Mark Griffiths?

With the additional pictures(aka actually providing info we require on ID posts), I believe they are by Mark.

Those stamps are not what I would call "obscured", the K is clear. The foot looks a lot better in those pictures too.

In future, if you don't want peoples opinions, don't post.

Potty wrote:With the additional pictures(aka actually proving info we require on ID posts), I believe they are by Mark.

Those stamps are not what I would call "obscured", the K is clear. The foot looks a lot better in those pictures too.

In future, if you don't want peoples opinions, don't post.

Good evening Potty,

Interestingly potty I didn’t ask for anyone’s opinion on who made these items - I didn’t ask for any assistance in identifying them!
I didn’t even post it in the ID pottery section!

I had already identified it and added it to the thread for Mark Griffiths which unless I completely misunderstand the way this forum operates is perfectly correct.
People just decided to voice their opinion that it was potentially misattributed without being fully aware of the evidence I was in possession of.

So Potty I would suggest that you look at the thread (I don’t know whether you can do this because I think my post was moved by an administrator and I don’t know whether you hold a similar position) but perhaps contemplate that your attempt at criticising me is completely misplaced.
I do appreciate your agreement though (that is not tongue in cheek!) but I had already done all the necessary research (I’d found photos of Marks large bowls prior to glazing which showed the identical footring) and ascertained the pieces were by Mark Griffiths - It wasn’t hard.
I have followed Naomi’s suggestion to contact Mark but without any success ……like everyone he will have his own life to lead. I did so because I respect Naomi and her advice even though in this instance I didn’t feel it was necessary.

I have no wish to fall out with anyone but if there is any criticism of anyone then that criticism has to be balanced and fair and in this instance it isn’t.

Thank you!
Neil62

Neil62 wrote:

Potty wrote:With the additional pictures(aka actually proving info we require on ID posts), I believe they are by Mark.

Those stamps are not what I would call "obscured", the K is clear. The foot looks a lot better in those pictures too.

In future, if you don't want peoples opinions, don't post.

Good evening Potty,

Interestingly potty I didn’t ask for anyone’s opinion on who made these items - I didn’t ask for any assistance in identifying them!
I didn’t even post it in the ID pottery section!

I had already identified it and added it to the thread for Mark Griffiths which unless I completely misunderstand the way this forum operates is perfectly correct.
People just decided to voice their opinion that it was potentially misattributed without being fully aware of the evidence I was in possession of.

So Potty I would suggest that you look at the thread (I don’t know whether you can do this because I think my post was moved by an administrator and I don’t know whether you hold a similar position) but perhaps contemplate that your attempt at criticising me is completely misplaced.
I do appreciate your agreement though (that is not tongue in cheek!) but I had already done all the necessary research (I’d found photos of Marks large bowls prior to glazing which showed the identical footring) and ascertained the pieces were by Mark Griffiths - It wasn’t hard.
I have followed Naomi’s suggestion to contact Mark but without any success ……like everyone he will have his own life to lead. I did so because I respect Naomi and her advice even though in this instance I didn’t feel it was necessary.

I have no wish to fall out with anyone but if there is any criticism of anyone then that criticism has to be balanced and fair and in this instance it isn’t.

Thank you!
Neil62

If I had posted on the ID section I would have complied with the instructions as I do on every occasion I post on there.
Not sure what aka means

Neil62 wrote:Interestingly potty I didn’t ask for anyone’s opinion on who made these items - I didn’t ask for any assistance in identifying them!
I didn’t even post it in the ID pottery section!

Neil62 wrote:So Potty I would suggest that you look at the thread (I don’t know whether you can do this because I think my post was moved by an administrator and I don’t know whether you hold a similar position) but perhaps contemplate that your attempt at criticising me is completely misplaced.

Potty wrote:In future, if you don't want peoples opinions, don't post.

Re-read what I wrote, I did not say "don't post in the ID sections".

Sorry Neil but I agree with Potty. You may not realise it, but your posting style is aggressive. You always seem to need to have the last word.

So …..
I post on a thread regarding a specific topic ie Mark Griffiths - someone then moves my post to another arena (which I didn’t ask to be done but was happy for that to occur) that new section….ID my ceramic required additional images….so far so good.
I post those additional images as requested.
A member decides that I was wrong to identify the potter I did in that first instance but then after seeing the additional images required in the ID section ……agrees that I was in fact correct.
But then chooses to chastise me for not following protocols which as I have explained were completely out of my control.
The aggressive behaviour was by the person ‘attempting’ to be clever and ‘chastising’ me though I didn’t understand the connotation of aka in the context that it was used!
Philpot I am surprised at you, but not that much!!!
If people decide to post an opinion that I am mistaken they are completely free to do so. However, I should also have the right to put forward my own opinion and defend that with evidence.
I do not see that as being aggressive ……just human nature.
If someone says you are wrong you must be allowed to show that you are in fact correct …….which is exactly what I did or on occasions as I alluded to accept that I am wrong and move on …..which I have previously done.
If you believe that is aggressive then frankly I’m astounded.

NaomiM wrote: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

Good evening Naomi,

Mark Griffiths has very kindly responded and confirmed that he was the maker of all five of the pots.
FYI

Thanks
Neil62

Neil62 wrote:However, I should also have the right to put forward my own opinion and defend that with evidence.

Nothing wrong with you doing the above, but the way in which you do it matters.

Neil62 wrote:A member decides that I was wrong to identify the potter I did in that first instance but then after seeing the additional images required in the ID section ……agrees that I was in fact correct.

Where did I say it was wrong? I suggested they did not look quite right to me, suggested a good way to contact Mark (which I have done previously, he's a top chap), then explained what did not seem right (mainly the foot and how you described weight)

Neil62 wrote:The aggressive behaviour was by the person ‘attempting’ to be clever and ‘chastising’ me

You can just say Potty you know   Not sure how any of my posts read as "attempting to be clever", but I was being pointed about your attitude.

Neil62 wrote:Philpot I am surprised at you, but not that much!!!

That is uncalled for, Philpot's replies to you have actually been for your own sake.

You'll get a lot more from places like this if you were to reflect on his comment a little. I've always liked the saying "it's not what you say, it's how you say it!" it applys here. Though I also like the saying "some people cannot be helped!"

Potty wrote:

Neil62 wrote:A member decides that I was wrong to identify the potter I did in that first instance but then after seeing the additional images required in the ID section ……agrees that I was in fact correct.

Where did I say it was wrong? I suggested they did not look quite right to me, suggested a good way to contact Mark (which I have done previously, he's a top chap), then explained what did not seem right (mainly the foot and how you described weight)

Neil62 wrote:The aggressive behaviour was by the person ‘attempting’ to be clever and ‘chastising’ me

You can just say Potty you know   Not sure how any of my posts read as "attempting to be clever", but I was being pointed about your attitude.

Neil62 wrote:Philpot I am surprised at you, but not that much!!!

That is uncalled for, Philpot's replies to you have actually been for your own sake.

You'll get a lot more from places like this if you were to reflect on his comment a little. I've always liked the saying "it's not what you say, it's how you say it!" it applys here. Though I also like the saying "some people cannot be helped!"

Doesn’t deserve a response other than ……who is it that likes the last word!

Neil62 wrote:

NaomiM wrote: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

Good evening Naomi,

Mark Griffiths has very kindly responded and confirmed that he was the maker of all five of the pots.
FYI

Thanks
Neil62

That's great to hear an affirmative attribution from the potter, now can we please put the handbags down girls?