Early earthenware lions are the most popular of animals, and there is a steady demand for good examples. These lions often have rather fascinating faces. This, coupled with the lion’s role as England’s national symbol, makes these beasts perennially popular. Lions occur in varying sizes and are frequently modeled with a front paw placed on a ball. This pose is presumed to be after that of the lions at the Loggia dei Lanze, Florence. Among the most loved lions are those that can be attributed to the "Sherratt: pot bank. This pair of lions is reconizable as "Sherratt" because such bases occur only on other figures with "Sherratt" features. Everything comes together nicely on this pair: the enamels, the colors, the bold simplicity. Nothing messy, quite modern and minimalist! Often this model lion has the tail restored. The tail's prominent positioning makes it understandably vulnerable. Tails that are not restored exactly right always bother me. Once you know how this tail should look, the eye does not forgive deviations. One of these lions has two chipped teeth, but you have to stick your eyes into the beast's mouth to notice this, so these lions will remain unrestored to preserve their integrity. What of other "Sherratt" lions? Well, you can find the same lions on a variety of typically "Sherratt" bases. Three are shown below. It is common to find single lions rather than pairs. A pair is terrific, a single is very, very OK---and for many collectors, a single is more affordable. It goes without saying that you should aspire to owning a good single rather than a mediocre pair. "Sherratt" also made his lion before a bocage. The addition of a bocage ups the stakes and damage becomes very much more likely. Three of the lions above are from my archive and have condition issues. The fourth pair is from the current stock of John Howard, and I would expect it to be as good as it gets. Notice John's lion has typical "Sherratt" garlands on the base. There are four of them, placed right across the front of the base. In manufacture, these little garlands were formed one by one in a press mold, and then each was attached to the base. These garlands are such strong indicators of "Sherratt' that I think of them as akin to signatures. A while ago, my friend Malcolm Hodkinson and I came across another lion with garlands....but somehow a "Sherratt" attribution just didn't sit well with us.  Don't get me wrong: this lion is a perfectly wonderful figure, and those garland are right where they should be on the base. Their shape is spot-on. But the way the garlands are painted, the way the ball is decorated, the bocage, the color of the unpainted pot beneath, the weight of the figure and a whole lot of other little things just do not add up to "Sherratt.". So how do you explain the four "Sherrat" garlands? The answer is that the four garlands were molded as one with the base--they have not been applied separately. The potter made this lion by molding the base off a complete "Sherratt" base. I believe this lion was made at the same time as "Sherratt" lions. But, despite those usually tell-tale garlands, it doesn't earn a "Sherratt" attribution. In attributing figures, the devil really is in the details. CommentsLeave a Reply | To Search the Blog:
|
