Topic: Excellent Engraving of Nude Dancer on Clear Glass Vase ID = Kamenicky Senov

[Ohio]

David certainly don't know why you are upset (sorry about that), but I'll simply say I'm a hardliner & unless Vicke Lindstrand's signature is present on Kelli's piece then as far as I'm concerned its an assumption that its based on a Lindstrand design. Yes it could be a copy of a VL design, however it could also be a copy of a Simon Gate, Edvin Ohrstrom, Sven Palmqvist or a God only knows who? design executed by a competent cutter/engraver, therefore I am reluctant to positively attribute this to Lindstrand in the absence of a signature. Does it look as if its based on a Lindstrand design, yes, however the same reasoning could be applied to any countless number of designers & at that point it becomes nebulous. A signature (unless added later) provides a positive attribution & thats why I say I'm a hardliner when it comes to this sort of thing (design). Now if  what appears to be a thin wall blank could be narrowed down to a particular manufacturer & time period when a particular designer was on staff then maybe, just maybe the necessary additional information attained would be enough to justify an educated estimate, but I do not see that in this case at the present time so I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Ken

[rosieposie]

When you have a mo Kelli,  as you are into engraved glassplease can you have a look at helping to ID this thread for me?

Engraved Optic Lens with Madonna and Child. LT LK ??King's

http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,37893.0.html

 Thank you!! :wsh:

[eglass]

Rosie, that's gorgeous! I'm not the one who knows about King's though, that's Ken.  I'm the one who can't find any information online about King's, lol.

[rosieposie]

Maybe he will see this conversation Kelli and have a look at it!! :X:
It is lovely, and I got it for 99p!! :rah:

[langhaugh]

Ken:

Thanks for the explanation. I have no problem with us disagreeing; my concern was with your method of argument. The focus of your argument seems to be nudes. I never mentioned nude in any of my posts until I responded, tangentially, to a comment by Ross. For example, you wrote, "I simply consider nude designs as a whole to be largely artistic interpretations & I'm not aware that you can/could maintain absolute control regarding artisitic freedom of expression, especially during those times, but thats my opinion." I made no argument about "Maintain(ing) absolute control regarding artistic freedom," I simply said that the design on Kelli's piece bore an overwhelming similarity to a design by Lindstrand. How similar do you see the designs? BTW, Orrefors pieces at the time were on thin walled blanks and Kelli's piece is typical of Orrefors shapes of the time. 

You also tend to misstate  my opinion. For example,  "David I do not consider that to be a blatant rip-off of a Lindstrand design." (As far as I know, you wrote that without seeing the Lindstrand design.)  I actually wrote, "But if it is by King's Glass, then the design is a blatant rip-off of a Lindstrand design. As I don't know King's Glass, do you see this as a possibility?"

Finally, where do we disagree? All I've ever said that it looks very much like a Lindstrand design. I also made it clear that I wasn't saying who engraved it.

Why have I bothered to reply? For whatever reason, I get a little touchy when people wonder why I'm concerned about what they've said,  and tell me we'll just have to agree to disagree, as if it were the fact of our disagreeing that has  concerned me. It's not. I welcome the fact that people have different opinions. However, I do object to people misrepresenting my views, and seeming to assume my opinion is based on a complete lack of knowledge of the history of the nude, when nude has had nothing had to do with my opinion in this case. My concern is not about whether we disagree but how you argued.  

You're welcome to respond, obviously, but this is my last post on this topic.

Kelli,

Sorry for diverting the thread about something quite lovely into a discussion that's not. Thank you for your comments, and I really enjoyed the little search. I wonder if Orrefors would respond to you if you wrote? Some companies (Moser, for example) are very good.

MODS: Please can this be moved to Scandinavian so Daniel might see it?

David

[eglass]

David, I will give Orrefors a try.   I'll post again when I get a reply - we'll think positive.

Good discussion, sorry if it caused a bit of a dust-up between you two at first. I appreciate seeing all viewpoints on a subject.

[Ohio]

"I actually wrote, "But if it is by King's Glass, then the design is a blatant rip-off of a Lindstrand design. As I don't know King's Glass, do you see this as a possibility?" David I did not mean to intentionally misquote you as I interpreted it in two ways: #1 that the design was a blantant rip off of Lindstrand or #2 is it possible that King could actually execute engraving like this? & frankly I did not know exactly how to respond. The answer to # 1 is no simply because I am not convinced its exclusively a Lindstrand design & thats  why I mentioned "Simon Gate, Edvin Ohrstrom, Sven Palmqvist or God only knows who?" as possibilities & in the absence of a signature & that was where I stood & you seem to gloss over those possibilities.  Answer to #2 is yes King could in all probability do a credible execution. I don't what else to say. Could it be a Lindstrand design from the periods he worked at Orrefors & Kosta, yes, but merely there are other possibilities without a signature to confirm.

Frankly I don't know how to interpret your statement "Kelli Sorry for diverting the thread about something quite lovely into a discussion that's not." I guess I'm at a loss as to why you think this discussion was evidently not relevant, but again as you point out I must be guilty of some form of miscommunication.

Part of this may stem from the fact that at age 65 with 39 years in glass (granted the vast majority in U.S. glass) I've been through the pre-WWW. internet eras when so many opinions regarding solid attributions have proven in this day & age to have been nothing but "old wife tales" & I do have a habit of perhaps overreacting & if you view this as the case here then I plead guilty as charged & did not mean to cause a disruption if in fact I have, but I did not think this had reverted into something unpleasant, merely a discussion & I heartedly agree with you that this too will be the last I'll say regarding this topic. Ken  

[nigel benson]

Hello,

I feel like someone interupting a conversation, but I can't help wondering why you are all so darn certain that the vase is Scandinavian, let alone Lindstarand, Gate, etc.

Thin glass with engraved nudes also came out of Czechoslovakia during the same period of the Orresfors and Kosta versions.

Another comment about the 'rip-off' scenario (sorry) - it seems to take no account of how the engraving was achieved. Largely speaking you are likely to get stylistic similarities within a particular subject matter, in this case the nude, particularly when interpreting the body including muscles, etc. Yes, other factors should (and have been) looked at, such as the ankle bangles, but I do feel the net should be caste wider.

Good luck with the search.

Nigel

[langhaugh]

Nigel:

To repeat what I've said, I think the design on Kelli's piece looks very much like a Lindstrand design, not simply because it's nude, but because of many other factors: the beads round the breast, the angles of the joints on the limbs, how the fingers are splayed, the whole feeling of the design.  Therefore, I suggested Orrefors would be a good place to start the search.

I've just spent five minutes looking on the computer screen at Kelli's photographs and my scan of the Lindstrand piece.  It still looks to my admittedly unsophisticated eye like one of those spot the difference puzzles that used to run in British newspapers. I understand what you're saying about stylistic similarities within a particular subject matter, and I'm aware of what was happening elsewhere, but I still think think the two designs look uncannily alike. Nigel, can I ask you what you see as the major differences between the two designs? Am I wrong to think that they look very much alike? I don't know as much about engraving as Ken or Nigel so I'd love to hear an opinion on the two engraving styles.

David

[eglass]

Nigel,

I've gone back and forth between David's photo and my item, and there can be no question in my mind that at the very LEAST - Vicke Lindstrand did his engraving from the same photo as was used for my vase, or someone else used Lindstrand's design as the basis for the design on my vase. The pose, dancer, accessories, etc are all too similar to be independently conceived.

I think the reason we all are "stuck" in the Scandinavian mode is because of this extreme similarity. Fascinating!

I did send off a query to info@orrefors.se, and hope to hear something back. Since it doesn't bear an Orrefors (or any other) marking, I don't know if I'll get any usable information from their customer service but one can hope.

I'd love to see examples of Czech or Bohemian glass with this design if anyone has one....

I'm always learning too, and am hardly an expert on any particular type of glass or decoration. I do know a quality piece however, and this one has all the attributes of a fine one - except for a signature.

I did take a couple of photos of this on a black background, hoping to show better detail. Don't know if I accomplished that, but here you go:

http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-14905
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-14904
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-14903