Wallwork?

studio-pots wrote:It is always much harder to spot something that isn't right from images but my rule on the internet is never to believe anything that a seller tells you unless you believe it 100% yourself. Having said that I kind of broke that rule above with the "Wallwork" from Marnhull because I knew the seller has bought loads of work from Alan, including odd experimental bits.

However, if I had seen it on Ebay I wouldn't have considered buying it because it didn't meet the other criteria that I try and stick to - never buy anything that is damaged or is a poor example just because it was made by an important name.

wise words and very good advise for those who are new to pottery collecting (and some who aren't)

It is very good advice , especially if you are keeping the item , on the other hand don't ignore damaged goods at fairs etc . if you are selling , I have bought whitefriars glass many times with the odd nibble here and there , advertised as such and doubled / trebled my money , same with wallwork etc buying to deal is different from buying to keep /collect , I think it's all relevant to how much you pay , theres a chipped wallwork on sale at the moment that would yeild a profit to the buyer .

You are right about damage ed but I can't stand having things with a smallest chip, unless it is early earthenware, so I very rarely buy pieces to sell that are damaged - only a couple of Lucie Rie pieces come to mind.

Not being a good salesman, I would just go on about the damage and ruin any chance of a sale.

So you wouldn't find me trying to sell an Alan Wallwork, as described below on Ebay.

"I am sure most of you know about this highly important potter. In the 1960s he was a major figure in the handbuilding movement. This is an excellent version of a typical and very popular form. It consists of a thick stoneware egg split to reveal a thin split porcelain egg inside.

Approx. 11cm - usual late incised AW - Excellent condition (ie - in my opinion, exactly as it left the kiln). The whole point of these pots is that they are broken - so to describe them as undamaged is meaningless - the inner porcelain egg is split (as it should be) and seems completely stable - the important bit is that it is fully attached (when they are loose it can be a problem) - the outer egg is split and has numerous other minor splits and holes (as it should be) - the edge of the split is rough and ragged (as it should be) - it seems completely stable and I can not see anything that looks like post-kiln damage - but it is, obviously, impossible to be 100% sure. If you are worried by this sort of thing, then it is not the pot for you. If you like Alan's approach then this is a really good example."

doesn't sound as it should be

he couldv'e saved a lot of longwinded blab and just said it's fekin' damaged , as it should be or not to be

Another thing some sellers describe a chip as a frit , a glaze miss , done when fired , a nibble a, a, fleabite , etc . it is difficult I know when you photograph it and it looks like the grand canyon and it's only pinhead size , Oh! the perils of Ebay

it's easy to see why you have been such a successful ebay seller Ed

100% feedback and no passes Yet

studio-pots wrote:So you wouldn't find me trying to sell an Alan Wallwork, as described below on Ebay.

"I am sure most of you know about this highly important potter. In the 1960s he was a major figure in the handbuilding movement. This is an excellent version of a typical and very popular form. It consists of a thick stoneware egg split to reveal a thin split porcelain egg inside.

Approx. 11cm - usual late incised AW - Excellent condition (ie - in my opinion, exactly as it left the kiln). The whole point of these pots is that they are broken - so to describe them as undamaged is meaningless - the inner porcelain egg is split (as it should be) and seems completely stable - the important bit is that it is fully attached (when they are loose it can be a problem) - the outer egg is split and has numerous other minor splits and holes (as it should be) - the edge of the split is rough and ragged (as it should be) - it seems completely stable and I can not see anything that looks like post-kiln damage - but it is, obviously, impossible to be 100% sure. If you are worried by this sort of thing, then it is not the pot for you. If you like Alan's approach then this is a really good example."

Having seen the AD , i am even more amazed when I saw who the seller was , i thought he would know better

I did purchase two pieces of Monart glass, both of which were damaged, just so I could say I owned Monart, but I did only pay 99 pence each for them, and the damage is simply a crack for both of them.

Carolyn

This is a good point if you can purchase something with damage you like cheaply and displays as well as a perfect piece , go for it