Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => Bohemia, Czechoslovakia, Czech Republic, Austria => Topic started by: fontanazul on January 28, 2014, 04:25:54 PM
-
I recently purchased this crystal (from Czech Republic)
attributes it to the seller W. Urban, but I can not find documentation for it.
Some of his rotund geometry brings me Livochovice airs ....
thanks for any guidance
-
Not Urban :-[ Not Libochovice
Frantisek Vizner - Rosice / nº 622 / 1962
* reference : Marcus Newhall ; sklo unión: art before.........
OPLAS!! :)
-
great shape vase and good find
Have you seen them in other colours?
m
-
I've never seen another and on the book by Marcus Newhall is also transparent (truly mine has a slight pink tint).
What surprised me is that being a work of Vizner, is so little known.
-
Hi,
But your vase is certainly not the Rosice 622 by Vizner. The Vizner 622 is the second vase in the second row here. (http://www.cs-sklo.cz/ceskoslovenskesklo/25-STARE-CLANKY-OLD-ARTICLES/978-Lisovane-sklo-F-Viznera) [Link from Jindrich's Ceskoslovenske Sklo website].
Sorry,
Anik
-
I had a look in the book but couldn't see it and didn't look at the cd.
Thanks Anik - do you think it has some similarity with the Vaclav Hanus vase on page 103? pattern no 13096 for Rudolfova hut?
That one has the ribs going down to the base and is slim and tall but it does have similarities in the ribs and the neck shape. As though OP's is a different shape of the design iyswim?
m
-
and well, things get interesting: * Jindra versus Marcus *.
I repeat: in the book "Slo Union: art bifore ...."(in CD) this vase is recorded as 622/Rosice F.Vizner 1962.
Someone is confused ??? :P
-
This has absolutely nothing to do with your imagined 'Jindra vs Marcus'.
The Rosice 622 (which is by F. Vizner) is nothing like the vase you posted above. The Rosice 622 is the vase seen in the link I gave, 2nd row, 2nd piece. The Rosice 622 can also be seen in the CGR (for example in the 1963/7 and many others).
My point was that your vase is not the Rosice 622. I don't regognise your vase, so I can't point to a designer.
Anik
-
Marcus's CD does show the OP's vase as Rosice 622, so the CD must be wrong but it is a catalogue image on the CD, so the true ID is perhaps in the pdfs
-
Unfortunately, I haven't got access to the CD (I haven't got a CD-reader-thingy on my computer) so I can't take a look at any of the catalogues or database. But the Liberec catalogue of 1967 shows an image of a vase which is very different from the one originally posted above as the Vizner Rosice 622:
Vizner Liberec 1967 (https://picasaweb.google.com/104509467784289017506/FrantisekViznerLiberec1967?authkey=Gv1sRgCIur4bnT34nJZg#5443366751969430258)
-
This error has been listed on Jindra's site for a long time, many months.
http://www.cs-sklo.cz/ceskoslovenskesklo/3-CHYBOVNICEK-ERRORS/93-Newhall-Sklo-Union-Errata
In a groundbreaking book, even a very well researched one, such as Sklo Union by Marcus Newhall, a few errors are inevitable. Jindra identifies the vase as by Hanus and I am pretty certain Jindra discussed this piece with Vizner. I know Jindra admires the book Sklo Union a lot too and helped where he could towards it being a success.
Robert (bOBA)
-
Robert it's not my thread but thank you as I'm shocked I spotted that it had similarities to a vase by Hanus :o
What number is it and is it Rosice though please? I didn't understand the link which seemed to say it is 622 Rosice but just that it isn't by Vizner but is by Hanus. If it is, then what is the other vase that Anik has shown also being 622, or did I understand that incorrectly?
-
Then another error more
In GlasRevue 1973 / 3-14 ^^^ (https://plus.google.com/photos/104509467784289017506/albums/5526701411735874977/5526701884695304690?banner=pwa&authkey=CJ3X3aagodCjrAE&pid=5526701884695304690&oid=104509467784289017506)
the alleged 622 call 662
Hanus may be, it may be 662, may be Vizner ... may be Urban/Libochovice,,,,, that mess. :'(
-
Ah, the Vizner vase is 662 according to the catalogue link Anik gave
https://picasaweb.google.com/104509467784289017506/FrantisekViznerLiberec1967?authkey=Gv1sRgCIur4bnT34nJZg#5443367283221323410
I think this link takes you to the catalogue page with the descriptions.
No 17 which is the vase referred to and pictured earlier in the thread is listed as 662 Vizner but is not the same as the original vase in the thread.
For your vase, the original vase that started this thread, Marcus' cd says 622 Rosice but the mistake was it said Vizner instead of Hanus.
So OP's vase is Rosice 622 Vaclav Hanus.
I think I've got that right :-\
m
-
great shape vase and good find
Have you seen them in other colours?
m
Aquamarine^^ (https://plus.google.com/photos/109923234428948778993/albums/5159803670356796561/5273664399371210098?banner=pwa&pid=5273664399371210098&oid=109923234428948778993)
-
m, well done on spotting the similarities! :)
fontanazul, I don't know which pattern number is correct, but your vase is NOT a Vizner. (If it were, then Vizner would have said it's his design).
-
If the pattern number and factory were wrong then I assume Jindrich would have also corrected those on his erratum page, rather than just correcting the designer's name.
If this is the case then the vase is as Marcus id'd for the maker and number, but not the designer which was a mistake ... which has been corrected by Jindrich.
Therefore it would be Rosice 622 by Vaclav Hanus.
m
-
Mr.& Mrs. Hanus (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,55848.msg320818.html#msg320818)
-
:)