The Evolution of a Majolica Reproduction

I receive a certain degree of amusement when I come across a copy of a copy of Victorian majolica. I’ve written about this before here and here, but when I see a new copy of an older copy it still makes me chuckle

First let me show you the piece that was the original inspiration of the reproduction that is the subject of this column.

Edward Steele majolica frog pitcher 

The original is attributed to Edward Steele, but it was common for Victorian potters to copy each other’s designs. There are several similar antique pitchers of English origin floating around and they all have the same basic design—an open mouthed frog sitting on a lily pad with a handle on the frog’s back.

Antique copy of the Steele design

Antique copy of the Steele majolica design

About ten years ago a “reimagined,” unmarked copy appeared in the market. I don’t know if the original potter —apparently someone in Wanjiang, China— thought they were fooling anyone or if they simply took inspiration from the Victorian example to create a contemporary pitcher. In any event it was not marked when it first entered the market aside from a paper label that could easily be removed. Eventually the manufacturer started impressing “made in Wanjiang, China” on the underside. Hendrickson Imports soon picked up the pitcher and started placing their own mark on it, first as a paper label then in ink directly on the piece 

The unmarked version of the pitcher often finds its way into the secondary market in auctions and dealer’s shops as a “vintage” majolica pitcher, whatever that means, and is sold as antique. 

This item has gone through a few iterations in the years since it was first introduced. It is available as a pitcher, candleholders, vases and as a tea set with creamer and sugar. There are also decorative figures without any intended function.

This reproduction pitcher inspired its own reproduction, from Italy, shown below that is clearly marked as such.

San Marco frog jug

San Marco frog jug mark

However now there is a third pitcher, unmarked, unglazed on the base and unglazed inside. It’s also poorly made with sloppy, runny, green and yellow glazes and is clearly produced by the same south Asian company that has produced numerous other majolica reproductions with the same sloppy green and yellow glazes and unglazed interiors. These are being sold as antiques.

While I'm discussing reproductions I should mention that there is also a fourth copy of the Steele pitcher that is closer in design to the original but with modern opaque glazes that expose its recent manufacture.

This whole thing has taken on a life of its own and something tells me this isn’t going to be the end of the reproduction story.

As I’ve stated on this blog before, there is nothing wrong with buying a modern reproduction as long as you know what you’re buying. It’s when the modern copy is misrepresented as antique, as some of these sometimes are, that I have an issue. Your best guarantee that you are buying an antique is educating yourself before making a purchase.