As further information emerged during the writing process, reinforcing the notion that one’s research is never really concluded. A point in question is the perceived introduction dates of the figures featured in this book. For instance, the author used Ernest Marsh’s inventory when dating the figures of Charles Vyse. The same inventory was the source for the catalogue an Exhibition of Figures and Stoneware Pottery of Charles Vyse, arranged by Richard Dennis in conjunction with the Fine Art Society, December 1974.
However, in the 1920s, when Charles and Nell Vyse were establishing their Chelsea pottery, record keeping was at times haphazard. Consequently, at a recent auction containing over twenty Vyse figures, it was discovered that four of …show more content…
Fig d: Chrysanthemums, signed and dated 1926, as Marsh asserts issued 1927.
For the dedicated collector the signature and the dates are intrinsic records from which much can be learned.
The figures designed by Leslie Harradine for Royal Doulton Ltd are meticulously catalogued in the definitive book on Royal Doulton Figures, by Desmond Eyles, Richard Dennis and Louise Irvine, revised 1987. However, large scale figure production can often be subject to human error. From time to time figures have come to auction minus the official Royal Doulton back-stamp. Others figures have been issued by Royal Doulton bearing an incorrect HN number according to the decorated colour-way. One can only surmise as to which of these, HN number or colour-way was intended.
The figures of Harry Parry present a somewhat different problem for the collector. Producing only a small number of pottery figures each year, he thought it unnecessary to make any inventory of them. At present, an accurate list of all his figures is unavailable. Therefore, collectors of his figurative work must rely on the signature and dates inscribed on each individual figure as verification of their
However, in the 1920s, when Charles and Nell Vyse were establishing their Chelsea pottery, record keeping was at times haphazard. Consequently, at a recent auction containing over twenty Vyse figures, it was discovered that four of …show more content…
Fig d: Chrysanthemums, signed and dated 1926, as Marsh asserts issued 1927.
For the dedicated collector the signature and the dates are intrinsic records from which much can be learned.
The figures designed by Leslie Harradine for Royal Doulton Ltd are meticulously catalogued in the definitive book on Royal Doulton Figures, by Desmond Eyles, Richard Dennis and Louise Irvine, revised 1987. However, large scale figure production can often be subject to human error. From time to time figures have come to auction minus the official Royal Doulton back-stamp. Others figures have been issued by Royal Doulton bearing an incorrect HN number according to the decorated colour-way. One can only surmise as to which of these, HN number or colour-way was intended.
The figures of Harry Parry present a somewhat different problem for the collector. Producing only a small number of pottery figures each year, he thought it unnecessary to make any inventory of them. At present, an accurate list of all his figures is unavailable. Therefore, collectors of his figurative work must rely on the signature and dates inscribed on each individual figure as verification of their