another interesting "fake" or reproduction mark on Staffordshire style dogs

I thought this might be of some value to visitors. Not sure how else to phrase the title. These cute doggies sort of look like Staffordshires, but the vent hole is way too large and dont look quite the same. I dont know how well you can see the mark, its a shield with a wreath and the number "1833" inside also several temples, three above the year and one below. They look kind of old but I dont think they are. Apparently the maker is Wong Lee Productions active from 1990s to present . View attachment 275190 View attachment 275191 View attachment 275192 View attachment 275193

 

@sunday silence
Looks like the Wong Lee mark but can't really tell from your photo. Need a picture of just the mark straight on not angled.

http://www.thepotteries.org/fake/WL.htm

You can delete your duplicate photos.
Go to Edit, More Options, there is a delete button next to the photos, Save

 

yes. Wong Lee and pieces are mid 20th century. because he marks his pieces we cannot say these are fakes.

on the other hand, because his mark shows too much similarity with the mark of William lowe its the question whether the deception or influence.

 

yes. Wong Lee and pieces are mid 20th century. Because the pieces are not marked with a staffordshire mark, we cannot say these are fakes.

on the other hand, because his mark shows too much similarity with the mark of William Lowe its the question whether its a deception or influence.[/QUOTE]

 

yes, I wasnt sure how to word that, not really fake and not really a reproduction but shows similarity. I thought it might be useful to someone who's trying to figure out what he has exactly.

 

"In the style of" stuff - not a repro, or meant to fake anyone out. They're Chinese ceramic and look it. Chinese pottery/Staffordshire mixed breed dogs.(LOL)

 

As Wong Lee was established in 1995 there has to be an element of deception in his mark using 1895. It certainly fools some sellers such as this one.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Pair-of-...rentrq:6ccdde2d1740a9c1436f75eaffffe652|iid:1

 

I wanted to follow up on the deception aspect here: when you look at the bottom of the piece it looks like there is a lot of wear. It seems excessive for a piece that is no older than 25 years. Do you think these pieces arrive here from China with that sort of wear already imparted to them?

 

The British firms of 100 years ago did the same thing - their marks indicated the year a factory was established in the area, not necessarily one related to their factory in any way. The "wear" on the bases I can see looks like dirt floor rather than age. But I can't see them in person.