When it comes to Walton-type figures, I have repeatedly said that the Walton mark is, in nearly every case, the only way of attributing a figure to Walton. A while ago, I came across an unrecorded leopard with the Walton mark and was very excited at the prospect of adding a 'new' figure to my list of Walton figures.
As you see, the mark is correct. In fact, lots looks correct here, including the familiar spill vase-with-bocage that we know from other Walton animal models.
But to jump to the punch line, what we have in this leopard is the work of a very skilled restorer. The base and spill vase belonged to a Walton sheep of the sort shown alongside. The sheep was lost and a leopard was put in its place. The baby leopard at its feet is made up.
When I saw this leopard figure, I was immediately suspicious. I think what tipped me off was the unnatural assemblage, a sort of stiffness. Clay is soft, so when a figure group is assembled, everything moves beneath the potter's fingers and components touch in just the right way. Remove one component and try and put another in its place after all is fired….that artless, natural fit is lost. Also, the proportions seemed just a tad wrong. I might have expected the lower bocage leaves to nestle around the leopard's body. The gap between the body and the bocage bothered my eye.
I have to have more than a gut feeling to justify my opinions. Here the work is so well done that I had to look really hard to confirm my opinion—and there is only so much testing you can do when you are examining someone else’s prized collection. The owners took the bad news very well, and we agreed that the leopard is a lesson for us all.
I have to have more than a gut feeling to justify my opinions. Here the work is so well done that I had to look really hard to confirm my opinion—and there is only so much testing you can do when you are examining someone else’s prized collection. The owners took the bad news very well, and we agreed that the leopard is a lesson for us all.
