Share your favorites on Show & Tell

Czech - cased copper

In Art Glass > Bohemian Art Glass > Show & Tell.
Recent activity12929 of 93842A beautiful HUGE iridized Czech KRALIK Vase 16 1/4" tallCan anyone help!!!!
Love it
Like it

WelzebubWelzebub loves this.
charcoalcharcoal loves this.
SEAN68SEAN68 loves this.
AlfredoAlfredo loves this.
elainekay42elainekay42 loves this.
RadegunderRadegunder loves this.
Moonstonelover21Moonstonelover21 loves this.
aghcollectaghcollect loves this.
coloricolori loves this.
bratjddbratjdd loves this.
inkyinky loves this.
musikchoomusikchoo loves this.
Slave-to-glassSlave-to-glass loves this.
czechmanczechman loves this.
LondonloetzlearnerLondonloetzlearner loves this.
manddmoirmanddmoir loves this.
vetraio50vetraio50 loves this.
See 15 more
Add to collection

Please create an account, or Log in here

If you don't have an account, create one here.

Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate

Posted 2 years ago


(164 items)

Here is a real mystery decor some would say is Loetz Ausfuhrung 136. It may be jumping to conclusions to say that loetz was the only maker that could make such a decor. After all it would seem simple for any company to make the same decor- base glass with (copper flaked) glass chips applied to the surface. There are many companies that used copper rods among them Reidel, Rindscopf, Kralik, Welz and others... here are a few pics that show the exact decor. Pic 3 has an importers mark

Unsolved Mystery

Help us close this case. Add your knowledge below.


  1. chinablue chinablue, 2 years ago
    I agree, BELLIN68! Beautiful! I especially love the the first one. Sorry I know nothing to help you with these. (and BELLIN, I haven't found out anything about our other mystery yet. Sorry I couldn't find where you posted your question to answer you before now.)
  2. Alfredo Alfredo, 1 year ago
    The one Czech company to show this decor in a catalog is Ruckl. I think Italians also did it. Pic. 1 is Metallit on black. The mark on the third corresponds to the mark in one of my shades and vases.
  3. jericho jericho, 1 year ago
    absolutely al, many companies produced cased copper, and other metals
  4. charcoal charcoal, 2 months ago
    Not sure about the first example but the others look like Ruckl Metallit. If you need a copy of the "unpublished" Ruckl decor tables showing this decor please let me know. Those readers without the decor tables can compare the aventurine spots on the vases above to the green aventurine spots on this Ruckl vase cw posting by Alfredo.
  5. charcoal charcoal, 2 months ago
    Looking at a written description of a decor doesn't remotely compare to looking at a color decor table illustration from the manufacturer. Apples and oranges IMHO.
  6. charcoal charcoal, 2 months ago
    Do you have a copy of the "unpublished" Ruckl decors?
  7. jericho jericho, 2 months ago
    i think we all do, the descriptions make sense with the decor, tango with cased copper flakes are a simpke enough decor to copy.... so then other things like shape, size, thickness and rim types become more important in making the determination
  8. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    Could someone please explain to me exactly where we got the evidence that the Metallit decor is actually copper.

    Could it not be Mica and the name is simply a catchy name. This use of these drawings has reached a level of absurdity. No one knows what Metallit actually is or how it was produced, yet we know what is Ruckl based on a artist drawing in line art of a decor we think we have ID'd because it kinda seems to tmake sense with the name...

    Seriously.... Is this for real?? I find it almost twilight zone like.

    Sorry... but enough is enough....
  9. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    For starters, I have a copy of the decor pages you continue to ask about.... and as a matter of fact, they originated with me..... as provided for my research from Deb Truitt. The current use of them, would be a good reason why I regret that they were ever shared..... but that is a different subject not relating to glass.

    "A drawing in an orange color with little beige specks drawn on it"....

    a fairly accurate description of one of the Metallit decor drawings... underneath is the name Metallit and a decor number.

    vs....... and this is a hypothetical descriptions because one does not really exist...

    "An orange ground covered in a clear casing containing semi small natural Amber Mica inclusions, done on a bulbous form with a cut and polished rim".

    You find the first colored drawing to be more reasonable to use for a attribution than a physical description of the technique..... Seriously??

    So in that case, can you please tell us what the "specks" are made of in the colored line art you now like to refer to as a "color decor table illustration from the manufacturer."

    If you can not tell us, then the drawing is a completely useless tool when it comes to attributions of actual production based on them.... plain and simple. You say it is Copper.... I suggest it is Mica..... and Metallin does not really give us an actual clue, it is a name, and not a description.... Kralik made a line called Bambus, and I doubt any Bamboo is in it.... They also made a line referred to as Iris, and I am willing to make the same stretch of a claim and say there are likely no flowers in that..... so without a decor description or an actual known example, the name means nothing relative to the technique.... but maybe only to the look.... which could be Mica as easily as Copper.... both sparkle like metal in glass, and mica flakes are often mistaken by people for silver flakes.....

    I suggest that it is important for us to have more respect for users in this forum trying to learn, and not continue with what I would politely call unsupportable attributions presented as facts... if for no other reason than users here deeserve better.....
  10. LeahGoodwin LeahGoodwin, 2 months ago
    I personally corresponded with Deb Truitt, recently and she offered to share with me the Ruckl drawings you speak of with regret, Welzebub. I'm very thankful she offered to share and wanted to help me learn more about Ruckl. The drawings are documentation and how it's applied was provided for a reason. The drawings had a purpose once upon a time. Ruckl applied it some how and Truitt passed it on.

    Some glass collector's are evolving into "Czech Deco Export." It's a truce to say Kralik, Ruckl and others are a possibility. If someone wants to have opinion from their research they should be allowed to comment without being obstructed because someone does not agree with the topic. Actions speak louder and there is clearly a message thread to see what it going on. When is enough is enough?
  11. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    Enough is enough when line art catalogs originally developed for sales, are turned into "Decor tables" and used as methods for ID, when actual examples can not be identified. I am glad she offered to share them...... that is nice... Did you explain to her that you already had them?

    Did you explain to her that they are already being used, and have been for 18 months to make attributions of glass based on far reaching interpretations of the artwork?

    I am not going to argue this point. I simply have a different approach to researching glass than you do. You research, learn and teach your way. I will do the same my way.

    As I have repeatedly voiced in this forum, if people do not agree with me they are certainly free to write a post and provide something other than, you are wrong, you are a Ruckl hater, collectors are evolving, we are being obstructed..... and the list could go on.

    I have never "obstructed", I simply disagree and I post articles presenting my point of view in what I believe is a reasonable and logical manner..... If that is your definition of obstruction then we would likely disagree on the meaning of the word also..... I do not comment on posts I do not agree with. If they are not accurate in my opinion, and contain information I think would be misleading to some collectors, I post an article presenting a different point of view and allow readers the opportunity to evaluate the two positions... Plain and simple.... The Ausführung 140 decor which went in this forum from 100% Loetz to 100% Ruckl to possibly Ruckl in under 36 hours would be a good example of what I refer to when I talk about questionable information. I did not, and do not, go on the post and state it was wrong. I simply posted an article about a decor study I did a number of years ago which resulted in the removal of the decor from my website, and also likely at least contributed to the removal of the decor from

    Is it possibly Ruckl?? Who knows.... I have certainly seen nothing to me that would come even close to supporting the attribution, but like I said, we obviously do this differently.... I am not threatened by your opinion, you should not be threatened by mine.... If you disagree with my work or my post explain why in one of your own and people reading in the forum can make up their own minds... I believe they have that ability.

    Feel free to do the same as I do, and post an article as a counterpoint to my position if you do not agree with the position I state in my post.

    This is after all, a discussion forum and although you do not agree with me, voicing my opinion is not obstructionism, it is stating my position with an explanation of why I believe it.
  12. SEAN68 SEAN68, 2 months ago
    Craig That is fine you have your opinion !!! But at the same time Please don't force it on anyone else !!! Its not right and its not fair!!
  13. Alfredo Alfredo, 2 months ago
    I have a little cobalt blue vase with this kind of aventurine and a huge polished pontil mark. I love it but have not photographed it. My take: if it were Italian it would not have that pontil. I have always thought it Czech. But you know my recently developed aversion to hasty attributions.
  14. SEAN68 SEAN68, 2 months ago
    I agree hasty attributions.
  15. charcoal charcoal, 2 months ago
    There's nothing hasty about a Ruckl attribution on this decor. Jericho suggested Ruckl at time of posting two years ago. Alfredo said it is a a documented Ruckl decor 1 years ago. Two years ago you agree that it ASUF 140 is likely Ruckl. Yesterday we find a ASUF 140 shape link to Ruckl production and you act surprised?
  16. SEAN68 SEAN68, 2 months ago
    I guess this is why I get frustrated because it just keeps on changing!! . ive just have come to terms ,in fact its just a very beautiful Czech art glass .......
  17. SEAN68 SEAN68, 2 months ago
    exported of course.....
  18. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    Sean, I do not "force" my opinion on anyone. The easy way to avoid my opinion is to not read my posts. I generally do not read yours. That is a really simple solution. I am incapable of forcing you read mine, so if you do, I would have to say that it was "your choice".

    And to "not force it on anyone else" are you suggesting that I simply not state it?

    I do not expect you to answer that... it is a rhetorical question....

    Jericho "suggested"
    Alfredo said it is "Documented"
    I would question the validity of the shape link to begin with, and the initial attribution of the Ruckl example it was lined to.

    That is the problem. Say so's, suggestions, and unsupportable attributions do not a decor ID make. If the attribution of the Ruckl shape and decor used for the "link" is unsupportable, then the entire process falls apart.

    I ask again, Where does it say the specks in the drawings are even copper aventurine? If you can not answer that question with any reasonable certainty, then the rest of it is "air". It all started with the drawings after all.

    Alfredo, although uncommon, pontils on some Italian pieces are not completely unheard of. The Italian invented Copper Aventurine and have used the technique for several centuries. Not saying it is or isn't Italian, just saying you should not rule it out completely.
  19. LeahGoodwin LeahGoodwin, 2 months ago
    FWIW: Yes Craig, I did tell Truitt you provided the materials and you shared with Alfredo. She also knows the pages are being used. I told her Alfredo was able to bring some of the decors to life, and a few others of interest have been helping also.
  20. SEAN68 SEAN68, 2 months ago
    I really don't give a dam anymore !!
  21. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    That is nice Leah. I still do not agree with the methods being applied to use color drawings to attribute glass. To be hones, if I had even suspected they would eventually be used that way I would have never shared them, and we would not even need to have this conversation.

    Like I said, I am not going to argue the point. You have your methods I have mine. Members of the forum can simply read what is posted and make up their own mind.

    That is all I am really interested in..... Providing a different point of view for people to digest and arrive at their own conclusions if they are interested in doing so........ sorry it seems to disagree with you guys so often.... But it is what it is....
  22. LeahGoodwin LeahGoodwin, 2 months ago
    That's a shame you wished you had withheld Ruckl documentation because you don't agree with how it's currently being used. Yes, it is what it is. Sooner or later, Truitt would have shared the Ruckl information with someone else of interest.

  23. SEAN68 SEAN68, 2 months ago
    I meant my comment towards craig!!!
  24. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    What is a shame Leah is that they are being used in a manner I feel very strongly is reckless.

    At least if she had shared them with someone instead of me, she may feel responsible for the end result, rather than me feeling that way.

    I am all for the sharing of information. I feel much stronger about the responsible use of it.
  25. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    I am also still curious if anyone can tell me how the conclusion that the decor includes copper aventurine was arrived at, enabling us to attribute the pieces other than the first one above to Rückl Metallit?

    I am also curious, since none of the 5 drawings in the catalog represent Metallit on a ground color of blue, how we arrived at the conclusion that a copper aventurine decor on a blue ground was accurately determined to be Rückl?? When, Where, and How did we determine that Metallit even came in blue,

    Interestingly, the example posted in the forum before as Metallit uses Mica in a clear casing, and not copper aventurine. If we are going to reference the statement of "documentation" of a decor by someone, should we not at least follow his lead on the contents of the glass? Or am I being entirely unreasonable?

    And in the drawing with that example, the specks are light brown and not representative of a silver color as shown in the vase. I am curious as to the explanation for that disparity also.

    These are the kinds of "research leaps" I am referring to and discussing so adamantly......

    Now I am thoroughly confused...... what does Metallit really look like, what are those specks made of, and how many colors did they make it in?
  26. SEAN68 SEAN68, 2 months ago
    Jericho please remove my comments!!!!!! Thank you :)
  27. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    The following following remark was placed in the comments in this link:

    The comment reads:
    "Metallurgical glass, as mentioned above, is the use of various metal oxides and alloys suspended or cased inside glass compounds to create sparkly metallic effects and properties. I feel it is safe to say that the documented Ruckl Metallit Decor used this process."

    I on the other hand would have to take the position that there is still nothing but an unfounded supposition that the catchy name Metallit, refers to a decor containing actual Copper Aventurine instead of mica.

    My complete aversion in this forum, is to assumptions which lead to more assumptions which lead to bad attributions, which are passed on as information for users of this forum to rely on.

    Until we find something that documents an example of Metallit, like a shape in a decor matching the drawings in the sales catalogs, it is just as likely and accurate for me to state that based on the shape and pattern of distribution of the specks in the artwork, the drawings appear to me to represent Mica use substantially more than it reflects the Copper Aventurine found in the examples above....

    Sounds good to me, but the problem is, that just like the assumption that it is Copper Aventurine, it is what I commonly would classify both suggestions as WAG's....

    Mine, as well as the other suggestion of "Metallurgical glass", is a Wild Ass Guess, as there is simply absolutely no evidence to base it on.

    In general, Mica use was substantially more wide spread than the use of Copper Aventurine, and likely due to the relative cost of both... Mica being a much cheaper ingredient.

    But that fact has nothing to do with determining what Mettalit actually looked like.
  28. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    And for what it is worth, I am still wondering if someone making these attributions can actually tell us how they arrived at the conclusion, other than noting that an auction notice for a Rückl factory in 2006 listed Metallurgical Glass as one of the plant capabilities... and then making the leap from that to an 83 year old drawing from 1931 depicting little specks in a decor named Metallin and determining that it is Copper Aventurine.
  29. SEAN68 SEAN68, 2 months ago
  30. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    If you do not agree with my article Leah, or my line of reasoning in that article, as I always encourage people to do, feel free to write one of your own which explains the logic that would support why my position is wrong.

    As far as that post goes, a single label on the bottom of a piece of glass is not "manufacturers documentation". It is merely a single label on the bottom of a vase. I did not even say that the vase with the label is not Rückl. Quite the contrary, I say openly that it is Rückl.

    I quote myself here: "So for now we simply accept the fact that it is a Ruckl vase."

    After explaining my position regarding the two similar vases in different decors I also state clearly:

    "So at this point here is my working theory. I believe that the examples pictured here may be the closest replications of competitive product I have seen to date. This is referred to as a "Design shift", or the intentional mimicking of the physical shape of a competitors product. I currently believe the two examples compared here were produced by different firms, and only time, and the location of additional examples will prove out the theory one way or the other. "

    Different firms" is explained in the article to be Rückl for the labeled Oxblood décor, and Welz for the Cadmium spatter. I know I was very clear about that. So are you saying that my belief that Welz made one somehow negates my belief that Rückl made the other? Or does it interfere with the belief that Rückl made it all.

    My confusion now is in an additional area. That would be; Where the "manufacturers documentation" you claim I overrode with my opinion is located? Surely you are not referring to a single label on a single Ruckl vase that I openly admit is Ruckl production?

    And of course, there is still the lingering, and now appearing to be avoided answer to my question which I guess I will ask again.....

    I am also still curious if anyone can tell me how the conclusion that the decor Mettallit by Rückl includes copper aventurine was arrived at, enabling us to attribute the pieces other than the first one above to Rückl Metallit?

    I appreciate your input though. As always, I really enjoy the topics of conversation you seem to choose.

  31. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    I did neglect to quote myself from the article you referenced, as I also stated:

    The auction vase pictured here actually has a Ruckl label providing undeniable evidence that it is a Ruckl product.

    I guess you missed that when you read it.
  32. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    My comment in #33 & 34 are in response to a comment by Leah regarding a post of mine. It would appear that the comment has now disappeared some how. Luckily I saved it, so here it is. This will allow those interested to understand my comments in #33 34.

    Here is the comment:
    "My complete aversion in this forum, is to assumptions which
    lead to more assumptions which lead to bad attributions, which
    are passed on as information for users of this forum to rely on."
    Yeah, like this one where one opinion overrides manufactures
  33. charcoal charcoal, 2 months ago
    Sorry, that wasn't Leah's comment? It was mine. The comment was deleted because I used my wife's account to reply by accident.
  34. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    That is OK Charcoal, I generally like the subjects you choose to focus on also.

    Thanks for clearing that up though.
  35. charcoal charcoal, 2 months ago
    Thanks WB, Regarding you copper question, which I guess is directed at me, although Jericho claims it's copper in the posting. It's irrelevant as it was by shape that the Ruckl connection was made, not by decor. This was noted above in comment #17.
  36. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    I seriously hope you are joking.....

    First of all, there is not a single shape in this post that can be reasonably linked to Rückl, so the suggestion that they are Metallit is not reasonable.

    The link referred to in that comment is to an unidentified decor on a shape owned by Warren and also found in what used to be thought to be an Ausführung 140 example. The decor link between the two shapes was based on an example of a vase posted by Alfredo as Coral Shimmy by Rückl.

    The problem with that attribution is that the Coral Shimmy decor, unpublished so far, is actually a spatter decor in multiple colors, appearing to be a shade of orange, yellow, and possibly some white, and very clearly without any pulls shown in the drawings, and also clearly not even showing a hint of green in it, much less aventurine.

    So if we declare a decor and shape to be Rückl, and it is clearly different than the drawing shows, then what we end up with is declaring an unknown shape and decor to be Rückl and building from there. A bad premise builds a bad result... plain and simple.

    I actually have Kyles original pics of that vase, Al posted them also, and the Orange Shimmy line art, and they are not even close. Not even in the same family of decors......

    Obviously my position is that Al's declaration of his vase being a Rückl Coral Shimmy is that the attribution is a major mistake, and thus, a very bad starting point.

    I would be glad to post Kyles pics and the Rückl Orange Shimmy in a different post, but my review of the decor might not go over well with any of you, my being so "anti-Rückl".

    Even if Al was correct, and the shape and decor were Rückl, there is no way to determine what the specks in the line art are, so any leap declaring Metallit to be Mica or Copper is unfounded without additional supporting evidence. It really is that simple to me.

    Al's vase contains green glass with Mica inclusions and you refer to them as: "Here's Al's posting showing what I feel are similar pulls and similar Metallit streaks in the green". So on Al's "Coral Shimmy" vase the Metallit is created using mica in green glass, and in this post the Metallit is "Copper Aventurine".

    Really simple statement here.... Can not have it both ways... It does not work that way... and stating both, signifies to me that you really do not know the answer.... Does not matter that it is you Charcoal, I would same the same about anyone making these kinds of statements....

    Al himself posted a vase with Mica inclusions and declared it to be Metallit. So Metallit is Mica and his mind, and apparently both Mica and also Copper Aventurine in yours, and to me it is an indeterminate decor based on the color drawings. These facts by themselves are enough to establish that there is not enough information to come to a viable conclusion, and therefore any even slightly reasonable attribution is out of the question.

    Many of the decors above are also in a blue ground, a color that I will repeat is not shown in the Metallit drawings in the catalog.

    So here are my direct questions resulting from this conversation.

    1) Where is the information that would determine that Metallit contains Copper, and not Mica or some other specks of material or color?

    2) How was the determination made that a vase in a blue ground could even be classified as Metallit, since the 5 drawings of different decor colors and shapes you refer to as "decor tables" do not even include a blue example?

    3) What exactly is the "manufacturers documentation" I overrode with my opinion in the post of mine you linked to, or were you referring to the label on the underside of the vase as "manufacturers documentation"? A vase, I will again point out I stated was undeniably by Rückl.

    Please provide some direct answers, and not links to other posts not containing the answers to the serious questions I am asking.
  37. charcoal charcoal, 2 months ago
    1) My attribution to Ruckl had nothing to do with the decor table. It was the shape that caught my eye, not the decor.

    I never said what the sparkly compound was but my best guess is that it's encapsulated metal per the definition.. Metallit: Consisting of one or more metals or metal salts.

    2) Every company likely had the capacity to manufacture blue.

    3) I found this to be Ruckl by accident using research I have been working on for a good while now. I am very appreciative of this posting by Jericho but it neither changed or contributed to my attribution. My research methods were not altered to achieve the results I desired.
  38. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    In response to #1)

    I quote you from above in comment #4:
    "Not sure about the first example but the others look like Ruckl Metallit."

    There is no mention of shape there, and there are 5 shapes shown not including the first which, you exclude from the group. Which of those 5 is the one that is the shape that "caught your eye"? You pretty clearly seem to attribute the 5 shapes above to one décor, and you declare that to be Metallit.

    So if it is not the copper aventurine common to those 5 shapes, what exactly is it you are seeing that would make this appear to be Metallit by Rückl?

    So am I understanding what you said correctly when you said that your declaration of the decor in comment 4 to look like Rückl Metallit is based on, as you state above, your "best guess" that it is Metallit because you assume that the name implies encapsulated metal or metal salts. If I have misunderstood, please clarify this form me.

    I quote you from above also:
    "per the definition.. Metallit: Consisting of one or more metals or metal salts."

    I am curious as to where this definition was located, as the phrase Metallit simply seems to infer a possible appearance. How, when, and where did the "catchy name" (Truitt's description) change from a name to a "definition"? I am also curious as to who wrote the definition? Was it found in some Ruckl documentation I am unaware of?

    I think I am beginning to understand much more clearly. :-)

    In regards to #2)

    That fact that every company had the ability to manufacture blue is certainly not, at least in my humble opinion, a good basis for a jump to the conclusion that Rückl produced Metallit in blue. As an example, they also had the ability to produce green glass, as did every Czech company. Would it then your position that they also likely made made Metallit in green?

    In regards to #3

    It is not my assumption that you altered or modified anything in regards to your "research", and I certainly did not even infer that. I am simply trying, as with others here I am sure, to understand your thought process to make sense of your conclusions, and hence the many attributions you have made to Rückl in this forum. I try to lay out my thought process very clearly when I post in CW relating to attributions, so as to attempt to avoid confusion on the part of people that read the posts.

    I do think this has helped me immensely in coming to a much clearer understanding of what your research entails.

    So to recap my new, and remaining questions:

    1) Which of the shapes above was the one (or more) that caught your eye to aid in the attribution of the vases above to both Rückl and Metallit? And could you possibly point me to other examples of the shape(s) so I could observe the similarities myself?

    2) Where exactly is the "definition" of Metallit which you stated above found?

    You seem to have missed this question, so I will ask again, as I am quite seriously interested in the answer, especially when it infers I overrode, or potentially ignored, something in my thought process. I seriously do not like making mistakes that are avoidable.

    So the unanswered question from above in comment #39 by me.

    3) What exactly is the "manufacturers documentation" I overrode with my opinion in the post of mine you linked to, or were you referring to the label on the underside of the vase as "manufacturers documentation"? A vase, I will again point out I stated was undeniably by Rückl.
  39. charcoal charcoal, 2 months ago
    1) Initially it was the 3rd shape that caught my eye. Now I feel pretty good about the second one too. There's more than one way to look at how it connects. I usually make sure of that before sharing. The most direct would be that these shapes come in other decors which closely match the Ruckl decor tables.

    If you have a problem with others attributions that led to my decision then you would be best to direct your question to that individual.

    2) Metallit in Czech translates to metalline in English which means containing one or more metals or metallic salts.

    3) I'm completely confident that you already know what I'm talking about.
  40. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    First of all, If I knew what you were talking about in regards to "documentation" I would not ask. I have absolutely no idea. If I did, I would not hesitate to address specifically why I chose to "override it with my opinion". I certainly have addressed specifically and immediately any other things you state I do not agree with. You may be "completely confident" that I know, but I assure you I do not, and since you stated that I overrode some "factory documentation", I am seriously interested in what you think I know about and ignored. Even if you "think" I know what you are talking about, you are mistaken. If you are going to state something like that I recommend that you be prepared to provide the "manufacturers documentation" to back it up. If not it gives the outward appearance of an attempt to impugn the research work by making unsustainable and purely unfounded claims..... and I am reasonably confident that is not your intention.

    So I will directly ask again, and you can trust in the fact that I will not let it go until I have a specific answer to the question. So here it is again:

    3) What exactly is the "manufacturers documentation" I overrode with my opinion in the post of mine you linked to, or were you referring to the label on the underside of the vase as "manufacturers documentation"? A vase, I will again point out I stated was undeniably by Rückl.

    In regards to answer #1 - There are a selection of shapes which resemble example number 3. All of those examples I am familiar with are examples which have mold blown forms, and cut and polished rims with no pontil mark of any kind. There are also at least 3 versions of it which could be seen as similar, but different. Those examples can be found in a variety of spatter decors. Unfortunately the red example above, although a similar shape to some of those pieces, it is a unique example which has a fire polished rim and a polished pontil. Those facts alone would make it's inclusion in any shape study with polished rim examples, suspect by production technique alone. I will not even address the simplistic and generic nature of the shape number 2.

    I do not need to address other peoples attributions as you suggested. I am currently not questioning their work, I am addressing yours quite specifically. That is pretty simple also.

    In regards to #2, the Google translation of the word Metallit comes back in both English and German as Metal. At least when I translated it before this conversation began..

    In reference to other names found on the same page:

    Shimmy, as seen in the"decor tables" (I will humor you) means:
    1. an American ragtime dance with much shaking of the hips and shoulders
    2. abnormal wobbling motion in a motor vehicle, esp in the front wheels or steering

    Pfau translates to Peacock
    Peacock is defined as:
    1. the male of the peafowl distinguished by its long, erectile, greenish, iridescent tail coverts that are brilliantly marked with ocellated spots and that can be spread in a fan.
    2. any peafowl.
    3. a vain, self-conscious person.

    Pierrot means:
    1. Capital P - a male character in certain French pantomime, having a whitened face and wearing a loose, white, fancy costume.
    2. ( lowercase ) an actor, masquerader, or buffoon so made up.

    Marmor translates to Marble.
    Marble means:
    1. metamorphosed limestone, consisting chiefly of recrystallized calcite or dolomite, capable of taking a high polish, occurring in a wide range of colors and variegations and used in sculpture and architecture.
    2. any variety of this stone: Carrara marble.
    3. an object made of or carved from this stone, especially a sculpture: Renaissance marbles.
    4. a piece of this stone: the fallen marbles of Roman ruins.
    5. (not in technical use) any of various breccias or other stones that take a high polish and show a variegated pattern.

    Achat translates to Agate.
    Agate means:
    1. a variegated chalcedony showing curved, colored bands or other markings.
    2. a playing marble made of this substance, or of glass in imitation of it.
    3. Printing. a 5½-point type of a size between pearl and nonpareil.

    I could go on but I won't.....

    Are we to then assume that your "literal" translation of one decor name in the catalog line art means that we should also imply literal meanings to the rest of the names, or is the name Metallit the exception in the entire catalog, or at least that one page, and thus also becomes by your use, both the name and the definitive description of the decor?

    So the question above #3, repeated from previous posts continues to remain unanswered.

    And I am curious as to the use of Metallit as a singular example of the Decor name/ Definition, or if we should apply the same methodology to the rest of the names on that page?

    Like I said, this is so helpful in my gaining an understanding of your work....
  41. charcoal charcoal, 2 months ago
    Really seems odd to me that you repeatedly question the use of labels, catalog reprints, and decor tables. These are considered primary documentation as they were published by the manufacturer. Please feel free to add similar documentation to your CW Welz postings. After you do I will gladly return and more fully answer your questions. Until then, as my comments are being misconstrued, I am finished with this silly conversation.
  42. Welzebub Welzebub, 2 months ago
    Charcoal, Your inference that I do something does not make it real... as has been shown here.

    You stated I override documentation with my opinion, and when I push for the documentation you are referring to, you tell me I need to produce mine. Here is the problem as I see it. I have repeatedly and always stated that there is none for Welz, and the research is empirical, and you know that.

    I do not question labels. I recognized the single Rückl vase with the label as being produced by the company whose label was on it. I also acknowledged that you own a similar example made by Ruckl also. I DO question the misuse and incorrect classification of color drawings declared to be "Decor Tables", which are actually sales catalogs. Is it "Primary Documentation"? I suppose you can call it that since the manufacturer printed it. The question then becomes, what does it document and how, if at all, can we responsibly use it?

    A Sales Catalog of artwork, is not a decor table... Plain and simple. You can call a duck a Peacock as much as you want.... it still does not become a Peacock... it is ,and always will be a duck no matter how many times it is called a Peacock....

    Your comments are not misconstrued here Charcoal, I am simply asking for you to provide something above and beyond your say so... which is really what it all boils down to time and time again.

    I have now though, received what I expected all along, and that is complete avoidance of my question directly aimed at the production of the "Manufacturers documentation". That is after all how this later portion of this conversation actually got started....

    Know that in the future if you make comments such as those declaring that "I overrode manufacturers documentation", that I will always press for you to produce what you imply you have that I have ignored. That is of course with the exception of on your posts, or the posts of others, where the unwanted comments and unanswerable question are consistently deleted.

    I have clearly stated in all of my articles and research posts the the Welz research I have done is empirical, as there is no known documentation..... Your repeated claims of having Ruckl documents, and not producing them does not in any way effect my research, but your inability to produce something you continue to make inferences to does, make me seriously question almost all of what you say.

    I have not misconstrued what you have said. This is a discussion forum last time I checked. I have simply asked you pointed questions aimed at clarifications of what you are saying, clarifications which you appear to be either unwilling or unable to produce.

    "After you do I will gladly return and more fully answer your questions."

    You will never come back to answer my question fully, because I am convinced that you can not do so.... plain and simple... If you could you already would have..... and since I have said repeatedly there is no documentation for Welz, you asking for it is a convenient position for you to appear to take.

    Until then, as my comments are being misconstrued, I am finished with this silly conversation.

    I am sorry but your position of show me yours first and I will show you mine is not going to work this time..... Taking that position though...... Now that is what I would call really "silly".

Want to post a comment?

Create an account or login in order to post a comment.