Posted 4 months ago
ks85
(153 items)
Here is one of my newest pieces. An opalescent fan vase completely covered in canes.
I am not 100% certain, but I am pretty sure it is a Kralik piece based on the shape, size, color and decor.
-
Fashion
Fashion Categories
Breaking Vintage News
-
The Killer Mobile Device for Victorian Women
Adrift in a sea of digital apps for every imaginable function, we often feel our needs are met better today than in any previous era. But consider the chatelaine, a device popularized in the 18th century that attached to the waist of a wo…
-
If These Shirts Could Talk: The Tantalizing Tales Behind Used Clothes
The mysterious packages kept arriving, some from eBay, others from the Home …
-
-
Design
Design Categories
Breaking Vintage News
-
Gloriously Grotesque 19th-Century Pipes
The meerschaum pipes carved in Eastern Europe at the end of the 19th century are among the most bizarre and improbable concoctions in decorative art. Some feature …
-
In the Hot Seat: Is Your Antique Windsor a Fake?
While researching her book, "Killer Stuff and Tons of Money," Maureen Stanton came across all sorts of characters. For years, she shadowed her antiques-dealer friend …
-
-
Machines
Machines Categories
Breaking Vintage News
-
Bizarro Beauty Products, from 1889 to Now
We tend to think of the union of vanity and technology as a particularly modern affliction. It's only recently that science brought the world botox and collagen injections, skin peels, liposucti…
-
Love at First Kite: How Pizza and Pente Led to One Oklahoman's High-Flying Obsession
Vintage kites from all over the world hang from the ceiling and walls of Richard Dermer’s popula…
-
-
Culture
Culture Categories
Breaking Vintage News
-
Pin-Up Queens: Three Female Artists Who Shaped the American Dream Girl
It’s easy to think of pin-up art as a charming relic of the old boys’ club—images that might line the walls …
-
Say Ahhh: An Oral Surgeon's Quest to Reimagine the Garage-Band Guitar
It’s not unusual for men of a certain age to have a soft spot in their hearts for the look of vintage guitars and the sound…
-
-
Collectibles
Collectibles Categories
Breaking Vintage News
-
Tokens for Sweethearts, in Times of War
A keepsake, an item that recognizes a loved one, strikes a deep, sentimental chord in each of us—particularly that of a sweetheart. The popularity of keepsakes grew in the United States during the period from 1917 to 1919 as our country ent…
-
American Picker Dream, Part I: Mike Wolfe On His Love Affair With Bikes
I was walking to school one day and saw all these bikes in the garbage. I was just amazed because I didn't have one and I found it incredible that anyone was throwing them out. So I gathered…
-
Bohemian Art GlassBohemian art glass was made in and around the present-day Czech Republic du…
Thanks Craig. The opalescence sure gives the canes some extra "pop".
THAT SHAPE IS RUCKL. IN FACT, MINE, WHICH IS A GREEN SHIMMY, IS ALSO MARKED.
Al-Because of your extensive experience and the respect everyone has for you, I previously overlooked the loetz mark on this piece, earlier last year, when you told me it wasn't loetz but likely Ruckl or Kralik. As well as the looking past the fact you had one on your site as loetz.
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/71150-non-loetz-oval-marked-tango-vase
Months later when I posted it I quickly learned my first instinct was correct.
Now you state Ruckl trumps the Kralik mark as well? From all I have read, I personally have to doubt that.
As they say-
Fool me once, shame on you...
Fool me twice, shame on me.... :D
This time I will have to stick to what imo are the clearest facts.
However, I of course always welcome everyones opinions, so thanks for stating yours.
Thanks for the loves everyone.
Can I ask a dumb question? Who did put on acid etched stamps? was it in factory or in some kind of customs warehouse?
to me it would seem logic if it was done by manufacturers themselves that etching would include company name. The fact that it does not says to me that it is more likely that it was done by some officials as the objective was to comply with destination nations' requirements for permanent labels and I would assume the glass house would pay a fee for each stamp. I think that is obvious that stamps where designed without company name for versatility, to be used on various source items. It would be logical to me that glass house would invite the exports official for stamping their produce, each industrial city or town could have a division of that office which would have their own stamps, so even if it's very unlikely it would be definitely possible to have any kind of stamps on any source items if all happened as I imagine it did. These stamps were not designed as provenance marks and I think they should not be relied on as on such.
"These stamps were not designed as provenance marks and I think they should not be relied on as on such."
What exactly are you saying?
When I think of provenance marks, I think of a mark to indicate the region it came from(not who it came from).... at least that is how most seem to use the term here. Seems pretty clear to me you are using it as a "manufacturers mark".
If you are saying that none of the marks can be used to ID a maker...then why are you wasting peoples time asking questions that you are so sure you know the answer to?
If you feel you know something everyone else doesn't and that the kralik and loetz marks are just made up myths, then please let us know what you are so sure of.
I would love to see some PROVEN non Loetz pieces you have bearing the loetz mark or some PROVEN (real proof, not using some drawing that looks nothing like it) non kralik pieces bearing their mark.
I am certain you have proof of PROVEN non loetz pieces with the loetz marks and PROVEN(w/ real proof) non kralik pieces with the kralik semicircle, right?
Please post them up as soon as possible. I am certain many are very anxious to see these pieces. Thanks. Collectors and researchers have seemed to agree on these 3 marks for many, many, many years and it seems they have yet to be proven incorrect. So, I am anxious to see your discoveries and I am sure many others are too. Thanks again, I look forward to the new discoveries. Sounds like you have some really ground breaking pieces for us to see.... Can't wait!
I'm saying that mark does not prove what it does not say. It proves it came from Czecho-Slovakia, it does not prove the manufacturer. That all is my opinion of course. And I state that in the post, if You read it You will see that I don't label anything as truth I say it's my opinion and what seems logic to me! I asked before I shared my thoughts in case there is documented procedure I am not aware of. I am sorry to disappoint You, I have no intention to start glass wars episode II, I don't care at all to prove You anything. All I can say it's more scientific to question everything than rely on dogmas.
MacArt, I see your point about why a manufacturer would use a mark that didn't give his name, but I don't think you've taken the line of argument far enough, or explored all the ramifications. I don't know enough about this to have an opinion specific to glass and based on knowledge, but your argument is based on logic. Given that, I think you may need to add other points into the balance before reaching a conclusion based on logic.
As we know, most of these pieces were not retailed by the maker through their own showrooms. They were exported to catalogue companies like Butler Brothers, or department stores whose marks or labels we sometimes see (and forgive me if I use the wrong terminology for the retailers - British English does not always translate). Certainly in England we see silver sterling rims on similar pieces, or on pieces clearly from the same glass manufacturer, but marked by different silver workers in different cities and even in the same city, suggesting (I put it no higher) a selection of different retailers. There seems to be some evidence from the US that Bohemian manufacturers sent the same, or very similar, pieces to several different retailers. It seems logical to me that retailers would not necessarily want an irremovable, manufacturers' mark on the glass - they would want it associated solely with them. That happens even now, and even with high end product made for exclusive retailers. The retailers are selling themselves, not the manufacturer. Why give people (even competitors) the information that would allow them to go straight to the manufacturer? That seems bad commercial sense. So, I imagine the wholesale buyer did not want Kralik, for example, to indelibly mark their pieces as such. The best the manufacturer could then do was use a unique provenance (meaning country of origin) mark ... which the purchaser could not complain about as it was a legal requirement.
It seems to me that answer fits the commercial sense of the manufacturer putting on the provenance mark on at source, while dealing with your objection that if they did so, they would also use a company mark. Food for thought? Or am I running before I can walk?
the point I was making is that stamps mean what they say, that there is not enough conclusiveness for me, if there is enough for You I have no problem with that. But at this point when there is no actual proof it is wrong to state anything as absolute truth, it is wrong to say my truth trumps your truth before you prove me wrong. If they were concerned that items would be recognized, they could stamp them with logos like Harrach did. Thank You for evaluating my point and not rejecting it before reading.
Mac, I obviously read your post ;). In the beginning it certainly seemed to be opinion but by the end it seemed to sound more like a stated fact, at least the way I read it and I read it a few times.
Most of this does not sound like stated opinion, at least to me.
"I think that is obvious that stamps where designed without company name for versatility, to be used on various source items. It would be logical to me that glass house would invite the exports official for stamping their produce, each industrial city or town could have a division of that office which would have their own stamps, so even if it's very unlikely it would be definitely possible to have any kind of stamps on any source items if all happened as I imagine it did. These stamps were not designed as provenance marks and I think they should not be relied on as on such."
This, of course, is the internet. Things can easily be taken the wrong way, if I did that then I apologize. Who knows though, it could turn into a nice debate and we all may learn something new by the end. :)
LLL wonderful post and very valid point imo.
Macart-the Kralik and Loetz marks were attributed 15 years ago minimum and to the best of my knowledge have yet to be proven wrong and I have yet to find a collector or researcher who disputes these. With the internet and the massive amounts of glass that one is able to view(thousands and thousands years after year), I personally find that to be pretty solid evidence personally. I do understand your point and there is nothing wrong w/ second guessing but to not even be open to the reality of this, is a mistake imo.
I'm not talking about being able to attribute every mark as I simply have no desire to even enter that conversation.
A logo isn't going to help hide a manufacturer imo. I can look at a chevy logo and know it is chevy even though it doesn't say chevy. The Mcdonalds arch doesn't need to say Mcdonalds for many people worldwide to know what it is.
I would also like to add that marketing didn't seem to be a huge thing to these companies, imo. I imagine if marketing was a huge part of their strategy, we would have tons and tons of advertising material out there and there would be very little debate as to who made what. Of course there is material out there and most likely more that will be discovered. But with the huge amount of glass made between the wars you would certainly expect more "advertisements" and personalized catalogs from them if marketing was that big of a deal.. at least imo. So, just because a mark doesn't have a company name I don't think you can rule out that mark being applied by the maker.
To add to LLL post. Many pieces were also sold as "blanks" to be decorated by other companies with enamel, overlay etc. I assume those companies would prefer that other company names not be on the pieces.
well I am open to all possibilities before there is a definitive proof for one of them. my position is "they could be exclusive, but there is a chance they are not" this position includes possibility "they are exclusive".
Evidence is good, but not as good as proof. When there is no proof it's ambiguity, if You have a definitive answer before You have proof its dogma.
LLL-"Why give people (even competitors) the information that would allow them to go straight to the manufacturer?" well put!
I can only ad a little bit to this intelligent exchange. for the purpose of collecting i attribute a piece to its most likely maker sometimes with very little evidence. if the facts comes out later i simply move it to a new folder and love it just the same. if this piece is not marked you have to connect it by shape to ruckl and by decor to kralik....for me the decor says Kralik, the shape says kralik, the signature says kralik, the signature on the base of other pieces in the same shape, say Kralik. Ruckl will have to wait for more catalogs, museum shows, books, collectors, dealers etc....at least for me.
i fully appreciate those who would disagree with kyles attribution and urge you to (civilly) keep trying...I know there were many (to this day) unrecognized firms that need to see the light of day.