NZ Historical Ceramics Database




Over 1500 potteries are known to have operated in the Staffordshire district alone. This database does not attempt a comprehensive description of these potteries but concentrates on those identified on ceramics in New Zealand historic sites. You can view information on individual potters and their marks on the posttery.

  • Click here to view patterns identified by Manufacturer.
  • Click here to view alphabetical list of makers marks


Country: Date Range:
Description: Source:

Makers Marks Images

MarkNotesDate Range
?sland & sons
S.S & Co.
S.B. & J England (est. 1889) post 1891
I.[or J] L. & C. [or O]?J. L Chetham, of Longton; 1841-62
H.& B.3 main possibilities
J.TThey are; J. Twigg, Kilnhurst, Yorks 1822-1881, J.Tams & Sons, Longton 1875-1890 and John Thomson Glasgow 1816-1884
BThis mark consisted of two randomly positioned impressed capital B?s on the base of a Asiatic Pheasant pattern serving bowl with a pedestal base. The only firms known to have used this mark are Thomas Barlow, Longton 1849-1882 and T. W. Barlow & Sons, Longton 1882-1940. The use of initialled letters to identify Staffordshire districts was a relatively common practice in the 19th century (Godden 1968:11). Therefore this mark may refer to the district of Burselum, rather than a specific manufacturer
E [&] GThis mark, which includes the initials ?E [&] G? was present on a Willow pattern ashet. The pattern cartouche also includes the term ?Warranted Staffordshire?. No attribution to a manufacturer can be made
D. M. & S. S.Five printed marks were recorded on black transfer-printed Antique (Variant 2) plates in conjunction with an indecipherable impressed mark (Figure 3.9). This manufacturing mark has also been recorded at Butler Point, Mongonui. No attribution to a manufacturer can be made.
D. T. E. L.These marks comprise a series of impressed letters that occurred on 21 of the 39 children?s plates. As many of these marks were illegible, only the best examples have been illustrated (Figure 3.17-3.20). There was no pattern to their occurrence, with different letters appearing on separate examples of the same design. Because many of these marks were barely visible, it is possible that the letters ?L? and ?T? have been misidentified and actually represent the letter D. This does not account for the letter ?E?, which only occurred once but was comparatively distinct. Although these marks may represent different manufacturers, the homogeneity of vessel form and design suggests that they were produced by one pottery. No attribution to a manufacturer can be made.
N SN mark but S possibly the name of the manufacturer?
LWPossibly Lewis Woolf
L. M & Co0

© Simon H. Bickler (2006)