Loetz/Harrach 3. I/440. | ||
| MacArt's items39 of 94 |  |  |
hunterqlee loves this.
MALKEY loves this.
aura loves this.
IronLace loves this.
larksel loves this.
bracken3 loves this.
Michelleb007 loves this.
Vintagefran loves this.
AnneLanders loves this.
AmberRose loves this.
smiata loves this.
DrFluffy loves this.
SEAN68 loves this.
ozmarty loves this.
SteveS loves this.
vetraio50 loves this.
aghcollect loves this.
Moonstonelover21 loves this.Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate
Posted 10 years ago
MacArt
(94 items)
Have I got a treat for you? Obviously I extrapolated the name from Alpengruen and Alpenrot for apparent reasons. What a gem it is, new color, I suppose new Dek number, fire polished rim (most Alpengruen and Alpenrot vases I have seen had cut rim) and a beautiful shape. Hope you like it as much as I do!
Create an account or login in order to post a comment.
Hi Mac
Nice piece ... Now this one could be seen as an early version of Luna! :-)
Thanks
A good find and very interesting ...
Not sure if we have consensus on this as yet but I generally see the Alpenxxx decors as having a pale blue ground with the xxx component fading with altitude as you "ascend" to the peak ... (Know this hasn't made it to L.com as yet) ...
For accuracy should call it "Blue Satin" for now ... with perhaps some reference to the fading from top to bottom ...
The I/440 is certainly an undocumented decor and is great to see ... In my view the black numerals are "early" ... Could be 1871 or 1881 series depending on whether Max or Suzanna started the numbering system ... And 440 is a big number within that context ...
The 3 is also interesting ... Particularly in combination with the second number ... Could reflect a reference to a past numbering system or a Distributor or a shape reference ...
All interesting ... and perhaps contentious at this point in time ... thought would put a few ideas up to get discussion rolling ...
Cheers
Very beautiful!!
3 could be the paintress's idenyifying number.
That's not a proper I... it could also be Harrach with that format. Harrach did do an M Crimp. It MIGHT be loetz but with the other number present and the 1 instead of proper I.. It's not out of the realm of being Harrach.
that said, Off hand I don't recognize that decor for Harrach right off.. but on the other hand, much like Webb got a reputation for the butterfly.. Harrach often did the butterfly.. Loetz... honestly not so much that I've witnessed.
Or some other similar manufacture or decorator to Harrach.. other than Loetz.
Mac it's a very nice vase, but I'm not seeing Loetz. Have to agree with Alisa on this, more of a Harrach, or possible Riedel feel to it IMHO. The disc style foot is something Harrach used a lot, the numbering isn't in the same style as the typical DEK numbering I've seen which is also typically always done in gold as far as I've seen.
Also, I believe the Alpenxxx series are cased with a non-opal interior. I do not believe the apricot colored examples with the birds in the Alpenrot section on loetz.com are correct. Why would they be labeled as the same name as the lavender/blue examples when the name translates to Alpine red ? Alpengruen is Alpine green, so they're clearly indicating colors, and apricot and lavender are about as different as they get.
yup totally agree with all that (but I don't think the coloring of enamel means much either way with the loetz pieces. I think it was probably whatever was on hand)
I assume you mean the coloring of the enameling of the DEK numbering? If so, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the confirmed Loetz DEK #'s seem to be done in gold.
In my second paragraph, the coloring I referenced is the sating glass itself.
Thank You friends for all the loves and comments!
Of course without solid connection we can not conclude with absolute certainty who is it by. I made this post to share and put it up to your judgement so you can enjoy and decide for yourself. Loetz is where I am at now, if you present compelling arguments, why not or why someone else I will reconsider my position.
Little bit more info, different regions have different tastes, especially in early days without internet and very limited ways to influence one another, so I believe that most Bohemian art glass producers had different stock for different regions, you can see it by browsing auctions, there are groups of items, shape types and decors which are very common in some regions and almost non existent in other.
This particular piece comes from France. Checked it at night with my tiny UV flashlight and it has light uranium glow.
Brian, I've seen em in Red and black too (Enamel on the dek numbers and they're definitely Loetz)
Mac, the Roman numeral is the Key dek pattern indicator and yours doesn't have that. it's a 1.
look at this http://loetz.com/decors-a-z/octopus# some octopus shapes are pretty close to say the least.
forgot to mention the size, it's 15cm (6in) tall
Mac the shape is definitely similar to some of the Octopus pieces.
There are a few shapes in the Victorian era between Loetz and Harrach that are astonishingly similar.
Hey SteveS!
do You have an image of an example for Alpenrot where is "... I generally see the Alpenxxx decors as having a pale blue ground with the xxx component fading with altitude as you "ascend" to the peak ... " true?
Greatsnowyowl I believe that is true what You say about similar Victorian era shapes, but I also believe that it is more true for simpler shapes. This example does not have particularly complicated shape of body, but it does have particularly Loetz style rim shape, notice the double tweezers grip marks, every other Octopus has them on the same kind of rim, I have not seen a million Victorian Harrach pieces, but I have not seen one with the same rim.
I'm not saying anything about it being some kind of proof, but in my eyes there are more arguments for Loetz than anybody else at this point. About a I it's more of a "|" than "I" or "1".
Hi Mac
... been at work all day ... but thought this could be more interesting than it looked this am ...
Interestingly Webb also famous for "Octopus" and "Victoria" ... Think I see most of the Webb associated insects as quite suspect .... Spiders though make sense ...
The pics of the Alpenxxx pieces you request are not in my possession ... but they can be found as the header on "The Bohemian Glass Discussion group" on Facebook .. the pics are from Brian (P_H) ... and if you haven't said anything to "emotional" (- even under your breath :-) ) - then Alisa (GSO) will probably accept a request for membership (if you're not there already).
The dark green enamel leaves on this are very similar to (but larger than) later versions of Loetz enamel on papillon ...
The White underlay to the gold here is very similar to the that used on the Alpenxxx pieces ... and probably comes from a similar - or even earlier era !
On the Numerals ... we certainly know that Loetz used Roman numeral to identify designs by around 1891 and certainly by 1893 ... what they did before that is what we are exploring with this piece ...
It is highly probable that this numbering system underwent some evolution during the preceding 40 years ... fairly sure satins were at the height of their popularity in the 1860's and 1870's ...
As I hinted at above ... there are some interesting views and possibilities to explore here ... Interesting piece !
Cheers
p.s. The pieces in question are all on Loetz.com as well (pale blue ground)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-WEBB-VASE-/261277853020?nma=true&si=u6Q0BuYtnpdbMnj%252F3FuLAdlAN9c%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
This piece is also very similar to the octopus shapes but is documented in both decor and style in the truitt's book. on page 56
as an i but not a roman numeral in the numbering it's entirely consistent with one of the ways that Harrach signed their pieces. You'd see a big number usually a 3 or a 1. and then separately off a letter and three numbers. in that format.
I hope I have not said anything offensive, I never had anything like that in my mind.
here is a piece where it's Arabic number instead of Roman ( http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/104719-loetz-creta-glatt-prod-nr-3-258-ca )
Loetz.com is where I looked, I probably did not understand correctly what You said, I understood it as pale blue ground and gradient second color going from darker at the bottom to invisible at top, like Alpengruen green at the bottom blue at top and overlaying in the middle. All Alpenrot pieces that are on Loetz.com are not that way, the first piece has second color most prominent on top end of the vase and the base looks white/opalescent (could be same base as on mine), second piece does not seem to have gradient at all, and on heliotrope variants gradient is hard to see on pictures. Maybe that is how they went heliotrope, after all that is the way you get that color, mix blue and red...
The leaves are dark brown (see the pic with pontil mark)
Hi Alisa
What a nice piece !
Have often wondered about the near absence of air trap techniques in Bohemian attributed glass ... is this another field to explore .... ?
What are your thoughts on the use of Cadmium for yellows .... similar to your stork piece ... orange under UV ...
Have something very similar to this (Mac's piece) in an identical yellow / blue / red grouping (of 3) ... 1/275 if you have them ... very hard to separate the yellow on color ... gold lettering .. "1" rather than "I" ... two of them have the "3" the other is isolated 1/275 .. (blue is yet to arrive)
Tend to think the Arabic numerals prior to 1900 represented commissions rather than decors ... ?
Cheers
yes, I see it pretty much the same shape...
I don't know if I see correctly, does that Harrach piece have a pontil mark? to me it looks like it does not, and if so what do You think, would they make the same shape vase with and without ground out pontil mark?
I sure haven't been offended by anything you've said Mac...
what loetz.com is calling alpenrot Is not correct. the ones they are calling a heliotrope are the ones that have been classically called alpenrot.. not sure what that's all about..
at this point early loetz isn't that well documented but Harrach is. It's important to separate out the harrach and not confuse it with the loetz when trying to dive into just what their early production was. I'd hate to see a muddle where a Harrach starts getting lumped in with Loetz wholesale.
while this piece is similar in a couple regards to Loetz, it's not marked in a manner that is consistent with what we DO know about early loetz and it's not identical in shape or decor to any known shapes and decors. The shape is similar but there honestly are some WICKED CLOSE shapes between the two and a lot of it that duplicated so closely was from this period.
as a clarification, I do think all the pieces in their alpenrot section are indeed loetz.. I just don't think they're all alpenrot.
Mac ... would call it a bronze green from here ...
With the Alpens the Orange to white is probably a "Mandarin Satin" = Orange to pink ....
A bright yellow is used to create the Grun and a raspberry red to create the Rot's ... is a bottom up version of the colour gradation on your piece ...
Here's an example Loetz:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/OTAcJwei-GiriH6I_rpmRfiepaC6HmOqHRqF2S98L-U?feat=directlink
harrach:
http://www.thegildedcurio.com/item-Harrach-394.html
http://www.thegildedcurio.com/item-Harrach-397.html
Very nice pieces ... buy would not be tempted to confuse your Harrach's with this piece and that is late 1880's enamel work ...
.... That Loetz piece isn't the one in the Harrach Museum by any chance? (same rim)
:-)
sorry: buy = but I
The Loetz piece is the one with circa 1890 enamel work ...
Deb ... we need a section for Satins ... :-)
it's from the UPM in Prague.
I am saying that the Harrach work is very similar to early loetz work.. and this piece has more in common with Harrach than Loetz from where I am standing. It *could* be Loetz.. but I think many more arrows are pointing to Harrach.
ok only thing that I'm confident in now is that this is confusing.
shape: used by both
numbers: inconclusive
at this point probably it is what you want to believe it is
Thank You a lot for Your opinions!
Interesting - just noticed ... think my piece (Carneol L.com) has The Paeonies with wisteria ... your's, Brian's and this one have Paeonies with Cherry Blossom ! ...
Brian's right though, Riedel also signed in a similar manner to this now that I think about it.
These are Harrach or Riedel and are signed in a similar manner to this but wiht a B instead of an i (from the detail of the birds I think this example is probably Riedel)
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/16502068_a-pair-of-enamelled-satin-glass-vases-attributed-to-web
Mac the answer is out there. It just will take time and research. I'd want another shape (identical) with a decor that is either definitely Loetz or Harrach or Riedel to get an absolute ID on something like this.
It is possible that Loetz used other signing methods. Won't deny it.. but I'd want some hard evidence before I steamed forth with that. :)
I agree, we will find answer eventually.
When there is ambiguity it is natural to ignore some parts and treat other parts with more importance than there is. I bought it believing it's Loetz (it was not advertised Loetz so I got really good deal whatever this is) so obviously I see "I", Your gut tells You that it's more likely Harrach so You see "1". But we will never know until we know...
What do letters mean on Harrach numbering?
If it's an I or a 1 the way in which it is written is just not the way Loetz wrote it on the bases of their pieces. They used roman numerals. that is not a roman numeral. Harrach used both letters and numbers and rarely Roman numerals.
going off memory on what it means, production numbers and decor numbers and I think there are some other numbers but I don't have the book by me. LOL, I'm getting sleepy!
http://www.thegildedcurio.com/images-large/934-c.JPG
this is what they look like on loetz pieces. I can't recall another one having a big number off to the side like this one has, it's just the roman numeral and the number.
but the big number off to the side is very very common with Harrach.
http://www.thegildedcurio.com/images-large/276-b.JPG
http://www.thegildedcurio.com/images-large/447-c.JPG
http://www.thegildedcurio.com/item-Loetz-273.html
here are a few more
I keep saying Harrach but it might not be Harrach either. It's not a standard format for harrach. It's closer to Harrach in format than loetz and We know Harrach wrote all kinds combinations on the base, but really it could be a decorator designation for muhlhaus or Riedel or someone like that as well.
Standard format would be
letter. number
(in partial form)
or xxxx/xxx (give or take a number or two)
and in full form it would be
number. (sometimes)
xxxx/xxx
letter.xxx
propeller mark
(sometimes)
or some variation thereof.
sometimes they are marked with a letter/xxx though.
Harrach was really varied. LOL
look at this... http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/6998828
a pair of vases, both marked I or 1 /288. one of them has another I on top, one marked in gold another in black... both have the same stencil of birds, but they are colored differently... so brunches and flowers probably are freehand i suppose? I guess different artists? so the upper number could be the designator of an artist?
that is a classic harrach shape.
https://a316bc28-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/bohemianglassandmore/harrach/Pair_Harrach_enameled_vases.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cqJAJD9m_XmXD5SJw9N-hWBRt2W6ZYgWjayXAgcb-qnKQTF2QH8vEss0O7afX-V3doha8G5_dXxdRSmxjQ2gu3BRjtsM1FRC0h_YG9CjVQsUwqjrlg4w57XCuAAaIEMWKfRQa7ck79sJ_ZEIb0_DOL6M5IMvzrA7qAV3VHzPF9S9d8tSg9QPbsN_3AhOr3P2dCrgoNLT3vM06lDZO1llXtx39vKZbL_pQf-24rX24T7t4PNFK3LlEn4VZ7rGQDJ6wVemX0_&attredirects=0
Warren has a pair of vases in this shape (although I think this is a scaled down size, I am guessing his are six or 8 inches tall.) they are signed with a propeller mark.
hmm i'm not sure that worked. https://sites.google.com/site/bohemianglassandmore/harrach
if it didn't scroll about half way down the page. they are uranium with a persian styled top.
What we need is some "classic Loetz shapes" from the 1850's to the 1880's to compare on similar terms .... Is there any relevant documentation of 1879 the Paris exhibition ... or earlier - from the early commissions ?
this stylistically would be from the late 1880's early 1890's.. not earlier.
in order to have documented shapes from Loetz from the earliest periods we are going to have to wait for the new book.
Yes I agree, Harrach used that shape, but when we see identical shapes used by different producers I think it's better to disregard the shape altogether.
The more important things to learn from that example I think are:
the numbering scheme x. x/xxx. was not a fluke (and is inconsistent with both Loetz and Harrach confirmed examples)
the degree of artistic freedom was very great, even they are the same, the differences are so vast the identification based on decors becomes unreliable (you could still ID decor/artist combo i suppose, or ID by the contour of main feature)
If these shapes flow into Octopus / Carneol rather than from them they can be first half of 1880's or earlier ...