Ceramic Makers' Marks (Guides to Historical Artifacts)

Reader Reviews
This volume is a tremendous disappointment and the publisher's blurb borders on false advertising. It is by no stretch of the imagination "comprehensive" and might better be titled "Some British Backstamps I Have Known." The photographs and drawings of some 350 marks apparently derive solely from the collections of the Sonoma State University's Anthropological Studies Center, gathered "from the length and breadth of California," which one submits is a much smaller universe than the technically correct but highly misleading "found in North American archaeological sites" advertised in the back cover's claim for comprehensiveness. One might therefore expect something in the way of archaeological context but there is none--not even site provenience--other than the aforementioned "length and breadth of California." Seeking "to offer a more comprehensive identification guide," following such predecessors as Gates and Ormerod's work on ceramic marks of the East Liverpool, Ohio, region, Gibson's effort is a poor simulacrum. It could more accurately be described as a photographic footnote or postscript to the Kowalskys' (1999) and Godden's (1991) catalogs of British marks, illustrating for the most part previously described marks or variants thereof. This in itself is not without value but scarcely rises to the level of being a comprehensive identification guide. North American marks are restricted to two previously described California stoneware manufacturers' marks (D. Brannan and Garden City) and a San Francisco importer's mark. European marks are limited to four Haviland backstamps previously recorded by the Kovels (1986), an unrecorded mark for a Bordeaux company (J. Viellard), and a Berlin KPM mark (referencing the Kovels rather than Roentgen!), for a total of nine non-British marks. Finally, a minor correction should be noted, which does underscore the value of Gibson's emphasis on photographic illustration: The Thomas Shirley & Co. partial mark illustrated on p. 127) as "rdina" is surely (no pun intended) "edina" and no doubt represents a popular Moresque "Medina" pattern. If there is a place for this kind of thing-- and I do not dispute that there is-- it would be on a website, hopefully with some indication of the individual provenience for these sherds and clearly indicating which are "well-known examples" and which are "variations of previously known marks," or "formerly unidentified marks." In sum, the publishers not only vastly exaggerate the comprehensiveness of this compendium but overestimate its audience ("...historical archaeologists, material culture specialists, collectors and antiques dealers, museum professionals, students, art historians, and others interested in ceramics." I am left with the perhaps subjective notion that the author may have been led astray by an over-eager publisher, an under-diligent editor, and/or an out-of-control advertising writer.


Back To Top