Posted 8 years ago
sklo42
(886 items)
This lidded bowl is highly glossy. It is made of three or four layers, depending on whether the marbled pink and blue streaks are one or two layers. The inside layer is white and outside clear.
The base is dished, the lid fits inside the bowl, the knob is hollow and the décor goes over the knob. All that is true for the orange lidded bowl too!
The orange one is unattributed so being the same in construction as this one is no help at all!
If you recognise this décor please tell.
Diameter 11.5 cm./4.5 inches Height 10 cm./4 inches
Nice covered piece. Not a very common décor at all. Here is the same décor on a ball vase. I have always suspected the décor to be Kralik, but the ball vase shape is far too common a shape to use alone for confirmation. I have not seen the décor on another identifiable Kralik shape, which would help to confirm the decor a second way. I generally avoid the use of a common single shapes for ID. Here is a link to an image of the ball vase:
http://www.kralik-glass.com/images/b27.jpg
Great glass/ decor, peggy.
welzebub:
As always your thoughts on attribution are enlightening-- deliberate, research guided attributions will stand the test of time vice the quick guesswork often presented on CW.
scott
@ Nicefice, thanks, I'm pleased you like it!
@ rucklczglass, As I've always looked down at the lid I'd never noticed it had flowers! Looking from your words to the pictures they're clear as day.....so thank you.
Hi Craig, thanks for posting another example. I have at least learnt it's a 'known' décor and not too common at that. Can't be bad! If forced to guess I'd have said Kralik due to the colours.
@ rucklczglass, yet another version, thanks.
Hi scott, pleased you like it.
I do not think there is anything near enough evidence to declare this a Kralik décor.
I would like to point out that the decor as found on Fishiowa's example is on a shape which it appears both Welz and Kralik produced. That would seemingly indicate that without confirmation of some sort, the décors origins can not be determined as to maker. In addition, the example that Jericho has posted, the same as the image I linked to, is a shape which is far too commonplace to be used as support for an ID when viewed as a stand alone shape.
To me at least, always using the philosophy that erring on the side of conservative beats making unsupportable claims, I would stand behind the assertion that the decor is not currently identifiable. I also believe that any claim of attribution would not be supported with any real robust evidence.
My observations are:
1) None of the seen or known examples bears a mark, indicating origins or provenance.
2) The ball vase shape is far too common to use as an identifying shape
3) The basic shape of the bowl shown in the forum by Fishiowa is currently linked to the production of at least two companies and his example remains unidentified.
4) The covered example posted here is not a shape currently linked to Kralik production.
As I stated on the Fishiowa post, I would lean towards Kralik. but that is a far cry from saying who made it.
A quote from comment 15 of that Butler post. That was posted over 1 year ago.
"The bowl in the upper left of image 2 has been replaced with one very similar in appearance to the original spatter bowl which was found to be by Welz. The inserted bowl now in the image is both similar in shape and similar in decor to the Welz example. This example is known to be by Kralik, as it is marked with an arched Czechoslovakia mark associated with Kralik production."
Yeah... Like I said.... both Welz and Kralik made a quite similar shape.... If Dave's bowl was found in that decor with the arched mark found on Kralik production we would have something to go on. If that Butler ad showed that shape bowl, which resembles Fishiowa's example, and did so with a decor that was the same as this covered piece and Dave's bowl it would mean something.
We actually know Butler ads did show that kind of detail because we can see both Kralik and Welz decors illustrated quite well.
Without that type of strong link, we really have nothing yet on which to base a Kralik attribution, or any other attribution for that matter. Unidentified is OK. It is still quite attractive.
It is worth noting that the decor is also found on another shape, which as far as I am aware, has not yet been linked to any specific production house.
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/167294-kralik-tango-powder-flower-dcor?in=activity
Genuine thank yous to those who looked and clicked 'Love it'. At the moment I can't devote as much time as I'd like to this.
Regardless who made it Peggy, it's a lovely bowl! I love pic 2... very artistic!
Thanks Rick, I too love it for itself.....just a pushover for lidded bowls!