Glass Message Board

Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => Bohemia, Czechoslovakia, Czech Republic, Austria => Topic started by: Anik R on May 17, 2011, 06:28:47 PM

Title: Filip Milos Rosice 973 vase ... 1957 or 1960
Post by: Anik R on May 17, 2011, 06:28:47 PM
Hi,

I've got a question about this Filip Milos vase.  Thanks to Emil's gallery, I know it's Rosice glassworks, pattern number 973.  Though I can't find it in the catalogues, a search in Marcus' database comes up with 1957 as the year it was designed.  On the other hand, Emil has 1960 as the date.  Do we know which it is for sure?

Thank you  :hi:
Title: Re: Filip Milos Rosice 973 vase ... 1957 or 1960
Post by: Anik R on May 17, 2011, 07:45:19 PM
I found this vase in a 1963 edition of the CGR.  The design date given is 1960.   I wonder if this is correct?

By the way, it's Milos Filip, and not Filip Milos, as I wrote earlier.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Filip Milos Rosice 973 vase ... 1957 or 1960
Post by: Anik R on June 22, 2011, 07:57:12 PM
It seems I'm having a conversation with myself... not terribly fulfilling or fruitful. ::)

Does anyone know how the pattern numbering for Rosice works?  Does a larger 3-digit (vase) number mean a later design?
My Milos Filip vase is pattern number 973.  The vase doesn't appear in the Rosice-Glassexport 1958 catalogue, however there are other vases numbered 985, 986, 988, 989, 997... all obviously from 1958 or earlier.

Please help.  :usd:

 
Title: Re: Filip Milos Rosice 973 vase ... 1957 or 1960
Post by: Frank on June 22, 2011, 11:05:21 PM
All glassworks tended to number consecutively although they may use different pattern books and use different number ranges in each that could overlap, usually with some other code to differentiate. A design would be numbered when it was added to the pattern book... but it may not have entered production at the same time. Thus the approach of dating to first reference is usually acceptable.

Gathering data on pattern numbers and years is the best way of determining the date of a design but that takes a lot of leg-work! Getting to see the actual pattern book masters can help as these often include the design date and may include the production start date too, Catalogues are less helpful as these could be issued annually and getting enough copies to find introduction year is near impossible. Then you hit on another problem in that inclusion in a catalogue is not a certain indication that the item was produced in that year! Oh and often catalogues were undated so that could remain in use for several year.

Next down the line are retailer catalogues and these are usually only including items actually in production at that time so potentially useful and more often dated too. Just hard to find.
Title: Re: Filip Milos Rosice 973 vase ... 1957 or 1960
Post by: Anik R on June 23, 2011, 05:40:17 AM
Thank you for taking the time to reply extensively, Frank.  And here I was, hoping for an easy answer. ;)

The vase does not appear any earlier than in the 1963/7 edition of the CGR, with 1960 given as the date.  Marcus Newhall surely had access to various archives, including master pattern books, so his date of 1957 must have come from a reliable source (assuming it isn't a simple error.)  Perhaps the vase was designed and registered in 1957, but put into production from 1960.  

I'll have to satisfy myself with assumptions for the time being as 'we' i.e. the general public, don't have access to Czech (pressed glass) pattern books and legwork, unfortunately, isn't an option. (http://serve.mysmiley.net/sad/sad0040.gif) (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-mad-smileys.php)
Title: Re: Filip Milos Rosice 973 vase ... 1957 or 1960
Post by: rocco on June 23, 2011, 09:50:02 AM
Anik, sorry, I can't help you here, but I have had several threads recently as well where I was talking to myself, so I know how you feel...  ::)
BWT, did you see that my pink miniature jardiniere seems to be identified? :chky:

Greetins,
Michael
Title: Re: Filip Milos Rosice 973 vase ... 1957 or 1960
Post by: Anik R on June 23, 2011, 02:02:04 PM
Michael, sorry, did you say something?   :24:
Title: Re: Filip Milos Rosice 973 vase ... 1957 or 1960
Post by: rocco on June 23, 2011, 03:21:51 PM
Who? Me? :usd:
Title: Re: Filip Milos Rosice 973 vase ... 1957 or 1960
Post by: Anik R on June 23, 2011, 07:34:55 PM
 :hug:
Title: Re: Filip Milos Rosice 973 vase ... 1957 or 1960
Post by: Frank on June 24, 2011, 11:53:51 PM
Newhall states that dates given are earliest reference he located but unfortunately does not give the references. I don't think he had access to original pattern books, and most of his dates are from CGR.

From a source I am still preparing for publication in The Glass Study, Filip designs appear in CGR 1956/11, /12, 1958/13, 1960/15, 1961/2, /1,6 1962/16, 1962/17....etc. So one of those may give an answer.
Title: Re: Filip Milos Rosice 973 vase ... 1957 or 1960
Post by: Anik R on June 25, 2011, 04:49:42 AM
Thank you for the clarification, Frank.

For the time being, I only have access to the CGR which Jindrich has kindly made available, so most of the editions you have referred to are not accessible. Also, I only take note of the editions in which my specific pieces (or pieces I'm itching to get my hands on) appear, in this case, the 1963/7 CGR.

The shock of it all:  I was under the impression that the CGR was a monthly publication (with a sometimes special 13th edition)... obviously with numbers like 1960/15, 1962/16, 1962/17 I was very wrong.
(http://serve.mysmiley.net/ashamed/ashamed0005.gif) (http://www.mysmiley.net)
Title: Re: Filip Milos Rosice 973 vase ... 1957 or 1960
Post by: Frank on June 25, 2011, 11:43:36 AM
OOps mixing up volume/issue numbers, should not work so late

CGR 1956/9, /12, 1957/7, 1958/2, /3/4,  /6 & 8, 1959/2, 1960/1 /3 /6, 1961/2, /5 /7, /11 1962/2.... just a part of the complete list of the data on Filip in CGR
Title: Re: Filip Milos Rosice 973 vase ... 1957 or 1960
Post by: Anik R on June 25, 2011, 03:08:35 PM
OOps mixing up volume/issue numbers, should not work so late

Ahhh...  and here I was, feeling very excited and disappointed at the same time. :usd: