A while back, I was annoyed to see a rather generic unmarked Toby jug described as almost certainly made by Walton. And how did the seller reach this profound conclusion? Well, the decoration and colors were pretty-pretty!  Ouch! Nearly all of us know that Walton did not have the monopoly on pretty decorative techniques. Oh, if only attribution were that simple! In fact, several pot banks decorated in the same style as Walton.

Case in point are figures on vermicular bases--those pretty bases with their red and blue worm-like squiggles. On the whole, figures on vermicular bases are of superior quality and are prettily painted. But are they all Walton or even all from the same pot bank? Definitely not. Many, many years ago, I acquired the TENDERNESS below on a vermicular base. My young daughter asked me if it was brand new because it was as good as the day it was made.  The colors are not unlike those Walton used, so the challenged among us might want to attribute this figure group to Walton. Don’t do that! There is not a single feature that supports a Walton attribution. (Note that Walton figures are never titled in this way. Also, this three-leaflet bocage frond is not found on a single one of the 80-plus marked Walton figure models.) 

Did John Walton use a vermicular base? Yes, he did, but strangely enough, to the best of my knowledge, he only used a vermicular base on his figure of Diana. Below, you see Diana marked Walton. 

Which other potters used vermicular bases? The possibilities are enormous, but I point to the figure of Apollo on the left that is marked FELL (the mark of Thomas Fell, the Newcastle potter active from 1817). On the right is an unmarked figure of Apollo. Perhaps Fell made it too….but other potters also made this model of Apollo, so perhaps one of them copied Fell’s decoration or vice versa. I would lean towards a Fell attribution here, but I certainly couldn't swear to it in court!

 


The figure of APOLLO alongside is in a lot of figures coming up at Pook and Pook shortly I haven't recorded Apollo on a vermicular base hitherto, so I was pleased to see this figure--and it is titled in the same manner as TENDERNESS at the top of this blog posting. 

This very pretty Venus is another figure on a vermicular base that I hadn't seen until it came up at auction earlier this month. The variety of early figures never ceases to amaze me.

The more I dig around, the less I seem to know with any certainty. But I am certain that I don't know who made figures on vermicular bases, and that more than one pot bank used this decorative style. To leave you equally puzzled, I show you one last comparison: two figures of Diana on vermicular bases.

Diana on the left is the figure we saw above, and she is marked Walton. Diana on the right is unmarked. Do you think Walton made her too and simply forgot to mark her?  I wouldn't leap to that conclusion. Look at the figures closely and you will see notable differences in the molds. Her head is different, as is her bow and clothing. Both are in the same style, but only the figure on the left was definitely made by Walton.

A PS to add to your knowledge of pottery trivia:
Walton made Diana 

• on a vermicular base with bocage
  
• on a vermicular base without bocage
  
• on a brown base. 
  

And Diana is 

• the only classical figure marked Walton
  
• the only marked Walton figure found on a vermicular base
  
• the only marked Walton figure found on a brown base
  
• one of very, very, few Walton figures found without a bocage
  
• 
  

And a not-so-trivial PS on molds:
The Walton mark is integral to the molds used to make figures. If you line up several of the same Walton figure models, you will see that the mark is identically placed on each one. In other words, the mark was not slapped on afterwards--and it was next to impossible to omit the mark.

Because WALTON is integral to the mold, you would expect to see it on all Walton toby jugs. If it was on the mold, there was no forgeting it!

And on a last note, I have posted some updates to the BELIEVE IT? page, which you can access by clicking here or from the drop-down FIGURES tab at the top of this page

More than one pot bank made this figure model. The example on the left is "Sherratt"--the base establishes the attribution.

The soldiers above are far from common, but even less common are the models below.

Last week, I discussed figures of Mercury that were made by the Brown Base Group pot bank and the potter John Dale. Seemingly from the same figure molds, they were made several decades apart. I have yet to see these figure models made by any other pot bank. Today, I want to show you another pair of figures with a similar relationship.

Below are two figures of Aesculapius, the Greco-Roman god of medicine. 

The figure on the left can be attributed to the Brown Base Group (circa 1795), and that on the right was made by John Dale (circa 1825). Again, I know of no other enamel-painted pearlware figure models of Aesculapius, so it seems only these two pot banks made this model. 

On the other hand, another pearlware model of Aesculapius decorated in underglaze colors was made. The example alongside differs from the Brown Base and Dale figures above.

The underglaze-decorated Aesculapius, made circa 1800,  is after the earlier Derby porcelain figure model. Alongside you see a Derby figure made circa 1775.  

On another note, dealers currently have some really yummy  figure groups in stock. Martyn Edgell has a charming pearlware spill vase impressed with the Ralph Wood number 163 beneath. As you might expect of a figure group made circa 1790, the enamels are so soft and pretty, and the overall effect is delicate and less clunky than some later spill vases. 

My heart skipped a beat when this group of Dr. Syntax playing cards popped onto John Howard's site. It oozes all that is wonderful about "Sherratt"--fun but not garish colors, and a delightful subject of literary interest.

This group is a dead ringer for one I own. I bought mine in around 2005, and I haven't seen another since. That's how rare it is. Mine went through a Yorkshire sale room, and it made the local press because it had been found hidden away in a garden shed. I have no idea how long it had been there, but I imagine a tasteless spouse insisted it be removed from the house--and the other partner, not bearing the thought of parting with it, hid it in the garden shed to peep at for private pleasure. I guess my figure group also made the press because I paid a respectable amount of money for it---but oh was it worth it! Syntax is an uncommon "Sherratt" subject in nice condition. In particular, I have seen examples with replaced heads on the figures. All in all, it is an especially exposed and vulnerable composition, is it not?

Last but not least, is this little Roger Giles at Nestegg Antiques. This is the "Sherratt" example, and if you want a Roger Giles, this is the model to buy.

I note that Nestegg Antiques also has a pretty Virgin Mary that can be attributed to Dudson--its always nice to have a figure that can be linked to its pot bank of origin, is it not?

I have posted to the "Believe It ?" page on this site. Find it under the Figures tab at the top of this page, or click here. 

In mythology, who was the messenger of the gods? If you answered Mercury, you are right. The figure above portrays Mercury. .His attributes are winged for speedy travel and include sandals, a hat, and a caduceus. The caduceus--a staff entwined with two snakes--has magical powers.

Mercury is really is a rare figure. The example above can be confidently attributed to the Brown Base Group pot bank. Until last week, it was the only Brown Base Mercury I knew of--but then another was shown to me, sadly with a poorly restored object of sorts in the raised hand.

Interestingly, I know of one other Mercury, formerly in the Hope McCormick Collection. Seen below, it oozes Dale features--and it  is impressed on the back with John Dale’s mark. 

The Brown Base figure was made in the late 1700s--maybe into the cusp of the 1800s. The Dale figure, on the other hand, was made circa 1825. However, both appear to be from the same figure molds. Molds were costly items and they passed from hand to hand, so I think Dale acquired the molds for Mercury many years after the Brown Base pot bank ceased to function.

Have you noticed how much green is in the Dale figure and how none is in the Brown Base figure?  Last week, I lined up a good number of eighteenth-century figures (predominantly Neale and Ralph Wood) and noted how very little green was used in their decoration. What green there was was watery and either a little minty or olivey. In sharp contrast, figures that I can date to the 1820s use LOTS of greens, strong greens of all sorts.

The reason for the difference in the greens over the time period is based on the fact that chrome oxide was added to green enamels in 1805--and this yielded MUCH stronger shades of green.  I suspect yellow were also affected by some change in the early decades of the nineteenth century---or perhaps enamelers just brightened the whole palette. There is so much we just don't know! 

As idyllic as past centuries appear to be when viewed through the lens of made-for-TV productions set in those times, in reality life then was difficult. It must have taken much fortitude to get through the daily hardships, so perhaps figures of Fortitude were particularly meaningful.  

Fortitude's companion figure is Prudence, also to be found in St. Peter's Basilica. Prudence always has a snake (from Matthew 10:16: “be ye wise as serpents,” with the Latin word for “wise” being “prudentes”). Both Fortitude and Prudence are too freely attributed to Enoch Wood/Wood & Caldwell as they apparently emanated from more than one pot bank. A pair marked “E. WOOD” has been recorded, as has a bronze-glazed example impressed “WOOD & CALDWELL”...but a pair described as marked Wedgwood is in the Earle Collection (no. 422 and no. 426 below. The man in the middle is Mars.)

I was intrigued to see this tiny figure (6 inches) on Aurea Carter's site a few year's ago. She too is Fortitude, and I have never seen another like her.  

So just when I had Fortitude ranging in size from tiny (at 6 inches) to large (at over 20 inches), the figure below popped onto the horizon. She is coming up for sale at Pook and Pook, and she is  12.5 inches tall .

I quickly identified this figure as Fortitude because of the column she holds....but just as quickly I thought again. What of the snake in her other hand? Is she intended to be Prudence?  Hmm....that hand looks like it has some restoration, so perhaps the snake is a later addition? 

And then something clicked in my brain....and  I kicked myself hard for being so very stupid. Of course! This lady is not Fortitude. She is Liberty. The object she holds is not a column. Rather, it is a bundle of rods, Liberty's attribute.


After the abolition of the French monarchy, the Convention of 1792 decreed that a figure of Liberty should appear on the French Republic’s new Seal of State. Liberty is portrayed on the seal as a lady wearing a crown and holding fasces in her right hand to symbolize the power of the liberated people. In ancient Rome, fasces conveyed the power of Roman magistrates to punish. They comprised a bundle of birch rods tied into a cylinder with a leather ribbon. A depiction of Liberty—in print or figural form, as on the French Seal of State—probably inspired the earthenware figure.

Earthenware figures of Liberty are oh-so-rare. I know of only one other, the figure below in the V&A. 

Sadly, the V&A figure has lost her left hand, so, assuming the Pook & Pook figure has a restored hand, we may never know what Liberty once held.

Who made these figures of Liberty? The Pook and Pook example was very probably made by Enoch Wood. That specific base form occurs again and again on figures with Enoch Wood attributes. As for the V& A example, I just don't know. I am intrigued by her elaborate dress pattern and have noted the same pattern on a few other classical figures...but, as yet, I can't draw any conclusions.