I have been watching the US  Antiques Roadshow in the past weeks. Unlike the English original, this show irritates me. The people who haul in their 'treasures' are invariably more interested in value than anything else, and the objects themselves, to my eye at least, often seem to be more about American culture than merit. Take for example a bag of old shirts that someone bought for $1, which turned out to be worth as much as $20,000 each (as best I recall the details) because Someone-Whose-Name-Means-Nothing had worn them/sweated in them. Nasty old things. Really yucky. I wouldn't have wanted to touch them, let alone own them. I can go on and on with examples, but you get the gist.  Watching this show has really made me wonder what value is really about.  My husband flitted through the room last Saturday as I watched and he commented that English pottery is cheap. After all these years, he NOW tells me this!  Had I known how he REALLY felt, imagine what damage I might have done. But, truth be told, for once my husband is right.

Last night, I caught an item on the news about a letter written by a Titanic passenger selling at auction for $200,000. In my opinion, this letter is of as much interest as any old letter written by a non-famous person. Had the Titanic not sunk, would it have been worth anything? The letter writer, one Mrs.Hart, was no tragic heroine. Rather, she was a second class passenger who survived the sinking. Just how does this letter have this enormous value? What would you pay for it? I just don't get it. And did you catch the report last week of the Chinese porcelain cup that sold for $36.1 million, a price that was below the auction estimate?  In my ignorance, I imagined that this must be a one-of-a kind cup....but far from it. Turns out that there are at least 17 comparable cups on record.  Which brings me back to my husband's point: English pottery is cheap, in fact it is VERY cheap.  The only piece to ever crack even the $100K mark at auction was a Death of Munrow that sold at Sotheby's for something in the region of $154,000 not that many years ago. That figure now sits in the Victoria and Albert Museum, but, sadly, I think that this price is an aberration. What happened that day at Sotheby's I do not know, but I would expect that same figure to have gone for a fraction of the price under other circumstances.

How many Death of Munrow's are there? I haven't ever tried to estimate, but I guess somewhere between 20 and 30. But even if we take a much, much rarer early pottery figure, we don't approximate the lofty prices of that Chinese porcelain cup or even the lesser price of $2.1 million paid for a 20th century machine-made baseball card. Case in point are these fabulous figures added  to John Howard's stock recently. Both are unique and both sell for under GBP5000. You won't find 17 more of either of these!  And, unlike that base ball card, they were wrought entirely by hand.

I am very frustrated by the disconnect between price and rarity in the early figure world. As I prepared Staffordshire Figures 1780-1840 vols. 1-4, I was requred to add to each of the 4500 images a price code. Again and again, rare (often unique) figures in excellent condition got Price A (under GBP675 or $1000).

Recently, I was viewing a private collection when I spied a figure I had not seen before. It comprised two men, the one seated and the other standing. The standing gentleman, who looked rather like Dr. Syntax, was pulling out the other man's tooth. Perfect condition, unique, a piece of social history...even a piece of dental history! And yet you would be able to buy it at a top price of less than $2000.  If you got lucky and were in the right place at the right time, you might even get it at no more than Price A. This figure group brought to mind another in very much the same style that I think was made by the same pot bank.

This figure in the Brighton and Hove Museums shows a barber shaving a seated gentleman. It is unique, as best I know. In Staffordshire Figures 1780-1840, I gave it a Price B, but if it were to ever come onto the market, its rarity would most likely go unrecognized. What a remarkable glimpse of daily life two hundred years ago, is it not?

Rather more obviously of merit is this Ralph Wood figure titled Spinning and impressed 81. I know of no other example. Unique, made circa 1790. Sadly, I gave this one a mere Price A. I don't think this figure is very commercial. It certainly is an object of great merit, but not necessarily great beauty. But then how beautiful was that old shirt or the old letter? I know, it's just not fair!!

If you are a collector with a sharp eye, you can pick up some fabulous finds. These are rare or unique pieces that you can get for a song.  But don't think that every time you see a rare figure there is a significant price premium just because it is rare. Most people buy for purely decorative purposes, and this routinely impacts value a lot more than rarity. Don't equate rarity with commercial value. In another century, maybe....but not yet.

I ran across this small equestrienne last year and bells went off in the pottery lobe of my brain.

The figure can be attributed to the Leather Leaf Group. Although the figure does not have the bocage flowers that are exclusive to the Leather Leaf Group, note the long serrated leaf on its base.  Alongside is a close up on two leaves of the same form--and I have only seen such leaves on figures with Leather Leaf features.

Other features strengthening the case for a Leather Leaf Group attribution include the stiff, curled, "leathery" bocage leaves, the large blue and red flowers, and the scrolling on the base.

 The bells in my brain kept jangling until I recalled the companion figure that I had seen back in 2012 in another collection. Sadly, the chances of uniting this pair are remote as neither owner is inclined to part!

In most cases, small equestrian figures--and by "small" I mean in the 8 inch range-- have a dog on the base. That's because the figures are portraying hunting scenes. The gentleman is clearly attired for the hunt, is he not? Ladies, however, did not participate in hunting, so what is going on here? The secret to unraveling the mystery lies in knowing that these small equestrians are portraying circus routines rather than real life. Earthenware equestrian figures depict both men and women in circus roles because women were leading stars in the early circus.

Hunts on the circus stage? Yes, they really happened! Reenactments of hunts were popular circus fanfare, and women participated. Playbill offerings of 1793 advertised a fox hunt that utilized dozens of dogs and two foxes, as well as a reenactment of the royal stag hunt at Windsor that included a stag and “Ten Male and Three Female Equestrians” with “the Stag … Twice, and the Horsemen and Horsewomen Five Times, in FULL VIEW.”  Such hunts afforded glamorous equestriennes ample opportunity to strut their stuff.

In his memoir, the showman Jacob Decastro tells that he never forgot going to the Royal Circus in his youth where “a real stag-hunt was brought out, and Miss Romanzini (now Mrs. Bland) sung a hunting song on horseback in the middle of the ring.” Close your eyes and imagine what a spine-tingling experience that must have been--and then look at these equestrians and know that you are gazing at the past.

 

Last month, the world of English pottery lost a pioneer and a great lady when Griselda Lewis died on March 24, aged 96.  Any one who collects pottery knows of Griselda. Her name is almost synonymous with Pratt ware, the field she and her husband John explored and explained. The very first books I bought on English pottery were Griselda's ground-breaking Pratt Ware and her A Collectors History of English Pottery. They had me hooked! More importantly though, Griselda was extraordinarily generous and patient, always ready to share her knowledge and mentor those of us starting out. She had no children, but many of us are, metaphorically at least, her offspring--and we remember her with love and gratitude.

On one of my visits to Griselda's home in Woodbridge, UK, I commented that I particularly admired this little figure.

"Well," said Griselda, "in that case you should have her." I protested...but Griselda was adamant. "She is far too grand for my little collection and she makes the others feel bad," she said.  And with that, she flipped over the figure, which had Jonathon Horne's price label on it, and we sealed the deal.  

As you can see, the figure is rather grand. The lady's shoes are gilded, as is the plume on her hat. How often do you see that on a figure?  The figure can be confidently attributed to the Patriotic Group. Note the pinecone bocage, which you only see on figures that link to the Patriotic Group. I have found the base on other Patriotic Group figures too.....but I have never found a companion male figure attributable to the Patriotic Group. Come to think of it, I have never found another Patriotic Group female either. 

On the other hand, some other pot bank--possibly the Enoch Wood pot bank--used the same figure molds, as you can see from the pair below, in the Willett Collection, Brighton and Hove Museums.

The companion figure is a boy with a bird's nest. Now who would have thought that?  In sorting the vast body of Staffordshire figures into chapters for Staffordshire Figures 1780-1840, I nearly went nuts. Very many figures of male gardeners are accompanied by a lady holding a flower.....so all the ladies holding flowers naturally seem to fit into the chapter with the gardeners. This worked very nicely...until I ran into the pair above: a lady holding a flower accompanied by a bird nester!!!  In short, I did the best I could, and, if at times the arrangement puzzles you, there is a reason. Believe me, there truly is!

If you don't have Griselda Lewis's books, I suggest you add them to your bookshelf. Most can be bought for next to nothing now, and they are so worth having.

Here you see the 4th Edition of Griselda Lewis's A Collectors History of English Pottery. When I got this book, I had never seen a bocage figure--in fact, I hadn't seen a single early Staffordshire figure, with or without bocage. But when I saw the dandies on the dustjacket, I knew I wanted them...badly!

And here they are. Today, they are among my most prized possessions...bought at a small country auction in the UK (described simply as "old china") many years ago. Simply bone-crunchingly beautiful. Griselda told me that they had belonged to a friend of hers. He left them to a family member who it seems wanted a new sunroom instead. And because these dandies made such an impression on me, I put a pair of dandies on the dust jacket of my first book.

I was cruising the dealer sites yesterday and came across a large jar on John Howard's site commemorating the Peace of Amiens, a short-lived peace between Britain and France lasting one year from 1802-1803. Aside from that, Britain and France were at war from 1793-1815. Those turbulent war years were preceded by the French Revolution, and the unrest on the continent was disquieting to many English, who feared that turmoil would cross the Channel. In a round-about way, John Howard's jar brought to mind an unusual figure that you will also see in Staffordshire Figures 1780-1840, vol. 4, to be released later this year.

This figure was made to symbolically portray English hopes for a peaceful resolution of the French Revolution. Implements of war on the base (helmets) and broken chains symbolize the fight for freedom. The male figure holds a shield decorated with the fleur-de-lys of the French monarch. The female figure offers him a Liberty bonnet. Clasped hands of fraternity are on the obelisk, so the group is interpreted as suggesting a peaceful resolution of the French Revolution. As all hope of that vanished with the execution of the French king Louis XVI in January 1793, this group was probably made before that date.  The enamels are certainly very typical of the 1790 period.

I have seen one or two unpainted examples of this group--in other words, the group was glazed and left in the white--and I am almost sure there is one like that in the British Museum. While this may not be every collector's cup of tea, it is an extraordinary reminder of a very turbulent time in European history, and a palpable reminder of the hopes and fears in English hearts. 

Because I am increasingly alarmed at what is done to figures in the name of 'restoration," I have asked UK restorer Beky Davies, who has done brilliant work for me in the past, to educate us. I have posted Beky's piece on the RESTORATION tab currently at the top of the page. Neither Beky nor I intend this to be a plug for her fine services. Instead, we want you to know what to expect when you have a figure restored. Please make sure your restorer treats your figure with respect!

Today, I want to address the words that are used to describe restoration. I do this because I fear that words are being introduced into our lexicon that leave us on squidgy ground. 

Traditionally and correctly, the three Rs of restoration are:

1. Repaired:  This word describes a reattachment of original material. If an arm breaks off and is reattached, this is a repair. It simply puts the original material back together. Aside from a perfect figure, this is usually the best state of affairs because all the original material is put back in place. As one of my dealer friends puts it, "It is all there!"
   
2. Restored: This word describes the addition of new material. If an arm is lost and a new one is made, that is restoration. You would then describe the arm as restored.
   
3. Replaced. Theoretically, repair and restoration cover all scenarios, but sometimes those words are just not clear enough. Imagine you have a large composite group with several figures on it--for example a tithe pig group. If the parson on the group has a restored arm, a condition report should state "parson restored."  But what if the whole figure of the parson has been lost and a new one made up?  "Parson restored" again says it----but does that go far enough?  I think not, and in those circumstance, "parson replaced" says it better.  It makes it crystal clear that the whole figure is restored, rather than just a part of it.
   

As we have these three perfectly adequate R words at our disposal, what more could we want?  I am at a loss to understand why, but I find these words creeping into descriptions:

1. Remodeled.  If a figure has a 'remodeled' head or arm, it is restored. Let's call a spade a spade!
   
2. Renewed. If a head or arm or any other part of a figure is 'renewed', it is restored. Why call it anything else?
   
3. Reglued. This one beats me. As none of the components of our figures was ever glued in the first place, how can anything be REglued?  I guess that this term is intended to describe a repair, i.e. the simply reattachment of a broken piece. "Repair" is the word to use.
   

I hate, loathe, and detest these words in condition reports. They are confusing to the uninitiated and should not be used.

As the words repair, restoration, and replacement cover all scenarios, what more do we need?  Well, elaboration is often helpful. "Bocage restored" sounds awfully dire. It suggests that much of the bocage is new material, yet the restoration might just be to a leaf tip or two.  So saying something like "three bocage leaf tips restored" tells us exactly what we need to know.

Let's look at this "Sherratt" christening group that recently sold at auction. 

 At first glance, it is easy to think that the little figure to the side in the photograph simply broke off the base and needs to be put back on--and, if that were the case, the reattachment would be a simple repair. A mother holding a child seems to be the right component of a christening group, but think again. 

As you see from the example alongside, a mother with child does not appear in a christening group. The small figure missing from the auctioned example is a vicar holding a child. 




Somebody parted with a hunk of money at auction for the christening group that we now know is missing a vicar, and I hope that person knew at the time what he/she bought. Once that group is "fixed", the correct way to describe the added figure would be "figure of vicar replaced."  Assuming the new owner attaches instead the mother and child, the description should read "figure of mother replaced".  This clearly tells you that the figure is NOT original to the group.