Taylor, Tunnicliff & Co plate

Hi all,

I have a plate that on first viewing seems to be a Taylor, Tunnicliff & Co Willow Pattern plate.



But the mark on the back doesn't seem quite right.

Every mark I've seen has the crown as if you are looking up at the king or queen like this:



(I guess that is required to be able to call your china "royal" or "crown" - some subtle attempt at indoctrination).

But THIS mark has you looking DOWN on the king or queen:



I can't imagine anyone faking it (it is not THAT valuable), but maybe a revolutioner among the employees?

Has anyone seen anything like this?

Thanks

Markus

The standard Reference work for British pottery is The Encyclopedia of British Porcelain and Pottery Marks by Geoffrey A Godden. This lists four printed pictorial marks  for this pottery all of which are different.It also states
'Distinguishing details of  several printed marks of differing design:name of the individual pattern is often included c 1868-80'
            In practical terms they produced in the heyday of the Staffordshire pottery industry, when it was huge. Firms came and went, merged and marks were not of huge importance. Especially so in mass produced utilitarian ware of which this would be one

Thanks for the reply but I respectfully disagree on some of the things you wrote:

philpot wrote:The standard Reference work for British pottery is The Encyclopedia of British Porcelain and Pottery Marks by Geoffrey A Godden. This lists four printed pictorial marks  for this pottery all of which are different.

Marks changed over time, usually signifying important events in a manufacturer's history (eg son taking over or being sold or getting royal approval or entering the US market which requires a reg number etc).

The benefit for us is that this allows a rough determination of when something was produced.

Naturally the encyclopedia would show the different marks being used - it would be pretty nonsensical to show four identical marks.

Firms came and went, merged and marks were not of huge importance. Especially so in mass produced utilitarian ware of which this would be one

That I VERY much disagree with. Royal approval was important (it was the equivalent of an endorsement today and considered a mark of quality) and could make a massive difference to their sales, and it cost a pretty penny to obtain it. So these marks WERE important - you could not simply put a crown on your china or pottery as that would be fraud.

You have a genuine Taylor Tunnicliffe 19thC plate. end of story.

Many stoke potteries used the royal crown or mark to enhance their own image. Without permission!
Back then, Staffs pottery was a Vast ,haphazard industry with little or no checks on it whatsoever. It produced tens of millions of pieces of pottery a year. It was sort of a wild place, chaotic and vast. The crown would have little control-or even interest- in trying to control its use of marks.
You are making the mistake of applying today's standards to Victorian times. Things were completely different then.
As Denby says. You have a nice piece of Tunnicliffe pottery.

http://www.thepotteries.org/mark/arms/english.htm

Reading your post again, I think you are confusing the process of Royal Warrant with the widespread use of the use of the name Royal name and Crown mark.
Royal warrants are a very specialised item. They enable a firm to use the term appointed by the King/Queen to supply the crown. It also enables them to use the use the royal cipher. This being a complicated mark with the Lions rampant around a shield with numerous other details. There were 2000 in Victorian times. About 800 today,