Posted 4 years ago
kralik1928
(202 items)
Here is an observation on two related shapes. One has the silverized interior rim with a Ruckl oval mark. Is it a Ruckl mark? Does my memory trick me? If they were both made by kralik why are they marked differently? Is the oval mark consistent and true to Ruckl and some pieces with the arched mark are Ruckl as well? Did Kralik buy pieces from other companies and put their mark on them? Did Ruckl buy blanks from Kralik and add gold or silver decorating to sell as their own.
Didn’t Kralik make countless blanks for companies to decorate? They appear to have sold blanks for cameo cutback techniques, grinding, faceting, metal applications or enameling, sometimes marked by other producers.
If you look at the blue piece (with a technique I call monochromatic confetti), a Ruckl stamp if they are glazed with silver or gold gilding. If they are plain they will be marked by an arched Czech mark typically used by Kralik.
Or you can just conclude they are both Kralik and the oval mark is just another kralik mark...
Very interesting. I am leaning towards the variant that both vases were made by Kralik. The blue one is probably for a glass refinery (perhaps from the area of Nový Bor - Kamenický Šenov).
They are both by Kralik, and the oval mark is not the same found on some Ruckl pieces, it is smaller and narrower. I own one of these vases and I have the football mark, that's what I call it.
I am of the opinion, the marks are distributor marks, and Kralik had several distributors for their enormous production volume of decorative glass, and Ruckl was not as high in their amount of products, so more likely to have less distributors to work with them. Over the years Ruckl also had the circle mark, and the smile arch mark as well as the small oval mark with 2 stars at each end.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/d532bde6d16604cdb8a57294ffb9a151?AccessKeyId=3A908495ACD7ABD44DFC&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
I know that is another issue that is not agreed with. I don't want another argument, I just state what I believe.,
Using marks whose sources are truly unknown is a sure path to creating attributions which are unsupportable.
As an example there is a website claiming Ruckl attributions and also claiming that a group of marks are Ruckl marks.
That sites webmaster stated here that "Ruckl was not as high in their amount of products, so more likely to have less distributors to work with them. Over the years Ruckl also had the circle mark, and the smile arch mark as well as the small oval mark with 2 stars at each end."
If a distributor marked glass, then it is virtually impossible to claim marks they used were Ruckl, Kralik, Hosch, Welz, or any other company's mark. By definition, they would have placed that mark on any glass they handled.
A provenance mark can not be a distributor mark and a Ruckl, Kralik, et al mark at the same time.
These types of contradictory claims are not really logical. To me at least here are 3 basic choices which would likely cover 90+% of markings seen.
1) Glass houses placed Mark's on their production before packing it for shipping. I personally believe this to be most likely, and from a business standpoint the most logical.
2) Exporters marked glass, in which case a mark can not be, by definition, a makers provenance mark, and using it to identify makers would then be foolish.
3) Who placed marks on glass can not be proven at this point, so a mark can not be referenced to a maker or an exporter. This is the approach I use, with a few recognized exceptions such as a Kralik arched mark, Loetz oval and rectangles etc.
I think that one of the reasons there is so much confusion about this with collectors is because of contradicting applications of ideologies about the topic.
Everything can't possibly be right....so pick one and stick to it. To me at least, applying different philosophies at different times to different circumstances regarding the same subject invalidates all claims made by individuals doing that.
Learn from the glass.... forget about marks in general.
In the case of these two, I would lean in the direction of Larksel's comment, but we will never know for sure about the 2nd mark.
Great comments, In light of hard facts I generally look at the glass, and develop a link to more known techniques and shapes. I always thought this mono-confetti was a little goofy but later I found them in shapes that that were common to Bambus types... then a red version came up in caged metal. The red one was easier because if the decor, metal oxide flashing and arched signature. I’m also not worried about marks, I have a fair idea of which marks are 98% consistent and which marks are unreliable
Main point was if see a piece with silver or gold glazing I KNOW what the mark is gonna be, there is some thin in that it I just don’t completely know what it means...
Jericho, I think these glass pieces are carafes or decanters, the ledge inside the top interior point to that usage, and the silver or gold rim would have been repeated on the finial or tumbler that would fit in the top. Now, that is my opinion based on the large red and gold vase I own, that matches the plain blue, but is red with the football mark. No, I have never seen this shape with a top.
I own a small example of a bud vase in dark red with Gold glaxing in stripes down the body and on the rim. It also has an arched Kralik sand blasted stamp on it. So if trying to mate the other mark to gold or silver on glass that originated with Kralik, You have a blue one with one mark, and a red one I own with an accepted Kralik arched mark.
In light of that, I would reiterate that Larksel's opinion would seem to hold even more weight, where in the case of my piece, it would seem that Kralik enameled the glass themselves, and in the case of your blue one, a different house bought a Kralik blank, enameled it, and then put their own company's (refiner's) export mark on it before shipping it to the U.S.
As an additional example of that idea, there are examples of production known to be marked by Hosch, that have been seen with an oval mark similar to the Loetz oval. That also possibly indicates that they marked glass after refining it, with their own provenance mark.
Here is a link to an article by Warren in this forum regarding that subject.
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/111510-carl-hosch-export-mark-that-other-ova
If any of the marks were exporter or distributor applied, I think that the so-called "smile mark" would be, from my observations, the most likely contender to have been so. I think it may be premature to assign it to Rückl.