Hans Coper

But ' Personal Taste' is exactly that. Personal. If this site is to truly reflect 20th century pottery, how the heck can we almost completely ignore a large number of the major practitioners of the 20th century just because we personally do not like them? Most of the market leaders are almost completely absent from this site.

I'm just a poor pensioner Gov'. I can't stretch to a Coper or a Rie

That is what Museums are for Dan. To give is 'ere Hoi Polloi a chance to see what are Rich Masters decorate their mansions with!

philpot wrote:But ' Personal Taste' is exactly that. Personal. If this site is to truly reflect 20th century pottery, how the heck can we almost completely ignore a large number of the major practitioners of the 20th century just because we personally  do not like them?   Most of the market leaders are almost completely absent from this site.
                 
           

I never suggested that they should be ignored and adding the images that you have done during your visit to the Fitzwilliam yesterday is much appreciated by me and certainly adds to the depth of information this site contains. However, you have added images of finer examples Coper pots before this that I would been inclined to keep. My comments were that in my opinion this collection showed that Coper made some pretty mediocre pots too, which I am happy for anyone to agree or disagree with.

philpot wrote:That is what Museums are for Dan. To give is 'ere Hoi Polloi a chance to see what are Rich Masters decorate their mansions with!

The reason that John Shakeshaft began to donate pots to the Fitzwilliam was that he was unhappy with many of the ceramic items that were being donated at the time. He considered many of these were ceramic artists that were not really collected but were lauded by the influencers. To address this, he contacted the Fitzwilliam to ask if they would accept pots that he would commission from potters that he liked to add to their collection. This they agreed to and was his way of trying to address what was happening there.


Although John had been a Cambridge don, he wasn't a rich man but spent money on pots rather than other things and was a true collector.

The Fitzwilliam were choosy what they took from his collection tho. A substantial part of it ended it in huge uncatalogued multi-lots in Wooley and Wallis.
Although on the other hand, his bequest is well acknowledged in notices in the ceramics department in the Fitzwilliam.

Personally, I would get far more daily delight and enjoyment from x10 £500 pots than from one for £5000

philpot wrote:The Fitzwilliam were choosy what they took from his collection tho. A substantial part of it ended it in huge uncatalogued multi-lots in Wooley and Wallis.
Although on the other hand, his bequest is well acknowledged in notices in the ceramics department in the Fitzwilliam.

I understand that they kept an example of at least one piece of work by every potter in his collection, or at least that is what was agreed with John when he made the bequest. Also I expect they kept all of the Copers and Ries.


The other part of the agreement was to sell the rest to get funds for the Museum but I do think that they could have raised more money from it. For example, they could have tried to get say, Cheffins, the Cambridge auctioneers, to hold a specific sale of the John Shakeshaft Collection.

In particular the Copers from the Sainsbury collection in Norwich are the creme de la crème. They were major benefactors of Hans Coper, and were extremely important collectors of his work, with a personal relationship with Coper and Rie more akin to patrons than customers. It clearly shows.

Probably the height of Hans Coper's career are the magnificent 6 foot candle holders commissioned in 1962 for the Basil Spence modernist Cathedral in Coventry. This was a very important building indeed. Much of Coventry City Centre, including its Cathedral had been destroyed or very badly damaged in World War 2. The building of a brand new Cathedral on very modernist lines, was a huge statement of post-war spiritual and societal renewal. This was a Huge commission for Coper, and did much to cement his reputation.
The accompanying link is a Pinterest Google image of them.
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/207165651589663259/visual-search/?x=16&y=16&w=530&h=671

it's a stunningly beautiful building, well worth visiting even if it didn't have the candle holders

An interesting link on the V&A website. From Design magazine, Tony Birks on a major exhibition of Hans Coper's work circa 1970.
https://vads.ac.uk/diad/article.php?title=247&article=d.247.31

A link to Interpreting Ceramics which gives a detailed account of the Coventry Cathedral commission, and of 3 others in the early 60's. Well worth a read.
http://www.interpretingceramics.com/issue014/articles/05.htm

A Hans Coper plate fron 1952, which would have been quite early in his career. From the Tony Hepburn collection in the Sainsbury Centre Norwich.

A large spade from in the Hepworth Gallery Wakefield. These do have a certain majesty aboutthem.

Tastes change. In 100 years Sydenham and Wallwork will be at the top of everyone's list and Rie and Coper will be meh.

You will have your little jokes Crawford

Go and look at the art market - paintings that sold for vast sums in 1900 are now just meh, a string of pearls was worth a stately mansion, not now. Who is to say that 3d printing is so good that they can't tell originals from copies. I will change my statement to tastes will change. That is certain.

On t'other hand, take the pre-Raphaelite paintings that were largely ignored and disparaged for a good part of the 20th Century. They came back into fashions in the late 60's early 70's. Andrew Lloyd Webber bought lot of them cheap, which are now worth £millions.
         Or William De Morgan and the Martin Bros. Deeply unfashionable for many years. Now riding a new crest of interest.

3d printing can only be classed as reproduction no matter how good, many items become unfashionable that's only natural but the best will always be seen in high regard and sought after , take Victorian landscapes completely out of fashion but pieces by the best artists are still sought after by collectors .The case for Pre-Raphaelite art is slightly different, with the coming of the new century together with two world wars and massive recession, people wanted change and embraced the new art , much of late Victorian art was massive and people were no longer living in stately homes .A lot of Pre-Raphaelite art is superb in execution and is now rightly appreciated, still unfashionable in the average modern home but amazing as works of art and as Philpot says selling for fortunes.

https://www.phillips.com/artist/1239/hans-coper

A link to 10 Hans Coper pieces in the Phillips Design sale on November 2. Interesting that most of the collection seems to be have been bought at auction around 2005/2006 given a couple of of years. They were not cheap then! So I wonder how prices will compare? You need to scroll down to see the Coper's, and it also brings you to the auction itself. The auction has a smattering of other significant potters and a lot of design items.

Looks an excellent sale and it will be interesting to see how the large Akiko pieces fare, it's interesting to see so many Coper pieces still available in the marketplace, i think many collectors thought the Driscoll collection was the last chance to acquire such pieces, also an excellent sale for design enthusiasts.

The people that were buying Copers back in 2005/6 were generally people that were older than me at the time. It's this age group that are dying or downsizing and are responsible for many of the studio pots that are coming onto the market. Five years after that Coper prices had fallen and were flat - I know as I turned down the opportunity of buying a couple.

Interestingly most of those were bought in a few Bonhams sales in 2006. That would be probably at nearly their highest price point. Before of course it all came crashing down in 2008.