Unsigned stoneware bowl. Can I rule out it being a Batterham ?

A stoneware bowl, glazed to the interior with some really nice drips from the top. It is unsigned and unlikely anyone will know the maker, but can anyone help me to rule this out from being a Richard Batterham piece ? Many thanks.

Yes. Once you have seen enough examples of Richard's work you can say without question that the only thing that this has in common with the work of Richard Batterham is that it is made of stoneware.

Getting old has few advantages but maybe I ought to count this ability as one.

Lol, thank you studio

I am going to give it shelf space for a month or three at least, I do rather like it.

I have seen of couple of RB pieces and I to would say its not one of his - but keep looking as I think he didnt sign his pieces so you never know what you might find!

I've got a few. I agree with studio. If you have ever owned, handled, or had a good look at Batterham, then you would know for certain that this is not a Batterham. He is simply the best of the 3rd generation of Leach Potters, bar none.
Its like comparing a Ford Fiesta with a Ferrari.

Thank you folks, really glad of the feedback.
I have had two of his pieces before now, one was a standard ware bowl, which was nice, but I did not think it spectacular, maybe that is me showing my ignorance a bit, I don't know, but the vase I owned was a different kettle of fish entirely, that was a lovely thing.

I was at an auction a year or so back, it maybe longer going by my memory, and they had a Michael Cardew mixed in with some other pieces, so it was not catalogued as a Cardew, but it was recognised by more than a few people as the bidding ended up in the mid hundreds.
Whilst I did not bid myself, I had looked at & handled it before the sale started and (without wishing to sound like a complete moron) it did absolutely nothing for me. It seemed very roughly made and was one of the least tactile things I have ever handled.
I think I had some appreciation of its importance historically & had some idea of its rarity and how sought after something like that would be, but I did not want to own it, mad as that probably sounds to some.
Just being honest, hope I've not offended anyone.

Sorry if I gave the impression I was offended!
Michael Cardew fans are FANS. Its all in the name. Moreover in the early days of his time at Winchcombe, he did not get the firing process right for a considerable while. He was also still learning. So Cardew fans accept the overfiring and some imperfections in a Cardew marked piece, as it generally means they are early, and that much rarer as a lot were disposed of because of those very imperfections.

That makes sense Phil, thanks for sharing.
A more serious collector (than I will ever be) echoed what you've mentioned, that was after shaking his head and looking at me like I was demented.
For me it is more about how something looks & feels in my hand. Having said that, I do go a little bit nuts over pots by David Lloyd Jones, his work really does it for me.

Oh yes! The wonderful David Llloyd Jones Beats the pants off most of the Leach style potters. My wife gave me a very strange look once,when I was touching a bowl and mentioned that Lloyds Jones did a wonderfully rounded bottom...