Buying by Name

by **big ed** January 2nd 2013, 4:03 pm

I wonder what it would be like on say auction sites like ebay etc if the makers name was banned , how many less pots would be sold if the star name was not used , if for instance 100 tea bowls were listed and no makers name was told, the buyer would then have to judge what was to their liking , I bet a few surprises would occur Laughter

by **dantheman** January 2nd 2013, 4:15 pm

or if no pots were marked

by **big ed** January 2nd 2013, 4:21 pm

Exactly , would be interesting I think , it wouldn't puzzle some I know , but there would be a few totally stumped , art galleries should also have a week of refraining to name the artists and forms could be filled in by the public as to their opinions of what is what etc.

by **studio-pots** January 2nd 2013, 4:47 pm

dantheman wrote:or if no pots were marked

............. the sellers with the most convincing sale pitch would have more Lucie Rie's than she made.

by **studio-pots** January 2nd 2013, 4:52 pm

............. and come on here to convince us that an unmarked cup was absolutely one of hers.

by **dantheman** January 2nd 2013, 5:03 pm

that's why the forum anti-sales rule is so strictly enforced,almost all of those banned have broken the rule

by **Celtic_Fan** January 2nd 2013, 7:01 pm

It would make searching for anything a nightmare. I can recognise the stuff I buy even without a label, but it is quicker to be able search (or exclude) certain names. Other wise I'd have thousands of items to search through almost every day Frustrated

Some of my searches are long even with all my exclusions used up.

by **big ed** January 2nd 2013, 8:24 pm

I didn't mean for it to make things harder to Id , what I meant was would people recognize the so called quality items /pieces/paintings etc , for example that crap in the tate with those pebbly things , if they were piled by the side of the road no one would have noticed them ( unless they were laying a path ) but the fact that they were in the tate with all the hype made /duped people into seeing something that wasn't anything but a pile of nonsense imo.

by **philpot** January 10th 2013, 4:00 pm

Trouble is there is only so much you can tell from a picture. The quality of most pictures on both Ebay and terrestrial auctioneers,is not of sufficient quality to risk decent money on.

by **Potty** January 10th 2013, 5:14 pm

Pricing by name is quite understandable, but one thing I cannot understand is pricing by size alone?

For example you can see pots by the known contemporary ash glaze potters that are large, but very plain (simple shape, simple yet effective glaze) in the 2-4k+ price range. Yet seemingly much more complex pots by potters (of equal standing in the studio pottery world) specialising in miniature or small items or smaller scale charge a fraction of this for their top pots. Shrugs

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

by **skay** January 10th 2013, 5:45 pm

Not of much help to your question Potty, but I generally like very large or very small. Like under 3" or over 12''. I suppose its just the statement both make, but dunno?

ps. Nobody use this as a sig please Naughty

xx

by **Potty** January 10th 2013, 5:58 pm

skay wrote: I generally like very large or very small. Like under 3" or over 12''.

That's nice Skay, now back to talking about Pottery! Big Shock

I tend to go for smaller pots and particularly like what I would consider "true miniatures".

What I don't understand is why some potters would charge a fortune for a large pot that took say 3 hours to make, yet other equally good potters will charge a fraction of that for something that took say 6 hours to make. Shrugs

At the sort of price differences I'm talking about, material cost and kiln space I think would make little impact?

by **skay** January 10th 2013, 6:10 pm

I know, as I said, not much help to your question.

Insane

< me

xx

by **Potty** January 10th 2013, 6:28 pm

by **studio-pots** January 10th 2013, 8:45 pm

Potty wrote:Pricing by name is quite understandable, but one thing I cannot understand is pricing by size alone?

For example you can see pots by the known contemporary ash glaze potters that are large, but very plain (simple shape, simple yet effective glaze) in the 2-4k+ price range. Yet seemingly much more complex pots by potters (of equal standing in the studio pottery world) specialising in miniature or small items or smaller scale charge a fraction of this for their top pots.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Not disagreeing (how could I?) but you're going to have to name some of these potters, who sell their large pots for £2000 to £4000.

by **climberg64** January 10th 2013, 9:34 pm

Nic Collins' large jars are 1k+

by **climberg64** January 10th 2013, 9:37 pm

£50 per inch

by **climberg64** January 10th 2013, 9:42 pm

Lucie Rie's are about £1000 per inch. Bernard Leach £100. Though its an oversimplification... The association isn't linear. It would be a great piece of research for somebody. Happy

by **studio-pots** January 10th 2013, 10:19 pm

..... but Nic Collins, Lucie Rie nor Bernard Leach are contemporary ash glaze potters, whose large pots you see in the £2000 to £4000 price range.

by **studio-pots** January 10th 2013, 10:33 pm

Now I know that Potty is a big fan of Geoffrey Swindell's work but you can't compare the price per inch of the work of a living potter with that of a dead potter, whose work is collected.

As far as Nic Collins is concerned, it depends where you might buy it. I think I could do a better price per inch (and most definitely per kg) on a Collins when compared to a Swindell!

by **Potty** January 11th 2013, 6:04 am

All potters I was thinking of are alive and still potting Cheeky

, 4 people came to mind, 2 for each category.

For miniatures Mary Rich was the other, I'll pm you the names of the potters that in my opinion seem to price for size alone, as I don't think it's fair to post names, as it is a personal opinion after all.

by **Potty** January 11th 2013, 6:19 am

studio-pots wrote:
Not disagreeing (how could I?) but you're going to have to name some of these potters, who sell their large pots for £2000 to £4000.

PM sent

P.S. I do rate those potters work, I'm just trying to understand how their prices can be so size based, good examples of their smaller work seem much better value in my opinion.

by **Potty** January 11th 2013, 8:23 am

Even without comparing different potters, the same can be seen with these potters own work.

For example I would imagine a nicely decorated teapot would take as much time to make as a large plain vase. Yet the pricing for example would be 10+ times higher for the vase. It's examples like this I can't understand. Shrugs

I expect it's a case of "Because people will pay it!" Laughter

by **dantheman** January 11th 2013, 10:13 am

the market is full of such incongruities,I collect the pottery Guy sydenham made after leaving Poole pottery which is far better than most of the pottery he threw at the factory but it tends to sell for less because collectors like the Poole pottery stamp Insane

by **tenpot** January 11th 2013, 4:52 pm

kiln space is important you can fire a lot of teapots but only a few large pots in a kiln

by Sponsored content

Buying by Name

Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name

Re: Buying by Name