unmarked lamp base - Rooke? Tremaen? Quantock? Simonsbath?

This lamp was left to me with another lamp base different colour design that is clearly marked Rooke.  This one not so, to the naked eye I thought there was a mark but with a magnifying glass, it is nothing!

Thank you for your response, is there anywhere I can take it in order to get a positive authentication? This is all new to me! Kind regards

Lyn no. This is a very niche market. Normally you would look at this forum and the BR thread. Do a google image search and look for a similar one or watch ebay etc - which will give you a good idea of value also. There is a lot of this stuff about so there is always a chance it's not by BR. I would exhaust those routes first. Many many pieces of pottery are not marked and still unknown. Very frustrating at times.

Thank you so much x

I think it is definitely Rooke. If you look at the height of it in relation those bricks, it is 24 ins or more. Only Rooke did anything of that size. Also that decoration is very Rooke like. It may well be relatively early.

Thank you so much everyone for all of the responses.  

I agree with everything that Naomi says, except that an opinion from Jason Wood is worth getting. He has had an interest in studio pottery for less time than any of us on here that has that interest and his only experience before pitching to become the "studio ceramics consultant" at Adam Partridge's was being a less than successful eBay seller.

I know that it is always nice to know who made an item but with something like this I think who it is by is pretty irrelevant, as it is going to make little or no difference to its desirability.

I think who it is by is entirely relevant. The market for these large lamp bases - I am presuming it is large- is the Retro Design market. It is not  the normal studio pottery collector's market. In that market the name ROOKE does a have a fair amount of cachet, because basically it is his name that is associated most with this type of piece. If it has a QUANTOCK impressed mark on it, it would just not have the same market. Indeed, most dealers in this type of object would assume it was Bernard Rooke as some of his work does not have a mark.

From my knowledge of the retro design market I stick by what I said above - it's all about the look and not about the maker. I guess it illustrates how opinions can differ.

NaomiM wrote:I suggested Wood because I believe he travels round doing appraisals and collecting items for the auctions. Better than posting it.

I see your point but I can't imagine that it would be viable for any auction house to do that for one item that might be equivalent to something that fetched £95 in their last sale.

I agree with Studio. This type of lamp base is not really a studio pottery specialist item. Given it is not marked, and has not got all the bells and whistles of the really large Rooke pieces it will not be so popular. Most auctioneers will give a rough estimate based on a photo. You just need to choose an auctioneers in a wealthy town! Richard Wintertons in Lichfield in quite near to the Lady. Lichfield being quite a posh Cathedral town!

NaomiM wrote:Jason Wood will have an itinerary so in the run up to an Auction he’ll say which areas he’s visiting and arrange to collect a number of entries for the auction. At least, he’s done that in the past. I’m just assuming he does that for every Studio Pottery auction.

It is what other auctions do as well but in all cases it would need to be worth their while, as it would be for me when I am contacted in a similar manner.

I suppose that if it was in an area that a consultant was specifically visiting and it was part of several house calls then he might take it; put it in an auction and call it was he likes. It doesn't help with identification though.

It is marked. Rooke did use a mark like that.
It is slightly out of focus, if you could have another go, indoors, no flash, and lit by
daylight sideways, we might get a better idea.