Leach St Ives Pottery L mark dots - Jeffrey Larkin

IDed as Jeffrey Larkin, USA, who trained at St Ives 1976-78. Just adding this one to the start of the thread as the photos are clearer - Admin

CHOUGHED-TO-BITS wrote:I bought this piece at auction yesterday , its definitely Leach pottery but having been through all the potters who have ever worked there I can't find one that used a single "L" for their mark . It looks the same as the L in Bernards "BL" mark with the two dots so that makes me think it was one of the Leaches but which one? any ideas?

so what happened was.... my partner/love/lightofmylife bought this from the dreaded ebay listed as by the great man himself, i'm not so sure..... your thoughts would be gratefully recived.

The right side mark looks like the Leach Pottery mark but the other one isn't Bernard's mark.

I have looked at the Ebay listing and the seller doesn't say that it is by Bernard Leach so I can't see that your partner has been misled by the seller.

I don't know whose personal seal it is.

Thank you studio pots, yes you are quite correct it was sold as 'from the bernard leach pottery'. It is quite the most uninteresting pot I have ever seen, and I didn't even like it when he showed me the listing! Arghhh. I have a feeling it's not paticularly old, now I have it I will have to try and find out who's it is. *sigh*

There isn't a book or list of individuals' marks when at the Pottery unfortunately.

However, it does appear to have a salt or more likely soda glaze and, if you are correct, then it could be very recent i.e. after the charity took over in 2005. If that is true, which I can't say one way or the other, then putting "from the Bernard Leach Pottery" is misleading.

You could try sending an image of the mark to the pottery to see what they say? If anyone there recognises the mark as being recent then maybe your partner could make a case against the seller.

*double sigh* I now find out the seller was local and he paid cash! So no chance of sending it back as being not quite right. Will give that a go maybe Naomi. Or maybe I will sling it in the back of the cupboard and forget about it...... Thank you both. :)

Ooooh! Yes please Naomi! Before I consign it to the cuboard under the stairs! Thank you! X

Well that is helpful thank you Naomi. Interesting that there are others, my suspicion is it might have been someone passing through, a friend or a student, it is infact potted better than its lumpen shape implies, though the shape might make more sense if it had a lid. Either way it's bloody ugly! Thanks again :) x x

The problem with it being salt or soda glazed is that you really need to use a separate kiln otherwise subsequent firings of non-salt/soda glazed wares would be messed up. So I can't see it being an "early piece" or there would be information about a salt kiln at the Pottery and there is not. Some early wares did show traces of salting but that was because some driftwood from the beach was at times used in the firings.

I can say that the style does not fit any members of the Leach family, who worked at the pottery, i.e. David, Michael and John. The mark is also not one used by them. Janet did make pots at times that resembled this but again it's not her mark.

If you assume that the L is the first letter of the potter's surname then there are only a few individuals that fit.

The first of these is Margaret Leach, who was there during the Second World War, when there would have been no time for the working potters to make individual pieces.

Next is the Canadian, Glenn Lewis, and I had a pot made at the Pottery with his personal seal on in the past and this wasn't it.

Next comes Denny Long, who only helped out during holidays while studying for a Diploma in Art and Design. I can't believe that she was allowed to make individual pieces and she was Denny Johnston at the time in any case.

So that leaves Jeffrey Larkin, an American who was there from 1976 to 1978. When he went there he was mixing clays and other odd jobs but Bill did teach him to throw. His subsequent pots don't look like this but I suppose that he can't be ruled out. I believe he still pots (Featherstone Pottery in Minnesota) so might be possible to contact him.

The other two potters are just names Paul Lajoire and Penny Lyle. The first of these is/was Canadian and seemed to be influenced by Japanese pottery and used porcelain when back in Canada so doesn't seem likely. Finally, Penny Lyle, who I assume is the potter that worked in the Brecon area and whose work appears on Ebay.

The other option is that it wasn't made at the Leach Pottery at all but by someone trying to suggest that it was and that it might be by Bernard.

So basically , it will remain a mystery , as so many potters have been involved at the pottery marks like this are bound to appear now and again , to pinpoint it down would be extremely difficult imo , it isn't a very good pot , so a trial and error springs to mind , I don't see why bernard is being ignored so much as he had painted marks that looked like L3 , surely ex leach potters should have a clue , if not then ...move on i say , we can't track down the hoards of people working of that time , can we ?

I have heard anecdotes in the past of fake Leach pottery. eg The teacher in nick?

Yes there are millions of them , rule number one in fakery -FFS make it look good

I'm having a go!

There are other things for me that rule it out being by Bernard, other than the mark isn't one recorded as being used by him.

Firstly, that it is salt-glazed and there wasn't a salt kiln there during the time that Bernard was active at the Pottery.

Secondly, that it isn't a shape of pot that I have seen thrown by Bernard.

Thirdly, that if Bernard had wanted to try out a salt kiln I can't believe that he would have marked the pot before firing.

Finally, if it was like the pots with a painted BL mark i.e. thrown by BIll Marshall and decorated by Bernard then Bill would have thrown a better pot and he also had the use of Bernard's correct seal mark.

NaomiM wrote:If someone was going to fake it they'd have faked Bernard's mark - as has happened - rather than half a mark.
Janet Leach is a possibility, then, before she made her own stamp.  

There is no mention of Janet using another personal seal than the one associated with her before or after that seal. If it is as you suggest, Naomi, it is more likely to be later in her career rather than earlier and, if so, Joanna Wason might know. Personally, I think that the suggestion is a real long shot.

Marking a pot with a mark that is similar but not the same as that of Bernard Leach isn't faking. However, it might suggest that it's by Bernard without breaking the law. It works too.

I don't think it's by Bernard , Bill and Deffo not Janet , but we can't assume because the pot looks naff it wasn't , I think it was a bandit myself , Joanna would not know imo , I asked her about my JL pot and to be fair I didn'r expect a result , same with J bedding , we cannot expect them to remember every little pot that pops out of st ives

It is possible that the pot could have been made, marked and biscuit fired at the Leach Pottery and then salt glazed anywhere else in the world.

no

well a huge thank you to you studio pots for your most comprehensive reply, and everyone else who has contributed thank you also, i am begining to like it a bit more now! at least it has been a talking point! and it is a good size for a utensil pot, so it may get a reprieve yet.

i still am of the opinion that it is recent(ish) it just feels young (?) very little crazing to the glaze on the inside, the base is really clean, its just a hunch really. my other thought is that is was made by a man as the throwing rings are really wide which implies big fingers.....! i would make a terrible detective!

thank you all.