Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests > Glass
Red marbled vase with enamel, Loetz Marmoriertes Carneol? or Harrach? other?
azelismia:
thanks Ohio, I'll change that. I thought they looked a little different from the shape but hadn't seen any other contenders.
FF, With this type of glass it's not a matter of shape matches or anything like that. These companies all copied each other profusely. There are a number of shapes I could show you of many different types of glass from various companies that are all very similar. Before seeing some of these shapes you might think they were unique shapes.. but they're not. Apparently this was even true over here in America. The vase that Ohio pointed out from my collection is very very close to a Steuben shape.. but it's not.
Adding to the confusion is that very often a retailer or a importer would contract a shape and decor from a number of various companies. they'd all fill the same shape and decor and it would ship out. what do you get? the same piece of glass made by 5 different houses. It was common place. It makes it all very confusing. Sometimes you get lucky and find a mark on a piece that shows provenance such as the one you have.
the markings on this are definitely Harrach markings. I have seen many pieces of absolutely confirmed Harrach with markings just like this and never a piece of Loetz.
This piece is definitely a harrach version of the carneol. The uranium is a moot point. Both companies used Uranium and did not use uranium at different points in production. Loetz started making this kind of glass in 1882 iirc. the early production didn't have uranium but later production did. Harrach didn't have any such rule that is known. Some has uranium and some does not.
And yes there is a lot of Harrach identified as Loetz in the Carneol arena. Sometimes Even people with a lot of it aren't sure which is which. I have a few such pieces and one that I am looking into more right now that I currently have Id'd as Loetz. (which is how I found this two month old thread)
Warrens site also has a bunch of Harrach pieces with the p.xxx mark. https://sites.google.com/site/bohemianglassandmore/harrach
the mark is proof positive... it's Harrach not Loetz.
flying free:
Hi Azelismia
thank you again for your detailed response. At the outset I should say that whether or not this vase is Harrach or Loetz is not an issue for me. It is a beautiful vase and desirable whichever maker it originated from. However, I beg to differ that the faint enamelled numbers on the base are a deciding factor on positively identifying that this came from Harrach.
I'm not saying it isn't a Harrach vase, indeed I raised the issue originally. But in my view it takes more than one significant factor to try and id a vase if you don't have the original pattern books or positive confirmation from the maker. The link you have given to Warren's site is one I use regularly. There is one vase on that page which appears to have enamelled numbers done using the same enamel as my vase, the others don't. That one vase is not positively id'd as Harrach as far as I can see, using either a pattern book or confirmation from Harrach that the vase came from them.
In addition to which, on that page, there is a vase there with peacock eyes, that I happen to think is quite possibly a Stuart vase. Likewise in Truitt's there is a vase on page 67 id'd as Harrach that I believe is also a Stuart vase.
There is also a vase in Gulliver's Victorian Decorative Glass page 103 British Designs 1850-1914 (copyright 2002), that looks to be similar to at least two pieces on the link page you just gave. It also has a P number written on the bottom and a stamped registered design number with the number ascribed to John Walsh Walsh in the Registered Designs book of Representations, although it records that a certificate was not issued for this number. Personally I am of the opinion or guess that the vase has a very Bohemian look to me but that is just instinct/guesswork - and also that the RD issue is an anomaly somehow. But whether or not t is,is not actually confirmed by either of the two vases on the link page being positively id'd as Harrach either. And I could well be wrong - it could well be that that particular range of vases are in fact English and by Walsh Walsh.
So you can see what I mean? I don't think it is possible to just say that because of the numbers on the base this is positively id'd as Harrach.
Again I should stress that I'm not saying it isn't Harrach or isn't Loetz. It's of no concern to me financially (unless I wish to sell in which case it will become more important). I'm just raising the issues that going by one factor alone is not enough I don't think, to id a vase.
m
obscurities:
I do not know who the vase is by, but felt it is a pertinent point to bring up that in many cases we are not even 100% sure who did the enameling on many pieces. Many houses bought blanks and decorated them in house. Hosch is surely an example of just such a firm. In this case the item is of a dual attribution.... Many piece of the Hosch catalog are Kralik glass, hence a Kralik / Hosch attribution.
Let me play the devil's advocate here for a minute......
I do have a question for Azelismia.... Can you please cite a reference or provide links to or images of documented Harrach examples for your statement other than attributed pieces you have seen.
--- Quote from: azelismia on March 04, 2012, 10:39:43 AM ---The markings on this are definitely Harrach markings. I have seen many pieces of absolutely confirmed Harrach with markings just like this and never a piece of Loetz. ...............
the mark is proof positive... it's Harrach not Loetz.
--- End quote ---
Is there documentation (proof positive) that this is a Harrach mark? Without such documentation, the best it seems we could say for sure is that it was decorated by firm xxxxx on what appears to be possibly a Harrach or Loetz blank, or we could say that the mark seems to fall in line with the marks found on some examples of known Harrach production.
I would also address shape as a solid reference point in more cases than not.... shapes which are close to each other are not the same as shapes that are the same. A close examination of shapes generally will lead one to a determination if it is a "Design Shift (copying a shape) or actually the same shape with a small variation as a result of hand production. IMHO, many similar shapes were not actually copied but were simply so generic that they resembled each other by simplicity of design..... That being said, the comparison of shapes should, by necessity, involve using examples which preferably contain a design element which is more likely than not to be specific to a particular house.......
--- Quote from: azelismia on March 04, 2012, 10:39:43 AM ---thanks Ohio, I'll change that. I thought they looked a little different from the shape but hadn't seen any other contenders...........The vase that Ohio pointed out from my collection is very very close to a Steuben shape.. but it's not.
--- End quote ---
I will use your "Close to Steuben" Wheeling piece as an example.....
As the old saying goes "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades" ..... ;D :thup:
Ohio:
Well in the U.S. just about everyone sold to the decorating houses so you have to know "who" for the the decoration. Then add to that some companies actually sold blanks to other companies even though they were competitors. From 1928 to 1932 Tiffin sold their 151 line black satin blanks to Consolidated then Consolidated staff artists decorated them & sold them as Consolidated...always with the large air brushed parrot that was far different from tne Tiffin parrot. Result? Both collecting groups recognize them as Tiffin/Consolidated & there is no problem with attribution.
Its a tough challenge at times no matter what side of the pond you are on due to these factors that present a "Only Questions-No Answers" scenerio...one that I don't attempt to tackle much anymore.
As for Harrach...about 6 months ago I was given the "Harrach Project" website when I had a tough Harrach question. Problem is that the site's email addy as well as two other email addys for the individual all came back undeliverable & after repeated attempts I finally gave up so I can save you some time...don't bother.
azelismia:
I know Brian, who has the Harrach project site. I will ask him to look here. Here is an example that has the propeller mark and the p number mark from Warrens page. is st
https://sites.google.com/site/bohemianglassandmore/harrach
it's at the very bottom of the page. the blue piece with handles.
and the one in Mervyns book is Harrach. The Registry number as I recall is an importers thing.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version