One of my many personal imperfections is my almost total inability to recognize a face. This is rather embarrassing at times. Yes, I am that idiot who will be introduced to you three times in the same day. On the other hand, if you had bocage leaves attached to you, I would remember you immediately! Strangely,  when it comes to figures, my recall is remarkably good.  One little figure group that I remember crossing my path several times in recent years is that below.

Hindsight is always 20:20, and, as I look at this group today, I ask myself whether the awkward positioning of the bocage should have raised a red flag. It is perched rather awkwardly, is it not?

Most importantly, the bocage on this group is an old bocage that, like the group, was made circa 1825. The problem is that the bocage was made by one pot bank (the Patriotic Group pot bank)  and the rest of the group was made by another (the Box Title Group pot bank). The two were united courtesy of a modern restorer. This is what the group should look like.  Much more balanced, don't you think?

I first spotted the problem group in the stock of a UK dealer. I pointed out my concerns. Sure enough, he had discerned a join where the bocage had been professionally attached, but he had assumed that the correct bocage had snapped off and had been put back into place. When he realized that this was not so, he disposed of the group at auction. Ah, if only all dealers were as selective, so insistent on only selling what they know to be right.

Auctions are not for the unwary. They are sometimes said to be the places dealers send their mistakes, but they are also the places that dealers make mistakes. Sure enough, another dealer bought the mismatched group, and I stumbled across it yet again at a show in the US. Again, I pointed out the issue. This time the dealer's response was not quite as heart warming. "Well," he said, "if someone asks me, I will say that the bocage has been reattached." Hmm....THE bocage or A bocage??? 

The mismatched group surfaced again in a US collection shared on FaceBook recently. Mismatched figures are really not that common, but they are common enough that you should buy your figures from a dealer who can help you avoid this trap. The first one I encountered was a Walton figure of an apostle, with a transplanted Sherratt bocage.  Similarly, you can see a "Sherratt" bocage on a cow of the type that "Sherratt" never made. On the left is the mismatched bovine; on the right is a correct example.

In the case of the elephant, the first red flag might be the very obvious difference between the flowers on the base and those on the bocage--but it is conceivable that flowers differ. Remember though that elephants of this sort all seem to have been made by Enoch Wood, while the bocage here is a form commonly used by Ralph Salt and other potters. Looking carefully at the back, you can see the fault line where the bocage has been attached--but the wrong bocage.

The elephant should correctly look more like one of these.

Truth be told, the elephant in the middle too has a transplanted bocage, but it is an  Enoch Wood bocage. The restoration was done ethically and responsibly.On a good note, the elephant with the incorrect transplanted bocage sold honestly  to a fully informed buyer, but transparency is the exception rather than the rule in these cases. That doesn't mean that the trade is necessarily dishonest. Rather, it means that dealers don't always know. 

I am always reluctant to let a reattached bocage influence my decision on attribution. Case in point is the cottage below.

The cottage below provided an important clue in unravelling the vexing cottage riddle. Importantly, it has  a diminutive "turquoise bocage" of the type that only "Sherratt" used, and indeed the base is in that turquoise palette "Sherratt" liked. 

Recently, my adult son expressed his frustration with a colleague who had asked his advice but had failed to follow his recommendation. He thought this damaged their relationship and asked if I had felt the same way in similar situations. I had to laugh! "Steven," I replied, "try being a parent! My kids don't listen to me...yet I am still advising."  I added that I routinely give collectors guidance, but always with the caveat that my free opinion is only worth its price.

My feelings are not dented if collectors ignore my opinions. After all, why should my recommendation be worth anything?I usually tell them that I respect their right to make their own decisions, and whatever they decide we stay friends. But today,  I impart a pearl of wisdom that collectors ignore at immense peril: 

IF YOU FAIL TO ASK ABOUT CONDITION WHEN PURCHASING A FIGURE, YOU MAY BE A SUCKER, A FOOL JUST BEGGING TO BE PARTED FROM YOUR MONEY.

Don't get me wrong: I am not telling you to only buy perfect figures. I accept that many very desirable figures have some restoration or repair. On the other hand, some figures have extensive restoration or repair. As you fall in love with a figure, as your heart beats a little faster and you are overwhelmed with that warm glow of excitement, the condition may not matter to you at all. But believe me, if you ever want to sell that figure, condition will matter a lot. So when you purchase a figure, insist that the dealer note any restoration on the receipt. That way, you know what you have. There can be no confusion, no he-said or he-didn't- say.

Does this sound harsh? I mean it to be! Again and again, dealers tell me (sometimes in amazement, sometimes with a smirk) that collectors routinely buy without a single enquiry about condition. I am stunned! These "collectors" are the same individuals who caress and squeeze every piece of fruit in the supermarket before deciding on the perfect one....yet when it comes to a costly Staffordshire figure, they just point at it (or click the mouse) and buy. 

This begs the question: what kind of collection are you assembling if you care not about the integrity of the objects in it? If you just want pretty things, you can find plenty at a fraction of the price of an early Staffordshire figure. Is it that you prefer owning something old? I understand....but a heavily restored figure can be largely new!

Dear Collector, I believe a nice early Staffordshire figure warrants a fine price. On the other hand. a heavily restored example of that same figure is worth a whole lot less...but if we collectors fail to ask, what stops the trade pricing that heavily restored figure as if it were perfect?
​
If it is all about eye-candy for you and you don't care, go ahead. But when you want to sell your very restored figure some day, don't be surprised if you have great difficulty doing so.  

Two examples make my point: Recently, I viewed a private collection, which held the object below, bought years ago from a now-retired dealer with whom the collector had a long-standing and trusting relationship. The price ticket beneath indicated that it had changed hands for a substantial price. 

I told the collector that, sadly, his treasure was nigh valueless because it was missing critical components. Once upon a time, it looked like this.

The collector could not recall being told about any loss or damage to the object at the time he bought it. In truth, I am sure he didn't ask! He simply bought with misplaced trust. But, as Ronald Reagan cautioned, "Trust but verify."

My second example is this sweet little church that appeared on eBay a few months ago. It was honestly described as missing critical components, as you see in the picture below.

Because of its condition, there was no interest. It is the only known example and I was tormented at the thought of it being tossed. I just couldn't help myself, so I bid GBP45, against no competing bids.
​
The church is a petite little things, just 5" to the top of the steeple. The buidling itself was intact, and there never had been bocage leaves on those trees, but all the figures in the foreground were missing. Clearly, the back figure on the right had been a man because his lower trouser legs remained. Right next to him were two smaller feet that had to have belonged to a woman.  The figure on the far left had broken away entirely, leaving an oval patch that corresponds to the way a vicar’s coat might fall, so I deduced that this group was once a christening. This made the fourth missing figure (one largish foot remained) the clerk.

I added the group to my Wreck Collection, and I could have happily lived with it as it was--in fact, I preferred living with it as it was! But once it became mine, I felt responsible for its future...and I was haunted by the certainty of it being discarded at the end of my days. Restoring it, to my mind, added absolutely no value, but unrestored it would almost certainly be tossed. I couldn’t justify costly professional restoration, so I decided to have a shot at replacing the missing figures myself. The task was way above my very amateur pay grade. How was I to make the figures? Which figures should I try to copy? All except one christening group recorded to date are from the “Sherratt” pot bank, and the figures on it are much too large for this group. Also, “Sherratt” christenings have two women (the godmothers) rather than a man and woman, who I believed had stood to the right of the church originally.
​
The tiniest figures in our collection are the man and woman shown below. I made models from these figures in clay and tooled them to remove his hat (which in this case is lying on the ground) and her dog (which I replaced with a small handbag). I fired them in a little kiln, and, as expected, the clay shrank, making the figures about ten percent smaller than the originals. Next, I fitted them onto the base so as not to damage any original material. In other words, it would have been easier to remove the feet and legs remaining on the base to position my figures, but instead I removed the feet and legs from my figures and fitted them to the original body parts. The result looked reasonable, so I continued.