Wallwork?

this unmarked seed pod vase was sold on ebay,the listing said Alan Wallwork but I have not seen this glaze on other Wallwork pots?

Dan , I can't see any semblance to Wallwork at all , none , where's the markings etc.

that is what I thought,te seller has agreed a full refund including postage which says a lot

Oh well , fair enough I suppose

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/320798435777?ssPageName=STRK:MEDWX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1435.l2649

this sold for £55 which is cheap for Wallwork pieces but is it pucka?

Yup , it seems fine to me , a bit tatty but ok

At first glance the one that sold for around £55 looks like someone's attempt to fake a Wallwork but I think Ed is right and it is Alan experimenting, although not too successfully. I imagine that Alan thought the same, as I have never seen anything else like this by him, so I suspect he didn't repeat the exercise too often.

The seller lives in Marnhull where Alan had his studio for around 20 years from the mid 1960s and I know that the seller bought a large number of pieces from Alan over the years.

Having just written the above, I see that Alan emailed the seller before the end of the listing to say that he hadn't made it and to be fair the seller did add that to the bottom of his listing.

Oh I see that SP , i never noticed the footnote, ah well what do I know , I thought it might have been his , I kinda based it on the Marnhull thing as well

It did look wrong to me when I saw it, but I hardly know anything about the variety of Wallwork's work.

It is quite varied ,latest pieces are quite a bit different from earlier days working alongside Rooke .

so how can we tell if a piece is a fake? Any tips?

perhaps the seller would be willing to donate some pics of real Wallwork to the forum/new website?

dantheman wrote:so how can we tell if a piece is a fake? Any tips?

I guess it's like everything else , pottery/Glass Etc. try and see as many pieces as you can , there will always be doubts about stuff , I had what I would have sworn was a Wallwork , Alan agreed ,but seemed to remeber two sisters who worked for him at marnhull who did copy his style though marked them different.

It is always much harder to spot something that isn't right from images but my rule on the internet is never to believe anything that a seller tells you unless you believe it 100% yourself. Having said that I kind of broke that rule above with the "Wallwork" from Marnhull because I knew the seller has bought loads of work from Alan, including odd experimental bits.

However, if I had seen it on Ebay I wouldn't have considered buying it because it didn't meet the other criteria that I try and stick to - never buy anything that is damaged or is a poor example just because it was made by an important name.

studio-pots wrote:It is always much harder to spot something that isn't right from images but my rule on the internet is never to believe anything that a seller tells you unless you believe it 100% yourself. Having said that I kind of broke that rule above with the "Wallwork" from Marnhull because I knew the seller has bought loads of work from Alan, including odd experimental bits.

However, if I had seen it on Ebay I wouldn't have considered buying it because it didn't meet the other criteria that I try and stick to - never buy anything that is damaged or is a poor example just because it was made by an important name.

wise words and very good advise for those who are new to pottery collecting (and some who aren't)

It is very good advice , especially if you are keeping the item , on the other hand don't ignore damaged goods at fairs etc . if you are selling , I have bought whitefriars glass many times with the odd nibble here and there , advertised as such and doubled / trebled my money , same with wallwork etc buying to deal is different from buying to keep /collect , I think it's all relevant to how much you pay , theres a chipped wallwork on sale at the moment that would yeild a profit to the buyer .

You are right about damage ed but I can't stand having things with a smallest chip, unless it is early earthenware, so I very rarely buy pieces to sell that are damaged - only a couple of Lucie Rie pieces come to mind.

Not being a good salesman, I would just go on about the damage and ruin any chance of a sale.

So you wouldn't find me trying to sell an Alan Wallwork, as described below on Ebay.

"I am sure most of you know about this highly important potter. In the 1960s he was a major figure in the handbuilding movement. This is an excellent version of a typical and very popular form. It consists of a thick stoneware egg split to reveal a thin split porcelain egg inside.

Approx. 11cm - usual late incised AW - Excellent condition (ie - in my opinion, exactly as it left the kiln). The whole point of these pots is that they are broken - so to describe them as undamaged is meaningless - the inner porcelain egg is split (as it should be) and seems completely stable - the important bit is that it is fully attached (when they are loose it can be a problem) - the outer egg is split and has numerous other minor splits and holes (as it should be) - the edge of the split is rough and ragged (as it should be) - it seems completely stable and I can not see anything that looks like post-kiln damage - but it is, obviously, impossible to be 100% sure. If you are worried by this sort of thing, then it is not the pot for you. If you like Alan's approach then this is a really good example."

doesn't sound as it should be

he couldv'e saved a lot of longwinded blab and just said it's fekin' damaged , as it should be or not to be

Another thing some sellers describe a chip as a frit , a glaze miss , done when fired , a nibble a, a, fleabite , etc . it is difficult I know when you photograph it and it looks like the grand canyon and it's only pinhead size , Oh! the perils of Ebay

it's easy to see why you have been such a successful ebay seller Ed

100% feedback and no passes Yet

studio-pots wrote:So you wouldn't find me trying to sell an Alan Wallwork, as described below on Ebay.

"I am sure most of you know about this highly important potter. In the 1960s he was a major figure in the handbuilding movement. This is an excellent version of a typical and very popular form. It consists of a thick stoneware egg split to reveal a thin split porcelain egg inside.

Approx. 11cm - usual late incised AW - Excellent condition (ie - in my opinion, exactly as it left the kiln). The whole point of these pots is that they are broken - so to describe them as undamaged is meaningless - the inner porcelain egg is split (as it should be) and seems completely stable - the important bit is that it is fully attached (when they are loose it can be a problem) - the outer egg is split and has numerous other minor splits and holes (as it should be) - the edge of the split is rough and ragged (as it should be) - it seems completely stable and I can not see anything that looks like post-kiln damage - but it is, obviously, impossible to be 100% sure. If you are worried by this sort of thing, then it is not the pot for you. If you like Alan's approach then this is a really good example."

Having seen the AD , i am even more amazed when I saw who the seller was , i thought he would know better