Vintage Guru Reveals Her Glamour Secrets
The Killer Mobile Device for Victorian Women
Gloriously Grotesque 19th-Century Pipes
The Beautiful Chaos of Improvisational Quilts
Our Dad, the Water Witch of Wyoming
This 1959 Goggomobil Is Insanely Cute and Gets 55 MPG. Why Can’t Detroit Do That?
California Cool: How the Wetsuit Became the Surfer's Second Skin
The Unfiltered History of Rolling Papers, Plus Tommy Chong's Big Fat Jamaican Vacation
World's Smallest Museum Finds the Wonder in Everyday Objects
Fightin’ Femmes: Unmasking Female Superheroes with Author Mike Madrid
Posted 1 year ago
Alfredo
(362 items)
This is not the kind of glass which would earn a place in most Czech glass collections. However, it is quite representative of mass-manufactured Czech glass for export, the kind that stocked the shelves of America's mom-and pop general stores in the early years of the 20th Century (pre- WWII).
Both pieces are 6" tall, frosted glass blown into molds with intricate optic patterns, colorful spatter on the bottom half, but most significantly, a provenance mark already embossed into the mold. So far I would have to classify them as "mystery pieces" since I have found no clue as to their maker. Other larger pieces with the same embossed mark have surfaced as well. The embossing constitutes what is probably the most permanent way to mark provenance. Their provenance earns them a place in my Czech glass collection.
Bohemian Art GlassBohemian art glass was made in and around the present-day Czech Republic du…
Art DecoArt Deco was an international design and art movement in the 1920s and ’30s…
Love another "mystery"!
Thanks again for the input Alfredo!
I am new here and trying to learn. These are regularly identified on ebay as Kralik. Is that not correct?
IT IS NOT INCORRECT, IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. BLUNTLY SPEAKING, NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW WHO USED THIS PROVENANCE MARK.
I am confused, if no one has shown it to be Kralik, or not Kralik wouldn't it be incorrect to call them Kralik? If no one knows who used this mark, then why would people identify the vases as Kralik.? seems odd to me. wouldn;t that mean you could call anything what you wanted if it has not been proven one way or another. Wouldn't it be more accurate to simply say the manufacturer is unknown rather than calling it something no one can prove it is or isn't? You yourself state say that you have found no clue as to maker and you seem to know more than most when reading all of the glass you have posted on here.
eBay sellers often try to throw in keywords that they think will bring their auction more views - if it can't be disproved as Kralik then this will help them out, even if they explain in the description that it simply resembles Kralik work and the actual maker is unknown.
CZECHFAN, WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD OF ANTIQUES. AS INTRICATELY DECEITFUL AS THE WORLD'S BANKING SYSTEM!
how right you are, Alfredo :)
Al, check out a previous Kralik JIP post of yours and notice the opalescent pattern in the very first rose bowl. By pattern design, the first blue vase posted above does look similar when both are compared.
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/20851-documentation-for-scott
I checked and you are right.
Awesome posting Alfredo. I had an example about a year ago with this same marking.