An Exception to Every Rule.

In attributing figures, there is an exception to every rule. I am convinced of it. Just when I have waded through dozens of seemingly identical figures in my determination to support an attribution criterion, and just when I think I have nailed it....one figure turns up to upset the apple cart.  And so it was with this sweet little boy-with-dog that I bought on eBay.

Yes, I know I always tell you to be wary of eBay. But there are good sellers, you just have to know what you are doing. I was happy to see that seller "surri_b" (a Prince of a man) had this figure up. I recognized it right away as one that can be attributed to John Dale. Despite the damage (loss of bocage) I thought it worthy of space in my office, which is where my battered little academic collection lives. So for $79.88, he became mine. Ridiculous for something so lovely, is it not?

So what makes me say this figure was made by John Dale? Attribution is as much an art as a science. Invariably, I look at a figure and know instinctively what it is....and then I have to establish scientific reason!  In this case, the reasons are:

• The tooth-like comb holes/indentations on the base are seen often on Dale figures. That's not to say you won't ever see them elsewhere...but you will see them on Dale figures routinely.
  
• That limey green base is such a very "Dale color" that it called out to me.
  
• The bocage flowers have eight petals and only occur on other Dale figures. 
  
• The boy has a very round face, and most Dale figures have faces just like this. They truly are a family of figures. Once you recognize their "look," you can spot them in a crowd.
  
• The floral sprig on the base occurs frequently on marked Dale figures, and on those that can reasonably be attributed to Dale. I have never seen this very sprig on anything other than a Dale figure (although I have seen a much smaller version of it on one other figure.) Here the sprig was full-size, so no problems with the attribution. 
  

Last night, I was working away on sheep and I decided to dig up a photo I took in 2005 of a sheep impressed SELMAN.  The sheep is, to all intents and purposes, a run-of-the-mill sheep on a green base with bocage. The mark SELMAN is intriguing. It occurs on no other piece of pottery. However, the firm of J & W Selman operated as 'toy makers' in the Potteries around 1860--so others have declared this sheep to have been made around 1860.  Hah! I think not. This is a pre-Victorian sheep if ever there was one. 

Now look closely at the base. There are two floral sprigs on it and, I am sorry to say, they are just like the Dale sprig. Woe is me!  Another violation of a rule.

 I can't draw a mega conclusion from the sprig on the Selman sheep....but I am happy that the boy-with-sheep is definitely by Dale. To clinch the argument I show you another.   

This boy-with-sheep is from the same molds as my eBay purchase. I actually prefer my painted over bocage stub (it has been painted over quite artistically) to the restoration on this bocage ( and what is that piece of bocage doing at knee height??) This boy is definitely attributed to Dale because of the grape-like sprig on the base. This sprig is only associated with Dale. I hope that there is no exception to this rule!  But in any event, this highlights the importance of being able to support an attribution with multiple factors. One swallow does not make a summer, as the saying goes. In this case, the twelve-petalled bocage flower in combination with the bocage leaves support the attribution. 

An after thought: 
I want to show you the back of my boy-with-dog, so forgive the quick pic taken with my phone....and hardly color correct. Look at how the restorer painted over the stump. I recognize the work. I have seen this once before! Anyway, I prefer this to plasticy new bocage.  Note the tooth-like indentations at the back of the figure too.