I was wondering if anyone had insights regarding production of vessels with registry marks. As far as I understand, the registry marks (such as the diamond mark) refers to the date that a pattern or shape was registered with the British Registry & Design office. Since these marks are commonly used as a dating mechanism on archaeological sites, is it possible for some patterns to be produced before or while the registration is applied for (such as US patents today that might take a year or two to actually be granted)? Also, when did the registry start? I had always understood that it began around 1842 but recently encountered a pattern registered in the 1830s. Thanks for any information.
Re: Registry Marks
Posted by Len on February 4, 2013, 10:27 pm, in reply to "Registry Marks"
Hi Tim. Thanks for your interesting questions. It doesn't seem that a piece of any type could bear a registry mark BEFORE the pattern was registered - how would the manufacturer know on what date the design would actually finally be registered? You're correct in that designs began to be registered in 1842. What pattern did you see with an earlier mark, and what kind of mark was it?
Re: Registry Marks
Posted by Tim on February 5, 2013, 11:22 am, in reply to "Re: Registry Marks"
The pattern that had an earlier mark on it is "Giraffe" apparently made by John Ridgway. Marked "Stone Ware J.R. Giraffe Published August 30th 1836 Agreeably to the Artist". I'm guessing that this isn't a reference to a registered design but an indication that they had received permission from the original artist who may have originally produced an engraving for print (books, paper, etc).
Re: Registry Marks
Posted by Tim on February 5, 2013, 10:41 am, in reply to "Re: Registry Marks"
Hi Len,
Thanks for your post. Let me try to clarify. What I am trying to determine is if manufacturers produced a pattern BEFORE the pattern actually received a registry number/date. Obviously the production of these wares would be absent the registry mark as they wouldn't have received it yet. For example, we sold our product (in this case software) two years prior to actually receiving a US Patent. When the patent was received we put the patent number on it. I realize the rules would be different for 20th century US patents vs mid 19th century British registrations (which is exactly what I'm trying to find out). So the question is, are there any examples or information to suggest that manufacturers would produce a pattern before receiving or while waiting for the British Registry and Designs office to issue the registration? Thanks for any assistance.
Re: Registry Marks
Posted by Len on February 5, 2013, 12:52 pm, in reply to "Re: Registry Marks"
Oh, I see what you mean now, Tim. Actually, I don't know the answer. You would need some sort of separate documentary evidence obviously - like a factory record of a pattern being produced prior to the registration date, and I don't know if that exists. Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable than I am could help you more. I would agree that the publishing date included in the mark for the Giraffe pattern is different than a registration date. I've always assumed it was just John Ridgway's choice, for whatever reason, to include that date in his mark. You see it on other Ridgway pieces too. Though now that you bring it up I don't know if it signifies more than just the date they started producing the pattern. Hmm, hope somebody else weighs in on this!
Re: Registry Marks
Posted by Tim on February 5, 2013, 1:31 pm, in reply to "Re: Registry Marks"
Len,
Thanks for your comments. Now that I think about it, maybe another way to potentially determine if a manufacturer was making a pattern before it was registered is if they include their maker's mark but without the diamond registry mark. I recall seeing patterns such as "Carrara" (registered in 1852) by John Holland that don't have any back mark but this leaves open the possibility that someone later on bought the copper plates, etc. I think to prove the issue we would need to see a registered pattern that has the company mark but no diamond mark.
Re: Registry Marks
Posted by Tim on February 5, 2013, 2:05 pm, in reply to "Re: Registry Marks"
I did find one example in my collection. "Rustic Scenery" by Joseph Clementson was registered in 1842 and nearly every piece I've seen in this pattern has the diamond registry mark. The sample I bought, which at the time I lamented that it didn't have the diamond mark, does have the firm's makers mark. Its possible that Clementson was making this pattern before the Design and Registration system came out in 1842 and when his pattern was registered, included the diamond mark to indicate so. Its also entirely possible that one of the workers 170 years ago simply forgot to apply the diamond mark to the back...
Re: Registry Marks
Posted by Andrew J Pye on February 5, 2013, 3:01 pm, in reply to "Re: Registry Marks"
Wow, slow down. It is difficult to keep up! In England there are four main areas of Intellectual Property: Patents, Trade Marks, Designs and Copyright. The subject under discussion revolves round Designs and Copyright and in simplistic terms Design is about what something looks like (sometimes described as eye appeal) and Copyright is about artistic or literary expression. The first framework of Copyright law arose from the arrival of printed book, because the chap down the road with a printing press could produce an exact copy of the book you had worked at and crafted for years. As time went by textile design was woven into the copyright protection. The production of pottery did not at this time need such protection as it was largely functional and artisan. Then in the late 18th Century and early 19th Cenutry this all changed as the English potteries became a force to be reckoned with. In 1797 The Sculpture Copyright Act reached the statute book and this was updated in 1814 and they both gave protection to the "modelled form", a term which a few potters extended to the shape of jugs etc. A key requirement was that you had to mark each piece with "Published by and your name, short address and date". A key feature is that there was no Registry of designs at this time, so you could not register the design. Hence you had to mark each piece. Protection against copying was time limited and in the very early days was 2 months. I need to check how the time frame grew longer over the years. A big change came in 1839 with the arrival of the Copyright of Design Act, which extended protection to any article of manufacture and established a registration system. A similar marking on the each piece produced was still required, which limited its popularity with potters, although interestingly Ridgway were early adopters of this protection. In 1842 the Design Act tidied up the whole process and introduced the "simpler" diamond registration device and the pottery industry embraced the new system of registering designs, whether they were shapes, patterns, decoration or whatever. From memory the intitial period of protection was 5 years, which could be extended by a further 3 and then later 7 years and an extension of a further 7. I need to check that! In theory, you could not register a design that had already been published, so registration needed to come first. I am not sure what the position was with a design published prior to the introduction of the Act, could you register it and publish it afresh? Certainly, Spode for example regsitered their Greek design in 1914 (yes 1914) whereas it had been first published in 1806. As a general rule, once the Design Act was in place, if a design was intended to be registered, I think you can assume that the design did not appear until it had been registered. Yes, some pieces were not marked with the registration diamond, some potters still applied the diamond long after the registration had expired, some potters copied the design of others the moment registration expired and potters going out of business or stuck with an unpopular design registered or not would sell the printing plates on to other potters. Quite a few permutations. I think I will pause there. Regards Andrew
Re: Registry Marks
Posted by Tim on February 6, 2013, 11:02 am, in reply to "Re: Registry Marks"
Andrew,
Again, thanks for all of your detailed comments - this is VERY helpful. One thing that occurs to me though is why wouldn't more potters have taken advantage of Sculpture Copyright Act to protect their designs? Out of over a hundred 1820s / 1830s designs that I've looked at, I've only encountered one that used it ("Giraffe"). Also, is there any particular reason why my sample of "Rustic Scenery" by Joseph Clementson has the maker's mark but not the diamond registry mark that was included in every other piece I've seen in that pattern?
Thanks again - I really do appreciate your time and effort to elaborate on my questions. Quite frankly, I've had a number of questions that have erupted from my studies of mid 19th century transferware over the past several years and it is quite a relief to finally get some expert clarification on these.