Discussion split from Unmarked Studio Pottery Teapot

studio-pots wrote:I would go with philpot's call. Made in the UK in the 1970s when stoneware pottery like this was fashionable and for a few years many people could make a decent living out of making functional pots.

My brother in law, who trained as a fine artist but then came upon pottery at Goldsmiths College when studying for a post-graduate teaching diploma, was one of them.

Cool beans. And thanks for sharing about your brother
Did he sign his pots?

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:

studio-pots wrote:

The decoration/markings have nothing whatsoever to do with any part of Africa.

There are 2 animals depicted on the sides, you might not be able to see from the photos,
I don't think you need to deprive me in considering that style Tribal/African Ford goodness sakes.  

I am here to deprive you.

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:

studio-pots wrote:I would go with philpot's call. Made in the UK in the 1970s when stoneware pottery like this was fashionable and for a few years many people could make a decent living out of making functional pots.

My brother in law, who trained as a fine artist but then came upon pottery at Goldsmiths College when studying for a post-graduate teaching diploma, was one of them.

Cool beans. And thanks for sharing about your brother
Did he sign his pots?

My brother in law did signed his work but I don't know what it was like i.e. signature or impressed seal but his initials are GM.

Later he worked at the Holkham Pottery for a while and because is was good at throwing, part of it consisted of throwing pots for visitors as an attraction.

studio-pots wrote:

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:

studio-pots wrote:

The decoration/markings have nothing whatsoever to do with any part of Africa.

There are 2 animals depicted on the sides, you might not be able to see from the photos,
I don't think you need to deprive me in considering that style Tribal/African Ford goodness sakes.  

I am here to deprive you.

(I should have said begrudge), but OK if you do the depriving then Potty can do begrudgement.

studio-pots wrote:

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:

studio-pots wrote:I would go with philpot's call. Made in the UK in the 1970s when stoneware pottery like this was fashionable and for a few years many people could make a decent living out of making functional pots.

My brother in law, who trained as a fine artist but then came upon pottery at Goldsmiths College when studying for a post-graduate teaching diploma, was one of them.

Cool beans. And thanks for sharing about your brother
Did he sign his pots?

My brother in law did signed his work but I don't know what it was like i.e. signature or impressed seal but his initials are GM.

Later he worked at the Holkham Pottery for a while and because is was good at throwing, part of it consisted of throwing pots for visitors as an attraction.

Ah o.k very nice, the G.M seems a very popular set of initials.
So, he wasn't prolific enough to be appear on BISPM?
I'm guessing there wasn't much call for individual potters to sign their work at Holkham?

But anyway, what a nice part of the country to ply his trade.

The reality is that you didn't have to be prolific or any good at making pots to have your mark included in British Studio Pottery Marks. Before it was first published a call went out for any potter current or in the past to send in their information and mark(s). There was no weeding out of people, as the aim was for it to be as comprehensive a list as possible.

You often saw people trying to sell pots on eBay inferring that because a potter was included that their work was good and collectable, which was/is not necessarily the case.

studio-pots wrote:The reality is that you didn't have to be prolific or any good at making pots to have your mark included in British Studio Pottery Marks. Before it was first published a call went out for any potter current or in the past to send in their information and mark(s). There was no weeding out of people, as the aim was for it to be as comprehensive a list as possible.

You often saw people trying to sell pots on eBay inferring that because a potter was included that their work was good and collectable, which was/is not necessarily the case.

I see, I think that's what I was asking. That If you were semi decent and did have a mark...
wouldn't you more than likely appear on BISPM?
Seen as your brother sounded like a good potter, I was wondering why you weren't familiar with his mark?
Sorry I don't mean to ask you to explain, I understand there are infinate variables that go to determine the answer to that.
lol. I guessed that he didn't produce enough to warrant being referenced, as pose to lacking quality.

Bernado Duckworthy wrote: Potty can do begrudgement.

You are going to need to show us a pot I want before I can begrudge you.

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:I see, I think that's what I was asking. That If you were semi decent and did have a mark...
wouldn't you more than likely appear on BISPM?

More likely to appear yes, but being in BISPM means very little. In terms of value, even pots by decent known potters sell for very little on the secondary market.

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:

studio-pots wrote:The reality is that you didn't have to be prolific or any good at making pots to have your mark included in British Studio Pottery Marks. Before it was first published a call went out for any potter current or in the past to send in their information and mark(s). There was no weeding out of people, as the aim was for it to be as comprehensive a list as possible.

You often saw people trying to sell pots on eBay inferring that because a potter was included that their work was good and collectable, which was/is not necessarily the case.

I see, I think that's what I was asking. That If you were semi decent and did have a mark...
wouldn't you more than likely appear on BISPM?
Seen as your brother sounded like a good potter, I was wondering why you weren't familiar with his mark?
Sorry I don't mean to ask you to explain, I understand there are infinate variables that go to determine the answer to that.
lol. I guessed that he didn't produce enough to warrant being referenced, as pose to lacking quality.

My brother in law didn't become my brother in law until 20 years after he stopped potting but we did find a piece by him at a boot fair many years ago that was marked but I can't remember what happened to it (I think we might have given it to him).

In answer to your question, which is especially relevant to potters from the 1970s, their marks weren't collected anywhere at the time unless they were members of the CPA (Craft Potters' Association). Then when the call went out to be included in the first "Marks book" in the late 1990s many had moved on or died and so would have had no idea that a call for marks was taking place. It was also true of some quite important potters that were active in the late 1990s too.

studio-pots wrote:....Then when the call went out to be included in the first "Marks book" in the late 1990s many had moved on or died and so would have had no idea that a call for marks was taking place. It was also true of some quite important potters that were active in the late 1990s too.

Second Marks book (publ 1999). The first was published in the early 70s and many potters started and died or retired or moved abroad between the 1st and 2nd editions. Similarly, many had retired or died before the 3rd edn was published in 2015. They didn't include many of those. Over 1500 additional potters have been added to the BISPM website which currently has over 6200 potters and over 16,000 marks

I don't remember a Marks book from before 1999, except for the , usually biannual, ones of CPA Members with marks, an image and description etc.

Potty wrote:

Bernado Duckworthy wrote: Potty can do begrudgement.

You are going to need to show us a pot I want before I can begrudge you.  

Yep sorry, to 'deprive' me of my reasoning was more accurate.
I shall aim to have you Begrudge me ownership of at least one of my pots, mark my words.

studio-pots wrote:I don't remember a Marks book from before 1999, except for the , usually biannual, ones of CPA Members with marks, an image and description etc.

Ah, my apologies. I knew there were 3 editions but mistakenly thought the first edition was published in the 70s and 2nd edn in 1999, seems the 2nd edn was published around 2005

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:
I shall aim to have you Begrudge me ownership of at least one of my pots, mark my words.

I'm a fussy old man these days... Loads of things I am interested in learning about, but not much I actually want to own.

P.S. The CPA books are great in my opinion, they have been much more use/interest to me than BISPM.

philpot wrote:Abuja was a Nigerian pottery. I doubt if they made many tea pots

Sorry Philpot, just for the record.. there's a number teapots made at Abuja, by Ladi Kwali and others.

studio-pots wrote:

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:

studio-pots wrote:The reality is that you didn't have to be prolific or any good at making pots to have your mark included in British Studio Pottery Marks. Before it was first published a call went out for any potter current or in the past to send in their information and mark(s). There was no weeding out of people, as the aim was for it to be as comprehensive a list as possible.

You often saw people trying to sell pots on eBay inferring that because a potter was included that their work was good and collectable, which was/is not necessarily the case.

I see, I think that's what I was asking. That If you were semi decent and did have a mark...
wouldn't you more than likely appear on BISPM?
Seen as your brother sounded like a good potter, I was wondering why you weren't familiar with his mark?
Sorry I don't mean to ask you to explain, I understand there are infinate variables that go to determine the answer to that.
lol. I guessed that he didn't produce enough to warrant being referenced, as pose to lacking quality.

My brother in law didn't become my brother in law until 20 years after he stopped potting but we did find a piece by him at a boot fair many years ago that was marked but I can't remember what happened to it (I think we might have given it to him).

In answer to your question, which is especially relevant to potters from the 1970s, their marks weren't collected anywhere at the time unless they were members of the CPA (Craft Potters' Association). Then when the call went out to be included in the first "Marks book" in the late 1990s many had moved on or died and so would have had no idea that a call for marks was taking place. It was also true of some quite important potters that were active in the late 1990s too.

Thanks for that. That is Very interesting.
Can I ask, I'm wondering how much work has this forum done to revive the legacy of some of those old potters?
(that haven't been previolsy recorded elsewhere..)

Potty wrote:

Bernado Duckworthy wrote: Potty can do begrudgement.

You are going to need to show us a pot I want before I can begrudge you.  

Yep sorry, to 'deprive' me of my reasoning was more accurate.
I shall aim to have you Begrudge me ownership of at least one of my pots, mark my words.

Potty wrote:
I'm a fussy old man these days... Loads of things I am interested in learning about, but not much I actually want to own.

Sheesh.

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:

Thanks for that. That is Very interesting.
Can I ask, I'm wondering how much work has this forum done to revive the legacy of some of those old potters?
(that haven't been previously recorded elsewhere..)

Although the Forum wasn't set up to just look at studio pottery it does appear to have concentrated on that over the years, as the active membership has changed and/or perhaps their interests have change too.

The Forum can only do so much but Naomi does far more than anyone else here and more than anyone else I know. However, it is really important for all members to share accurate information if they come across it, if their aim is to make this Forum a place where people come for information that isn't available elsewhere. We often get visits from relatives of former, long forgotten potters, that add information and, as far as I am aware, there is no other place where they are able to do this and make it accessible to all.

I have been interested in studio pottery for 35 years and have exhibited and dealt in it for 24 years. I have been a member of the Forum for over 12 years and stick around here because I want to record as much of what I know about studio pottery in one place and this, to my mind, seems the best place.

studio-pots wrote:

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:

Thanks for that. That is Very interesting.
Can I ask, I'm wondering how much work has this forum done to revive the legacy of some of those old potters?
(that haven't been previously recorded elsewhere..)

Although the Forum wasn't set up to just look at studio pottery it does appear to have concentrated on that over the years, as the active membership has changed and/or perhaps their interests have change too.

The Forum can only do so much but Naomi does far more than anyone else here and more than anyone else I know. However, it is really important for all members to share accurate information if they come across it, if their aim is to make this Forum a place where people come for information that isn't available elsewhere. We often get visits from relatives of former, long forgotten potters, that add information and, as far as I am aware, there is no other place where they are able to do this and make it accessible to all.

I have been interested in studio pottery for 35 years and have exhibited and dealt in it for 24 years. I have been a member of the Forum for over 12 years and stick around here because I want to record as much of what I know about studio pottery in one place and this, to my mind, seems the best place.

Studio, that is wonderful. It would really be a great part of the introudction to new members. I'm begining to see the importance of this place as a comprehensive and ever growing database.
The work you guys do is absolutely invaluble. I'l certainly do my best to adjust and contribute meaningfully, accurately and only if I have good information.