Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => Bohemia, Czechoslovakia, Czech Republic, Austria => Topic started by: rocco on September 24, 2017, 01:03:21 PM
-
Kindly asking for you help once again :)
"Bohemian" 1920s/30s vase, ruby red thickly cased in amber, with mica layer inbetween.
Stands a little over 16cm tall, weighing 1.3 kg (!).
So somewhat unusual for Czech glass from that period, both the weight and the masses of Mica...
Base with circular ground out pontil mark, and a stencilled "CZECHO-SLOVAKIA" 2-line mark.
Here is another one, a little darker colours: >> Link (https://www.rubylane.com/item/518922-419jax78-285b/Antique-Czech-Harrach-Cranberry-Gold-Mica?search=1)
I am rather clueless about manufacturer... Perhaps one of the Bohemian glass experts has an idea which company could have produced this style of glass. The 2-line mark doesn't seem to indicate a particular maker.
Interestingly, this beautiful jug John posted a while ago seems rather similar regarding colours and Mica, though probably quite a bit earlier date wise: http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,51869.0.html (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,51869.0.html)
Thanks,
Michael
-
Lovely Michael, I thought of that jug too as soon as I saw the vase.
I can't now find any information on the various two line marks, must be looking in the wrong places...
None of this is any help!
John
-
Thanks a lot John!
I couldn't find this mark anywhere online, it is certainly not a known Loetz or Kralik mark.
Here is a compilation of various marks posted by Craig on CW, but my mark doesn't seem to be there:
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/222268-marks-too-many-to-count-and-many (https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/222268-marks-too-many-to-count-and-many)
The shape of the vase is very generic unfortunately.
Still the decor is quite unusual, and so is the heavy execution...
Michael
-
Although the details like the split O's in the mark are not shown in the line art, it is representative of the similar mark in the line art I posted. That info was accumulated by the Czech Collectors Association many years ago.
This mark has been lightly associated with some Kralik production. The fact that it appears to be a stenciled mark with split O's would lean toward Kralik as a source. Kralik did use heavy mica in some interwar decors, although they are not all that common.
Although I can not say it is Kralik for sure, it would not surprise me if it is. The linked example identifying it as Harrach is not correct as far as I know. I have never seen that mark associated with Harrach in any way. .
-
Craig, thank you very much!
I noticed that the split O's are similar to the ones in the Kralik arched mark, but I had never seen a massive piece like this vase by Kralik...
The Harrach attribution given by the seller of the vase I linked to previously is just guess work I think ;)
Michael
-
My pleasure. Very large heavy Kralik pieces are not super common, but they are seen on occasion. There are also some decors they did which are quite nice, like this one, but are not commonly seen. Here is an example of their production in my collection which stands at a touch over 27 cms. This one is marked with an arched mark with split O's.
I think the Harrach attribution is more wishful thinking than a guess... :-)
-
I saw that on CW.
Phantastic piece...
Michael
-
While looking for something else I came across: https://www.bohemianglass.org/katalog/kralik/1918-1945/kralik-goldglas/ (https://www.bohemianglass.org/katalog/kralik/1918-1945/kralik-goldglas/)
So according to this site the vase is Kralik "Goldglas". :)
Michael
-
Beautiful vase Michael - I particularly like how the mica seems to be precipitating down from the top to the bottom. :)
-
Thank you Sue! :)
Yes, I did like that effect, too. Enough to spend quite a lot of money :o
Googling for "Goldglas" doesn't bring up anything, so probably a newly identified Kralik decor...
John's beautiful jug (linked to in the opening post) should be Kralik "Goldglas" as well.
Michael
-
Michael he has that vase as either by Kralik or by Ernst Steinwald. So I'm not sure it's firmly Kralik yet?
However I know there have been ongoing discussions amongst collectors about the change in id from some makers to possibly Ernst Steinwald. So this may still not yet be confirmed :)
m
-
Thank you m, very interesting -- I hadn't seen the Steinwald section on that website.
There are all sorts of Kralik patterns depicted ???
Michael
-
Yes, I think some reference source material was found and the changes he shows have stemmed from that. However there are, or there were, ongoing discussions over maker designation of the various pieces I think.
So it may yet be Kralik ... or it might not.
m
-
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.
-
The gentleman who owns the books purchased them in the mid 1990's out of a barn sale located near Kostany in the Teplice region. Josef Rindskopf's glassworks were in Kostany, and the assumption by the buyer was, because of location, that they were Rindskopf design books. In the mid 1990's the 40 or so books sold for $16,000. In reality, they possibly contain designs from several glass houses. From what I have seen, there is little in the way of designations for production houses in the books.
-
Hi Craig,
thank you so much for your in depth comment on this matter. Greatly appreciated!
As I wrote above, I was (at least) astonished that a major part of which was regarded as Kralik production so far was suddenly attributed to a glassmaker I had never heard of before.
So very interesting to learn that these new attributions are probably not as solid as they look...
Your example with the Welz shapes and the line drawing is very convincing ;)
Back to my vase: I am sure the material is mica. And you are certainly right that the thick amber casing makes the mica look golden. I cannot really say if the vase on the bohemianglass site is made with the same material -- the inner layer does look different.
Your fabulous pink vase seems to be made similarly -- where a layer of enamels is "crackled" and leaves these slices.
(Seen in some earlier WMF Ikora pieces as well -- I attach a pic).
Michael
-
I have created this comparison of the inclusions in these vases.
Upper left is my my vase with a clear casing over the white particulates
Upper right is part of the Goldglas vase. I believe this material is the same as my vase, but with an amber casing
In these comparisons above, the amber cased piece is said to have inclusions of aluminum. I have never seen aluminum flakes that are white. Harrach used an aluminum flake in their "Seaweed Decor" and it appears completely different, as seen in the middle row. This Harrach vase in our collection has inclusions which appear more like the shapes of mica, than the inclusions in the top row.
Lower Left is your vase with mica cased with amber.
Lower right is a comparable vase with mica, but cased with a slightly darker shade of amber toned glass.
These comparisons are not difficult to make, nor are the conclusions hard to arrive at. It is a lack of this type of attention to details, which adds additional skepticism on my part to many of the claims based on the design books. That, and the fact that the claims are made based on design drawings which are used to support conclusions, but not shared publicly to support those those claims.
-
The melting point of aluminium is a bit low to use in this context, around 650 degrees as a maximum temperature might be problematic for glass working - need someone with glass blowing experience to comment on that.
John
-
Aluminium oxidises rapidly just in air. ???
-
Aluminium oxide has a much higher melting point than aluminium and it is white, don’t know what happens if used in glass though.
-
Thank you John -- very useful comparison!
Michael