Jump to content

Unusual Markings on Allach Bohemia Vase


Recommended Posts

Dear Forum Members:

I thought it might be of interest to post the mark present on an Allach/Bohemia vase I recently purchased (see photo in this post). Both the Allach and Bohemia markings on the vase are present UNDER the glaze (see photo in second post).

The Allach mark on this piece looks near identical to the standard Allach marks present on my other Allach pieces. Moreover, the standard raised Allach octagon is also present (see photo in second post), surrounds the runes and is UNDER the glaze. The Bohemia mark with the large "B" surrounding the lion is proper for the 1938-1945 time frame during which German occupation of Czechoslovakia occurred.

It might be that the mark on this vase is an early version of the 1941-1945 Allach Bohemia mark with runes inside the large "B" (see photo in third post). There seems to be quite a resemblance between two markings (with the exception of the omission of the word "Allach" and absence of the lion in the more common marking). Perhaps artwork for the final Allach Bohemia marking was not immediately available (or its design was not yet approved) so early pieces were manufactured using an improvised over-stamping of Allach over Bohemia marks.

In addition to the above-described Allach and Bohemia markings, the number "503" is also impressed into the base.

I welcome your comments and discussion!

Best regards,

John1919

Edited by John1919
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lost my old login when I got a new computer, so please forgive me for a second screen name. These pictures were taken to another forum and discussed.

It is a very interesting piece and I will attach my post on the other forum for you guys to read. I am just a collector so anyone who wants to disagree is welcomed to do so.

Best,

Kris Lindblom

There is no precedent for overstamping Allach marks or vice versa for transitional pieces at all. There has never been a piece that I have seen that looks like this at all. So if there was a precedent and it existed? this would be what I would expect to see. Luckily the manufacturer used an Allach mold, there is no doubt about it. The measurement is accurate as well.

The #503 Vase was not unpopular, but the market is not flooded with them and even if a mold were in private hands, it would be much easier to just mold porcelain with the octagon, but the model # is impressed and not part of the mold. On top of that, whoever made this took an approach of manufacture that was not only skilled but I would say highly skilled.

I spoke with Dennis Porell this morning, and he reminded me of a conversation we had last week regarding this mark and that I had quickly discounted it as doubtful but I had not seen the mark and we talk about these things all the time, so I still don't remember the conversation nor did I ask him for pictures.

I don't want to misquote him but what he essentially said was that he could not discount the piece as not being original as both markings look to be legitimate, but he is also at a loss as to why there would be a double mark.

That Allach mark screams "I was there" I took 20 different original marks and broke them down piece by piece and placed them side by side and that mark is 100% correct and shows every distinctive feature that one would expect to see on an Allach piece.

You take a look at the fakes listed on the beginning of this topic and look how clean and neat the Allach mark is on these fakes that are coming out, they are perfect and why not, they are not done the same way and use current technology in their application. But none of these fakes use any period molds or for that matter any piece of porcelain that is on par with the quality of Allach that was manufactured in the period.

This piece was manufactured right out of an Allach mold and go's way out of its way to look like anything but Allach, to view it on the fly or without looking at the marking would leave any Allach collector walking by it without a second glance as the style is unlike any Allach piece that I have ever seen.

But!! It is not unlike Bohemia in some respects, Bohemia manufactured dinnerware for personalities in some cases as well as pieces for hotel's and the Red Cross. But when you look at their dinnerware they use colors other than the normal white run of the mill dishes that can be found.

I cant remember ever seeing a piece by Bohemia such as this either, but that does not make it so, the marking falls right on the line of 1938-1940 from past experience and the use of the color and pattern reminds me of a set of dinnerware that popped up on Hermann Historica some time ago by Bohemia and attributed to Martin Bormann.

If any Allach collector has any doubt about this piece, all he has to do is grab his pieces and a magnifying glass and look very closely at the marks and their distinctive flaws and then look at this piece and compare it.

That is in my opinion a 100% original Allach mark placed over a 100% Bohemia mark for the time period that directly coincides with technical and artistic communication between the parties involved in both Allach and Bohemia.

Dennis Porell cannot discount the piece, I cannot discount the piece and anyone who believes they can is going to have to have a whole lot of explaining to do, because I am of the opinion it is the real deal. Why is it double marked? I have no Idea but can only speculate, it could have been submitted to Allach for possible production along with other pieces and marked with the Allach as form of intellectual property and put on a shelf for future use or discarded or even given to someone as a gift. I honestly don't know as I was not there.

I like it, but it will never be a piece of high value, and unless a bunch of pieces show up just like it which I doubt highly, it appears to be an original enigma.

Best,

Kris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,

My reexamination of the photos indicates that the green BOHEMIA mark was placed over the green Allach mark. Thus the process to produce this vase seems to be:

1) Production of an Allach #503 vase (including the "503" impressed mark and the raised Allach octagon)

2) Application of the usual period Allach green markings inside the Allach octagon

3) Application of the usual period "Bohemia" Ceramic Works AG marking over the usual period Allach markings inside the Allach octagon

4) Application of glaze over both the Allach and "Bohemia" Ceramic Works AG markings

I'm sure most of you noted my error but I just wanted to explicitly clarify.

I apologize for any inconvenience. Apparently, exicitement and advanced age are not a good combination :rolleyes:

Please send me a PM with tyour email address if you wish a high resolution copies of the markings.

Best regards,

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kris

Have any of these come out before? Any history on this piece as where it came from?

Have any unknown allach peices been discovered before that were not known?

And what time period was it if so!

Sounds exciting if was unknown!

Thanks for sharing pics and info!

Congratulations to the owner!

PVON

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,

I posted some additional comments on this topic on another forum but I thought there might be interest so I am inluding them below as well:

I just wanted to compliment Kris on his excellent summary of how to identify real vs. reproduction Allach marks-very professional!! With this work I think we can all agree Kris has, and is contributing immensely to our hobby and helping to keep us from spending our hard earned money on fakes and reproductions. Kris, I just hope the forgers aren't tuning in :D

As I mentioned to some of you in PMs, I used to collect Third Reich pistols. After a while I did not feel it necessary to disassemble a pistol (remember towards the end of the war authentic guns were created with mismatched parts and finishes due to the haste in production) to determine whether a piece was "good" (or not). Rather I would step back and look at the piece in total (tone of blueing, wear patterns, mill or polishing marks, etc.). Taking this "totality" approach, recognizing pieces that were not original (or "messed with") became easy after gaining experience in the field. I became more confident of conclusions I reached on this basis than any other indicator. On this basis, I never got burned on a gun but some pretty unique and interesting items did come into my possession that I might have not purchased had I taken a no risk, go by the textbook approach. Kris is taking such a "totality" approach in his critical (and fact based) assessment of the veracity of this vase under discussion.

I therefore strongly agree with Kris that the strongest argument for the originality of the piece is the "totality"of the piece itself (i.e. the total sum of the the artistic design, the marks, the quality of the execution, etc.). After the destruction of many of the Third Reich's records (in many cases intentional) and more than 60 years of time past we will probably never understand WHY a particular piece may have been produced. It is therefore difficult, if not impossible, to have an objective argument about the WHY a particular piece may have been created unless the appropriate documentation has survived. It therefore seems the best we can do is have a objective argument on the veracity of the piece based upon the artistic design and physical characteristics of piece itself .

On the above basis, the questions I would then ask myself are:

1) IF Allach and Bohemia, decided to jointly create a piece, would this piece meet the high technical and artistic standards of both individual companies (and the overseeing SS)?

2) Would the artistic contributions of each company in the work be consistent with the individual company's expertise and would the piece, in total, be artistically unique and better than either company could produce by itself? Otherwise why would two companies (or the SS) choose to do a joint project at all? Should not the offspring of Allach and Bohemia contain the DNA of both parents?

3) Does the piece possess markings that are period and technically correct for both companies?

I believe in the case of this particular vase the answers to these three above questions are "yes":

1) In my humble opinion, the quality of this piece does not only meet Allach's high standards of design and execution for vase production and design, it EXCEEDS them (please see original photo posted above). The cut decoration clearly requires a different (and probably higher) skill set than that used on typical Allach vase production and is typical for Bohemian artisans.

2) Allach is unsurpassed for its porcelain quality and the clean, modern design of its vases. Similarly, Bohemia (as a region) is well recognized for its high level of skill in creating cut designs. Together, the two companies produced a piece that unquestionably unique, very high quality and could not have been as well by either company independently.

3) Kris has very professionally addressed the veracity of the Allach markings on the piece. Based upon Bohemia reference markings available with firm "time stamps", the Bohemia marking is correct (can be discussed more if desired).

Then, WHY was this vase created? I don't think we will ever know. Do I none the less objectively believe (as opposed to wishful thinking) that this vase was the joint work of Allach and Bohemia Ceramics Works as its markings indicate? Based upon all the totality of the facts surrounding this piece and the piece itself, I do believe it is original and authentic.

Because my wife and I don't intend to sell this piece, our peace with the veracity of the vase is its most important validation. From an historical perspective however I would hope this piece is not easily dismissed based upon dated reference works as in doing so we might lose some clues to the past and impede our advancement of knowledge in the future.

Best regards to all,

John

Edited by John1919
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kris

Have any of these come out before? Any history on this piece as where it came from?

Have any unknown allach peices been discovered before that were not known?

And what time period was it if so!

Sounds exciting if was unknown!

Thanks for sharing pics and info!

Congratulations to the owner!

PVON

Hi Paul,

No history on the piece other than the markings and the mold used, but its not something outside the period. The Bohemia mark would indicate prewar manufacture maybe 1938 or 1939 as a solid guess and the mold used.

There have been unknown pieces found and some model #s have not even been found, the last piece was a Muskateer figure and numbered 171. Since the production figures stop at 100 in 1939 that leaves at least 71 models and many have not been observed. Time period considering the catalog is na dual year print could essentially be open to sometime in 1939-1944 I suppose.

This piece has caused quite a skirmish on another forum and I guess I wont be dining at Mark Paul's house for Thanksgiving, but the piece is very neat and it was a great find for collectors.

John,

Thank you for your kind words and enjoy the vase, if you ever decide to sell it let me know but I realize that is not your interest.

Kind Regards,

Kris Lindblom

Edited by Vid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Kris

I have not followed the other thread! I do not collect these items but found it

a worthy topic to read about!

I know you are real deep into this and wanted to learn something!

Has Dennis P had more discussions on it!

I know many things have become more known than ever before!

Thats why its a interesting hobby!

Best to all!

PVON

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Kris

I have not followed the other thread! I do not collect these items but found it

a worthy topic to read about!

I know you are real deep into this and wanted to learn something!

Has Dennis P had more discussions on it!

I know many things have become more known than ever before!

Thats why its a interesting hobby!

Best to all!

PVON

Paul,

When the new pictures were sent out yesterday Dennis had recieved them and we did talk. He was going to comment yesterday or today but it has not come to fruition.

I believe he may feel boxed in as the furor is being handled by myself and Mark Paul, both clients of his and not an enviable position. But I know his opinion and feel it is correct if that helps any.

If I was not in it deep before I am certainly in deep now ;)

Best,

Kris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested.

I am quite surprised at how much discussion both good and bad has gone on regarding this particular Vase. As I told the potential owner a few weeks ago, this Vase will bring a tremendous amount of scrutiny due to it's markings so if you like the Vase purchase it, but don't expect to sell it very easily because most people will stay clear of it. But that doesn't mean it is not authentic. Like most other pieces of Militaria (dagger, medal, etc.) that comes out of the woodwork and never before seen, there will always be suspicions of its authenticity. The top dealers and collectors in their particular field will all look at it and decide if the piece looks good or not. If the consensus is that the piece looks to be good then the majority may accept it. Obviously these experts will follow certain criteria's as to how to ascertain the authenticity of a particular item. They may not know why it was produced or for whom but they will know that it is a period piece by using these criteria's. I believe this is what we have in this particular Vase. I have handled more Allach than most so I am comfortable in forming an opinion on this Vase. This Vase is correctly marked with the green Allach in the raised octagon that is an undisputed makers mark of Allach. The impressed # 503 is also correct for this type vase as 84 total Vases were produced in 1938-39 with an additional 22 Vases produced in 1939 that were painted. The application of the Bohemia markings over stamping the Allach markings is in itself puzzling but was done correctly. The glaze is applied over both markings before the final firing of the Vase. I've seen pieces of porcelain with both the Allach and Bohemia marks present but they were usually side by side not overlapped but I believe these also to be authentic. Oswald Pohl, head of the economic enterprises of the SS, ordered to acquire the porcelain manufacturer Bohemia in mid 1939. The defeat of Czechoslovakia in June 1939 was the political and military precondition for such an economic activity by the SS. Particularly since Bohemia was once a factory that had been in Jewish possession. Now we have two entities, Allach known for it's porcelain and Bohemia which is known for it's cut glass artistry. Obviously there had to be a transition phase between the two manufacturers. This particular Vase has both of the makers markings as well as the manufacturing strengths of both companies, porcelain and cut decorations. Allach had never made this type of decoration before so it is plausible that this Vase has the combined artistry of both manufacturers during this early transitional period. Let us not forget that pieces of Allach porcelain were not allowed to leave the factory because of flaws of one kind or another. This dual overlapping makers mark could have been considered a flaw and left on the shelf only to be taken by the liberating forces who plundered the Allach factory. One will never know the reason for this peculiar mark but with all else considered, I believe this Vase to be authentic. This is only the humble opinion of one man. Dennis R. Porell

Edited by Vid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

If anyone is interested.

I am quite surprised at how much discussion both good and bad has gone on regarding this particular Vase. As I told the potential owner a few weeks ago, this Vase will bring a tremendous amount of scrutiny due to it's markings so if you like the Vase purchase it, but don't expect to sell it very easily because most people will stay clear of it. But that doesn't mean it is not authentic. Like most other pieces of Militaria (dagger, medal, etc.) that comes out of the woodwork and never before seen, there will always be suspicions of its authenticity. The top dealers and collectors in their particular field will all look at it and decide if the piece looks good or not. If the consensus is that the piece looks to be good then the majority may accept it. Obviously these experts will follow certain criteria's as to how to ascertain the authenticity of a particular item. They may not know why it was produced or for whom but they will know that it is a period piece by using these criteria's. I believe this is what we have in this particular Vase. I have handled more Allach than most so I am comfortable in forming an opinion on this Vase. This Vase is correctly marked with the green Allach in the raised octagon that is an undisputed makers mark of Allach. The impressed # 503 is also correct for this type vase as 84 total Vases were produced in 1938-39 with an additional 22 Vases produced in 1939 that were painted. The application of the Bohemia markings over stamping the Allach markings is in itself puzzling but was done correctly. The glaze is applied over both markings before the final firing of the Vase. I've seen pieces of porcelain with both the Allach and Bohemia marks present but they were usually side by side not overlapped but I believe these also to be authentic. Oswald Pohl, head of the economic enterprises of the SS, ordered to acquire the porcelain manufacturer Bohemia in mid 1939. The defeat of Czechoslovakia in June 1939 was the political and military precondition for such an economic activity by the SS. Particularly since Bohemia was once a factory that had been in Jewish possession. Now we have two entities, Allach known for it's porcelain and Bohemia which is known for it's cut glass artistry. Obviously there had to be a transition phase between the two manufacturers. This particular Vase has both of the makers markings as well as the manufacturing strengths of both companies, porcelain and cut decorations. Allach had never made this type of decoration before so it is plausible that this Vase has the combined artistry of both manufacturers during this early transitional period. Let us not forget that pieces of Allach porcelain were not allowed to leave the factory because of flaws of one kind or another. This dual overlapping makers mark could have been considered a flaw and left on the shelf only to be taken by the liberating forces who plundered the Allach factory. One will never know the reason for this peculiar mark but with all else considered, I believe this Vase to be authentic. This is only the humble opinion of one man. Dennis R. Porell

Gentlemen,

A while back I purchased Gabriele Huber?s Allach book (German language).

Since receiving it I have (with the kind assistance of friends who speak

fluent German) initially reviewed the books discussion of the relationship

between the expansion of Allach (PMA), the relationship Allach between

Bohemia, etc.

Interestingly, Huber states on page 37:

?Dabei war das Verh?ltnis zwischen PMA und Bohemia prima facie nicht ganz

eindeutig, Innerhalb der DWB bzw. des HAVW hat die PMA ebenso wie die

Bohemia die Stellung einer Tochtergesellschaft bzw. bilden beide ein

gemeinsames Amt; gleichzeitig stellt sich die PMA "im Innenverh?ltnis" als

Hauptunternehmen dar, dem in der Bohemia gewisserma?en eine "Filiale" zur

Verf?gung steht. So wird beim Abschlu? der ?bernahme der Bohemie- Aktien im

Monatsbericht der PMA f?r Mai 1940 vermerkt: "Der Betrieb in Neurohlau

[bohemia] wurde am 16.5.1940 ?bernommen?; ebenso vermittelte die

Gesch?ftsf?hrung der PMA Gro?auftr?ge an die Bohemia - etwa

Kantinengeschirre - wie in den Gesch?ftspr?fungsberichten 1940/41 belegt,

und ?berlie? ihr "Mutterformen f?r Vasen" zur Herstellung?

This text indicates that in 1940 Allach (PMA) provided ?mother forms for

vases? to Bohemia. To date, this is the only reference I have found in

Huber?s (or any other book) book to Allach providing its molds to Bohemia

(or any other porcelain factory). Huber cites a reference to the document

NS 3/vorl281 (Werkbericht des Amtes III B f?r Januar 1940) to substantiate

this information.

Interestingly, Huber?s text and this reference is VERY specific to Allach

providing VASE (and, by inference, possibly only vase) molds to Bohemia on,

or before, 1940. I have not yet been able to determine if the full

connotation of the word ?mutterformen? in German might extend to include

molded, but unfinished (undecorated) pieces. Irrespective of the exact

latitude of the meaning of ?mutterformen?, Huber?s book and the

corresponding cited contemporary German document unequivocally indicates

that Allach and Bohemia had a very specific (and possibly unique)

relationship to cooperate to JOINTLY produce vases for the SS. Given this

additional information, at least for me, it is not much of a stretch to

conclude that Allach and Bohemia, at least in the beginning, cooperated

closely to jointly produce prototype or presentation examples of vases.

Moreover, I think it is fair to also infer that despite Bohemia?s acquiring

?Mutterformen f?r Vasen" from Allach, Bohemia never produced (or finished)

vases using Allach mold designs on a large scale as otherwise other

surviving examples of ?Allach Bohemia? vases would have come to light.

The above text from Huber?s book also indicates that there seemed to, at

least initially, some confusion regarding the corporate relationship between

Allach and Bohemia. Accordingly, it seems that Allach producing vases that

might be finished (decorated) at Bohemia might have been a business model

that the SS explored through limited joint production of prototype vases,

etc. that was abandoned as the definition of Allach?s and Bohemia?s became

better defined.

Best regards,

John

Edited by John1919
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Blog Comments

    • As a theology student my professor, a much published former Naval chaplain, set us an essay, saying that if we could answer that successfully we would be guaranteed  a good degree "Which of the gospel writers was the biggest liar, discuss."   I got a good mark, but  don't want to be burned for heresy.   P
    • As my father used to say: "Tain't so much Pappy's a liar - he just remembers big."  
    • Brian: First, let me say that I always enjoy reading your blog and your "spot on" comments.  Another fine topic with such a broad expansion into so many different facets.  I had watched this a week or two ago and when reading your blog, it reminded me of this great quote.   There is a great video on the origins of "Who was Murphy in Murphy's Law"   Anyway, about mid way through this video, there is this great quote and I think it sums it up quite well to your statem
    • I've received word from the Curator that she has permission to re-open this summer.   We're already making plans for a November event at the Museum.   Michael
    • I recall I did the same on hot days at Old Fort York back in 1973-74 - wool uniforms, and at 90F they would let you take your backpack off.   Michael
×
×
  • Create New...