No-one likes general adverts, and ours hadn't been updated for ages, so we're having a clear-out and a change round to make the new ones useful to you. These new adverts bring in a small amount to help pay for the board and keep it free for you to use, so please do use them whenever you can, Let our links help you find great books on glass or a new piece for your collection. Thank you for supporting the Board.

Author Topic: Now I've got 2 -- Peceny 'Woodgrain' 20156 oddity  (Read 1948 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anik R

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 2211
  • Gender: Female
    • Post-war Czech glass
    • Krakow, Poland
Now I've got 2 -- Peceny 'Woodgrain' 20156 oddity
« on: June 29, 2011, 04:48:18 AM »
I've now got two Frantisek Peceny 'woodgrain' vases. :)  Both are the same height (170mm), the same colour, the same everything...  almost.

The one peculiar difference between both pieces is the internal well or floor of the vase.  When measured from the inside, the vase on the left hand side of the photo is 166mm deep.  The vase on the right is 155mm deep.  You can clearly see that the internal floor of the vases are different.

Isn't that odd?  Why would there be such a (big) difference in a pressed piece?  And is one of these vases more standard than the other?

Thank you for looking.

Offline Frank

  • Author
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 9508
  • Gender: Male
    • Glass history
    • Europe
    • Gateway
Re: Now I've got 2 -- Peceny 'Woodgrain' 20156 oddity
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2011, 07:24:22 AM »
Could be the plunger was altered to reduce (or increase) the weight of glass used. Seems to be a common variation in SU.

Offline Anik R

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 2211
  • Gender: Female
    • Post-war Czech glass
    • Krakow, Poland
Re: Now I've got 2 -- Peceny 'Woodgrain' 20156 oddity
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2011, 09:27:12 AM »
Aha...  I see (kind of).  Thank you, Frank.  

(I still find it odd, though...  The difference in the thickness of the base is substantially large.  I wonder which is closer to Peceny's original design?  By the way, the vase on the left weighs 644g while the one on the right weighs 661g.  I see that the clear vase on the Sklo Union sale site weighs 700g.  Why would glass be added or taken away if there is a difference in weight anyway?)

Offline Frank

  • Author
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 9508
  • Gender: Male
    • Glass history
    • Europe
    • Gateway
Re: Now I've got 2 -- Peceny 'Woodgrain' 20156 oddity
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2011, 12:12:03 PM »
Producing 10,000 glass with a 10g reduction is 100 kg... and the amount of cost saved per day would be significant without greatly compromising the design. I would expect such economy became important after the end of communism and the need to increase profitability became important. Most of the Sklo Union designs are extremely heavy compared to glass produced in the West in the same period. But that is speculation!

It may also be the measurement of the parison was made with a loose tolerance and the mould was arranged to accommodate different volumes of metal by the depth of the plunger. Without knowing what machines were being used it would be hard to say... but perhaps one of the workers that are still around can be contacted to answer this question. Hand operated presses might see largish variations between teams and semi-automatic presses less variation being likely.

It was a phenomenon that I noticed a lot while appraising the collection, where apparent pairs did not match in various ways. This was why I split these apparent pairs/sets - as they may well have been produced in batches years apart only to be re 'setted' by a collector. I would expect the variance in weight and dimensions to be much smaller in items made at the same time. Many designs were made over long periods and for production volume as well as wear and tear on the moulds and plungers would have seen moulds repaired or new moulds made.

In some cases the variations can be quite dramatic and could even be deliberate adjustments of a design to suit the changing market taste over a long production period. For example Jitka Forejtova  13171 Nude figure  http://sklo-union-glass.com/index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=13&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1 311371 shows at least 3 distinct moulds in the examples appraised. As the size of the breasts change that could well be a deliberate change for the market. It would interesting to find a dating for these type of variations but very hard to achieve without dated photographs. But such aspects do make for an interesting study of both manufacturing and marketing aspects with their impact on the design of the SU glass.

Offline Anik R

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 2211
  • Gender: Female
    • Post-war Czech glass
    • Krakow, Poland
Re: Now I've got 2 -- Peceny 'Woodgrain' 20156 oddity
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2011, 05:32:32 PM »
Frank, my sincerest thanks for the lengthy reply and the possible explanations... I don't quite know which applies to the 20156 vase, though.  I prefer the 'version' without the inner well apparent.  The woodgrain pattern is the key aspect of the piece, so the additional feature of a visible well is superfluous.  (That's why I'm wondering what Peceny's original design looked like.)  I'm more inclined to think that in this case, the difference has little or nothing to do with aesthetics, but with process. 

I think.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk
Visit the Glass Encyclopedia
link to glass encyclopedia
Visit the Online Glass Museum
link to glass museum


This website is provided by Angela Bowey, PO Box 113, Paihia 0247, New Zealand