Ray Finch

Picked up this very scarce early Ray Finch bowl 1935-1946 from the Winchcombe Pottery with RF WP stamped marks, shows the strong influence of Cizhou pottery and of Shoji Hamada. Just wondering if this is a early experimental piece due body clay flaking problems on the base rim, just my thought as some members on here may correct me. Also Michael Cardew used this glaze pattern, I have included a Michael Cardew photo of miniature jardiniere or cachepot with similair style glaze from a sale room auction, this will be in the last photo.

They often had problems with the earthenware at Winchcombe. Ray joined Winchcombe initially wishing to learn to pot and so it would be fair to say that Cardew was a significant influence on Ray. Great to see the original price on the bottom in pencil.

First and foremost Winchcombe was a working country production pottery. They produced in quantity. Michael Cardew was Ray Finch's boss and mentor for a number of years. Hence the primary influence would always be that of Michael Cardew, and combinedwith that British country pottery tradition. I would have thought that any Shoji Hamada and Chizou influence would have been pretty tenuous.
That mark also covers the 2nd world war years of course. Proper glazes and clay may have been very difficult to get.

Good evening all
Would it be possible to help identify my flagon marks.? I've tried researching but to no avail.? I'm sure that it's by Ray Finch but there are two marks that are confusing.
Any help identifying the two marks and possible date. How was the glazing done as it's two toned.? Any information would be gratefully appreciated
Regards
Grant

It is an early Ray Finch mark from the very start of his career. Hence quite in demand. The other mark is the standard Winchcombe mark of that period. I cannot really see a 3rd mark, and indeed there should not really be one.
The glazes are standard slipware of the period.

Thank you for your reply it was just the two marks RF I'd identified it was the standard Winchcombe mark I couldn't identify. So would I be correct that its circa 1937.?

It was a mark used for several years. Circa 1936 onwards.The handle is a fairly simple one, which is another pointer to an early piece.

I'm getting some cracking photos with my new (second hand £300) NIKON for the website bit having problem with pincushioninning distortion.

The photos look super.

mmmm Dunno what happened there.
A vastly greater quality that is mostly on the this site. I wonder if your standards are TOOOO high.
What is pinchushioning distortion?

Look at the original photo can you see bending out, the three arein line, vertical bend out...see it now? Just about to take 1000 photos... don't want to re-do

I'm seeing so much in the macro images, look at the dancing textures. Ive not done anything to this image, sharpen is turned off, no colour correction just custom white balance.

Fascinating video of the 93 year old Ray Finch at Winchcombe.

Should say that its not always about the mark. I picked up this beautiful large Winchcombe Jug for £15 on ebay the other week, it was sold as Winchcombe and the auction ended at an obscure time, which is why I probably got it so cheap, but I bought it knowing it was a Ray Finch. The mark is shallow and obscured by glaze and crazing but there is no discernable Ray Finch 'dot'. When I bought it I hadn't even seen the mark. None of this matters though as you can tell its his by the handle. I've since had it confirmed as his by Joe Finch and Dan Finnegan (who worked at Wincombe with Ray).

A rather glorious, pristine 'Winchcombe' jug that cost me next to nothing - if I wanted to (and I don't) sell it, thanks to a bit of time and research I could probably get £150-200 now.

Ray Finch did not mark a lot of the work he did. It was a busy production pottery, and often he was too busy.
It is a lovely jug. But as to identification and value. Without a definite mark, it is a bit like having a painting which has not got a signature. People dislike uncertainty, and an unmarked Winchcombe piece is exactly that.

philpot wrote:Ray Finch did not mark a lot of the work he did. It was a busy production pottery, and often he was too busy.
It is a lovely jug. But as to identification and value. Without a definite mark, it is a bit like having a painting which has not got a signature. People dislike uncertainty, and an unmarked Winchcombe piece is exactly that.

True, but even as a winchcombe jug in this glaze its worth way more than £15. It won't ever be sold unless I fall on hard times, and with written provenance from the family and an employee that would probably help push the price beyond 'just Winchcombe. I had an offer on it early doors which was already 3 figures, so I'm not too dissatisfied with picking up a bargain and taking a gamble!

You had an excellent buy.

Ray Finch salt glazed mug.

[quote="22 Crawford St."]Look at the original photo can you see bending out, the three are in line, vertical bend out...see it now?

Try having the camera further away and using the zoom, or just crop the image later.

cycladelic you are probably right. I thought I had moved far enough away but it's can't be the lens pincussioning but simply too wider angle. I'll have to move a few boxes.

This one had a big dink in it and a fairly substantial hairline crack,The standard Ray Finch pre-war mark. Because of the damage it had got hidden away and not on display. In the very! (it does actually hurt to sell some pieces you have had for a long time!) slow winnowing of my collection I put it on Ebay at a measly low starting price.  I really did not expect much for it, as I clearly identified and highlighted the damage. It was one of those nice Ebay surprises when it went for a totally unexpected sum.
                  I think the reason it went so high, is that it looks as though Michael Cardew might have had some hand in the Brush work on it.

A somewhat austere Ray Finch teapot that had been well used.

I think if a thing is charming and has that instant likeability then you are prepared to overlook the odd chunk missing.