Majolica pitcher English / aesthetic movement

I have tried ChatGPT, chrome image search, etc to ID this item without finding a similar item.

Bought it an estate sale, it's about 8" high, thick Kelly green glaze, architectural/structural detail (columns), no marks on bottom.

ChatGPT has suggested the below:

Antique majolica-style pottery pitcher, c. 1885-1910

• Unmarked

• Pale buff clay body with unglazed base

• Thick, glossy green glaze

• Architectural column detail

• Applied handle; visible mold seam

• Heavy earthenware construction

• Style aligns with English Staffordshire / Aesthetic Movement production

• Less consistent with American majolica (clay color, glaze quality, motif)

Would love any insights or suggestions anyone has to ID/ value

 

You need to post photos!

 

Just posted, was having photo size issues

 

In shape it seems quite like this one said to be Brush McCoy. The listing cites several references.



https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/brush-mccoy-column-arches-pitcher-4823768370

I did look in my lone Brush McCoy book without seeing it.

 

Doesn't Brush usually have a well impressed model number on the bottom? Or is that a simplistic understanding?

 

Seller does not show bottom of this one, but also says Brush McCoy:



https://www.ebay.com/itm/177709807918

 

Thank you!

 

Thanks for this info! Looking into this now. The color green is really interesting to me.

 

As it turns out, I found another book I have on Brush McCoy that does show the blue version in the section on Whitestone Bristol Glazed Ware/ Kitchen Ware. They call it Colonial.

There is nothing showing a version in green.

From: Sanfords Guide to Brush-McCoy Pottery Book 2

 

Quite often computer images make it look like there are shapes, letters etc, where there are none.

Just wondering if there is a chance there is something impressed, sort of looks like letters.



Best I can do to enhance

 

Google said some of the early pieces were not marked, but I’m not an expert.

 

I checked again, no impressions. The bottom is smooth. Thank you for posting pictures from
your book!

 

Looking with different light, there is a very faint A M marked in the bottom.

 

During this period Brush McCoy pieces were not marked as such but some pieces did have impressed mold numbers, not all but some. If you ever find a piece marked Brush McCoy it's a fantasy piece. This particular pitcher would have only been marked 027 or just 27 if it was marked at all. The green is unusual but not unique. My own theory is that Brush went to green after blue and blue and white, fell out of favor. There is also a possibilty that this mold found its way to another company and that company produced the green.

 

I think that is a very good possibility. That glaze doesn't look right for B-McC. Also doesn't seem to have the appropriate age, nor does the bottom look quite right.

 

This is completely off the wall, but is it possible someone with a studio kiln reglazed it with that odd green color? First of all, it is an odd color. Secondly, the glaze is thicker and blurs the finer details of the mold. You can barely see the individual bricks, for instance.

 

Not off the wall at all. I'm not sure it was an individual but discrepancies you noted are exact the reasons I thought a different company might be responsible. That plus the bottom as verybrad mentioned. The color isn't that odd though. Brush didn't really use it but Hall China Company, for one, did use a color close to that green for some of their custard cups, teapots, and other kitchenware. I think it was more a depression era color but can't say for sure. It's not a strong seller (at least I've never had much luck with it!).

As for an individual recoloring a Brush McCoy pitcher, I think that's unlikely. The bottom of Brush pitchers of that age usually have an unglazed ring on the bottom with a glazed center. I can't recall a Brush McCoy pitcher made with a flat white bottom.

verybrad could probably comment better on this that I can, but it wasn't unusual in the early part of the 20th century for multiple companies to use the same molds. I've heard (but have no documentation) that some companies didn't even own all the molds they used but rather rented them from another company or a mold supplier. Producing molds was expensive so it saved them some bucks.

 

That was catching my eye too. Finally decided the best description is smothered in glaze.

 

Not likely. The color is not all that odd. Robinson Ransbottom did some glazes like this. See some Zanesville forms done by them showing up with similar glaze. Also, one of the Illinois potteries did some similar things. They also used other company's molds. Can never remember which one it was.... Morton or Monmouth. I think probably the latter.