Topic: Vladislav Urban 617/140 vase... square or rectangular?

[Anik R]

Hi,

I've got a question about the small Rosice 617 vase designed by Vladislav Urban...  has anyone got, or has anyone seen a square version of the 14cm vase?

I've only ever seen the smallest vase as a rectangle, though the 1987 Rosice catalogue has the 617 vase (14/20/25cm) as a square. Is there a mistake in the catalogue?  Or did Mr. Urban design the 14cm vase in two forms? 

Some time ago, Jindra posted a link with photographs of Mr. Urban's visit to Max Velcovsky's place...  There is a picture of the 617 vases, in different sizes, though I can't tell if the smaller vases are both square and rectangular, or just rectangular:  https://picasaweb.google.com/Jindra8526/VladislavUrbanVisitOfMaximVelcovskyPlacePrague2422011?authkey=Gv1sRgCOT7ob7eufPESQ#5578363135437422898

Also, in the 1969/12 CGR, the 14cm vase is most definitely rectangular in shape, but is still presented as pattern number 617:  http://picasaweb.google.com/Jindra8526/Glasrevue19691202?authkey=Gv1sRgCJuH-aK9w9KsCA#5513805952338391650

I appreciate all comments and help.  :hi:

[glassobsessed]

I don't understand Anik, do you mean square when you look from above? Like yours, or do you mean cube shaped (all sides the same length)?

I have just added the photos of this design which for some reason never made it into my album (click to the left for the others): https://picasaweb.google.com/Johnmj100/CzechGlass#5625830253033903170
I never found the largest ashtray or vase while collecting this design.

The smallest example in that group photo is a candlestick: https://picasaweb.google.com/Johnmj100/CzechGlass#5625830221916205250

Apologies if I am stating the obvious.

John

[Anik R]

Hi John,

By 'square', I don't mean a cube...  My 14cm vase (pictured above), when you look from the top, is rectangular... about 7,5cm x 8,5cm.  The larger vases I've seen have got sides of equal length, making them square (unlike mine) when viewed from above.  The square version is the only version that appears in the Rosice catalogue (1987). 

I was wondering if the square version (4 sides equal) of the 14cm vase really does exist.  And if it does exist, does that mean that my rectangular 14cm vase has a different pattern number than the 617...?

I've got a feeling I'm not making much sense...  my brain hurts (i.e. I've got a headache). :spls:

:hi:       

[glassobsessed]

I always need that extra bit of clarity Anik.

The clear one I had was square when viewed from above (I think), I don't remember seeing one that was rectangular but I will keep looking. I think yours might be the rarer variation.

John

[Anik R]

John, but I believe the clear one in your link above is also rectangular... the side length appears shorter than the front -- and I don't think it's just a matter of perspective.

I'm so jealous that you've got (or had) these pieces in clear... lucky fellow! 

[Jindra8526]

Hi Anik. Please send me pictures and dimensions to my mail. I will meet Mr. Urban next week, he will surely know the best what had been done. I am now working with him on his database CD, simmilar to   those I made with Frantisek Vizner.

Jindrich
www.cs-sklo.cz

[Anik R]

Jindrich, thank you, thank you, thank you!   :kissy:

[Anik R]

Ooops...  :pb:

According to Mark Hill in Hi Sklo Lo Sklo, this design includes "tall rectangular vases, no.617, measuring 14cm, 20cm and 25,5cm in height".  Looks like I've gone hysterical over nothing at all. 

But now I'm wondering if any of the vases from this range are really square?  Taking another look at the 1987 Rosice catalogue, perhaps I was mistaken in thinking the vases aren't rectangular...

Forgive me.

[Frank]

With the collection I am dealing with there are examples of large and medium, both have a square cross section and this is consistent with the 1987 catalogue. I would expect the 140 which is not in the collection to be square. There is however an example at about 14cm with a rectangular cross section,

138 h 87 l 82 w

Compared to large 95 w

and medium 87 l & w

You will notice that the 138 vase is the same width as the medium.

The design precedes the catalogue on Newhall CD by 19 years and with some numbers in the range 600 to 630 not covered by the CD it is reasonable to assume that other shapes were at least entered into the pattern books and that some of these may have been in production.

CGR 1969/12  does show an example with two vases of the same height but differing widths. Could this be two views of the same piece or two different views. CGR has proven to not always quote the correct pattern number... so on its own this is not sufficient information.

The image from the Max Velcovsky collection clearly shows, to my eye and measurements, two small sized vases of differing cross section. With 6 0f one and 5 of the other the difference in rarity would not seem great.

I look forward to clarification from Mr Urban and wonder if more shapes were included in the original pattern books and if some or all of those other designs were actually made in that long period of production.

[Anik R]

Hi Frank,

So the confusion continues...  We've got perfectly square and perfectly rectangular versions of the vase, which in the literature currently available (to me), are all assigned pattern number 617. 

The 1968/11 CGR shows photos of the vases in three sizes (617), plus the jardiniere (619).  The 1968/1 edition also shows the smallest of the vases (which I think is rectangular), hinting that the design is most probably from 1967 and not 1968 as written in the Sklo Union book.

Perhaps the kind help of Jindrich and Mr. Urban is needed afterall.