Most undervalued Potters?

As we have had most over-priced, I thought this topic would be interesting to see peoples views.

I'm meaning on the secondary market mainly, but any opinions welcomed.

Oooh, that's like trying to predict the next great collectable.
Most of the stuff I buy that's still good value is because the potter's still alive, eg, Harry Juniper, Robert Goldsmith/Selborne Pottery, Pru Green/Wivenhoe, Current stuff coming out of Rye Pottery.

what i think is interesting about the idea of this thread is the "secondary market" aspect. There are some living potters who's prices are really rather high when you buy from a gallery or direct, but when you see their work in auction or ebay, the price is dramatically lower. This makes me think the fairest value is usually somewhere in the middle.

As for who i think is undervalued, some of the potters who have simply fallen out of fashion a little, such as Elton ware and some Brannam pottery. There is, of course, a dedicated collectors market for these two potteries, but i think in the general scheme of British art pottery, they're still undervalued and overshadowed by the likes of Ruskin and Moorcroft.

10 years ago Brannam and Elton ware were hot stuff, along with mottoware of the same period made by West Country and Cornish potteries, but prices are far more reasonable now. Tbh, I think they're now at the level they should be. The high prices at their peak were a bit of a speculative bubble and I expect some dealers lost money.

One dealer said his friend has 3 garages full of white Kaiser Porcelain, made in Germany, and expects that to be the next best thing. It's lovely stuff, but there's an awful lot of it around.

If Chokin wares became a trend bubble, i'd be round my local charity shops in flash as there tonnes of that too!

bistoboy wrote:what i think is interesting about the idea of this thread is the "secondary market" aspect. There are some living potters who's prices are really rather high when you buy from a gallery or direct, but when you see their work in auction or ebay, the price is dramatically lower. This makes me think the fairest value is usually somewhere in the middle.

These are the kind of things I mean

Some potters work seems to sell at auction for roughly the same as their gallery price.

It's not really about what will become trendy / high priced, more a personal opinion of what is / may always be under-valued.

I think as a general rule, potters who focus mainly on domestic wares I think will always be less collectible and more undervalued than those producing decorative / art pottery.

as was said on flogit trade secrets charlotte read is quite cheap at the moment things that have been expensive like royal doulton could rise up but as allways its not the potter its the individual piece that counts theres only one 50s french potter who people will pay hgh prices for any old piece

is that Mr Capron?

who else?

not at all its george Jouve

oh! the prince of pr

Eeles family pottery. I have a vase by Benjamin and it's stunning

I picked up a verry nice lampbase by simon eeles the other day have to agree they turn out some verry nice pieces.

That's a good example in my opinion, their work I have seen has been very well made, but appears to be quite cheap on the secondary market.

There is a lot of really good pottery that sells for peanuts.
Chelsea,Ambleside,Briglin,Jo Lester et al IOW, Celtic,Winchcombe....
All depends what you mean by undervalued though.
Commercially?
Or Artistically.?

Some good examples there, I mean commercially mainly.

Chris Aston - Elkesley Pottery is one example I can come up with, nice well made pots, but seem to sell for little on the secondhand market.

Its all down to markets,fashion and trends.You could do similar threads about artists and writers as well.
There are probably not even 100 potters that fetch decent money on the secondary market. That market virtually being Ebay alone now,as most bricks and mortar auctioneers have not got a clue about Studio pottery. You might as well reverse the question,and ask why certain potters actually make ANY money!
Lists... Vera Tollow,Paul Barron,David Lloyd Jones,Arthur Griffiths,Peter Dick, Michael Bayley,Val Barry,Mary White, Jim Robison.Owen Thorpe,Frank Hamer,George Wilson,Ian Pirie,West Marshall.... where does one stop?
And as for Living potters. Where does One start?

Reminds me of a discussion about the average income for published novelists, which is just £6000 a year and dropping. The millions made by the likes of Danielle Steel, JK Rowling, and Barbara Cartland are the very rare exception in the industry.
For most authors writing is a second job, rather than their main one.
I think Julian Bellmont (trained at Aldermaston) is undervalued, and I note that he's since moved to a job in education, presumably because he couldn't make a living just through pottery.

I'm not really sure about this undervalued thing , just because someone makes nice pots doesn't make it a right that they should have a living out of it , maybe making just nice pots could be their problem , maybe if they left the safety net of the norm they might do better , there are thousands worldwide who do make a living and quite rightly so there are many good ones who for them it's a sort of hobby , like many sportsmen and women , secondary jobs are needed , people see golfers raking in millions at the top , but the truth is even the pros barely scrape by on tour , some making a loss , what separates succesful potters from ok potters is a few points , the subject of their work , how innovative it is , how high their profile is made ( i don't just mean having a pot in the V&A) or doing the circus tour of fairs , you have to make the public /collectors really desire the work not just like , like is good but that's all it is imo.

Problems being,that the audience for Studio Pottery is that much smaller than 'Art' in general.The word miniscule comes to mind.
It always strikes me when visiting the V&A studio pottery galleries just how Very quiet they are. Even on a Saturday.
Visit the Tate Bankside,and it is nearly always heaving.

I remember back not so long ago when it appears that Lucie Rie's work was undervalued.

For many years I would say that it can't keep going up in price like this, as there is so much around and it isn't that special.

How much more than 100% wrong I was.

But there is more involved than just the work , their associations , their history , background , the movement ,if relevant , their character all manner of things in their make up contribute to their fame & fortune , something has to happen to make them stand out from the crowd of wannabees.

studio-pots wrote:I remember back not so long ago when it appears that Lucie Rie's work was undervalued.

For many years I would say that it can't keep going up in price like this, as there is so much around and it isn't that special.

How much more than 100% wrong I was.

When a potter/pottery is deemed 'collectable' it becomes rarer because people hold onto it, so pushing the price up. Same with house prices.