Share your favorites on Show & Tell

Czech Spatter Glass Vase?

In Art Glass > Show & Tell.
Recent activity9281 of 93705unknown english china... help Id Info Needed on Akizuki Japan Guitar
13
Love it
0
Like it

charcoalcharcoal loves this.
LeahGoodwinLeahGoodwin loves this.
bratjddbratjdd loves this.
RadegunderRadegunder loves this.
Moonstonelover21Moonstonelover21 loves this.
SEAN68SEAN68 loves this.
inkyinky loves this.
walksoftlywalksoftly loves this.
officialfuelofficialfuel loves this.
Slave-to-glassSlave-to-glass loves this.
LondonloetzlearnerLondonloetzlearner loves this.
czechmanczechman loves this.
vetraio50vetraio50 loves this.
See 11 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

Email

Justanovice
(136 items)

Found this one in a friend's garden shed, it had belonged to her mother, but she hated it!! So I offered to take it off her hands and it now resides with me. I am assuming that it is Czech, 1930's spatter glass vase? If not, please correct me. Thanks for looking!

Comments

  1. Justanovice Justanovice, 2 years ago
    And thank you again vetraio50! Now I really must go to bed! This forum keeps me up much too late - I have an early start - 6 a.m. Goodnight!!
  2. Justanovice Justanovice, 2 years ago
    Thank you officialfuel, Slave-to-glass, Londonloetzlearner, czechman for the Love!
    Glad to have rescued this one from its dark and dusty shed!
  3. Justanovice Justanovice, 2 years ago
    Thank you BELLIN68!
  4. Justanovice Justanovice, 2 years ago
    Thank you walksoftly and eye4beauty!
  5. charcoal charcoal, 5 months ago
    Your vase was manufactured by Antonin Ruckl & Sons.
    This decor was offered on a totally different shape by Butler Brothers in their February 1930 catalog. Therefore, your vase is likely close to that date as well. Thanks for posting.
  6. SEAN68 SEAN68, 5 months ago
    Beautiful:)!
  7. Justanovice Justanovice, 5 months ago
    Thank you! It is a very special vase to me and I do love it!!
  8. charcoal charcoal, 5 months ago
    Your vase/decor was very helpful with my glass study today and I was very glad to see it posted. Thank you again for sharing it with us on CW!
  9. Welzebub Welzebub, 5 months ago
    The shape was shown in the Tango exhibition of 2012 in a light blue with dark blue spatter at the base. This would confirm the Ruckl attribution for the shape, in my opinion.

    The Butler brothers catalogs are black and white line art, and I am curious as to which Feb 1930 shape is Ruckl in the same orange green and black decor? Pg 21 of Monograph 121 shows the Feb 1930 offering. Could you point out the example please?
  10. charcoal charcoal, 5 months ago
    http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/50871-czechoslovakia-glass-red-tango-fan-vase
  11. Welzebub Welzebub, 5 months ago
    The marked piece in the link below, with an accepted Kralik mark in the same basic shape, would also point to the Butler example, being a similar shape, could also possibly be by Kralik.

    http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/79259-kralik-not-ruckl-fan-vase

    The example to the left of it in the same grouping can be found in the drawn shape in a decor similar to the line art with pulls, and it is also found with the Kralik arch.

    The example above is a Ruckl shape, I am not so sure the fan vase can be attributed with the same certainty, especially in light of the marked piece in the link I provided.
  12. charcoal charcoal, 5 months ago
    The mark on the vase in your link is most likely counterfeit IMHO. To help confirm that theory here's the same fan vase shape with a Loetz mark. http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/79261-opalescent-fan-vase-cover-in-canes?in=442

    Surely we can agree that they're not Loetz? It would seem to me that someone was possibly faking "accepted" markings by 1930.
  13. charcoal charcoal, 5 months ago
    Maybe counterfeit is the wrong word... The arched mark maybe wasn't exclusive to Kralik or maybe there's a minor difference in arched marks that goes undetected when comparing photographs? Either way, there's a problem.
  14. Welzebub Welzebub, 5 months ago
    A handful of points:

    1) A careful reading of Kyle's comment regarding a Loetz mark in that post would reveal that the Loetz mark Kyle is referring to is actually not on that fan vase, but on another he linked to under that comment where he was addressing Al. The vase that Kyle posted is not marked at all.

    2) As far as the arched mark on Kyles vase being forged, counterfeit or spurious; In the 1930's Kralik was still in business, and the mark is an "export mark" applied by Kralik. There would be no reason I can think of that someone would forge or apply a spurious export mark not really associated with Kralik until much later. Certainly the application of a spurious mark would not enhance the value of a piece such as the fan vase I linked to, and that is really the primary reason that people do it.

    3) Kralik "arches" are found in several accepted configurations believed to be theirs. Style of lettering is as much of an indicator of their mark as is the arched shape.

    4) I suppose one could surmise that Ruckl used an arched mark also, but it would really require some evidence to support that position in light of currently accepted research findings.

    5) I think the 'problem" is in trying to attribute the B&W drawing specifically to Ruckl, when the shape exists with an accepted Kralik mark..... a mark that would not make sense to "forge" or apply spuriously.
  15. charcoal charcoal, 1 month ago
    "In the 1930's Kralik was still in business, and the mark is an "export mark" applied by Kralik." To my knowledge, the mark is found on some Kralik glassware but is not documented as being applied by or solely used by Kralik.
  16. Welzebub Welzebub, 1 month ago
    It is now commonly accepted as being a Kralik mark... well, by almost all of the glass world, with possibly the exception of 4 or 5 people in this forum.

    Simply provide a decor known to be by someone else with the arched mark, and we can end the debate.... You simply seem to want to undo 20 years of research and acceptance of this with a couple weeks of "I say so and it is not documented."

    How many different posts are you going to pop in to and make this claim? I am just curious....

Want to post a comment?

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