Is the large pearlware tiger below not to die for? This unique Staffordshire figure group was last sighted at Christie's in 1994, and it made a deservedly hefty price despite the obvious condition problems--I think the tiger has issues with his front right leg and the deer has issues with a hind leg, but, apparently this is the least of the deer's problems!
The tiger group links to other Staffordshire figures in a rather puzzling way. Let's look at its three components: the tiger, the deer, and the base.
First, the tiger comes from the very same molds used for the tiger in Death of Munrow groups. As Death of Munrow groups can almost consistently be attributed to "Sherratt," is it possible that "Sherratt" made the tiger-and-deer group too?
First, the tiger comes from the very same molds used for the tiger in Death of Munrow groups. As Death of Munrow groups can almost consistently be attributed to "Sherratt," is it possible that "Sherratt" made the tiger-and-deer group too?
Next, the unfortunate deer in the tiger's jaws. Below we see that very same deer, in the clutches of a large lion. The lion group can be attributed to "Sherratt" because the tell-tale floral clusters on the base are unique to "Sherratt".
Lastly, let's look at the base. I have only seen this base on one other figure group. That group, a lively bear baiting, is shown below. I have not yet been able to attribute the bear baiting group to any particular pot bank...but I am starting to think that it just may have been made by "Sherratt."
To support the "Sherratt" link, I point to the very same man lying on the base of the definitely-"Sherratt" bull baiting group below. (Yes, I know potters used similar molds and copied each other's work, but stick with this and you will see that circumstantial evidence is sending a very strong message!)
Courtesy Christie's
So at this point, I am leaning towards an almost-certainly-"Sherratt" attribution for the tiger-and-deer group.
If you are still with me, I would like to take my train of thought one step further. A few moments ago, I wrote that "Death of Munro groups can almost consistently be attributed to "Sherratt".....and note that I qualified my statement with the use of almost. The reason I hesitated is that the Death of Munro group in the Willett Collection has always puzzled me just a little because I know in my gut that "Sherratt" made it, yet it has not a single feature supporting a "Sherratt" attribution.
If you are still with me, I would like to take my train of thought one step further. A few moments ago, I wrote that "Death of Munro groups can almost consistently be attributed to "Sherratt".....and note that I qualified my statement with the use of almost. The reason I hesitated is that the Death of Munro group in the Willett Collection has always puzzled me just a little because I know in my gut that "Sherratt" made it, yet it has not a single feature supporting a "Sherratt" attribution.
Courtesy Willett Collection, Brighton and Hove Museums
But having tentatively attributed the bear-baiting group above to "Sherratt" helps resolve this problem. Surely then the bear baiting group below is also "Sherratt"? It has all the same components, but the base is different...in fact, it is just like the base on the Death of Munrow group above.
Courtesy John Howard
So are the slab-like green bases on both the last two groups perhaps another "Sherratt" feature?
Linkages needed for attributions are often circuitous and kinda-tough to explain in writing in this way, but I hope you get the gist of it. And whoever made them, are the figure groups shown in this blog posting not all stunning???
Linkages needed for attributions are often circuitous and kinda-tough to explain in writing in this way, but I hope you get the gist of it. And whoever made them, are the figure groups shown in this blog posting not all stunning???
