Topic: Any one able to recognise this vase please ??

[yesvil]

No help with identifying this I'm afraid but the one at the bottom of this page seems quite similar.

http://www.ysartglass.com/Ysart/NotYsart.htm

[obscurities]

If memory serves me correctly, that particular piece was discussed in antoher thread here as very possibly being Czech also.....

Craig

[KevinH]

.. looks much more like (real) silver foil to me Kev ...
+
I agree about it being foil and not mica on the piece Kev posted ...

Oooh, did I say "mica"? Yeah! I did, in brackets! The brain's not as sharp these days as it used to be. :spls:

[abc]

hello can I bump this one up just in case anyone has some differing thoughts or maybe can be a little more definate ,or all we all 100% sure its bohemain , and the age would be ??
thanks guys

[flying free]

The decor on this reminds me of the decors listed here as Unidentified Loetz

http://www.bohemianglass.org/katalog/vaza-nid-18-new-chalcedon-gold-glass-3138/detail/

I don't know how close it is, but they look pretty similar in terms of colours and making to me.  Just adding it for future reference.

http://www.bohemianglass.org/katalog/vaza-nid-18-new-chalcedon-gold-glass-3138/detail/

[obscurities]

Although that link does carry a resemblance to the original vase posted here, the linked examples are not quite the same as the Loetz decor Chalcedon.  Here is a link to Loetz Chalcedon examples, which I think exhibit a finer level of execution than any of these examples, and also are sans mica. 

The Chalcedon décor is described as "Ausführung 109 - Chalcedon - Yellowish pink opal ground with colorless covering layer containing red and white veins."

The linked examples do not seem to match that description, even if you ignore the mica . I am fairly confident that the OP's example is a Czech vase, ca 1920-30.  I keep having a nagging feeling that it could be Kralik production. I also think it is possible that the OP's vase and the linked vases share a common maker.

https://www.loetz.com/decors-a-z/chalcedon

[flying free]

Agree the decor does not match those pieces you have linked to as "Ausführung 109 - Chalcedon - Yellowish pink opal ground with colorless covering layer containing red and white veins." description, or look the same as those examples you show,  because the Op's piece and the  pieces I've linked to all have clear amber ground and contain mica.

It might be in recognition of that fact, that the owner of the site denotes them as "New chalcedon - gold glass" possibly?
Quote:
'VÁZA NID 18 "NEW CHALCEDON - GOLD GLASS"
Home  Loetz  Neidentifikované Loetz  NID 18 ("New chalcedon - gold glass")  váza NID 18 "New chalcedon - gold glass"



Craig might the piece on this other glass message board thread help (see link below)?  I think it's the same decor but the ground is pink (noting the Loetz description of 'yellowish pink' but possibly a coincidence that this other piece is pink ground)

If not now, it might help later as it's a different colourway but the same (I believe?) decor as the op's and those on the Bohemian glass site listed as 'VÁZA NID 18 "NEW CHALCEDON - GOLD GLASS"
Home  Loetz  Neidentifikované Loetz  NID 18 ("New chalcedon - gold glass")  váza NID 18 "New chalcedon - gold glass":
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,67845.msg377522.html#msg377522

I wonder how this will turn out

m

[obscurities]

In examining the data on the Chalcedon décor on Loetz.com, we see that the date range provided for the décor (on the Ausf 109 page) covers a span from 1907 - 1935. In a way, this date range would preclude the décor from being New Chalcedon if we examine naming patterns and date ranges used on Loetz.com.

In support of that claim, if one looks at the décor now known as Orbulin (previously classified as part of Diaspora) There are classifications for Orbulin - 1900 and New Orbulin - post 1912.  We also find Cytisus - 1902,  Cytisus New - 1929;  Chiné - 1897  Chiné New - 1929 est. 

I think the pink piece you pointed out is likely related to this piece, and also related to the OP's example, but as of now, I have lingering doubts regarding a link to Loetz as New Chalcedon.  But that is also my general style of research and attributions.... Some consider me to be overly cautious, and hesitant to declare attributions until I have seen enough supporting evidence.

At a minimum, they are very interesting pieces.

Craig

[Greg.]

Just adding this link to another example in a different shape, just in case its useful to anyone...

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/A-Glass-Jardiniere-with-Mica-Inclusions-c1910/362686699311?hash=item5471cfd72f:g:wAUAAOSw0VZdEgGu

[flying free]

Agree with your comments on the dateline and that it might preclude the naming of a range 'new'.

My gut instinct is saying that these and the amber crackle with green ribbons are linked in some way.  The style and design of some of the pieces just makes me feel so.  I'm really curious to see what the outcome is!  Might have a long wait.

I'm also curious about something - the pontil mark.  On my 'amber crackle with green ribbons' the pontil mark is nice and polished, but it's not what I would call large at all.  It's not small, not large, just what I would consider normal.  Whereas I look at S&W pieces and also at Loetz pieces and French items and can see what I think of as a large polished pontil mark.  I'd have thought that was a bit odd for Loetz? 
The base of the bowl is also polished completely flat as well. 

m