I will no longer comment on CW "attributions". I withdrew from that forum and had my account deleted along with all of my posts for good reasons. Among those reasons was the ability of original posters to delete information that was provided by other users in their posts which countered claims they were making. I felt strongly that the ability to self edit ones posts to continue to appear right was not conducive to the factual presentation of information. That does not occur in this forum at all.
CW is a good site for collectors to display their collections, but as far as a solid research site, it has some very severe shortcomings, unlike this forum, which has proven to be quite educational and taken seriously by the members.
I posted a link in the CW forum to the website article, same as I did here, and will not comment on any posts in that forum. I personally only re-entered the forum to provide a source of counterpoint, as requested by many users there who contacted me directly after I left. I chose the format of articles and links, as it does not allow for editing in the forum.
Aside from the Tango Exhibit, some of the vases in the article are also identified in Truitt I as Welz production, yet one of the posts in CW has taken an image from Truitt I and posted it as an example of Ruckl in that forum. Truitt is incorrect and they have now discovered the real truth.... Welz never even produced glass..... There is not even enough time to discuss the absurdities which are presented in that forum as "Research and Facts".
If you feel the CW attributions stemming from a single labeled piece, and many leaps that I would classify as unfounded, outweigh the evidence in the article I linked to, then you are certainly welcome to continue to attribute based on those methods.
Lastly, a single label does not build a solid family of glass attributions, just as the lack of a label does not preclude solid research.
The label you reference was also stated to be a 1903 label in one of those attributions, but in fact the style of labeled was used for a longer period of time. The factory location named on the label was built in 1903, indicating the label could not be any earlier than 1903. It does not confirm a 1903 date for the label as claimed. The Glasmarken Lexicon gives the indication that the style of label in question was used to the mid 1940's when the company was nationalized. It is this type of inattention to actual details that caused me to highly question any of those attributions.
I personally do not believe the attributions were sound in the least. I will let those who choose to read both bodies of work make their own decisions. I am certainly confident of the research in the article.
The 2 "researchers" in that forum posting Ruckl attributions for this style of glass are also sellers who 3 months earlier were the largest sellers of this style of Welz production on ebay. Now Welz does not exist to them and it is all of a sudden all made by Ruckl. One of them even took the position that Welz did not even make glass, even though there is abundant evidence that they actually did. Personally, I find "research" from someone claiming that to be questionable at best.
Sorry, but just my humble personal opinion..... and also final statement on the subject.