Tenmoku Charger with BL mark? Or signature?

Potty wrote:

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:
"It may be somewhat nuanced, but the differences are there, the examples you posted are exactly as I would expect for Bill's work."

I see, it rules out Philpot's sugeestion then, the off chance part of the Bill/Bernard colaberation.

Bill threw a lot of Bernard's pots, so it's kind of a given when looking at BL pots that the throwing will look like Bill's.


But yeah, even with the bit in the middle, it's quite different to the way either of them would have done, in my opinion anyway.

The Dartington suggestion sounds possible to me.

Ah OK I'm with you on the Bill/Bernard situation.

I can't move on from the B.L monogram being correct to Leach at this present moment. There has to be a Bernard link somewhere.

I do take Naomi's advice not to get too caught up in the signature/makers mark.

However, I would like to if anyone would share their thoughts on something I touched on.
The last character which I consider to be after the B.L monogram, appears to be a j:



I see it as part/the lower half of the St.ives mark .Ie. the bottom half of the 's' the horizontal 'line' and a 'dot'.
Not often seen painted, but at times Bernard Leach has casually alluded to it's existence.. even alongside his monogram

[

And appearing here as just the line with 2 dots:


Could I be correct?

The signature either carries on to the edge of the plate, so the J might be an O, or it's a date

NaomiM wrote:The signature either carries on to the edge of the plate, so the J might be an O, or it's a date

What do you mean it carries on to the edge of the plate?
(why is that an either or?)

So definitely not a B.L monogram with St.ives mark?

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:
Could I be correct?

I don't mean this in a mean way, but you have a bad case of wishful thinking when it comes to some of these posts

An identification is far more than just a mark or vaguely resembling mark. Any of the other examples of BL's work you have posted I would easily suspect BL without seeing any marks.

Same thing with the Hamada/Cardrew/Rie posts I am afraid. All look like competent potters, but alas not the big names.

To be fair most of us have been there (I have! ) and probably will be again with other pots, when you want to see something, it can be hard to un-see it

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:

NaomiM wrote:The signature either carries on to the edge of the plate, so the J might be an O, or it's a date

What do you mean it carries on to the edge of the plate?
(why is that an either or?)

So definitely not a B.L monogram with St.ives mark?

Not a BL monogram. It looks like a signature; maybe ending in '...son' or a date.

Pity is of course there is no expert now alive who could give a definitive opinion on this piece.Janet Leach, David Leach , John Leach were all used as experts one time or another.
The only real way you would actually test the belief that it is a Bernard Leach, is to put it up for auction and see what it gets, The market is always the final. arbiter. The market itself changes over the years as well of course!

Despite this being an absolutely competant and beautiful piece of studio pottery,
I would be gobsmacked to learn if there was any BL or St Ives connection.

philpot wrote:Pity is of course there is no expert now alive who could  give a definitive opinion on this piece.

I don't think an "expert" is needed, I'm no expert but believe i can give a definitive opinion on this piece.

If we removed the squiggle, is there anything about this piece that looks like Bernard Leach to you? I'm not sure what you are seeing that I can't, as to be fair, you probably know a fair bit more about Leach pottery than I do

philpot wrote: The only real way you would actually test the belief that it is a Bernard Leach, is to put it up for auction and see what it gets, The market is always the final. arbiter. The market itself changes over the years as well of course!

That may test the "belief", but would not be factual, just ask Jeremy Broadway

Potty wrote:

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:
Could I be correct?

I don't mean this in a mean way, but you have a bad case of wishful thinking when it comes to some of these posts

An identification is far more than just a mark or vaguely resembling mark. Any of the other examples of BL's work you have posted I would easily suspect BL without seeing any marks.

Same thing with the Hamada/Cardrew/Rie posts I am afraid. All look like competent potters, but alas not the big names.

To be fair most of us have been there (I have!   ) and probably will be again with other pots, when you want to see something, it can be hard to un-see it

I know I have wishful thinking, but I'm not attached to any results.
The other pieces Iv'e posted I have no clue about, I can leave the discussion to others with more knowledge.
Though I haven't made any claims about them just drawn comparisons and asked the question, so apolagies If I'm way off in doing that,
I will learn how to contribute more meaningfully as I go.

I've learned so much from this thread about my own presumptions and lack of understanding.
In my defence, from the start it was the Makers mark I've wanted to get to the bottom of and have never claimed
that it was prodcued by B.L. In fact Iv'e listened and understood about the factors which make it unlikely to have been produced by him.
(With respect the opening line of my most recent post had already acknowledged what you say about identification.)

The most recent images of B.L pieces I had uploaded, were to show examples specifically about painted st.Ives
marks and I don't think it's delusional of me to point out the comparisons.

I do hear what you say about not being able to unsee something. But isn't it also true that you try harder
if it is your own object.. and sometimes see something others have missed?

Bottom line, It was signed by someone.. if you have any suggestions other than Dartington feel free.  

philpot wrote:Pity is of course there is no expert now alive who could  give a definitive opinion on this piece.Janet Leach, David Leach , John Leach were all used as experts one time or another.
       The only real way you would actually test the belief that it is a Bernard Leach, is to put it up for auction and see what it gets, The market is always the final. arbiter. The market itself changes over the years as well of course!

I'm glad you see some connection.
At the very least those guys could have refuted any connection if there wasn't one.
Actually Jo wason from the leach project replied to me, and I hope she won't mind me quoting her here,

She said that "she thinks it could be a B.L...but quite easily could also not be."!  
 
that's near word for word and she didn't care to elaborate, which may have been interesting.

Thanks Philpot

Potty wrote:

philpot wrote:Pity is of course there is no expert now alive who could  give a definitive opinion on this piece.

I don't think an "expert" is needed, I'm no expert but believe i can give a definitive opinion on this piece.  

If we removed the squiggle, is there anything about this piece that looks like Bernard Leach to you? I'm not sure what you are seeing that I can't, as to be fair, you probably know a fair bit more about Leach pottery than I do  

philpot wrote: The only real way you would actually test the belief that it is a Bernard Leach, is to put it up for auction and see what it gets, The market is always the final. arbiter. The market itself changes over the years as well of course!

That may test the "belief", but would not be factual, just ask Jeremy Broadway

If you don't see the squiggle as a B.L monogram then of course the other factors are irrelevant.
If you can see it, then being open to a Bernard Leach design isn't that far fetched given how experimental he was.

denbydump wrote:Despite this being an absolutely competant and beautiful piece of studio pottery,
I would be gobsmacked to learn if there was any BL or St Ives connection.

I'm glad you think it is competant and beautiful, that type of feedback confirms my feelings about it,
and also rationalises my absolute intrigue about the maker.

Seems as though the concept of depicting a waterfall between 2 hills,
with a sunset.. design for a plate, wasn't too far fetched for Bernard Leach.



Just saying.

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:
I know I have wishful thinking, but I'm not attached to any results.
The other pieces Iv'e posted I have no clue about, I can leave the discussion to others with more knowledge.
Though I haven't made any claims about them just drawn comparisons and asked the question, so apolagies If I'm way off in doing that,
I will learn how to contribute more meaningfully as I go.

Generally speaking, unless you have a good reason to believe a pot is by a certain maker, it's better to title a ID request with just details of the pot, rather than things like "A Michael Cardew?" "could it be by Hamada Shoji?" etc. This is for several reasons, including the fact we would prefer to give good news, rather than having to keep giving bad news. (Which is the case the vast majority of the time when it comes to names like Rie, BL, Hamada etc)

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:Seems as though the concept of depicting a waterfall between 2 hills,
with a sunset.. design for a plate, wasn't too far fetched for Bernard Leach.



Just saying.

Again the comparison is irrelevant sorry, the above are clear/deliberate designs, not dipping with “Hare’s-Fur” style glaze and hoping for the best.

Potty wrote:

Generally speaking, unless you have a good reason to believe a pot is by a certain maker, it's better to title a ID request with just details of the pot, rather than things like "A Michael Cardew?" "could it be by Hamada Shoji?" etc. This is for several reasons, including the fact we would prefer to give good news, rather than having to keep giving bad news. (Which is the case the vast majority of the time when it comes to names like Rie, BL, Hamada etc)

Yea I totally get that with regards to the other pieces. I did PM Naomi to suggest I or her change the my titles based on what you had said. Thank you.

I beg to differ with regards to this Charger however, as the mark looks very similar to the B.L Monogram. It has sparked some interesting discussion around potential B.L links from other members I might point out.

Potty wrote:
Again the comparison is irrelevant sorry, the above are clear/deliberate designs, not dipping with “Hare’s-Fur” style glaze and hoping for the best.

I disagree with you analysis of skill level, execution and outcome for this piece.
I don't know if you have read through the comments?
But your opinion is far from the consensus of all contributors.
And although you may be correct, with respect, how do you know what was a clear, deliberate design by Leach,
or a concept for something?

I thank you for your frankness, but as you are not the authority here on B.L or indeed on what makes pottery good or not,
I will be putting your opinions on the back burner for now,  if that's O.k?

I replied to the message but didn't realise it was in response to Potty's post. I've now edited the title to remove reference to Bernard Leach, as the consensus is that it's not made by Bernard Leach or the St Ives Pottery

NaomiM wrote:I replied to the message but didn't realise it was in response to Potty's post. I've now edited the title to remove reference to Bernard Leach, as the consensus is that it's not made by Bernard Leach or the St Ives Pottery  

That's fair, so I should stop making B.L references or connections then?

For the record, I was exploring wether the piece could have been decorated by B.L, not thrown by him.

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:
I don't know if you have read through the comments?
But your opinion is far from the consensus of all contributors.

philpot wrote:There also seem to be several St Ives marks.Is that right? Which is unusual.

The only other person that believes this could be Leach is Philpot, but he seems to think that the 3 SI seal marks in your opening post belong to this pot, which they do not. If not for that confusion, I am sure Philpot would realise this is nothing like a BL piece either in body or decoration.

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:And although you may be correct, with respect, how do you know what was a clear, deliberate design by Leach,
or a concept for something?

If you use a brush, it's usually pretty clear and deliberate.

I do not think it is by Bernard Leach. It just makes the debate so much more interesting when one backs the opposing view.
For the record. I have a number of pieces by Bill Marshall, Janet Leach, David Leach, Michael Leach, John Leach and Richard Batterham, Jim Malone, and Mike Dodd. But I have never ever been tempted to buy anything by Bernard Leach.

philpot wrote: I do not think it is by Bernard Leach. It just makes the debate so much more interesting when one backs the opposing view.
             For the record. I have a number of pieces by Bill Marshall, Janet Leach, David  Leach, Michael Leach, John Leach and Richard Batterham, Jim Malone, and Mike Dodd. But I have never ever been tempted to buy anything by Bernard Leach.  

..
I just read this correctly for the first time. ..

isn't your avatar a B.L plate?

Potty wrote:

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:
I don't know if you have read through the comments?
But your opinion is far from the consensus of all contributors.

philpot wrote:There also seem to be several St Ives marks.Is that right? Which is unusual.

The only other person that believes this could be Leach is Philpot, but he seems to think that the 3 SI seal marks in your opening post belong to this pot, which they do not. If not for that confusion, I am sure Philpot would realise this is nothing like a BL piece either in body or decoration.

Bernado Duckworthy wrote:And although you may be correct, with respect, how do you know what was a clear, deliberate design by Leach,
or a concept for something?

If you use a brush, it's usually pretty clear and deliberate.

I hope you don't mind me reopening this exchange Potty, in an attempt to get the last word in..

The consensus I was referring to was that about perceived quality not maker.

And I don't get what you say about using a brush there, I was refering to a pencil sketch for a design idea, which doesn't always
define a clear and deliberate decoration. (the idea of a sunset and waterfall between 2 hills is what i'm clinging to here if you'l allow me for the time being)  

There is a time, Bernardo when you just have to accept things for what they are. All collectors have their 'What if' moments. But unfortunately we have to accept reality.
The reality being that if this was put up for auction it would be described as 'School of Bernard Leach' or style of Bernard Leach. If it has all these negatives from being seen in a photo. Then when examined in hand, it will certainly have more.

If this charger was put in auction with the description "School of Bernard Leach" or "style of Bernard Leach", which I have no doubt could/would happen, then I would dismiss those descriptions with the contempt that I do all Salesmen speak where ever I see it.

In my book, knowingly conning people to buy something because of a false attribution, however vague, is fraud. However, it's how the world works and people make money, so no one is going to be concerned with what I think.