Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Boring Mysteries, post: 9435411, member: 80794&quot;]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&#039;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&#039;t know. I&#039;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. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/smilies/confused.png" class="mceSmilie" alt=":confused:" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in