Staffordshire figures portraying classical figures are endlessly fascinating, but they can also be rather perplexing. Case in point are these two pearlware beauties,  the only known examples of their kind. Both are around 13 inches tall, and the silver luster is quite exquisite. 

But for the silver luster, I might have dated these figures to around 1800, but as silver lustering was only adopted commercially from 1805, I suspect these figures were made around 1805 or shortly after. They depict Calliope, the muse of epic poetry. The title on the spine of each book confirms this--- "OVID VOL 4" in one case and  "OVID Vol 5" in the other.

​Simple enough so far isn't it? But the plot thickens. The stunningly impressive and unique figure below is almost 15 inches tall. She has changed hands through time described as Metis, who was the goddess of deep thought and wisdom. As the ancients believed Metis to be the wisest of all beings, it is appropriate that she has a large book at her side.

Although there are resemblances between the figures of Metis and Calliope, when I wrote Staffordshire Figures 1780-1840, Volume 4, I included separate chapters for each of the ladies.......but, given their similarities, I now wonder whether the figure of Metis above is  Calliope rather than Metis! 

What of other figures on the subject? My Volume 4 describes the sweet figure bellow as Metis. She is only 6 inches tall and can be attributed to the Brown Base Group The owner had always thought her to be Metis, and perhaps she is...but I can't help noticing that she is pointing to her tome in much the same manner as the figures of Calliope do. Is she not Calliope too?

I recently noted this small figure on the same theme that went through auction. She too is pointing at her book, so I suspect she too is Calliope.

I haven't located an ancient statue of either lady that resembles any of these figures closely enough to have been its design source, so I am fumbling in the dark on this one. If only the figures were titled! But, with hindsight, if I were to do my books again (perish the thought!!), I would probably call ALL these ladies Calliope. In the year 2020, hindsight is 2020.

As the coronavirus pandemic marches on, I trust you are reading this in the comfort and safety of your home. How very privileged we are to be able to shelter in place, to wash our hands! My heart bleeds for the millions of helpless people in the townships of my homeland, South Africa, who lack such necessities. Daily, they scrounge for food and pray for survival.

Of course, the pottery world has ground to a halt, but we collectors have the luxury of savoring the treasures we already own. Digging through the folder of items I intend adding to earlystaffordshirefigures.com, I thought this large pooch and his two unlikely companions particularly unusual.

The group is BIG..a whipping sixteen inches across...and it sold a while ago at Sotheby's New York. The colors are underglaze and the group may have been made in Yorkshire rather than Staffordshire. It previously belonged to the iconic designer Mario Buatta, but I trust that its new owner is very pleased to have been able to give it a new home.

​Also unusual is this impressive figure, which sold at auction in the UK not so long ago.

I have no clue as to her identity, but I have recorded another figure from the same molds (below left) as well as the companion figure (below right). 

I had almost decided that these languidly posed ladies were classical portrayals of something or other, when along came the lady below. I suspect she is from the same pot bank--or, at very least, she was modeled by the same hand--but here the subject oozes domesticity. I have yet to see a classical figure holding a cat!

The companion model is a very English gentleman with the same dog at his side. Each is known only from the example shown here, but wouldn't they look fabulous side by side?

Believe it or not, there is yet another iteration of this theme. The particularly ugly fellow below in a rather unmanly pose probably portrays a theatrical character.

His female companion is very like one of the first females we looked at.

Placed side by side, the columns differ and there are some other obvious differences, but the figures seem to share many common features--perhaps even common molds. Possibly one or both of these ladies portray a theatrical figure. Who knows? But, as always, guessing is part of the fun.

One other mystery item caught my eye: the man on the very pretty plaque below is a real crosspatch. What a grouch! The modeler deliberately and skillfully ensured that anger and irritability oozed out of his every pore. Any idea who he might be?  If you know, please share....and please stay safe!

Last summer, this large pearlware plaque popped onto John Howard's site. I knew at once that I "needed" to buy it (reason to follow!), but, sadly, I am a too-disciplined collector, so before I could allow myself that luxury, I had to understand the plaque, decipher its subject, and attempt to find a design source.

To unravel the mystery, I started with the putto on horseback. He holds a two-faced mask, one face looking forward and the other back. This represents Janus, the god of beginnings and endings----yes, the very person for whom the month of January is appropriately named.

​But I was on the wrong track. I should have instead looked first at the youth sitting beneath a grapevine. This, it turned out, is is the Roman god Bacchus, the god of wine, who was known to the Greeks as Dionysus. He was associated with fertility, ritual madness, and religious ecstasy. ​Dionysus/Bacchus is said to have returned to Greece triumphantly from his travels in India and the East, where he had spread his wine culture. He came to be considered the founder of the triumphal procession, and the Triumph of Bacchus has been depicted in art from ancient times.

​Mystery solved. The plaque portrays the Triumph of Bacchus, and we have the skilled modeler William Hackwood to thank for its design. In 1770, working for Josiah Wedgwood, Hackwood modeled a jasper plaque depicting the Triumph of Bacchus. And Hackwood’s design is the direct source for the pearlware plaque.

​The Hackwood plaque, below, shows Bacchus seated in a horse-drawn chariot with his older companion and tutor, the satyr Silenus at his side.  A putto astride one of the horses carries a two-faced mask symbolic of Janus, whose presence would have marked the end of a journey and a new start. An identical motif is on a rectangular Wedgwood plaque in the Wedgwood Museum (no. 5139) that Wedgwood made at around the same time as the British Museum’s medallion.

The copper luster on the pearlware plaque is unusual for a plaque of this period, and it has  been applied lightly and uneventy over green enamels.  It is more subtle than it appears under the harsh glare of photographic lighting.

I was drawn to the Bacchus plaque because it is a companion to one of the prettiest plaques in our collection. That plaque, shown below, portrays Cybele. It is formed in the same manner, and it too measures 9.2" across the top. 

I believe this plaque was intended to portray the Triumph of Cybele. While I can find no specific tale of triumph for Cybele, she too is depicted, at least from the Renaissance, riding trumphantly in a chariot pulled by lions, the beasts traditionally associated with her. When Hackwood modeled his Triumph of Bacchus plaque, he also modeled another  depicting the  the Triumph of Cybele. Hackwood was well-versed in the classics and would have been aware of the many parallels between the two deities and their cults. Both were worshipped ecstatically with strong wine and wild dancing bordering on insanity. And both were associated with nature and ferocious animals. Lions typically pull Cybele’s chariot, while leopards or panthers usually draw Bacchus’s.   
​
Unfortunately, Hackwood's Triumph of Cybele, shown below, is not the design source for the pearlware plaque on that theme, so my search for this continues.

Notably, my Cybele plaque is modeled in high relief and is very prettily painted.

From the reverse, the Cybele plaque is formed in the same manner as the Bacchus plaque.

Both the Cybele and Bacchus plaques are almost certainly from the same pot bank as another pair of plaques in our collection, bought very many years ago from John Howard.

The figures portray the unfortunate Princess Charlotte, who died in childbirth, and her husband, Prince Leopold. The plaques are in astonishingly high relief, and the rims are gilded, perhaps as a nod to the importance of their royal subjects. I believe all the plaques shown here were made in the 1800-1820 period.

In the internet age, auctioneers have become hybrid retailers-wholesalers. Recently, Sotheby's took a step into what is definitely retail space with its new direct selling platform, Sotheby's Home. You can access it at Sotheby'shome.com.

Good news: the Sotheby's Home site has just added a selection of early figures from a private American collection. Searching "Staffordshire" or "pearlware" will pull them up. Pricing is aggressive, and offers are accepted. Plus there is an additional discount of 15%.

I welcome Sotheby's Home as space for selling good figures that don't quite make the price cut-off for single lots at auction---and don't we all hate it when multiple figures are bunched into a lot just to make that minimum?  

Another big positive: condition reports. In my experience, Sotheby's condition reports are the best. I have not yet been disappointed in one, and I certainly cannot say the same about condition reports from most other auction houses or most dealers. 

This January, Sotheby's auctioned the property of legendary decorator Mario Buatta. Known as the Prince of Chintz, Buatta inspired the "English Country house look" of the 1980s. His lavish interiors stuffed with beautiful objects reflected the age of excess--and an era when  "antiques" had not yet become a dirty word! But afficianados of beautiful objects still survive, and Sotheby's catalog---two fat volumes--sold out before the sale commenced.

Dealers in early Staffordshire pottery repeatedly bemoan the fact that their customers only want to buy "special" figures. Well, if you wanted something special, this beauty at the Buatta sale may have been just up your alley.

Made circa 1820 of undecorated pearlware, the bust portrays Queen Caroline, wife of King George IV. Her goings-on make today's royal family look like monks and nuns! In Caroline's day, there was no divorce law, so her husband, then the Prince Regent, tried to get a special divorce bill through Parliament. He failed, but in the process he aired a ton of dirty laundry--much in the spirit of Bill Clinton and that infamous blue dress.

The bust of Queen Caroline is reminiscent of the bust below, which portrays her daughter, the ill-fated Princess Charlotte. I suspect that both busts were modeled by the same hand. Some might think that the Sotheby's bust is also Charlotte, but I believe it has been correctly catalogued as Queen Caroline.

Also in Mears and Boyer's stock is another particularly early figure. The Hay Maker shown below left was made by Ralph Wood circa 1785 and is impressed "33". Amazingly, traces of original gilding remain. The figure was special enough in its day to have that gilding added, and it remains special, by my standards. I  took the image below for inclusion in Staffordshire Figures 1780-1840. Why do I not buy the figure? Again, I already have a similar hay maker, shown below right. My example is impressed "33" and was made by Ralph Wood in the same period. Ralph Wood designed his lady Hay Maker to stand with a gentleman Mower, but I have yet to see a Ralph Wood pair. In short, a single is a very respectable purchase, and a lovely addition to any collection.

Figures made by Neale & Co. in the 1780s are all really special, by my definition of that word. They typically sport the finest enamels, and I never miss an opportunity to acquire one. So I am puzzled that no collector has snapped up the little Neale & Co. figure of Apollo offered by Pickle Herring Antiques at a modest price.

Again, I would have bought this small gem if I did not already own one. Apollo was designed to stand alongside a similarly sized figure of Ceres, and I have examples of both. I first acquired Ceres and then waited for Apollo to turn up. It took a little patience, but collecting in this way is so interesting and rewarding.  Collectors who only want big/important/expensive figures have really lost the plot!

Andrew Dando has an array of delightful figures to fit every budget. In particular, he has a small pair of Turks that I would have snapped up if I did not already own a similar pair, which I assembled at a greater price than Andrew is asking. 

​I have only recorded one other example of this musician on this base--in that instance, the base was blue, so not particularly pretty. You may never find this gentleman's companion female figure, but so what? This example stands very well on its own, and it is special, to my way of thinking.

I shan't work my way through every dealer's stock, but I assure you each has special figures that are modestly (often too modestly) priced. In particular, John Howard, our very own Prince of Pottery, has figures that I deem special even though they do not cost a lot of money or require a chunk of shelf space.

When I started collecting, I wanted to acquire examples of figures I had seen in the few books then available. These were all impressive figures of the sort that today's collectors deem "special."  Then, I had a life-changing experience. I visited a UK collection that housed many such "special" figures....but scattered generously throughout  were many others. That collection was a living entity. Its owner had imbued it with his intellectual curiosity---and it inspired my collecting journey.

I correspond with several collectors who have assembled really interesting collections of figures in all price ranges---some bought for their sheer beauty, others because of their superb quality, or simply because they are interesting for one reason or another ( a maker's mark, a rare or unusual model, an attribution, or a reflection of history). I relish seeing these collections grow, and could spend hours perusing their contents.  If your collection is all "big hat and no cattle," you are missing out--but it's never too late to set that right. 

To kick off the new decade, the third edition of Obsession is now available on the BOOKS menu at the top of this page. Because of its size, it is formatted for free download in three volumes, each distinguished by its cover. I welcome feedback, good or bad. 

The year 2020 starts with yet one more early Staffordshire figure mystery. This month, auctioneers Bearnes, Hampton, & Littlewood, will be offering the very unusual figure shown below. The maiden is, I must admit, far from beautiful,.....yet her very ugliness is mesmerizingly attractive. The mystery lies in her identity. The auction house suggests she may be Herodias holding the head of John the Baptist, That's a nice guess but I think it's a long shot. In my experience, figures of this kind are classical rather than biblical in nature.

In researching our mystery maiden, I learned that Herodias is depicted in Renaissance art clutching the head of John the Baptist. To add to my confusion, the same painting occurs titled "Herodias with the head of John the Baptist" and "Salome with the head of John the Baptist". Seems artists weren't sure whether to credit mother or daughter with with the gory deed. In any event, I just don't think this biblical yarn inspired our mystery figure.

Having eliminated Judith and Herodias as inspiration for the mystery maiden, I suggest that she may be Melpomene, the muse of tragedy, who traditionally is portrayed holding a mask.

The figure of Melpomene, shown below, is decorated in pretty enamel colors. Other versions of this figure also occur.

As you have no doubt observed, our mystery maiden--rightly or wrongly henceforth dubbed Melpomene--- is decorated in a muddy and rather limited palette. That's because the colors are oxides that have been applied UNDER the glaze rather than on top of it, and the result is that typical Pratt ware appearance.

I have seen our Melpomene previously, but in a somewhat altered form. Here she stands alongside a figure portraying the earth mother, Cybele. Notice the similarities? Clearly, the figures share many common body parts.

All these figures are sizable. Melpomene, the smallest, is over 10" tall (26 cms), but Cybele and Ceres, because of their candleholders, are even taller. 

​I have recorded but one example of Cybele and a companion Ceres decorated in pretty enamel colors. Unfortunately, I only have a black and white image of these beauties, and it was published 55 years ago.

To add yet another mystery to the mix, this enamel-painted pair is Inscribed "John Cartledge at the Lodge in the plantation COWBRIDGE 1800." There is no other record of this maker's work....or perhaps there is and we have yet to find it? There is no telling what 2020 will bring. Most importantly, I hope it brings each of you whatever you wish for yourselves. Happy new year!

PS: Another mystery: I remain puzzled as to why Melpomene's feet are painted brown. They look more like paws. A mistake....or am I missing something here?

Browsing the web recently, an unusual Staffordshire pottery bust, shown below, caught my eye. The caption read "Bust of Mary Queen of Scots c. 1815." Mary Queen of Scots? That threw me. I failed to see any resemblance, any basis for that identification, but, wanting to learn, I dug deeper.

The bust belongs to a well-known American museum, but the museum's record for it makes me want to weep. Quoting from correspondence with "a Staffordshire ceramics expert," it reads,

"the figure may very well be Mary Queen of Scots, but canny potters often left the names off figures so that the subject matter did not deter customers... I have seen the same large full-length figure untitled, but variously described as St. Paul Preaching at Athens, Eloquence, and Demosthenes."
​
​What utter nonsense!  Where do I start to pull this opinion apart?

Admittedly, the bust "may very well be" any one of a number of women, but she is not Mary Queen of Scots, who is invariably portrayed clothed in a manner befitting a sixteenth-century monarch, as shown in her portrait alongside. A plunging neckline, a simple headband and curls dangling on the forehead were definitely not that monarch's style!

Why add to our collective ignorance by speculating wildly as to the identity of the bust? Why not simply leave it as unidentified?




​The "Staffordshire ceramics expert" is misguided on yet another issue: NOTHING supports her statement that "canny potters often left the names off figures so that the subject matter did not deter customers." Why would potters have made figures that they thought might deter their customers? Rather, I suggest that potters simply didn't bother titling figures when they thought the identity was obvious.

And what of the same untitled figure being "variously described as St. Paul Preaching at Athens, Eloquence, and Demosthenes"?  

I can almost hear some snarky comments from UK readers about American ignorance, but hold it right there. The "Staffordshire ceramics expert" quoted above is British. And UK museums can be just as foolish. 

​Recently, a UK collector contacted me about a  large, important pearlware figure, made circa 1810. Its look-alike---and the only other example on record--is in Brighton Museum's Willett Collection. Not knowing what he had, he took his figure to a UK museum that houses one of the most important collections of Staffordshire pottery in the world. After examining it, the curator informed him that he had looked in the Harding books on Victorian figures, could not find anything similar, and concluded that the figure might be continental!!  Read that again, please. A pearlware figure oozing with all the features of a pre-Victorian English figure is taken to a British museum and is considered to be continental!  To add insult to injury, the Willett figures is pictured in my Staffordshire Figures 1780-1840, which I donated to that museum, and it is also in Stella Beddoe's A Potted History, which should be in that museum's library. 

I am a bitterly disillusioned collector. I retain faith in one museum curator, and perhaps two or three auctions houses. I am as disillusioned with the trade, where various degrees of stupidity and dishonesty routinely rub shoulders. But none of that spoils my enjoyment of early figures.

​Last month, I managed to complete a pair of "Sherratt" London Cryers. It has only taken me fifteen years to achieve this!  My path, of course, was convoluted. I started with a female figure in 2004, and many years later I found a male to keep her company. The problem with this pairing, as you see, is that the female was made with a bocage, and the male without, so they were rather an odd couple.

This summer, I found a lady made without bocage to pair with my man. The result is as good an assembled pair as I can hope to find.

Of course, my task is not done because my lady with a bocage is now a singleton. If you have her mate and would like to buy/sell, do let me know because it would be so rewarding to complete another pair.

I know of only one other pair of London Cryers. They belong to a friend and are shown in Staffordshire Figures 1780-1840 Volume 2, chapter 30. 

As you see, my friend's male figure differs from my male figure. It seems "Sherratt" made two versions of the male figure. Does that mean that there were also two versions of the female figure? Yet another unsolved riddle! As always, I have more questions than answers.

Recently, a new treasure arrived in Dallas when a large Wombwell's menagerie found its way into one of the city's several collections. I was fortunate in that I could handle and photograph it. In fact, of the 36 Staffordshire pottery menageries on record, I have been privileged to examine and/or photograph at least 25, and in the process I have learned a lot. Admittedly, there is even more that I don't know, and numerous unanswered questions tease my mind. Precisely when were these menageries made, who made them, how many were made, and why did their design evolve in the way that it did? I wish I had all the answers.

Of this I am certain: those magnificent menageries that survive are all stunningly beautiful, and they embody a wealth of information about the public's awakening interest in the natural kingdom. I have put together a video on Polito's and Wombwell's traveling menageries. You can access it on YouTube or by clicking this link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y0FSe0F-jY

Links to my other YouTube videos on early Staffordshire pottery figures can be accessed on the VIDEOS tab at the top of this page.  Remember, I welcome all criticism.

It's been a long, dry summer for collectors of early Staffordshire pottery figures. Very little new or exciting has come to market, and that doesn't seem likely to change soon. The most important figure group available is, of course, in the stock of John Howard, and what a stunner it is. This group, decorated under the glaze,  was made by the potter Charles Tittensor, who is known for his weirdly wonderful creations. 

John's group is impressed TITTENSOR four times on the reverse. Three of the marks are on the side of the group portraying the shepherds, and I was interested to see that the marks are in exactly the same spots on both the 4-figure group and the 2-figure group. This tells me that  Tittensor did not reach for a stamp and mark his work after he had made it. Instead, the marks were integral to the molds he used to form each figure group. Oh, the little factoids that delight too-serious collectors!

Tittensor figures require quite sophisticated taste. They certainly don't fit the bill for those who prefer their figures cute. Prize for the most imaginative goes to this remarkable Tittensor group. Yes, the same shepherd and shepherdess, but this time with oversized farm animals. Quite something, isn't it? What was Tittensor thinking?

Even in dry spells, I find fascinating features on relatively ordinary figures. What could be more ordinary than a lone pearlware Widow, yet the addition of a date boldly painted on the base of this Widow makes her noteworthy. Oh, had all potters painted a date somewhere on their figures!

If anything could be more run-of-the-mill than a pearlware widow, it has to be a pearlware figure of Charity. Don't knock them though! Because they are so "ordinary," lovely examples often can be had at give-away prices. I have a dozen or so arranged on individual little wall brackets on my office wall, and I am always open to adding more. Something unusual on this example caught my eye. Any idea what it might be?

It's the object in her hand. I have no idea what it is, but it resembles a flower or vegetable of sorts. Again, what was the potter thinking?

This widow, again with that mystery object in hand, is currently in a set in the stock of new dealer John Cockburn, so visit his shop, Pickleherring, at ​http://www.antiquebritishpottery.com/

Lastly, do check in at Moorabool Antiques in Australia, where Paul Rosenberg is offering an astounding array of ceramic objects, including early figures, at his Exhibition that commences on October 5.​https://moorabool.com/