The first is this pearlware christening group, newly added to John Howard's dazzling stock.
Another lesson I recently learned came courtesy of a very knowledgeable collector friend. It concerned this figure in the Hunt Collection, Dallas, TX.
For me, the "hunt" of collecting early Staffordshire figures is much more fun than the actual "find" or purchase---and the excitement of learning along the way keeps me going! I cringe inwardly when I am described as an "expert" because I know there is still so much I have yet to learn. Recently, two discoveries reminded me yet again of just how much still awaits discovery! The first is this pearlware christening group, newly added to John Howard's dazzling stock. I did a double-take when this unusual group popped onto my monitor because hitherto every christening group recorded has been attributable to "Sherratt." The "Sherratt" examples I show below are typical. As you see, the figures on "Sherratt" christening groups are always the same, but the groups vary in that one or other of the "Sherratt" bocages and bases are used. On the other hand, the small figures on John's group are quite different from those on "Sherratt" groups. Note the addition of a young child to the family scene. Surely more of these pearlware christening groups must have been made? What happened to them? Alas, another question I can't answer. Another lesson I recently learned came courtesy of a very knowledgeable collector friend. It concerned this figure in the Hunt Collection, Dallas, TX. The figure was sold to Nancy Hunt as a madonna, but I was not convinced, so I placed the figure among the Miscellaneous in Holding the Past, my book cataloging the Hunt Collection. My friend points out that the figure is Guanyin, the Chinese goddess of mercy. Figures of Guanyin were exported to the west from the mid-1600s. The figure below is just one of many made in Asia--and clearly one or other inspired copying in the Staffordshire potteries. Why would Staffordshire potters make figures of Guanyin? Beats me! But this is not the only Asian religious figure that the potters made. Buddha too was made in the Potteries (Staffordshire Figures 1780-1840, Vol. 2 for an example.) But the existence of such figures substantiates my theory that early Staffordshire figures were made for a more upscale market. All rather puzzling at times, but then piecing together the story is what collecting is all about.
0 Comments
Do you love Staffordshire figures? Of course you do! So why not join the Staffordshire Figure Association? Members receive three newsletters each year, packed with interesting reading, and members can attend the annual conference. This year, that event will be in Los Angeles in October, so join now if you would like to attend. Details are on the SFA site, staffordshirefigureassociation.com.
Next year, the SFA conference will be in the UK, so our British members will be able to share the fun. In the past on this blog and within Staffordshire Figures 1780-1840, I have discussed pearlware figures with what I call "detachable" bocages. By this, I mean that the bocage in each case was made separately from the figure and could simply be put in place afterwards. As you see, the bocage fits into a socket of sorts. This technique was clever because if the fragile bocage was broken in manufacture, the figure itself did not have to be discarded. Just pop another bocage in that socket, and it was good to go. Detachable bocages are associated with the potter John Dale. I have seen several early Staffordshire figures with detachable bocages, all with strong features pointing to a Dale attribution. The cow above can be attributed to John Dale, as can the sportsman below. But don't think for one moment that Dale had the monopoly on detachable bocages. Apparently, someone else used them too. Look at this pair of camels. The three openings at the back of each camel are usually termed spill holders, but I really think they were intended to hold three bocage branches. Think about it. Why THREE spill holders? One would have done the job. And the openings are angled in such a way as to invite the addition of three beautiful bocage branches. Each camel is impressed beneath with "8," in the manner of Enoch Wood. I am confident that Enoch Wood made these. And then there is this lovely dog----maker unknown, but I would bet that Enoch Wood made it. That opening atop the tree-trunk structure is a bit puny for a spill holder. But surely it sits too high to hold a bocage. What do you think? So are other small spill holders of this sort spill holders or bocage holders? In particular, I wonder about the small holders behind large animals sometimes found with the Wood & Caldwell mark. The plot now thickens: Below is an Enoch Wood/Wood & Caldwell cow, made with both a bocage and an open socket. On Dale figures, the socket clearly was intended for a bocage, but on the Enoch Wood figures, I am not always sure. I have no answers, only questions. Perhaps you know.
Early pearlware spill vases of the armorial type are few and far between, and it seems the Staffordshire potters made relatively few of them. Most well known is the Walton model, shown below. It is marked WALTON on the reverse, and a small opening in the center of the crown has always earned this very decorative Staffordshire object the title of "spill vase." Even rarer is the pearlware beauty on the pink base below. It too has an opening in the center top, so again it too has always been assumed to be a spill vase. But pause to think for a moment how different conventional Staffordshire spill vases are from the two armorial groups above. Typically, their opening ares quite wide, but the openings on the armorial spill vases are more like the narrow openings at the top of a bottle. Recently the Staffordshire group below appeared on the market. Amazingly, a little lion is perched atop. The lion serves as a stopper...so is the armorial group is intended to be a container of sorts? My guess it that ALL these armorial containers once had stoppers that have been lost with time. What was the purpose of th containers? Clearly, they were not made as spill vases, but I don't think they were meant to be functional vessels because it is difficult to get liquid in and out of them. So perhaps they were simply intended to be decorative!.
|
Archives
September 2024
All material on this website is protected by copyright law. You may link to this site from your site, but please contact Myrna if you wish to reproduce any of this material elsewhere. |