Facsimile signatures. Part 2, Fanny Morrey

It is time to return to the subject of facsimile signature styles. It is more than 3 years since I started with the “easy ones” of Rose, Hannah and Elsie?

https://rhead-crownducal.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/charlotte-rhead-facsimile-signatures.html

I believe my reasoning for what I wrote then still stands true. The statistics might have changed with more observations, but not in any significant way. Since then Gerrard Shaw has provided new information in his book on Crown Ducal Ware of 2015, with additional names and some employment dates. But with no links between these names and the pottery markings it has actually made my project harder!

My plan here is to significantly reduce the list of anonymous signature styles and ascribe several to Fanny Morrey in the hope that what is left will be easier to untangle.

Composite of proposed series of tube-lined marks by Fanny Morrey starting with the oldest at the top and the youngest at the bottom. The three forming a cross are styles from 1935-1936 which form a cluster where the sequence cannot be unravelled with confidence.

This constructed history of Fanny Morrey’s signature styles is all speculation. It is based on the premise that she changed her signature style throughout her time tube-lining Crown Ducal ware. The styles usually have similarities to the signature which is typically associated with the letter F and which collectors assume to be her mark.

For those who want the simple answer at the beginning, then Fanny Morrey tube-lined all items marked with an F, a DOT, or a 2, (except those 2's defined as being the work of Elsie Fearns? in the previous facsimile signature post).

These various styles also have to fit with information researched by Bumpus that Fanny was a very experienced tube-liner previously employed by Moorcroft and who may have joined Richardson’s sometime around 1933. Also, Shaw provides information that Fanny was with the company from 1932 until after WW2, but that she came with Charlotte from Burgess & Leigh. Although it would be good to know Fanny’s history prior to coming to Richardson’s it is not relevant to identifying her Crown Ducal work. It may well be that she worked at both Moorcroft and Burgess & Leigh; after all, Charlotte had worked at many potteries before 1932.

TL-FM5

Working backwards in time from her standard signature with the letter F it is important to note that this style, (TL-FM5), was not used until the patterns Tudor Rose, (4491), and Manchu, (4511), were well into their second year of production in 1937. Clearly, if Fanny joined the Crown Ducal team in 1932-33 there are going to be hundreds of examples her work with earlier designs and marked with different tubed base marks.

TL-FM4a, TM-FM4b, TL-FM4c left to right with 4a possibly the oldest and 4c the youngest.

So how did Fanny identify her work before her TL-FM5 mark?  There are several variations that are a cross between Charlotte’s own signature and Fanny’s. That is to say they all use the L for Lottie, but this collective group named TL-FM4, can have the letters E and A either both upper case or both lower case and the letter D can have the top horizontal line or not. In addition most are associated with the tube-lined number 2 rather than the letter F.

I have subdivided TL-FM4 based on their differences and think I have the sequence correct. However, it is a struggle to explain the distribution for all this diversity in how Fanny marked her work at this time. Perhaps future discoveries may require the sequence to be revised.

TL-FM3

One indisputable feature is that 66% of the pattern Orange Chain, (4100), items are marked with proposed versions of Fanny’s signature, and 50% are with the TL-FM3 style. For some reason she made this pattern her own. Pattern 4100 was designed at the end of 1934, so it would be reasonable to date that signature style to the end 1934 and early 1935.

Both Bernard Bumpus and Gerrard Shaw mention that Fanny Morrey was an already experienced tube-liner and that she came to work with Charlotte around 1932-33. This was a time when no Lottie Rhead signatures with an L instead of a C were applied, (except those by Charlotte herself). If Fanny joined in 1932-33 she must have used an alternative signature style, or styles, with a C for Charlotte.

TL-FM2

Fortunately there are two that fit the missing time period from the beginning of tube-lined production up to the end of 1934. The youngest pattern seen to date with the younger of these two styles is 4100. It does require a leap of faith to say that TL-FM2 and TL-FM3 are the marks of the same person. If one looks at the letters “h.e.a.d” of the TL-FM2 signature style and the lower case versions TL-FM4 and TL-FM5 they are as close a match as you could expect.

Importantly, the style of the number 2 is quite consistent amongst the different versions with a strong baseline, and is unlike the 2 used by Elsie Fearns?, which can often look like the number 7. In further support that this period 1 or early period 2 style, (TL-FM2), belongs to Fanny, is the observation that over 60% of Omar, (pattern 4036), items were tube-lined by this artist. It seems reasonable that one of the most complicated of Charlotte's designs would be tube-lined by a senior tube-liner. In fact Omar can be found with several different signature styles, (TL-FM2, TL-FM3, TL-FM4 or TL-FM5). My proposal for Fanny’s signature history means that she tube-lined them all. With this scheme I have yet to see an example of Omar tubed by anyone else.

Although the TL-FM2 signature exists on Byzantine examples from period 1, the earliest production period, there is a problem in that there are not enough period 1 examples. That is to say, Rose, Dora and Adams? were significantly more productive than Fanny based on only the TL-FM2 mark. If we are to believe Bumpus and Shaw that Fanny was there at the beginning we need yet another signature style to increase her work output from the earliest days.

TL-FM1

TL–FM1 is proposed as Fanny Morrey’s earliest signature style for Crown Ducal. The script is very similar to TL-FM2 but the C and the underline is more curved but it is usually accompanied with the characteristic number 2 mark. Adding together TL-FM1 and TL-FM2 production gets close to the period 1 output of Fanny’s colleagues. I believe her slightly lower productivity may be because she concentrated on the more complex designs and rarely worked on Lotus Leaves, Turin or Aztec.

TL-FM6

To end this story it is necessary to identify Fanny’s contribution after the WW2 restrictions on decorated pottery came into force in the summer of 1942 and after Charlotte herself had left the company. In his book, Gerrard Shaw notes that Fanny was working as a tube-liner after WW2, but there is no evidence that items marked with a tube-lined F were produced after the summer of 1942. If Fanny was tube-lining for Crown Ducal after Charlotte had left the company the only possibility is that she adopted the DOT mark which I will refer to as TL-FM6, instead of using F. There are no other marks that could signify her work. The other marks on post war items such as L, 11 and 111, are those that were in use by colleagues working while she was using the F mark.

Below are all of Fanny Morrey's observed output presented as histograms at the time of writing with the exception of unnumbered experimental designs. Also, items on small and awkward shapes are not included as these are difficult to fit into this chronology based on periods 1 to 6.  The history has been divided into two, one covering periods 1 and 2, and the other periods 3 to 6.You will probably need to click on them to open a larger version to make it legible.

Periods 1 & 2

Fanny Morrey's production history as observed until December 2017 grouped by backstamp defined period, facsimile signature style.

Periods 3, 4, 5 & 6

Fanny Morrey's production history as observed until December 2017 grouped by backstamp defined period, facsimile signature style.

Here is an attempt to date these different signature styles. It comes with my usual warning that they can only be a guide. There is no historical record of the tube-liners production history or their marks.

TL-FM1    Startup until early summer 1933
TL-FM2    Early summer 1933 until early 1935
TL-FM3    Early 1935 until late spring 1935
TL-FM4    Late spring 1935 until early 1937
TL-FM5    Early 1937 until mid 1942
TL-FM6    From mid 1942 onward, probably until mid-late 1950's

There are some loose ends to tidy up. There exist a few examples of Golden Leaves pattern 4921, with the period 2, AGR2 backstamp, unsigned but with a DOT mark. There are some Hydrangea table lamps, too awkward for any backstamp apart from the basic “MADE IN ENGLAND”, AGR8 style, also with DOT marks. These observations at first appear contrary to the rules of this proposed classification – suggesting there was a tube-liner “DOT” active in the mid 1930s. But I believe that this supports the case for the DOT mark to belong to Fanny Morrey as it links the post WW2 era to that of pre-WW2. With regard to the table lamps, there was no space for the signature, for Golden Leaves it may just have been pressure of work and a way to save time. In the scheme of things Fanny did not tube-line many items of Golden Leaves, so perhaps this is her venting her frustration at being sidelined from her usual task of working on the more difficult Florian, Carnation, Foxglove or Wisteria designs. The problem is easily solved by understanding that Fanny already had her abbreviated mark ready to use when needed and when the tube-liners were told to stop signing their work she reverted to using the DOT as she had used before.

I would like to suggest an explanation for the strange TL-FM3 style. It has capital letters E and A that interrupt the otherwise gradual evolution of Fanny’s signature. In fact it is a almost a copy of Charlotte's own signature, and the one that was used by the tube-liners at Burgess & Leigh. This may have been a problem for Charlotte. I propose that at some time around the introduction of pattern 4100 Fanny Morrey was given permission to sign L Rhead, (for Lottie Rhead), either as a symbol of seniority or friendship. However, this style TL-FM3 was so close to Charlotte's own signature that perhaps she was asked to modify it and after trying various options, which I have grouped as TL-FM4, it eventually stabilised as TL-FM5.

Another unusual sighting is that of a large salad bowl in pattern 3170, one of the USA designs drawn entirely in slip clay. It is the only example I have seen with the tubed mark 2 for Fanny without a signature. There are lots of pots with the F mark and no signature but only this one sighting of an unsigned earlier item of her work. These bowls would have been made when Fanny was using her TL-FM2 style, if it had been signed.

Also, I should mention that for statistical purposes in the histogram I include in the group TL-FM5, all the unsigned items that carry a tube-lined F mark as I assume they were made during the same time range as the signed items with an F mark.

I am hoping that the logic of all this does not come across as total fantasy. It seems to me to be a good way to reconcile the biographical research of Bernard Bumpus and Gerrard Shaw together with the observations of hundreds of base markings.