Glass Message Board

Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => Germany => Topic started by: Cathy B on January 20, 2006, 11:00:00 AM

Title: Possibly Loetz Chine? ID - Wilhem Kralik iridescent vase
Post by: Cathy B on January 20, 2006, 11:00:00 AM
Hello - I have finally got my computer access back!
 
There used to be some good information on a website somewhere on identifying fake Loetz for the novice, but it appears to have disappeared. In particular, I seem to recall that many of these fakes have the chine effect (excuse the spelling: the French acute is beyond my ken).

Can anyone expand on this?

Kind regards,
Cathy

Mod: This vase is a Wilhem Kralik iridescent vase with an applied rim and trails. See the Great Glass site (http://www.great-glass.co.uk), navigate to the picture gallery, then choose the third page, Austro-Bohemian & German (others), and scroll to Kralik, for similar vases.
Title: Possibly Loetz Chine?
Post by: Della on January 20, 2006, 11:20:37 AM
Hi Cathy,
I have just visited this site;

http://www.loetz.com/

It has some great information. Hope it helps.
Title: Possibly Loetz Chine?
Post by: Cathy B on January 20, 2006, 12:02:27 PM
Hello DeltaB,

Thanks for that. Would most fakes be signed these days, do you think? They have some fantastic info on signatures, but nothing on unsigned work.

For instance, Loetz would have always ground their pontils, wouldn't they?

I've found what _could_ be a Loetz Chine decor hyacinth vase with trofen, or a fake. It's quite a significant price, but fairly reasonable if it's Loetz. It is not signed.

Thanks!!

Cathy
Title: Possibly Loetz Chine?
Post by: B & M on January 20, 2006, 05:00:25 PM
I don't recall ever seeing any fake Loetz, i.e. pieces made intentionally to deceive.  There is, however, a lot of irridescent glass, old and new,which is often passed off as being Loetz by unscrupulous sellers, who might even add a fake Loetz signiature to a piece by an unknown maker.

To my knowledge, the vast majority of Loetz's output was unsigned. In fact, i would be more wary of a signed piece for the reasons described above.

If there are any modern fakes around, they should be fairly easy to identify: I would expect differences in the irridescence and of course the base would show no wear or the obvious marks left by sandpaper or other abrasive in the attempt to add age to a new piece.

My advice would be to examine the piece thouroughly and compare its style and decoration to the pieces identified on the Loetz site, in particular the threaded Kralik & Pallme-Koenig examples. Attribution of this type of glass is very difficult, however and it is common practice among many auction houses to identify all irridescent glss from this era as 'Loetz' or 'Loetz type'.

Ultimately though, what does it matter who made it? It may turn out to be by Kralik or another maker, but it is still the same item.  In your position, I would base my decision to buy or not on the quality and aesthetic appeal of the item regardless of maker.
Title: Possibly Loetz Chine?
Post by: Sklounion on January 20, 2006, 09:54:54 PM
Quote
Ultimately though, what does it matter who made it? It may turn out to be by Kralik or another maker, but it is still the same item. In your position, I would base my decision to buy or not on the quality and aesthetic appeal of the item regardless of maker.


With all due respect here, B&M, what are you saying? That it does not matter that a Powolny design, for, and  made by Loetz, has no different value, if the design were made by, for example, Liuligongfang????

Cathy, welcome back, you have been missed, our queen of pressed glass, southern hemisphere chapter. Hope all's gone well with the move?

Marcus
Title: Re: Fake Loetz Chine
Post by: Frank on January 20, 2006, 10:21:31 PM
Quote from: "Cathy Bannister"
There used to be some good information on a website somewhere on identifying fake Loetz for the novice, but it appears to have disappeared.


When a website passes away r.i.p. You can often find it here http://www.archive.org/web/web.php although it is usually about a year behind the rest of the web. One presumes it takes that long to reach the cyber pearly gates.
Title: Possibly Loetz Chine?
Post by: Frank on January 20, 2006, 10:23:04 PM
But try this http://users.skynet.be/fa000612/decors.htm
Title: Possibly Loetz Chine?
Post by: Della on January 20, 2006, 10:28:58 PM
Hi Frank,
That is the same site as I gave, just a different link. :lol:  :lol:
Great site though non-the-less.
Title: Possibly Loetz Chine?
Post by: B & M on January 20, 2006, 10:33:33 PM
Hello Le Casson,

Regarding my earlier comments, what I meant was simply that if Cathy appreciates the design of the piece and considers it pleasing enough to buy, then this perhaps is a better motivation to purchase than some tentative attribution to a possible designer or maker.  

As regards Powolny and (any other named designers who may come into fashion), yes an attribution to him makes a significant difference as to what a piece might sell for but in my experience such attributions are very often made with little or no evidence.  It now seems that every tango piece that comes onto the market is a Powolny, when, in fact, they are merely influenced by his designs. Austro-Bohemian glass is one of the most difficult areas to research and many (arguably the majority of) items are sold with incorrect attributions anyway and may make unpredictable prices as a result.

It is perhaps only my personal opinion but I cannot help but feel that the prime appeal of art glass should be aesthetic rather than monetary. Of course, this is practically not the case and many regard items as an investment or buy them only for the purposes of speculation; an arguably valid approach (and one which I have adopted when dealing), but one which fuels a market in which there is a recognition of a few designers at the expense of many more. More who themselves may well have been as competent but didn't for some reason make it into the right books and television programmes to capture the popular imagination.
 
I would have to check auction records and dealer prices to verify this but if memory serves Chine is far from the most desirable of Loetz decors and hence would not necessarily make a great deal more than a fine example by Kralik. In this specific situation I would simply use quality as a guide, both the tangible quality of execution, i.e. how well made is the piece, how good is the irridescence, and the more intangible qualities of design to decide whether or not to buy it. This, of course, is an entirely personal approach but one which I have found to be very worthwhile.
Title: Possibly Loetz Chine?
Post by: Leni on January 21, 2006, 10:14:27 AM
Quote from: "B & M"
It is perhaps only my personal opinion but I cannot help but feel that the prime appeal of art glass should be aesthetic rather than monetary.

Oh, mine too!  Absolutely!   :D  A person after my own heart!   :roll:

Sometimes around here I have felt like a lone voice crying in the wilderness!    :roll:  (No offence, anybody!   :oops: )  :wink:
Title: Possibly Loetz Chine?
Post by: Cathy B on January 21, 2006, 01:00:03 PM
Thanks everyone for your input!

Frank, that archive site you suggested is just marvelous. I found a reference to the website that used to have information about the new fake Loetz pieces, on an old Glass News from Angela. http://www.glassnewsletter.com/010825news.html (http://www.glassnewsletter.com/010825news.html)
It used to be here: http://jwartglass.com/ (http://jwartglass.com/)  but it seems that Jeff Weller's site had a huge crash in September and he still isn't up to speed yet.

However, the site is archived on http://www.archive.org/web/web.php (http://www.archive.org/web/web.php), albeit without pictures. It seems to me that the fakes referred to were shades. Anyway, I will write to Jeff Weller and ask his advice. I never really took notice because I never thought I'd see this sort of thing in anything approaching my price bracket!

Leni and B&M, I agree with you that the primary approach to collecting should be asthetic: of course we should collect what we appreciate! It's also be best excuse when you collect something that some people dismiss as awful or ugly.  :wink:  :wink:

However, don't forget the sense of history and the thrill of the hunt.

Then there's the sheer joy of feeling one's money slip back into the economy where it will do some good, as dictated by the invisible hand of monetarism (you know the one, it pokes you in the back and says "So what if there's nowhere in the house for it and you'll have to sell one of the kids into slavery, BUY it BUY IT NOW!")

The only problem I see with letting your aesthetics guide your purchase options is if your taste and judgment is as bad as mine! With my luck, I will spend the small fortune and it will turn out that this is a bad 70s chinese vase, pockmarked and irridesced through years of sitting in some child's sandpit! ;-)

Thanks again everyone
Title: A paragraph moved over from the cafe
Post by: Cathy B on January 23, 2006, 05:19:53 AM
Oh well, I liked it so I bought it (Must translate that to latin one day - it seems like a good motto ;)

I can't take a photograph of the vase at the moment because every time I recharge my camera batteries the kids steal them for their Xmas toys. However, my vase is almost identical to this one:
http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item=6598710365&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT

except that it has tropfen decoration rather than spirals. It's not the best example of Bohemian glass, but it is pretty, no?
Title: Possibly Loetz Chine?
Post by: B & M on January 23, 2006, 12:12:58 PM
Hello Cathy, good to hear that that you bought the vase. And thanks Leni, it's good to know that I'm not alone in my views either! :)  

Interestingly the vase shown in the ebay link doesn't look like Loetz to me, it's certainly not Chine as the texture is moulded rather than threaded. My best guess would be Kralik but I'm no great expert on this type of glass so perhaps somebody else could help.

Many similar pieces were also made in the UK though; Richardson made a range of a such items I think under the name 'Opal Irridescent'. I have a few (same colour but undecorated), they look very similar to the Austro-Bohemian examples but are cased in clear glass. Some are shown in Cyril Manley's book Decorative Victorian Glass and am pretty certain some have tropfen but I don't have a of the book to be able to confirm this.

What I can say is that you certainly needn't worry about it being:
Quote
a bad 70s chinese vase, pockmarked and irridesced through years of sitting in some child's sandpit!
 :wink:  

It certainly would appear to be a nice old example, though I would appreciate it if you could post a picture when you get the chance!

Steven