W. Moorcroft Ltd. Burslem (Staffs).

I'm not a Moorcroft expert either but I do know the blue initials are Walter Moorcroft late 1940's / early 1950's.

1930's William Moorcroft Natural Pottery Vase





Impressed Moorcraft, signature and potter to HM the Queen

Moorcroft got the royal warrant in 1928 so it helps with dating.

Hi all

Wanted to pick some brains on here. Got this pair of vases on Sunday. The have a great orange colour that to me is nicer than the uranium orange popular in Europe in the 1920's. I thought they could be from Japan due to the depth of one of the foots (the other is slightly shallower) but equally they could be from China. They have a imprinted dot on the base but I don't think that's an makers mark? The bit that is intriguing me is why they originally had the bases painted with a black treacle like substance. I looks like it was trying to simulate something else? It's a mystery to me. I am also unsure of age. So if we have any experts about on these I would be very happy for any info.

Cheers

Pretty sure they are Moorcroft, they did a fair bit of these orange lustre pieces... can't say I'm a fan to be honest!

Going to need some thinner to dissolve the black fully but a bit of a scrub on one of them does reveal a word ending in croft. Think we have a winner

As lustres go there ok.

Large Moorcroft vase. Any info on this piece would be greatly appreciated

Moorcroft can be dated pretty easily with a 30 second hunt on google for when certain marks got used. But even without that it looks to be a 1930's-1940's Moorcroft flambe vase. Moorcroft tried a lot of different styles over the last 110 years and this looks to be an attempt to keep in fashion with what was popular at that time.

Hi all
I just got this tubelined vase stands at 33cm high 15cm wide

It looks like the Hibiiscus pattern

The signature looks like Walter Moorcroft but there is no impressed marks ?
On investigation they all seemed to be impressed marks ?



Can anyone help

Thanks

NaomiM wrote:There’s a similar one in this colour palette dated 1990. The colour looks a bit washed out. I don’t know if that implies a glaze test or a fake.

Thanks Naomi

The glaze is still bright ( My photos gives it that look ) Phone Camera not great

Do you know if this range date cam without the Made in England inpression ?

As always thank you for your help

philpot wrote:The rim of that base. It looks quite rough and unfinished. Have you had a look at the standard Moorcroft book? This type of squiggle printed signature only ever seems to have been used twice,and the only one thst looks like this mark is one used in the early 1980's, but which also came with a stamp to indicate number of pieces produced and year. The only vases it was used on  were the 9.5 in and 14 in ones.
                  Moorcroft collectors are very choosy. Probably the only way to could get a Defining opinion on this one, is from them.

Thank you for your help :)

I think it is probably not right. It's a famous pattern and Moorcroft has been faked heavily. Most of the suspect ones I have seen recently are in the Pomegranate design but I have also seen several in other designs with the brush stroke signature and dated 1912/1913/1914.

In the end it won't matter. There is no signature on yours just a hint of one. Most collectors won't buy on that alone. To advertise your going to have to put in the style of. If your looking to move it on that is. On the plus side the design is popular and there are lots about if you want another one.

Looks absolutely fine to me, though not one of the most sought after designs. I can make out the impressed Moorcroft stamp, very feint, which is completely normal, along with Walters hand painted mark. Nothing fake about this at all.

And the impressed stamp is at 5 o clock as you look at the base.

The Moorcroft impressed mark is often difficult to spot, more so when there is little or no colour to highlight it.
I believe that the Walter Moorcroft piece you own is from the 1970's. 1980's

Sorry, 1980's, not the 70's as I previously said.

abstract toad wrote:And the impressed stamp is at 5 o clock as you look at the base.

Yes agreed, the impressed Moorcroft marks can be very difficult to make out without a glass, But it's there.
Why the signature is so slapdash, who knows?

He may have been in a state of apathy when signing it

Joking asides, we have had some really washed out looking signatures on a fair few pieces, but nothing abnormal about it.

abstract toad wrote:Looks absolutely fine to me, though not one of the most sought after designs. I can make out the impressed Moorcroft stamp, very feint, which is completely normal, along with Walters hand painted mark. Nothing fake about this at all.

Didn't see the stamp. Just the half a signature. Changes eveything