My apologies for the day-late blog posting last week. I was in the bush in South Africa, and the Internet had big problems.  Today, my feathers are sufficiently ruffled by an eBay listing that I have added an update to my OUCH page (under BELIEVE IT on the menu bar, or click HERE). 

Its never difficult to find inspiration for my blog when I look at John Howard's site. This weekend, he added this charming BIRDS NEST figure..  The figure is impressed HALL on the back. This is thought to be the mark of Samuel Hall, who was active from  around 1818 into the 1850s.  Marked HALL figures are not that common, so the mark is rather special.

This is my version of John's BIRDS NEST boy. Without looking at the mark on either my figure or John's, I would have known both were Hall figures. How would I have known?  Well, blue and red carnations with large yellow centers are a feature of Hall figures. 

I think that this little BIRDS NEST girl is also possibly made by Hall, but it is not marked. Why do I think she may be a Hall figure? Having looked at lots of figures with this rather common bocage form, I have noticed that red and blue carnations occur routinely on Hall figures.

Salt figures of BIRDS NEST children look very like those made by Hall, but I have to see blue flowers on a marked Salt figure. Here is a pair of BIRDS NEST figures marked SALT.

As you can see, the Salt figures are very like the Hall figures. The molds are indistinguishable, and the bocage leaves and flowers are formed similarly. But the painting of the bocage flowers tells who made what, if you know what I mean. Of course, no guess work is required when a figure is marked, but in the absence of a mark, look at the flowers.

John Walton, the most prolific producer of marked figures, made quite different bird nesters. The figures below are both marked WALTON.

I do think the Salt and Hall figures are particularly charming but the Walton ones do nothing for me.  Of course, sundry other potters also had a go at birds nest figures. The two below can be attributed to "Sherratt".

These two "Sherratt" bird nesters are smaller than the Walton, Hall, and Salt figures, but they ooze charm. Their bocages and bases confirm their attribution.

Lest the abundance of pictures misleads you into thinking that BIRDS NEST figures grow on trees, think again. These figures are all difficult to find, particularly in reasonable condition. If you see one and you like it, grab it. Despite their rarity, I have 61 images lined up for the Bird Nesting chapter in my new book. In the captions, I attribute unmarked figures when possible, often pointing out some of the features that lead to my conclusion. This work would not be possible without the extraordinary generosity of all of you who have shared images with me.  In the coming weeks, I will be approaching my cut-off date for new images. If you have been meaning to send me a picture, it is not too late, and I would love to hear from you.

The odd little spill vase below was recently on eBay, and it provoked quite a bit of chatter on Facebook. It may be unlike anything you have seen and it certainly has condition issues, but it is the Real Thing. Yes, I believe that even those goofy sheep are right!

Spill vases in this 6" size date from the 18th century. I believe this pair can be attributed to Ralph Wood (or his son), and that would date them to between 1782 and 1801.

One of the factors supporting the Ralph Wood attribution is the very rainbow-like palette on the bases.  You have noticed that the vase on the left is of the same form as the eBay vase. The animals on the bases differ, and now a squirrel has been added. The vase on the right is made to pair. I never cease to be amazed at how many figures have a mate. Here is another pair in the same vein.

Again, the 'supporting cast' of small animals differs.  Vases of this sort in so-so condition and of mediocre quality are really very uninspiring objects. Spiffy examples, on the other hand, are charming additions to a collection. The vase on the left (formerly in the stock of Andrew Dando) is so very much nicer than its mate on the right. The enamels are better and stronger. The vase on the right has restoration issues. Note that the boy's raised hand looks shrivelled and restored. I think that he perhaps originally held a tabor, rather like his counterpart in the Ralph Wood pair.

A while ago, I showed you this vase, also formerly in Andrew Dando's stock. I show it again because it is a comical, quirky variation on this standard musical spill vase theme.

I haven't yet found the mate to this vase, but I am betting its out there. Meanwhile, if you have anything new in your collection, be it trivial or grand, remember I am in the final stages of picture accumulation for my book. We still have time and I would love to hear from you.

For those of you who don't know what a US dime looks like, take it from me that it is a nice enough, ordinary silver coin. If you were to put an 1873 dime into a pile of coins, nothing about it would shout out "I am special". Despite this, an 1873 dime sold at auction this week for $1.84 million. Apparently this result was not just two crazy bidders going at it. There was a lot of interest at over the $1 million mark.

At the same time, many of the rarest pottery figures are also the cheapest. We collectors just don't value rarity.  So very many of the sweetest figures in my next book are also the rarest--yet they fall into the very lowest price bracket. Why? You need demand to push up price, and if collectors aren't demanding these little rarities, their prices will lag.  What does this say about us?  Are we only buying the Big and Beautiful? I have seen lots of costly collections of Big and Beautiful items--and they can be boring. Usually, I have seen it all before. On the other hand, modest collections accumulated on a limited budget are frequently a lot more interesting. Typically, the figures are battered little gems bought at modest prices.  That's not to say you can't find a costly little gem--my blog posting of two weeks ago (Teeny Treasures) showed just that. But if you want an interesting collection, and if you want to experience the thrill of true collecting, learn what is rare. 

Two unusual figures came on the market this week. Martyn Edgell added this bird spill vase to his stock. I have seen several vases of this sort over the years. It is far from common, but it also is not super-rare. But Martyn's vase has a quirky variation that is almost too good to be true.

A little ball of clay, painted red, has been added to its back. In my long-gone cookie-baking days, I was often left with a tiny ball of cookie dough, which I popped into my mouth. After he had assembled this vase, the potter was left with a small ball of clay. What to do with it? Why waste it if he could pop it onto the sheep's back?  And that's just what happened. This peculiar feature is a connection with the past--and it makes this vase particularly endearing.

Have you noticed this fascinating figure recently added to Madelena's stock?

This figure of a monk was made by Enoch Wood. We know this because a matching figure, unpainted, was among the Enoch Wood figures excavated from the Burslem Old Town Hall site . Madelena's figure is especially attractive. Note the gorgeous gilding still on the clothing. The hole atop the book exists to accommodate a metal cross, and the hole atop the monk's head probably once held a metal halo. The excavated figure is impressed "24" beneath, and impressed numbers (usually in a fairly low range) are sometimes found on Enoch Wood figures.  Interesting is it not?

Two figures of monks were among the excavated Enoch Wood figures. Both are impressed "24", but they are not the same size.  Madelena's figure at 7.9" tall is the smaller. The taller figure alongside measures 10.2" and is in the stock of Elinor Penna. 

Both figures of monks above can confidently be attributed to Enoch Wood because, as I said, both match excavated Enoch Wood figures. But the issue doesn't end there. What about the small figure below?

This figure measures only 4.8". Admittedly, it stands on a lower base than the first monk, but there are some other important differences. The head seems to be from a different mold, and the clothing under his right arm is different. The figure may or may not be of the same scale as Madelena's gilded beauty. And it may or may not have been made by Enoch Wood. I would bet yes, but there is no way of knowing for certain.

Enoch Wood produced a range of religious figures that would have been particularly appealing to Roman Catholics. Because some of the figures are titled in a continental tongue, the figures are all thought to have been made for Catholics on the continent (remember that Catholicism was barely tolerated in England in the 1820s). Our three monks are very much in the style of other figures with a Catholic flavor.

Add to your collection, please. And if you don't find something that presses your button this week, open a book and add to your mental collection. Target something rare you wished you could own, and if you think about it enough, it invariably comes your way.

The two ladies below (from Elinor Penna's stock) are both emblematic of Water. Do you know which one is earlier?  

The answer is the figure on the left. She was made by Ralph Wood. He died in 1795, and his son operated the pot bank until 1801. So this figure was made in 1801 or sooner. The figure on the right is made by Dudson. Dudson started up around 1800, and from 1805 they made figures.  Given the close similarity between the two and the sequence of events, it seems reasonable to conclude that Dudson acquired some of Ralph Wood's molds.  I have seen many other similar linkages that substantiate the conclusion. 

How do we know the figure on the left was made by Ralph Wood? It exhibits lots of typical features. The titling is in a script found routinely on Ralph Wood figures. The red line on the base bands only three sides of the base. The lady stands on a mound painted in the typical rainbow-like colors Ralph Wood favored. And, most importantly, when you look at the base from beneath, it has rounded internal corners--as occurs repeatedly on other Ralph Wood figures. 

The base on the left is the base of the Ralph Wood figure. The base on the right is the base of the Dudson figure. Small Dudson figures consistently stand on bases made in this way. Add to that, the script is typical of that found consistently on Dudson figures. And the slightly yellower body/glaze is also typical of Dudson. When encountering a new figure, I instinctively look beneath the base first. It really reveals a lot. 

I will admit I am frustrated with figure collecting generally. Where would stamp collecting be if stamp collectors simply bought stamps they liked and stuck them in albums?  The pastime would be pretty uninteresting. Instead, stamp collectors pore over details of perforations, water marks, and other teensy details that tell them more about their stamps. By differentiating the rare/interesting from the mundane, they add value to their pastime. The same can be said of most other forms of collecting....but not of pottery collectors as a whole. Most of us just buy what we like, and stick it on a shelf. As a result, so very many of the most interesting, rare, and fascinating figures command low prices.  My new books will have a price guide, and pricing figures has brought home a sad fact: some of the small figures most collectors would love to own are really very rare. But they are priced at no more than Price A, the lowest level on my pricing scale.

You may argue that the details don't matter.....but look at what we just learned about the two figures of Water. We know who made each, and that the one is older than the other.  Suddenly they both become a lot more interesting....and now you might be inclined to add the remaining three elements to one or other to form a set. It can be done!

Aurea  Carter currently has this pair of lovely figures emblematic of Water and Earth in stock.

You will recognize the lady as being from the same molds as the Ralph Wood and Dudson figures. I have no idea who made her...but I will be thinking about it. Interestingly, she now holds a jug. The possibilites are endless. Another Dudson variation, but lacking any features that support an attribution?  Enoch Wood? Any one of many other potters?  The truth is that we may never know.

Ralph Wood was a mold maker extraordinaire. Time and again, I see figures made in the 1830s that are of the same form as figures first made by Ralph Wood in the 1790s.  For example, most portrayals of Elijah and the Widow are closely similar to earlier Ralph Wood figures. I can go on and on with examples, but the figures below illustrate my point.

These two gardeners in the Potteries Museum are impressed "1" and "2". Because I think that impressed numbers on Ralph Wood figures indicate the sequential introduction of new figures, figures "1" and "2" must have first been made early on in the Ralph Wood era.

Ralph Wood's little gardeners set the "look" for many figures that were made in the following decades. The pair below was made in the 1830s--around 40 years after Ralph died. (Photo: courtesy Michael Grana.)

And here we have a similar gardener, with bocage, circa 1825.

I have been working on compiling a list of impressed Ralph Wood numbers and the corresponding figural forms. Falkner initially did this a century ago. He recorded 47 enamel painted figures and busts. I had recorded 110.....until today, when a new find on eBay brought the grand total to 111.  This bust of an unidentified gentleman, currently on eBay, is impressed 128 on the reverse.

I don't know who this gentleman is, but if you know, please shout. You can see the bust on eBay, while it lasts, by clicking here.

Update to the mystery bust:
Falkner notes busts of Milton as impressed 81, and I have noted them also impressed 82.
But Falkner also notes a bust of Milton, smaller in size, impressed 127. I think Falkner’s 127 is like this bust, impressed 128.
Bust 128 has clothing and facial features that are pretty close to bust 81---so I think Falkner took a leap of faith. 
I am not quite convinced that the gentleman is indeed Milton, who is always portrayed with long hair, but for now Milton seems as close to an identity as I can get.
Below, courtesy of Bonhams, is a bust of Milton. This is the 81/82 model. You decide!