Myrna Schkolne: Early Staffordshire Figures

The heart of my collection is social history, so I try to confine my buying impulses to figures reflecting that theme. My 'virtual collection' (a large photo archive) caters to my other bent: an academic interest in Staffordshire figures and their makers.  Occasionally, I just can't resist acquiring a figure that tickles my intellectual curiosity. And so it was with a very ordinary looking figure portraying the season of Spring.

This figure of Spring came up for auction in the UK about three years ago. A common form, but iIt intrigued me because it had painted lines around 3 sides of the base only. This is a feature we associate with Ralph Wood figures.  And, in this case, these lines were painted blue--very unusual. I can't recall blue lines on another figure. Despite a modest starting bid, this very ordinary figure didn't sell. The second time it came up for auction, I resisted temptation again--and again the figure did not sell. The third time, I threw caution to the winds and bid. It was mine for a modest price. I had now started down a slippery slope!

When the figure arrived, I was amazed at its weight. Very heavy. The body seemed to be thick porcelain of a sort, albeit under the blue-tinted lead glaze found on pearlware.  Here I confess ignorance. Is the body really porcelain? Or is it pot that was overfired? If porcelain, how do I know if it is soft paste or hard paste? If you can enlighten me, please email.

About a year later, a figure popped up on eBay that seemed to pair with my lone Spring. This time the figure depicted Autumn--again a very common model, but those three blue lines had my attention.

Autumn had suffered a clean break through the ankles. This sort of repair I don't mind because all the original material is present. Besides, I had to see if the figure shared characteristics with Spring....so I succumbed yet again. When Autumn arrived, I was pleased to note that it was just as heavy as Spring, same body, same glaze, and the base was similarly formed beneath.

The problem remained that I still had nothing to link these two figures to Ralph Wood.  We do know Ralph Wood had a go at making porcelain figures, but he made his porcelain figures from models he also used for his pottery figures. Best we know, Ralph Wood never made the Seasons in the forms of my Autumn and Spring.  And then, lo and behold, one more mysterious Season came up for sale.

Now the plot thickens. This time, my 'find' was titled WINTER in a script found only on Ralph Wood figures. And the quality of the decoration was of a standard associated with Ralph Wood. Again, the same body, glaze, etc. as Spring and Autumn.

So now I have three Seasons to  tease my brain. I may never find the fourth--or it may pop up tomorrow. This is the thrill of collecting. I do believe these figures were produced by Ralph Wood as he attempted to master porcelain. Here you can see the trio from the front and back. Click to enlarge!

And here are other examples of Ralph Wood porcelains, from the Potteries Museum, Hanley.

Ralph Wood and Neale &Co are the earliest potters to have a go at making porcelain figures. The results were hybrids: the forms and glazes are as we find in pottery, but the bodies are harder, whiter, and more porcelainous. We know very little about these wares, but if you know of any, please share.

Neale & Co made figures in jasper, basalt, earthenware and porcelain. I have heard of one pair of Neale porcelain figures, and I have seen one figure in porcelain that was a look-alike of Neale's pottery Winter. The figure on the left is unmarked porcelain. The figure on the right is pottery, marked Neale & Co.The porcelain figure was fine, not heavy in the hand like the Ralph Wood Seasons illustrated above.

The works of Neale and Ralph Wood belongs primarily to the 18thC, but other potters continued their experimentation with porcelain into the 19thC. Ralph Salt made porcelain figures. The two figures on the left (below) are soft paste porcelain, marked SALT. Their counterparts on the right are pearlware, also marked SALT.

OK, these porcelain figures were clearly not Ralph Salt's finest works--and the photos, courtesy of the Brighton Museum web site, don't help matters. But you get the idea. The top figures both portray John Liston in the role of Paul Pry; the lower figures portray Liston playing Lubin Log. Liston debuted on the London stage as Paul Pry in 1825 and as Lubin Log in 1812..

We know that Enoch Wood was another potter who added porcelain to his repertoire toward the end of his long career. Writing in 1843, John Ward noted in his History of the Burough of Staffordshire that Enoch Wood & Sons "have recently combined the making of Porcelain with their other businesses". I can't recall a porcelain figure that I can tie to a Wood pearlware look alike, but browsing the web this week I found a gem: a fabulous sweetmeat stand formed around Apollo.

By clicking here, you can find additional images of this stunner on Matthias Blume's excellent porcelain-centric site.

At first glance, I would have thought this object to be earthenware. The design is so typical of early 19thC pottery.  Several potters made Apollo from this very mold form, and the shell work, robe pattern, and enamel pallette all speak of early 19thC pearlware. But when a porcelain expert tells me a figure is porcelain, I believe it. The seller notes that the Enoch Wood manufactory experimented with porcelain between 1818 and 1846 and thinks the figure may be Enoch Wood. He may well be right.

I giggle when I am referred to as an 'expert'. In reality, I am a perpetual student. I have a lot to learn, and writing this blog piece has revealed tantalizing glimpses into voids I have yet to explore. If anyone can add to this, please contact me.