Staffordshire Figures 1780-1840

I am working very hard on preparing material for our book, and things are coming together so nicely. Today, I flipped through the images quickly and went WOW. I have 3,658 captioned to date, with more to come.  It takes a village. No, it takes a world to get all this together, and I am so grateful to all of you who have kept the pictures coming. I know from first-hand experience that it is a pain, but I hope you will be thrilled in the end. Meanwhile, I had a tiny revelation this morning as I added  a new addition to John Howard's site to my material.

The first pair of cows is new to John's stock. The pair below and the single have fled his coop...or where ever John's cows live. Interesting, is it not, that you could apparently get either cow either with or without a snake?  So you could pair these either way. The potters were always happy to please.

These bizarrely painted cows are attributed to what I dub the "Tunstall Group." Excavations on High Street, Tunstall, unearthed some shards that have bocage leaves and flowers just like some that you see above.  This has enabled the linking together of a great many figures that were potted by an unknown potbank in Tunstall. The bocage flowers and both forms of bocage fronds that you see above (one pointy, one stubby) match shards. Case closed.

Of course, we do not know the identity of the Tunstall potter. I think there are three candidates. The first is Samuel Grocott, but I dismiss him because his tenure in Tunstall was too brief for him to have turned out the wide range of models that the Tunstall Group produced. Otherwise, it is a toss-up between George Hood and Michael Tunnicliffe. 

You will find attribution material laid out in my book, complete with pictures of shards. I am trying to keep it as simple as possible, with more pictures than words. We collectors are a visual bunch. The process of committing my thoughts to paper has been exacting and rewarding. I have learned a lot! And I hope others will carry on the process of scientifically categorizing our figures. 

Meanwhile, I have been corresponding with a reporter for The Daily Mail's Weekend Magazine. She is doing a story on the elephant I bought at auction in the UK....but you heard about it first in my blog entry of November 15.  The story will run someday, so if you live in the UK and get the Daily Mail, please tell me that they said nice things about the elephant. I was a little amused at the reporter's persistence in knowing how  I FELT when I got the elephant. Clearly a generation gap here...

Wikipedia tells us that "William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564; died 23 April 1616)[nb 1] was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist.[1] He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon." Wiki waxes on extensively about Shakespeare--in fact the entry does him proud....but nowhere does it mention the stunning Staffordshire figures of one of England's best-loved sons. 

It is fitting that earthenware figures of Shakespeare can be particularly fine. Nothing naive or crude here. Below is a stunning example formerly (too late!) in the stock of Andrew Dando.

Talk about attention to detail. Look at the painting on the clothing, the gilding on the books, the lettering on the scroll in Shakespeare's hand, and the carved plinth he leans on. This is a tour de force. Height is 18 inches.

Large figures of this form are after the marble monument of Shakespeare erected in 1740 in Poet's Corner, Westminster Abbey. Such figures are believed to have been made by Enoch Wood or Wood & Caldwell. Enoch Wood was into time-capsules and he hid examples of his work for later discovery. A similar large figure of Shakespeare was unearthed behind a wall he is believed to have erected in 1810. This figure of Andrew's is incised "P.V."  These are the initials of the London plaster maker Peter Vanina, and so Andrew's figure is thought to be derived from a reduced scale plaster wrought by Vanina after the Westminster Abbey marble. 

Above is the Westminster Abbey monument. Is the figure not scarily close in every detail?  But give me the earthenware figure any time. Those enamels are just yummy.

Enoch Wood was not the only potter to capture Shakespeare in clay. This figure is in the Potteries Museum. It is a little shorter--about 15.5".

This unknown potter clearly gave Shakespeare his best shot. The result is charming...but once you have seen the Enoch Wood version, you have to give this an A for effort but an E for execution. It just doesn't measure up.

Some busts of Shakespeare are made to the same very high standard as the Enoch Wood figure, and these too are probably Enoch Wood's handiwork.

This bust is again courtesy of Andrew Dando (now sold, put down your check book.) Would this not have been the perfect touch for a gentleman's library? Love the red tassels and the beautiful braid. A far cry from the current fashion trend which, the Wall Street Journal tells me, involves wearing your pajamas in public. Yes, kids are wearing them to school complete with fluffy slippers. Go figure.

Derby made a smaller porcelain figure of Shakespeare, about 10" high. I have photographed a pearlware look-alike for my book, so I hope we will have Shakespeare well represented. 

After many grueling days of writing captions for pictures of sheep and deer for my upcoming book, I thought I deserved something easier this past Sunday. So I turned to the classical figures and chose Flora and Pomona.  What could be simpler? Because Pomona and Flora sometimes occur as a pair, I decided it would be best to lump them in one section.  Below is a pair of Flora and Pomona, attributed to "Sherratt."

Pomona is the lady with the apple. An apple is quite appropriate for the Roman goddess charged with caring for fruit treess. Flora, on the other hand, is the Roman goddess of things that flowers, so she holds a garland of flowers.

Now look at this pair below, also by "Sherratt." Again, Pomona stands with her apples. But look closely at the figure on the left. She looks very like Flora, but where is the garland of flowers? It's been replaced by a cornucopia and a bunch of grapes. I think that this figure is intended to be Ceres. The horn of plenty is the give-away.  I have recorded more than one "Sherratt" example of both Flora and Ceres, so this is not a one-time aberration....nor is it the work of a misguided restorer.

So much for my pairings of Flora and Pomona. Flora, Ceres, and Pomona? Pomona and Ceres? How best to lay things out. So confusing.

Figures from other pot banks can be just as perplexing. The figure below to the left is Flora. No doubt about it. There's that floral garland. But the figure on her right also has a garland and also seems to be Flora--but the figure has raised her right hand rather than her left. Two versions of Flora? Flora to pair with Flora?

Look closely at the garland of the last figure yet again. See the apples in it?  I believe this figure is intended to be Pomona, and the apples are placed within a garland. So here we have a quite different Pomona in a Flora-Pomona pairing. The devil is in the details.

There is enough material in my Pomona/Flora folder to keep me pondering for a while. Look at these two figures from The Potteries Museum.

I expect the lady on the left once held a flower and is intended to be Flora. I am not sucking this out of thin air. I have many other Flora figures positioned thus. But look at the lady on the right. She carries a cornucopia and I think she is Ceres.

Ah well, so much for Flora and Pomona in a neat, organized lay out!  After hours of shoving pictures around, Johnny Be Goode insisted on our daily walk, and I pondered the issue as he dragged me along. I recalled one dealer saying to me "Just put them all under Classical Maidens." Suddenly that sounded awfully good. But then there are those scantily clad rather sexless classical figures....and I am not sure where they would go. Nothing is easy....

If you have figures that you will share for my book, please email me. I am DYING to hear from you. Since starting on this project in the fall, my archive has expanded by the addition of figures from over 60 additional sources. But I want more. Yes, greedy, but this is our one shot at having a reference book. If you can help and you haven't yet, please email me.

In attributing figures, there is an exception to every rule. I am convinced of it. Just when I have waded through dozens of seemingly identical figures in my determination to support an attribution criterion, and just when I think I have nailed it....one figure turns up to upset the apple cart.  And so it was with this sweet little boy-with-dog that I bought on eBay.

Yes, I know I always tell you to be wary of eBay. But there are good sellers, you just have to know what you are doing. I was happy to see that seller "surri_b" (a Prince of a man) had this figure up. I recognized it right away as one that can be attributed to John Dale. Despite the damage (loss of bocage) I thought it worthy of space in my office, which is where my battered little academic collection lives. So for $79.88, he became mine. Ridiculous for something so lovely, is it not?

So what makes me say this figure was made by John Dale? Attribution is as much an art as a science. Invariably, I look at a figure and know instinctively what it is....and then I have to establish scientific reason!  In this case, the reasons are:

• The tooth-like comb holes/indentations on the base are seen often on Dale figures. That's not to say you won't ever see them elsewhere...but you will see them on Dale figures routinely.
  
• That limey green base is such a very "Dale color" that it called out to me.
  
• The bocage flowers have eight petals and only occur on other Dale figures. 
  
• The boy has a very round face, and most Dale figures have faces just like this. They truly are a family of figures. Once you recognize their "look," you can spot them in a crowd.
  
• The floral sprig on the base occurs frequently on marked Dale figures, and on those that can reasonably be attributed to Dale. I have never seen this very sprig on anything other than a Dale figure (although I have seen a much smaller version of it on one other figure.) Here the sprig was full-size, so no problems with the attribution. 
  

Last night, I was working away on sheep and I decided to dig up a photo I took in 2005 of a sheep impressed SELMAN.  The sheep is, to all intents and purposes, a run-of-the-mill sheep on a green base with bocage. The mark SELMAN is intriguing. It occurs on no other piece of pottery. However, the firm of J & W Selman operated as 'toy makers' in the Potteries around 1860--so others have declared this sheep to have been made around 1860.  Hah! I think not. This is a pre-Victorian sheep if ever there was one. 

Now look closely at the base. There are two floral sprigs on it and, I am sorry to say, they are just like the Dale sprig. Woe is me!  Another violation of a rule.

 I can't draw a mega conclusion from the sprig on the Selman sheep....but I am happy that the boy-with-sheep is definitely by Dale. To clinch the argument I show you another.   

This boy-with-sheep is from the same molds as my eBay purchase. I actually prefer my painted over bocage stub (it has been painted over quite artistically) to the restoration on this bocage ( and what is that piece of bocage doing at knee height??) This boy is definitely attributed to Dale because of the grape-like sprig on the base. This sprig is only associated with Dale. I hope that there is no exception to this rule!  But in any event, this highlights the importance of being able to support an attribution with multiple factors. One swallow does not make a summer, as the saying goes. In this case, the twelve-petalled bocage flower in combination with the bocage leaves support the attribution. 

An after thought: 
I want to show you the back of my boy-with-dog, so forgive the quick pic taken with my phone....and hardly color correct. Look at how the restorer painted over the stump. I recognize the work. I have seen this once before! Anyway, I prefer this to plasticy new bocage.  Note the tooth-like indentations at the back of the figure too.

In the early nineteenth century, as today, all did not necessarily go well in English marriages.  But in the early nineteenth century there was no divorce law.  That’s because at marriage a woman ceased to exist….legally, at least!  In the eyes of the law, at marriage a woman became ONE with her husband. As a man had no need to divorce himself, there was simply no need for divorce law. The age-old battle between the sexes in English households is captured in a vigorously humorous group known as “Who shall wear the breeches.” The groups are exceptionally rare, and, like the examples shown here, all are formed as spill holders.

Lovely is it not? Is the couple’s rage not captured with great humor? Note the cat in the foreground, seemingly in great haste to avoid getting in the midst of things. Cats are far less common than dogs on pottery groups, and I think the cat was deliberately chosen for this cat fight! The words read WHO SHALL WARE THE BRECHES (to the left) and CONQUER OR DIE(to the right, obscured by the man's head.) I have traced four examples of this group. One is in the Newcastle-under-Lyme museum. Three are in North American collections, and one of these is in particularly poor condition (including loss of the breeches.)

Interestingly, there is a second variant of this group.  Again, the words WHO SHALL WARE THE BRECHES and CONQUER OR DIE are above the fireplace, but there are notable differences, as you can see in the example below from the Victoria and Albert Museum’s holdings. First, the captions are reversed. Second, there is a bundle on the floor at the couple’s feet. This bundle represents a well-wrapped infant, clearly flung aside as the parents tussle. Third, the group stands on a flat base rather than a claw-footed base. Fourth, the top of the spill vase is pointed rather than rounded. If you look carefully, many of the fine details match: the impressed design on the edge of her apron is the same in both groups, as are the impressions around the fireplace. I believe there are four examples of this group in existence: one is in a North American collection, and three are in museums (Victoria and Albert, Fitzwilliam, Brighton and Hove.)

Included in my count above is the example in the Willett Collection, Brighton and Hove Museums, but this group has an interesting twist. Instead of the usual wording, the plaque to the right reads  WHO SHALL WEAR THE TROUSERS. Note that “wear” is spelled correctly this time!   

The group exhibits other minor differences when compared to the example in the Victoria and Albert. Firstly, the baby-bundle is made from different molds. Also, there is no impressed design around the edge of the woman's apron. I still think all examples on flat bases probably emanated from the same source—but who knows? If I had a choice, I would pick a group on clawed feet because these examples are frequently more vividly colored, and the feet add a little more oomph.  But if you want one of these and you find it, don’t be picky. Grab it! Meanwhile, you can see examples in my book, or you can visit the Victoria and Albert, the Fitzwilliam Museum, the Brighton and Hove Museums or the Newcastle-under-Lyme Museum. 

If you live near the Potteries Museum, don't miss Jessica Davies's Gallery Talk on Staffordshire Figures on February 14.  Click here for details.  

As I work away on my picture archive, I try to tie some of the figures I see into Groups, and I am getting there. Each Group comprises a number of figures with shared features.  To go about this rationally, I need to look at mundane details, like the shapes of bocage leaves and flowers.  But at the end of it, when I have a large Group of figures that belong together it is SO obvious that they belong together...almost like members of the same family.

Look at this sweet little archer--little is the word because off the top of my head I think the figure is about 6". The bocage flowers have seven petals. This on its own is no big deal. Other forms of bocage flowers also have seven petals...but these are special. Their form exactly matches those on shards found in a 1972 excavation of a former Woolworth's store in High Street, Tunstall. Some of the shards have distinctive features that enable us to identify extant figures from the same source. I can speculate about the identity of the potter who potted at Tunstall, but I do now know.  So I simply call the figures that link to the Tunstall shards "Tunstall figures.

This little archer has both bocage leaves and flowers that match those found among the Tunstall shards, so she is a "Tunstall" figure.

The second little archer has exactly the same "Tunstall" flowers, and her bocage, although different, again links to Tunstall. The figure is a bit different from the previous example--particularly her hat and her bow--but they do look "related", do they not?

The sportsman below pairs with the archer. He too has distinctive "Tunstall" bocage leaves and flowers, and to top it all he is on exactly the same base. A marriage made in cyberspace--with thanks to the reader who kindly supplied this photo for my book. 

As you look at the next archer, I am sure you will think "Tunstall." She so closely resembles previous examples in many intangible ways. The figure is from many of the same molds as the second archeress....but there are differences. She now holds a feather in her hand, and the bow is molded separately and stands away from the body.  The bocage is quite non-specific. It does not have "Tunstall" flowers but has common-or-garden carnations, of the sort used by many other pot banks. But Tunstall also used generic bocage leaves and flowers of just this sort and I am reasonably confident that this figure also can be linked to "Tunstall." But let's say she is probably "Tunstall" to be safe.

And last but not least, here is another "Tunstall" pair, identifiable by their bocages. This archeress is just like the first one, but the bases on both figures are new to us.

Imagine going to party and trying to link family members by their common features. Hardly easy--and it is not easy with figures either. Gut feeling does not hold water. I need to have hard facts. But as these details pull together, Groups form and that is gratifying. You groan. Why bother? Who cares?

Last week I looked at a figure of a classical lady. She was on a typical Enoch Wood base, but the bocage was of a sort that links to "Tunstall."  The figure had passed through a leading UK auction house, which had noted that the bocage had been reattached. This sounds innocuous enough. Reattachment has minimal impact on value....as long as it is reattachment of what was originally there. In this case, a "Tunstall" bocage was attached to an Enoch Wood figure.

As I work through my pictures, I see some pretty ghastly forms of restoration. Reattachments of wrong things happen again and again. So knowing what your figure should have on it is truly invaluable. Look at pictures of other examples and compare. If there is a little dog, is it the correct form? The devil is really in the details. 

Let's end with a gorgeous "Tunstall" pair of cows, formerly in the stock of John Howard.

Cows painted in this weird manner always have "Tunstall" bocages. This particular bocage is readily reconizable by its very splayed leaves, and of course that seven-petalled "Tunstall" flower confirms the attribution. 

When we entertain, I decorate the table with Staffordshire figures.  A small sheep at each place setting is an easy way to go, and, if I have the time, I create a scene on a large silver tray topped with moss (for grass of course). The scene on the tray depends on the occasion. Bridal showers are my favorite because out come the Gretna Green wedding, the New Marriage Act etc.  Flowers in little florists' tube tuck into the spill holders....all this is meant to take attention away from the food because I hate cooking, but I want things to look pretty-pretty.

Our family doesn't celebrate Christmas, but last week I couldn't help wondering what I would decorate the table with if Christmas were my "thing."  Top on the list would be a Madonna and Child. I hunted around, and by some miracle this gorgeous figure is on Aurea Carter site, just waiting for a home. I think this is one of the most beautifully modelled Staffordshire groups of all time. 

Examples of this groups are attributed to Enoch Wood or to Wood & Caldwell. The existence of marked WOOD & CALDWELL examples verifies the attribution. Below is a bronze glazed version marked thus, in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. 

This group of the Madonna and child is after a 15" terracotta by the baroque Flemish sculptor, Lucas Fayd'herbe that was at Gopsall Hall from 1773 to 1918 and is currently in the British Museum. The final work, a marble, is in the Rockoxhuis, Antwerp. The terracotta differs just slightly from the figures above. The difference is that the terracotta sits on a square base. 

Some earthenware figures of this Madonna and Child are on square bases and they are so very like the terracotta that the molds were probably made directly from it--the size difference could be accounted for by shrinkage in firing.  Below is an example on a square base, formerly in the stock of Andrew Dando. 

Note that groups on square bases have the Madonna seated on a chair with free-standing rear legs. All examples on square bases are also attributed to Enoch Wood/Wood & Caldwell. An enamel-painted group on a square base in the Potteries Museum is marked Wood & Caldwell.  

Below is another example of this Madonna and Child on a square base. This group is in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Play the slideshow and you will see both the front and back.

I suspect that Wood & Caldwell/Enoch Wood made the first examples of this group on a square base, with the Madonna sitting on a chair, just like the terracotta. But it didn't take long for them to wise up to the fact that a green mound was easier and probably prettier. So the Madonna was relocated. Both versions of the figure are simply lovely, they all date from around the same period, so choose whichever. And I hope it inspires you to decorate your table with Staffordshire figures next Christmas.

In the holiday spirit? If you celebrate Christmas, you may want to put these under your tree. Fresh into the stock of John Howard....I think we need a blast of angel trumpets to herald these.

This pair of figures portraying the Flight to Egypt (left, note Jesus is a baby) and the Return from Egypt (right, Jesus is an older child) is far from the usual. Firstly, they are bigger than the typical model, which stands at around 8.5" with bocage. Instead this pair measure 10.5" max--and no bocage. The figures are on a much larger scale, and, while not overwhelming, make an impressive statement. Yes, they were DEFINITELY made without bocages. I have never seen these large Flight and Return figures side by side before. Somehow, they more commonly occur as singles, but then they really don't occur that commonly at all!

Another oddity about this pair: As they stand, the Flight is on the left, the Return on the right. Most of the smaller examples are made the other way around. Why does this matter? Well, it doesn't....BUT when the examples are titled and you want them to read correctly, you have to stand the donkeys tail to tail.

See what I mean?  As you read the titles, your eye REALLY wants The Flight on the left and The Return on the right...but then the donkeys stand like this. BTW, the above are a "Sherratt" pair from my archive.

Below the pair stand correctly, donkeys nose to nose....but the titles read counter intuitively. A gorgeous pair, marked "WALTON" from John Howard's archive. Too late, too late--these are sold.

Ah well, let's put this down to the idiosyncracies of pottery.

If Christmas is not your thing, don't despair. You can still give yourself a larger-than-most figure by buying John Howard's cat.

Now this kitty is a whopping-but-not-unattractive 14" high. Early Staffordshire cats are uncommon, and usually occur lying on a little pillow. I have recorded three seated cats of about 5" in height. All else is smaller....except for this kitty. Fabulously modeled, is it not?  John tells me that a long time ago a reputable source told him of an example of this cat marked Copeland & Garrett...so that attribution seems reasonable.  I am firmly in the Dog Camp, or I would be tempted. But if you want a cat, no vet bills, no food need....this is for you.

Andrew Dando has a fun nativity scene on the greeting card on his site.  

Is that not terrific and quite inspirational? Thank you, Andrew!

As you browse dealers' stock this week, remember that a pottery figure--be it for you or for someone else--gives a lifetime of pleasure. It is truly a gift that keeps on giving. 

The Bawdy Barmaid is the title given to a figure that was, in its time, considered erotica. By today's standards the figure is quite tame. The first example I saw was Victorian and a bit late for my taste. The lady looked just like a barmaid, but if you flipped her over there was a hole between her legs. This, apparently, was enough to get Victorian gentlemen in a twitter.

When I was at the Potteries Museum some visits ago, I noticed an early Bawdy Barmaid, beautifully enameled in a Lakin and Poole type palette. Quite yummy. Frankly, I can't remember what went on under her dress, but I assume that the naughty hole was present. What I do remember is that her dress was draped very prettily at the back, and I thought "Hmm, Myrna, wouldn't this look good in your collection?"....so I have been watching.

This Bawdy Barmaid now sits on my shelf.

I was drawn to the pretty colors-- a lovely green, is that not?. and it looks great with the pink. And, as you can see, she is equally pretty from the back. Now what about underneath? The seller told me that a former owner has pasted a clay-like substance onto the underneath of the figure and he didn't know if it would come off. Anything but superglue comes off pottery with enough soaking (never use superglue to attach a broken piece, please....another story)  So I bought the figure, without seeing an interior view.

While I waited for the figure to arrive, I contemplated the mindset of an owner who liked this figure enough to keep it---but just HAD to cover the hole. After all, even if there are children in the house, who looks? Has a visitor ever flipped over your figure to check beneath?  The Puritanical mindset that wanted the figure but just had to cover a hole that nobody knew was there amused me. This had to have been done a long time ago, I thought. After all, today nobody would care. Long-time-ago was good for ease of removal. Natural, non-synthetic materials should just float away in some water.

When the barmaid arrived, this is what she looked like. A little out of focus...sorry, but it is the only shot I have. I couldn't wait to get her into a bucket of water. 

 Note a bucket,  not the kitchen sink, because this stuff looked nasty. And it was suprisingly stubborn. As it softened, I picked away gently with a dental pick, being careful to leave the area with the hole till last. I really didn't want to fill the figure with water if the interior was unglazed.

As the brown stuff slowly lifted away, I noticed something strange. A long curly hair, painted onto the surface emerged at the edge of the once-covered area. Dear Reader, at this point I leave the rest to your genteel imagination. Suffice it to say, this Bawdy Barmaid lacked a hole. Instead, she was realistically painted (VERY realistically painted) in colors that included shades of flesh. red, and brown. No, I will not be adding a picture to our G-rated blog.

I know of only four early Bawdy Barmaids, so these are quite rare. And at last, I have a figure that my children may be interested in looking at! Meanwhile, notice the smile on my Barmaid's face....her lipstick has slipped.  Seems the painter missed the mark with his paint and planted two lips firmly in the middle of the chin.