Unknown EQ mark on porcelain figures driving me mad!

Hello everyone, I've been surrounding myself with ceramics for many years now, and a huge part of the fun of it is researching the marks. However, I've had a pair of large, nice quality porcelain figures of Victorian ladies for about a decade and have yet to track down the 'EQ' or 'QE' mark they both have underneath. In desperation I have added a photo, they also have a Victorian diamond registration mark underneath dating them to April 1878 but this has helped not a jot despite all the information. Can anyone put me out of my misery please??

 

It would be very helpful if you added photos of the figurines themselves.

 

This won't help I'm afraid but it's an online source for companies associated with the date of registration though I don't know if it's complete. It doesn't help here as it shows no registrations on April 15, 1878. I don't see any companies with the initials EQ EO EQ or QO in Goddens but I could easily be missing something. If no one knows here then perhaps the National Archives can provide more info.

A photo of the items and perhaps a complete photo of the base might be helpful.

http://www.photane.com/reference/ukdiamondregistrations.html

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

 

That's not even a proper Q.

 

Many thanks all, I'll get some photos posted shortly.

 

yes, more like a Q anon perhaps? (sorry ...couldn't resist)

 

That letter might not be an E. The stroke on the bottom is more square than that on the top. It might be a combination of L and F.

 

Good spot, that had escaped my attention. Time to start another search! Photos to follow.

 

I think it's a G not a Q. The mark is vaguely familiar, I shall paw through Godden.

The other possibility is that they're not British and someone invented a registry mark.

 

You're a star. I've actually explored that possibility and got about as far as I did with EQ so I truly wish you all the best.

 

seeing the whole objects is going to help.

It might possily be Charles Ford. Hanley, 1874 to 1904. It's similar to one of their marks.

 

I don't have any pictures at the moment but will post some tomorrow

 

Ta!

 

Its fake. At least according to the paid data base I am using. (not trying to promote it so I wont publish the name you can PM me). It's not the last word, nothing seldom is, and something may turn up later but this data base seems to be pretty good so far and it seems to store quite a few fake marks in it as well. Here's a screen shot:

 

So here's some of the Hanley marks. The one in the upper right is the Thomas Ford one mentioned above, it is the only Thomas Ford mark in the data base. THere are numerous Hanley marks these are only some. I wonder if the one bottom row, center is more like the one that Owned is thinking of?

 

Hallelujah! At least I now know. I'll pop some photos on anyway so you can see why I was convinced they were the real deal. They look for all the world like a pair of Victorian figures and if they are fake they are the best I've seen in all the years I've been doing this. Thanks again for all your efforts

 

My instinct was right, then.

Godden - the book, not online - has a different Thomas Ford mark which is sort of similar to the one in the original photo. I'll get a photo.

 

This is a Charles Ford Mark:


There are similarities.

 

Very similar in many ways, looks like the Chinese may have done their version of it

 

That's the mark I'd seen in Goddens, ta!