I want to share this stunning spill vase that I photographed recently.

Could it be prettier? Of course, this vase portrays the royal coat of arms, and it is both rare and beautiful.  Despite that, it sold at a US auction house bundled in a lot with a couple of pieces of twentieth-century junk.  The estimate was very low, but the buyer paid a good price, and when the hammer went down the person handling the bid asked the buyer which of the objects in the lot was worth that amount of money!!! 

Ah well, so much for auction house expertise--it does exist, but, like all good things, it is rare. To top it all, the auction house thought so little of this spill vase that they photographed it from the back. Yes, the catalog image showed the reverse of the vase, flanked by the junk figures. But it so happens that the back of this vase is almost as pretty as the front.

Compare this to Victorian figures that are often unpainted--and minimally modeled-- on the back. No shortcuts here. Every bit as much effort went into the back of this vase as the front.

A brief primer on the symbolism here: The shield in the center of the vase depicts England’s three lions passant, a Scottish lion rampant, and an Irish harp. The French phrase “Honi soit qui mal y pense” on a garter surrounding the shield (yes, the potter ran out of room, so it is a little abbreviated!) is the motto of the Order of the Garter, the supreme order of chivalry founded by King Edward III in 1348. At the base of the shield is the French phrase “Dieu et Mon Droit” (God and My Right) that King Richard I is thought to have used as a password at the Battle of Gisor in 1198. In the fifteenth century, King Henry VI selected these words as the royal motto. 

What of the lion and unicorn to either side? When King James VI of Scotland also became King of England in 1603, he placed the unicorn alongside the lion on the arms. Traditionally, both animals had been regarded as King of the Beasts and were thought to be deadly enemies. But by placing them beside each other, King James symbolized harmony between England and Scotland.  The unicorn is chained because in medieval times a chained unicorn was believed to be a dangerous beast that only a virgin could tame.

The most well-known early earthenware spill vase on this theme is the one made by John Walton. 

Despite being more well known, this vase is far from common and always changes hands at a healthy price.  A lovely thing, but it lacks the vigor and glory of the first example.

While we are looking at coat of arms spill vases, I want to remind you of a spill vase that we looked at a long time ago.

This is a "Sherratt" interpretation--almost a spoof--of the previous spill vases.  I don't know the significance of the clock or the time of 11:47.  But is it not eye-candy?

Stunning figures like this are increasingly impossible to find. Grab them when you can!

Have you noticed this pair of busts on Aurea Carter's site? Do you know who they represent?

These busts represent two of the four elements. The rather angry looking gentleman is emblematic of fire. Yes, that red puffy stuff atop his head represents flames.  The lady next to him represents earth. She wears a lion skin and is portrayed as Cybele, the Earth Mother, whose attributes include lions.

We might be excused for thinking that these busts were made by Neale or Ralph Wood or one of the other late eighteenth-century Staffordshire potters. The palette is very typical of the colors those potters used.  But this bust in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, provides invaluable information. (Picture (c) Victoria and Albert Museum, London.) 

This bust is clearly part of the same series as the first two busts, and it is impressed LEEDS POTTERY. For this reason, I believe all the busts we see here were made at Leeds. This gentleman represents another of the four elements. He is air--and his puffed out cheeks signify that he is blowing air.

The fourth elements in this set is, of course, water. Here she is. 

The clue to this bust's identity lies in the dolphin head molded beneath her garment.  Again, the picture is  (c) Victoria and Albert Museum, London, and the bust is in the museum's collection. Aren't those fine enamels just delicious?

Most of the figures that we loosely dub "Staffordshire" were made in the Staffordshire Potteries, but some were made in other parts of  Great Britain.  Yorkshire was probably second to Staffordshire in the quantity of figures it produced.  Many of these are decorated in underglaze colors rather than the pretty enamels I love, but some Yorkshire figures are indeed enameled. The Leeds Pottery in Yorkshire was built in around 1770 and closed its doors in 1820. It is better known for its wares than its figures, but it did make a range of figures.  

A cautionary note: beware the “LEEDS POTTERY” mark! Between 1890 and 1957, J. W. & G. W. Senior made figures from the old Leeds molds. These too can bear an impressed “LEEDS POTTERY” mark, but their modeling and coloring betray their later date of manufacture.

This pair of figures is on eBay. (Thanks to eBay seller mehorder332012 for the image).  I know you are groaning in anticipation of another of my eBay rants, so, lest I disappoint, I must state that very, very many of the "antique" Staffordshire figures on eBay are reproductions--and that most of their sellers do not want to believe otherwise!  On the other hand, some well-intentioned amateurs and dealers describe their figures, warts and all, and that's what we have with this pair of gardeners.

I found these figures immensely interesting. First, I am confident in attributing them to the Dudson factory.  Dudson used several distinctive bocage forms that are very useful in identifying Dudson figures....but these figures lack bocages. Instead, look at the x-shaped sprig on her base. That x-sprig is specific to Dudson. When I see it, it is akin to a Dudson signature.  His base also has x-sprigs on it, but they are partial. Clearly, they broke as they were formed.

This is an enlarged view of an x-sprig on another Dudson figure. It really is quite distinctive.

The Dudson pot bank has operated as a family business from its foundation to the present day. In 1800, Richard Dudson established his first works at Broad Street, Shelton, and by 1830 Dudson was a specialist figure manufactory, although contemporary trade directories fail to list it as such.

Dudson's establishment coincides with the closure of Ralph Wood's pot bank. Ralph Wood died in 1795, but his son, Ralph Wood III, operated the pot bank until his own premature death in 1801. We repeatedly see Dudson figures formed just like Ralph Wood figures. It is possible that Dudson simply copied the Ralph Wood figures, but it is more likely that Dudson acquired some of the Ralph Wood molds. There are further examples in a similar vein in August 7 and April 24 blog postings.

So what did the Ralph Wood gardeners look like?  This pair is currently in the stock of Castle Antiques.  You can read all about Ralph Wood gardeners from these molds in the July 10 blog posting.

Back to those x-sprigs!  You see them here on a pair of Dudson figures of Pomona and Flora. (Pomona on the left was previously in the stock of Aurea Carter.)

This time, the x-sprigs are placed in the garlands that the ladies hold. The brown bases are typical of Dudson--but they are by no means exclusive to Dudson.  Other pot banks also painted bases brown. On the other hand, those x-sprigs--with leaves of just this form--are definitively Dudson. If you have a figure with an x-sprig, please tell  me about it.

The usual Tuesday blog posting will not happen this Tuesday, October 9, because I am away. I hope to return with lots more images for this blog and for my book.  I will be handing over my work to my publisher in November, so if you have been meaning to send me a picture, please let me have it as soon as possible. 

I was thrilled to find this handsome figure of the Duke of Wellington recently. Don't you love his arrogant nonchalance?

I have yet to see this figure with an original sword, and, sure enough, here the sword is restored, although part of the handle is original. Importantly, his hands and all else are original. Two shallow base chips, one shallow hat chip,  and the top of his hat rosette are restored, but that's it. The pot is super quality. I should have photographed from beneath to show you that yummy blue glaze.

This is the handsomest of figures. At 12", it has Presence without being overpowering. I believe it was modeled by Pierre Stephan, the freelance modeler best known for his Derby models. Please read my blog of 5/11/2011 for more info. Note how beautifully modeled even that cannon is, and the scabbard is silver luster. 

Did you notice the scratching in the paint on the base? It was done at the time of manufacture. Oddly, the scratching on the right side of the base is in the form of script that is frustratingly indecipherable. The Boinne?? If you have suggestions, please shout!

 This figure is by no means common, but I have a few more in my photo archive. Now here is where the plot thickens. 

This figure at the Victoria and Albert Museum is from the very same molds, but he has a plume atop his hat. Did my figure once have a plume?  I have looked and guessed and tried to figure out if there was one....but I am not convinced, and in any case no plume beats a restored plume. I would hate to see a bit of restoration stuck atop the hat. Note that in all other details, the V&A figure is formed just like mine.
(Photo (c) Victoria and Albert Museum, London.)

I have looked at this figure till I am blue in the face. It appears to be from the very same molds as my figure. Note that there are no cannon balls at his feet, but that's no big deal. The details that bother me are that:

• he has no garter star on his chest
  
• he has no scabbard for his sword.
  

In this case, the mold must have been reworked to eliminate the garter star and scabbard. 

Again, the sword is restored, and again there is no plume atop the hat--but I am not sure if there ever was one. A lovely figure, and the pink luster is really pretty.
(Photo courtesy Nick Burton.)

Here is another version without the garter star and scabbard....but this time the cannon balls are back! I suspect a restorer has been busy with the items in the hands. Surely that sword belongs on the other side?

This figure was made without a scabbard and garter star.  So what's different here? This time note the additional plumes to the left and right of the hat. I suspect these are original, and I have seen one other similar figure with these. (Photo courtesy John Howard.)

Lastly, we look at the figure in the Potteries Museum. This figure is titled "Duke Wellington" and there are two teensy lions on the base. At the risk of being repetitive, there is no scabbard and no garter star. But does something else strike you as different??  It's the cannon. Notice how much smaller it is this time.  The overall modelling and detailing is not nearly as fine as on some of the previous examples.

Despite the plethora of examples shown here, figures of the Duke of Wellington are not at all common. Laying out these photos enabled me to explore the differences--and it was a fascinating exercise.  I believe the first figures shown are probably the earliest. They are more detailed and probably are straight from a Pierre Stephan mold. Then the design/molds fell into other hands, and things got progressively simpler.  The evolution of a design over time, surely?  I long for the day when science enables us to date figures with precision. Only then will we truly know it all.