Slightly puzzling - possibly fake potshappel (?) vase

Today I have a mystery that I think I have mostly solved myself - after an afternoon of combing through photos of numerous different makers' marks/signatures for porcelain. Still, I wanted to see what you guys think...

First of all I have to apologize for the lack of/quality of my photos of the item. They were taken while I was away in England and sorting through many things, I really just snapped them quickly as a sort of afterthought but it wasn't until I got home and examined the mark that I became more curious. Had I known I'd get fixated I would have taken more detailed pics...

Anyway, it's a flower encrusted vase that I assumed was British or German or at the very least in a German style.



I'm really an amateur when it comes to ceramics etc. so it took a while for me to figure out what that mark *could* be. At one point I had considered it could be Japanese, or Danish...mainly because I questioned whether my initial impression of it showing a fish and a letter T could be wrong. But it does - and that is a signature of Carl Thieme. I'll now attach examples I found online of this signature mark.




The final one bears the most resemblance and finally settled at least part of the question for me, but I really think it seems unlikely to be an authentic piece...why such a sloppy signature? Anyway, I know the mark is certainly meant to be the T-with-fish signature. The question is whether that would have been faked/reproduced. It just looks different to me. What do you think?

 

There's so much work in the vase, I can't see how it would be profitable to forge such a thing. What makes you question its authenticity?

 

I guess my main reason is just the appearance of the signature itself. In comparison with the few examples I was able to find (I had difficulty with this) it just seems to be odd. That doesn't preclude it being authentic, but it also lacks any other marks that would be associated with Meissen/Dresden porcelain. Granted, it does seem - based on what I saw online - like some early Potshappel stuff bears no marks or signatures at all. Maybe it being a forgery is more far-fetched than it being a signed piece, but I don't know. I'm not well-versed in this area...seems to me it is extremely involved. After all it took me hours just to figure out that it was a Thieme signature despite the plethora of makers mark catalogue sites available. I guess that may say more about my research skill or lack thereof.

 

Just a little something from Rontgen's book of marks in case it's anything you've not found.

Mark 338 of those mentioned below.

 

Looks like the real deal to me.