The Leach Pottery. St Ives

I think so. The other candidate would be Boscean Pottery but I'm not seeing an IB mark for Richard Jenkins

NaomiM wrote:I think so. The other candidate would be Boscean Pottery but I'm not seeing an IB mark for Richard Jenkins

Yes that's a good shout, I'm staying in the Leach court, thanks again Naomi.

Definitely Leach. That England mark like that is a style you do not see in any other studio pottery. Late 60's through the 70's. Interesting shape though. Looking at the Leach 1976 catalogue right now. They did nothing of that shape in a Mug, or coffee cup. So its got to be a teacup. But they did not do one then. Its probably from the 60's.

philpot wrote:Definitely Leach. That England mark like that is a style you do not see in any other studio pottery. Late 60's through the 70's. Interesting shape though. Looking at the Leach 1976 catalogue right now. They did nothing of that shape in a Mug, or coffee cup. So its got to be a teacup. But they did not do one then. Its probably from the 60's.

Hi Phil, yes that England stamped marked was key and convinced me it's a Leach piece and agree 1960s.

I picked this up yesterday with another as a pair £2.99 for both. I will put the other teacup on soon, Thanks for your input, cheers Ernest.

There is a great resource at Mike's pots. He las photos of all the standardware and copies of the catalogue/prices from 1946,52,54,70/1975, the family tree is excellent.

He's put in a lot of time - check out the Potteries section also

https://www.mikespots.co.uk/LeachPottery/LeachTree.htm

https://www.mikespots.co.uk/LeachPottery/Catalogue1954.htm

https://www.mikespots.co.uk/Potteries/NicCollinsPottery2019.htm

Here is the second teacup that came with the one above.

[url=https://servimg.com/view/19325055/720[/url]
[url=https://servimg.com/view/19325055/718[/url]
[url=https://servimg.com/view/19325055/719[/url]

Some nice standard ware bowls with a round backstamp

I’ve seen the oak leaf pattern on the standard ware but not this one. Is it rare and when, do you think, was it made?

It is uncommon but not rare. Made just after the WW2 circa 1947- 55. It was part of the standard range that had someextra twiidles on it.

philpot wrote:It is uncommon  but not rare. Made just after the WW2 circa 1947- 55. It was part of the standard range that had someextra twiidles on it.

Fab  
Thank you very much for the information!

Miniature twee standard ware vase.

Sweet!

The Leach mark on this small bowl seems clear, but I can’t work out what it actually is. It’s unglazed inside and very heavy, so definitely not tableware even though it’s about soup bowl sized.  I’m assuming a celadon glaze with a little bit of iron breaking through - but what is this bowl for?

Possibly a glaze test piece

I did wonder about that, but it’s a substantial object to test glaze on. Can’t see that it was made for sale though, I can’t see a use for a bowl like this without internal glazing.

Might make a rather posh cactus pot

It doesnt have the finish I'd expect of a Leach piece, but I believe they run pottery courses. Maybe someone has stamped it with the Leach mark as a reminder of their time there.

It has the “England” stamp too, faintly below the Leach mark so I think probably not stamped by a student- but I agree about the finish - the base is rather perfunctory!

Good eyesight

Magnifying glass . I’ve been IDing miniature studio pottery pots this evening and it’s been invaluable!

The England would put it in the 60's, and the marks pretty much in the standard ware range. One could guess an experiment that did not work out? Or a piece that did not fire properly in the kiln?  Every firing usually has its fail pieces, that is just the whim of the kiln firing.

The main issue is the sheer weight of the bowl- it’s nicely proportioned but very thickly thrown. That was obvious when made, which is why I’m struggling to see why it was glaze fired anyway!

Interesting to know it can be dated to the 60s, thanks.

Its the use of both the St Ives mark and England that is curious. That implies it was meant for sale, not a student aberration. A trial with a new type of clay mixture? The standard ware range was meant for hard, everyday use, So strength would be an important feature. At attempt to make them even sturdier?
We have some soup bowls that we have used for years and they still look in perfect condition.

mortar and pestle ? sans pestle

Oh, that’s a good idea! That would explain the lack of internal glazing - I’ll do a bit of research.

Mystery solved, I think - I’ve come across this photo of a 70s mortar  and pestle with a very similar bowl. Thanks for the help!