Marked v’s Unmarked pottery

Here you go:
Aldermaston Owl mug with mark and Aldermaston Owl mark without mark - same price.
Winchcombe lidded pot without mark actually sold for more than the pot with the mark because it had a lid.  

philpot wrote:Buy them.
But at what price?
Is a unmarked piece worth as much as a marked one?
In the art market in general a signed piece is worth a lot more than an unsigned one?

For the more "unique style" types of pot Dan was talking about the value for an unmarked piece I guess in general would be 10-30% less as a guess.

For the "Leachy" style pots that are much harder to attribute 100% without a mark (BL, MC, Rogers, etc, etc), then the value is usually far lower.

philpot wrote:The question of marks and collecting is worthy of a whole book in itself.

Phil does bring up a good point though and it's amazing how much difference a mark *can* make

Ha Ha this should all be in the pottery discussion thread.
Today in a local centre, a large shallow oval slipware dish, Obviously
Winchcombe, but only the pottery mark, and very roughly impressed.
Sellers say it is by MC and want £400 for it! In your dreams

How many times have you been really disappointed when you turn a piece over to find....!!!!

..nothing, no mark, nothing

*BUGGER*

I think there’s a difference between a pot that may or may not have been made by the master but which doesn’t bear his mark so the best attribution one can make is to the pottery because there are apprentices working there too - such as Ray Finch v’s Winchcombe Pottery. And an unmarked pot which must have been made by the master potter because it’s their signature style - such as Warren McKenzie. One does need the extra mark because that extra attribution adds value; where as the other doesn’t add value because it’s not needed for identification purposes.

McKenzie is an interesting case in point because he stopped marking his pots for several decades because he was annoyed at collectors buying them simply to sell on at a mark up because of the name. Mackenzie, like Hamada, thought form was a more important indication of value than who made it. But then he relented in later life and began marking his pieces again, because there was too much confusion between which were his pots and which were pots from potters and his students, following his lead - now called the Mingai style as it was a fusion of Minnesota studio  and Mashiko pottery. However, these days his work is so in demand that an unmarked pot in his signature style will sell for the same amount as a marked pot. However, his huge body of work will always include disputed unmarked pots that vary somewhat from the norm and can only be attributed to the generic ‘Mingai’ category and sell for a fraction of the true value. However, I recently bought one of his teabowls, which had his mark, but was under valued because it was outside the norm for his work.

But you are talking here about very, very specialist and knowledgeable buyers Naomi. The person who could recognise an unmarked Warren Mackenzie, Bernard Leach, Lucie Rie (insert any name) is a very rare buyer indeed. To the vast proportion of people who are general buyers of any type of pottery they need the quality reassurance of a mark. Its okay if its bought for peanuts at a Boot Sale or charity shop because it is a nice looking item, that is all part of the fun of collecting. But convincing someone to pay good money for something that is by a major pottery or artist on just the say so of you the seller? A lot more difficult. You might well find it easier, as you have a stellar reputation.
Lets face it, there are literally only a bare handful of 'Fine art' auctioneers of studio pottery in this country that would one trust with attribution of an unmarked piece!

No, I disagree. The thread is about marked v’s unmarked pottery; not identified v’s unidentified pottery. Yes, if something is unidentified on eBay or at a fair then it’ll sell for much less than an identified pot, whether it’s marked or unmarked. And, yes, there are many budding collectors who wouldn’t be able to ID it with or without a mark. But ID it and stick it back on eBay or in a fair, and if it’s by a collectible potter, which can be googled so the buyer can see that their work matches that of the unmarked pot,  then even the newbies will pay the going rate for it.

my favorite potters are Guy Sydenham, Wallwork, Swindell, Tudball and Bill Fisher
I would happily buy unmarked pieces by these potters as the style is enough.
I wouldn't buy the really early Wallwork pieces,signed or unsigned

An interesting thread. Fascinating to see other people's viewpoints.
What about Real Money then? The top echelon of Studio Pottery is now roaring away from the Cheap as Chips era that it has been in for some time.
Would you pay £500 for an unmarked Wallwork?
£500 for an unmarked Swindell?
£5,000 for an ummarked Maltby?
£15,000 for an unmarked John Ward?
£50,000 for an unmarked Lucie Rie?
£500,000 for an unmarked Hans Coper?
The only difference is the price. The principal is the same.

it's against my principles to part with that much brass

I would pay a grand for an unmarked Sydenham mermaid though

22 Crawford St. wrote:How many times have you been really disappointed when you turn a piece over to find....!!!!

..nothing, no mark, nothing

*BUGGER*      

I know, that can be a bit of a sickener. Having said that, I love the moment when I see it and just before I turn it over I get the butterflies start up.
And then, oh dear, never mind, but it is such a beautiful thing that I must still have it, signed or not.  And that has been a part of my problem, it is just so damm difficult to walk away from something, even though there is no room to display it & it will have to sit quietly in a darkened box before it returns to grace a place somewhere at a later date.

My favourite pot is probably the one in my profile picture, by Ruth King and unsigned.
My favourite potter is David Lloyd Jones.

Yes Dan, Guy Sydenham is a great in my eyes too, up there in my top 10.

a signature is only nessesary for the secondary market , if you buy it from the potter its the same either way if you want to resell it thats another matter

Well when I rule the world any potter will be sent to prison for a long time if they are found not dating,+ signing their pots. Paper labels will be abolished.

I would have a classification much like goldsmiths, Pottery Stamp, Personal Seal, Date stamp.

Simples!

Problem solved

philpot wrote:An interesting thread. Fascinating to see other people's viewpoints.
What about Real Money then? The top echelon of Studio Pottery is now roaring away from the Cheap as Chips era that it has been in for some time.
Would you pay £500 for an unmarked Wallwork?
£500 for an unmarked Swindell?
£5,000 for an ummarked Maltby?
£15,000 for an unmarked John Ward?
£50,000 for an  unmarked Lucie Rie?
£500,000 for an unmarked Hans Coper?
    The only difference is the price. The principal is the same.

         

Not a fair list, imo. All those potters invariably sign their work. Swindell is so recognisable that he really doesn’t need to mark his pieces. I think we’ve had one piece of Lucie Rie where the mark was hidden under a volcanic glaze but the shape and glaze were recognisably her.  
I agree with Dan. With regards to Wallwork. If it’s early it may be unmarked but also far less popular than his later pieces so it’s a moot point because it’s not going to be worth anything like his later pieces. Similarly, Maltby’s early Stoneshill Pottery isn’t anything like his later stoneware or statues and go for bargain basement prices with or without his M monogram

Fingies are always complicated.
My contribution above a snapshot designed to provoke debate.
So lets get a little more detailed.
Alan Wallwork. Specifically the photos in Michael Casson's POTTERY IN BRITAIN TODAY. A 1967 book.
Specifically photos 64-70. Some individual. Some groups. But so many of those photos presage his later work. For the time they are just brilliant.
I would so much love to have some of those pieces.
Groundbreaking. Histroric, Amazing.
Less popular??????
I beg to disagree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

22 Crawford St. wrote:Well when I rule the world any potter will be sent to prison for a long time if they are found not dating,+ signing their pots. Paper labels will be abolished.

I would have a classification much like goldsmiths, Pottery Stamp, Personal Seal, Date stamp.

Simples!

Problem solved

its interesting that collectors claim to be interested in the pottery for its beauty but in actual fact the resell value is the priority

Indeedy....
Wish I had bought a John Ward (signed of course!!!!) a few years ago. You could basically add another 0 on to the price you paid..
If only..... .

22 Crawford St. wrote:Well when I rule the world any potter will be sent to prison for a long time if they are found not dating,+ signing their pots. Paper labels will be abolished.

I would have a classification much like goldsmiths, Pottery Stamp, Personal Seal, Date stamp.

Simples!

Problem solved

Sure, leave me sitting here twiddling my thumbs with nothing to do

tenpot wrote:

22 Crawford St. wrote:Well when I rule the world any potter will be sent to prison for a long time if they are found not dating,+ signing their pots. Paper labels will be abolished.

I would have a classification much like goldsmiths, Pottery Stamp, Personal Seal, Date stamp.

Simples!

Problem solved

            its interesting that collectors claim to be interested in the pottery for its beauty but in actual fact the resell value is the priority

Blame the TV game shows for that.

I see both sides of this debate.
I own some pottery because I like the way it looks.
and some because I like the way it looks and investment wise it makes sense.
The former I would buy unmarked and at a price that reflects my appreciation.
The latter I would only buy unmarked at a vastly reduced price

Yes Dan, my classic case, I bought this item at auction in Lichfield. It had been in
the fine art, but didn't sell. It reappeared in the general, and got it for £40.
A year or two later, I found the very obscure mark, not where you woild expect it.

https://www.20thcenturyforum.com/t6955-john-maltby-stoneshill-pottery#119655