These majolica reproductions have caught my attention recently. Some have been around for a few years where others are recent to the market. In any event be aware that these are out in the stores and fairs should anyone try to represent them as antique.
As is usually the case with reproductions the quality is generally quite poor. The main exception I would make in this group is the reproduction of the Arsenal pottery stag plate and the Etruscan Cauliflower plate, which are actually rather convincing.
As is usually the case with reproductions the quality is generally quite poor. The main exception I would make in this group is the reproduction of the Arsenal pottery stag plate and the Etruscan Cauliflower plate, which are actually rather convincing.
There's certainly nothing wrong with buying a reproduction as long as you know what you're buying.
Forewarned is forearmed.
Hi Jimbo.
ReplyDeleteI am a relatively new collector and have been trying to research all I can.
I have two pieces similar to the fakes in the pictures. I have an Etruscan cauliflower plate that is marked. I also have the begonia leaf on bark pitcher. I bought them both at Strawser Auctions. Can you tell me a little more how to identify the fakes?
Thanks so much,
Christi George
It sounds like your cauliflower plate is genuine because of it's mark. These cauliflower reproductions I've posted here are not marked.
DeleteThe begonia leaf on bark pitcher has been heavily reproduced, but that doesn't necessarily mean that yours is not authentic. If yours bears a circular Etruscan Majolica mark on the underside it is definitely a copy. This pattern was never made by the company. It is one of several odd mugs and pitchers that appeared a few years back with fake Etruscan marks. The pitcher is also being sold as new by an American company that marks it with a paper label. Unfortunately, unscrupulous dealers remove the label and try to pass it off as old.
The best advise I can give a new collector is to look at as much majolica as you can find and read as much as you can. Soon you'll be able to recognize the real thing like a pro!
Hi Jimbo,
ReplyDelete99% of 19th Century majolica was lead glaze not tin glaze as you state in 'What is Majolica'. South Kensington Museum, now the V & A, published two booklets in 1875 to promote correct usage of the terms majolica and maiolica. These two had at times been used interchangeably so no wonder there was confusion. Minton did not help by naming his early majolica 'Palissy ware'. The booklets were titled Majolica (lead glaze) and Maiolica (tin glaze).
Hope you welcome the info, and great blogs sir.
David
Thanks David. You're absolutely right of course. It was the lead oxide used on the Victorian majolica's first dip that gave the painters the beautiful white surface over which the colored glazes were then applied.
ReplyDeleteIt's well known that plumbism was an occupational hazard to dippers and painters in the pottery who handled majolica glaze. I addressed the issue in my book on the Etruscan Works, "The Majolica of Griffen, Smith & Company, Volume 1."
An addition point of confusion lies in the use of tin oxide as a component in some of the colored glazes used in majolica production. This can be seen by studying the surviving formula books of David Smith, many of which include tin.
I'll make the clarification.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBlogger James Boyle said...
ReplyDeleteI can’t figure out how to add a photo. But here goes:
I’ve been wondering about the age of vases with storks or herons. I’ve seen 3 identical ones within 1 1/2 months. The unglazed “rocky” base, as well as the underside being unglazed seem uncharacteristic. The markings on the base make no sense. Oddly, each of the three I’ve seen have had the same felt pads. Am I wrong to think these are fakes?
IMG_7529.jpg
ReplyDeleteIMG_7532.jpg
I have the pitcher, a frog strattling a fish, but am curious as to what the makers mark is, since it appears not to be Majolica. The piece certainly looks like it. The colors are more earthy tones, not like the colorful one pictured. The mark underneath is of a square inside a hexagon that is attached to a circle. The circle is either under the hexagon or above it, depending on which way you look at mark. Would really love to know who made it, but I cannot find that mark anywhere to identify maker. Please help!
ReplyDeleteIt’s difficult to tell through a description if the piece is reproduction or not. If you’d like to send me photos of the piece as well as the underside I’ll do my best to help you. My email address is in my bio.
DeleteHi Jimbo
ReplyDeleteCan you tell me if any fake Isle of Man Teapots of the three legged sailor seated on a coiled rope exist?
Thanks
WW
There are several different designs of the Isle of Man teapot. Of the two that I know of with him sitting on the coiled rope I am not aware of any reproductions. Those were made by Brownfield & Sons
DeleteWow , fast reply. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteWW
I have 2 vases marks are 63/70 K1, Jolg or SoLg and 70/63 K4 Stamped Salg or $alg.
ReplyDeleteThey have Brown tops with cream background and various tones of green and white leaves they are over a foot tall, do they sound fake? thanks in advance, Kathy
I’m sorry, I really need to see the piece to assist you properly.
ReplyDelete