help identifying a mark on a Worcester bowl

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone could help with identifying the mark on my Worcester bowl . The pattern is the common fisherman and cormorant but the mark is strange and the pattern doesn't seem to follow the usual pattern. There are some interesting differences. I am assuming it early Worcester but any help would be appreciated. Thanks

 

It is a pseudo Chinese Worcester number Mark. If you look closely you will see a 2 in there. Similar in attached with a hidden 4

 

This page from Chaffers' 1866 edition of Marks and Monograms on Pottery and Porcelain states the mark was used by Caughley, late 1700's.

 

Thanks you for this. That is really interesting. I was sure it was Worcester!

 

I do love early Worcester.

 

I found this about the differences between Worcester and Caughley's versions of The Fisherman pattern on York Museum website
Tea bowl and saucer with transfer printing decoration in underglaze blue. The pattern is known as 'fisherman' or 'fisherman and cormorant'. Originally, at the Worcester factory, this pattern was known as the 'pleasure boat'. Both the Caughley and the Worcester factories used this pattern, which was one of the most common in late eighteenth century English porcelain. It is believed that the difference between the two factories can be seen in the fish held by the man on the boat. While the Worcester's fish is thin the Caughley one is shorter and fat. If so, this tea bowl and saucer can be attributed to the Worcester factory.
Production date start
1775
Production date end
1780

 

Ditto.

 

I thought it interesting that in 1866 Richard Binns stated he'd never found these marks on Worcester items. I wonder how Chaffers concluded these were made by Caughley?

The pattern on the bowl shown on the York site is different than what OP has. Could OP's be Caughley?

 

The description explains the differences between the two so it could very well be Caughley If Kate’s fish is thin it’s Worcester but if it is shorter and fat it’s Caughley.

 

So I am not sure whether the fish is fat or thin. What do you think?

 

Here’s a fuller description of differences
http://printedbritishpotteryandporcelain.com/what-did-they-make/pottery-item/saucer-19

 

Looking at this, I think my bowl is Worcester!!!

 

I tend to agree. Yours ticks all the boxes in that description

 

The pseudo Chinese marks were originally, but erroneously, attributed to Caughley. They are now known to be Worcester. Good to see that you posted your piece here!