Topic: Kralik or Palmer Koenig?

[Ivo]

Craig - while Kralik records remain firmly under lock and key you make attributions based on your own unpublished observations - so please excuse the rest of us for using reference.

[obscurities]

Nothing to excuse you for Ivo.

You have your references, and I have my observations.  I would be quite curious as to the reference(s) you are referring to that led you to a PK attribution on this piece....  I am always willing to learn, and if I have missed something, I would be remiss if I did not ask you to direct me towards the information that would have led me, like you, in a different direction on this attribution.

I did, quite clearly I thought, state it was my humble opinion.... and last I checked, I was entitled to one based on my observations and personal research..... There is nothing in Truitt Vol I or Vol II that is like the piece and linked to PK, and most examples in that book are like what I actually understand PK production to be.  I would have to mention that the "benchmark threaded" piece they show as a first example for PK in Vol I, is in fact, a Kralik production item. (There is that darn error in a book thing I was talking about) There is also nothing else in any other publication I have seen that attributed similar production to PK. Written information on PK and Kralik is quite sparse as far as I have found, hence my interest in studying the glass as much as I have. I can also not find any examples on the internet that are similar PK production. Threading on PK pieces, yes, but nothing with this style of glass treatment and shape.  

Additionally, I would have to point out, the records under lock and key until 2090 for Kralik are not records that cover this time frame of production (according to the archive records for years covered by the data), so even if they could be accessed, empirical data is all that would be available for identification of this piece anyway. Other than Loetz, the largest percentage of written material on this subject (Kralik and PK) is as a result of empirical study.

I never stated at any time I was an expert, and writing a book would certainly not make me one. Hermann Spaink proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt with his book on Tango.

For what it is worth, I obviously have a different opinion than you on the origins of this vase. That seems to have offended you in some manner, setting forth the tone of sarcasm I sensed in your first response and your follow up comment. I am also, for what it is worth, quite comfortable and confident in my opinion that it is not a piece of PK production. You are certainly not obligated to agree with me.

I get the distinct impression that because I have not put something in writing (a book), you feel that my observations should be questioned more intensely at this point.  Honestly, I am OK with that. I question many opinions on here at times.

But, if you choose to dismiss and question my observations with the public tone of sarcasm I am sensing, then please politely provide me, also publicly, with the reference materials you are basing your attribution on. I would love to see them, as I have been unable, in the last several years of studying this glass, to locate them. I look anxiously forward to getting copies to review.

Craig

[KevinH]

I hope that personal opinions about the motives, manner of responding, or whatever, of posters does not become a problem in this thread.

However, I am interested in learning a little more about Craig's comment:

There is nothing in Truitt Vol I or Vol II that is like the piece and linked to PK, and most examples in that book are like what I actually understand PK production to be.  I would have to mention that the "benchmark threaded" piece they show as a first example for PK in Vol I, is in fact, a Kralik production item.

From my viewing of Truitt Vol I, page 104, items 1-3, there appears to be a close match in colour and decoration style (but not shape) to Keith's vase shown at the start of this thread. I accept that colours in books and in personal photos may differ in reality from actual items, but the Truitt examples do seem to suggest Pallme-König for Keith's vase.

And if only the first PK piece in Truitt is known to be incorrectly attributed, then what are the factors that suggest Keith's vase is not PK? Is it primarily the point about Keith's vase having an apparently "cut" top?

[obscurities]

Kevin,
First... thanks for asking me to clarify.
 
I will try to answer your question reasonably briefly. The first indicator of it not being PK is the form and method with which it was produced. PK did produce some molded and top cut pieces, but the items produced in that manner were typically of a lighter glass, both in weight and colors. I obviously can not handle the piece in the thread, but PK threaded glass is also typically heavier than other houses.

In examining this vase and the production method, PK's handling of glass was much more stylistic and much of their production had wildly cut and almost torn looking mouths and forms. They took "organic" forms to an extreme. As a result of this approach their variety of shapes produced was limited.

Although the vases in Truitt I pg 104 (#1-3) appear similar, the distinguishing feature on those pieces would be the Amethyst glass, again being a less commonly used color. The second vase on page 103 appears similar in color. I would personally question the attribution on that piece. I do not know who it is, but the crimping of the neck is quite unlike PK’s known production for this period, and as I mentioned before, the piece to the left of it is now known to be Kralik production.

There are also some stylistic differences in their surface treatment of the glass, but I do not have pictures that will clearly show it, and it is not present on all examples.

I think that in this particular case, the simplicity of the lines, the fact that it is mold blown and mouth cut, and the color of the piece are by themselves a strong case to at least say it is not PK. My familiarity with the styles, forms and glass treatments on Kralik product are what take me that direction.

I have included three pics with this explanation.
 
The first is a group of vases in more conventional forms by PK, but all exhibit fairly unique colors and treatment and although they are less organic in form, they are quite distinctive in style.

The second is a group of their extreme organic forms for which they are more widely recognized. The top right piece shows a distinctive green (light) and red threading they are widely known for, and quite effectively mimicked by Kralik. The difference being that the Kralik green, as shown in the first piece and last pieces of the third image, is quite a bit darker in color. The colors of green used are fairly consistent throughout production for both companies. Aside from form, it can be a fairly consistent marker to tell Kralik and PK production apart when they are both green with red threading.

The third is a sampling of known Kralik pieces, the first being almost always identified as PK, but in fact is a shape that is a marker for Kralik production. I think that a glance at the distinct style differences between the first two groups and the third group speaks volumes to the artistically unique glass that PK is known to have produced.

I hope this answers your question. If not, I would be glad to provide more information if needed.

Craig

[pwayne]

Not being an expert, and not having written a book, but loving Bohemian glass and knowing the work, passion and research going on in the background and by whom on this exciting subject at the moment and more importantly in my humble opinion Keith's vase is by Kralik.