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.
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.
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.
