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.