Info on E&C Challinor Ironstone
pri...@my-deja.com
Ironstone, fenton, stamped on the bottom. Does not appear the set has
ever been used. Could someone tell me anything about E&C Challinor?
Is the set truly "antique"? Thanks!!
ps: It has sticker on the bottom "Made on Japan"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Phil Rowley
ironstone at the Fenton Pottery, Fenton between the years 1862 and 1891. The
company subsquently became C. Challinor & Co. As there seems to be no
connection whatever with Japan, it seems likely that the sticker has been
accidentally transferred from something else.
Phil Rowley
pri...@my-deja.com
are over 100 years old considering its condtions..
Where was E&c Challinor located?
Could you tell how much this item, 10"-12", tall, would be worth of:
http://www.native-craft.com/images/p20000226/CookieJar2.JPG
I have tea cup and soup boul of the same size from the same auction....
thank you!
In article <89rg4d$70n$1...@gxsn.com>,
Jane Thomas
wrote:
>Thanks for information. It is amazing the items i got at the
auctions
>are over 100 years old considering its condtions..
>
>Where was E&c Challinor located?
Fenton, Staffordshire, England.
Are all the pieces in the set you
bought marked CHALLINOR, or just a few of them?
>Could you tell how much this item, 10"-12", tall, would be
worth of:
>http://www.native-craft.com/images/p20000226/CookieJar2.JPG
Is this one of the pieces marked CHALLINOR? Would you be able to
show us a scan of the base?
>I have tea cup and soup boul of the same size from the same
auction....
>thank you!
Cheers,
Jane
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Jane Thomas
wrote:
>
>> >Could you tell how much this item, 9"-10", tall, would be
>> worth of:
>> >http://www.native-craft.com/images/p20000226/CookieJar2.JPG
>>
>> Is this one of the pieces marked CHALLINOR? Would you be
able to
>> show us a scan of the base?
>>
>> >I have tea cup and soup boul of the same size from the same
>> auction....
>> >thank you!
>Jane..
>
>here is the base..same stamp appears in all pieces!
>
>http://www.native-craft.com/images/p20000226/WillowBluFnTea1.jpg
>
>does it make any sense to you? Please let me know!
>
>Thanks!
Hi,
I believe this mark is a modern copy of a nineteenth century
English mark.
I just did a quick search for Challinor ironstone on eBay and
came
up with quite a few pieces. A few of them appear to be genuine,
but others look highly suspect to me. Those with the dubious
marks seem to fall into two categories - blue and white willow
pattern and plain white pottery with moulded decoration.
Giveaways that the willow pattern is a reproduction are:
- the size of the mark (some of the marks shown on eBay are
completely disproportionate to the size of the object),
- the poor quality and "hand drawn" character of the mark, and
- the general quality and shape of the piece.
I doubt that your cookie jar is actually made of ironstone.
I haven't seen any of these modern "Challinor" pieces over here
(Australia), perhaps some American readers know more about them?
Cheers,
Jane
-
pri...@my-deja.com
> >Could you tell how much this item, 9"-10", tall, would be
> worth of:
> >http://www.native-craft.com/images/p20000226/CookieJar2.JPG
>
> Is this one of the pieces marked CHALLINOR? Would you be able to
> show us a scan of the base?
>
> >I have tea cup and soup boul of the same size from the same
> auction....
> >thank you!
>
Jane..
here is the base..same stamp appears in all pieces!
http://www.native-craft.com/images/p20000226/WillowBluFnTea1.jpg
does it make any sense to you? Please let me know!
Thanks!
Phil Rowley
pieces. Geoffrey Godden is always regarded as the "God" of British ceramic
marks and the only marks he lists for this company are "text only" ie no
actual design etc. It must appear, therefore, that these pieces are suspect.
Phil Rowley
Jane Thomas
In article <89t8vq$le1$1...@gxsn.com>, "Phil Rowley" <
pr...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I have just noticed that you have posted an image of the
back-stamp on the
>pieces. Geoffrey Godden is always regarded as the "God" of
British ceramic
>marks and the only marks he lists for this company are "text
only" ie no
>actual design etc.
Hi Phil,
Godden does mention Challinor's use of the Royal Arms (and a
Staffordshire knot) in their printed marks, but he does not show
an example. ("Other marks incorporate the title in full. The
printed marks include the Royal Arms, and the Staffordshire knot,
with name or initials, 1862-91". Godden, Encyclopaedia of
British
Pottery and Porcelain Marks, mark no. 838).
>It must appear, therefore, that these pieces are suspect.
I believe the piece shown is modern, and the mark is a copy.
>Phil Rowley
Jane
Mike Wilcox
Hi Jane, we had a huge amount of this bogus ironstone go through here
(Canada) about three years ago, it was salted in among items in
consignment auctions. I had an Auctioneer tell me that he had been
contacted by mail regarding " My Grandma's China, could you please put
it in one of your auction's", as it turns out several other auctioneers
also received much the same letter and had sold these pieces as
originals. All of these pieces had stamps of old ironstone companies ,
rumour had it that you could order whatever backstamp you wanted if you
ordered in quantity.
--
Mike Wilcox
Wilcox & Hall Appraisers Online
http://www3.sympatico.ca/appraisers
pri...@my-deja.com
probably not there by "mistake". Most likey it is "genuine" sticker!
Thanks for revealing information.. did not cost me too much.. $45.00
for cookie jar with cover, tea set with cover, creamer and sugar cup,
and soup bowl with cover and a big spoon.. ! Was $45 too much?
Thanks again!!
>
> Hi Jane, we had a huge amount of this bogus ironstone go through here
> (Canada) about three years ago, it was salted in among items in
> consignment auctions. I had an Auctioneer tell me that he had been
> contacted by mail regarding " My Grandma's China, could you please
put
> it in one of your auction's", as it turns out several other
auctioneers
> also received much the same letter and had sold these pieces as
> originals. All of these pieces had stamps of old ironstone companies
,
> rumour had it that you could order whatever backstamp you wanted if
you
> ordered in quantity.
>
Mike Wilcox
Don't feel bad, the large meat platters went for $145.00 + at our local
Auctions ;~))
Jane Thomas
In article <89tv2r$3kc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, pri...@my-deja.com
wrote:
>This makes me believe the "Made in Japan" sticker on the item is
>probably not there by "mistake". Most likey it is "genuine"
sticker!
>Thanks for revealing information.. did not cost me too much..
$45.00
>for cookie jar with cover, tea set with cover, creamer and
sugar cup,
>and soup bowl with cover and a big spoon.. ! Was $45 too much?
>Thanks again!!
If I recall correctly, a teapot of this style just closed on eBay
(misdescribed) for $50+. I've forwarded a link for a current
auction featuring a matching cream jug and sugar (also
misdescribed) to your my-deja-com address.
Cheers,
Michele Mauro
England in it, and yours does not. It looks like the Japanese combined
the Challinor mark with the name Fenton to confuse the buyer - not
uncommon these days. <sigh>
These pieces are new, but $45 was still a good price for all those
pieces.
If you like it, use it... if you don't stick it on e*ay! <grin> Do keep
an eye out and avoid the Chinese version of Blue Willow - it has a lion
and sphinx mark on it, with Victoria Ironstone (spelled Victopia if you
look closely) - it's much more crudely made than your Fenton<sic> pieces
are.
Good luck, Michele
--
.
<pri...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:89tv2r$3kc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> This makes me believe the "Made in Japan" sticker on the item is
> probably not there by "mistake". Most likey it is "genuine" sticker!
> Thanks for revealing information.. did not cost me too much.. $45.00
> for cookie jar with cover, tea set with cover, creamer and sugar cup,
> and soup bowl with cover and a big spoon.. ! Was $45 too much?
> Thanks again!!
>
>
>
> >
Jane Thomas
In article <ChWw4.10758$kO5....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
"Michele Mauro" <las...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The key here, is that the real Fenton mark for Blue Willow
always has
>England in it, and yours does not. It looks like the Japanese
combined
>the Challinor mark with the name Fenton to confuse the buyer -
not
>uncommon these days. <sigh>
Hi Michele,
The fake Challinor mark is a copy of a nineteenth century
Challinor mark. The word "Fenton" does occur in some genuine
nineteenth century Challinor marks (see Godden, mark no. 838, for
example). Challinor were based in the Fenton Potteries, Fenton,
Staffordshire, from the early 1850s. It was a common practice in
England to include the location of the factory in the mark.
"Wedgwood Etruria" is an example of this and G. M. & C. J. Mason,
the makers of Mason's Patent Ironstone China, used the mark
"Fenton Stone Works" c. 1825+.
I do not know if the Challinor company made blue willow. Given
the enormous popularity of the pattern, I believe it is almost
certain that some of the Fenton-based companies made it.
A further complication is that there was a company called Fenton
(Alfred Fenton & Sons) which produced china and earthernwares
from
1887-1901. Perhaps this is the company you were referring to
when
you mentioned the "real" Fenton mark for blue willow?
The bottom line is that the word "Fenton" in a mark, without the
word "England", does not imply the mark is a fake. It may well
be
that the piece was made by a company based in Fenton prior to
1891
or so.
....................
>Do keep
>an eye out and avoid the Chinese version of Blue Willow - it
has a lion
>and sphinx
Are you sure it's a sphinx and not a unicorn?
mark on it, with Victoria Ironstone (spelled Victopia if you
>look closely) - it's much more crudely made than your
Fenton<sic> pieces
>are.
Not all Chinese blue willow is marked Victopia Ironstone, though.
>Good luck, Michele
Jane Thomas
In article <mp_w4.11013$kO5....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
"Michele Mauro" <las...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The fake Challinor mark is a copy of a nineteenth century
>> Challinor mark. The word "Fenton" does occur in some genuine
>> nineteenth century Challinor marks (see Godden, mark no. 838,
for
>> example). Challinor were based in the Fenton Potteries,
Fenton,
>> Staffordshire, from the early 1850s. It was a common
practice in
>> England to include the location of the factory in the mark....
>Jane, when it comes to Blue Willow though, as far as I know,
you will
>not find Challinor pieces, but you _will_ find Fenton pieces
marked Made
>in England.
Hi Michele,
I made my comments in response to your statement earlier in the
thread that:
"The key here, is that the real Fenton mark for Blue Willow
always
has England in it, and yours does not. It looks like the Japanese
combined the Challinor mark with the name Fenton to confuse the
buyer - not uncommon these days".
I have no idea what you mean by "the real Fenton mark" on blue
willow. What has happened here is that a copy of a genuine
nineteenth century English mark has been used on modern blue
willow. The Challinor mark hasn't been "combined" with the name
Fenton by the Japanese. Some of the Challinor marks included the
word Fenton in the first place. This could be why the Challinor
mark was chosen.
>>...... the pieces I've seen appear to be slightly more
>recent then that - mostly grill plates, which I think date to
the
>1930's.
I've just had a quick look on eBay. A search on the key words
"Fenton" "blue" "willow" gave quite a few hits. All but one were
modern pieces with the fake Challinor mark. (Interestingly these
are usually titled "Fenton blue willow" rather than "Challinor
blue willow".) The only vintage piece was a "YE OLDE WILLOW"
grill plate:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270513993
which includes a good photo of the mark. Is this what you call
"the real Fenton mark" in America? I believe this plate was made
by James Kent (Ltd.). Godden lists James Kent (Ltd.) as
operating
from the Old Foley Pottery, Longton (1897- ), but it looks to me
as though they must have had a second factory at Fenton.
Calling this "the real Fenton mark" is confusing. There are lots
of different English marks, from different companies, with the
word Fenton in them. There may well be nineteenth century
English
willow pattern with the word Fenton in the mark. This simply
indicates that the company had a factory at Fenton, one of the
many towns in Staffordshire historically associated with pottery
making. Other Staffordshire towns often mentioned in marks
include Tunstall, Burslem, Hanley, Stoke and Longton.
>> >Do keep an eye out and avoid the Chinese version of Blue
Willow - it
>> has a lion and sphinx
>>
>> Are you sure it's a sphinx and not a unicorn?
>
>Nope! I knew it was a non-existant animal though. <grin>
Definitely a unicorn then.
>> Not all Chinese blue willow is marked Victopia Ironstone,
though.
>
>True, but the other stuff isn't meant to fool - it looks like
what it
>is - new.
The willow pattern is an eighteenth century English invention
which combined design elements from imported Chinese blue and
white porcelain. The English manufacturers, faced by stiff
competion, cut their production costs by introducing transfer
printing. The English transfer-printed blue willow enjoyed
enormous popularity, and the Chinese manufacturers quickly
adapted
their decoration accordingly. In the Victoria and Albert Museum,
London, there is a nineteenth century Chinese blue willow plate
which is decorated with a hand-painted copy of Spode's transfer-
printed "Willow Pattern". So my query here is with the use of
the
term "the Chinese version of Blue Willow". There is lots of
Chinese blue willow. It is not all modern.
>Have fun, Michele
Cheers,
Michele Mauro
> Challinor mark. The word "Fenton" does occur in some genuine
> nineteenth century Challinor marks (see Godden, mark no. 838, for
> example). Challinor were based in the Fenton Potteries, Fenton,
> Staffordshire, from the early 1850s. It was a common practice in
> "Wedgwood Etruria" is an example of this and G. M. & C. J. Mason,
> the makers of Mason's Patent Ironstone China, used the mark
> "Fenton Stone Works" c. 1825+.
Jane, when it comes to Blue Willow though, as far as I know, you will
not find Challinor pieces, but you _will_ find Fenton pieces marked Made
in England.
> A further complication is that there was a company called Fenton
> (Alfred Fenton & Sons) which produced china and earthernwares
> from 1887-1901. Perhaps this is the company you were referring to
> when you mentioned the "real" Fenton mark for blue willow?
Most likely, although the pieces I've seen appear to be slightly more
recent then that - mostly grill plates, which I think date to the
1930's.
> >Do keep an eye out and avoid the Chinese version of Blue Willow - it
> has a lion and sphinx
>
> Are you sure it's a sphinx and not a unicorn?
Nope! I knew it was a non-existant animal though. <grin>
> Not all Chinese blue willow is marked Victopia Ironstone, though.
True, but the other stuff isn't meant to fool - it looks like what it
is - new. The Victopia stuff gives the false impression of age with its
smudgy transfer and high-faluting backstamp. <grin>
Have fun, Michele
Ronnie McKinley
>when it comes to Blue Willow though, as far as I know, you will
>not find Challinor pieces, but you _will_ find Fenton pieces marked Made
>in England.
Michele, you have a firm source for this???
You seem to be confused. Fenton was only **one** of the areas in "the
potteries" the area commonly known as Staffordshire (pre1910)
>> >Do keep an eye out and avoid the Chinese version of Blue Willow - it
>> has a lion and sphinx
>>
The mark in question (lion and **unicorn**) is known as the "Royal
Arms Mark" used in the 19th and **the** 20th centuries. An official
sanctioned "Trade Mark" which many of the Staffordhire potteries used.
The Royal Arms mark was used in conjunction with their own factory
name or title. The mark can appear with the company name and (factory)
place name (in the Staffordshire region) .... here are some of the
place names that commonly occur
Burslem
Cobridge
Etruria
Fenton
Hanley
Lane Delph (or Delft)
Lane End
Longport
Shelton
Stoke
Tunstall
The six towns were Tunatall in the extreme north, Burslem which lay to
its immediate south, Hanley which included Shelton lay south of
Burslem, Stocke-on-Trent which lay to the south-west of Hanley, Fenton
which lay to the east of Stoke and Longton which lay to the south-east
of Fenton. In 1910 following a long period of negotiation, the six
main towns became united as the one County Borough of Stoke-on-Trent.
There have been some further extensions to the boundary of the County
Borough since the federation in 1910.
Here's a couple of examples .... of the Royal Arms mark of other
factories.
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/temp/royal_arms_mark.jpg
And here is the current 1994 Royal Arms act. Unofficial non-British
government source.
http://members.tripod.com/~EECO/tmact94.htm
>The key here, is that the real Fenton mark for Blue Willow always has
>England in it, and yours does not.
This absolutely makes no sense whatsoever and is confusing and
misleading to say the least.
Ronnie
=====
Mike Wilcox
>
> > The fake Challinor mark is a copy of a nineteenth century
> > Challinor mark. The word "Fenton" does occur in some genuine
> > nineteenth century Challinor marks (see Godden, mark no. 838, for
> > example). Challinor were based in the Fenton Potteries, Fenton,
> > Staffordshire, from the early 1850s. It was a common practice in
> > England to include the location of the factory in the mark.
> > "Wedgwood Etruria" is an example of this and G. M. & C. J. Mason,
> > the makers of Mason's Patent Ironstone China, used the mark
> > "Fenton Stone Works" c. 1825+.
>
> not find Challinor pieces, but you _will_ find Fenton pieces marked Made
> in England.
>
> > (Alfred Fenton & Sons) which produced china and earthernwares
> > from 1887-1901. Perhaps this is the company you were referring to
> > when you mentioned the "real" Fenton mark for blue willow?
>
> Most likely, although the pieces I've seen appear to be slightly more
> recent then that - mostly grill plates, which I think date to the
> 1930's.
>
> > has a lion and sphinx
> >
>
> Nope! I knew it was a non-existant animal though. <grin>
>
> > Not all Chinese blue willow is marked Victopia Ironstone, though.
>
> True, but the other stuff isn't meant to fool - it looks like what it
> is - new. The Victopia stuff gives the false impression of age with its
> smudgy transfer and high-faluting backstamp. <grin>
>
> Have fun, Michele
Hi Michele, quite a bit of English ironstone was marked "Made in
England" because of the " Mckinley Act" of 1891 ( The president ,not
Ronnie;~)). Anything produced after that date that would be exported to
the USA had to be marked with it's country of origin to be allowed into
the country, the lack of " Made in England" would just mean it could
have been produced before 1891.
Ronnie McKinley
>Hi Michele, quite a bit of English ironstone was marked "Made in
>England" because of the " Mckinley Act" of 1891 ( The president ,not
>Ronnie;~)). Anything produced after that date that would be exported to
>the USA had to be marked with it's country of origin to be allowed into
>the country, the lack of " Made in England" would just mean it could
>have been produced before 1891.
The following is all rather basic, and stuff we should already know
off the top-of-out-heads ... but .... maybe it's worth the reminder.
(1) Printed marks incorporating the Royal Arms are of 19th or 20th
century date.
(2) Printed marks incorporating the name of the pattern are subsequent
to 1810.
(3) Marks incorporating the word 'Limited', or the abbreviations
'Ltd', 'Ld', etc., denote a date after 1861, and most examples are
much later.
(4) Incorporation of the words 'Trade Mark' in a mark denotes a date
subsequent to the Act of 1862.
(5) Inclusion of the word 'Royal' in a firm's title or trade name
suggests a date in the second half of the 19th century, if not a
20th-century dating.
(6) Inclusion of the abbreviation R N' - Rd - Rd No (for Registered
Number) followed by numerals denotes a date subsequent to 1883.
(7) Inclusion of the word 'England' in marks denotes a date after
1891, although some manufacturers added the word slightly before this
date. 'Made in England' denotes a 20th-century date.
(8) Use of the words 'Bone China', 'English Bone China', etc., denotes
a 20th-century date.
vig...@my-deja.com
>>>>(9) Items marked dishwasher, detergent or microwave proof are
generally not Victorian!!
Jon
.
>
> (1) Printed marks incorporating the Royal Arms are of 19th or 20th
> century date.
>
> (2) Printed marks incorporating the name of the pattern are subsequent
> to 1810.
>
> (3) Marks incorporating the word 'Limited', or the abbreviations
> 'Ltd', 'Ld', etc., denote a date after 1861, and most examples are
> much later.
>
> (4) Incorporation of the words 'Trade Mark' in a mark denotes a date
> subsequent to the Act of 1862.
>
> (5) Inclusion of the word 'Royal' in a firm's title or trade name
> suggests a date in the second half of the 19th century, if not a
> 20th-century dating.
>
> (6) Inclusion of the abbreviation R N' - Rd - Rd No (for Registered
> Number) followed by numerals denotes a date subsequent to 1883.
>
> (7) Inclusion of the word 'England' in marks denotes a date after
> 1891, although some manufacturers added the word slightly before this
> date. 'Made in England' denotes a 20th-century date.
>
> (8) Use of the words 'Bone China', 'English Bone China', etc., denotes
> a 20th-century date.
>
>
Ronnie McKinley
>
>
>>>>>(9) Items marked dishwasher, detergent or microwave proof are
>generally not Victorian!!
>
nor Edwardian.
Ronnie
=====
Phil Rowley
factory was taken over by another company a few years ago - I live around
one mile from the site.
I had a look at the "Fenton" eBay picture and the backstamp looks rather odd
to me, as it has both "ENGLAND" in the globe design AND underneath.
However, the amount of cash involved is hardly serious, so if whoever buys
it likes it, then I don't think that they have lost out.
I had a quick look at some of the auction site a year or so ago and was
horrified by some of the "facts" presented.
Phil Rowley
Michele Mauro
> >not find Challinor pieces, but you _will_ find Fenton pieces marked
Made
> >in England.
>
I've seen the marks firsthand and on Baye - whether Fenton is a company
or a region, I haven't a clue... but the older pieces always have Made
in England on them. That was the point I was trying to make in my first
post (Jane, are you reading this too?).
I have never seen the Challinor-Fenton mark on an old piece of BW
though.
> You seem to be confused. Fenton was only **one** of the areas in "the
> potteries" the area commonly known as Staffordshire (pre1910)
So I've been told... <grin> Ohio is the Staffordshire of the US... LOL!
> The mark in question (lion and **unicorn**) is known as the "Royal
> Arms Mark" used in the 19th and **the** 20th centuries. An official
> sanctioned "Trade Mark" which many of the Staffordhire potteries used.
> The Royal Arms mark was used in conjunction with their own factory
> name or title. The mark can appear with the company name and (factory)
> place name (in the Staffordshire region) .... here are some of the
> place names that commonly occur
I've seen the real mark once or twice... but what is missing from the
Victopia ware (besides quality) is the "Made in China" sticker that
mysteriously fell off - I actually saw one piece that still had its
sticker - amazing! <grin>
> >The key here, is that the real Fenton mark for Blue Willow always has
> >England in it, and yours does not.
>
> This absolutely makes no sense whatsoever and is confusing and
> misleading to say the least.
Not to a BW collector! <g> Perhaps what I should have said was that the
older BW pieces marked Fenton usually have "Made in England" on them,
and that I've never seen a genuine English piece of BW marked with any
kind of Challinor backstamp... that's not to say that they absolutely
don't exist, but that I've never seen one... and I've seen a lot of BW
in the USA. <g>
Hope that clears up my original post!
Michele
Jane Thomas
In article <8a3sft$cf4$1...@gxsn.com>, "Phil Rowley" <
pr...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Yes, James Kent certainly operated from the Old Foley Pottery
until the
>factory was taken over by another company a few years ago - I
live around
>one mile from the site.
>
>I had a look at the "Fenton" eBay picture and the backstamp
looks rather odd
>to me, as it has both "ENGLAND" in the globe design AND
underneath.
I have no problem accepting the mark as genuine. The style of
the
plate comes as more of a shock. Have you ever seen a dinner
plate
of this style (with compartments) in England, Phil? I'm
wondering
if James Kent had a factory at Fenton specifically devoted to
producing wares for the American market.
Michele Mauro
Willow, I doubt you'll find any 19th century pieces here in the US -
every thing I've seen (which isn't much) has Made in England on it.
Those Fenton-Challinor pieces did not have Made in England on them
because they were brand new and the Made in Japan/China sticker musta
come off. <g>
Have fun, Michele
--
.
"Mike Wilcox" <appra...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:38C4F830...@sympatico.ca...
>
> Hi Michele, quite a bit of English ironstone was marked "Made in
> England" because of the " Mckinley Act" of 1891 ( The president ,not
> Ronnie;~)). Anything produced after that date that would be exported
to
> the USA had to be marked with it's country of origin to be allowed
into
> the country, the lack of " Made in England" would just mean it could
> have been produced before 1891.
Gillam Kerley
vig...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >>>>(9) Items marked dishwasher, detergent or microwave proof are
> generally not Victorian!!
I asked this semi-serious question long ago, and (most likely for good
reason) it was never answered, so here goes again:
I occasionally see dinnerware with the designation "Acid Resistant" as
part of the mark. Invariably these are items of British origin.
So....When and why did the British (and no one else) have such concern
over the effects of acid on their plates?
Personally, I suspect it had something to do with that awful malt
vinegar on the fish 'n' chips, but I could be wrong. ;-)
GK
Jane Thomas
Jane Thomas
In article <4Rex4.11202$kO5....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
"Michele Mauro" <las...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yes I know Mike, but... <grin> When it comes to English Fenton
Blue
>Willow, I doubt you'll find any 19th century pieces here in the
US -
>every thing I've seen (which isn't much) has Made in England on
it.
Michele,
Fenton is a location. The expression "English Fenton blue
willow"
is ambiguous. I would call the eBay grill plate "James Kent Ltd.
willow pattern" or even "Olde English Willow" by James Kent Ltd.
Do your reference books contain any information on this mark? Or
any information about "Fenton blue willow"?
>Those Fenton-Challinor pieces did not have Made in England on
them
>because they were brand new and the Made in Japan/China sticker
musta
>come off. <g>
This is false. The "Fenton-Challinor" pieces do not have "Made
in
England" on them because they are marked with a fake mark which
is
a copy of a nineteenth-century English mark. The nineteenth
century mark that has been copied is that of E. & C. Challinor of
Fenton. The original Challinor mark that has been copied did
have
"Fenton" in it but did not have "Made in England" in it.
The fact that many Americans (if eBay is any guide) refer to the
fake pieces as "Fenton" highlights the inherent problems in using
ambiguous descriptions in the first place.
Jane
Carol Millar
my post that wondered where you've been. :-)
Carol
Ronnie McKinley
>Not to a BW collector! <g>
Ah I give up.
Ronnie
=====
Michele Mauro
listed in my Blue Willow books - but then I've quite a few items not
listed in my books, so they are not all inclusive.
Ah... I see what you're saying about the Fenton-Challinor mark - the
original 19th century mark also did not have England/Made in on it... my
point was that the pieces were obviously new, therefore they should have
had a country of origin on them, but did not... IOW, you didn't need to
know that the mark was real and used in the 19th century to know that
those pieces were fakes.
Is "Fenton Blue Willow" any more ambiguous than "Staffordshire dogs"
though? <big grin>
Have fun, Michele
--
.
"Jane Thomas" <jthomas...@webtime.com.au.invalid> wrote in message
news:012688c8...@usw-ex0104-033.remarq.com...
Michele Mauro
learn a bit or two from you... I just have this one blind spot when it
comes to BW! <grin>
Have fun, Michele
--
.
"Ronnie McKinley" <rmck...@glenbourne.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38c5b7d1...@news.freeserve.net...
Jane Thomas
In article <UaBx4.11722$kO5....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
"Michele Mauro" <las...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Neither the Fenton, Made in England mark, nor any by James Kent
Ltd. are
>listed in my Blue Willow books
Michele,
Here is some 1950s? green willow by another Fenton-based pottery
company:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=278181209
The words FENTON and ENGLAND both occur in the marks on these
pieces. It's probably fair to assume that this company also made
blue willow, which brings the problems associated with calling
the
James Kent Ltd. product "Fenton Blue Willow", and the James Kent
Ltd. mark "the real Fenton mark", into much sharper focus.
> but then I've quite a few items not
>listed in my books, so they are not all inclusive.
>
>Ah... I see what you're saying about the Fenton-Challinor mark
- the
>original 19th century mark also did not have England/Made in on
it.
Exactly, though I'd refer to the original mark as "one of the E.&
C.Challinor marks", rather than "the Fenton-Callinor mark".
> my
>point was that the pieces were obviously new, therefore they
should have
>had a country of origin on them, but did not... IOW, you didn't
need to
>know that the mark was real and used in the 19th century to
know that
>those pieces were fakes.
I totally agree. But using rigorous naming conventions, with
precise meanings where possible, helps minimise the chances of
being fooled by all sorts of fakes and reproductions.
>Is "Fenton Blue Willow" any more ambiguous than "Staffordshire
dogs"
>though? <big grin>
A very good question and one which illustrates the desirability
of
meaningful names. By the same logic by which a willow pattern
plate made in Fenton becomes "a real Fenton willow pattern
plate", modern dog figures made in Staffordshire become
"authentic Staffordshire dogs" and "genuine Staffordshire dogs",
simply because the word Staffordshire appears in the mark.
Examples can be seen on eBay. This naming convention is woefully
inadequate for the antique collector, who also wants information
about the age of the dogs.
The term "Stafforshire dogs" originally applied to unmarked dog
figures made in Staffordshire in the nineteenth century. A
nineteenth century figure made by a known maker, such as a King
Charles Spaniel made by Copeland and Garrett, would traditionally
be described as a Copeland and Garrett dog, rather than a
Staffordshire dog. Using this naming convention, which serves to
maximise the amount of information conveyed, a modern dog, fully
marked with the name of a Stafforshire maker, would not be
described simply as "a Staffordshire dog". The description would
include details of the maker (which often helps infer the date).
A modern, unmarked dog made in Asia would not be described as "a
Staffordshire dog" either. Staffordshire-style perhaps.
Reserving the term "Staffordshire dog" for unmarked dog figures
made in Staffordshire, and in the typical nineteeth-century
Staffordshire style, goes a good part of the way towards
clarifying some of the ambiguities in the name. The question of
"what is a reproduction Staffordshire dog?" is not clear-cut.
Dogs have been produced in the area for well over 150 years, and
many twentieth century dogs made in Staffordshire are unmarked.
Is a dog made in 1890 from a copy of a mould originally made in
1850 any less of a reproduction than a dog made in 1920 from a
copy of the same mould? "Reproduction Staffordshire dog" is
ambiguous. Qualifying the term by adding a date, even a broad
one, such as mid-nineteenth century, late nineteenth century,
early twentieth century, or modern, is therefore desirable.
Cheers,
ubbug...@yahoo.com
> I bought a china set in an Estate auction. It has E&C Challinor,
> Ironstone, fenton, stamped on the bottom. Does not appear the set has
> ever been used. Could someone tell me anything about E&C Challinor?
> Is the set truly "antique"? Thanks!!
>
> ps: It has sticker on the bottom "Made on Japan"
I bought a bowl and picther set with the same E&C Challinor Fenton ironstone china on the bottom so I was trying to date it can anybody help
ubbug...@yahoo.com
> I bought a china set in an Estate auction. It has E&C Challinor,
> Ironstone, fenton, stamped on the bottom. Does not appear the set has
> ever been used. Could someone tell me anything about E&C Challinor?
> Is the set truly "antique"? Thanks!!
>
> ps: It has sticker on the bottom "Made on Japan"
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
My set is not bright like the blue on the ginger jar and I tried to find information about the bowl and pitcher set like a face bowl