Glass Message Board

Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Unresolved Glass Queries => Topic started by: Glassyone on August 24, 2005, 09:28:25 AM

Title: Bohemian
Post by: Glassyone on August 24, 2005, 09:28:25 AM
Ha gottcha,
I assert this with conviction based on not a lot except trying hard!
It has a blown foot and flat ground top.

Whereas this one has a clear solid foot and rounded top.

Any teaching much appreciated.
Title: Bohemian
Post by: paradisetrader on August 24, 2005, 09:51:06 AM
OOOh I like it (#1) !
But not a clue ...which is maybe why I like it ...partly
What color is it inside ? White ? Yellow ?
Shape says 40s to me but color & decor style says 60's or later ...curious !

Do you feel there's a relationship between these two ...same maker ?
Did you buy them together ?
My instant reaction for this one was Carlo Moretti but this is more complex than his ...I think ...I will check my books later.

The don't look Bohemian to me ...more likely Italian or American / Australian Studio.  Canberra build up a repuation as a centre of exellence for Australian Studio glass but I don't know dates...will check with someone and ask her to look in.

Both are most likely mold blown after the color work was done. The different treatment of the rims may or may not be significant.
Title: Bohemian
Post by: Glassyone on August 24, 2005, 10:29:40 AM

 I am trying so hard to learn about glass so number one MUST be Bohemian!
It looks like tortoiseshell, the foot is blown but pushed up in the middle and the rim ground flat, which I understand to be a characteristic of Bohemian because it was easy, as opposed to British, where vases had rounded rims.

Number two is a different kettle of fish.
 It is cased and white inside, then coloured and then cased clear. With a nearly flat foot.

They were not bought together, I just bought and bought and bought for years.

I think that number two is better quality overall.

I'm  glad you like it, please let me know what books you use.
Title: Bohemian
Post by: paradisetrader on August 25, 2005, 12:31:33 PM
I am trying so hard to learn about glass so number one MUST be Bohemian!

Ouch ! I submit ! ....If you say so Ruth !!!

the rim ground flat, which I understand to be a characteristic of Bohemian because it was easy, as opposed to British, where vases had rounded rims.

This is news to me .......could be correct for certain style and periods I guess but sounds like a dangerous assumption if taken too literally and applied too widely.
I don't think the Bohemian glassmasters did things because they were easy !!!  unless we are talikng only about long production runs for items made for the middle and lower end of the market ...perhaps.
Where did you get this info from Ruth ?

The layering of item 2 is quite easy to tell from the photo. It was the layering (inside color) of item #1 I was asking about.
Title: Bohemian
Post by: Frank on August 25, 2005, 01:02:55 PM
Your second piece is cased in clear glass which is why the base appears clear.

You cannot assume that cut and polished is easier, in fact it is another finishing step and adds to the production costs and requires additional skills. It is used by any glassworks to achieve a particular end result, regardless of the country of origin. Although you get some glassworks for whom cut an polished was the norm and others for whom the fire polished rim was the norm.

Finish is only part of the repertoire that is used to point to attribution and it is the combination of all the elements that gives attribution.

Design and unique techniques are the only way to attribute with any degree of certainty. However, particular glassmakers would tend to work in a particular way and would take their techniques from place to place and pass them on to their apprentices.

Copyists vary from those who make near perfect copies to those that copy the design but use their own technique. But a copyist is only a faker when they attempt to pass it off as made by the originator - if they sell it as there own work then they are making a tribute/homage to the originator. Of course the dealers can take the homage and turn it into a fake by attribution again :roll:
Title: Bohemian
Post by: Glassyone on August 25, 2005, 07:26:50 PM
I'm very sorry, I did not intend to sound rude and I must learn to use emoticons, then you can see when my tongue is in my cheek and not foot in mouth,[ hopefully]!

I appreciate the comments and will photo the inside of number one, which looks like the inside of the outside, rather like the back of patterned material.

And I'm sure the info came from Manley and I'll so photo and look it up over the weekend.

Title: 'VB Opaline Florence' is your second vase
Post by: David555 on August 26, 2005, 11:50:54 PM
I can help with your second vase - here is a link to same with label (I sold this on eBay) - Opaline Florence and the letters VB which I am sure is the company but I have yet to source it - maybe someone in the Murano board can help - I am sure from other bits of VB I have had that your first bit is also VB Opaline Florence - I have no picture but it is their style - both bits are 1960s 70s
Title: Bohemian
Post by: Ivo on August 27, 2005, 06:37:05 AM
I Vetrai di Borgonovo, I think, is the one who used the VB label in the 1960s. This Florentine (Empoli) production of light transparent colours onto an opal glass is a by-product of the lampshade industry and should be ranged under cheap, cheerful & unpretentious.

          But there can be no relation to heavy eastblock lump that Peter just heaved onto the stage. With an opal inner, and a multi coloured pulled outer, and possibly even a clear outer on top of that. you can see how the whole thing becomes too heavy, and at 7 pounds is impossible to finish properly. The neck is sheared, unround and quickly smoothed over, and it isn't even close to the glassmaking standards @ Avem.  Have you noticed how we don't get to see the underside?
           The dark red Bohemian vase from the 1930s, like the VB item, is quite lightweight, blown in a mould and cut off at the top. There is no finish of the rim, so there is no pontil mark, and Ruth is quite correct in her statement that this is widely regarded as a Bohemian characteristic.   You often find this glass type in rose bowl shape with a metal grid and there are hundreds of colour variations. I was always under the impression these were by Kralik - but there may have been several other manufacturers using these techniques.

Title: Bohemian
Post by: Glassyone on August 27, 2005, 06:54:51 AM
Mea culpa, maximea culpa.
Not only did I bllx trying to apply wisdom from Manley 'Identifying glass by country' but looked and did not see.

Thank you David 555  for making the ID of number two, which makes it easy to research more about  and Frank for the explanation. [When I learn enough about websites to get a website under my own control, I hope you don't mind being mentioned] That's another topic!

Now further to number one, here are pics of the base and the inside,[ not that crash hot].  
On looking again I see the clear glass outside and a thin layer of coloured inside, with some areas of damage. It has been used for flowers probably.  



Title: Bohemian
Post by: Glassyone on August 27, 2005, 07:20:08 AM
Mmmm, maybe Manley and I did not bllx too badly then.

Shame he is dead.

Cheers Ivo.
Title: Bohemian
Post by: nigel benson on August 28, 2005, 01:45:30 PM
Hello Everyone,

I’m afraid that I’m about to be controversial. As a dealer I noticed that a rather disingenuous comment has been allowed to float on by without challenge.

At the end of his posting Frank says: "Of course the dealers can take the homage and turn it into a fake by attribution again "

I feel comments like this do nothing to advance the subject glass and indeed are positively detrimental to the community that supports this branch of the decorative arts. Divisive statements that go unchallenged only go to support divisions and I find it particularly strange that it is an ex-dealer who has made this sweeping statement. Whilst I realise that it is not meant to be inclusive it is not qualified as a statement.

Not only does it roundly insult all the dealers out there who try their best to be honourable, but it also insults contributors to this board, not to mention one dealer’s website that is often quoted as a source of information.

You cannot tar everyone with the same brush, just because, in your experience you have come across a larger number of disagreeable ‘dealers’. If it is based on a role as a ‘policeman’ for the correct attribution of Ysart Glass on the web, then by definition you will increase the number of rotten apples in the barrel that you are looking within.

When I go to visit collections of Monart I am often shown pieces of Nazeing, WMF, Czech, modern ‘Ysart’ style and occasionally Webb & Corbett masquerading as original period glass by Monart. The collector insists that they indeed Monart. Am I to assume that all these collector’s are trying to con me? Of course not, they have all made the mistakes that many of us collectors have inevitably made in our collecting careers. However, it is often difficult to convince the collector that in fact they have made a mistake, since in all probability, they are mistrustful of one’s motives. Statements like the one made in this thread only go to increase this scepticism.

If we take the example of the collector who has made mistakes and re-apply it to dealers, then surely it is reasonable to assume that they are capable of mistakes too?

Yet, in this modern market, we are no longer limited to dealers who run shops, sell through antique centres or antique and collectable fairs. Usually, most of these dealers came from the ranks of collectors, so had a competence built in before they started dealing. We now have the ability for every Tom, Dick or Harriett to set up as a seller through the easy access of the Internet and eBay, without any experience and without the aid of even a sparse library.

Many of those sellers try their best to give correct attributions – witness all the requests on this board – but many are just na├»ve and give attributions for which they have little proof of, or have jumped for the nearest thing that looks pretty much similar, and have used that as the attribution – however they are happy to learn when the error is pointed out to them. Then we have a section who are deliberately misleading buyers, sometimes by mentioning other things within the description, so giving the impression that something might be what it is not. On other occasions it is far more cynical.

Most terrestrial dealers that I know of try their level best to find out about what they are selling in order to give the item added ‘value’ and be able to discuss the piece when selling to the prospective buyer. Of course, there are those who run along in ignorance and get away with wrong attribution, usually on the grounds that it is easy to buy from them at a fair price.

Additionally, there are the rotten apples, but these are, in my long experience, surprisingly few. Moreover, these wrong’uns are generally recognised by both collectors and dealers alike. After all, news of wrong doing spreads very fast in any small community (see these boards). Monart collector’s and dealers of any longevity will be fully aware of the activities of a gentleman who dealt from a shop in a Scottish city who deliberately set out to deceive buyers of Monart and Vasart. His ‘fame’ spread both north and south of the border to collectors and dealers alike. It was very sad when one was confronted by a purchase made from this source by a proud collector who had been ‘seen coming’ because of their lack of experience - particularly in the latter years of his activities – but this sort of dealer is rare. It is not in any dealers interest to go around conning their customers – where’s the longevity in that?

Sorry for the tirade, but I felt that some balance to the statement was required :( I think we all need to pull together in order to promote our favourite subject to the world at large :)

Kind regards to all, Nigel