Marei

2007
WEST GERMANY
12

White clay

1921
The company "Fuss & Emons" was founded 1921 by Jean Fuss and Josef Emons.
Makus has the precise date Feb. 17, 1921


1932 production of flower pots and "Kunsttöpferei" (art pottery)

1937 production of unglazed terracotta with "Dek. Zellulose Spritzdekore",
flower and cactus pots, bowls etc, staff "60-90".

Sources:
adressbook of the Leipzig fair, fall 1932
adressbooks of the ceramic industry 1937, 1941
Horst Makus, Keramik der 50er Jahre, p.448

No marks known. For that reason the company does not appear
in the MarkenLexikon 1885-1935 by Dieter Zühlsdorff.




.

1948
Jean Fuss & Sohn, Majolikafabrik Rheinbach (Marei)

Fuss and Emons separated in 1948.
The company was re-named to
Jean Fuss and Sohn when the only son
joined the company. He died 3 years later by accident.

Member "Marei" wrote something about baseless information.
He has other data. According to Mr. "Marei" the company
Jean Fuss und Söhne (sic !) was founded in 1929 (sic !)
Marei, do you mind sharing your sources with us ?



1971 The company looked back to "50 years of success".

Marei produced mainly flower pots then, "6000 Übertöpfe (flower pots)" a day in 1970. (acc. to Pertz)

I´m afraid member "Marei" "re-worded" (Potty) this source a bit, "Übertöpfe" (flower pots) became "pieces", "1970" was changed to "70´s" .
"Marei" wrote in his
blog: "Marei built an automated production line in the 70's producing 6000 pieces a day"

If we are wrong, we would like to see your source, "Marei".
Otherwise we must assume that you have no printed source at all proving that Marei produced vases, bowls etc. in the 70s, except of the sources we were
(un)willing to share.

Btw, real figures are much higher. Marei produced 9000 pieces a day in 1971
and 250,000 pieces a month in 1975.


Marei rebadged by Roth ?
Member "Marei" wrote: " It must be assumed that Roth Keramik rebadged Marei Keramik’s work for resale (as was common at the time Gerlach, Riffarth etc…)"
It must not. We got first-hand information saying that
there weren´t any ties between Marei and Roth. However, we read there were many pieces on the list attr. to Marei --- today that can be found with Roth labels on them.
We know only 1 (one) Marei piece with a Roth sticker and would like to see more.
And we still remember that a piece with a Marei sticker was allegedly a
rebadged Roth, just a couple of weeks ago.



2012 The company still exists today.










T

form series
2000 series, vases and wall plates, traceable 1958 and ca.1962
3000 series, vases, traceable, ca.1962
4000 series, vases, bowls, jugs & handled vases, traceable 1964 onwards
5000 series ?
6000 series ?
7000 & 8000 series traceable 1971
9000 series, traceable 1970, 1971, 1975
1000 series 1.generation, polygonal shapes, traceable 1971
2000 series chimney vases but not only, traceable 1972
1000 series 2.generation, traceable 1974

post 1975
series 1000 vases only (!), traceable 1981
series 3000 jugs and handled vases only (!)



NB The word "traceable" refers to mostly dated printed evidence. "traceable 1971" doesn´t mean necessarily, that the form series was started in 1971
and, of course, it doesn´t mean that the series was produced in 1971
only. Dear native speaker ! Please tell us if you know equivalent
synonyms or a better word than "traceable".

form series 2000, vases, Makus has numbers 2001 - 2005, 1958,
vase 2007 traceable ca.1962

cf. vase 2024, h 24 cm
MADE IN / WEST-GERMANY

Marei 4000 series
4100 = vases
4200 = bowls
4300 = jugs / handled vases

1964, 1965 4000 series with handpainted under glaze decoration "Brühl"

Rothgate, the Roth / Marei case

1967 4000 series with fat lava glazes "Capri", "Vulcano" ...

Roth Keramik was founded Nov. 1969, registered in 1970

Conclusion, Marei produced real fat lava glazes years before Roth was even founded.




fat lava glaze Capri, clockwise flowerpot 11, vase 4110, jug 4300, bowl 4311,
handled vase 4302, illustration 1967

cf. 4302 / Capri

Very interesting.
Thanks Volker.

1971 decor "Brügge" (Bruges)
description in English "fully painted blue reliefs on matt white glaze"




L-R : jug 7300, bowl 4211, jug 106, bowl 4206, jug 3500, vase 50

The raised arabesques were made with glaze strings, no slip,
cf. 4306/Brügge




Rothgate
We haven´t found any decorator marks like this on true Roths.
To our knowledge Roth never had a painting department.

1971 form series 1000, 1st generation, decor "Narvik lilac", 1971
quote from the English description "smooth matt lilac glaze; top part with foam effect and white and yellow diffusion"







flower pot 12/4
MADE IN GERMANY

In the literature on WGP we found Vase 1305 (?) with the same glaze, simply saying Roth. cf. Mark Hill, Fat Lava, ed.2012, p.23.


Rothgate
Form 12 is already traceable about 1962, still in production post 1975
with different markings on base though.

To our knowledge origin marks MADE IN / WEST-GERMANY, MADE IN GERMANY, MADE IN W.GERMANY were never found on true Roths with stickers.

1972 2000-2006 chimney vases, 2010 little dish, poss. a toy, traceable 1972

1974 series 1000, 2nd generation with decors "Bergen" and "Sudan", traceable 1974

The large vase on the left was handmade coil built .

I have a beautiful version of form 4302, decorated with a thick orange-red lavalayer over a burnt matt black glaze that covers the whole vase.
Is that color documented and has it been dated?
Is it likely to be late 60s like the blue 'Capri' or later?
Thanks
G.

Gérard wrote:I have a beautiful version of form 4302, decorated with a thick orange-red lavalayer over a burnt matt black glaze that covers the whole vase.
Is that color documented and has it been dated?
Is it likely to be late 60s like the blue 'Capri' or later?
Thanks
G.

"Is that color documented and has it been dated?"

The undocumented glaze may be dated ca.1967 (1966/1970)

The orange glaze mostly on vases and jugs of the 4000 range, cf. 4306


cf. 4305 with glaze "Lava", documented 1967



cf. 4302 with glaze "Capri", documented 1967.

Thanks a bunch

As a newcomer, it seems to me that taking a closer look at the pots themselves , and describing what we see more specifically and in greater details (instead of exclaming 'stunning!' at every turn, as some collectors do); and attempting to imagine the technical steps (and the processes, if we can), as well as the aesthetic choices which led to those luscious lava glazes, could help us make our attributions on the basis of — and with the help of — what is there (for all to see!).
It would also greatly enhance our appreciation and enjoyment of the works.
Before I found out about the recent Marei reattributions, from Ralf and Volker, I was wondering how Roth could have produced the thick, rich glazes now attributed to Marei and, at the same time, the 'nice', decorative, but formulaic glazes (still credited to Roth), which consist of a thin, regular, shiny, red, orange or yellow glaze, overlayered with streaks of thick, matt, pumice-like greyish black glaze running on the neck.
I am grateful for the productive research work which has given an exciting range of glazes an identity — Marei. This reminds me that, from a visual point of view, this identity was always there for all of us to see (even without the right name attached to it), had we taken the trouble to look a little closer, more carefully, at the 'materiality' of the works; rather than by relying somewhat lazzily on faulty attribution to frame our perception.
Like the Japanese tea masters of old, we could go in search of pots which have something special, like some glaze effects accidentally produced during firing, irrespective of who made them; concentrating on their 'materiality'.
In the process we may refine our perception and our aesthetic sense.
Serious, thoroughly documented historical research — of the type currently undertaken by Ralf and Volker around Marei — and sharing the information we have with them, will complement and enhance this work and lift the appreciation of WGP to new heights.
I look forward to the publication of a serious book/s about Marei, in which the works would be systematically catalogued, and placed in their historical context, with the help of contemporary documents (trade catalogues and adds, articles, interviews with people who were directly involved, etc.), and its aesthetic significance discussed in a mature way.

I understand and appreciate your message.....look at the pieces closer and the attributions will become clear.....thoroughly researched books should be written and sold to those that can afford them......what a load of elitist horse hockey...complete and utter shit.

"instead of exclaiming 'stunning' at every turn as some collectors do"........how condescending....sort of discounts the time, energy and money that countless collectors put into finding and posting thousands of pieces of pottery .....creating a priceless, open to all resource such as this forum and others. These collectors you hold so low are the main customers for any book on the subject and drive the price of these pieces that you find at fleamarkets for a Euro or two. Besides, sometimes the word "stunning" says it all and it becomes the start of an excellent conversation about pottery.

Dear Ralf and Volker....party on and good luck with that book of yours.....but when it really comes down to spending my pottery money on a piece of Ceramano or your book......I will pick the piece of pottery every day. I don't have the money to take this passion of mine into buying books....I must rely on the kindness of others that post their pottery and resources for free. Guess I am not among the elite.

My hat is off to the collectors that got the ball rolling....that brought awareness to WGP and gave it an Internet presence. I forgive them for making a few wrong turns. It is in my nature to forgive.......hope you can find the character to forgive them too.

Please note Bistoboy: no fairies were killed in the writing of this post.

Hey moderators.....feel free to cancel my membership on this forum. I'm ready.

Rothgate .......my ass.....what are you? Conspiracy theorists?

Kincardine, thanks for the spot on your thoughts. I know that a lot of people may think like that. I don't. But please note: What Gérard means is when people post their pottery asking to be ID'd, then they should look closer, not easily referring to a book, take one of the possible form numbers mentioned and believe it. They should think about it and then they will find out (maybe) if it fits or not. Elite? I don't think so. Thinking is not for an Elite. And it's for free. See, Gérards Blog about Pottery Conversations is FREE. The little book about Marei will be a low-cost project, NOT being sold at a high price (just to cover the costs) as I know that collectors rather spend their money on pieces, not on books. But if there are books, then they should be reseached properly. Hm, maybe "stunning" is what I'm thinking of some pieces, too. But collectors ask for a company and a year to know what they got. Of course I'm thankful for collectors posting their pieces so I can see them. But I'd like to help, too, and have you ever thought how much time and money the reseachers like Volker spend to help other collectors? Isn't it worth to keep that going?

And Rothgate..conspiracy theorists? Hm. No. But you don't seem to know what happened before the Marei re-attribution finally happened. How many people were putting Volker down, laughing at him, deleted his messages, trying to keep his searching results away from the public eye. Maybe not conspiracy by full purpose (or..?) but what really happened as a fact can be described as something like that.

But Gérard also suggested to look at pottery in a different way, to look closer at what we got. And it can be a lot of fun, discussing pottery in a little different way and judging it by the quality, the material, the glaze, not only by the company name and the price collector's are willing to pay for it.

Ralf

Kincardine wrote:......what a load of elitist horse hockey...complete and utter shit.

Please note Bistoboy: no fairies were killed in the writing of this post.

Hey moderators.....feel free to cancel my membership on this forum. I'm ready.

No need to be rude K we already did a debate on this matter. Also no need to cancel your membership, just don't sign on anymore if you don't like the forum. I hope you decide to stay.

xx

Taking the trouble to offer constructive comments; to invite discussion along different lines does not warrant rudeness.
Recommending 'closer looking' as a way of compensating for lazzily relying on names, is not elitist; it is simply asking to use our eyes and minds.
I advise our rude member closer reading, too, instead of using my comments as a pretext to vent his prejudices and, in so doing, sadly, defuse the debate.
Applying the word 'stunning' to everything is not helping anyone, either; I am sorry if you don't like it.
Debating requires listening, thinking, then reacting positively; i.e. with some consideration; and offering insights. It is also about extending the field for the common good;
not about being self-assertive, offensive in immature and vulgar form.
My final word is that you have no right to be rude and vulgar!
I/we welcome your insights, however, if you have any; but do leave your vulgarity at home…

Welcome to the forum Gerard,
I'm pleased to find someone who wants to talk about the process rather than skirting over pieces with just a few superlatives:happy11: 

Form 2003

Tall Marei jug, No. 7304