This Staffordshire junkie continues to be wow-ed by John Howard's stock.  Amazing. How does he do it??? Where do I begin? You have to notice this stunning representation of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane.

The figure is titled CHRISTS AGONY and it is definitely "Sherratt".  The base is one of the less common "Sherratt" bases. I have it on a figure titled "MENAGERIE" in my collection--you can see that figure in my book. How else do we know this figure is "Sherratt"?  Well, the little floral sprigs beautifully arranged around the edge of the base are akin to "Sherratt" signatures. You only find these sprigs applied to "Sherratt" figures. And the combination of bocage leaves and flowers is another "Sherratt" exclusive.

Here is a close up of one of those tell-tale sprigs from another "Sherratt" figure. Train your eye to look for it. It really is a very helpful pointer to an attribution.

The story behind the figure of Chirst's Agony is as follows. Entering the garden of Gethsemane and knowing his arrest is imminent, Jesus prays sorrowfully, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me.” (Gospels of Matthew 26:36–56; Mark 14:32–52; Luke 22:40–53; John 18:1–12). We see words to this effect on the plinth beneath the angel alongside Jesus. Images of this very scene have been popular in art for centuries and probably inspired our figures. 

"Sherratt" made Christ's Agony on other bases and with other bocages, as you see below. (Center: Brighton Museum. Right: Formerly in the stock of Roger De Ville.) The variations are apparent. The example on the blue base is unusual in that I haven't seen a base painted blue on any other "Sherratt" figure. But John's figure gets the prize, in my opinion. Not only is it in fabulously complete condition, it has that lovely base and the title CHRISTS AGONY--and, after all, is that not what the New Testament tale is all about?

Other potters too portrayed Christ in the Garden. Here we have an example that I attribute to what I call the "Leather Leaf Group." It is currently on eBay, but at a considerable premium to John's figure.

Another winner in John's stock--and it is also pictured in my book--is this colorful figure of Abraham Offering Isaac.

The well-known story in Genesis of the binding of Isaac is powerfully symbolic. At God’s command, Abraham raises his knife to slay his beloved son, Isaac, but God stays Abraham’s hand and presents instead a sacrificial ram. This tale’s compelling message of paternal authority, filial duty, and faith in a higher order has been portrayed in classical art for centuries, and an old masters’ print (probably after Rembrandt) or a derivative work may have inspired our figure.  

The tale of Abraham and Isaac must have been popular in its time, as several pot banks had a go at capturing it in clay. John's figure is simple and strong--it encapsulates the essence of Abraham's dilemma--and that's what I like about it. Some figures, on the other hand, can be quite elaborate,  and, as a result, they are frequently very damaged today.  The figures below are both from the Potteries Museum. The right hand figure can also be seen in my book.

I admit to finding the Bible tale of Abraham and Isaac fascinating. What could/should Abraham have done? What could/should Isaac have done?  The story is really about choice--and how you balance it against duty.  Collecting is also about choice, so look at all the dealers' stock--and  have fun adding to your collection.

The books I am preparing for publication will have a price guide. Yes, each and every figure must have a price code in its caption. Experienced collectors know that price codes can be misleading. For example, three "Sherratt" cows from the same molds have been on the market in recent months. One would have had a price code of A (under $1,000 or GBP 626), another a B ($1,000-$3,000) and the third a C ($3,000-$6,000). Each of these cows actually sold within its price bracket, and the price differences were justified by significant variations in quality and condition. But telling this from a photograph in a book is challenging...and that's one reason I find price codes frustrating.

The majority of early Staffordshire figures fall into price code A. Yes, most can be bought for under $1,000. Very many of them fall into this bracket because of condition. All those figures lacking limbs and bocages can make very interesting and affordable collections, but they are not particularly desirable. But among the price code A figures are some of the little gems that I treasure the most. 

The little turks in the slide show above can each be bought for under $1000. But finding one is another story.  I think we don't value figures like this nearly enough. They add so much punch and interest to a collection.

Similarly, the little musicians below.

These figures are not only cute. They are very interesting. All are "Sherratt" and are on typical "Sherratt" bases. We find these figures in other settings. For example, the man with the accordion stands on the platform of "Sherratt" menageries. And the other musicians appear in other "Sherratt" settings. These figures are much too cheap, given their rarity and appeal--so if you see one, buy it!  But you don't need me to tell you that. The figures sell themselves. Finding one is the tricky bit.

We are all familiar with large figures of Elijah and the Widow, and a fine pair deserves a place in any collection. But have you noticed the tiny pair in the stock of David Boyer and Ivan Mears?

For the price, you can buy a large pair with issues. Or you can buy this small pair. Tiny treasures? You decide.

John Walton is perhaps the best know of the early Staffordshire potters, and for good reason.  Walton made more marked figures  than did any other potter of his time. Over 80 marked Walton figure forms are recorded. Runner-up Ralph Salt only made about three dozen.

There are many pairs of figures among the many marked Walton figures. Showman and showwoman, gentleman and lady gardeners, pairs of lions, cows and sheep. You get the drift.  Not surprisingly, both figures in each pair are marked.  This is sounding too easy, is it not?  Here comes the wrinkle: Walton's figures of St. Paul are marked, but companion figures of St. Peter are NEVER marked.  Why?

The more I think about this, the more I wonder whether Walton actually ever made St Peter. St Peter may have been made by some other potter. The features on marked Walton figures (the bocages, decorative sprigs, the color palette) also occur on figures made by other pot banks. So just because there is a companion St Peter does not mean Walton made it. Somebody else may well have done the deed.  

Very many Walton figures seem to stand in pairs that have been together forever, but not so St. Peter and St. Paul. I have never seen what an undeniably original pairing. Perhaps Walton only made St Paul--and some other enterprising potter decided to make St Peter to satisfy a market need.  

Lets look at some figures. 

To start, here is St Paul marked WALTON on the back. As you see, it has the typical five-leaflet bocage fronds that Walton favored. 


As this figure is marked WALTON, there is no dispute as to who made it. But if it was not marked, the best we could say is that it is "Walton-style."  

Here is a figure of St Peter, not marked. It is Walton-style, but we can't be certain Walton made it. The five leaflet bocage fronds are the same shape as those on the previous St. Paul. The bocage flowers are different, but Walton used these bocage flowers. Unfortunately for us, several other potters used these bocage fronds and flowers too. 

If this figure stood side by side with a very closely matching St Paul--a true pair--I might just get comfortable attributing it to Walton. But otherwise the best I can say is that it was possibly made by Walton.

Note that the book is open to Luke.

Here we have a very similar St. Peter. Again, each bocage frond has five leaflets. In fact, they are shaped like the bocage fronds on the previous St. Peter and St. Paul. Their painting is unusual--but I have seen bocage fronds on a Walton figure painted in this manner. I have also seen this painting on bocage fronds from other pot banks. Did Walton make this St Peter? Possibly--but I wouldn't want to bet on it.

Note the book is again open to Luke.

Our third candidate in the contest to find a Walton St. Peter has a quite different bocage form. Walton made bocages with these broad leaves and these flowers--but so did other potters.  Again, I am not betting that Walton made this figure.

Note that the book is now open to John. Hmm....does that mean that this figure comes from a different pot bank to the previous two figures? 

The fourth contestant again has a very Waltony look....but don't be deceived. The bocage fronds here each have three leaflets, rather than the five-leaflets on  previous figures.

Not a single marked Walton figure has three-leaflet bocage fronds, so I don't believe that this figure was made by Walton. If the figure had lost its bocage, you might be tempted to attribute it to Walton, but that would be a mistake.

Note that the book is now open to Mark!

The fifth figure (courtesy of Christies) is very like the previous example. Again, each bocage frond comprises three leaflets. I tend to think that figures with these three-leaflet fronds come from the same source. They link together with other figures to form a large group of unkown origin---but they were not made by Walton.

So if I am right and this figure is from the same pot bank as the previous example, why is the book now open to Luke? 

The final figure has spectacular, large-leaf bocage fronds not often encountered. This example was photographed in a display case at the Potteries Museum. 

Walton did not use this bocage on a single marked figure, and I don't think any figures with this bocage were made by Walton. Rather, I suspect they come from the same pot bank as the previous two figures with three-leaflet bocage fronds.

The book is now open to Mark. The plot thickens.

I throw up my hands in despair! This blog posting is as unsatisfying to me as it is to you. I simply pose a puzzle. Were ANY of these figures of St. Peter made by Walton?  I think not, but we will never know. Who needs Sudoku when you can contemplate these issues?

A collector has suggested that Walton simply forgot to put the mark on the mold he used for St Peter. That is possible--especially as the mark seems to be integral to the mold. In other words, the mark was made with the figure, and it was not put on afterwards. Assuming there was a problem with the mold, I think it would have been caught and easily corrected as subsequent working molds were created for use.

Is there any feature that is specific to Walton figures?  Yes, there is just one.  The rosette that you see on the center front of the base of this figure of FRIENDSHIP occurs only on marked Walton figures.

If you want to know more about Walton, you can look here:

• Under the MAKERS tab on this website. This was my first attempt at sorting out Walton, and it needs to be updated--as does the rest of this site. It is top of my "to do" list for when my book is done.
  
• The American Ceramic Circle Journal Vol XVI has my most recent article on Walton. To achieve a consistent style throughout the Journal, this work got edited into mundane nothingness. I find it boring, difficult reading, but the pictures are very pretty, and all the essential material is there.
  
• Wait for the next book, due in 2013, I think.
  

Meanwhile, if you have any thoughts, please share them. 

Do you know what St. Monday is? It was the name workers gave Mondays in the early 1800s. They declared Monday a public holiday of sorts, purely to recover from the binge drinking that was commonplace on Sundays. The concept of a weekend as we know it had not yet been established, and the conventional work week was Monday to Saturday. Sunday was meant for church, but many of the lower classes instead used it to drown their sorrow profusely. The result was that Monday was needed to recover--and so workers jokingly declared it a holiday.  "Keeping St. Monday" meant observing Monday as a holiday. 

In the Potteries, workers were paid for their output by the piece, so if they missed Monday they could make it up by working extra hard Tuesday through Saturday. Of course, all this made scheduling work efficiently almost impossible, but the concept of the conveyor belt had yet to be invented. I imagine that those who staggered to work in the Potteries on Mondays did a lot of funny things, and that may account for the oddities we see--and love--in our Staffordshire figures.  

Do you notice something wonderfully weird about this pair of dandies at madelena.com?

I am sure I have you stumped, so look at their necks. The dandizette is wearing a high starched collar and cravat, just like her dandy companion. I have not seen another pair of dandies like this, and clearly something went wrong in the making of the molds. But how wonderful to see it. And what a lovely pair of dandies...modeled on a Monday??

What do these two figures have in common?

If you answer that both figures are attributable to "Sherratt" you are correct and way ahead of the game for today's blog posting. Instead, I am looking for something simpler. Both figures have moustaches. These figures normally occur without moustaches, but here their painter decided to have some fun.

The painter took the joke one step further. He also painted double eye brows on the man with a sword.  This I have not seen before!

Perhaps the double eyebrows happened on a Monday. We will never know. But somehow I am convinced that the misplaced eyelashes on this Walton cherub were a Monday event!

The eyelashes are very definitely ABOVE the eyebrows! With thanks to the awesome collector who has shared this (and so much else) with me.

Last but by no means least, this splendid twosome must be gawked at for no other reason than they are drop dead gorgeous. These were definitely NOT made on a Monday.  I have seen then in the flesh and they are a very true pair. I know of no other example of a pair, so enjoy the sighting while it lasts. Available for purchase from Nick Burton.