Topic: Surface decorated crackle type glass not Monart poss Loetz Kralik

[fatbelly]

I would rather the piece was Monart for sure.I love Monart for lots of reasons and to have a nice experimental piece is even better.
I gave up waiting for the Monart peeps to comment.I will go back to that thought then and call the piece Monart.I spent ages searching through Durant glass too.At least I have gained some knowledge there so nothing lost.
Again that’s to you both for helping more than anyone.
FB

[chopin-liszt]

My brother is a very serious Monart collector. Just ask Frank or either Gary!
I'm very chuffed for you, FB. 

[flying free]

Yaaaay!  We need a clapping hands emoji

Very happy for you.

Glad to have found a corresponding colourway and different shape so a double check could be done.

m

[fatbelly]

hi Both.
It’s all sorted then.How very coolio.
It’s a nice piece of glass which is the most important thing but to name it is even better.
Thanks again for all the input etc etc.
FB.

[KevinH]

Sorry to be a bit of a nuisance, but I am not convinced that this is "all sorted".

On the side of it being Monart, this link goes to a sales site showing a piece of Monart, said to have a coded label. The piece has what I think is the same colours as the OPs item, but in a differing pattern and without the crackle.

But I have a query (which may have been addressed earlier but I don't recall it).

Why, in the OPs item is there an apparent pale blue inner layer with the opal (white) casing the blue? What purpose does the pale blue have? Or is it shadow or something?

The same, but in reverse, so to speak, applies to the item M linked to in the etsy site. That piece has a pale blue edging to the rim as if there is an inner opal layer cased in pale blue ... but the pale blue seems not be showing in the crackled surface - just an opal background.

Sue, could you please ask your brother about this?

[fatbelly]

Hi.
It’s just shadow the inner casing is pure white.
Just like the white in a cased Holmegaard gulvase.
Its just an illusion on my vase I can add another image tomorrow to show that.
FB

[KevinH]

Thanks, FB, that makes me happier and I would agree with folk who think it is genuine Monart.

But it now leaves open for discussion the very similar item that M linked to. Is that pale blue edging to the rim real or not???

[fatbelly]

Hi .
From my perspective to edge colour you talk about is just a coincidence of the blowing where colour has happened to be there when blown.Its colour is exactly the same as the thinner blue colour towards the base on both vases where is has thinned.Its not casing or anything else I just believe it’s where a piece of the blue pigment has blown and it happens to be around the rim.But I’m no glass blowing guru it’s just what I see it as.
And thanks for the input the more the better.
FB

[fatbelly]

Hi.
Inner casing pics as requested/promised.
The shape makes the shadow hard to lose but I think the images show it’s white and not pale blue or opal.In the hand it is very white like the casing as said of a gulvase.
FB

[chopin-liszt]

I'll ask again about the bluey bit, Kev. 
I'm sure is just the lighting.
He did say the "wonky" rim was fine.
He said as it is Monart Ware, and early experimental surface-decorated, we should not be expecting the sorts of finishes and accuracy produced later.
It is a bit of an unusual situation to find ourselves with two actual examples of this colourway of Monart Ware Cloisonne at the same time. It's a colourway we've not seen before. And the other colourways don't exactly turn up often.

That is the only thing that gives rise to any possible doubt, to me. If somebody was making things like this now, two could more easily turn up at the same time.
But who on earth could possbly be doing it?
Wouldn't contemporary makers have superior metals to work with? Would that not affect how something turned out?