Topic: Sold to me as Loetz, can anyone confirm they think it is? ID = Kralik (attrib.)

[pwayne]

Hi Lynne,
I have just read the last few posts about your bowl, I would be wary of attributing the maker of your bowl as Pallme Konig from the Millers guide, I have not seen that guide but going by Sue C conformation the bowl is the same apart from the number of grouped indents in the rim. Identifying iridescent Bohemian glass is a minefield as so many of the makers produced finishes and decors very similar to each other. I have just been looking through Judith Millers collecting guide on Art Nouveau in the Bohemian glass section and have found an example of a pair of Kralik vases wrongly described as probably Pallme Konig and several described as unsigned but easily recognisable as Rindskopf. A lot more is now known about attributing glass to the different Bohemian glasshouses due to matching known forms and finishes to new examples that turn up with either a known form and unknown finish combination or vice versa. Have a look at the inkwell project on Loetz.com to see examples of this in action and maybe members of the Glassmessage board could help out with the project. Going back to the minefield of identifying Bohemian glass from guides and museums I met Eddy Scheepers and Alfredo Villanueva from Loetz.com out at the Passau Museum last year and we spotted misplaced and wrongly attributed glass, but the owner a very nice man was aware of this and was going to recatalogue soon, no mean feat with 15000 pieces on display and another 15000 in the stock rooms, so even in the Mecca of Bohemian glass mistakes are made. I would still plump for Kralik for your bowl but the Richardson angle seems possible especially with the similar example I had with the Birmingham made stand. Like I said before Stourbridge is a lot closer to Birmingham than Bohemia. It’s late now and time for bed so I shall sign off before I get on to dealers listing every piece of Bohemian iridescent glass as Loetz. P.S I would think the price guide of £310 to £350 was a little rich. Cheers and sorry for rambling Pwayne.

[josordoni]

Thanks for this Pwayne, I agree with you that attributions for some of these unsigned pieces is tricky to say the least.

I have left the attribution fairly vague, with suggestions as to who it might be made by, and will leave it to the collector to decide if they like the look of the bowl regardless of maker. 

And yes, I think often Millers prices can be divided by 5 to reach a reasonable sum  Although in other cases, they have estimated low, and I have found that item can reach a much much higher sum.  So they are, in common with most price guides, a source of information (although it would seem that is just as flakey at times) rather than value.

[Sue C]

I agree with Pwayne, i only confirmed it was in the Millers guide, and which is why i stated in bracket's "very precise"

[josordoni]

Thanks everyone, I'm not getting excited about this ! 

It is what it is, a rather nice lustre bowl from Europe around the first half of the 20th century....

[Sue C]

Thanks everyone, I'm not getting excited about this ! 

It is what it is, a rather nice lustre bowl from Europe around the first half of the 20th century....

Rather nice!! it's bl***y lurrrvly, i wish i could find something as nice as that!! a thing of beauty for the eye to behold,  :hug: for you Lynne.

[josordoni]

what I AM pleased in a way nobody has taken a shine to, is my lovely lovely Loetz Formosa vase - remember, it got sent back from the US because it didn't match the buyer's curtains???  Honest, I'm not joshing....(crazy some people!!!)


It's sitting on my shelf smiling at me in all its blue and green glory.

And customs are finally sending me my duty paid to get it back....(taken them long enough...)

[flying free]

Can I resurrect this post again please?  I have a large bowl in this design.  It seems from reading through the thread, that many of the well known names for Bohemian glass have been mentioned as well as Richardson but no conclusion yet.
Early on in the thread mention was made that this may be Kralik.  I have another vase that has now been id'd (at least I think it has    - I'll do a link on modify as soon as I find the thread again) as Kralik mother of pearl, but was originally attributed to Richardson in the Manley book.  I'm wondering if this threaded bowl is actually Kralik because it bears marked similarities to my mother of pearl vase?

~Edited to add reference link (see below)  and I've just realised Keith posted a very similar bowl in that thread but with burgundy threading, that appears to have been id'd as Kralik ?http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,25761.msg142467.html#msg142467
m

[Mosquito]

I'd ignore the Cappa reference I posted earlier in this thread - the more I've studied Cappa the more misattributions I've found. While it's still a nice book with plenty of photos of great pieces, it is not a particularly accurate work and few if any references are cited regarding the attributions given for unmarked pieces. I suspect the Richardson attribution may have originally come from Manley. I'm 99% certain that these items have since been shown to be Kralik.

Steven

[flying free]

thanks Steven, if you have time can you have a look at a frog I have posted under a Jobling thread in the British section please?  I'm curious to know if it is Jobling (apologies for diverting this thread  )
m

[keith]

Think this original thread was before I joined the GMB I thought that they were Kralik but one was sold to me as maybe Richardsons but m said they are like Mother of pearl,more pic's...