Re: Studio Pottery Tea Light Holder Marked NP?

by **climberg64** Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:38 pm

Nancy Pickard? Apparently she makes hand built cut slabwork. So could be her.

by **climberg64** Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:43 pm

Though a quick google search suggests her work is quite different, so.... Shrugs

by **Potty** Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:44 pm

Nancy Pickard was the closest mark I could find, but her works (these days at least) is worlds apart from this Shrugs

Thanks for the reply :)

by **climberg64** Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:45 pm

Snap

by **Potty** Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:46 pm

We replied at the same time Laughter

Yeah, looks at lot different and the mark is missing the dashes, so I guess we can rule her out.

by **Potty** Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:46 pm

And again, but you always beat me to it... just Most Excellent

by **climberg64** Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:49 pm

Not that time... Laughter

by **dantheman** Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:02 am

I think it looks like N B

http://www.ceramics-aberystwyth.com/norah-braden.html

dunno if it's by Norah but her work is worth looking at anyway

by **Potty** Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:17 am

Cheers Dan,

Having had a good look at the mark I think you are right about it being NB (looked to me like a cross between NP and NR, because the glaze was covering part of the B)

Having looked at this ebay item: 130548750433 I would say the mark is the same, the clay used also looks the same, as does the finish to the base.

So it could well be by her, assuming the pot on ebay is. . but I'm not too sure if it is?

Hopefully SP will be know Excellent

by **studio-pots** Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:00 pm

Are you sure you want to hear what the "bringer of bad news" has to say!

Dan is right that Norah Braden's work is worth looking at but you are very unlikely to come across a piece as she never made anything after 1945 or thereabouts. Her work is very much in the Anglo-Oriental tradition.

I think that your piece could well have been made by the same person that made ebay item 130548750433 but, whoever that person is, it is not Norah Braden. Norah Braden's mark has the N and B joined i.e. the last upright of the N forms the upright of the B.

I can't help on a positive id though - sorry.

by **big ed** Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:20 pm

I still think it says NP the P probably for pottery .

by **Potty** Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:22 pm

Thats fine SP Happy

I had my doubts about the ebay item and did not get my hopes up too early.

I think it is the same maker at the ebay listing, I would think a good'ish local potter who has yet to make it into Yates-Owen.

I bought it because I like it(actually looks a lot better in person) and even the wife liked it Big Shock

Thanks all for the help.

Potty.

by **studio-pots** Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:38 pm

As far as the Yates-Owen book is concerned though, you don't even have to be a goodish local potter to be included. The only criteria is that you saw one of the ads/ write-ups calling for potters to send in their marks and details.

If I had the nerve I could have sent in my details and I most certainly would not include any word like good when describing the pots I've made!

by **big ed** Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:47 pm

True up to a point John , though I doubt Bernard Leach or Hans Coper answered the AD Laughter

by **studio-pots** Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:06 pm

big ed wrote:True up to a point John , though I doubt Bernard Leach or Hans Coper answered the AD

Fournier & Yates-Owen started out with the Geoffrey Godden archive, which he had collected during the 1960s/70s when his publishers wanted him to produce a book about studio pottery but then backed out, plus the V&A collection and details from the Craft Potters Association lists but not much else other than the odd other potter they knew. Therfore the majority of marks and details were supplied by potters who responded to their call for entries - there was absolutely no vetting. It is always nice to know who made a pot but finding a mark in that book doesn't mean that the potter is important or even any good and it doesn't mean that all potters who are not in the book are no good.

by **dantheman** Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:18 pm

that does explain a few names that I spotted in the book,one particular potter has only sold a couple of dozen poor quality pots
(I own 2 of them) Embarrassed

by **big ed** Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:24 pm

That's interesting , I never thought for a minute that they were all good , far from it .

by **Davee** Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:42 pm

big ed wrote:That's interesting , I never thought for a minute that they were all good , far from it .

Me neither Ed, but there are people who think that way, I know that when i'm selling people will often ask if the potter of a piece is 'in the book' and a 'yes' will more often than not result in a sale. Its a confidence thing, people like to be reassured that they are spending their money on a known potter.

by **Potty** Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:04 pm

I don't think all of the potters in the book would be considered "good", but assumed that in later additions they would try to include most of the ones who are good'ish.

Did not realize just anyone could be in it, but assume they try to source info on the better potters that would not write in/not able write in?

I think it's a great book, but a mark alone means very little.

Sorry for the confusion, I do get a bit general/vague on times.

Potty.

by Sponsored content