Misleading Pieces
Puzzles
Sometimes a piece comes along that seems to fit the criteria, but not quite. So it makes life a little difficult to say who the manufacturer was. I will place here pieces that might be Ridgway, but also might not. If anyone has similar pieces, or pieces that share features of any piece on this page please let me know, with photographs. Many thanks!
Sprigged Wares
Blue & White Wares
Copies of Hicks 'Priory' shape
Egg & Bacon Moulding shape
3-figure series
4-figure series
Leaning Rose Moulding shape
Unidentified fractional numbers
Sprigged Wares
Oval dessert dish.
Godden illustrates an example of this dish in his Ridgway Porcelains (Woodbridge, 1985), p.62, Plate 55, which he refers to as 'Unmarked but almost certainly early Ridgway'. Certainly the centre sprig of his illustrated example has been observed on marked Ridgway pieces, but the centre sprig on the example illustrated here has not. Also the shape is not one I would associate with Cauldon Place. That must leave an element of doubt. Should a marked example, or some other evidence, turn up, however, I would be happy to reconsider the attribution.
The oval dessert dish is 280mm long and 205mm wide. Probably porcellanised earthenware (the body is slightly translucent).
Photos © Paul Mooney 2021
Return to Puzzles, Copies, Replacements page
Blue & White Wares
Mostly patterns that copy Ridgway but I don't know who made them.
Non-Ridgway Curling Palm
Once upon a time it was thought that all Curling Palm was made by Job Ridgway. This was because the only marked examples were impressed with his name. Now we know that, just as all Chinoiserie Ruins is not by Davenport, so all Curling Palm is not by Ridgway.
The dinner plate is 252mm in diameter. Pearlware.
Most Ridgway pearlware tableware of this period is flat backed. This dinner plate has a curled in foot with a recessed back. If anyone recognises the shape I would be grateful to hear about it.
Photos © Angela Grant 2023
Return to Puzzles, Copies, Replacements page
Copies of Hicks 'Priory' shape
Hicks & Meigh 'Priory' shape was copied by other manufacturers, mostly in earthenware, but also occasionally in bone china.
Pattern 942
This pattern was thought to be Hicks bone china, but the pattern number is too low for real 'Priory' patterns, and the real ones have moulded flower heads inside the short reverse curves at the edge. The print appears to copy 'Hicks No.81' print but the print does not conform to Hicks style. Manufacturer is unknown.
The dessert plate is 215mm in diameter. Bone china.
Photos © Paul Mooney 2023
Return to Puzzles, Copies, Replacements page
Egg & Bacon Moulding shape
This shape has been argued over for some time. Ridgway is unlikely, but Alcock and Minton second series has also been suggested. It is complicated by there being two number series, a low 3-figure series, and a 4-figure series in the high 3000s and low 4000s.
Egg & Bacon Moulding 3-figure series.
Pattern 150
The dessert plate is 225mm in diameter. Bone china.
Photos © Don Mikel 2022
Return to Puzzles, Copies, Replacements page
Egg & Bacon Moulding 4-figure series.
Pattern 3873
The dessert plate. Bone china.
Photos © Dominique Deng 2020
Return to Puzzles, Copies, Replacements page
Pattern 3948
The dessert plate. Bone china.
Photos © Rebecca Bullock 2020
Return to Puzzles, Copies, Replacements page
Leaning Rose Moulding shape
This Leaning Rose shape has long presented a problem of identification. Previously we have seen only Mazarin border patterns with the leaning rose edge moulding picked out in gold. They were considered as of uncertain origin, possibly Ridgway. Since these grey border patterns have come to the fore it has become clear that the style of gilding seems to fit Alcock better than Ridgway. The numbering system, however, suits neither very well. Patterns in this shape are generally in the 4000s
Pattern 4584
The rectangular dessert dish. Bone china.
Photos © Nick Athanasatos 2022
The dessert plates are 238mm in diameter. Bone china.
On this pattern the moulding is clearly defined.
Photos © Robert Hawker 2021
Return to Puzzles, Copies, Replacements page
Pattern 4880
The dessert plate is 230mm in diameter. Bone china.
On this pattern the moulding is hidden by the decoration.
Photos © Dominique Deng 2020
Return to Puzzles, Copies, Replacements page
Unidentified fractional numbers
Pattern 1/3997
The attribution of these teapots is problematic. I first thought they were Ridgway, Bedford Works, because I misread the number as 2/3997, but on finding the number was 1/3997 I reattributed them to Alcock. But they don't fit there because the body is earthenware. They may be by Dimmmock but I'm not sure the number series runs that high, so, for the moment they remain a puzzle.
The teapot. Earthenware.
Detail from Flaxman's drawing from Homer's Iliad: 'Hector's body dragged at the car of Achilles'.
Photos © Kate West 2021
I first thought the above teapot was Ridgway, Bedford Works, as I read the pattern number as 2/3997, but I was always slightly troubled by the attribution as the shape was not quite what I expected from Ridgway. But then the following teapot appeared, which made it clear that the pattern was 1/3997. A number of factories used the same Flaxman prints for decoration.
The teapot is 130mm tall. Earthenware.
Detail from Flaxman's drawing from Homer's Iliad: 'The Departure of Briseis from the Tent of Achilles'.
In this case the figure above the line is quite definitely a "1".
Photos © Anonymous 2022
Return to Puzzles, Copies, Replacements page
Pattern 1/4034
Several factories have fractional numbering systems. This comport was thought to be by Alcock mostly because the pattern number is in the border colour, but it became apparent that the style is far later than the pattern number would allow. So it is not Alcock and belongs to another factory that used a fractional number system under 1/ as yet undiscovered.
The short dessert comport is 203mm in diameter and 51mm tall. Bone china.
Photos © David House 2020
Return to Puzzles, Copies, Replacements page