{"id":292,"date":"2020-10-09T17:47:24","date_gmt":"2020-10-09T17:47:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antiquesreview.com\/info\/?p=292"},"modified":"2021-06-09T18:19:58","modified_gmt":"2021-06-09T18:19:58","slug":"postcard-pattern","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antiquesreview.com\/info\/postcard-pattern\/","title":{"rendered":"Picture Postcard Pattern"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Several factories are known to have used this decoration and research is still continuing – reference pieces include these two teapots.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Teapot 1 Originally from the Godden Reference Collection now in the Author’s Collection<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Teapot 2 From the Author’s Collection<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Both teapots have been under scrutiny from acknowledged experts and both are still the objects of study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Teapot 1 first appeared in print in Goddens’ Porcelain Maunfacturer’s book (here attributed to Cambrian Pottery, but later put into a “problem” Category as you can see below).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

What makes attribution so difficult is, oddly, not the lack of pattern numbers or maker’s marks, though, clearly these don’t help. What makes it hard is the non-conformity of style, paste, design, glaze, shape and pattern between these pieces and other contemporary named pieces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Current thinking is that Teapot 1 is probably A & E Keeling (formerly known as Factory X). Its hybrid paste and format putting it 1795-1800<\/p>\n\n\n\n