Wikipedia tells us that "William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564; died 23 April 1616)[nb 1] was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist.[1] He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon." Wiki waxes on extensively about Shakespeare--in fact the entry does him proud....but nowhere does it mention the stunning Staffordshire figures of one of England's best-loved sons. 

It is fitting that earthenware figures of Shakespeare can be particularly fine. Nothing naive or crude here. Below is a stunning example formerly (too late!) in the stock of Andrew Dando.

Talk about attention to detail. Look at the painting on the clothing, the gilding on the books, the lettering on the scroll in Shakespeare's hand, and the carved plinth he leans on. This is a tour de force. Height is 18 inches.

Large figures of this form are after the marble monument of Shakespeare erected in 1740 in Poet's Corner, Westminster Abbey. Such figures are believed to have been made by Enoch Wood or Wood & Caldwell. Enoch Wood was into time-capsules and he hid examples of his work for later discovery. A similar large figure of Shakespeare was unearthed behind a wall he is believed to have erected in 1810. This figure of Andrew's is incised "P.V."  These are the initials of the London plaster maker Peter Vanina, and so Andrew's figure is thought to be derived from a reduced scale plaster wrought by Vanina after the Westminster Abbey marble. 

Above is the Westminster Abbey monument. Is the figure not scarily close in every detail?  But give me the earthenware figure any time. Those enamels are just yummy.

Enoch Wood was not the only potter to capture Shakespeare in clay. This figure is in the Potteries Museum. It is a little shorter--about 15.5".

This unknown potter clearly gave Shakespeare his best shot. The result is charming...but once you have seen the Enoch Wood version, you have to give this an A for effort but an E for execution. It just doesn't measure up.

Some busts of Shakespeare are made to the same very high standard as the Enoch Wood figure, and these too are probably Enoch Wood's handiwork.

This bust is again courtesy of Andrew Dando (now sold, put down your check book.) Would this not have been the perfect touch for a gentleman's library? Love the red tassels and the beautiful braid. A far cry from the current fashion trend which, the Wall Street Journal tells me, involves wearing your pajamas in public. Yes, kids are wearing them to school complete with fluffy slippers. Go figure.

Derby made a smaller porcelain figure of Shakespeare, about 10" high. I have photographed a pearlware look-alike for my book, so I hope we will have Shakespeare well represented. 

After many grueling days of writing captions for pictures of sheep and deer for my upcoming book, I thought I deserved something easier this past Sunday. So I turned to the classical figures and chose Flora and Pomona.  What could be simpler? Because Pomona and Flora sometimes occur as a pair, I decided it would be best to lump them in one section.  Below is a pair of Flora and Pomona, attributed to "Sherratt."

Pomona is the lady with the apple. An apple is quite appropriate for the Roman goddess charged with caring for fruit treess. Flora, on the other hand, is the Roman goddess of things that flowers, so she holds a garland of flowers.

Now look at this pair below, also by "Sherratt." Again, Pomona stands with her apples. But look closely at the figure on the left. She looks very like Flora, but where is the garland of flowers? It's been replaced by a cornucopia and a bunch of grapes. I think that this figure is intended to be Ceres. The horn of plenty is the give-away.  I have recorded more than one "Sherratt" example of both Flora and Ceres, so this is not a one-time aberration....nor is it the work of a misguided restorer.

So much for my pairings of Flora and Pomona. Flora, Ceres, and Pomona? Pomona and Ceres? How best to lay things out. So confusing.

Figures from other pot banks can be just as perplexing. The figure below to the left is Flora. No doubt about it. There's that floral garland. But the figure on her right also has a garland and also seems to be Flora--but the figure has raised her right hand rather than her left. Two versions of Flora? Flora to pair with Flora?

Look closely at the garland of the last figure yet again. See the apples in it?  I believe this figure is intended to be Pomona, and the apples are placed within a garland. So here we have a quite different Pomona in a Flora-Pomona pairing. The devil is in the details.

There is enough material in my Pomona/Flora folder to keep me pondering for a while. Look at these two figures from The Potteries Museum.

I expect the lady on the left once held a flower and is intended to be Flora. I am not sucking this out of thin air. I have many other Flora figures positioned thus. But look at the lady on the right. She carries a cornucopia and I think she is Ceres.

Ah well, so much for Flora and Pomona in a neat, organized lay out!  After hours of shoving pictures around, Johnny Be Goode insisted on our daily walk, and I pondered the issue as he dragged me along. I recalled one dealer saying to me "Just put them all under Classical Maidens." Suddenly that sounded awfully good. But then there are those scantily clad rather sexless classical figures....and I am not sure where they would go. Nothing is easy....

If you have figures that you will share for my book, please email me. I am DYING to hear from you. Since starting on this project in the fall, my archive has expanded by the addition of figures from over 60 additional sources. But I want more. Yes, greedy, but this is our one shot at having a reference book. If you can help and you haven't yet, please email me.

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.

In the early nineteenth century, as today, all did not necessarily go well in English marriages.  But in the early nineteenth century there was no divorce law.  That’s because at marriage a woman ceased to exist….legally, at least!  In the eyes of the law, at marriage a woman became ONE with her husband. As a man had no need to divorce himself, there was simply no need for divorce law. The age-old battle between the sexes in English households is captured in a vigorously humorous group known as “Who shall wear the breeches.” The groups are exceptionally rare, and, like the examples shown here, all are formed as spill holders.

Lovely is it not? Is the couple’s rage not captured with great humor? Note the cat in the foreground, seemingly in great haste to avoid getting in the midst of things. Cats are far less common than dogs on pottery groups, and I think the cat was deliberately chosen for this cat fight! The words read WHO SHALL WARE THE BRECHES (to the left) and CONQUER OR DIE(to the right, obscured by the man's head.) I have traced four examples of this group. One is in the Newcastle-under-Lyme museum. Three are in North American collections, and one of these is in particularly poor condition (including loss of the breeches.)

Interestingly, there is a second variant of this group.  Again, the words WHO SHALL WARE THE BRECHES and CONQUER OR DIE are above the fireplace, but there are notable differences, as you can see in the example below from the Victoria and Albert Museum’s holdings. First, the captions are reversed. Second, there is a bundle on the floor at the couple’s feet. This bundle represents a well-wrapped infant, clearly flung aside as the parents tussle. Third, the group stands on a flat base rather than a claw-footed base. Fourth, the top of the spill vase is pointed rather than rounded. If you look carefully, many of the fine details match: the impressed design on the edge of her apron is the same in both groups, as are the impressions around the fireplace. I believe there are four examples of this group in existence: one is in a North American collection, and three are in museums (Victoria and Albert, Fitzwilliam, Brighton and Hove.)

Included in my count above is the example in the Willett Collection, Brighton and Hove Museums, but this group has an interesting twist. Instead of the usual wording, the plaque to the right reads  WHO SHALL WEAR THE TROUSERS. Note that “wear” is spelled correctly this time!   

The group exhibits other minor differences when compared to the example in the Victoria and Albert. Firstly, the baby-bundle is made from different molds. Also, there is no impressed design around the edge of the woman's apron. I still think all examples on flat bases probably emanated from the same source—but who knows? If I had a choice, I would pick a group on clawed feet because these examples are frequently more vividly colored, and the feet add a little more oomph.  But if you want one of these and you find it, don’t be picky. Grab it! Meanwhile, you can see examples in my book, or you can visit the Victoria and Albert, the Fitzwilliam Museum, the Brighton and Hove Museums or the Newcastle-under-Lyme Museum. 

If you live near the Potteries Museum, don't miss Jessica Davies's Gallery Talk on Staffordshire Figures on February 14.  Click here for details.  

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.

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.

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.