Flow Blue Ceramic Pitcher Makers Mark ID?

[KevinM]

I recently purchased this Flow Blue Pitcher and I'm having trouble finding another one like it through searches and identifying the Makers Mark (It's hard to read).

The Pitcher is about 6 Inches Tall and the Base is about 3 Inches Wide. It looks like Flow Blue and Transfer ware. I have no idea how old it is. It could be vintage or fairly new as far as I can tell.

What I would like to know is who the Maker is, when it was Made (Time Period is good enough), where it was made, and perhaps the ball park value if any.

Thanks!
Kevin

[mart]

I have seen something similar from the UK potters but,,  this looks almost new !! I see no age at all !! Can you read the letters on bottom ??

[talesofthesevenseas]

I would expect to see some patina on the ring where it sit if it were old. It reminds me of Spode Castle pattern but it is different. I can't make out the text at the bottom of the hallmark, even though you took good photos!

[KC]

Have to agree with the others. 

Can you make out the writing and tell us?

[KevinM]

I'm having trouble reading the writing since the Flow Blue seems to have diffused or blurred the writing. I usually take a close up digital picture and zoom in on the camera to try and make out the writing but since it's so blurry I'm having trouble making it out.

What I think it might say, or what some of the letters are or a variation of them is:

First string of writing.   " r'  FORIA GALO "    or it could be...  " F' FORIA GAIF "
Second string of writing.  " 'LONE:ONE "     or it could be...    " 'LOVE:ONE "


The theme on the pitcher is rather unusual, I think it shows a crowd of people, and a dog looking up at the church or building with a clock on it where 2 people are standing on top. I don't know if its a town squire up there on the edge of the roof or a person about to jump, be hung or executed. The second person behind the one on the edge could be a soldier or police.

I realize it looks new, and the clean bottom rim bothers me with being vintage, but sometimes vintage glass and ceramics can look like new even after 100+ years depending on how they were handled, used and/or stored. It's also possible someone else cleaned the bottom rim. Just thought it was worth checking it out.

Thanks!
Kevin

[wendy177]

I have tracked your mark, the photo I have attached is basically your mark It is the Royal Coat of Arms used on official government documents from 1814- 1837(English)  Many potters used a modified version of the royal arms as part of their printed mark. The motto ribbon sometimes carries the makers name or the pattern name. I have a book of marks on pottery & porcelain with at least 40 makers with a version of this mark but none as close to the original coat of arms as yours.  The wording on yours along with the pattern will tell the maker if they can be deciphered and found.   

[Rauville]

Compare the mark with this one, which is noted as most likely a "reproduction'.

http://www.tias.com/5820/PictPage/3923210010.html

[mart]

I think this is a pretty new Japanese repro !!  Likely from an import store !!

[wendy177]

Would tend to agree mart as I said at least 40 makers with a version of this mark that I know of and not one is a match.

[KevinM]

Thanks everyone for finding this info! Well, you know what they say, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... then it probably is a duck. The clean bottom rim was certainly one duck factor. You win some and you lose some. Well, really no loss.

Wendy177, thanks for looking that info up in your book and Rauville that was a great link you found. That turned the tide all the way out for me.

[cogar]

Now I am a “stickler” concerning blue & white porcelain. In my opinion there is “flow blue” and then there is blue “transfer”, and nary the twain shall meet. 

Anyway, I once saw a large, like 11” high, blue “transfer” pitcher which had all the “signs” of being a really old piece, including a “crest” and the maker’s name on the bottom of it. It really looked “super good” except for one (1) thing, …. it was a “repo”, ….. one (1) letter in the name was wrong.