One of my many personal imperfections is my almost total inability to recognize a face. This is rather embarrassing at times. Yes, I am that idiot who will be introduced to you three times in the same day. On the other hand, if you had bocage leaves attached to you, I would remember you immediately! Strangely, when it comes to figures, my recall is remarkably good. One little figure group that I remember crossing my path several times in recent years is that below.
Hindsight is always 20:20, and, as I look at this group today, I ask myself whether the awkward positioning of the bocage should have raised a red flag. It is perched rather awkwardly, is it not?
Most importantly, the bocage on this group is an old bocage that, like the group, was made circa 1825. The problem is that the bocage was made by one pot bank (the Patriotic Group pot bank) and the rest of the group was made by another (the Box Title Group pot bank). The two were united courtesy of a modern restorer. This is what the group should look like. Much more balanced, don't you think?
Most importantly, the bocage on this group is an old bocage that, like the group, was made circa 1825. The problem is that the bocage was made by one pot bank (the Patriotic Group pot bank) and the rest of the group was made by another (the Box Title Group pot bank). The two were united courtesy of a modern restorer. This is what the group should look like. Much more balanced, don't you think?
I first spotted the problem group in the stock of a UK dealer. I pointed out my concerns. Sure enough, he had discerned a join where the bocage had been professionally attached, but he had assumed that the correct bocage had snapped off and had been put back into place. When he realized that this was not so, he disposed of the group at auction. Ah, if only all dealers were as selective, so insistent on only selling what they know to be right.
Auctions are not for the unwary. They are sometimes said to be the places dealers send their mistakes, but they are also the places that dealers make mistakes. Sure enough, another dealer bought the mismatched group, and I stumbled across it yet again at a show in the US. Again, I pointed out the issue. This time the dealer's response was not quite as heart warming. "Well," he said, "if someone asks me, I will say that the bocage has been reattached." Hmm....THE bocage or A bocage???
The mismatched group surfaced again in a US collection shared on FaceBook recently. Mismatched figures are really not that common, but they are common enough that you should buy your figures from a dealer who can help you avoid this trap. The first one I encountered was a Walton figure of an apostle, with a transplanted Sherratt bocage. Similarly, you can see a "Sherratt" bocage on a cow of the type that "Sherratt" never made. On the left is the mismatched bovine; on the right is a correct example.
Auctions are not for the unwary. They are sometimes said to be the places dealers send their mistakes, but they are also the places that dealers make mistakes. Sure enough, another dealer bought the mismatched group, and I stumbled across it yet again at a show in the US. Again, I pointed out the issue. This time the dealer's response was not quite as heart warming. "Well," he said, "if someone asks me, I will say that the bocage has been reattached." Hmm....THE bocage or A bocage???
The mismatched group surfaced again in a US collection shared on FaceBook recently. Mismatched figures are really not that common, but they are common enough that you should buy your figures from a dealer who can help you avoid this trap. The first one I encountered was a Walton figure of an apostle, with a transplanted Sherratt bocage. Similarly, you can see a "Sherratt" bocage on a cow of the type that "Sherratt" never made. On the left is the mismatched bovine; on the right is a correct example.
 |  |
 | If you look behind the problem cow, the clumsy reattachment is quite apparent. |
You can also see a bocage transplant on this little elephant.
In the case of the elephant, the first red flag might be the very obvious difference between the flowers on the base and those on the bocage--but it is conceivable that flowers differ. Remember though that elephants of this sort all seem to have been made by Enoch Wood, while the bocage here is a form commonly used by Ralph Salt and other potters. Looking carefully at the back, you can see the fault line where the bocage has been attached--but the wrong bocage.
The elephant should correctly look more like one of these.
 |  |  |
Truth be told, the elephant in the middle too has a transplanted bocage, but it is an Enoch Wood bocage. The restoration was done ethically and responsibly.On a good note, the elephant with the incorrect transplanted bocage sold honestly to a fully informed buyer, but transparency is the exception rather than the rule in these cases. That doesn't mean that the trade is necessarily dishonest. Rather, it means that dealers don't always know.
I am always reluctant to let a reattached bocage influence my decision on attribution. Case in point is the cottage below.
I am always reluctant to let a reattached bocage influence my decision on attribution. Case in point is the cottage below.
The bocage is definitely "Sherratt"--the problem is that the bocage is not original to the figure. I strongly suspected the cottage was "Sherratt," but, lacking strong proof and not wanting to be influenced by a reattached bocage, I did not include this cottage in Staffordshire Figures 1780-1840, Volume 4.
I have long suspected that "Sherratt" made the cottage below because the design on the base is very suggestive of "Sherratt"--but there are just not enough features to confirm an attribution.
I have long suspected that "Sherratt" made the cottage below because the design on the base is very suggestive of "Sherratt"--but there are just not enough features to confirm an attribution.
And then you have the three cottage groups below. Sadly, all have losses, and all have nothing pointing to an attribution.
Courtesy the Collection of Arnold and Barbara Berlin
The cottage below provided an important clue in unravelling the vexing cottage riddle. Importantly, it has a diminutive "turquoise bocage" of the type that only "Sherratt" used, and indeed the base is in that turquoise palette "Sherratt" liked.
I am comfortable attributing this cottage to "Sherratt," and it follows that the others are most likely to be "Sherratt" too.
Details matter. Having the correct bocage on your figure impacts its integrity and value. As I wrote last month, be fully informed about condition when you buy a piece of early pottery. If the bocage has been reattached, make sure that the bocage is of the correct form--and preferably the original bocage. If in doubt, take time to ask me or check a book. And don't buy in haste lest you are forced to repent at your leisure.
Details matter. Having the correct bocage on your figure impacts its integrity and value. As I wrote last month, be fully informed about condition when you buy a piece of early pottery. If the bocage has been reattached, make sure that the bocage is of the correct form--and preferably the original bocage. If in doubt, take time to ask me or check a book. And don't buy in haste lest you are forced to repent at your leisure.
