I think it is important to note, for those following along, that the post on CW regarding the trophy vase shape which can be found at the following link, has now undergone a couple of subtle rewrites.
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/81570-antonin-ruckl-and-sons-bohemian-1895-yello?in=userThere is a list of 3 attributions the author of the post is claiming to be incorrect. I actually agree that number 1 and 3 are incorrect assessments of the production. The references to "primary documentation" are also new to the post.
#1 is "Identification of American Art Glass" by Richard Carter Barret. This book is copyright 1967.
I quote the poster:
"The glassware shown is noted as being on display at the Bennington Museum. The museum identifies the wares shown as American made glass by The Vasa Murrina Art Glass Company or Hobbs Brockunier. There is no mention of manufacturer marks or labels and no primary documentation was provided. Mr. Barret was the Director & Curator of The Bennington Museum, Bennington, Vermont."
There is no image shown that is identified as being associated with that article.
#2 is "Collectible Bohemian Glass, 1880-1940" by Robert and Deborah Truitt Copyright 1995.
I quote the poster:
"The author
misattributes this shape to 1910 Bohemian glass by Welz."
This was a revision from stating that Truitt attributed the vase to Welz. The poster provides no real support for the position that the ID by Truitt is a misattribution.
#3 is "Collectors Glass Digest" December / January 1999, Volume XII, Number 4, an article by John Franks.
I quote the poster:
"Page 52, Figure 6, illustrates the same trophy vase shape shown above and in the above referenced book. This time the vase is in rainbow honeycomb spatter decor as shown in the 3rd picture above. The author, John Franks, misattributes theses vases as English in origin and manufactured by glass workers on their own time. There is no mention of manufacturer marks or labels and no primary documentation was provided."
I think that it is important to note that it appears that the Ruckl attribution is being supported by the "incorrectness" of other publications, with no substantial informational support of any kind for the argument that the trophy vase is by Ruckl.
The most recent use of the trophy vase attribution in the Tango exhibit in 2012 and also the references by other reputable museums are simply discounted with the following statement:
"Museum displays, although a good guide for further research, should not be misinterpreted as primary documentation. "
I would be remiss if I did not point out that the poster in this case, also offers no “Primary Documentation”, which I am fairly confident is referencing factory drawings or documents.
Craig