 more common shapes in (later) Kralik very soon.
Since there seems to be a renewed interest in this post for some reason I think there are some points that should be clarified as parts of the original discussion are missing.
Comment 7 above:
"The decor represented in pictures 2&3 was first shown in October 1930 but on a different shape, a footed bowl. It is shown again in March 1931 and in the October 1931 edition as well on the same footed bowl shape. This cane tango decor doesn't appear in any of the earlier B&B Catalog pages that I'm aware of. That indicates that the cane tango decor shown in pic 2 and 3 was first introduced in 1930."
Actually all this indicates is that Butler chose to illustrate and offer it in those years. It does not in any way indicate when the décor was developed and first sold by Kralik.
End of comment 11 above.
"I am however sure you know what I'm seeing having full knowledge of my current study topic when combined with the 1931 production date and page 75 in Truitt II which shows Kralik wasn't the only manufacturer of crackle glass with "pull ups"."
To me at least, that statement actually seems to be unsupported by the line art which does not appear to show any crackle glass.
Although the page Truitt II mentioned here shows glass with "pull ups", many houses did pull ups. There is nothing on that page though, indicating that the line of glass represented in the drawings actually produced crackle glass. Did they? Until examples are successfully linked to them, it is only unsupportable supposition that they actually did.
I think it would also be worth mentioning, that the decor above on the left is not simply a pull up, but is multi colored pulls and is a décor considered a marker for Kralik production. The décor is called Bambus and examples with factory labels bearing the décor name are known to exist. The crackle glass with Bambus, although not commonly seen, is also found on other Kralik shapes.
Here is a link to another image showing a selection of additional Kralik décors on this shape. Lower left in the image.
http://cf.collectorsweekly.com/stories/8NWqRHc.JCtPWXpLwF4pxA.jpg
I am completely missing the point of your comment I guess... and what does Welz production in an ad have to do with a Kralik shape and decors being discussed here?
And page 108 of what and when? As opposed to an ad from when?
One issue being addressed here seemed to be what year(s) Kralik offered the decors, (Millifiori, Marquetry, and Bambus) and not what year Butler did in their catalogs, as that seems to have been established.
Also, whether Crackle glass was shown on page 75 of Truitt II as inferred above.
Any assumption that Czech glass in the catalogs was from stores, at least in my humble opinion, would need to be supported with some form of documentation to be seriously considered as viable. Butler had been using catalogs for sales of Bohemian / Czech for at least a couple of decades by the late 20's. Is it possible? sure... almost anything is....
OK. I was addressing our inability to date Kralik production based on it's appearance in a sales catalog the did not prodce.
I am sre Butlers issues were complex, as the were huge. Without documentation i do not believe we can safely assume czech glass went to stores first.... then to catalogs as an outlet for their sagging retail sales. . that is also what I was addressing.
I find the Butler ads to be useful as a study tool to look at groupings of products offered. I also do not place a ton of value on the time frames in which products appear. That is more a glimpse into Butler's inventory and merchandising, than it will ever be indicative of a Czech factories output. We can determine to a degree, who Butler ordered from in some cases, but not all at this point.
I have studied Monogram 121 quite thoroughly. It was a research request I made to Tom Felt at the WVMOAG for a specific set of materials from Butler that initiated that accumulation of the information and actually resulted in the publication of that monograph. I purchased the first copy of it before it was offered on ebay.
Among other reasons could be a shift away from the product for Butler due to differential offerings, a change in focus, or an abundance of product available in the marketplace from a variety of retailers (market dilution). Radically increased costs of raw materials and labor immediately post WWI, combined with increased shipping costs may have made the product category less inviting to Butler management at the time. There are a large number of variables which could have contributed to their lack of catalog offerings. Is their selling some of the product at a retail level one viable possibility? Sure.... but to me it is far from being the only possibility.
It would also stand to reason that if they themselves were selling large amounts in their own locations, that they would have offered at least some of it in their catalogs in the hopes of also selling it via shipments to retailers who were located in non competitive markets. Without records to indicate what quantities of product they continued to order immediately post WWI, we will never really know.
To me at least, Butler as a business is an interesting study of wholesale/retail sales in the U.S. My personal interest has not really been in how the product was sold here, but more in the development of a reasonable understanding of who made what. In relationship to that that area of study, Butler catalogs serve little to no actual value since they did not divulge sources or makers. They provide me with some insight as to who may have been selling to Butler, but that is about it.