thanks Mel - no I didn't find the earlier link where the collectors weekly bowl I had linked to is compared to a later Kralik piece. But I have been pondering the Collectors Weekly link I gave earlier.
Just to confirm here - on that link, the poster says his earlier bowl is solid opaline glass whereas the Kralik comparison piece achieves the same 'effect' by using white cased in clear glass with a trailed rim.
So I have a question about the earlier link I gave http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/60061-harrach-neuwelt--alabaster-glass-vesse
where the posters bowl is identified from a Harrach id'd published picture. The rim on the posters bowl has the pulls made by pulling the rim down, whereas the pictures of the Harrach id'd published pieces show the fluted rim made by pulling up - well at least it does to my eyes. Does this make any difference or is it just a variation in technique - I'm not questioning the identification, just pondering really.
Re the link Mel gave and the explanation on Collectors Weekly of how the posters bowl is made and comparison to Kralik, my jug is solid glass or 'opaline' glass (Gulliver's calls this opaline type glass - at some point, I'm going to start another topic on this as a discussion) as is the posters bowl id'd as Harrach, my jug is not cased as the Kralik version.
The trailing on the rim of my jug appears to be a match for the colour and type of the trailing on the posters bowl. But whilst my jug has an integral foot and polished pontil, it does not have a stand ring. It is slightly concave on the base, so the wear is all on the outside but there is no deliberate stand ring. On photo inspection I would say my jug and the posters bowl have marked similarities. I just need to find a Harrach jug with that particular shaped rim and handle and I will be happy