Posted 4 years ago
kralik1928
(202 items)
Here is the mystery piece that is photographed next to some Ruckl bubble shimi; A few collectors own this one and they are all the same shape.
The piece is more sparse than the real Ruckl- it has a white confetti internal layer but the real Ruckl is more solid milk white. It has a gradient cobalt blue base the real one is more solid. It has huge bubbles that range in size, the real one has even sized small bubbles. This one has green glass with a slight touch of adventurine, the real one has heavy adventurine. This one has a wavy resting base, the real ones have a smooth base. The rim is also different etc...
This is a great post, this piece looked different to me, but what value to have a personal testimony from an experienced glass colletor about the differences you have found.
I'm going to let the owner/collector from WA state what your opinion is. I suppose the next question is, who made it?
Well that’s telling your stepson he was adopted, lol. Just my .02 cents. This piece is just beautiful and the rim is finely ground. I think it is modern piece based on the grinding texture, consistency in shape, clarity in glass, surface polish, weight, and wavy shape of the foot
This will be my one comment on this topic. My intention is top provide some information which I believe supports an opposing opinion on this subject. I certainly mean no disrespect to Jericho. I will start by saying that I find the work that has been done to attribute this décor to Ruckl to be lacking in supportable links. I won’t bother with all the details I could provide regarding that opinion. It also would not change anything. The décor remains on my website as Unknown.
That being said, in both of these image groups in the links below, I find multiple different forms that are all similar. Yet for the sake of this attribution, and also others, obvious differences are ignored or excused in order to apply the comparison. Do I think that every shape has to be “identical” to be applicable? Of course not. But the sloppier the shape comparisons that are applied in this type of work, the sloppier and less accurate are the results. “Garbage In - Garbage Out” as they say.
http://www.kralik-glass.com/images/Capture1.JPG
http://www.kralik-glass.com/images/Capture2.JPG
Here is a link to an article I posted n this form over 3 years ago that discusses the shape in the second link.
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/193922-common-shapes-and-simply-avoidable-mista
Let’s move on to the comparison being made with this example. You can certainly correct me if I have misconstrued what is being said here, but it would appear that because this posted example is lighter and a slightly different in appearance, and has a wavy underside, that this example is different than other examples of the Diamond Bubble décor. The leap that appears to be in process here is that this is by a different house than other examples in the same shape, and is also possibly Italian in origins? Hence the suggestion that it could be modern Bullicante production from Italy. There also seems to be a slightly different underside, and that is being used to aid in determination that it is also by a different house because of that. To be honest, that is not really a leap that would be supportable at all. There are a variety of reason, including manipulation of the piece in the mold, or cooling processes that may cause that difference in the base. Looking to a different production house, or country of origin, as a result of that is really a wild goose chase based on a minor production artifact. I am of the opinion that these two examples are the same age and by the same glass house.
I would also have to state, as someone that has also collected Italian glass for over 20 years, that this vase is in no way Italian production. For what it is worth, I do not believe it is even by a different house than the other examples of the Diamond Bubble decor.
In this first image I am comparing a different example of this shape and décor with the one you have posted. I would state unequivocally that seeing this difference in production would not be surprising from one house. I will let the pieces speak for themselves. I would also point out that the example on the right also has a non solid white interior layer as seen in the image.
http://www.kralik-glass.com/images/Image2.jpg
Differences in color intensity and pattern variations in the same décor on the same shape are actually quite common. This next image compares a candlestick in my collection (right) to the same décor and shape in a darker version of the décor (left). These types of variations within a décor line can be attributed to all kinds of variable from gaffer skill level to an intentional act to produce a lighter version. Following the lighter/darker concept, these two pieces of glass could also be declared to be from different makers, but I assure you they are not.
http://www.kralik-glass.com/images/Image3.jpg
If one wants to seriously attribute a piece of glass accurately, the first steps should always be to look for the reasons that could explain it is a variation of the same décor, not to make a quick assumption that it is completely different.
It would be noteworthy, I think, to mention that in fact, I am the only guy in the “room” that has handled all of the pieces in TOD’s images in her post, and also owns an example in a shape not shown there, that was instrumental in starting my research resulting in the determination that the décor was not by Loetz as originally thought.
Do I think this décor is Ruckl? I do not know, because I have never seen what I would consider to be robust supportable research to back that claim. To this day we still fight the “Powolny made Tango”, That spatters are “end of the day glass”, That decors with pulled loops are “Nailsea”, a region know to have produced windows and not pulled loop art glass, and a wide variety of other issues.
Let me be perfectly clear, I do not care if it is Ruckl or not. My concern has always been with the accuracy of the information, and not the company that made anything. My additional concern, and one I have voiced repeatedly through the years, is that in a forum such as this, and also on a website, that incorrect information that is “published” becomes pervasive and impossible to ever correct. I also reserve myself to the fact that people are going to believe what they choose to believe, and that is their choice…..
Nah, no databases I’m not trying to cure hair loss or comprehensively find fossil history. I took the initiative to buy this thing even though it was out my area of collecting for the benefit of others to give their opinion on it, I also already gave my opinion. Everyone has an opinion and all are welcome. The best outcome is a collector who has one with a sticker or some production material to rule it out as Czech.