I’m not a collector but I purchased this small bowl in the early 1990s when visiting Worcestershire UK. I purchased it really because of the repair method using staples...which I now believe was a fairly common repair practice . It’s dated to 1886 but I’m at a loss to identify the maker, though it was marked ‘Worcester’ when purchased. Can anyone help with the potter?
Re: Makers Mark id
Posted by George Wells on December 21, 2020, 1:23 pm, in reply to "Makers Mark id"
This bowl is unusual because its staple repair is something we don't generally find on such recent ceramics. Cemented metal staples were often used to repair broken china in the 1700's and early 1800's, but it is unusual to find them on "turn-of-the-century" or later wares.
The key to discovering which potter made your bowl depends on your ability to read the exact number that appears on the raised panel on the bowl's bottom. The number is a "registration number" (the "Rd" that precedes the actual number... don't ask). I can see from your photo that the number begins with a "3." That means that if the number is 5 digits long, either the pattern or the shape of the bowl was registered in 1885, which would be the earliest date that could be given the bowl, and if the number is 6 digits long, it would have been registered sometime between 1897 and 1902, depending on the second digit. Records in England would contain the exact registration details for each number, (potentially revealing to you the potter) but by now there are over 2 million registration numbers, and I know of no attempt to publish their details. It does not help that the pattern is a rather generic one of the "Blue Willow" type, a popular subject that at least dozens of potters copied. The blue mark found on the bottom of the bowl was probably used to account for the employee who decorated the piece.
Re: Makers Mark id
Posted by Ian on December 21, 2020, 7:17 pm, in reply to "Re: Makers Mark id"
Thank you George for your information and insight. The stapling was what caught my eye in the first place. The first digit on the Rd mark appears to be an 8 not 3, at certain angles the second number is unreadable. There appears to be 5 digits in total which makes sense for the date of the piece to be 1886 - 1888. Or even 1902 if the Rd # is six digits. On further research the looped mark is consistent with Minton 1886 but only as an imprinted mark not ‘painted’. Again, many thanks for your response.