XPost: free.uk.trade.antiques, rec.antiques, uk.rec.collecting.misc
From: mckinley@nowherenet.org
In rec.antiques "Net Magazines" wrote:
>Not the original Moorcroft, unsigned
>
Small pieces are not always signed, therefore because a small piece doesn't
bear a "signature" does not make it "not original." It can still be a
genuine period **WILLIAM** Moorcroft piece and NOT signed. Small production
line pieces were AFAIK usually unsigned, and larger production line pieces
were signed randomly by William (and later Walter) Moorcroft. Finer high
market pieces were always signed, usually with a full signature, and not as
the lesser pieces, usually with a monogram.
In the purist sense the important pieces are those made whilst William
Moorcroft was living and still in full in control of the factory and design
shops, both signed pieces and unsigned pieces appear during this period. The
next important phase is when Walter his son took over control and as chief
designer, after his father's death. These pieces also appear signed and
unsigned, by Walter Moorcoft, and can still be very collectable. The random
production line signed pieces can sometimes be hard to tell apart, is it a
William or Walter? as both, father and son, carelessly scrawled random pieces
as they wandered down the production line, with either a quick WM or WM
monogram of very similar style or script, sometimes it's not as easy as just
having a signature.
However ....
This piece in my opinion is Walter Moorcoft phase, and it dates c1975-1985,
but NOT because it doesn't bear any signature/monogram - although the
impressed marks do seem a bit weak for a period piece,and it may originally
have had a paper label, as well - but mainly because of the flower style
design, palette used, and over all quality, easy not William .... :)
--
Ronnie
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
