Colin Pearson

Measures 5" high , I like the bold confident way it's been done , there are dents were his hand has held this piece and it fits like a glove , big sweeping gouged out clay gives it a great look imo , I agree about lampbases in general , I must stop buying them with the odd exception

lamp mark

As my post elsewhere might have suggested, I'm not a big lover of lampbases but I like the look of the "lump" above.

I totally agree SP , I am trying to wean myself off lamp bases but the lump does it for me , the more pieces I see By CP the more I like they just oooooze a confident hand .

The roughness around the base of the vase is especially good too.

Hi Ed, do we know much about this type of Colin Pearson? Where or when it was made?
Never seen it in any books, they always concentrate on the winged stuff.
I have a (heavy!!) vase, like your lampbase, in the attic somewhere, which I will dig out
and photograph. I was always unsure if it was Pearson, never seeing any other stuff like it,
plus a similarish "circle" mark is used by some other potters, so I just put it awayuntil
something turned up.

This type of pottery was made by Colin in Aylesford in Kent from around 1961 into the 1970s. He did begin making his winged forms there before moving to London in the early 1980s but I believe that there was a time in the 1970s when he was making functional wares and his winged vessels.

Thanks SP i'll dig it out sometime.

He went to Aylesford to work and then run the Aylesford Priory Pottery but the pottery where these were made was separate from this, down in the village of Aylesford.

denbydump wrote:Hi Ed, do we know much about this type of Colin Pearson? Where or when it was made?
Never seen it in any books, they always concentrate on the winged stuff.
I have a (heavy!!) vase, like your lampbase, in the attic somewhere, which I will dig out
and photograph. I was always unsure if it was Pearson, never seeing any other stuff like it,
plus a similarish "circle" mark is used by some other potters, so I just put it awayuntil
something turned up.

I saw your pot on a link of yours and it is similar to my Lbase , I bought it with the vase above and was told they both came from the same household / collector , I queried the lamp at first as well , but knew pretty much the vase was good , the Paul Rice book has a similar vase pictured and he dates it circa 70 , but I don't myself , just like them , the winged pieces are obviously getting the main coverage on the net pot pots like these are every bit as good imo.

can you post a pic of your vase please ,? Ed

Yes I promise, when I can find which box it's in up in the attic.

It's in the first pic on my horribly out of date studio section of my website.

http://www.magicfabric.magix.net/public/pottery/studio.htm

Thanks looks interesting   

Right Ed, been up in the attic. Got the Pearson out. You won't believe how heavy it is,
like a lead ingot. Looks like a house brick from a burned out building 10.5 in high.

Thoiught you may like to see this one just listed on e**y. Slight chip to edge but easily restored I guess.
Picked it up in a charity shop donkeys years ago. Serious illness necessitates sale but had lots of pleasure looking at it.
Appologies for the promotion!
Alan.

9cm tall, half dipped- green/brown coloured glaze.
The mark I feel I should know, it looks familiar...like so many...Sarah Dunstan (her pots look very different) Colin Pearson (oh.. I hope so) Brian Bearne, I'm not sure at all...
Can someone please help id this for me?

The form and the unglazed bottom are typical of Colin Pearson's early work, although the glaze isn't typical but not too removed from his standard glazes. The light stoneware body looks the same as he used for several years too.

The mark should have the central line running below the circle and in the images there is a hint of that. In reality do you think it is possible that the bottom of the seal might not have been applied completely?

Thanks sp for your help.
Looked at the thread and looks same glaze to me too, thanks for that. Part of a domestic wear range which included your teapot possibly?
It had an enormous cork in the top when I bought it, just took it out for id photos...no idea if that was the original top but it looks aged.

Yes, the cork would be original. He used corks in that way, which is even more proof, if more was needed.