Matt Kelleher

Small Kelleher bowl

I knew you'd say that. Checked it out as far as I could. It has the one dot mark rather than the more common two dots, and it looks like the example in Yates-Owen and what I can find online. But....

If it's doubtful them maybe a mod would move it into Id My Pottery and put a question mark in the heading.

NaomiM wrote:I knew you'd say that. Checked it out as far as I could. It has the one dot mark rather than the more common two dots, and it looks like the example in Yates-Owen and what I can find online. But....

You're making me out to be the man who always says these things but that's not true.   

As you know the mark isn't correct but more importantly it is not like any of his work that I have ever seen.

I would move it if I could but I don't have the magical powers.

Well you or Ed.   

I'd like to see an example of his one dot mark to be sure.

I don't ever recall seeing the mark you refer to but it might exist and might have been on a piece of Maltby's work that has passed through my hands.

However, when you are trying to decide who made a piece of pottery it is very dangerous to rely on a mark alone or the word of someone selling that piece of pottery. The style is far more important and your bowl looks nothing like any piece of John Maltby's work that I have ever seen.

Does that mean that your bowl is definitely not by John Maltby? I can't be 100% sure but the likelihood is very slim. If you were able to find a similar piece with very good provenance then I would believe you but until then...............

I don't ever recall seeing the mark you refer to

Well there's still hope then.
It wasn't sold as a Maltby, so nothing to lose if it's not by him.

The one dot M mark in Yates-Owen compared to the one on the bowl -
Not trying to convince you SP. Just saying there is one out there, somewhere, but it's probably not this one because there are significant differences - the legs don't go down to the bottom of the impressed square nor are they slanted, and the dot isn't off centre like in Yates-Owen.

 

I think that we ought to have a "special" unidentified M thread - we have a number of marks for it.

I did look at the mark in the book after you mentioned it but thought is wasn't quite the same as yours. The reason for saying that I might have handle a piece of Maltby with it on is that with his work you tend to recognise it as being his without taking much notice of the mark.

As for your bowl, I would have probably bought it if I had seen it because it looks interesting enough without knowing who made it.

From the images it looks to have been made fairly recently- is that your opinion?

Yes, I think fairly recently. Has a faint Japanese influence to the simplicity of the decoration (which appears to be all the rage at the moment).
I did wonder if someone was faking Maltbys (I can see a few unscrupulous ebay sellers jumping on this pottery and trying to pass them off as his) but there are too many differences, and the M. is one of his more obscure marks.

As for an unidentified M thread, you could say the same for Ws Ps Sss... I don't really see the need for one.

It's American - Matt Kelleher