Posted on Leave a comment

Australian Portraits: A ‘unique’ Sir Henry Parkes profile, + Miniature of Lady Parkes as a young girl.

Sir Henry Parkes & Lady Eleanor Parkes

Australia became a Nation in 1901, but it was a long process that made this possible. The six far-flung colonies had each developed in their separate ways, and it was the perseverance of Sir Henry Parkes that brought them together. He deserves the title ‘The Father of Federation’.

An amusing Australian adaptation…. Charles Dickens as Sir Henry Parkes!

Moorabool has recently discovered two items that relate to Sir Henry Parkes and his wife, Lady Parkes.
The first is a cast-iron plaque showing a portrait of a bearded gentleman. Mounted onto a turned cowrie pine back, it is typical of the Victorian plaques of notable people, made in large numbers to adorn public buildings like halls and libraries. This example is identified around the edge as ‘SIR Henry Parkes’.

Brass ‘Dickens’ plaque


HOWEVER…. it’s actually a terrific example of Aussie ingenuity.
You see, this is not intended as a portrait of Sir Henry Parkes – rather, it was cast in Britain in the 1860’s-70’s as the literary giant, Charles Dickens – who sported a similar magnificent beard and wild hair. Imported into Australia, and perhaps displayed on a library wall somewhere, when Sir Henry Parkes rose to fame in the latter 19th century, an enterprising scholar has added the inscription to make it the ‘Father of Federation’!

Henry Parkes, Fancy Goods & Toy Seller

Did you know the ‘Father of Federation’ spent a lot of his time retailing ‘fancy goods’ in Sydney? His adverts make fascinating reading, giving a glimpse into the parlours and nurseries of Sydney in the mid-19th century.

Here’s a sample – from the stock of Moorabool Antiques, 170 years later! His shop must have been a present-day Antique Collector’s Aladdin’s Cave….

Adverts for Parkes, 1840’s-50’s

Sir Henry Parkes would have felt quite at home at Moorabool Antiques…. he was a business man and craftsman, learning the trade of ivory-turning before migrating to Australia in 1839. He opened a shop in Hunter Street, Sydney, where he sold ivory products he made, as well as a broad range of imported decorative & useful items:

“Bohemian Glass, Vases of rich and various patterns, handsome China ornaments, PORCELAIN FIGURES From one inch stature, and comprising a hundred varieties. Also, FIGURES IN BISCUIT CHINA. Children’s China, dinner, dessert, tea, and coffee Services. CHINA PUNCH BOWLS, Vases, flower-pots, pomatum jars, match cups, mugs, cream ewers, plates, teapots, etc. ROSEWOOD DRESSING CASES, work-boxes, fancy baskets, FANCY SMALL WARES: TORTOlSESHELL, enammelled and fine leather ladies’ companions, alabaster and enamelled jewel boxes, tortoiseshell and sandlewood card caes, fine leather and enamelled netting boxes, alabaster and silk paper weights, enamelled letter cases and toilet stands, tortoiseshell and leather cigar cases…….”

Another advert from 1846 is fascinating, as it is solely advertising Pacific Tribal Artifacts:

“ISLAND CURIOSITIES – To Gentlemen proceeding to Europe – A variety of bows and arrows, clubs, spears, battle axes, canoe paddles, stone adzes and other South Sea Island weapons &ect.”

Sounds familiar…. you’ll find exactly the same at Moorabool Antiques today – but now they’re Antique!

The second ‘Parkes’ item is a very personal portrait miniature. Purchased in original frame and untitled, an investigation of the backing discovered two inscriptions: firstly, it is a hand-coloured photographic portrait, with a printed back stating it is ‘Photographed at Bachelder’s, 41 Collins Street E, Melbourne’.
Second, it has an inscription declaring it depicts ‘Lady Parkes as Young Girl’.

It suddenly becomes an important part of the story of Australia.

Portrait of Lady Parkes as a Young Girl
Portrait of ‘Lady Parkes as Young Girl’

The frame and mount are original, with the backing paper replaced with opening to show back of photo.

'Botterill Artist'.

The inscription on the back reads ‘PHOTOGRAPHED AT BATCHELDER’S 41 COLLINS ST E., MELBOURNE’, over which is inscribed in pencil ‘Botterill / Artist’.

The three ‘Lady Parkes’

Who was the subject?

Clarinda Parkes, 1880s

Lady Clarinda 1813-1888

There were three ‘Lady Parkes’, as Sir Henry always seems to have needed a companion – especially in his old age, where he had terrible luck with his partners.


His first wife, Lady Clarinda Parkes, was a Birmingham Dressmaker & Sunday-School teacher who married 21-year old Henry Parkes in Birmingham in 1836, when he was just ‘Mr Parkes’, son of a farmer and a novice businessman (which didn’t prosper for him). She came out to Australia with him, having their first child just 2 days before they landed, the first of 12. She had little public interaction, even when he became a notable in New South Wales government. She died in Sydney in 1888, aged 75 – and as this image we are considering is of a young ‘Mrs Parkes’, and is taken by a Melbourne photographer, it cannot be Clarinda who is depicted. She had 12 children, 6 of whom were still alive in 1888.

Eleanor Parkes, n.d.

Lady Eleanor 1857-1895

The second ‘Lady Parkes’ was Lady Eleanor Parkes, a Sydney resident who married Sir Henry a few months after his first wife had died, in 1889. She took a keen interest in Politics, particularly social matters such as the plight of the ‘waifs’, the homeless youth of the time. She travelled with her husband as his political position grew, and appears to have been actively interested and supportive of his policies. She died from cancer in 1895, and they had five children.

Lady Julia 1872-1919

The third ‘Lady Parkes’ was Lady Julia Parkes, an Irish migrant born in 1872, employed as Nanny & House-keeper in the Parkes household, where she nursed the weakening Lady Eleanor. She married the 79 year old Sir Henry in 1895 – just months after the death of Eleanor. This was the shortest marriage, as Sir Henry died just 6 months later, in April 1896.

Setting out the three ‘Lady Parkes’ as above makes him look awfully unlucky – and afraid of being lonely….
But unlike Henry VIII, he wasn’t desperately seeking an heir – he’d already fathered a dozen children. Rather, he sought someone of the opposite sex to make his home ‘homely’, a companion for his old age and protector of his children.

So which of the three is the portrait at Moorabool?

Clarinda, the first Mrs Parkes, who married him when he was just a lad of 21, was apparently the love-of-his-life for the next five decades – but it was only months after she died (after a long illness) that Eleanor was married to Henry. As a contemporary commentator said in the papers, ‘…the community was startled by a report which was published, that Sir HENRY PARKES had just been married”…. The shock wasn’t just that ‘….she is considerably younger than her husband’ – 32, when he was 74 – but also the fact they had been an item while his elderly wife was ailing, and in fact already had two children together! So the untold story was that Sir Henry Parkes had married his mistress after his wife had died. His political opponents and the papers made the most of the situation….

This relationship was contentious – his daughters were reported to have left the house in disgust, his servants all quit before he returned with his bride, and the doors of Parliament were closed to him due to his ‘indiscretion’.

Lady-Eleanor-Parkes aged 14, by John Botterill, 1870

It was justified in the press:

The facts of the matter are, we learn, that the aged statesman, feeling the loneliness of his life when State cares, gave him a brief respite, determined some short time ago—for he is not a man to dilly-dally in such an important matter—that his final days should be soothed and made happy by a second partner of his joys and sorrows. …..

However, the plan of being soothed by Eleanor came crashing down when she became ill and soon died, in 1895.

Sir Henry Parkes continued his career of scandal by marrying his housekeeper, Julia, only three months after Eleanor passed away! Julia was an Irish migrant, and had been employed as the housekeeper / nanny in the Parkes household. She nursed the ailing Lady Eleanor, and it is said that Eleanor herself requested that Julia marry the elderly Sir Henry Parkes. Although somewhat scandalous, this made sense in the Victorian world: there were five young children in the household, and Henry had died penniless and in debt. Julia fulfilled his wish – she dedicated the rest of her life to this step-family, never re-marrying and going to great lengths to provide them with a stable upbringing. She was a remarkable woman.

The Image: both a Photograph and a hand-painted Miniature.

Lady Parkes as a Young Girl
“Lady Eleanor Parkes as a Young Girl”

This very engaging image is actually an albumen silver carte-de-visite, the traditional way of providing images for family & friends; however, while most would be placed into specially made albums with spaces the exact size of the image, this example is intact in it’s original Victorian frame, and behind glass. This is essential, as the fine painted surface, applied over the photographic image, is very vulnerable. The effect is superb, to the degree that when this was sold as a portrait of an unknown girl, it was also described as a ‘portrait miniature’ rather than a hand-coloured photograph.

The work is produced in the Batchelder studio, 41 Collins Street East, Melbourne. This was established by the well-known American Batchelder brothers, who had come to the Australian goldfields directly from the Californian goldfields with the sole purpose of setting up a photographic business. While they had left by the stage this photo was taken, the studio name remained associated with the address for several decades.

41 Collins St E- premises of Batchelder & Co, upstairs.

Batchelder’s was regarded as a premium establishment, and many of the images of notable members of Melbourne society of the period were the product of the studio. In 1867, an advert reminds the public that Batchelder’s has now been going for 11 years – ie since 1856 – and has stored over 25,000 negatives in case you would like a re-print!

The image is signed in pencil to the back, ‘Botterill / Artist’. This is a very interesting detail: the ‘artist’ was John Botterill, described as miniaturist, portrait painter and professional photographer. He was active in Melbourne in the mid 1850’s joined the organising committee for the 1853 Victorian Fine Arts Society’s exhibition, to which he contributed eight works including a miniature self-portrait. In 1859, he is working as a ‘visiting master’ at  Woodford House, a school for Young Ladies in Park Street. In 1861, he joined Batchelder’s Photographic Portrait Rooms in Collins Street East, ‘engaged … to paint miniatures and portraits in oil, watercolour or mezzotint – these deserve what they are receiving, a wide reputation’. He also gained knowledge of photography from somewhere, so probably learnt ‘on the job’ in the busy studio. In 1866, he became one of the partners of the firm alongside Dunn & Wilson, and in 1867 the firm won a medal at the Intercolonial Exhibition for their tinted photographs. This was the work of Botterill, as the advertising from that year emphasises:

“…the PORTRAITS… painted by Mr J. Botterill, artist…. on view in the Fine Art Department , (at the) Exhibition, and to state that Mr Botterill is still at Batchelder and Co’s, 41 Collins St East..”

The use of ‘is still at‘ is curious, and perhaps reveals problems in the company. They parted ways at around this time. In his 1869 adverts, Botterill declares:
“J. BOTTERILL. Portrait
Painter and Photographer, REMOVED from
Batchelder’s to 19 Collins Street East”
He continues at this address for several years, before opening in Elizabeth Street for his final years. He died in 1881.

Lady Parkes as a Young Girl
“Lady Parkes as a Young Girl” – but which one?

Who is ‘Lady Parkes’?

The subject of this photo would be hard to place if it didn’t have the inscription, added to the backing of the original. Sir William Parkes had 3 wives, but we can identify who this one is by the fact the photography studio was in Melbourne. His first, Clarinda, was born in England in 1813 and far too old when they migrated to Sydney in 1839. The third, Julia was born in 1872 – probably after this photo was taken – so she’s not possible. The  second, Eleanor, was born in 1857, so is the right age for a Melbourne photograph in the late 1860’s, early 70’s.

John Botterill signature, Melbourne Artist c.1870
John Botterill’s signature, Portrait of Eleanor Dixon/Lady Parkes 1870

John Botterill signed this piece, on a Batchelder-branded photograph. Note there is no ‘partnership’ described, as was the case 1866-68. Having the partnership details removed would suggest it belongs to a transitional period – the photograph taken at 41 Collins Street East, with the painting done by Botterill a few doors down at his studio, 19 Collins Street East. There was still a strong connection, as after Botterill died in 1881, the Batchelder studio advertises that they have added the archive of Botterill’s negatives to their own extensive archive.

The final dating evidence is the arrival of Eleanor Dixon, the future Lady Parkes, in Melbourne as a migrant. She was from Wooler, Northumberland, one of five children, her father listed as a ‘Master Shoemaker’. He died in 1869, and several months later, Eleanor’s elder brother was married and promptly left for Australia. Eleanor and three siblings followed in 1870, accompanied by their mother.

Lady Eleanor Parkes as a girl, c.1870

1870 becomes the most probable date for the portrait. Eleanor would have been 12 or 13, an appropriate age for the girl in the photo, who still has her hair ‘out’, indicating she was not yet considered an adult. Around her neck is a black ribbon with large gold locket: this is typical Victorian mourning jewellery, and no doubt had a portrait of her late father in it.

Lady-Eleanor-Parkes aged 14, by John Botterill, 1870

We can imagine the scene: the newly arrived family caught up in the bustle & thrill of Marvellous Melbourne in the post-Gold rush boomtown, celebrating their new life with a very fine portrait. She engages the viewer with a very frank, inquisitive look. There’s a pink rose on her dress, and she is presented as a true ‘English Rose’, her hair spilling wildly out over her lace-trimmed dress, not yet constrained on top of the head in an adult style. For the young Eleanor, the future was as golden as the mounts of this image; anything was possible – and indeed, for a few years in the 1890’s she achieved something remarkable, marrying one of the most powerful men of the age, the ‘Father of Federation’.

On the theme of a ‘Golden Future’, there’s a wonderful image of Lady Eleanor Parkes on tour with Sir Henry: they were visiting the offices of Bushman’s Mine in around 1890; sitting to the right with her son is Eleanor, beside a very strong table on which sits a big lump of gold castings. The label at the front reveals its weight to be 1,347oz – and named “The Lady Parkes” in her honour!

Bushman’s Mine, Parkes: a 1,347oz ingot titled “The Lady Parkes”, with its namesake sitting to the side! Sir Henry is unmistakable on the other side with his wild white hair & beard.
1895 newsprint photo of Lady Eleanor Parkes
©Paul Rosenberg, Moorabool Antiques, Geelong.    Please contact if you wish to reproduce any part of this documentation.   Images from various online sources, mostly TROVE-accessed archives. 

Further Info on John Botterill & the Batchelder & Co Studio.

Left ImageRight Image
The 1866 partnership names appear on the lower image; the circa 1870 card back on the portrait of Lady Eleanor Parkes has had this removed, reflecting the updated state of the company.
1851 John Botterill miniature, English Market 2010’s
Posted on Leave a comment

The mysterious Mr Betts – a miniature artist ‘signature piece’ discovered.

Samuel-Betts-Miniature-Artist's Signature Piece
Samuel Betts Artist oil miniature 1847
Samuel Betts Artist oil miniature 1847 at Moorabool Antiques, Geelong

The miniature portrait-painter of the 18th & 19th centuries was the equivalent of the portrait photographer today. His skills provided a memory of a person by re-creating their likeness – the personalities that smile or scowl from their frames to this day are testimonial to their skills.

There were a large number of them in the Georgian & Victorian eras, some famous and therefore expensive, others unknown and inexpensive. It seems a large number were not signed on the front: however, just occasionally there is an inscription on the back of the work.

A piece purchased recently here in Geelong was just an anonymous gent of the earlier 19th century – until we took the backing off. A large inscription in cursive pinwork met our eye, reading:

Samuel-Betts-Miniature-Artist's Signature Piece at Moorabool Antiques, Geelong
Samuel Betts portrait miniature – the inscription on this Artist’s ‘Signature Piece’ at Moorabool Antiques, Geelong

“This likeness taken
by Mr Betts Artist
of Shipston-on-Stour
aug 1847
Died Oct 8th 1856
Aged 97 years”

There’s a portion missing – very faintly visible is the trace of an initial and a surname, which unfortunately seems to have been written on the copper fastenings and has not survived. However, it’s the artist in this case that is extremely interesting.

ProfilesOfThePast
ProfilesOfThePast.org.uk

There’s a go-to source for all who love portrait miniatures: the massive online resource of ‘profilesofthepast.org.uk‘. This is a superb study site funded by the UK’s ‘National Lottery Heritage Fund’, and for a decade has been accumulating work on miniature artists. They build on the various works on the subject published in the 20th century – but with the wonder of the internet, are able to update further discoveries / research, with the active encouragement for visitors to upload their own miniatures.

I’ve gone ahead and uploaded this example, as it can now stand as a ‘signature piece’ – meaning other unidentified portrait miniatures could potentially be linked to the mysterious Mr Samuel Betts by comparing them to this piece.

We’re always amazed at what turns up in Geelong!

NOTE: THIS ITEM HAS BEEN SOLD

Posted on Leave a comment

A Fresh Discovery – 1751 Pastel by Perronneau, finest portraitist of his day.

Regarded by the leading expert Neil Jeffares as one of the two ‘best pastel portraitists’ of the 18th century, Jean-Baptiste Perronneau (1716-1783) is rarely seen outside collections. We were very excited to find a previously unrecorded portrait in Melbourne recently.

Close-up of Jeanne-Marie Mallès, aged 18.

It had an inscription on the back which gave us enough clues to find the original sitter, and we were delighted to discover the signature in the top right corner:

Pernooeau’s signature & the date 1751, signed in lead.

There was a modern label to the back covering, with a few details – probably copied from the previous covering. From this we can identify her: Jeanne-Marie Mallès, later Mme Tobie Clarke (1733–1821).

 Jeanne-Marie Mallès was from a seafaring family, her father being a Captain in the East Indies Company. However, he died in 1744; Jean-Marie was fatherless when this portrait was done in 1751, and it was 7 years later she was married to Toby Clarke (1733–1821), merchant of Nantes. They had several children, and a daughter, Marie, married François-Claude de Karuel de Merey, capitaine d’infanterie, who died in 1804 – the year Napoleon crowned himself Emperor – probably no coincidence, with the war with England and Spain raging.

Correspondence with Mr Jeffares has resulted in the authentication of the signature, making it a ‘signature piece’, and it is now added to the online ‘catalogue resonné’ of Perronneau, listing of every example authenticated, part of the amazing record freely accessible on Mr Jeffares site, www.pastellists.com/ .
You’ll find it as part of the following document:

http://www.pastellists.com/Articles/Perronneau0.pdf


An interesting note in Jeffares’ comments is that he sometimes dropped – or added – an ‘n’ to his name. Our example is the shortened version, Perroneau.
There are also several other examples of his sitters ‘as Dianna’ , obviously an interesting option to choose when having your portrait done. How fascinating, this beautiful young lady who had lost her father aged 11, had this portrait done showing her as the strong Goddess of the Hunt in 1751, and only married 7 years later. You can see her character in the twinkle of her eye..

Posted on Leave a comment

Anthony Vandyke Copley Fielding, an ‘Armchair Travelling-Artist’

In today’s world-wide situation, ‘Armchair Travel’ is a necessity. The difficulty in heading off on a grand tour is huge, and the likelihood of being marooned somewhere due to closed borders is high. Stick to google street view exploration for the moment!

A recent discovery at Moorabool reveals the idea has been around a long time. Finely detailed and depicting an ancient ruin in a dramatic landscape, the work is signed Copley Fielding.

Copley Fielding (1787-1855) was a very talented artist of the Georgian period. Born in the Midlands in 1787, he was the son of a portrait painter (Nathan Theodore Fielding), who gave him the inspirational ‘Vandyke’ name as tribute to the famous artist. The inspiration worked, as he showed strong talent at an early age. In 1810, he entered the Royal Academy schools, being taught by John Varley and becoming a close friend of William Blake. The same year he was an associate exhibitor of the Royal Society of Watercolours (RWS), later serving as President. In 1824 he won a gold medal at the Paris Salon, alongside Constable. He exhibited constantly in the RWS exhibitions, and a smaller number of his oil paintings at the Royal Academy.

Copley Fielding 'Delphi Ruins'
Copley Fielding ‘Delphi Ruins’
Anthony Vandyke Copley Fielding
(1787-1855)
National Portrait Gallery, London
-by Sir William Boxall 

Best known for his atmospheric ‘Romantic’ landscape views in the British Isles, and windswept seascapes, there are a small number of works in his repertoire depicting exotic overseas locations: Rome, Naples, and this example, the temples of Delphi in Greece. They are all imaginative – he never travelled out of Britain!

The scene in this work is the famous temple complex at Delphi, Greece. His direct inspiration would have been an artist’s sketch – it was a ‘top-10 destination’ for anyone with artistic ability on the ‘Grand Tour’, and in his RWS position he would have constantly come across people who had been there with their sketchbook. However, he has enhanced it to make it more impressive; the ruins are less ‘ruined’, the rounded form of the Tholos being remarkably intact, and the rectangular Temple of Apollo apparently still having its roof!

Anthony Vandyke Copley Fielding
Copley Fielding’s ‘View of Delphi’ at Moorabool Antiques, Australia

The title on the old mount it is in is most confusing, and perhaps illustrates the nature of Copley Fielding’s inspiration: there is no ‘Temple of Juno’ at Delphi, although the mountainous scene is clearly meant to be Delphi. Several temples of Juno elsewhere in the Classical world survived and were sketched, but all are standard rectangular constructions. Clearly something got lost in translation between sketchbook and watercolour brush, by either the original artist, or the mount-maker of this work.

Copley Fielding Signature
Copley Fielding’s Signature

The rare Copley Fielding depictions of foreign lands include Rome, Naples, Greece (such as ours) and exotic Middle-Eastern landscapes. They are all ‘flights of imagination’: he was a true ‘Armchair Travelling-Artist’.
How interesting that this work depicts the Temples at Delphi, regarded as the very center of the world by the ancient Greeks, the start and finish of all journeys.

Copley Fielding Landscape
Copley Fielding’s background landscape.

His works are represented in a large number of major collections around the world, including the V&A and the Tate, London, The Met NY, The Art Gallery of NSW, and our very own National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne.

This rare English Watercolour is now offered by Moorabool Antiques.

Posted on Leave a comment

‘Darwin’s’ Water Lily, by Wedgwood, 1806

WedgwoodWaterLily
Three early 19th century Wedgwood Pearlware pieces bearing the ‘Water Lily’ pattern, sometimes known as ‘Darwin’s Lily’.

A collection of a scarce Wedgwood pattern has recently come to Moorabool. What a fascinating tale this pattern has to tell…..

Commonly called ‘Darwin’s Water Lilly’ , or just ‘Darwin’, it is one of the few Wedgwood printed patterns of the first decade of the 19th century that was not Oriental in inspiration, and in fact an original creation.

Wedgwood design sources
The source prints for the Wedgwood pattern, from ‘Curtis’s Botanical Magazine’ and ‘The Botanist’s Repository’, dating to 1803-6

The inspiration for the design was pulled from several different engravings in Botanical magazines of 1803-6, and shows specimens of three types of the ‘Nymphaeaceae’ family, commonly called ‘water lily’
– left to right they are:
1 -‘nymphaea stellata’, or starry water lily,
2 -‘nelumbium speciosum’, or sacred Lotus of India,
3 -‘nymphaea lotus’, or Lotus of Egypt.

The original version designed in 1806 was printed in brown as a basis for enamel decoration; this is said to be the earliest instance of printing in brown that can be accurately dated.

The British Museum’s plate from the Darwin Family, delivered 1808.
The extra leaf in the 1815+ versions.

The difference between this earliest example and those slightly later is very subtle; a half-submerged leaf at 5 o’clock is the best indicator, not appearing in the 1807 version, but there by the circa 1815 examples.

Onglaze red was used from late 1809. In 1811 blue was introduced and become a favourite. Underglaze red appears in 1828. A later 19th century version was named ‘Old Water Lily’.

But why is it so often called the ‘Darwin’ pattern?
It turns out it’s a family affair. In the British Museum is a plate, very similar to our brown printed example, and another is in the Victoria & Albert, both from the same source: the family of Charles Darwin. In older literature, there is a story about them being from a service made by Josiah I Wedgwood for his friend Dr. Erasmus Darwin, on occasion of his marriage in 1781. However, this date is far too early for the pieces we are examining. The present conclusion is it was designed by John Wedgwood – the eldest son of Josiah Wedgwood, a noted horticulturist who was co-founder of the Royal Horticultural Society, Kew. 

Eramus Darwin, 1792-3, by Joseph Wright of Derby, now in the Derby Art Gallery.

It was ordered in 1807 by Dr. Robert Darwin, son of Erasmus  Darwin, and father of the famous Charles Darwin. He received it in 1808.

Robert Darwin, from an oil painting by James Pardon (1811-1829) (source:wikicommons)

The Darwin family and the Wedgwood family were intimately linked. Josiah Wedgwood and Erasmus Darwin were both part of the ‘Lunar Society’, the incredibly forward-thinking group of scientists and engineers that regularly met to discuss the exciting new world of science & technology – and botany – that was emerging in the late 18th/ early 19th century. A friendship was obviously formed, and several generations of inter-marriages followed. Erasmus’s son Robert married Josiah’s daughter Susannah, and their son, Charles Darwin, married his cousin – Emma Wedgwood, daughter of the second Josiah Wedgwood and his wife Elizabeth. She was therefore the daughter of his mother’s brother, and genetic problems are obvious in the generations that followed… Much has been written about the irony of Darwin’s fascination with aspects of genetics and evolution in nature – including how in-breeding caused a species to be fragile – and he himself wrote of his genetic concern for his own family….

Analysing the image source reveals the draftsman who created the ‘Water Lily’ design used multiple images, combined. Four source botanical images have been identified in the literature, one of which is a double – the following diagram shows which part comes from which publication. (Slide the divide for the arrows. )

SWIPE LEFT & RIGHT TO ENGAGE THE LOCATION ARROWS

The use of five different prints, from two of the botanical journals of the time, shows the designer was well aware of ‘botanical correctness’. They keep the leaf type of all three specimens separated and correct, and by combining the two prints of the Nymphaea lotus – no. 3 below – they show their scientific interest in the accurate description of species the botanists were striving for. The suggestion that it was John Wedgwood, co-founder of the Royal Horticultural Society (along with Sir Joseph Banks) makes perfect sense. 

John Wedgwood (1766-1844)

In the Wedgwood archives, a letter written to John’s brother Josiah Wedgwood II by the manager Thomas Byerley, states:

Onglaze red, c. 1815

‘Your brother is extremely active and intelligent, and is fast paving the way for a radical form, and will greatly benefit the concern ’.

Unfortunately, John retired from the firm in 1812, leaving just a handful of fascinating precise botanical statements as his ceramic legacy.

We’re pleased to have a selection from the earliest products of Wedgwood in this mesmerising pattern – a chamberpot and dish in the blue of the 1820’s, three red plates from around 1820, and an example of the earliest short-lived brown print.
The final piece is a 20th century Wedgwood re-creation, limited edition for the Wedgwood Collectors…… enjoy!

Moorabool’s Wedgwood ‘Water Lily’ offerings, midyear exhibition 2021. All 1815-25 except for the tankard, which is 20th century.

Posted on Leave a comment

A Vienna ‘Harvester’ Re-united

Moorabool is often a place of meeting, both for people who enjoy Antiques – and for the Antiques themselves! We have occasionally been guilty of ‘match-making’ in the Antique world, discovering pieces that were quite literally made to be together…. but somehow became separated. It’s a thrill to re-unite pieces.

Ready for the harvest…..?

In today’s ‘Premium Fresh’ there is a rather sweet Vienna figure of a lady. Very early, she is circa 1755, and her costume is very distinct – very well dressed – and yet she carries a sickle and bundle of wheat. There’s more wheat behind her waiting to be cut; clearly she is a ‘Harvester’ off to sickle the wheat crop – but take a look at her shoes! How would they be practical in the fields…?

Vienna figure c.1755
Fresh to Moorabool’s stock
Vienna ‘Lady with Squirrel’ c.1755

While today we tend to place these lovely pieces in cabinets or a mantel shelf, in the 1750’s in Europe they were intended for the table. A scene would be set up along the length of a grand table, to entertain the guests with depictions of the gods, the Greek myths, a hunt, or in the case of a group of one group of interesting Vienna figures, “Pastoral Pursuits’.

The definitive book on these early figures helps us understand their purpose. ‘Ceremonies Feasts Costumes : Viennese Porcelain Figures during the reign of Maria Theresia’ is a splendid 2007 publication with large clear illustrations, detailing hundreds of Vienna figures from the 1740’s until the 1780’s. A private businessman, Du Paquier, had started the porcelain works in Vienna as early as 1719 ( making it the second true porcelain manufacturer in Europe, after Meissen), but by 1744 he was financially struggling, and the Viennese State purchased the works. This was of course ruled by Maria Theresia, the Empress of Austria, and she loved a good party… the porcelain works were an excellent source of the needed table wares, and this included table figures.

Vienna ‘Pastoral Pursuits’ figures, 1755-60

We find a series of well-dressed ladies & gents going about various occupations such as picking grapes, making wine, collecting milk…. and our lovely lady harvesting wheat. They’re an example of the idealisation and romantic notion that prevailed in the courts of 18th century Europe that the peasant lifestyle was an idyllic, carefree one. France of course excelled in this – think Mary Antionette and her role-playing as a milkmaid – and other courts tended to follow the fashions of France. Dinner parties could have an ‘Arcadian’ theme, meaning everyone would be dressed as a ‘commoner’ of some sort, but in silk and satin instead of the rough cotton the authentic garb would have been made of! These fancy-dress banquets had a curious way of dispersing the guests along the table – a lottery game would decide – giving the evening a sparkle of uncertainty in what was otherwise a very formalised environment.

A Vienna Porcelain ‘Shepherd’s House’, circa 1755

Some rare survivors are model buildings for a table setting – also recorded in parallel in Meissen productions – suggesting the appearance of the table, with this banquet’s theme being Wirtschaft, meaning ‘Economy’ or ‘Workplace’ . This is the perfect fit for our lovely lady with the sickle. She’s actually a Princess, pretending to be a Harvester for the evening…..!

While exploring this fascinating topic, I came across a colourful ‘Cavalier as reaper’ group illustrated in the before mentioned book. Our lovely lass isn’t illustrated, but a comparison with the ‘Cavalier’ figure leads us to an exciting conclusion: this is surely a long-lost partner figure.

Introducing…. Vienna ‘Cavalier & Companion as Reapers’ , circa 1755

Moorabool Antiques 2020

Together at last… virtually, thanks to Photoshop!

Reunion…. the figure on the left is Vienna, circa 1755-60, in stock at Moorabool.
To the right is a ‘Harvester’ circa 1755-60, illustrated in ‘Ceremonies Feasts Costumes : Viennese Porcelain Figures during the reign of Maria Theresia’ (Appendix #2) from the Umeleckoprumyslové Museum, Prague {86.269} .
The two share numerous similarities, including size, decorative ’embroidery’ moulding to the clothing – and even the same shoes! – the only difference being the Prague figure is painted, the Moorabool left white. Their complementing poses and similar detailing lead us to propose they were originally conceived as a pair.
Posted on Leave a comment

Swedish Royalty!

Us Rosenbergs always joked about having Scandinavian Royal blood – my Grandfather came from Sweden, and in the heart of Copenhagen there’s ‘Rosenborg Castle’, full of wonderful treasures such as the Crown Jewels and lots of Meissen porcelain. On visiting a few years ago, my father John enquired if family members got free entry; no humour was detected in reply!
Perhaps the closest we will get was found in Geelong recently, a small silver case of Swedish silver, with a series of Swedish inscriptions that pinpoint it to the Swedish royal family!

The engraved clues begin with a 5-pointed coronet crown, an arm with sword beneath, then the date 10/8/1941, with an the inscription beneath the arms reading “fran syrelse kamrater i Usala lans Jaktvardsforening” – roughly ‘From the Comrades of the Upsala Hunting Guard Association’.

The title ‘Count of Wisborg’ is an interesting one. Wisborg (or Visborg) is a town on Gotland, off the coast of Sweden. In 1892 , Prince Oscar of Sweden, Duke of Gotland and second in line to the Swedish throne, married against the wishes of the King – a shocking thing in the European Royal Circles of the period. He lost his claim to the throne, and all other titles – but was given the title ‘Count of Wisborg’, created just for him by his uncle Adolfe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Since this first awarding, it has been awarded three other times, all to the male-line descendants of Princes of Sweden who had married without permission from the King.

Prince Oscar Bernadotte
1859-1953

Prince Oscar’s marriage in 1888 caused shock in the Royal family, and a document was drawn up to ensure the remaining 3 princes didn’t follow suite – the comment was the King had lost one son and didn’t want to ‘lose’ any more…. this had the opposite effect on the population, who were quite taken by the prince who gave up everything for love. He actually headed over to England to be married, and tied the knot in a church in Bournemouth!

His wife Ebba was of noble birth – and had been a Lady-in-waiting to the Crown Princess, Victoria – but was just not titled enough to marry the second-in-line to the throne. Fortunately, Oscar had the full support of his mother, and on their wedding day, with his mother present, they were given the title of ‘Prince and Princess Bernadotte’. This comes down through the subsequent generations as their family name. Four years later, in the court of Luxembourg, they received the title ‘Count and Countess of Wisborg’.

Oscar & Ebba, Prince & Princess Bernadotte.

They lived a quiet life in Stockholm, away from the court, taking great interest in improving the lot of the poor. Both were religious and involved in numerous charity organisations. Oscar had served in the Navy, attaining the rank of Vice Admiral – achieving a voyage around the world and several trips to America. Later, he was involved in the YMCA of Sweden, and chaired the ‘Friends of Mission to the Laps’ for several years. They had five children, and enjoyed holidaying in summer on the island of Gotland: this was also the place their ‘countship’ originated, Wisby being the name of a ruined fortress nearby. Here, they stayed at ‘Villa Fridhem’, an interesting swiss-style building erected in 1860-61 for Princess Eugenie. She left it to Oscar in 1889, and in 1927 he gave it to the YMCA.

Back to our silver box; the inscription states it was dedicated in Upsala – which we take as being present day Uppsala, not far north of Stockholm. What the Upsala Hunting Guard Association was, I could not find out – or what they were hunting – but he was a military man, and this was in the middle of World War Two.

Sweden in 1941 was of course neutral; they had built up their own military as they nervously eyed-off both Russia and Germany heading towards war in the Baltic, and when hostilities inevitably broke out, managed to keep both at arms length. August 1941 was a particularly concerning time, as Germany had just invaded Russia with great success – using iron ore purchased from Sweden to build up their military – and in turn causing the union of the ‘Allies’ of England, USA and Russia, in the fight against Germany. Sweden allowed German troop trains through their country on their way to the front with Russia in Finland. Fast-forward a few years and Sweden was allowing the Allies to send troops and supplies through their territory to beat Germany into submission; ‘neutrality’ with careful concessions got them through the war.

Somewhere in the middle of this, the 82-year old Prince Bernadotte, Count of Wisborg, had an event in Upsala, along with 5 companions; as a souvenir, they had silver cases with everyone’s signatures carefully inscribed on them. As the Count’s is the first on the list, could we say this was his?

The inscriptions are beautifully done, no doubt from a calling-card bearing the originals. The skill of the engraver is very evident, and brings to mind the ease at which this person could have forged such signatures. This opens up a world of possibilities, when we consider the other aspect of Sweden’s neutrality; Spycraft! As the neutral territory between Germany and Allied countries, all sorts of interactions took place via Sweden – leading to a need for forged ‘official’ documents, useful in crossing borders. An engraver of skill such as the person who did these signatures would have been well placed and in demand…

I wonder who this interesting piece of Swedish silver was presented to… and how did it make its way to Australia? perhaps like Grandpa Rosenberg, it came with the influx of people looking for a new life in this new land of promise…

>> See this interesting piece here >>

Posted on Leave a comment

War of the Roses

Thomas and John Rose Coalport

An interesting case of re-attribution.

Ridgway jug c.1820
Ridgway jug c.1820 – close to our example

We had a fine couple of Imari pieces put out in a recent ‘Fresh Stock Tuesday’ release, catalogued as Ridgway. Thanks to a keen collector online, and their nicely worded email (“I think there might be a mistake….”) – we now have a re-attribution, and an interesting story to go with it.

Our attribution came via the jug, which shares the pattern & pattern number mark with a sucrier. Slight differences in the pattern suggest different hands – probably different years – but both collected by the same Australian collector, who had an eye for lush Imari.

Coalport examples in 'Cabinet of Creamers'
Coalport examples in ‘Cabinet of Creamers’

The jug was found in Berthoud’s ‘Cabinet of Creamers’ (p102 – pl. 609) where it conforms nicely to Ridgway circa 1812, the lower handle spur being distinctive, and having a flare to the top thumb rest. If we look at the Coalport example a few pages before (592 & 594) we see they have weak little spurs, and a flatter thumb rest…..  another John Rose Coalport, pl 588, has the same issues. Ridgway seems a good attribution – and as the pattern number is the same on the sucrier, Ridgway seems good for both.

And then along comes the email…. stimulating a re-evaluation. Our lovely contact has given a reference to Geoffrey Godden’s ‘Coalport & Coalbrookdale Porcelains’, and there the mystery deepens. Illustration 69 is the same pattern – and he illustrates examples of it alongside the original John Rose Coalport pattern book, from which the painters sourced their designs…. irrefutable proof, as each of our pieces has the correct pattern number, ‘597’.

Pattern no. 597 - John Rose Coalport!
Pattern no. 597 – John Rose Coalport!

But we still have a non-conforming jug handle, according to Berthoud – and the sucrier to explain. On the next page of Godden is an illustration of a Anstice, Horton & Rose teaset – with the exact handle profile!
Tis the other Rose…. in an interesting twist, while John Rose had a porcelain factory on one bank of the canal at Coalport, his younger brother Thomas ran one on the opposite side ( partnered with Anstice & Horton) for several years! Much confusion results, with patterns and shapes being copied by both…. so a piece without a number can be impossible to place. Both of ours have John’s numbers, meaning they have to be John’s production – and yet, here it is, on a piece considered to be Thomas’s variation of handle shape.

The Sucrier is perfect for John Rose, and bears his pattern number. Why is the same number on the jug? Perhaps the simplest answer is the correct one – John decorated a piece of Thomas’s production with his own numbered pattern. Was he one jug short for a tea service, and sent a boy over the canal to obtain one from his brother?

The other possibility revolves around the origins of the Coalport works, and the short life of the Anstice, Horton & Rose partnership.

John Rose is best know, beginning as an apprentice at the 18th century softpaste works of Caughley, not far as the crow flies from the Iron Bridge Gorge location of the Coalport works. He left (and later bought it up!) and set up the first Coalport works in 1792, alongside the newly opened Coalport Canal. This canal was a part of the huge network, the preferred method for industry to transport both raw products and the finished goods throughout England. The Coalport Canal was perfect for bringing in the clay and coal, and then safely transporting the fragile products to the markets in the big cities.

Coalport works depicted in 1862, Iron Bridge Gorge
The Coalport Canal, opened c.1792

A few years later, his younger brother Thomas sets up a porcelain factory on the opposite side of the canal. This is running by 1800, and made porcelains in exactly the same manner, and of the same quality as his brother. It must have been an interesting situation separated only by the canal….! While Thomas remains, there were a couple of partner changes – ie the money behind the costly business of porcelain manufacturing comes & goes – then in 1814, during the economic turmoil of the Napoleonic Wars, it all collapsed, debts were called in and his works is offered for sale. Unsurprisingly, his brother John – just over the canal – is the purchaser.

So the other solution to our mysterious jug revolves around the absorption of Thomas’s works by John. The jug was probably an undecorated white piece in 1814, and shortly after Thomas closed his works, made its way across the canal to be decorated by John’s artists.
How does ‘Circa 1815’ sound? Perfect!

[metaslider id=71892 cssclass=””]


While I have called this post the ‘War of the Roses’, there is no indication there was outright conflict; rather, the market seems to have been big enough for both brothers to provide very similar goods: perhaps sharing the workload for big orders. When economic uncertainty caused a drop in sales, only John survived. They did use different ‘pattern books’, and while Thomas’s has disappeared, we do have one of John’s, full of wonderful patterns to be painted onto porcelain. Amongst these designs are some contemporary notes, referring the reader to the ‘other Rose’: pattern 319 in John Rose’s book for example bears the note “No. 696 at Mr. T. Roses’.

We do try to be as accurate as possible – but as shown above, things can slip through. If you notice something, please send us a note!

Posted on Leave a comment

Mary, Mary, quite Contrary….

Mary Queen of Scots alabaster statue

A serious piece of British History has surfaced in Australia…. or has it?

In our current Exhibition is a remarkable discovery: a ‘Nottingham Alabaster’ carved figure of a Lady at prayer, a small dog at her side. The costume is superbly detailed, and allows us to date it firmly within the Elizabethan period, mid-16th century. A colleague joked ‘it’s Mary, Queen of Scots – with her dog’ – and so, a chain of research was started, with a startling conclusion.

Mary Queen of Scots alabaster statue

Mary, Queen of Scots was one of English history’s great tragedies. Imprisoned by her half sister, her story is full of intrigue and mystery until her beheadal in 1587.

A quick google of ‘Mary Queen of Scots Portrait Bust’ came up with multiple examples of her, mostly originating with the funerary image placed on her memorial in Westminster Abbey (by William and Cornelius Cure, 1606-16). Comparison with our example is remarkable -they depict the same face! We have the usual high-forehead that was fashionable in the Elizabethan era – and a squared temple, eyes at slightly varied level, long thin nose, and chin with central dimple. Even her mouth conforms nicely. It’s the Queen!

Mary Queen of Scots
left – our stone example – right- a plaster cast in the National Portrait Gallery, London.
Mary Queen of Scots dog - alabaster statue

When we include the small dog off to one side, the idea that this is depicting Mary, Queen of Scots, suddenly becomes real. The tragic tale of her execution includes the discovery of her small Skye Terrier ‘lap dog’ beneath her dress, covered in blood and refusing to leave the Queen’s headless corpse…..


There is no known ‘devotional’ figure of this nature of the Queen known, although it is just the sort of thing she may have commissioned. We could go through her sad tale and find the time in which she would have been able to do such a commission, in the mid 16th century, for a private chapel in one of her residences, perhaps? And then, naturally we start thinking of where a piece this important should be now: the National Portrait Gallery , London springs to mind…..

But first, it’s a bit grubby and needs a clean: and suddenly, the statue of the Queen takes a completely different path….

As the layers of dirt are washed away, several areas of restoration become evident, masked by plaster; the plaster is what has stained dark. Once it is off…. we have three areas of great concern.

  1. her head
  2. the dog
  3. the cushion

The reason these appear different is because they are a completly different stone – white, instead of honey-toned. They are added to the carving.

In a twist of fate, the Queen who so tragically lost her head… has found a body!
It becomes clear from the different stone used that what we are looking at is a Victorian ‘Restoration’, where a head, a cushion, and a dog have been added to an earlier sculpture. In other words, the very details that made it into a super-rare, unheard of sculpture of Mary Queen of Scots are actually all from the fertile imagination of a Victorian trickster. They created something that probably never existed!

We do wonder when it came to Australia: certainly a long time ago…. and so, it enters the list of ‘magnificent frauds’ that made their way to Australia, sold to some gullible wealthy squatter on a trip to London, probably back in the 19th or early 20th century. We have seen a lot of other examples – the fabulous ‘Sevres’ pieces we featured a few years back are exactly the same, partially original period pieces, but doctored up to make them impressive, rare, and saleable.

Mary Queen of Scots by Cure

The origin of the head can be traced back to her memorial in Westminster Abbey. Her body was brought here by Charles I in 1612, and a magnificent marble construction with a depiction of the queen was created by the sculptors William and Cornelius Cure, 20 years after her execution and based on a small portrait miniature painted from life. This cast in turn inspired all the busts and statues of the Queen which appear in the Victorian era, when she became so popular – and when this well carved head was most likely to have been spliced onto a genuine Elizabethan relic….

Mary has been the subject of numerous films and books, and has quite a following on the web. One of the problems with the nature of information on the web is ‘anything goes’…. and in the case of Mary, we have misconception of the various plaster casts of her head as ‘death masks’. This is not the case, the plaster casts were all taken from the Cure creation, which was a re-construction from a miniature portrait of her painted from life.
Calling these busts ‘death-masks’ would be as accurate as calling this wonderful Victorian Fraud an Elizabethan Devotional Statue of Mary, Queen of Scots…. it’s not quite right.

[metaslider id=71215 cssclass=””]
Posted on Leave a comment

Machin & Potts… a detective tale

Machin Attribution

There are two pottery jugs in this week’s ‘Fresh’, sourced from the same amazing collection of early 19th Century pottery & porcelain as all the similar pieces we have released recently. Our research team had been working overtime (thanks John!) and poured through every book in the library to help identify the vast number of items that have come in.

This jug has a very similar example illustrated in the book ‘British Jugs’, marked for a Staffordshire company called Goodwin. Bridgewood & Harris. Case closed, maker identified…? not so fast!

There’s another example, in our collection, which bears an uncanny resemblance, although in porcelain rather than in pottery. Many manufacturers made the same shape in both bodies, the pottery being much cheaper to make, and therefore to sell, than the porcelain. This other example is from the small firm of Machin & Potts, which has until recently had very little documentation. Fortunately two collectors, Bill Thom and Phillip Miller, spent a good deal of time collecting and researching the firm, and published the definitive book in 2008. This exact same porcelain jug is in the book, identified by the unique dedication to a certain ‘R.W. KIRKBY of THRENTHAM HALL’.

Machin and Potts mark
Machin and Potts mark

This leads to an interesting detective trail of identification, involving a ladder, a beehive, a basket, several farm implements and a hen & rooster!

 

In the above image, you see the first clue; the porcelain jug. The illustration above reveals it to be the exact same piece of marked Machin. Below this (hidden by our jug) is another example with a pattern no. that conforms with known Machin teawares. You can see the tip of the handle though the handle-hole of our jug – it is an exact version of the smaller jug we have, shown to the right in the above photo. This jug has the amazing ‘scrap’ printed decoration, and a distinct pink lustre rim – both appear on the illustrated jug, giving us a close linkage; the small jug we have is also now attributable to Machin.

 

Then comes the ‘big one’ – the large jug with ‘scrap’ decoration. Its form is the ‘Dutch shape’ , a perfectly normal & popular shape that is very difficult to identify… usually. In this case, we have the prints, and a side-by-side comparison of the same items proves most interesting…. basically, they’re not just ‘similar’, they are identical, right down to the little flaws in the printing plate that have been replicated. Note- in the photos there is some distortion due to the curved surface of the jugs.

[metaslider id=64347]

The person who printed the smaller jug used the exact same printing plate as the larger jug, therefore most probably worked at the same factory:

Machin!

Footnote:  Thom & Miller note “other makers including Goodwin, Bridgwood and Harris … made very close versions to this shape”   – we trust the above identification of the prints used justifies our attribution!

See all our Machin offerings, including these jugs, here >>