Collecting as a Pastime

by Charles Rowed

SALT GLAZE

Readers who are familiar with salt glaze will not be surprised when I say that the four pieces shown on [Plate XXXV] are all that I have fit to be trotted out, and they will probably not be taken aback when I confess to having been absolutely bewildered for some time in distinguishing this class of pottery. I read of £50 being given at, I think, the Bemrose Sale for a little ugly group, and I felt a desire to find something of this sort, though at a somewhat less fancy price. I poked in many a dusty cupboard, and messed myself up continuously for a time, until one day in an auctioneer’s stock-room I dug out a white coffee pot with a pewter lid which I felt sure was salt glaze. When the auctioneer told me I could have it for two shillings if it was any good to me, I thought how little he knew of his business. It takes two to make a bargain, and he was not the fool. I found the coffee pot was salt glaze, but only about fifty years old, so it is again hidden away in a cupboard. I had looked at bits of salt glaze in glass cases under lock and key, so I think of presenting this piece to some museum where, owing to its comparatively small value, visitors may be allowed to touch and examine it under a magnifying glass, but I should first have it labelled, “Caution to Collectors—this is the class of salt glaze to avoid.” This dud purchase turned out to be rather fortunate than otherwise, as after winking at it for a week I went carefully through my collection and found three salt glaze pieces which had remained unidentified for two years past. They are, a jug painted and gilded over the glaze, and which I had bought in my ignorance in Wakefield; a little crudely painted lustre Staffordshire jug, which I caught busy catching the drips from a paraffin tap and secured for a trifle; and a blue painted castor-oil spoon.

Later I added a salt glaze delft dish with mark showing it was made by Petit of Lille, about 1788, which proves that the statement made in more than one book on old pottery that no delft was salt glazed is incorrect. This particular dish came from Sir J. D. Forest’s collection.

Anyone with a Castleford teapot will be struck with its likeness to salt glaze. I happened on one in a town where the manufacture of heavy chemicals is very evident in the atmosphere, and the brokeress said she had been told that the teapot was “salt-cake.” The same good old lady was once kind enough to invite me to step up to her bedroom, and a very nice room it was, its cleanliness, contents and comfort being greatly at variance with the shop and store-room below. Among the ornaments of which she offered me the choice was a fine “Cobbler’s Wife,” 12 inches high, probably Rockingham, which she had bought at a sale, and was pleased to part with at a profit. I have searched for years for the “Cobbler,” but have failed to trace him. If anyone knows his present address, and will communicate with the author, they will be suitably rewarded.

TOBY JUGS (See [Plate XXXIII])

None of these Toby jugs have any maker’s names on them, but I believe the large and small of the same design are by Davenport. “The Squire” appears to be the oldest, but whether it or the “Hearty Good Fellow” is the most valuable from a collector’s point of view I cannot say, and I will tell you why. My first impression of “The Squire,” which I obtained through a window, was “What a beauty!” I had seen a letter in the Connoisseur just before giving a photograph of one like it, so I was on the alert at once. Enquiry elicited the information that the dealer thought it was really old, that he bought it off a man who looked through the shop door, then went away and came back when the dealer was disengaged. “I didn’t know the man; apparently he was hard up—wouldn’t give any name, but he wanted a sovereign, so I gave it him, and you can have the jug for twenty-five shillings.”

I have heard of a dog having a bad name, though Toby isn’t a bad name for a dog, but I soon came up against a Toby with a bad name. On mentioning to my late friend the collector-dealer my purchase of “The Squire,” what I had given for it, and where I bought it, he said he was sorry to hear it. He had seen that Toby and would not touch it, as he had been warned against it by another dealer, and if I wished for another like it he could give me an address in the Potteries where I might get one for 3s. 11d. The next time he was at my house he was hard to convince that he was mistaken; but when I told him I had shown it to a practical potter, who cautioned me that if I filled it with water I must not carry it by the handle, as it was partly perished with age, he gave in. Not long after I chanced to meet near home a well-known dealer who had just come from Harrogate to attend a sale of antiques in our neighbourhood and who enquired of me the way. I asked him to have lunch with us and offered to drive him to the sale later. I am afraid this was rather diluted hospitality, for I was desirous of having his opinion of, among other things, “The Squire.” After careful examination he pronounced it genuine, but he seemed to fancy the “Hearty Good Fellow” more.

When I first saw the “Hearty Good Fellow” it was in a window mainly given up to the display of modern ironmongery, and on enquiring the price was disappointed to hear it was sold and that a man was calling for it later. Then I said, “Ask him what he will take for his bargain, and don’t you part with it.” I am not sure how much I slept that night, but I know I called on my way to business, and I spent a bright and happy morning with the “Hearty Good Fellow” on my desk.

I had an amusing experience when purchasing “Uncle Toby,” for when the dealer asked me 25s. I was able to say (having had a look at the bottom of the jug) that it was marked in ink 15s. When I showed him this he let himself go, and if the female assistant—who was not about at the time—had heard one tithe of the forcible expressions of opinion in which he held her business acumen, she would have gone into service straight away, for among her qualifications he considered she was more fit for cooking potatoes in their jackets. I refer to this gentleman elsewhere as having some temper, but on this occasion I waited patiently until he had come down to nearly normal, bought some other things, and got “Uncle Toby” at the price (15s.) on which he still sits.

Pictorial Pottery.

Plate XXXVI.

PLATE XXXVI

DESCRIBING THE POTTERY

Shelf 5. Bowl (Staffs.). Bristol Delft Dish. Bowl, Early Transfer (Staffs.). Willow Sauce-boats.

Shelf 4. Dish (Rogers). Tureen (Turner, Lane Ends). Dish, “Mosque in Latachia.”

Shelf 3. Dish, “Little Boy Blue.” Dish, purple (Challenor). Early Mustard Pots.

Shelf 2. Fruit-server. Vegetable Dish, “Pillar of Absalom” and Sauce-boat (Burton). Early Sauce-boat and Stand in one piece, transfer printed over the glaze. Turner Pickle-holder. Plates: “The Whatlands.” “Pera.”

Shelf 1. Plates. Davenport. W. Adams. Sauce-boat Stands “B” and “Arundel Castle.” Willow Leaf Dishes and Early Pickle-holder.

Willow Pattern.

Plate XXXVII.

Toby teapots must be scarce. I have seen none other, except in 1915, when I noticed two in a shop window on the Pantiles at Tunbridge Wells. I obtained mine through the death of an old lady who lived in our locality.

LIVERPOOL POTTERY (See [Plate XXXV])

To identify all the Liverpool pottery one may come across as being made in Liverpool is wellnigh impossible; the various factories seem each to have had some special features, while many of the jugs are very like those made by old Staffordshire firms. I say this partly by way of apology, as it is more than likely I have put under this group some jugs made elsewhere, and the same remark may apply to odd jugs in the Staffordshire group; but as I am not out to sell the things I cannot see that I lay myself out to any serious charge of misrepresentation. If you are of a different opinion, then I must plead that I have no fraudulent intent.

Away back in the days beyond recall an authority on this subject very kindly came out here and named my specimens as far as he could, but I notice among the labels I had then affixed the word “probably” sometimes appears before the name given. I was somewhat disappointed with the result of his visit, for he pronounced some of the jugs which I had hoped were Liverpool as not coming within that family, so I have decided to be my own judge in future, as by that means I may in time have one of the largest collections of “Old Liverpool” in the country. As those I include will be so near in appearance to some of the varieties made, I am hoping no collector will have reason to dispute my classification. Only one jug is marked, and that has a letter “P,” which denotes Pennington, and I spotted this mark without a suspicious dealer—to whose astuteness I refer later on—being aware of the fact, and so I got it for 3s., which is not an excessive price considering it is hand painted with line decoration, an uncommon design, and bears a very rare mark.

Collectors should be careful how they clean Old Liverpool which has been printed over the glaze, for I remember on one occasion I gave a sovereign for a jug with pictures done in brown which had a smudgy look. The dealer was a straight man, and said if I was not satisfied he would give me my money back. When I got home and filled the bathroom hand-basin with hot water and soda and began cleaning, I thought what a dirty condition the jug must be in, for the water soon began to look like brown ink. I thought it was time to probe deeper, and to my alarm found the picture still blurred, but not so dark in colour, and then I thought I was “done in brown”! I saw the dealer and told him all about it. When he asked was I not satisfied, I admitted I was not altogether enamoured with the running thing, and that it was the pictures by the Old Master I placed such value on, so he laughingly returned the money.

A collector from the south came along soon after and gave the dealer more than the even sovereign. My only wonder is how many times that jug has been washed since, and how much of the pictures remain.

A jug 8½ inches high shows “King William, Prince of Orange,” on horseback, and on the reverse side a print of Britannia and Erin throttling a snake coiled round a broken pillar, also the words “Great Britain and Ireland United MDCCC.” One 7-inch jug has an heraldic illustration headed “The Cooper’s Arms,” and on the reverse side a lion and anchor surmounted by “Great Britain and Ireland United 1800.” A specially fine specimen of Herculaneum pottery is the 7½-inch jug of uncommon pattern which gives the “Duke of York” and “Prince Coburg” in relief, and this jug is painted in the old delft colours, brown, yellow, orange and blue. The cups and saucers bear portraits of Washington and Lafayette; they must have missed the American boat over a hundred years ago, or I should not have found them in Wigan, and they were undoubtedly made for the American market.

SUNDERLAND (See [Plate XXXIV])

Many of these jugs and mugs are very quaint, but it is to me impossible always to identify them. One evidently commemorates the opening of the cast-iron bridge over the River Wear on August 9th, 1796. The fact that maritime subjects were often used for illustration assists in deciding sometimes, so I include the frog-mug. Lake lustre and yellow lustre were largely used, the colours being brushed on in a careless way.

DON POTTERY (See [Plate XXXV])

So much pottery was made without indication of its origin that it is well for a collector when he comes across a marked piece cheap, even if it is imperfect, to procure it. In 1915 I bought a pedestal oval-shaped bowl which bears the distinction of being the only piece in my collection which did not cost me more than 2d. It looked as if it had spent half its long life in an oven and most of the remainder in being knocked about, for both handles were off. I saw it was impressed “Don Pottery” and knew it would be made in Leeds about 1780, that it bore traces of being printed in black transfer at Liverpool, that it had been banded black by hand, and that the colour of the ware was of a dark grey cast. In June, 1919, I saw the uncommon plate shown in this group bearing many features tallying with the Don Pottery bowl but in perfect condition (unmarked), having also a silver lustre band, and on comparing these pieces satisfied myself they both came from the same factory. Such finds as these, trifling though they may be, help to make collecting a pastime.

TURNER LANE ENDS (See [Plate XXXVI])

In 1911, in an old shop at Prescot, near the house in which Kemble lived, I discovered a well-printed blue-and-white dish impressed “Turner” and bought it, finding a place for it on the shelf over the mantel. Three years after I was in a manufacturing town 25 miles away looking about, and in a sort of a marine store window noticed a tureen (unmarked) with ladle complete which matched my Turner dish. Enquiring the price, the woman said “she didn’t know,” and “he was out.” So I asked her to fetch “him.” When “he” arrived, somewhat fuddled, I asked him the price, and on getting his answer remarked it seemed a bit stiff, when he huffily and huskily replied, “Why, the —— ladle’s worth the money,” and left me straightaway. With an assurance like that from such an authority I decided to buy. I knocked, and my lady friend appeared again and anxiously put the question:

“Did you pay him?”

“No.”

“That’s a good thing; I’ll have the money.”

The tureen has since adorned my mantel, and it might have been a part of the same set as the dish. I recently found at a Red Cross sale a little pickle-holder to match. I once priced a larger dish of the same pattern, but owing to the difficulty of getting it home left it, and the next time I was in that town it had been sold.

WEDGWOOD (See [Plate XXXII])

Josiah Wedgwood must have been a wonderful man, and I am pleased to have a portrait of him on a jug bearing his name on a scroll with the dates “1730 to 1795.” I believe this to be a Centenary piece, and as his works started in 1752 the jug will be about seventy years old. I have seen so much of Wedgwood’s Jasper Ware that I have refrained from buying any, but I show two small pieces—a really old pepper-pot and a sugar bowl (part of a set here)—which I did not collect. Early on I placed the teapot, sugar bowl, and cream jug in my china cabinet, but as so many visitors after running their eyes over my rarer specimens usually remarked, “I see you have some Wedgwood,” I put them out of sight. This Jasper Ware has had a tremendous sale for years and years, and is better known than its age. For these three things I substituted a Jasper spill vase, and many a spill has been caused by the knowing ones calling this Wedgwood, when it is not.

I have been lucky in finding some early specimens of Wedgwood—a plate impressed “Pearl,” printed but touched up by hand, a pair of tortoise-shell (back and front) plates with raised daisy and bead border. One plate, octagonal shape, cupids dancing in centre, with a remarkable light and shade effect, with oak-leaf relief border, and having a fine tortoise-shell back. All these are heavy and have “Wedgwood” stamped in large type, so they will date 1760 to 1765. These are followed by a Cream-ware plate, partly hand coloured, and a little later by a plate of a whiter shade giving a brown printed view of sailing vessels in harbour. These have the impressed mark in smaller type. Two little teapots, one black basalt and the other bisque pattern, about 1780, complete this interesting group.

Another excellent specimen of Queen’s Ware will be seen on shelf No. 1, [Plate XXXIII]. This bears the early large type Wedgwood impressed mark, and has the lug and feather border carefully painted in brown and red over the glaze. As my ten plates—two of which were given me—have cost me just half the price I was once asked for a single cracked tortoise-shell plate, I conclude I have been working on right lines.

PUZZLE JUGS (See [Plate XXXIV])

With the intention of describing to the reader the peculiarities of these jugs and the difference in the puzzles, I have just had the six filled with water to experiment with so that I might give lucid explanations of the enigmas, and I have been most successful—in making myself wet. That the investigation should be complete, I obtained the assistance of a young friend who revels in logarithms and abstruse problems, and as I noticed signs of his temper giving way under his many efforts to elucidate the why and the wherefore of these strange devices and their tricky behaviour, the enquiry is postponed sine die.

Of the two brown stoneware jugs the one with figures in relief hails from Brampton, and the other would have been made in some local pottery. The tall, fancy shape is a good specimen of those made at Leeds. The one with the pantomime group would be made in Staffordshire about eighty years ago, while the Harlequin jug was the work of Elsmore and Forster, about 1850. The white jug is the oldest of the tribe, and I should be surprised to hear of another like it being in existence. I fancy this to be the work of an industrious apprentice to show what a clever hand he was, and that the letters “G. B.” scratched on the bottom under the glaze will be his initials. I wish he had not given in his tally before he had added a date.

NELSON JUGS (See [Plate XXXII])

The jug almost covered with blue printing is a fine specimen, showing Nelson, the Victory, and a list of his titles and his battles, together with his famed last signal and some eulogy. The jug with Nelson in relief bears on the reverse side a likeness of Hardy, and it is in such good condition that I believe the party I bought it from in Liverpool thought it was a reproduction, while I felt quite satisfied that it was a specially well preserved antique. The black printed jug is a disreputable-looking relic, and when found it appeared as if it had been in the battle of Trafalgar instead of commemorating the fight, for the jug had “got it in the neck” and had lost its handle. As the printing was all there I decided to salve it, and after going into dry dock it came out looking quite spick and span. Dampness, followed by a spell of hard frost, penetrating where it was berthed, shivered its timbers, and so you see the paint and enamel coming off. I give this as a warning to any collector who may pay about half a sovereign to get a piece of old pottery overhauled to ever after keep it in a warm, dry place and not to touch it unless compelled.

MASK JUGS (See [Plate XXXIV])

My advice is, it you can buy old jugs like these two at a reasonable price, do so. You would not be able to see the handle of the one which faces the audience if it were in profile, for some “daft budy” had knocked it off before I came along.

DELFT (See [Plate XXXV])

An amateur will find it difficult to get to know this when he finds it, but he will find it still more difficult to find it before he gets it. I think something of what I have, especially one 9-inch plate with coloured design, Liverpool Fazakerley pattern, and someone must have thought quite a lot of it before I gave a shilling for it, as they went to the trouble of breaking it and to the expense of having the pieces fastened together again with seventeen rivets. The two other coloured plates are not yet identified, while the hand-painted blue plate is semi-porcelain. The French candlestick, richly decorated by hand, bears the mark of Widow Perrin, of Marseilles, 1770. It was sold to me as a sauce-boat, and when I enquired the meaning of the chimney in the centre was answered, “How should I know?”

A large Bristol Delft dish, blue painted, figures at the top of the pictorial pottery on [Plate XXXVI].

Twentieth-century Dutch delft is not antique; I have been where it was in the making in Holland and seen it on sale in old shops in England.

ROCKINGHAM (BROWN) (See [Plate XXXIII])

I am fortunate in having a Cadogan pot impressed “Rockingham,” as by comparing I believe I have only included brown ware made at this factory. Brown “Rockingham” snuff-taker jugs have been made elsewhere by the thousand.

LUSTRE (See [Plate XXXIII])

I have chosen for this group what I consider the best of my bunch, which consists of gilt, copper, silver, lake, brown, and yellow lustres. The only marked one shows that J. Aynsley was using lustre about 1800. My largest copper lustre jug bears the first owner’s initials, “W.P., 1823,” while the silver lustre cannon is lettered “Battle of Wagram, 1806,” so I can only surmise that most of these exhibits were made in the first half of the nineteenth century. The main difference between the modern and old lustre ware is usually noticeable on the bottom of the pieces, the finish of the old being more carefully executed.

WOOD, ENOCH AND RALPH (See [Plate XXXII])

All students or collectors of old pottery will be anxious to have authentic representations of the work of these early potters. I was lucky in having the bust of Whitfield given to me, and I am convinced this is genuine. I have tried to procure Enoch Wood’s companion bust of Wesley, but the two I have had offered were reproductions, the features not being so sharp and the impress mark blurred and indistinct. Ralph Wood had a great reputation as an engraver of moulds, and this is certainly justified by my large light blue enamelled jug, impressed “Wood.” I also show an early brown printed plate impressed “Wood” beside the word “Ivory,” which plate will probably be contemporary with the Wedgwood “Pearl.”

BROWN AND BUFF STONEWARE (See [Plate XXXIV])

The Doulton Jubilee Jug dated 1887 is probably the most modern of the pieces photographed, but the small jug next it will make up for the matter of age if it is Old Fulham, as I believe it to be. The jug with hunting scenes in relief is stamped Copeland, while the small “salt” with lion-head ends is by W. Briddon, and would be made in Chesterfield about 1770. This and the Fulham jug are salt glaze.

I have omitted to include a Spode buff mug with lion-head handle and blue rim giving “Wellington, with soldiers and a cannon” (9.2 in.), also a Continental tree with huge leaves in white relief commemorating the Battle of Vittoria, 1813.