Doulton Burslem - Confusing Marks

I found this plate amongst a number of Royal Doulton plates donated by a collector. The card said "Antique" but most of the back stamps were post 1937 according to the sites, I saw. This one was different but I suspect it is a modern reproduction. Just in case I am wrong, I would appreciate any comments you may have. Rather than a surface stamp, the mark is partially impressed. (I tried powder to bring it out and failed.) The English Registry stamp according to Kovels says 1842" (X) *corrected by @Bakersgma to 1868. https://www.kovels.com/identification-help/english-registry-marks.html

 

Remember that the "registry" of the design does not change from the original date. Has little bearing on when the plate was actually made. But I'm not certain how long it might be in use and whether a much later production with still carry the earliest registry stamp. In theory the stamp was replaced by only the number in 1883.

I'm pretty sure Ownedbybear will know.

 

Thanks very much. This is why I do this, so I can learn.

 

Hold your horses! that version of the registry stamp is the later one. The position of the your X is the 1868 code not 1842.

 

You want to be looking at "Mark B" in your Kovel's link.

 

So the stamp is then the pattern was registered. I thought it was when the plate was made. There was so much information, I must have missed the part about the different marks. Thanks.

 

It's like a patent date. It has nothing to do with when the individual plate was made.

 

You probably know already but part of the impressed mark reads BURSLEM.

 

Thanks. Yes that’s why I thought it may be doulton. But I know so little I wasn’t sure of anything.

 

I appreciate your knowledge about this. I usually walk past plates but I thought I was ask about this one because it had this mark.

 

It's very nice, Kiko! You might want to go back and look at the others, if they are still there. Thrift store?

 

I’m there now. They have several but they are newer with the post 1937 backstamp. They have a couple of gaffers and some gypsies but I don’t collect plates so this was just a learning tool. Yes thrift.

 

Interesting that there was only the one older. But now you have learned a few things that should come in handy in the future!

 

You got that right. Thanks to you I won’t focus on the registry stamp. I’m really not sure though it’s actually old. I’ve seen things with crazing and a bunch iof stamps that are modern reproductions. I wish I knew how to be sure.

 

@Ownedbybear

 

Thank you. I agreed its time to call in the calvary

 

Neigh.

Ahem.

Without looking at the back, I was pretty sure this was 19th C. Yes, I know there's fake crazing being done on stuff, but this has that nice slightly faded look of age and wear that really isn't fakeable. The impressed marks would be far more precise and deliberate on a modern lookalike, too.

As others have rightly said, registry marks are date of first patent, so generally not helpful with manufacture date. However, the diamond really wasn't used on stuff after the Rd number usage came in: designs got re-registered, so the 1868 to 1883 dating is about right.

Not Royal, that came later. A nice late 19th C Doulton Burslem polychrome hand embellished transferware plate.

I'd like to see the others!

 

Thank you so much!!!!! I am thrilled that it is a real antique. It will join my collection. I was there this morning and most of the plates were gone. I'll go there tomorrow and see if there is anything left and take pictures. They are $12, so they will go fast. This was the most interesting one visually, though. I love the information you gave though that will help in the future - poor impression and fading may mean older. When I inspected it carefully it look like transferware but I wasn't sure. You are wonderful! Thanks again for your help.

 

You're most welcome. It's also the thing that yours looks hand done: there are wee imperfections that aren't easily faked without it all looking too considered, if that makes sense. Can you see where the transfer is very slightly not quite straight, for example? That lined border on your third photo.

 

Meanwhile I was going to post that your "Neigh" and "Ahem" were hysterically funny. I couldn't at the time I read them. Yes. I saw the mismatch of the band and where the fourth flower hadn't been painted in the center medallion. I didn't know these were clues, though. Actually, when I see these characteristics in modern pieces though much worse, it is usually an indicator to me that it is sloppy factory work. I will have to rethink this if the small variations are clues to older work. Good horsey.