Share your favorites on Show & Tell

More Kralik Pampas ...I think!

In Art Glass > Bohemian Art Glass > Show & Tell and Art Glass > Show & Tell.
Art Glass15286 of 17718Small but lovely shade.Gralglas vase of unknown designer and candle holder/vase by Harri Koskinen for Iittala
Love it
Like it

coloricolori loves this.
smiatasmiata loves this.
Moonstonelover21Moonstonelover21 loves this.
aldo78aldo78 loves this.
DeanteaksDeanteaks loves this.
miKKoChristmas11miKKoChristmas11 loves this.
vetraio50vetraio50 loves this.
LoetzDanceLoetzDance loves this.
austrohungaroaustrohungaro loves this.
Bruce99Bruce99 loves this.
Slave-to-glassSlave-to-glass loves this.
manddmoirmanddmoir loves this.
mizjanemizjane loves this.
AmberRoseAmberRose loves this.
inkyinky loves this.
See 13 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 5 years ago


(47 items)

Here is another piece that seems to be Kralik Pampas - I think! Looking just at the glass itself, the decor, and the iridescence as compared to my other pieces, I'm convinced - see photo 4. There are also signs of age related wear on the base similar to that on the other 2 pieces.
What troubles me is the shape! Very thick glass in what I would think of as an almost 1960's shape ... Having said that, it is a constant surprise how modern a lot of the early C20th glass shapes were, so this may just be my lack of experience showing. A glimpse at the Loetz production drawings indicates that this is not a million miles away from some of their designs.
They do say there is nothing new on earth!


  1. inky inky, 5 years ago
    WOW!!!! what a fabulous colour.....:-)
  2. Londonloetzlearner Londonloetzlearner, 5 years ago
    Thank you, Inky - I rather like it!
  3. dragonflyjohn, 5 years ago
    Surely a broken vase that has been cut and rim polished to that shape???
  4. AmberRose AmberRose, 5 years ago
    Gorgeous! Wonderful coloring...
  5. Londonloetzlearner Londonloetzlearner, 5 years ago
    Thank you Czechman, eye4beauty and AmberRose. What a great response!
  6. Londonloetzlearner Londonloetzlearner, 5 years ago
    Thank you, Vetraio50.
  7. Londonloetzlearner Londonloetzlearner, 5 years ago
    Hi Dragonfly John. A broken cutdown vase would seem the obvious answer, but I'm not convinced, having looked again.
    The rim is beautifully bevelled and polished, with the bevelling on the inside and outside rims. It's better than any cut down job I've ever seen - but then that's not saying much - and it looks exactly like the rims on the other two pieces. None of the "threads" are at all nicked where it would have been cut, and the irisdescence goes right to the rim smoothly all the way round. There is a spot on the main body of the glass right at the rim that you might think could be a chip from the breaking/cutting process, but it is iridised all over - clearly original. If its cut down, it's also an old cut - there's old dirt (and yes I know that can be faked) on the rim, and the light scratching that seems to come from use - I question why anyone would have bothered. If its been cut down recently and faked to make the cut look old it's an awful lot of work for what was not an expensive piece of glass.
    Most importantly for me, and I may be being stupid here, the balance of the piece to my eye does not fit with being cut down. The thickness of the glass suits the shape, but would not suit a narrower neck, and nor have I seen another piece with a narrow neck with such thick glass - although again that's not saying much. The angles of the sides would have made a terrible shape if they all carried on at the same angle to the height of the back, especially given the thickness of the glass, whereas they have a nice balance as they are. The angle of the glass at the back (the highest point) becomes steeper just at the point the front is cut, making it appear that the angles of the front and back sides are different. It is just too serendipitous to be a lucky break, in my ignorant eyes. I would be more convinced that it was relatively newly made than cut down.
  8. Londonloetzlearner Londonloetzlearner, 5 years ago
    Thank you, Bellin68.
  9. austrohungaro austrohungaro, 5 years ago
    Love it! Btw, great and convincing explanation!!!;)
  10. Londonloetzlearner Londonloetzlearner, 5 years ago
    Thank you, Austro - much appreciated!
  11. Londonloetzlearner Londonloetzlearner, 5 years ago
    Thank you mizjane, manddmoir, slave-to-glass and Bruce99.
  12. Londonloetzlearner Londonloetzlearner, 5 years ago
    Thank you ks85.
  13. Londonloetzlearner Londonloetzlearner, 5 years ago
    I know what you mean exactly Obscurities! I too would not be that surprised if it were contemporary - nor would I mind, to be honest. There's just something about it I like.
    As I said in the man post, there is age-related wear to the base, and there are also some marks on the rim that I would characterise as age-related use scratches, as well as that sort of light dirt deposit one could call patina, so it could be old. It certainly does not look "fresh" save in its form, so I'd bet it's more than 5 minutes old, even if not period. As a cut and polished piece, it has no pontil mark to check against the modern pontil marks, and there is no signature anywhere, which limits the number of contemporary makers it could be.
    I guess it's just another one of my mysteries - unless you can find that name!

Want to post a comment?

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