First I do not believe that the piece shown on that website as Goldglass is constructed the way it is being described. Your piece is very obviously mica, based on the reflective characteristics of the material. If you look closely at his vase, it is not mica flakes, but particulates of some other material. He calls it aluminum "scales", I think he means flakes. The coloration of the particulates is amber from the casing, the same as your vase. I think it is the same shape, but is a different material used in the internal layer of the vase.
This image I am posting is the vase I posted in a different thread which is pink, and has blue threading, and white particulate. The structure of the particulates appears to be the same as those in the "Goldglass vase on that site. I am of the opinion that it is likely to be something much more mundane like the "sulfide" as found in early sulfide paperweights. The material is actually white, and appears gold from the amber casing, like your mica color is altered by the casing also.
The image I am attaching is the bottom of my pink vase, and the material in the glass appears the same as the material n that vase. This one is not covered with a colored outer casing, so the material appears white. The way it is spread and separates has the same appearance as his vase, but without the amber casing.
I believe your vase is likely the same maker, but a different decor that appears similar. Hope that helps.
So I will address the dual attributions he has now for much glass on that site. The gentleman has carved out a huge swatch of re-attributions based on some production books he was able to take some images of. I am very familiar with his claims, and I disagree with much of it. I have expressed that on a couple of occasions, and for the most part have kept out of it. Simply put, I do not feel the need to speak up, and I do not need the aggravation. I spent years getting rid of the anti Welz clan that infiltrated my glass life, and many of them believe his claims.
So here is some quick history of what he is working with and basing many of these claims on:
About 20 years ago there was an auction selling off materials from some glass production materials in the Teplitz region. Among those materials were about 40 design books which were purchased by a glass artist. That artist, not a glass historian of any type, bought them for inspiration, and believed at the time they were Rindskopf books. Based on condition, the books were rebound. It is my understanding that they were reduced from about 40 to about 30 volumes. Based on the assumptions that they were all Rindskopf, there were likely no measures taken to insure the integrity of the volumes and their contents.
Now, flash forward to about 18 months ago, and a friend of mine that collects and researches Rindskopf glass came upon an article about the artist and the volumes. She made the gentleman with the site aware of them, and he and a known Czech researcher visited the gentleman and were allowed to take some images of some of the volumes. Within a short period of time there were an abundance of re-attributions being claimed based on the design books. As a researcher myself, I was a little dismayed at the appearance of literally over 150 decors by Rindskopf, Kralik and others that became Kralik/Steinwald, Rindskopf/Steinwald, etc.
I have found many issues with the claims, but to be honest, he has made no claims regarding Welz, so I am past the point of having in depth discussions to explain publicly why I disagree with his work. Has he made some claims I think are supportable? Sure... But he has made many more that are far from supportable. As far as dual attributions go like the ones he is claiming (because he can not prove the Steinwald claims solidly) I am of the opinion that it is a huge disservice to the world of collecting, and eve more so in regards to providing supportable research.
His eye for details is not what it should be, especially for making the claims he is. The second image I am including is a line art drawing from the books which he told me was a Welz shape. I politely explained it was not even close, and have not expanded on the conversations more than that.
Many attributions like Kralik and Rindskopf production were attributed decades ago. I am of the opinion that if one feels a decor is not by Kralik as an example, it needs to be solidly proven to be "Steinwald", before making that claim publicly. Applying a dual attribution does no one any good.
As an example, I have researched Welz for over a decade now.In that time frame there were a handful of decors I felt Welz, and not Kralik produced. The most recent re-attribution I made public was a Kralik decor called Moss Agate, which I believe is by Welz. It took me about 6 years to accumulate examples that would support that claim solidly enough to make the claim publicly. He has reassigned somewhere in the region of 150-175 decors in a period of under 2 years... Using design books which do not really clarify who the drawings are by. One of the drawings in the books s labelled "Woolworths", which was an American chain of "five and dime" general stores in the US at that time.
I crunched numbers regarding the design books, and calculated that if one were to study each drawing (estimated numbers) in the books for 5 minutes each, it would take in the region of about 2000 hours just arrive at a simple understanding of what they contained.
The first image below is the bottom of my pink vase as described above.
The second image is a drawing said by the gentleman to be a Welz vase, and an example of the vase he thought it represented. In my experience, and applying the guidelines I use to make claims, they are not even close.
The third image is a grouping of that shape in known Welz decors.
At this point, I do not put huge amounts of faith in his claims. He does have a ton of money, and has a huge collection... But that does not make someone a good researcher.
Sorry this was long and involved, but I thought should at least express my opinion.
Topic: Art Deco period thickly cased red/amber vase, mica inclusions - ID = Kralik (Read 6387 times)
