Mark Griffiths?

Pretty sure these five large items are by Mark Griffiths.
The auction didn’t know and the marks are almost completely full of glaze but the decoration and positioning of the mark meant for me it was by Mark Griffiths.
They are well made and bloody heavy!
Other than what I have read I don’t know whether he is still active as a potter?

He is certainly less active than he was and recently has gone through periods of "resting" but I don't think that he has taken the decision not to make any further pots.

Thanks Studio

I did have an exhibition of his work at the Harlequin Gallery and it sold well. The standard of his work was as good as several of his contemporaries but he never seem to be as well thought of by the pottery buying public at the time.

I know that he was asked by the Goldmark Gallery to join them in the past but he didn't want the pressure of making a large number of pots for a solo exhibition.

studio-pots wrote:I did have an exhibition of his work at the Harlequin Gallery and it sold well. The standard of his work was as good as several of his contemporaries but he never seem to be as well thought of by the pottery buying public at the time.

I know that he was asked by the Goldmark Gallery to join them in the past but he didn't want the pressure of making a large number of pots for a solo exhibition.

You know my limitations Studio in terms of experience and knowledge but I have to admit there seems to be potters of equal ability and experience around - some get the breaks and as studio potters become household names and then others don’t - I suppose it’s like any occupation.
Having looked at some of his other work, whilst these are well crafted I think some of his other pots (particularly the smaller ones) are more attractive.
I liked your idea you mentioned a while ago of supporting a younger potter and one part of the pottery scene I haven’t introduced myself to as yet are the pottery fairs but I will eventually.
I’m still a staunch Leach fan, I suppose because relatively speaking it’s safe!
Hope you are well and your projects are going strong.
Neil62

I’ve split the thread because you didn’t seem sure of the attribution. Best to add photos of the marks, even if they’re glazed, to double check

Hi Naomi,
No I’m sure - judged on his past work, sizes, shapes and forms, position of the handles and the position of the button impressed marks. The decoration which he has used many times, even down to the pair of jugs.
All good. The mark fitting was a bonus really even thought it can’t be seen - what little detail which can be seen fits.

Unfortunately the photo resolution wasn’t clear enough. Maybe try uploading them at 1024px width

They don't look quite right to me to be honest, maybe due to being earlier, but why not just message Mark and ask on Facebook? I'm pretty sure he would reply when he has time.

Potty wrote:They don't look quite right to me to be honest, maybe due to being earlier, but why not just message Mark and ask on Facebook? I'm pretty sure he would reply when he has time.

It is always difficult when you are working from a photo but what exactly doesn’t look quite right potty?

NaomiM wrote:Unfortunately the photo resolution wasn’t clear enough. Maybe try uploading them at 1024px width

Hi Naomi,
I’m on my way to an auction this morning but I’m pretty sure the images won’t improve….. the marks are pretty filled in as l said.
However, I will have a go using the one with least glaze and post it later today.
I’ll try in different light / angles.
I am a bit of a technophobe Naomi so how many photos should I use on one post with this resolution?
Kind regards
Neil62

Neil62 wrote:

NaomiM wrote:Unfortunately the photo resolution wasn’t clear enough. Maybe try uploading them at 1024px width

Hi Naomi,
I’m on my way to an auction this morning but I’m pretty sure the images won’t improve….. the marks are pretty filled in as l said.
However, I will have a go using the one with least glaze and post it later today.
I’ll try in different light / angles.
I am a bit of a technophobe Naomi so how many photos should I use on one post with this resolution?
Kind regards
Neil62

Easy thing to do would be to "Crop" the images to make the mark much bigger and upload again as you did, it will have the same effect.

Neil62 wrote:

Potty wrote:They don't look quite right to me to be honest, maybe due to being earlier, but why not just message Mark and ask on Facebook? I'm pretty sure he would reply when he has time.

It is always difficult when you are working from a photo but what exactly doesn’t look quite right potty?

From what I can see, the foot mainly, but it's also a glaze I have not seen him use (though he had used tons, so that is no great surprise!).

The words 'Bloody Heavy' would worry me a bit. I have had a few Mark Griffiths pieces over the years, and they were excellent well made professional pieces. They were well balanced and not heavy.

philpot wrote:The words 'Bloody Heavy' would worry me a bit. I have had a few Mark Griffiths pieces over the years, and they were excellent well made professional pieces. They were well balanced and not heavy.

Ah yeah, that bit too

And please add base photos

Fortunately I’m not a worrier - couldn’t afford to be.
But maybe there‘’a a little misapprehension!
I took a large box with me wrapped them all up in clingfilm and couldn’t lift the box at least safely.
So I weighed a jug by Bill Marshall (same height but different shape) and the equivalent sized jug by Griffiths they both weighed virtually the same.

The Leach pottery (0ld earthenware jug) I have which proportionally is similar in size is 200 grams heavier!
So whilst they were heavy collectively perhaps not so individually.

The large Balluster vase weighs about 7.5 Kg & the bowl about 3.5 Kg.
Perhaps I’m getting weaker

Potty wrote:

Neil62 wrote:

NaomiM wrote:Unfortunately the photo resolution wasn’t clear enough. Maybe try uploading them at 1024px width

Hi Naomi,
I’m on my way to an auction this morning but I’m pretty sure the images won’t improve….. the marks are pretty filled in as l said.
However, I will have a go using the one with least glaze and post it later today.
I’ll try in different light / angles.
I am a bit of a technophobe Naomi so how many photos should I use on one post with this resolution?
Kind regards
Neil62

Easy thing to do would be to "Crop" the images to make the mark much bigger and upload again as you did, it will have the same effect.

The bowl is 40 cm x 17 cm deep.
The mark on this is probably the clearest (attached later)

You do love to win an argument Neil!
But we are not arguing. Its just our guesses or opinions.

Neil62 wrote:

The only other half reasonable one is on the jug.
One of my main reasons for attributing these pieces to Mark Griffiths is the depth of his mark so that even though there is significant glaze in the mark a K can still be seen!
The other more obvious reason is that the decoration which I would describe as a alpha he has used loads and loads of times on pottery which if you changed the colour on the glaze would be virtually identical in shape as shown by Mike Sanderson on his fantabulous website
Kind regards
Neil62

Mikes pots

philpot wrote:You do love to  win an argument Neil!    
But we are not arguing. Its just our guesses or opinions.

I do you are right - I would prefer to call it an informed debate but in essence I hold all the trump cards because the pots are here in front of me not with you.
I do recognise everyone is entitled to their opinion and that debate really is the only way to come to an agreed position.
That was my job.
I’m not always correct - two of my first auction buys were a piece by Bill Marshall and another by BL.
Both were wrong and I believe submitted by the same vendor to the same auction house at different times.
The BM had a smooth base and purported to have been made at Leach - it was explained by a member of the forum that BL insisted potters there always used cheesewire on the base. Smooth base, unsigned and £250 lighter I sent it back to the auction house pointed out to the CEO who is very well known it wasn’t right and we agreed to send it to charity!

My fault waited too long to do anything about it.
The second one allegedly by BL I think it was posted on here got castigated and though I moaned a little I saw that the few who were proposing a different opinion ie it could have been made by Bernard Leach but he was the caretaker at the local school and not in St Ives.
I looked at it logically thanked them for their input took it off eBay sent it back to the auction house and demanded my money back.
Without going into it they paid me in full.

I don’t always argue so vociferously but on this one (MG) ……I would have wagered my hard earned and if needs be I would have driven to Ludlow and spoken with Mark.
I did correspond with him before anyone suggested Facebook but then read that his last Kiln firing was last year (I think) Studio did say that he takes breaks but hadn’t heard he was hanging up his apron so the fact he didn’t respond didn’t mean so much to me.
Anyway if he does come back to me (and he seemed equally interested in the woodland rather than pottery) ….but then after over 4 decades potting everyone is entitled to do something different!!!!
Kind regards
Neil62

Best to ask Mark Griffiths.

NaomiM wrote:Best to ask Mark Griffiths.

Thanks Naomi,
I didn’t really expect you to identify the mark.
In fairness as I said previously it is almost obscured.
For me it is by Mark and the other attributes of the various pieces confirm this.
However, as I ask and take your ‘opinion’ on a regular basis it would be remiss of me to pick and choose which opinions / advice from you to take and what not to.
I had already sent a message to Mark.
Thanks for your help
Kind regards
Neil62