Royal Crown Derby marks

There is something reassuring about factories like Worcester and Derby which have marked much of their production since the middle of the 18th century. The marking of porcelain makes scholarship and collecting much more agreeable. However, I would like to tell a cautionary tale of hand painted Derby marks featuring the crown over a ‘D’ format used from around 1780 until 1825. Having several examples at hand allowed me to test the conventional wisdom that pieces from the period in question could be dated by virtue of the care with which the crowned ‘D’ Derby mark was painted. Both Godden* and Twitchett** subscribe to the theory that the care in which the marks are painted deteriorates over time.

Fig 1. This modern Royal Crown Derby mark {from 1978} is descended from the hand painted marks of the early 19th century.

To understand the assumptions underlying this theory, requires a brief review of the factory’s history. The fame of the early factory justly rests on what are called the ‘dry edged’ figures associated with Andrew Planché who established the porcelain works in Derby around 1748***. Archaeological research has revealed moulds for dry edged figures in which the initials AP are carved; evidence suggesting Planché’s rôle extended to sculptor and model maker. There are no marks upon the pieces of this period.

One of the surprises of reading Hilary Young’s recent account, English Porcelain, 1745-95****, is the position enjoyed by the Derby porcelain factory. Young constructs a ‘league ladder’ of 18th century porcelain makers based on their contemporaries’ assessments which puts Derby atop the list of English manufacturers. Part of this success can be attributed to William Duesbury, who ran the factory from 1756 to 1786. The phrase ‘ran the factory’ does not adequately describe Duesbury’s transformation of Planché’s workshop into a nationally important producer. It was his taste and awareness of the market which allowed Derby it’s standing in Young’s ladder. Also worthy of note, is an assertion by Derby’s London agent in 1777 that ‘Duesbury had the Royal Appointment from 1775’†; which may explain the crown in their mark.

The factory was next run by Duesbury’s son, William Duesbury II. His role was crucial in combining sound business with beautiful porcelain, making Derby one of the pre-eminent factories in Europe.

In 1796 William Duesbury II took Michael Kean into partnership and upon Duesbury’s death, in 1797, Kean married his widow. Kean ran the factory until 1811 when he sold it to Robert Bloor. Bloor had been a clerk to Duesbury and Kean so knew the business well. It was during the Bloor period that painters like the famous William ‘Quaker’ Pegg were engaged in creating pieces of the highest quality. It is here our interest ends, because it was Robert Bloor who introduced the printed circular mark around 1825 (see figure 2).

Fig 2. The mark c.1825 adopted by Robert Bloor for the factory on a very typical Derby coffee can of the late 1820s. The plain loop handle has been repaired with wire staples.

Our earliest example (figure 3) is a fluted coffee can with delicate sprigged decoration in blue, green and puce enamel and gilding. With its plain loop handle and sixteen vertical facets, it is of identical shape to the example illustrated in plate 147 of Michael Berthoud’s Compendium of British Cups††. The painter or gilder’s number 129 appears under the crowned ‘D’ mark. The cup is decorated with stylised cornflowers, which would almost certainly be described as ‘Chantilly sprig’ today. The paste is beautifully white and lustrous without any sign of the crazing which was to become a regular feature of later Derby porcelain. The gilding has worn significantly on all protruding surfaces.

Fig. 3 A Coffee can c.1795 bearing a puce mark of either William Duesbury II or Duesbury and Kean. The matching saucer is identically marked and numbered but the mark is much larger because of the greater space on the base of the saucer.

Early Duesbury II marks were painted in blue or puce and this practice continued until 1806†††. The lack of care taken with the mark depicted in figure 3 is noticeable. The ‘D’ looks more like a lower case ‘b’ and the crown is skewed.

Fig. 4 A Derby saucer with a very faint mark in the Bute shape with pale blue border. The matching saucer, coffee can and tea cup all bear the same mark.

In figure 4, we see a very faint mark on a Bute shaped saucer with pale blue border and bands of gilding and gilt foliage. The first thing we notice about this mark is the iron (ferric oxide) orange colour usually associated with production after 1806††††. The style of the matching saucer, coffee can and tea cup support this, appearing to be c.1810-15 (although shapes may continue in production for years). The inclusion of the balls dotted around the top of the crown suggest this is an early orange mark. The balls upon the crown have become perfunctory and the three dots are difficult to distinguish. This hardly agrees with conventional wisdom that the earlier marks are ‘carefully drawn until c.1820’‡. All of the marks on the surviving pieces of the set, including bun dishes, trios and slops bowls exhibit the same mark. The eccentricities of the mark suggest all were painted by the same hand in fact the painter or gilder’s number ‘2’ appears in orange, near the rim on each piece. As the practice of placing the painter or gilder’s numbers near the rim started around 1810‡‡, there is support for the early dating of this piece.

In the next three examples, however, we see the need for a system that dates the marks more accurately. These three plates are all the same shape and figures 5 and 6 are of identical size. All fall within the period when Robert Bloor was the head of the works; in these cases roughly around 1820.

In figure 5, we see a dessert dish decorated in a style I associate with late Georgian Derby, which includes bands of gilding, gilt foliage, brightly enamelled roses, daisies and bright green foliage. The roses are especially charming and echo the ‘Prentice Plate’ painted by William Billingsley, c. 1790, which he painted to teach apprentices how to paint these distinctive roses‡‡‡. On the reverse we can see characteristic crazing and a crowned ‘D’ mark painted with some skill and great speed as well as a small painter or gilder’s number‡‡‡‡ (27) near the rim. The balls from the crown have disappeared, the cross has lost its shape, but the three dots either side of the crossed strokes are clearly distinguishable.

Fig. 5 A Derby dessert dish c. 1820, with a border of gilded foliage, half hearted daisies and skilfully executed roses.

The dating of the next plate (figure 6) is a little more difficult. It appears to be a descendant of the almost geometrical swirling border patterns of around 1800 but incorporates bolder, more varied colours and intricate foliage. In this set, the painter or gilder’s numbers are much higher (one is 68 the other is 74). Each plate also has another number under the central mark (11 in the case of 68, 22 and 39 in the case of 74). It is fascinating to have six plates by at least five different artists and note the slight variations in shapes and spacial arrangements. In this case the marks appear to be painted by the artist whose number appears closet to the mark; probably at the same time. This suggests the rim marks may be gilder’s marks.

These plates present a problem, too. There are two examples (figure 6a) of a mark painted by ‘39’ which have the balls on the crown rather like the marks in figure 3. The crossed lines and balls below the crown are different, as are ‘D’s. This makes the mark look like a very early mark... which I don’t think it can be.

Fig. 6 One of six Derby dessert plates, c. 1820.

Fig. 6a The mark which appears on two of the Dessert plates of the same pattern as figure 6. It appears on intital inspection to be like the mark in figure 3.

The third example (figure 7), like that in figure 5, has a characteristic Derby decoration including ‘Billingsley’ roses. The other stylised flowers represent cornflowers and honeysuckle. It has a small painter or gilder’s number (23) on the base, close to the foot rim. In spite of characteristic crazing, this plate still has a shiny, attractive glaze. The mark has taken on quite impressionistic qualities; it has only a passing similarity to a crown and ‘D’.

Fig. 7 A Derby plate with cornflowers, roses and honeysuckle in a band around the rim with gilded bands. The mark is almost ‘impressionist’ it is executed with so little care.

While it is tempting to assume that the plates in figures 5, 6 and 7 can be safely dated by the years when the patterns on them were most fashionable, difficulties present themselves. Patterns remained in the books for much longer periods than the ten years with which we are dealing. All these patterns could have been produced simultaneously. The care with which the marks are painted, however, appears to support a chronology of figure 5 first, followed by 6 and then 7. Holding the plates and inspecting them closely, this appears to be perfectly reasonable. Remember, however, the plates in the dessert set of six (figure. 6) have widely varying marks: two bear marks that look earlier than figure 5.

Fig. 8 A Bloor Derby coffee can and its mark.

Another reason why I would doubt dating based soley on the painted mark, is the example of the coffee can in figure 8. It features a Japanese inspired pattern based on cobalt blue, iron (ferric oxide) orange and gilding. Its earlier date may be reflected in the more restricted colour palette than the later example (figure 2) but both retain an oriental feel. The square handle, which is obviously a derived from the square handle referred to as ‘French handle’, would have been the height of fashion in 1810. The mark however, which is the second most imprecise observed here, would suggest the mid 1820s with conventional mark dating. Although this coffee can has a repaired square handle, the same pattern appears in Twichett’s Derby Porcelain*, with a Grecian handle and is dated between 1810-20. The ‘H’ beneath the mark remains a mystery to me, but may be related to the painter number, II, beneath the mark in figure 6.

In Conclusion, I am fairly sure that there is no simple chronological progression from well painted to badly painted marks. The presence of painter or gilder’s numbers suggest there was no reason for each painter to personalise their version of the Derby mark but there is clear evidence that they did. The fact is, we still need to take into account all the factors involved in dating a piece of ceramic (the weight and translucency of the body, the lustre or crazing of the glaze, style, decoration, abrasions and marks) when assessing the age of Derby china of the Duesbury & Kean and Bloor periods. While we can add the care with which the mark is painted to the list of these factors, we can not rely on it as the sole dating technique.

Marks on Derby Porcelain 1795-1825