Re: Auction Houses discussion, split from the St Ives thread

[Neil62]

I knew that the item you were referring to was in the Woolley & Wallis sale but wasn't aware that it was this lot.

What I know about all these lots is that they were items that Richard used at home and, in reality, they were "house clearance" lots.

Whenever they were assigned to the auction house, there appears to have been no verification done by the auction house as to whether the items consigned were what the vendor said these items were.

That is the usual modus operandi of almost all auction houses.

My understanding is that all of these items were consigned by the executors of Richard's Estate either before or after his death (I had heard both accounts).

For serious long term collectors of Richard Batterham's work, items used by Richard, either damaged or not, have special meaning and ought to have a premium. Far more than the items sold elsewhere just before.

I suggested that serious long term collectors of Richard's work would have looked at these 4 pots and, like me thought that the mug was probably made by him but the other 3 bits almost certainly were not. If they wanted to own pots that Richard owned then they might bid but if they wanted to buy 4 pots that they were certain that Richard had made and had used then they would have ignored, damage or not.

This is the reality of all auction houses and like I said my best advice is that you never believe anything any auction house says without using your own knowledge or asking someone, who has more knowledge than yourself.

Having said all of that you would be wasting money taking it any further, it is and always has been "buyer beware".

If in future you wish to ask my advice about any specific lot then feel free to message me. There is no charge and if you ignore my advice then that's fine.

The unfortunate thing for you is that you have started collecting when there has been much hype of Richard's work.

Hi Philpot,
Thanks for the offer and I will take you up on it in the future.
From your piece it looks as if I’ve bought a lot with a mug by Richard Batterham and three other pieces which could have been made by anyone.

In answer to that and for clarity the small vase has got the RB stamp on it, and from what contributors on this forum have said that is by him damaged or not.
The vendors, according to the auctioneer, told him that Richard broke the vase himself and glued it back together.
I don’t know the names of Richard’s son and daughter (who the auctioneer picked the items up from and with whom he discussed the lots) other than Rueben, but I don’t know if Richard had any other sons.
I have asked Rueben about the vase in correspondence which he hasn’t answered.

The lighter coloured bowl has a letter and a number inscribed into its base and the darker bowl has the date ‘1968’ stuck on with tape.
The letter and numbers were explained to me by the auctioneer as follows and provides some evidence that the auctioneer did some due diligence:-

Please find Reuben’s explanation of his fathers marks, found on the bases of some of his work.
I hope it helps

As a general rule any black painted (cobalt oxide ) one or two numbers are related to the glaze (for recognition when packing) and four numbers for glaze tests. 1392 for example would be the thirteenth test in 1992 and in use he would just put a 13.

Incised numbers are related to the slip, these are mostly salt glaze, 28,27 and 30 are the most used. Then you have the clay bodies which are a letter and a number for clay tests or just a letter (sometimes stamped) for recognition when glazing.


I’m as sure as a novice can be that the lighter (celadon bowl photograph) is right and served as a reference piece for Richard Batterham for the reasons described above.

The darker bowl doesn’t have any marks on it, just 1968 and as you intimate could have been made by anyone but it could be by Richard as a record / reference for that year - all speculation of course. Given some of the contributors previous comments the explanations given may or may not be true.

If I had a sample of his writing it may be possible to evidence the incision ‘Bill’ on the mug and ‘1968’ but the samples are not wide enough.

The ‘bill’ mug had a significant layer of dust in it and I think your reference to a house clearance is apt - I think it was more a studio clearance and I think that these four items were sat in his studio for years if not decades.
Even then that doesn’t provide evidence that he made the mug, the evidence, provided by the vendor (his son and daughter) could only be that he owned it unless they saw him make it and even then given previous comments could they be relied upon?



I can’t remember what I paid for the lot but it was certainly a lot more than £50 which is the cost of taking the matter to small claims court.
If I lost the only other expenditure for me is my time to prepare the case which I enjoy doing as much as I enjoy collecting.
For the other litigant it would take up their time and someone would have to answer very pertinent questions I have already asked the Chairman which he has refused to answer.

To get a witness in a court of law to testify that he knew of the significant damage to the vase and that he positioned the vase to hide the damage and photographed it to be sold without declaring that damage. Why…… well because he has terms and conditions which allow him to do that.
That would be enough for me.
Whether I won or lost.

£50 to hear a professional / expert of a famous auction house to say that in open court, on oath, is money well spent and a days enjoyment at watching that witness struggle to justify his position.

My position would be that the terms and conditions of sale are there to protect the auctioneer from making an innocent mistake not to allow them to intentionally deceive buyers from all over the world.
I know the caveat ‘buyer beware’ and you can come and view / inspect the items etc provides them with ‘protection’ but I would publish the witnesses testimony everywhere I could on social media platforms which would certainly not enhance their reputation.

I am aware of the law on defamation and I am mindful of what I say but the facts are there.
Have they got a defence, very probably.
Is it right…..no, definitely not at least not to any right minded individual.

Strange I felt speaking about the pieces from the lot in this post that I was almost defending them and I have come to like, certainly the celadon bowl, more than some of my other pieces which is another factor in taking this to court.
If I won (doubtful as that seems, but not impossible) it would mean having to give all the pieces in the lot back to the auctioneer / vendor.

I’ll have to think about that but only after researching the caselaw.

It is a very good point you make, more pertinent probably to the Bill Marshall bottle, do auctioneers do their own due diligence to support or otherwise the assertion by the vendor as to provenance and attribution.
It’s hard to find the answer to that. I suppose it would vary from auctioneer to auctioneer and from lot to lot.

I think we have done this to death now. For me it has been useful in many ways and I will take cognisance of all that has been said when making my decision so thank you.


Kind regards
Neil62

[ppcollectables]

Woolley and wallis always have multiple viewing days and they know that most buyers will view in person. I also believe they give good quality condition reports - if you bother to ask them. They often point out restoration that I couldn't spot. They do put in catalogues if pieces have damage , but not every time. They have a reputation to maintain and it wouldn't be in their interest to lose it. No -one is going to spend money on a nice catalogue and then fill it with photos of cracked pots, broken figures , damaged furniture etc.
We all may live along way from an auction that has a piece we would love to buy,  if so the choices are - leave it and wait for something closer, make that long journey, ask for a condition report plus additional photos.
Get real people.

[Neil62]

Woolley and wallis always have multiple viewing days and they know that most buyers will view in person. I also believe they give good quality condition reports - if you bother to ask them. They often point out restoration that I couldn't spot. They do put in catalogues if pieces have damage , but not every time. They have a reputation to maintain and it wouldn't be in their interest to lose it. No -one is going to spend money on a nice catalogue and then fill it with photos of cracked pots, broken figures , damaged furniture etc.
We all may live along way from an auction that has a piece we would love to buy,  if so the choices are - leave it and wait for something closer, make that long journey, ask for a condition report plus additional photos.
Get real people.

I suppose your last point is directed towards me.
I respect your opinion but in the real world I feel deceived, whether you agree or disagree is a matter for you.
What I choose to do about it is a matter for me.

One point you make which I don’t understand is ‘they often point out restoration which you couldn’t spot’ which suggests they are careful, fair and beyond reproach but that you think it is fine to catalogue a piece which is damaged beyond repair without so much as a mention.

The condition reports from the Auction House which you describe as “good quality” is not applicable in this case.
The condition report for Lot 435 (which I have now got) could generously be described as inaccurate and at worst misleading.
That is another point altogether which I haven’t included in my posts.

Kind regards
Neil62

[philpot]

We have not talked about attribution of course. Given that Richard Batterham does not mark his work, then he is one of the major potters whose work gets identified wrongly. This problem has accelerated with increase in values of his work. Anything with a Shoji Hamada label is a risky item as well
This is also a major problem with auctioneers generally. Only a tiny fraction of auctioneers have a comprehensive knowledge of studio pottery. This makes buying Studio Pottery from auctioneers - even the so called specialist ones!- a somewhat risky business at times.

[ppcollectables]

People is plural. View in person and ask for a condition report as the catalogue is only a starting point . It is a matter for you , absolutely , but I don't agree that you have been deceived or 'hard done by' . I do think you have made a couple of obvious errors and wanting to blame anyone but yourself.
Sorry, but I've said it .

[NaomiM]

One problem with damage that isn’t mentioned beforehand, isn’t mentioned in a report, and isn’t photographed, and where one has bought online rather than visiting the venue beforehand to photograph it in situ, is that they could simply say it was broken and repaired by the buyer, especially if the buyer doesn’t lodge a complaint as soon as they receive it - the auction house delays paying the owner several weeks for just such circumstances.
If it’s in the condition report but the buyer neglected to ask for one then that’s ‘buyer beware’.
You could simply return it to the auction house for them to resell.

[Neil62]

We have not talked about attribution of course. Given that Richard Batterham does not mark his work, then he is one of the major potters whose work gets identified wrongly. This problem has accelerated with increase in values of his work. Anything with a Shoji Hamada label is a risky item as well
  This is also a major problem with auctioneers generally. Only a tiny  fraction of auctioneers have a comprehensive knowledge of studio pottery. This makes buying Studio Pottery from auctioneers - even the so called specialist ones!- a somewhat risky business at times.

I think you should probably be called ‘Sensei’, not only do you speak sense and impart your knowledge but you do it in a way that would not cause offence.

I take your point about the marking of Richard Batterham’s work or lack of it and I thought (given the auctioneer missed it both in the catalogue and on his condition report) that the RB mark was by Rueben, but others on here said that the mark was Richard’s - I don’t know…. Do you know of any pots properly attributed to Richard which bore the stamp RB.
That would be useful.

The auctioneer claimed that he concentrated on the other pieces in the lot……. I think he just missed it!
I have some pottery by Shoji Hamada or at least that’s what I bought it as!!

Two pieces I purchased from Hajeong Lee Rogers, after Phil Rogers had passed away. I did my research and found Phil’s story fascinating and finished up purchasing a few pieces by him at auction and on e bay. For a novice he seems to be a safe bet to collect as from my limited experience he seems to mark all his work but that’s just from what I have found.
He also seemed to be knowledgeable and fair.
I read about the Shoji Hamada pots he bought and sold from Japan and the stir it caused. Again all interesting.
I bought the two items from Hajeong who was a delight to deal with, albeit only by e mail.

One matter which did disturb me was a Facebook post by Robert Yelland.
I don’t know whether you saw it but out of respect for Phil, I won’t post it.
It was clear Phil was not only a potter but a dealer and entrepreneur and was not frightened of imparting his opinion but on this occasion he wrongly identified Shoji’s mark on the box lid of which I’m sure you have seen loads.

I am as confident as I can be that the pieces are correct but I think the point I am trying to make is that we all have opinions but even given his personal experience and knowledge sometimes we are wrong. I read the post some time after Phil had passed away and felt sorry for him.
I have seen various posts on different platforms from him. He was clearly passionate in his beliefs and I liked that.
I will post photos of the items, the first an albarello vase, the second a meoto pair of yunomis. I felt that buying the pieces would help Hajeong as well as contributing to my collection.
Obviously they came with boxes but as I’m sure you are aware there is also a market for empty boxes (probably with Shoji’s genuine signature on) and the boxes are not cheap.
Presumably they are sold by owners who might have accidentally broken its original contents or realising they would never sell its contents sold the box on.
Minefield!
Anyway thanks again

[Neil62]

People is plural. View in person and ask for a condition report as the catalogue is only a starting point . It is a matter for you , absolutely , but I don't agree that you have been deceived or 'hard done by' . I do think you have made a couple of obvious errors and wanting to blame anyone but yourself.
Sorry, but I've said it .

First of all condition report as below

435 – tenmoku bowl – no damage detected
Tenmoku vase broken in two and re-stuck
Celadon bowl ok no damage but the interior is pitted in the glaze.
Bill mug – no damage detected.

Vase broken in two and re-stuck






If you think that reflects being broken in two and re-stuck then perhaps you are right and it’s me. Then again you would expect something that has been re-stuck by a famous and talented potter not to have a gap in the two surfaces of 1mm+ and you would have thought the auctioneer could possibly have mentioned the chips and the RB mark. but then again I just think it’s fraud legitimised by terms and conditions, restricted rights for buyers and bad practice by auctioneers uncontrolled by legislation.

My belief is that had I asked for photographs, condition reports, attended at the viewing, had a dance and done whatever due diligence you think I could have done. I would have got a vase in the exact same condition which was not what I inspected and viewed because in my opinion, lowly as you feel that is!
This vase was probably stuck back together by Richard Batterham and then after it had been photographed for the auction it was dropped - who by?
Impossible to say, was it the couriers?
Was it the auctioneer? The cleaner who knows?
But I cannot believe that you think a condition report would have assisted given its content or lack of it or that you believe they give honest and accurate reports.

I have asked the question….was the vase damaged in the state I received it (with the photographs attached) when it was photographed for the auction.
Answer I got back - we will not answer!

Before someone suggests, if you think that it was damaged after the photograph why not claim against the couriers?
When I first received the lot I sent the same question to the parties involved. The couriers sent me a claim form, the auctioneers informed me that the vase was broken when it was consigned which meant that to make a claim on the couriers insurance would have been fraud.

Lastly you lost me with the comment about people being plural.
I’m not sure where I used it but just for your information:- The noun people has both a PLURAL sense and a SINGULAR sense.

Kind regards
Neil62

[studio-pots]

Neil62 - you wrote above

"One matter which did disturb me was a Facebook post by Robert Yelland.
I don’t know whether you saw it but out of respect for Phil, I won’t post it.
It was clear Phil was not only a potter but a dealer and entrepreneur and was not frightened of imparting his opinion but on this occasion he wrongly identified Shoji’s mark on the box lid of which I’m sure you have seen loads."

Phil Rogers was once a very good friend of mine and one of the people that I asked for advice when opening my gallery. Over the years he had several exhibitions with me. I also helped him later with selling his ceramics to the US, when he wasn't able to do so himself.

When he started to deal in other people's work, Hamada et al, he did seem to become the type of dealer that he always objected to. He was a member of this Forum for a short while but was one of the very few members that have been banned for their behaviour.
It involved the type of behaviour that Robert Yellin described and showed him to be dishonest.

After getting banned from this Forum, which wasn't my doing, on the very few occasions that I met him, he completely blanked me despite the people that he was with talking with me.

He became a very difficult person after his first marriage broke up and as, the potter that he went to share the studio of at the time, told me without any prompting, Phil began picking arguments with everybody and anybody.

[Neil62]

Neil62 - you wrote above

"One matter which did disturb me was a Facebook post by Robert Yelland.
I don’t know whether you saw it but out of respect for Phil, I won’t post it.
It was clear Phil was not only a potter but a dealer and entrepreneur and was not frightened of imparting his opinion but on this occasion he wrongly identified Shoji’s mark on the box lid of which I’m sure you have seen loads."

Phil Rogers was once a very good friend of mine and one of the people that I asked for advice when opening my gallery. Over the years he had several exhibitions with me. I also helped him later with selling his ceramics to the US, when he wasn't able to do so himself.

When he started to deal in other people's work, Hamada et al, he did seem to become the type of dealer that he always objected to. He was a member of this Forum for a short while but was one of the very few members that have been banned for their behaviour.
It involved the type of behaviour that Robert Yellin described and showed him to be dishonest.

After getting banned from this Forum, which wasn't my doing, on the very few occasions that I met him, he completely blanked me despite the people that he was with talking with me.

He became a very difficult person after his first marriage broke up and as, the potter that he went to share the studio of at the time, told me without any prompting, Phil began picking arguments with everybody and anybody.

That’s sad really, the Facebook post I referred to didn’t identify him as dishonest but simply that he couldn’t identify Shoji Hamada’s ‘signature’ on the box lid or at least he picked the wrong one of two.
Anyway sad you were a pal of his and he turned on you!
Kind regards

[studio-pots]

From what I heard, he turned on most of his friends.

I hadn't read what Robert (Yellin) had written and so I assumed that it was something like what happened on the Forum and things that subsequently came to light.

Having stated that he was dishonest then I ought to explain why.

Because Shoji Hamada never marked his pots and boxes only accompanied them when they were sold in exhibitions, there were thousands of pots that had be bought from Hamada's pottery during his lifetime that had no attribution. After Shoji's death, people could approach the Hamada pottery, and ask his son, Shinsaku, if he would attribute a pot to his father and provide a box with that on it. I am sure a fee was involved for doing this. These boxes have a red Hamada pottery seal on the box (not Shoji's red seal) and, I assume (I can't read Japanese), writing that said that the content had been varified as being by Shoji Hamada by his son or something along those lines. Although Shinsaku is still alive I think that his son, Tomoo, has taken over that duty.

What Phil Roger's was doing, without permission, was producing boxes with his attributions on the outside saying that the item in the box had been made by Shoji Hamada.

Phil did this knowing that Shoji Hamada only ever threw AND decorated his own teabowls and yunomis and nothing else at the pottery. All of his other exhibition pieces i.e. vases, slab bottles, chargers were thrown/made by people working at his pottery, who were employed for those skills, but he decorated them.

Non-exhibition vases etc. coming from the Hamada pottery would mostly have been produced without any involvement from Shoji Hamada - some would have been glazed by him but he had thought them not good enough to exhibit and so they went into general stock.

I suppose it would be fair to say that if someone took a vase back to the Hamada pottery and Shinsaku thought it was his father's glazing then you can justify a box with writing on it. However, it wouldn't convince me to be honest.

However, Phil was buying things from dealers in Japan believing that they were from the Hamada pottery and then producing boxes saying that the item inside was produced by Shoji Hamada. As he told us on this Forum...... he was the Shoji Hamada expert in the UK. it was when a Forum member took him up on that point that things got nasty and Phil was banned.

An example of Phil's "work" that I think came to the Forum was a small cream jug with one of these boxes from Phil with such an attribution for a tidy sum of money when it was worth a fiver at best. Shoji Hamada is very unlikely to have made a cream jug and to even have glazed one at his own pottery. I know that and Phil Rogers knew that.

That's being dishonest in my book.

[studio-pots]

Does anyone have any stories about me?

[22 Crawford St.]

Yes SP you are way too polite and genuine, and you remind me of Bill Bryson.

[Neil62]

One problem with damage that isn’t mentioned beforehand, isn’t mentioned in a report, and isn’t photographed, and where one has bought online rather than visiting the venue beforehand to photograph it in situ, is that they could simply say it was broken and repaired by the buyer, especially if the buyer doesn’t lodge a complaint as soon as they receive it - the auction house delays paying the owner several weeks for just such circumstances.
If it’s in the condition report but the buyer neglected to ask for one then that’s ‘buyer beware’.
You could simply return it to the auction house for them to resell.

Hi NaomiM,

I contacted the auction house and the courier the day it arrived with me.
The auction house have accepted that was the condition it was sold in which does not match the condition report!
I have lodged a complaint which went nowhere.

I couldn’t sell this vase it is worthless.

[philpot]

You are a perfect Gent Studio. There...that's my bit of arse-licking over for the day!

[philpot]

Neil could I ask you how much studio pottery you have seen or handled? You seem to be making the buying decisions of serious long term collector. But how much knowledge do you have?
The point about going to auctions, is that you can handle and feel and deeply look at pieces. There is nothing like getting the feel of the real thing It really is a valuable education!
Have you visited any studio pottery shops? The primary leader in Leach style ceramics in this country is the Goldmark Gallery in Uppingham Rutland. Phil Rogers was their principal expert. They have numerous splendid videos on Youtube, and always have a lot of stock in hand in in their showroom.
How about the Bill Ismay collection on show at the York Art gallery? Thousands of pieces, all mostly displayed. The V&A has a magnificent display of Richard Batterham work on at the moment.
Adam Partridge's in Macclesfield has a viewing day next Thursday 29 April, auction the following day. In particular they have near 70 pots in their auction by Jim Malone. Widely regarded as the greatest modern British potter in the Leach tradition.

[philpot]

oH, and before I shut up. Visit lots of potters! Invariably they are nice people and it will be time well spent. There are now loads of studio pottery shows on throughout the country which usually have scores of potters selling their pots. Start with Potfest!

[Neil62]

oH, and before I shut up. Visit lots of potters! Invariably they are nice people and it will be time well spent. There are now loads of studio pottery shows on  throughout the country which usually have scores of potters selling their pots. Start with Potfest!

Philpot…….life’s too short - you probably make a living from selling pots and if I did the same then I too would probably do exactly as you suggest and probably a lot more.
I don’t have to do that though I had my own profession.

I suspect that your intimation that potters are invariably nice people is absolutely true but it is somewhat at odds with Studio-pots assertion regarding Phil Rogers.
It seems a murky world.

[philpot]

No Neil I am not a dealer, just a collector. All I am saying is that knowledge is important. You have to get to know what you really like. The leach legacy is over 100 years old now, and it has has many byeways and detours. If you are buying with too little knowledge you make mistakes, and you lose money. We have all done it.
       Phil Rogers was a complicated man. Life drives us where it does, and anyway, he is no longer alive.

[Neil62]

No Neil I am not a dealer, just a collector. All I am saying is that knowledge is important. You have to get to know what you really like. The leach legacy is over 100 years old now, and it has has many byeways and detours. If you are buying with too little knowledge you make mistakes, and you lose money. We have all done it.
       Phil Rogers was a complicated man. Life drives us where it does, and anyway, he is no longer alive.

I do accept what you are saying Philpot,

I do read and study as much as I can and yes I should perhaps visit venues but it is a hobby for me and whilst I will always accept that I may lose money at times I try and buy pottery from a very select few and about whom I have a little knowledge.
My collection which is not large probably less than 60 - 70 pieces consists of, in no particular order

David Leach
Janet Leach
Bernard Leach
Shoji Hamada
William Marshall
Shigeyoshi Ichino
John Bedding
Richard Batterham

Phil Rogers

Together with a single piece from a couple of interlopers
Barry Guppy (which NaomiM identified)
David Lane (which NaomiM identified)
A couple of unidentified pieces which I like.
1 piece of Slipware from yorkshire.

Some of the pieces I bought early on are now items consigned to my garage / container.
On reflection they were part of the learning curve.
Lowerdown pots, muchelney pieces, some by Phil Rogers, some I bought as a lot but really only wanted one piece etc. There are probably 10-15 of those and I will sell them eventually on eBay.
The couple I have sold already on e bay doubled my investment.
I confess though I made a right Horlicks of my first auction. I was offered 3 x what it cost me a couple of hours into the auction. I have only ever sold on e bay years ago. I turned the offer down mainly because I wanted the experience of the auction.
A few days later the same person bought the piece at the auction for half of what he offered me.
I was told by e bay the piece sold so I dutifully completed the dispatch ‘process’ and dispatched it the following day.
The money never appeared in my account and I am now chasing him for the money.
From my enquiries he is a director of a ceramics business with exhibitions / shop etc.
He has agreed he has received the piece which he is delighted with, said he will pay by PayPal and I’m still waiting albeit it has only been a few days.

All again part of the learning curve and it won’t happen again!
I will get my money eventually by one way or another and it’s only a meagre sum which is why it is annoying.
However, it is nothing more than irksome but even e Bay users with great credentials take advantage.

My intention is to limit my collection to the first 5 potters above and perhaps a piece or two by Jack Doherty.
I only intend to sell the pieces I have bought, if you understand me, as part of my mistakes and learning experience…… except for the Bill Marshall piece (which isn’t apparently by him). That has pride of place as a reminder!

Good luck with your collecting and I genuinely appreciate your and others input.

Kind regards

Neil62.

[22 Crawford St.]

Neil don't feel bad we have all done it. Some pieces you get for a song and some on reflection you pay too much for. We would ALL like to downsize our collections also for a handful of top pieces by our favorite potters. Such is the way of life. Your pot tastes change - what once was the apple of you eye is now just "meh" it's the addiction.

[philpot]

That is a really good collection you have their Neil!
Potters you might look at maybe are Jim Malone and Mike Dodd, who vie with Phil Rogers as best 3rd generation Leach potters.
         Michael Leach is also interesting. He was Bernard Leach's second son and worked at the pottery with his brother David from just after the war to the mid 1950's. He set up a pottery at Yelland. Most of the items from his pottery are marked with a Y only. But that does not mean they necessarily by him.He was very sparing with his personal ML mark. Any you see with that mark on are worth paying attention to.
         Ever heard of Crowan or Harry Davis? A fascinating former Leach potter who Bernard Leach regarded as the finest thrower he knew. Crowan was also a major rival to St Ives in the 1950's.

[Neil62]

That is a really good collection you have their Neil!
Potters you might look at maybe are Jim Malone and Mike Dodd, who vie with Phil Rogers as best 3rd generation Leach potters.
         Michael Leach is also interesting. He was Bernard Leach's second son and worked at the pottery with his brother David from just after the war to the mid 1950's. He set up a pottery at Yelland. Most of the items from his pottery are marked with a Y only. But that does not mean they necessarily by him.He was very sparing with his personal ML mark. Any you see with that mark on are worth paying attention to.
         Ever heard of Crowan or Harry Davis? A fascinating former Leach potter who Bernard Leach regarded as the finest thrower he knew. Crowan was also a major rival to St Ives in the 1950's.

Thanks Philpot,

I have heard of some of what / whom you have mentioned but in determined fashion I shielded myself from them not wishing to diversify from my chosen path but obviously paths crossed.
I am interested in what you have said about Michael Leach and although I’d heard of him I knew nothing about his marks.
I have the text book on british pottery marks but if I’m honest there are so many foibles and issues that you have identified it sometimes makes you wonder why they bothered (in some but not all cases).
I’m just pleased I chose a much easier profession!

All the best
Neil62

[ppcollectables]

Am I meant to reply to your earlier comments ( Neil62 ), I had turned off the topic but now find that I have to comment on a vase that has been broken and glued back together. I have no comment to make other than you decide whether the rest of the lot is still worth a bid and if you win the lot then you either have the broken pot restored or you put it in the bin. As to my comment about 'people is plural' you commented that I must be referring to you so I just pointed out that it was not a specific dig but a general comment to others to not get too upset about one broken pot.

[studio-pots]

[

I am interested in what you have said about Michael Leach and although I’d heard of him I knew nothing about his marks.
I have the text book on british pottery marks but if I’m honest there are so many foibles and issues that you have identified it sometimes makes you wonder why they bothered (in some but not all cases).
I’m just pleased I chose a much easier profession!

One of the things that this Forum tries to do is give you and, anyone else that can be bothered to look, marks and images of pots by specific potters, which are much more useful than drawn marks in books.

For example, there is a Michael Leach and Yelland Pottery thread at https://www.20thcenturyforum.com/t7505-michael-leach-yelland-pottery?highlight=michael+leach

[Sponsored content]