A new Kralik Vase, and another vivid UV reactive example. Part 3.

These little vases by Kralik, 6.5 inches high, have an importance that was unexpected. The various decors they have, confirms the recent consensus that the pepita decor was not only produced by Rindskopf but by Kralik as well. I have the same vase in a martele pepita glass fabrication - image 2, and were produced after 1919.

I think the Kralik mark on this new green one - image 3, is a confirmation of what several Czech glass collectors had concluded already. This vase shape is Kralik, the clear veined glass texture is Kralik and the pepita decor on this glass vase shape is also Kralik. This decor of green translucent glass with a spatter base is found on other Kralik glass vases as well without the clear vein surface.

As many interests as I might have, the fascination with Czech glass is very strong, especially when you come across something important like this.

@ Craig - welzebub: comments unread (same old same old), and unwelcome. Deleted (2).

May 14th - As the information we now enjoy was a process with many contributions, some passive and some active. Meaning a certain glass vase shape found in a multitude of glass decors, was the key to the Pepita puzzle of the interwar period. Proof is that Alan's and my vase are in the 4th picture of yesterday's rebuttal post (rebuttal to what?). We were part of solving the puzzle then by providing new glass to study. This vase here is another key glass vase piece with it's mark. Nothing else.

In 2015, I started my own website. I was also speaking then to Craig by email, and congratulated him on his CW Pepita study and conclusion that it was not a marker, I even remarked that he should pursue this line of thought, as I felt there was more to uncover. This did not happen. I have a copy of those emails.

I decided to pursue it myself, and while acknowledging some work had been done already by a few collectors, I made a bold statement that many pieces we thought were by Rindskopf, were actually by Kralik. This had NEVER been concluded up till then. After this information was published on my site. There was a major fall out from Craig & company, that I had stolen their idea, and did not give them due credit. I persisted and explained their true intent on my site before I broached the subject. It was to deny that the Pepita decor was not Rindskopf or a marker for them, Pallme-Konig was also used as a glass decor example to prove their point. Kralik never came up in writing on this site by anybody, regarding this discussion at that time. I also have a copy of the whole 2015 post and it's content. The agenda then was to discredit another collector of many years, that was feuding with this small group and who was fond of Rindskopf's pepita attributions.

The fact that I pursued the study and came to the conclusion that we were dealing with Kralik, just as I have also claimed that the pulled feather decor seen on Rindskopf glass was also used by Kralik during the interwar period, was simply a continued effort to advance our knowledge about both glass companies.

Why some people have decided to take affront and accuse me of dishonest behavior is only another ploy to discredit me so that they can continue to be viewed as the only Czech glass 'experts' worthy of trust, as some people seem to believe them to be. That's all.

P.S. Well, as usual it's not all, as the text I was replying to has been deleted. The bio has been edited, removing more troublesome facts dating May 2016 or 2 years ago not 3, along with all the relevant posts removed back then.

Now we have a 'Kralik Pepita' post version that does not reflect the original post about this topic by the poster, or has the same title. How do I know? There is no reference or images about the Quittenbaum auction house's Pallme-Konig collection sale, information that was part of the discussion on the initial post and used in the study, is not there either. Instead we have an affirmation of a dubious time frame, claiming facts that were not in evidence at the crucial time of May 2015. Problem here is I have a very good visual memory, and I kept much of the written data, posts, comments and emails by this person, as I knew this would be prudent. If anybody wants an email image copy of the documents I am referring to, they are welcome to it.

P.S.S. re latest explanation on PDF - created and dated after the fact. Edited on May16th & comment deleted by welzebub.
Here is an untouched comment on another member's post that explained 3 years ago, what 'welzebub's initial Pepita decor post was about, including a link to a post which was deleted, and a PK glass decor link from the auction, note there is not one mention of Kralik :

-------------------------------------------

"Below is a link to an image of the Quittenbaum PK example, along with 8 other examples in the same shape and in known PK decors. The attribution of the décor to PK was from a very large PK collection sold in Nov. 2014. The collection was one of the largest offering of PK production that I am aware of having occurred in recent times. PK production is amongst the most difficult production to locate as a collector.
http://cf.collectorsweekly.com/stories/f81VNpQzdfS7YDks5WVkYw.jpg
That image can be found in my CW post discussing both Pepita and the molded webbing décor:
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/157170-the-molded-web-the-mystery-dcor?in=activity
"If there is a 'pepita' like glass vase in a PK shape, that does not infer that all Rindskopf attributed and documented Passau Museum based publications with pepita glass decors are in question, as well as our own pieces of pepita glass. "
While not calling into question all Rindskopf attributions, (no one actually inferred it did anything of the sort) the production of a PK "Pepita" does call for reasonable doubt when evaluating a Rindskopf attribution which can only be supported through a link using that décor as a marker for Rindskopf production.
The generally applied standard for attributions regarding auction houses is to not use auction site references as sources of identification.... that is very true. In the case of the PK attribution proffered in the Quittenbaum auction, the attribution was supported by 8 other examples, in the same shape in known PK décors. It is also worth noting that auction was exclusively PK items. (143 pieces) "
--------------------------------

I still claim that all the fuss happened in May 2016, after I had published an article about the same 'Pepita Decor' topic, but with a solid attribution to Kralik this time, using many glass images to illustrate my point. My website was published in September 2015, and I was still working on the Ruckl glass portion for many months afterwards. Everything points to a May 2016 series if events, regarding my foray into the Kralik pepita decor on my site, and the ensuing livid reaction and accusations. That was the date a series of posts were delete by member, the bio was changed with an explanation as to why his information was removed. The first version was clearly defamatory towards me and I still have copies of my emails to Craig to change his text or I would go the legal route. He complied. It's easy to claim and compose PDF documents years later, and with facts and dates that can't be proven, because all the original material has been deleted or reformatted on his website.

Why does all this matter so much? Because I am accused of making claims that were not true and omitted to give credit to the people who had the idea first. When all that was said at the time was, another maker instead of Rindskopf, maybe PK, others mentioned Kralik as well, and then Craig stated maybe not..... in May 2015. Nobody else can judge here who is telling the truth unless you were kept informed since May 2015, everybody else at least have both side's testimony to consider. I am done with this, as any further discussion is pointless.