Leach St Ives Studio Pottery lugged vase but who could be CW or MC mark?

Good evening Naomi,
In this instance I will have to disagree. I do respect your opinion but I haven’t gone down any rabbit holes.

The closest in shape I’ve seen so far was from Pugmill but I have a couple of Shigeyoshi’s pots and his mark is not the same.

I can’t see how you can say that the mark is definitely not the same given there are no marks to compare it with when he was at Leach.

I have looked at Michael Cartwright and you seem to be able to accept that his known marks which are an eternity away from my mark could still be him because the marks in BISPM may be incomplete.
I find the logic in those two assertions difficult to reconcile, if the argument is good enough for Cartwright surely it is good enough for Whiting.
Regarding Cartwright’s work I am struggling to find anything to compare with my pot save for Studio’s tea pot in the Marion Whybrow book. The rest of his work on the internet is light years away from mine in terms of form. I always respect the views /opinions / assistance given but I have to be honest!
Kind regards
Neil62

Neil where did you get the information that Geoffrey Whiting worked at Leach St Ives in 1949? Everyone seems to say he visited numerous times, but never worked there consistently.

philpot wrote:Neil where did you get the information that Geoffrey Whiting worked at Leach St Ives in 1949?  Everyone seems to say he visited numerous times, but never worked there consistently.
           
             

From Mike’s pots website I think, though it does say in the BISPM that he ‘visited’ Leach pottery in 1949 - presumably when he visited he would have made some pottery. I know of lots of potters who ‘visited’ the Leach pottery and produced work but they don’t ‘work’ there per se. That still happens to this day. Can’t remember who ‘visited’ last year think it was Jeff Oestrich.

Thanks Neil.
I think the main problem is that the Leach style is so ubiquitous. Actually dating a individual Leach type pot that does not have decipherable marks or any glaze or other variations, is very difficult. You end up with a list of 'may be's'.

philpot wrote:Thanks Neil.
I think the main problem is that the Leach style is so ubiquitous. Actually dating an individual Leach type pot that does not have decipherable marks or  any glaze or other variations, is very difficult. You end up with a list of 'may be's'.

Hi Philpot,

I totally understand and appreciate that…… I have a few of them myself and whilst it would obviously assist in identifying the potter the date of production is a secondary consideration - totally accepting of course that a date, even an approximate date, would significantly narrow the field of may be’s down.
No my focus is the mark and if it can’t be identified that’s that but it was a pot produced by someone whilst at the Leach and there is a makers mark which although not perfect is at least readable. There are some very knowledgeable people who engage on this forum and whilst I accept the ubiquitous nature of Leach pottery I would assert that the lugs are not of that nature and unless someone can say I’ve seen them before lots of times …….which would be marvellous then I would submit that this pot is not ubiquitous in nature.
Given the amount of years engaged in collecting / selling studio pottery (accepting not all Leach) collectively by contributors of this forum the fact that no one has remarked about the lugs other than Pugmill must be significant.
Kind regards & thanks for your input.
Neil62