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

[chopin-liszt]

No, I think that would be too much.
Brother thought it might be a QK variant, but is now doubting the sizes. He and his Monart collecting partner both feel this is Monart - by guts, but now you are casting some doubts again, Roberta.
We really want to know what Nigel says. And the Garys.
Brother is going to try to track down some other catalogues, but it may take some time, they're currently in storage. 

[orangeglass]

Just for info the Etsy / Ebay one was previously listed as "Czech Bohemian VASE possibly Franz WELZ".

If you look at the etsy listing, the 5th image of the base (you can magnify it too) can anyone else see the rings on the base that look like a mould has been used?

[flying free]

Roberta I can see what you see. Except that the rim is fire-polished so I wonder if that effect is optical illusion and I wonder if there is a pontil mark but not visible in the photographs?

Re the Franz Welz.  I am absolutely no expert but that wouldn't have been the maker that sprung to mind looking at the shapes and rim finish and decor. 
I might have gone 'oooh I see' in my head if someone had said Kralik, because I have seen some pieces attributed as Kralik in a crackle -  but again, knowing very little about Kralik, and wondering about the shape of the OP's especially, and that Kralik is badly documented to the open public, I would have filed a question against it in my head.

[chopin-liszt]

I can see the rings on that pic. We're not imagining it. 
But I can also see a clear/white blob in the middle which has stretched trails of colour "pointing" to/away from the blob - which looks really rather like the way things "go" around a pontil scar.
And it has the heat finished rim. 

(For reference, the etsy link is on page 6 of this thread.)

[fatbelly]

The one online was listed as Welz originally then it was changed to Durand glass USA which is when I emailed them to ask how they knew it was Durand glass.It was stated that they were told by several buyers who were making offers for BIN that it was Durand glass.I then posted this attribution on here as a possible and then we got the Def Monart attribution and now we are where we are.
Maybe I need to post my example to a Monart person so they can handle it and make a more informed opinion.Its all interesting.
FB.

[glassobsessed]

Humour me here. Are there any subtle dents or imperfections you can feel roughly half way up the vase?

[fatbelly]

Hi.
No nothing either inside and out.No dimples or imperfections
No signs of anything apart from the surface textures of the piece.All uniform and flowing if that makes sense.
FB

[flying free]

John were you thinking a gadget of some sort?

FB is there any indication of a pontil being removed anywhere on the base?

Does it feel completely smooth?

[fatbelly]

hi.
Nothing that I would say is a pontil scar.I have held the vase so many time now I feel like I know every surface crack.There is definitely surface wear to the outer ring which I know can be fabricated but it looks right.
FB

[Frank]

Hi folks, late in here.

Sorry but imho it is not Monart. The lack of pontil is clear, but also the technique is just different to that used by the Ysart's.

Colours are Schuster & Wilhelmy/Kügler and widely used even today so do not really any help with ID.

I have seen this before, smaller pieces, but never managed an ID. It is possibly that it was made by Strathearn, Deacons or Chic Young. But Deacons used a pontil rod, not a gadget. Strathearn is most likely if it is Scottish, but not sure if they used Kügler colours.