Featured Faenza Maiolica Bottle Vase C1800

Hi, This one is for information only....I bought this Bottle vase from a market stall about a week ago, I liked it and thought it was elderly...and submitted pics to Value my Stuff...I had , by this time established that it was Faenza with their traditional Garafano pattern...Blue Carnation, but I couldn't be certain about the mark, it appears in Chafers with a date that I felt was too early...so I asked for identity help.They confirmed that it was 18th to 19th century, and although damaged ,valued it at 300 to 400GBP with an Insurance valuation of £700 GBP.....I was not particuarly interested in the value, just wanted it confirmed that it was old. I thought that someone may be interested in the pics of the mark....I paid £20 GBP.....so there are still bargains out there to be found!!!!Happy Hunting!!It measures 28cm by 11cm x 10.5 cm, terracotta tin glazed slab construction.

 

I don't see a mark, am I missing it? I'd be interested in hearing what Walter might say, my impression is that this might be one of the newer pieces.

@Walter Del Pellegrino

 

I agree with the identification of the design as being “Garafano” (Carnation) but...Faenza is the name of a city, not a company or studio. The original pattern was created by the firm of Ferniani in the city of Faenza during the 1750’s. I have included a link to an article I wrote for my Italian pottery forum. A photo of an example of early Garafano is included. It is considerably different than the style depicted on your bottle. The mark you have shown is one I am not familiar with. Can you kindly let me know what Chaffer’s has identified the mark as being. I have several 1800’s editions of his book so I can easily check it. Chaffer’s is often wrong in his identifications, particularly of Italian ceramics. I have checked my own database of Italian pottery marks with many hundreds of ciphers ( I am the author of a number of books on the subject) and I am unable to identify it. As matter of fact I am not sure it is an actual pottery mark.
Your bottle is not marked “Made in Italy” although I have no doubt it was. Sometimes this can help date a piece. There are a number of possible reason why an item does not contain the country of origin. It may be that the piece was created before the enactment of the McKinley Tariff Act in 1890 which required country identification. The bottle may not have been intended for export, in which case no identification was required. Perhaps the studio forgot to mark the item and some inefficient Customs Officer overlooked the fact during inspection.
Based upon the style of the Garafano, its color and glaze I would date the bottle from the mid 1950’s to a more current date.

http://italianpotterymarks.freeforu...nerware-pattern-still-popular-today-t225.html

 

This is my third attempt at writing a reply but it will not post, so before I try again, I want to see if this will!!!!

 

Hi, So it worked, so here goes again....Thanks for all the interest and input.The Chaffers mark is in Chaffers marks and monograms...an impressed mark which he attributes to the 16th century. My main interest is in early unmarked pieces, and and I knew that this pot did not belong to the sixteenth century, so I got advice as above.The whole feel, texture wear of the vase indicated that it was from around the 1800's, the stylised painting, which was influenced by the chinese painting of the period, loosely painted...it could never, never be compared with 1950's Faenza, it is not comparable in any way, either feel, style of decoration, or body. I know that photos are only part of the story, but if you could see it you would know that it is an old piece. Having been a dealer for several years before I retired, I met many dealers who had no feel for ceramics, and realised then that an interest in antiques is not the same as having a feel for the items . I think we will have to agree to differ on this one....I wholly concur with the appraisal that I was given....and have to say that it is completely beyond me how anyone could mistake it for a modern piece.As you say, quite rightly, there were many, many potters operating in Faenza, and the shaving bowl of your article is a high end piece.....also Yes, Chaffers did get it wrong...but he was working at a time when the world was a bigger place !!

 

and have to say that it is completely beyond me how anyone could mistake it for a modern piece

and now the gloves have been thrown down...........

 

Hi Komokwa, No, I don't mean to be confrontational!! It's just that when you feel it, you feel it!!!

 

Ah komokwa you bored?

My main interest was in what is being called a mark that from the photo looks to me like a chip in the glaze on the base. I'm trying to make it into something further but still not seeing it. Maybe it's just me as I'm not quite firing on all cylinders these days.

I was not familiar with "Value My Stuff" which turns out is an online appraisal service where you pay a nominal fee. Online reviews are mixed as to their results but as with other online things you never really know the motivation of the review posters. Personally I'd consider what Walter has to say.

I'm glad Linda is happy with her purchase and I hope it's exactly what she hopes it is.

 

Not by a long shot......& I don't know enough to comment on this item , but Walter sure does, and at that , seems to be at odds with the OP.

True enough that we can only see pics of the item, but like you , I see a chip out of the bottom...with what looks like a dent in the base right next to it...so ...It's not just you !

Like you, I'd like the item to be what the OP thinks it is....but until I see that Chaffers mark....or Walter has a meltdown.....I too will have to come down on the side of our resident expert.

 

Hi again, I would try and scan a copy of the mark, a small impress which may look like a chip in the photo, but trust me is a mark....that is why there is white tin glaze to only the central part of the base so that the impress could be applied. The mark , however is irrelevant in this case, because it pre dates the pot, according to Chaffers, unless anyone has any evidence of the mark being used between 1750 and 1800...... You are very welcome to come down on the side of Walter, this is a forum and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Resident expert or not, and I do not doubt that he is on marks monograms and history of Maiollica....he wrong on the date of this Bottle vase....I do intend to keep it for a while, but when it is eventually sold....usually to provide funds for more finds, I will update you with the outcome!!!

 

We'll keep an eye out for that day...in the meanwhile....enjoy the hell out of it...it's a nice find !!

 

Perhaps, since your intention was to share and educate, and thought the mark interesting, you might post a scan of the mark in Chaffer's, preferably side by side with your mark, so that we can see what you see. You are saying that the mark appears in Chaffer's, though incorrectly dated - its presence in the book would imply dating to at least the 19th century, so sharing it would support your opinion. I ran through the 'Maiolica-Faenza' section in the 1876 edition of 'Marks and Monograms on Pottery and Porcelain', but didn't see anything resembling what you show (though my inability to see any discernible mark on the bottle may have complicated the search).

Regardless, so long as you're happy with it, its all good - hopefully your eventual buyer will feel the same...

~Cheryl

 

Is this somehow any indication of a mark....inversed and regular........IDK......

 

looks like a seated dog with a wagging tail......when you put it that way..

i still see what looks like a dent to the right of it..

 

Hi, Thanks for the interest, Yes, I will try and scan the page and image in Chaffers....I have to go to the dentist today , so it will be later,. The dent that you see in the photo,is in fact a glaze ridge where the impress device was hastily applied. The image is not the right way around, but when you see the scan you will be able to make sense of it.As said... the mark does pre date the pot, but at least it shows a mark that was used in Faenza. a poor impress in this case, blurred edges by the tin glaze. The dot is not part of the mark.Cheryl, thanks for your gentle reply, My appraisal was guaranteed so if you all manage to prove them wrong, I will get my money back!!!!

 

Hi, I have managed to scan the page...the image is the dark impress second down. My pot is poorly impressed due to a glaze run over half of the mark. The dot at the top is not part of the mark but an indication of the extent of the mark under the glaze run. The right side is covered in the glaze run, and the dent that you see is actually a ridge formed over the extent of the mark to the right. Marks are not the be all and end all and can be misleading, and I have to say that the mark here was not really the source of identification....I am having such trouble with Windows 10 that I have had to email the mark to myself to upload from my Chromebook....I hope it works!!!!!!It didn't work...so pic to follow!!!

 

Is it me, or does that look nothing like that glaze miss?

 

Hi. At this point, having returned from the Dentists...I give up....I am not into arguing, and I have tried my best.There is little point in continuing this thread....I have been given no credible alternative by the doubters, and antiquing is supposed to be a pleasurable hobby, and a sharing of info.....Sorry but I don't think Forums are for me....Incidentally, I still hold to my original opinion of the pots dating, but feel no further useful information is to be found.It is not a glaze miss.....it is an impress....get out there and look at older stuff, handle things every day, and learn how to identify without marks, and then you may have something to offer

 

Sorry if you've been offended, I've just been trying to research as I always do.

As to the part about getting out and touching old things, I couldn't agree more and that's exactly what I've been doing for years.

In addition to spending long hours in the field and lab as an archaeology volunteer where ceramics are of great importance, I have a fairly large collection of primarily reference pieces with a concentration on the 18th Century that (gulp) has hundreds of pieces.

I don't have extensive knowledge of Italian pieces however Walter does. I've been interested in knowing more about your piece from an education standpoint but would have liked more photos.

Again I hope it's exactly what you hope it is.