Topic: Mother of Rose Bowl Type Vases

[Lustrousstone]

What nobody has pointed out is that the painting is actually quite crude with a limited palette, so I shouldn't take too much notice of the accuracy. These things were often painted by homeworkers, including children. The date is more like late 1800s to early 1900s. It is pretty huge for a rose bowl but it's not difficult to create such a form. My guess would be Bohemian.

[flying free]

' What nobody has pointed out is that the painting is actually quite crude with a limited palette'

And that is exactly what the beauty of this vase is for me, the simplicity along with the thickness of the applied decor and the simplicity and size of the shape.  I cannot stand those opaline vases with lots of painted decor and pictures on all done in great detail  (and costing a fortune - but that is not why I don't like them).
m 

[Lustrousstone]

I don't have a problem with the naivety in this case (though there are some painted vases that are just too crude). I have a full range of painting standards in my collection and I love them all. I would buy this one. My point is there is no point in over-analysing the picture. The painter wasn't paid for lifelike recreations, rather on how many they could churn out to an acceptable standard (and sometimes that wasn't over high).

[ahremck]

I really like it .

The point about decorators not necessarily being accurate is so true.  I have a fruit bowl + 4small desert bowls made in that other stuff by Grimwades (Royal Winton and all that) that purports to be Kookaburras.  I am sure the decorator looked up his dictionary and saw "a large kingfisher" - which is true - they are about 3 times the length of most kingfishers - all browns and whites with some light blue - but my pottery is all beautifully buff chested and with lovely green wings - OOPS!.

My thought is that it may well be Bohemian - maybe someone can used the initials on the base to narrow the field.  I would expect a Japanese item to have Japanese script.

Ross

[KevinH]

Absolutely right about the "naivety" of the decoration and not reading too much into the ID of the bird or flora, although Rosie's thoughts about helping to narrow things down that way is exactly what can be done in some cases.

As for the "initials" on the base, they look like a simple "decorator number" to me, and are "14" rather than letters. But if they are numbers, then the "1" is not in the usual "continental Europe" style!

[Ohio]

Just wanted to say I appreciate the comments & feedback. Thought it might be Bohemian & Christine is right as the decoration is a bit primative...well the bird is OK & a bit more detailed close up rather than the picture indicates, but the butterfly & the flowers are elementary in execution, but its all enamel at least with no cheap decals. Frankly it only cost $55 & I bought it for its sheer size. I took a photo of ot next to what most would consider a large rose bowl I have & its silly how large this one is in comparison. Thanks again. Ken

[flying free]

Ken they are both absolutely beautiful.
m

[Lustrousstone]

They can both come and live at my house