Does this look authentic to you? the mark seems to be off center for one thing: [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH]
that was a nice read. Thank you janet.
oh I forgot the link. Here's the page from Chris's site, the last two have the WL mark...
I mentioned the UW mark a few weeks ago. Chris describes these on his website. The last two shown on this page are where they transposed the...
yeah that's kind of what Im thinking. These are not Brown etched or whatever they call it when the mark is dark colored?
[ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH]
oh so those are Fs? Nice work there.
[ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH]
none of the pics show a bride. There is one with a limited angle that does not show anything in there. wow good catch
yeah I may be overstating things It seems the real controversy was over the WL 1895 mark, which seems to all be part of the same thing.
I dont know if this is at all interesting or already well known. But I noticed this piece at a sale the other day and it would seem to validate...
the smallest woman is 1.25" high and the tall men carrying the bride are 3.25" high. Described as glazed polychrome ceramic.
this came up for auction a few days ago. It was said to be from the Utica NY Children's Museum. [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH]...
this came up for auction last week and I did not have time to study it. Does anyone have any idea on the maker or how old? [ATTACH] [ATTACH]...
CBCA: what books do you rely on?
[ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH]
you should not discount the idea of people with coupons for the site. They would often hand out coupons to people if they had to wait at a pickup...
I thought it looked like it had been framed and then removed rather than trying to fake a plate mark as Lithographer suggests. But I dunno.
yeah that's kind of what clinched it for me. I have some other reference books which might say otherwise but googling it I did not see any other...
Separate names with a comma.
