little studio pot

It looks like a painted Colin Pearson mark, and that speckling isn't too far removed from this eggcup.
http://www.studiopottery.com/cgi-bin/pp.cgi?item=692

Yup, you could be right PP , I thought about Colin first , but said to myself Nah! painted mark not likely , but your link looks promising cheers , Ed

My pleasure.
I've never seen his mark painted before either, but I suppose there's a possibility that he forgot to stamp one before firing it.

yes very possible he used a painted mark on smaller items like this .

It must be smaller than it looks then, from the pic I'd have said it was 6" or so (and no, I haven't got my Benny Hill head on ).

it's 4", so your not far out benny

Benny prefered little tops

dantheman wrote:Benny prefered little tops

His views on jugs are another matter!

I have to agree with John McEnroe on this one!!!

studio-pots wrote:I have to agree with John McEnroe on this one!!!

??

What That you can't be serious about the Pot or Benny Hill ?

Today for the first time I have been thinking that I am just setting myself up as "the bad guy" on the forum - the man who likes to say "No".

I was just looking for someone else to blame for breaking the news that your little pot isn't by Colin Pearson.

we all welcome your input SP there are no bad guys here

Your not "the bad guy" SP, your just often the one that knows better and have the knowledge to tell us as sure as one can be if something is or is not by said maker.

I'm sure everyone else values your input greatly, even if it not what they were hoping to hear.

For example the leap style dish I have, I'd much rather know either way, I have continued the investigation, not because I believe you were wrong about anything you said, but because another person who has had experience with his early work, thinks it looks familiar.

Unfortunately as always happens, people like to hope there item is something special by adding a popular name to it, if from there point of view it seems to fit. ( me for example )

Without people like you SP, the auctions would be flooded of Leach / Cardrew items etc.

I am very greatful that you spend the time to put us right on things you have a good deal of experiance in and usually in great depth too.

hang a sec , nobody is saying anyone is the bad guy , as for my little £1 pot I am not bothered as to a name i( hence the laughter smiley)it was suggested it might be one of the many trinket type pieces produced by him and many other potters that do the same thing , your right potty John has been great to have on board the forum and has helped me out a few times , but many others have also over the years but it should still be ok to question things don't yoiu think ? I recall we had experts here a few yrs back who made loads of errors that went unchecked , so just saying we are all in it together , no bad guy good guy.

I agree, Potty. It helps for people to be rigorous about the id's. There are so many similar marks out there.

To add my ten penn'orth, a negative attribution is as important as a positive, and as far as I can tell, SP is the bearer of good news as often as bad. I would certainly appreciate being told that my 'Leach' is more 'Lurch' (preferably before I hot-foot it to Sotheby's and get .)
You just keep sharing your knowledge SP, after all, we wouldn't ask if we didn't want to know.

I think SP means about telling people the cold hard truth as it were, in more than just this one thread.

I know the feeling when you have someone ( not meaning you Ed) who thinks their *whatever item* is by *so n so* and worth *such n such* and you are the one to tell them it's not. Most are happy / pleased to know either way, but I still feel a bit bad about it

I have learnt a lot from SP as well as you other guys on this forum and that info has also helped me to inform others about some things.

I am saying that I feel like "Mr Bad Guy" to myself and it wasn't to gain any support from other posters - now I feel embarrassed

Studio pottery (British and Japanese) is something I know about. I certainly don't know everything and I can be wrong.

The problem with IDing studio items is that marks in books are just as likely to mislead as lead you to the correct answer. Basically, you need to have seen and handled a hell of a lot of pots and know the type of clay body (bodies) a potter uses and has used.

Also for me to make a positive ID is difficult as I feel that I need to be really sure.

Potty has summed up my feelings about right in his last post.

I do learn loads about studio pottery from you lot as well so won't stop posting any time soon.

Personally, an I.D. from SP on an item is more of a seal of approval so it's good that you make sure you are really sure

Agree strongly with the bit about marks in books, I try to compare to examples online or I just write my labels (notes for myself to remember) with a name then a "?" so I know that I don't really know

Nothing beats seeing many by the same maker in person, but sometimes it's easy enough to attribute something from a book/images online.