Oak leaf design on Leach St Ives Standard ware, Bernard Leach? - discussion

Heritage doc has been put together with some love and care and by someone with some reverence for what they are dealing with - I worked on a Lutyens building and another 2* and it is interesting work from a block of flats or some offices.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/525d470ce4b00e94d089ed75/t/63dbd43b676c927e820d39c7/1675351118436/Training+and+Production+Centre_Heritage+Design+and+Access+Statement_compressed.pdf

Good morning,
This is not me being mischievous or annoying but as a result of previous discussions I thought I’d post this.
The first decorated pot was stamped with BL and the St Ives mark.
The second is signed BL but no St Ives mark and the third just has the Leach pottery mark.
I think the first one was a one off piece decorated with a little more care by BL and I have sold it on
The second and third are virtually the same in size and shape (as standard ware should be when it is thrown by different people to the same template.
My assertion is that the ‘blanks’ were then decorated one by BL and sold for considerably more than a normal standard ware decorated bowl. The other marked just by the Leach stamp and 10 shillings was decorated by someone else and sold at the price for a standard ware decorated bowl ten bob.


I have photographed 2 & 3 together to show what I am trying to say.

Good afternoon

I can only rely on evidence which to my eye is clear and unequivocal.
I don’t benefit from it other than the slide rule I use to determine value and attribution is clearly different to yours.
Since our last discussion I put a standard ware celadon slop / sugar bowl with a BL stamp on it, made by BL on eBay - it sold within 30 minutes.
I sold the pot with the explanation I have given this forum.
The thing is Philpot I understand you disagreeing with my assertion and opinion of course you have that right but you don’t actually give an alternative explanation of what is there in the form of evidence.
You say that I should test it with a wider audience …..I’ve done that.
My thoughts are on here and on my listings - I do agree with you that there is no absolute way of proving my assertion because it is a certainty that the persons involved are no longer with us but I don’t believe there is a cogent, logical argument against my assertion (with contradictory evidence) which can be judged on the balance of probabilities and found to be a convincing alternative.
I respect other people’s opinions and I have formed alternative views based on discussions I have had on this forum - I believe it is one of this forums functions.
I looked at another forum this morning which was discussing the same topic - there was a comment on there about an ancillary issue which was a personal opinion. I didn’t agree with the opinion but my comment disagreeing would have done absolutely nothing other than cause discourse. If I could have said to this person you are wrong because…… then I would have done that.

I’ve said all I wish about the subject now - it may be others with a contradictory position might post and I am happy to debate the point with anyone.
But I’m happy to agree to disagree with you Philpot.
Kind regards
Neil62

Came across this paragraph. Tbh, I haven't read the whole piece but thought it may be of interest to anyone who wants to follow it up

http://criticalceramics.glazy.org/articles/unknown.htm

Bernard Leach not only signed his work, he even signed the work that others made for him. Oliver Watson explains, that at St. Ives the chief thrower, William Marshall, made much of Leach's best work, which was finished up and then decorated(6) and of course, signed by Leach. Similarly in Japan, the Viscount appointed the best craftsmen to be at Leach's disposal.

Hi Naomi,
I think it’s accepted that happened - Mike Sanderson has a bowl / plate which acknowledges this on its base something like ‘thrown by Bill Marshall (signed) decorated by Bernard Leach (signed)- I fully realise there were a plethora of other pots without Bill’s signature on which BL decorated and signed. I think there will be a few of the ones who th both signature on about. I don’t think it’s that important - the issue for me was that BL decorated signed and sold standard ware decorated blanks - it wasn’t a secret - it was advertised in the catalogue.
I showed a photo of one signed by him against one which was decorated by one of the other potters (unsigned).
I’ve since found another BL sold at Bonhams 2007 almost identical - same dimensions shape and decoration.

Hello All,

I am new to this forum and am very interested in what this oak leaf decoration looks like. Is there a photograph? I own a pot that is a burnt umber/black and is marked David Leach. It too has an oak leaf decoration. I also own a large Bernard Leach Leaping Salmon vase, 2 Bill Marshalls, several Michael Cardew, unsigned MacKenzie pieces as well. Purchased by our folks who made many trips, kids in tow, to the UK in the 60's and met with these potters. David may have moved on to Lowdown by then?

Thanks for your reply.
LuvMCM

Examples of the Oak leaf decoration

https://www.20thcenturyforum.com/t9954p300-the-leach-pottery-st-ives#180892

https://www.20thcenturyforum.com/t9954p275-the-leach-pottery-st-ives#168907

I must admit I was sceptical regarding BL decorating the premier ‘standard’ ware with the oak Leaf and I have several ones of different sizes & slightly different shapes which dissuades me from believing it even more.
I also recollect seeing a drawing by BL of the oak leaf decoration (as a sort of template as per the standard ware) so given the slightly different leaves and the fact that examples with the oak leaves do not have his stamp or monogram yet other decorated pieces of standard ware do I was unconvinced that he decorated each piece with the oak leaf……..however, I watched the 1952 documentary about the Leach pottery I think reworked by Marty Gross with narration by Warren Mackenzie.
He stated that BL did all the oak leaf decorating himself. The reworking was done in 2007 and given that Warren worked there between 1950-1952 maybe BL stopped decorating the leaf after that but it doesn’t make sense that he would provide evidence of his work by either a monogram or impressed stamp to command a premium price but then not to do the same on other pieces …..oh well!

Hi Philpot,
I’m unsure of the point you are making except perhaps that he couldn’t be producing these leaves at that time.
He was definitely there during filming and Warrens voiceover in 2007 states he decorated the leaves.
My point is they are different on different pieces.
It may have been he did decorate them when Warren was there between 1950-52.
I have a few different pieces with different leaves on them

Neil62 wrote:I must admit I was sceptical regarding BL decorating the premier ‘standard’ ware with the oak Leaf and I have several ones of different sizes & slightly different shapes which dissuades me from believing it even more.
I also recollect seeing a drawing by BL of the oak leaf decoration (as a sort of template as per the standard ware) so given the slightly different leaves and the fact that examples with the oak leaves do not have his stamp or monogram yet other decorated pieces of standard ware do I was unconvinced that he decorated each piece with the oak leaf……..however, I watched the 1952 documentary about the Leach pottery I think reworked by Marty Gross with narration by Warren Mackenzie.
He stated that BL did all the oak leaf decorating himself. The reworking was done in 2007 and given that Warren worked there between 1950-1952 maybe BL stopped decorating the leaf after that but it doesn’t make sense that he would provide evidence of his work by either a monogram or impressed stamp to command a premium price but then not to do the same on other pieces …..oh well!

Whatever anyone (including Bernard) said about decorating all the standard ware pieces with an oakleaf, or for that matter the "Z" brush decorated Standard Ware porringers, should take all remarks with a pinch of salt, as you say.

studio-pots wrote:

Neil62 wrote:I must admit I was sceptical regarding BL decorating the premier ‘standard’ ware with the oak Leaf and I have several ones of different sizes & slightly different shapes which dissuades me from believing it even more.
I also recollect seeing a drawing by BL of the oak leaf decoration (as a sort of template as per the standard ware) so given the slightly different leaves and the fact that examples with the oak leaves do not have his stamp or monogram yet other decorated pieces of standard ware do I was unconvinced that he decorated each piece with the oak leaf……..however, I watched the 1952 documentary about the Leach pottery I think reworked by Marty Gross with narration by Warren Mackenzie.
He stated that BL did all the oak leaf decorating himself. The reworking was done in 2007 and given that Warren worked there between 1950-1952 maybe BL stopped decorating the leaf after that but it doesn’t make sense that he would provide evidence of his work by either a monogram or impressed stamp to command a premium price but then not to do the same on other pieces …..oh well!

Whatever anyone (including Bernard) said about decorating all the standard ware pieces with an oakleaf, or for that matter the "Z" brush decorated Standard Ware porringers, should take all remarks with a pinch of salt, as you say.

I think we are in agreement.
Though I haven’t heard anyone suggesting that he decorated the z bowls / bud vases etc - though some people will try…..
I have argued that he didn’t do the oak leaf decorations - it didn’t make sense because he and David charged extra for their work even on the standard ware and without some proof they had done it - how could they charge the extra.
In the set of pieces I had it also included two ‘slop bowls’ ….one of which had the BL stamp the other one didn’t.
Kind regards
Neil62