Featured Sarreguemines vase

I saw this on ebay a few weeks ago with a starting price of £15 and got hooked. I placed a bid and there was no other competition. It was clearly described as restored and it looks like the damage was catastrophic. Its a very good restoration job though and you csn barely notice it from the outside.

 

colourful vase...!!

 

Yeah. Me likey

 

Beautiful vase, will you be keeping it?

 

Yes I reckon so. I bought it with the intention of keeping it.

 

This one sent me down a rabbit hole because that little impressed Z-looking mark below the numbers immediately caught my attention.

I believe this is very likely Amphora / Riessner, Stellmacher & Kessel, Turn-Teplitz, and the decoration looks closely related to their later Campina production.

The raised geometric decoration, colored enamel cells and almost cloisonné-like treatment are all consistent with documented Campina pieces. Dorotheum has several examples attributed to Amphora-Werke, Riessner, Turn-Teplitz, generally executed in the Czechoslovak period between about 1918 and 1938, although some of the Campina decoration designs themselves date to around 1910.

Dorotheum Campina examples:
https://www.dorotheum.com/en/a/81535/

Another particularly interesting comparison is this Campina vase. The description notes that its base carries numbers and a “Z” in two places, even though the Amphora hallmark itself is faint/absent:

https://www.mollaris.com/products/a...ottery-czecho-slovakia-czechoslovakia-1920s-1

That caught my eye because this vase also appears to have the same sort of impressed Z-like mark beneath the number 408.

The other visible markings appear to include the impressed 408, the Z-like factory/decorator mark, and a hand-painted 13. I wouldn't assume yet that 408 alone is the complete model number, since Amphora pieces can carry several different mold, decorator and factory marks.

There are also documented Campina auction examples here:

https://www.dorotheum.com/en/a/83698/

Those results show that Campina pieces can vary quite a bit depending on form and decoration, so I wouldn't try to value this one solely from another Campina vase.

I'd be very interested to see a sharper straight-on photograph of the faint impressed wording around the bottom. I suspect that may give the final confirmation.

 

Welcome Christine. Some beautiful pieces in your links, also non-ceramic items.
Not all listings for the Campina vases in the links show the base/bottom, but three bases are shown, and those all have a white glaze. OP's vase has a beige glaze on the base, so it is different from the Campina bases shown.

From your links, these include photos of the bases:

https://www.dorotheum.com/en/l/8430088/

https://www.dorotheum.com/en/l/7456090/

https://www.mollaris.com/products/a...ottery-czecho-slovakia-czechoslovakia-1920s-1

 

Good observation on the base color. I went back through the references after reading your comment, and I don't think the beige base by itself rules out the Campina connection.

Dorotheum's catalogued Campina examples actually describe several different ceramic body colors. One is specifically described as "beige-bodied," another as "yellowish-grey," while others are described simply as light-bodied ceramic. The undersides also aren't completely uniform: documented examples have combinations of stamped factory marks, impressed/embossed model numbers, painted numbers and incised characters.

For example:

https://www.dorotheum.com/en/l/8430100/

https://www.dorotheum.com/en/l/7456090/

And this Campina example has an embossed model number and additional embossed/painted numbers but apparently no factory stamp mentioned in the catalogue description:

https://www.dorotheum.com/en/l/8430088/

So I absolutely agree that OP's beige bottom is an important difference from those three photographed white-glazed bases. I just wouldn't use that difference alone to exclude Campina/Riessner, Stellmacher & Kessel yet. The decoration still deserves comparison with documented Campina production.

I'm keeping this as a possible attribution rather than a positive identification until we can find a documented example matching both the decoration AND the underside/base treatment.