Buying by Name

tenpot wrote:kiln space is important you can fire a lot of teapots but only a few large pots in a kiln

That is true to an extent, but at the sort of prices I'm talking about, I imagine it's nearly negatable?

its comparing the big with the small that Im on about its how paintings and sculptores are priced as well

Small has many advantages, storage transport postage etc. but you can't beat the majesty of a big piece in my opinion. And fewer get made so they are rarer.

Potty wrote:I'll pm you the names of the potters that in my opinion seem to price for size alone, as I don't think it's fair to post names, as it is a personal opinion after all.

It's not fair to keep us in suspense Potty, can you give us a clue?

Felicity Aylieff has made some amazing tall pots. Charlotte Hodes is one to look out for too.

In a way big is like a different art than small and it's like comparing apples and oranges. Some of my best pieces are three inches.

climberg64 wrote: Some of my best pieces are three inches.

I used to prize large pots but soon found it impossible to display a collection in my average sized house

Yes do Potty I/We value your opinions

The 2 potters I was thinking of are both very well known and I'd rather not "name them" as such, because I do rate them as potters.

I just don't understand why a massive simple pot would command over 10 times more than their own more intricate (I assume more time consuming) smaller pots.

climberg64 wrote:And fewer get made so they are rarer.

I agree, I imagine that is why people will pay it

I've always liked miniature art (for painting / carving / ceramics etc), so I'm sure to be a bit biased.

Tenpot is right about it being the same for art etc too.

I have an older family member who is/was a painter, his "true miniatures" were very well painted and took just as long if not longer than his medium size paintings, yet a miniature would be say £90 and a medium sized painting would be £350. (approximate figures)

Potty wrote:The 2 potters I was thinking of are both very well known and I'd rather not "name them" as such, because I do rate them as potters.

I just don't understand why a massive simple pot would command over 10 times more than their own more intricate (I assume more time consuming) smaller pots.

Having insider knowledge of who you are referring to, I don't believe that this statement is correct. I think that in both cases the pricing is based largely on the amount of clay used, the time that it takes to make the larger pieces and the losses in their kilns because of actual cracking during firing or the resultant pots not being of a standard that they are happy with to exhibit. Larger pots are more prone to being spoilt during firing.

One of the potters you mentioned Potty told me that about 30% of the pots that he puts in a kiln are either destroyed in the kiln or by him because he does want them to be seen by the public or to be sold as his work.

Going back to the original comparison with the potters that make small pots I think that if you looked at weight of raw materials used, the points that I have made above and the fact that the potters, who make smaller items have a cheaper way of firing, both in time, manpower and fuel then the prices you quote are not unreasonable in comparison to the small pots that you like. That is without allowing for the significantly higher kiln losses that the potters of the larger pots will always have whatever the size of their work because of the types of kilns they use.

Thanks for the reply SP

Some good points and I'm sure your right, though I must admit I still believe there is a fairly high premium on size alone, even once the other factors have been taken out.

I expect this premium largely comes from the public demand, I.e. the buyers being prepared to pay a lot more for larger work. (like with the paintings example above)

Or maybe I'm wrong all together

I think ed's idea of selling artists work without naming them would be great for paintings.

Maybe then people would actually buy based on skill and artistry alone

Potty wrote:Thanks for the reply SP

Some good points and I'm sure your right, though I must admit I still believe there is a fairly high premium on size alone, even once the other factors have been taken out.

I expect this premium largely comes from the public demand, I.e. the buyers being prepared to pay a lot more for larger work. (like with the paintings example above)

Or maybe I'm wrong all together

You can't be sure that I'm right and still believe there is a fairly high premium on size alone. That means that you are not sure that I'm right.

You can say that you know, as I have done so about your comments and am about to regarding your new statement that "this premium largely comes from the public demand".

Of "your two potters", who make large pots, I believe that one has always had a desire to make large pots and the other less so. The relatively recent increase in the number of larger pots available has been promoted by one specific gallery, which currently shows the work of both these potters, and, I assume, has clients that have the space for large pots (the gallery's clients certainly have the money).

In the past I have staged several solo exhibitions of work by "your two potters" where there have been a few pots from £1000 to £5000 on show. The work of both is central to the interest of the vast majority of my customers but I never sold any pot for four figures. Generally I have found it extremely difficult to sell large pots - there is little or no demand for large pots from the studio pottery buying public.

studio-pots wrote:You can't be sure that I'm right and still believe there is a fairly high premium on size alone.

Why can't I?

I believe all your points will be correct and I also believe there will be a premium added for size, though not nearly as high as I had assumed before. The actual "and I'm sure your right" part was edited in after my post, as when re-reading it, it did not sound as I had intended. I'm hopeless at typing something the way I actually intend it to come across.

I also still think the high quality smaller work by these potters (those who make the large ones) represent better value for money.

studio-pots wrote:You can say that you know

Don't worry if I ever actually disagree with you, I'm sure I'll say

studio-pots wrote:
Of "your two potters", who make large pots, I believe that one has always had a desire to make large pots and the other less so. The relatively recent increase in the number of larger pots available has been promoted by one specific gallery, which currently shows the work of both these potters, and, I assume, has clients that have the space for large pots (the gallery's clients certainly have the money).

In the past I have staged several solo exhibitions of work by "your two potters" where there have been a few pots from £1000 to £5000 on show. The work of both is central to the interest of the vast majority of my customers but I never sold any pot for four figures. Generally I have found it extremely difficult to sell large pots - there is little or no demand for large pots from the studio pottery buying public.

"public demand" was another poor choice of words , by that I meant the small percentage who actually have the room and the money.

Hopefully this post makes more sense

The BIG WEIGH-IN!!!!!!

Excuse the picture but the Nic Collins takes a bit of moving



The two pots were bought by me from the potters within a few months of each other and the figures below are based on what I paid.

The Mary Rich cost a little over £115 per kg and the Nic Collins just under £31 per kg.

are we really buying art by the kg these days?

It's the only way!!!!

The potter, Colin Pearson, did once tell a group of us that was the way that he priced his pots............. but I can't be 100% sure that he was being serious.

I think that the point that he was making was that the artist/maker couldn't really be the judge of what was his best work - that was down to the public. He shouldn't decide that two works that were similar in size/work involved had different prices.

studio-pots wrote:The BIG WEIGH-IN!!!!!!

Excuse the picture but the Nic Collins takes a bit of moving

studio-pots wrote:The Mary Rich cost a little over £115 per kg and the Nic Collins just under £31 per kg.

Well my Teapot by Mary Rich weighs 130g, that works out to be £14.95

I paid almost £5 more for mine I think, I was done!

should we then pay more for stoneware and less for porcelain?

dantheman wrote:should we then pay more for stoneware and less for porcelain?

I beg to differ:

http://www.christies.com/lotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=4582771

Size isn't everything.

When did British Studio potters begin to make large jars like these? Cardew did some big urns. I don't remember B Leach making any. Or any of his earlier followers. Are there any earlier that Ewen Henderson?

Perhaps its a bit of a fashion now?

After a little thought it seems that production of large pieces might be associated with pots as art rather than as functional items, (rather obviously). Ceramic jars 60cm plus for storage were superceded centuries ago. William Staite Murray made quite a few pre war and these were clearly non functional. Likewise RJ Washington. Post war when items were mainly functional (and materials were scarcer) fewer big items were made.

Since self consciously arty ceramics reappeared in the 70s large pieces have always been a staple.

The interesting thing about the two potters you identify Potty (and others) is that they are more in the functional pottery camps and so their super large jars cross the boundary into purely decorative items.

It would be interesting to hear from the potters themselves why they make the big items. To demonstrate their skill? For economic or artistic reasons? Is it a status thing?

How will these oversized jars be viewed (and valued) fifty years from now?.......starting to free associate now so will stop.....

Davee wrote:

climberg64 wrote: Some of my best pieces are three inches.

Lets not get started on the Freudian aspects of pot collecting. There'll be a walking stick collectors forum somewhere..........