Topic: Ikora Medusa - yellow vase with white mottled inclusions

[flying free]

I think I now have a WMF Ikora 'collection' as this is my third piece and I think it is Medusa.  I'm pretty sure this is the same shape as the one Sue has that has been on previous threads.  However I can find Medusa under 1931 in the book (Burschel Scheiffele pages 122 and 123) and there is a pretty comprehensive picture of all the shapes but not this one 
Neither can I find it anywhere else unless I've missed it.
Measures 19.8cm tall (just under 8") and 12.8cm in diameter at the rim.  It feels lumpy and bumpy on the interior where you can feel the white powders.
The base is shiny and looks like it was finished very well, but not ground and polished flat if you know what I mean and it has a polished shiny pontil mark.  My other vase has a ground flat base that isn't shiny.  In fact all three pieces I have are finished very differently on the base.  This is the one that is finished most beautifully I would say.
Also, was Medusa a 'mass-produced' range?  I can find barely any references to it on the net.
Thanks for any help 
m

[flying free]

I've reread the comment regarding Medusa in the book so answered my own question regarding it being a mass market range which it was  It seems to be under represented on the net given this fact.  It was launched in March 1930.
m

[dirk.]

Hi m,
I´m not convinced your vase is Medusa - possibly Loetz Schaumglas? There was a Medusa
piece on ebay recently: here.
That one however was mis-described as Loetz. The foam or crackle on Ikora pieces is always
cased while the one on your vase seems to be directly on the outside surface, which I only
know from Loetz foam. Or do I misinterpret your pictures?
There might of course be a third option (or fourth)... 

[flying free]

Hi Dirk, thank you for looking 
It's definitely cased in thick glass  and I'm 99.99% sure it's WMF Ikora Medusa.  I'm 99.99% sure it's not Loetz or anything else    but there's always the .01% when one can't find a definitive reference in the catalogues 

I was originally questioning it because I couldn't find it in the book and also instead of having nitrate crackle type pattern it most definitely has the pattern constructed of white powders, which is different to both my bowl and other vase. But having read the book it seems that Ikora was made with both methods.  I don't believe Loetz Schaumglas was created with these large patches of white powder to form the optical effect of 'crackle pattern' (If I am wrong please do correct me). 
That said, I still cannot find the shape in the book    I think it's the same as Sue's and also the same size.
m
P.s. if Loetz Schaumglas is in on the surface, can you feel the pattern in it? mine isn't , it's completely smooth on the exterior where it is cased but I haven't had a piece of Schaumglas and I'm curious - I never imagined from photographs that was how it would be.

[dirk.]

Thank you, m! Pictures can be misleading sometimes... 
The foamy texture of some Loetz pieces is on the outside. I´ve had this effect
on three bowls I had. Most of my pictures got lost during my computer crash last
year... I think I still have one of  the bowls, but - which cardbox? I´ve been moving
to a new place last Saturday and unpacking the boxes will be like a long lasting
Christmas for the next months. 

[chopin-liszt]

The image on ebay looks as if it's a completely different thing - it looks like uranium for a start!
My vase is packed away, I don't know where it is amongst all that is packed away.......

[flying free]

the bowl Dirk linked to is featured on page 122 of the Book I believe no 336/3450.  The pages for Medusa in the book are in black and white so it's not that easy to tell, but there are a number of pieces in there that look to have been created in the same way as my vase, others that look to have been created in the same way as this bowl.  My vase looks as though it would be uranium glass as well, but I've tested it and it isn't.

The patterns created in Ikora glass as described in detail in the book on page 38 and 39, were created in different ways, some using dustings of powders and frit and then cased, others using a 'crisselled texture' technique created by crackling or crazing (dipped in water) and then dipping in solutions of metal salts -they give aluminium nitrate solution as an example.  So they don't all 'look' the same - the quote of the description of process is too long to type out but I am confident the way mine (and yours) has been created is a method used to create Ikora glass , likewise the bowl Dirk linked to.  They've just been created using different methods. 

Initially when I saw the couple of Medusa  pieces I've managed to find on the net,  I was querying in my head whether my vase was part of 'Ikora' rather than 'Ikora Medusa' range, but having re read more in the book I'm confident yours and mine are part of the Ikora Medusa' range    I would like to match the shape though if possible.
m

[chopin-liszt]

So would I!
When I bought mine, I was absolutely clueless about anything to do with glass - casting about wildly and including anything that looked remotely interesting. I found it in a junk shop, reckoned the dirt in it looked old and forked out all of £8 for it, hoping Michael wouldn't catch me accumulating "useless" stuff.......

[flying free]

I've just looked at the WMFcolours in the book page 187
The two yellows they include are described thus:
'Amber - Honey yellow (cerium and titanium oxide)
Citro    - Light yellow   (cerium and titanium oxide) '

Whereas their Birch green is described as:
'Opaque light green (cryolite, which is a sodium aluminium fluoride, copper oxide, chromium alloys, traces of uranium oxide (my bold) )']

Mind you I have a bowl with the green in and it doesn't fluoresce under uv.

Their Dove Blue also contains traces of uranium oxide

m

[chopin-liszt]

I have found mine. 
I have taken pics.
They are even in focus!