I have written about so many figures over the past three years that I cannot recall if I have shared the beauty below with you yet. In any event, it is well worth a second look. This grouping of a couple with birds is marked WALTON and it is the only example of its type that I have been able to record--and with a mark! Not only is it the lone survivor, it is in superb condition, and I photographed it in Brighton Museum's Willett Collection some time ago. Stop drooling....the point of this is to ask you please to LOOK at that bocage. If some of it were lost, that would be sad, but the figure would retain its haunting beauty. But start restoring it and would it look the same? I think not. Original has soul. Plasticy restoration does not.
Nothing quite beats a beautiful bocage, and I think the Willett Collection again houses the most stunning bocage I have seen. Yes, it is in my book, for those of you who recognize it. It really almost brings me to my knees when I think about this bocage.
We don't know who made Brighton's beautiful bird nesters, nor does it matter. I have noticed that figures on such vermicular bases are of a superb quality. It is tempting to attribute them to Walton, but the deeper you dig, the less that holds up.
The little figure of Tenderness below is in my collection, and this is another bocage I would rate A+. You can't fault it.
The little figure of Tenderness below is in my collection, and this is another bocage I would rate A+. You can't fault it.
Notice the figure is again on a vermicular base. If you look closely, you will see that the leaves are arranged in threes---something we never see on marked Walton pieces. You can learn all sorts of things by really, really looking. Leaves arranged in threes do not occur on marked WALTON figures....but this is all another story.
One thing that disturbs me when I see some collections is the number of totally restored bocage bearing no resemblance to the correct form. Each pot bank used a range of distinct bocage formats. The problem is that restorers and dealers don't know what they are and they stick on anything. I have seen several figures with early bocages attached to them. Early, yes. Original, no. At some point the figure lost its bocage, and bocage from another was attached in its place. When you look at that figure today, you can detect the reattachment and conclude that the original bocage broke off and that the original bocage was reattached. Not so fast! Beware reattached bocages! You need to know how the bocage should look before you can determine what is going on. I know, I know. This is difficult but I hope that the new book will be helpful in guiding collectors.
The best advice I can give you is that you should buy from a knowledgeable, reputable dealer who will state all repairs/restorations on your receipt. And perhaps an even better piece of advice is to know what your figure should look like. This figure always has me puzzled. Is it right or isn't it right? I truly don't know.
One thing that disturbs me when I see some collections is the number of totally restored bocage bearing no resemblance to the correct form. Each pot bank used a range of distinct bocage formats. The problem is that restorers and dealers don't know what they are and they stick on anything. I have seen several figures with early bocages attached to them. Early, yes. Original, no. At some point the figure lost its bocage, and bocage from another was attached in its place. When you look at that figure today, you can detect the reattachment and conclude that the original bocage broke off and that the original bocage was reattached. Not so fast! Beware reattached bocages! You need to know how the bocage should look before you can determine what is going on. I know, I know. This is difficult but I hope that the new book will be helpful in guiding collectors.
The best advice I can give you is that you should buy from a knowledgeable, reputable dealer who will state all repairs/restorations on your receipt. And perhaps an even better piece of advice is to know what your figure should look like. This figure always has me puzzled. Is it right or isn't it right? I truly don't know.
The thing that always worries me is that I have another image of this figure scorched onto my brain, and it looks like this.
This perfect figure is another gem from the Willett Collection. Note the man atop the tree. Did the other figure have a man in the tree once upon a time? Was it easier for a restorer to repair damage by placing a bird in that spot instead? And, while I am thinking nasty suspicious thoughts, is there possibly a sheep or two missing off the base? It is so easy to touch over the area of loss....but for all I know, the first figure may have no damage at all. It may simply have been made that way. But if there is any restoration at all in the area of that little bird, it would set off alarm bells.
I hope that by sharing as much as we can of what we know, we will all elevate collecting to a new level. So thanks to all of you who have sent me pictures again this week, and please keep them coming.
I hope that by sharing as much as we can of what we know, we will all elevate collecting to a new level. So thanks to all of you who have sent me pictures again this week, and please keep them coming.
