The Leach Pottery. St Ives

The immediate decade after the Second World War.was probably the Golden Age for the Standard Ware of the Leach Pottery.In age of True Austerity -ractioning did not finish until the mid 50's- they could sell all they produced. David Leach had rationalised both Clay and production,and that period of the 'Oak Leaf' standard ware production in the late 40's early 50's was probably the zenith of Standard Ware at the Leach Pottery.
Teapots in particular seem quite rare. They were made to order,so inevitably are uncommon. There seem few images around.
This standard ware teapot is from the 'Oak Leaf' range circa late 40's/early 50's.

Another view.

The following are the pages of a Standard Ware catalogue from circa 1960.

Bowl with handle. Stamped with St Ives mark and ENGLAND
~4.5" dia bowl. 7" including handle. 2.5" high.
I believe there's a photo of one with this shape in the catalogue, above - No.13 Handled soup bowl open. 1/2pt.

Bowl with Z decoration.
5.5" dia. 3.25" high
From the catalogue = No. 42 small decorated porringer.

Salt glazed pots , by Roelof Uys , he is the present Senior Production Potter at the Leach Pottery .

I'm a big fan of Uys' stuff, and have a small bowl by him. I hope being at Leach Pottery doesn't mean he ends up just making brown pots.

http://www.uysgallery.co.uk/aboutus.html

I'm not too bothered what colour he does as long as he can turn out pieces like this one ( light brown) 

My problem with these pots is not that they are brown or well potted but that they and things produced there since the Committee took over have nothing whatsoever to do with the Leach Pottery.

Once Trevor Corser was got rid of the pottery to me stopped being the Leach Pottery and since then the seal and name has been continued for commercial reasons only.

The pots look fine but I wouldn't buy fake Leach Pottery pots, which is what they are to me.

They should have knocked the old pottery down and not exploited it, as they are doing now.

Very sad.

I know what you mean John , I'm not sure , I spoke to Peter Swanson about it he Thinks the same as you and he is going to have talks about it as he's on the committee at leach pottery , to me personally , I think it's a fair mark as the pots were made at the leach pottery and therfore qualify use of the mark , why should there be a cut off point with say Corser , Amanda Briars used it until recently , I know it adds to a potters CV to say they potted there , Roelof has his personal incised mark on them and dated some 2013 as well , They are not fakes imo just pots in a long line of the pottery , the same debate wouldn't have happened if not for refurbishment , It''ll be talked about for a while I suppose  

I've never been much interested in Leach or any other pottery's standard ware. To me it's the named individual potter that's important so we can judge Roelof on his individual pieces not his ability to manage a small factory.

Ok , the larger pots are not standard ware , I believe Roelof has took on a demanding job ( according to potters who know him) I don't class the studios as a factory it's a studio always has been . there's no doubt having the leach mark on your pots adds brownie points to your cv , no matter how good or bad the potter is , it's not even the individual potter that's important to an extent , it's the pots themselves that are important .

it's not even the individual potter that's important to an extent , it's the pots themselves that are important .

It depends on whether Roelof has a free hand in what he makes at the factory, or whether the shapes are determined by committee. Does he have to modify his designs to fits some sort of 'Leach' ethos?
Or is he just overseeing the continuing production of Leach Standard Wares, and he has free reign to make his own studio pottery there which he then puts his own name to?

He has his name on everything he makes , regardless of standard ware or his more freeform pots , I don't know if potters have to stay with any Leach ethos or not , I would hate to think they would get stifled that way , but I don't really Know  

big ed wrote:I know what you mean John , I'm not sure , I spoke to Peter Swanson about it he Thinks the same as you and he is going to have talks about it as he's on the committee at leach pottery , to me personally , I think it's a fair mark as the pots were made at the leach pottery and therfore qualify use of the mark , why should there be a cut off point with say Corser , Amanda Briars used it until recently , I know it adds to a potters CV to say they potted there , Roelof has his personal incised mark on them and dated some 2013 as well , They are not fakes imo just pots in a long line of the pottery , the same debate wouldn't have happened if not for refurbishment , It''ll be talked about for a while I suppose  

I know that there is no right or wrong here but the reason that for me Trevor Corser leaving the site meant the end of the Leach Pottery is that he was the last direct contact with Bernard Leach, as he had been taken on in the 1960s. So it has nothing to do with refurbishment, just continuity.

Yes but surely using the leach mark is the natural progression to do , as they can't have direct contact with the main man , having contact with say- Trevor and his work is the continuity that leach is known for , Warren Mackenzie was there last week making a film I don't know his views obviously , it will be interesting to see the outcome of the meets about the use of the famous mark .

There are lots of big named potteries that have changed hands and changed styles over the years but kept the name. Nothing wrong in that. My only bugbear is if they keep churning out copies of Leach's old pots, as that would be akin to counterfeiting.

Leach pottery yes. A true classic of 20th century design IMO