Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. > Bohemia, Czechoslovakia, Czech Republic, Austria

Uranium Opalescent Rigaree/Trailed Bud Vase I.D Request

<< < (15/35) > >>

flying free:
Hello and welcome to the GMB :)

Yes the first pieces in the link of the 'map', show vases that were displayed as Welz Vases in the Tango Glass exhibition. From what I see of the 'map', those were the basis for the work on the other pieces.

With regard the discussion on Ruckl vases on the CW, I can only speak for myself, but I had a problem 'seeing' the links made to the various vases on the various threads on CW, which were then identified as Ruckl on that and other threads as a result of those links.

As an example of what I mean,  I would say that on this thread (see link below), I could probably see the link between vase three and vase one (vase one being the vase stated on the thread as being the same as a labelled version of Ruckl), although there are differences in the applied decor and it's not possible to see the bottom of the vase to see if it is the same basic shape as vase one....however, I cannot see the link of vases two and four, to vase one, at all and neither could I see a link of them to vase three.
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/81140-antonin-ruckl-and-sons-bohemian-oxblood-sp?in=442

another example where I fail to see the thought process of the poster, would be this thread here (see link below) where according to the thread poster, the yellow and white spatter decor is apparently Ruckl as referenced in  a Hosch catalogue where it's impossible to see the decor in the picture discussed in the catalogue, and where the yellow and white vase in the middle of the thread, the trophy vase pictured as number two, is the same as a vase identified in the Tango Glass exhibition as Franz Welz.
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/81570-antonin-ruckl-and-sons-bohemian-1895-yello?in=442


m

obscurities:
I will no longer comment on CW "attributions". I withdrew from that forum and had my account deleted along with all of my posts for good reasons. Among those reasons was the ability of original posters to delete information that was provided by other users in their posts which countered claims they were making. I felt strongly that the ability to self edit ones posts to continue to appear right was not conducive to the factual presentation of information. That does not occur in this forum at all.

CW is a good site for collectors to display their collections, but as far as a solid research site, it has some very severe shortcomings, unlike this forum, which has proven to be quite educational and taken seriously by the members.

I posted a link in the CW forum to the website article, same as I did here, and will not comment on any posts in that forum. I personally only re-entered the forum to provide a source of counterpoint, as requested by many users there who contacted me directly after I left. I chose the format of articles and links, as it does not allow for editing in the forum.

Aside from the Tango Exhibit, some of the vases in the article are also identified in Truitt I as Welz production, yet one of the posts in CW has taken an image from Truitt I and posted it as an example of Ruckl in that forum. Truitt is incorrect and they have now discovered the real truth....  Welz never even produced glass.....  There is not even enough time to discuss the absurdities which are presented in that forum as "Research and Facts".

If you feel the CW attributions stemming from a single labeled piece, and many leaps that I would classify as unfounded, outweigh the evidence in the article I linked to, then you are certainly welcome to continue to attribute based on those methods.

Lastly, a single label does not build a solid family of glass attributions, just as the lack of a label does not preclude solid research.

The label you reference was also stated to be a 1903 label in one of those attributions, but in fact the style of labeled was used for a longer period of time. The factory location named on the label was built in 1903, indicating the label could not be any earlier than 1903. It does not confirm a 1903 date for the label as claimed. The Glasmarken Lexicon gives the indication that the style of label in question was used to the mid 1940's when the company was nationalized. It is this type of inattention to actual details that caused me to highly question any of those attributions.

I personally do not believe the attributions were sound in the least. I will let those who choose to read both bodies of work make their own decisions. I am certainly confident of the research in the article.

The 2 "researchers" in that forum posting Ruckl attributions for this style of glass are also sellers who 3 months earlier were the largest sellers of this style of Welz production on ebay. Now Welz does not exist to them and it is all of a sudden all made by Ruckl.  One of them even took the position that Welz did not even make glass, even though there is abundant evidence that they actually did. Personally, I find "research" from someone claiming that to be questionable at best. 

Sorry, but just my humble personal opinion..... and also final statement on the subject.

dirk.:
Thank you for the article, Craig.
To me your deductions are much more plausible than anything else I´ve read.  :)

obscurities:
Thank You Dirk, I appreciate that.

Your examples, and others from this thread and others threads here have helped me complete the work to my satisfaction....  A good example of why I have frequented this forum for as long as I have.

M - I would also add in the threads above that you mention, in the first post, the danger of using extremely simple forms and not sticking to identical version of them would be quite evident there. That would be the reason I try to stick to complex and unique shapes to support attributions. If simple forms, they really must be the same.... Not just "similar", as in the first link you provided. For what it is worth, I believe that number 2 and 4 in that post are actually Welz decors and examples, and have a suspicion that the third example may be also.  I do agree that the labeled piece is Ruckl though    :-)

In the second link you provide I find it highly suspicious that the poster also does not bother to mention that the image of the yellow variegated trophy (image 2) is actually a cropped version of the image shown in Truitt I on page 130, lower left corner. I would think that it would be at a minimum, an ethical responsibility, to state that the image is from that book and represented there as a Welz product. The shadow to the right of that vase is a shadow produced by a pink version of the octagonal trophy used in my article and referenced as being displayed in the Navy Bor Museum.  The image above it on that page is also the red and black trophy referenced in my article as being in the Tango Exhibit.

glasshoarder:
Thank you flying free for the GMB Welcome!

So I guess that's a big "No" to my question about the makers mark, right?  One vase discussed here is marked Ruckl Vcelnicka but the others are NOT physically marked by a manufacturer. Also, Ruckl, Vcelnicka opened in 1875, not 1903.

http://www.ruckl.cz/en/historie.php

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page