Chris and the UW 1897 mark.

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 Chris's opinion on the PMM site that this mark and related marks are recent knockoffs. he apparently got into quite a debate about this at one pt. So maybe this piece might shed some light. The use of the food safety label would seem to be a dead giveaway these are recent. LInks to Chris's discussion of this:

https://www.porcelainmarksandmore.com/resources/misrepresented-groups/uw1897/index.php

https://www.porcelainmarksandmore.com/resources/misrepresented-groups/wl1895/index.php

 

Modern pieces - the food use warning really is a dead giveaway.

 

Even without any marks or labels those look pretty new. Not sure if they were going to fool people for long.

 

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 bought a couple of those years ago before there was anything about them on the internet. I thought they were newish from the looks but to be fair they were well made and attractive, and the cost was ridiculously low considering they were gilt brass with the ceramic. I haven't seen any for years locally now.