Belleek Marks
I have put up this great article that was written by UK Collector Neville Maguire. I want to thank him for allowing me to use this on my website. The marks will start below this article.
UK Belleek Collectors’ Group Newsletter 32/1 April 2011
As an addition to the potter’s mark there is either
an abbreviated version of it or a similar one with
another meaning as shown on the Ivy spill (right).
Another potter’s mark on an Ivy spill
just visible above the harp
Other colours and markings used for
Belleek backstamps
There is a wealth of colours used on parian for the
backstamp such as blue, red, brown and black.
Illustrations of early
Belleek backstamps in
different colours.
It is speculative but there does seem to be a pattern and that the colour referred to the body of the piece
and when it was made…but it is not that simple as what the colours referred to changed as
the pottery became more established. It appears the first colour was the true blue mark and then a red colour on
parian which may refer to the yellowish glaze and high lustre glaze found on such pieces. However the red
became identified with bone china and so it is not used on parian so much after the initial period of the pottery.
The red mark does appear to be referring to the body of the piece and most pieces with this red stamp seem to
have a very high lustre glaze and it may refer to this. A brown mark was also used until the black mark became
standardised and it too may have been used to denote some type of production. Of course there is a certain
overlap in the use of these stamps as we are only considering a short period of about 12 years at the most.
Some idea of what was produced in the early days can be gleaned from ‘A Catalogue of British Pottery and
Porcelain’, 1871 as published by the Museum of Practical Geology. The importance of this book is that it has a
list of Belleek items acquired before this date. Given the time lag of collecting, writing and producing the book
the items listed must have come from the early and mid 1860s. The list gives a description of the items and any
trademark markings. Just before publication of this article, I had the opportunity to inspect these items in detail
as it was discovered that they now mostly reside in the "study collection" at the Victoria and Albert museum,
having been transferred there from the Museum of Practical Geology in 1901. Some of these items are
extremely interesting and will feature in forthcoming articles. The list reads:
1. Mug in white porcelain with glaze of feeble lustre; a six-sided body ornamented with vine and ivy in relief,
satyr’s mask under spout, and rustic handle; mark, printed in brown, a round tower, harp, dog and shamrock,
with word BELLEEK. (‘Vine’ jug in stoneware)
2. Tazza, in cream-coloured porcelain, partly glazed, with ribbed body and pair of snake handles; mounted on
pedestal ornamented with garlands and festoons of raised flowers pendent from rams’ heads; impressed
mark in Irish characters. (An example similar to that at the Ulster Museum, illustrated in S. McCrum p.30)
3. Paper Weight in form of a dragon painted red and green, shells at base; mark as 1 printed in red, and Irish
character stamped. (This is a remarkable small paperweight, which is documented only in this catalogue and
not recorded elsewhere. It has extensive "Irish characters" impressed in its base. Having had the
opportunity to inspect and photograph this item at the V&A along with Bev and Chris Marvell, it is clear
that it is a very unusual piece.)
Page 5
UK Belleek Collectors’ Group Newsletter 32/1 April 2011
4. Spill-pot, 6 inches high, in form of a spike of Indian corn; cream-coloured porcelain coated with a lustrous
glaze; leaves tinted yellow; mark printed in blue. (‘Indian Corn’ spill)
5. Large Shell of Dolium modelled in porcelain, tinted, and glazed. (a single unmarked large shell)
This item is featured on the front cover of this Newsletter.
6. Small Shell of Nacta modelled in porcelain and glazed. (a single unmarked small shell)
7. Triple Basket formed of three conventional shells grouped with corals and seaweed; tinted and coated with
lustrous glaze; printed in blue, and Irish character stamped. (triple bucket)
8. Salt cellar in form of a valve of Tridacna (clam shell); mounted on a group of shells, including Corinthium,
Murex, &c.; cream coloured porcelain, tinted and glazed; mark printed in blue, and stamped BELLEEK,
FERMANAGH.
9. Salt Cellar in form of a small clam shell, tinted and glazed; mark printed in blue.
10. Salt Cellar in form of a shell of dolium, tinted and glazed; mark printed in blue.
11. Muffineer in form of a shell of murex, supported on group of coral, tinted and glazed.
12. Argonaut Shell (paper nautilus) mounted on a group of coral springing from a base bestrewn with shells and
seaweed; modelled in porcelain, tinted and glazed; mark printed in blue. (‘Nautilus on Coral’)
13. Cream Jug, in cream-coloured porcelain, ornamented and embossed diamond pattern, having blue bosses in
centres and red bosses at the angles, with gilt leaf borders running round the neck and foot; handle in the
form of a twisted cord, tinted purple; mark printed in blue. (‘Rope Handled’ jug)
This list shows the type of items that were produced by Belleek and considered important at the time. Of the
thirteen items seven backstamps are printed in blue, three have the ‘Irish Characters’ impressed, one has
‘Belleek Fermanagh’ impressed, one is printed in red and notably none has a black backstamp. The wording is
very clear where a printed backstamp is referred to it states, ‘mark printed in’. Where impressed identifications
are referred to it states, ‘and stamped BELLEEK, FERMANAGH.’ or ‘printed in blue’, and ‘Irish character
stamped’. It is clear that when ‘stamped’ is used it means impressed and that ‘Irish characters’ are different
from the words ‘BELLEEK, FERMANAGH’ or the Belleek backstamp. Since the contemporary meaning of a
character was a letter of an alphabet then ‘Irish characters’ should refer to the potter’s mark as being of Gaelic
letters. Note also with the exception of the first item which is stoneware all of them are parian and none of them
are earthenware. It is interesting that it is commonly thought that the potter’s mark is of Irish characters but
nobody is able to read them as such. This leads to considering as to whether they are in fact of Irish origin
whilst still accepting this is as they are described. What is clear is that the potter’s marks and all impressed
marks were made with forethought as the mould was being made but the different coloured backstamps seem to refer to a type of decoration or glaze after the piece had been fired.
This list of an early collection of Belleek contrasts with the registered designs of Belleek, the earliest of which
were registered in September 1868. The above catalogue list is a special selection of the earliest designs mainly based on seashells. They appear to be pieces that predate the registered pieces and show what Belleek was producing in the early 1860s. They relied heavily on adapting designs from other potteries. Now that the
whereabouts of these pieces has been discovered, we will be able to research them in more detail.
‘Belleek' or 'Belleek, Fermanagh' Impressed Stamps
Note that the 1871 catalogue from the Museum of Practical Geology mentions these impressed marks. The
Nautilus Shell vase (on a previous page) also has a 'Belleek, Fermanagh' stamp on it. These two impressed
stamps were used frequently throughout the first period and not just in the 1860s. This means that it is difficult
to ascribe any particular time to a piece with this mark by itself, apart from the fact that many early pieces have
this alone or in conjunction with the normal printed mark.
Registration Marks
The registration dates for Belleek pieces have been fully researched by Brian
Russell and so there is no need to restate these here.
Harp jug showing raised diamond registration mark.
Note the blue stamp with registration date of 18th December 1869
Page 6
UK Belleek Collectors’ Group Newsletter 32/1 April 2011
Care needs to be taken with these registration dates as the prevailing view is that registrated pieces were not
produced before registration which is not necessarily the case and pieces may have been produced before they were registered. This may have been because it was considered unnecessary before as Belleek was working closely with Worcester and there may have not been the urgency to register them as other potteries were not seen as a threat in the early period especially as Belleek was using designs from other potteries.
Date of Production stamps on Earthenware
Another indication of time is what is commonly accepted as impressed date numbers on earthenware that
appear as two numbers above a line with two numbers below. The top two refer to the week of the year out of
52 and the bottom two refer to the year. The years 1877 and 1878 appear to have been particularly productive
as many pieces have numbers for these years. It seems that this date mark was in use for only a few years.
Pieces based on the design of other Potteries
Belleek quite clearly produced items similar in design from other
potteries and there are no marks especially for them such as
registration marks or any potter’s mark. Such designs illustrated
here are Copeland cups and saucers in a Shamrock and Grass
design which predate Belleek’s production of such teaware and a
Minton cabaret set in Belleek’s Lotus design which dates from the
early 1850s and so predates Belleek’s production of the ‘Lotus’
design cream and sugar.
Minton Cabaret set that predates Belleek’s production
Copeland cups and saucers with
deigns that are similar to
Belleek’s.
Certainly it is interesting that Belleek began seriously registering their
designs in September 1868 more rigorously around the time that
Copeland began producing designs that were similar to the Belleek
'Grass' pattern in 1867. The initial stage of trials had turned to full
production and they needed to protect their production by then.
There is also a very important Belleek plate (below) with the usual
Belleek backstamp with the pattern number but with an impressed
Aynsley mark in Simon and Melanie Whitlock’s collection. This
shows how Belleek were quite willing to use products from other
potteries to supplement their own production.
It was not unusual for potteries to do this and there was a history of retailers who solely dealt with decorating
ceramics from various potteries from the late eighteenth century. Donovan of Dublin from about 1780 until
1827 was such an impressive decorator and importer of pottery to Dublin that he was nicknamed, ‘The Emperor
of China’ and Worcester refused to sell their own decorating equipment to him because he had put them out of
business in Dublin.
Equally Aynsley were well known for producing blanks for other potteries such as the Glasgow potteries. The
efficient railways and other forms of transport were able to move these around the country. This puts the recent
connection between Belleek and Aynsley into an historical connection that goes back to the earliest production.
Page 7
UK Belleek Collectors’ Group Newsletter 32/2 July 2011
Regaining Time in Belleek - part 2
(À la recherche du temps perdu)
By Neville Maguire
This is the second part of an expanded version of a talk given in October 2010 at our meeting in Woodford. It considers how the
reconstruction of Belleek’s past can be made with relation to the marks on pieces and the difficulties that occur because of
assumptions that make up current thinking on the subject. In light of the discussion after the talk and with others it has been expanded
to consider relevant areas, which were not considered at the time as the talk was more related to parian production.
The previous section set out how back stamps and other printed or impressed marks on pieces could give an
indication of what was happening at the pottery. This concluding section looks at how the existing periods of
Belleek Pottery based on the logo is misleading when the timeline of the ownership of the pottery is considered.
Apprentice Pieces
There are just some times when we can get an exact date for production of individual piecessuch as ‘apprentice pieces’, as on an earthenware platter with the inscription, ‘Michael Stephens July 6th 1877’. All the ‘apprentice’ pieces I have seen have been on earthenware, but whether the whole piece was produced by the apprentice or some part of it is unclear. This allows an exact date for the earliest known production of the design and pattern of such pieces if there is no other evidence but of course it would have been produced for some time before the apprentices produced their special pieces. Note on this piece the impressed date mark for week of production in the top right corner is in March 1877 and this ties in very neatly with the inscription of ‘July 6th 1877’, although this is nearly four months later. Perhaps the
production of a special piece at the end of training is a tradition that could be revived at the present day pottery.
The apprentice piece mark on the earthenware platter, above .
Where there are no marks
We need to be careful of pieces which are unmarked for they can be from other potteries. The Coalisland
pottery is well known for producing pieces which are copies from Belleek. When these are unmarked it is only
the standard of quality that can guide us but this is not infallible. We should not assume an unmarked piece is
Belleek just because it looks like Belleek.
Page 1
UK Belleek Collectors’ Group Newsletter 32/2 July 2011
Destroying information on time
One of the problems that destroys the gathering of information is when backstamps are rubbed off. There have
been forgeries and they are a real nuisance. However it has been suggested that if you can wash off or rub off
printed marks then they must be fakes. This is not the case. It is suggested that all genuine marks are under
glaze and therefore cannot be rubbed off but the pottery did not always glaze the bases of pieces well and so not
all the backstamps are not under the glaze and can be very easily rubbed off. The advice is that unless you are
absolutely certain a mark is a fake, do not touch it and certainly do not rub them off.
Misleading information that confuses retracing time in Belleek production
(a) The ‘Harp’ and ‘Harp and Crown’ impressed mark on earthenware
Earthenware was one of the first types of production at Belleek but it is not until these marks are used that
earthenware gains its own specific marks.
The ‘Harp’ mark could be impressed or printed and we know from Armstrong’s diaries of 11th August 1864
that the ‘Harp only’ mark was impressed on each article made with the formula for a Common Printing Body.
Armstrong writes on 11th August 1864 with the title ‘Printing Body’, ‘Same mixture exactly....this batch I
propose to keep separate and have it called Harp Body’-. The next page for 15th August is titled, ‘My best
body’. Then on 2nd September he writes, ‘....this Body to be Impressed with a “Harp” – Harp Body.’
Throughout the rest of 1864 he made trials with this body. However it becomes quite confusing as he uses the
terms, ‘Printing body’, ‘Harp Body’ and ‘Best Body’ and it would seem that ‘Harp Body’ and ‘Best Body’
could almost be interchangeable other than it is improvements on the original mixtures that he is making.
Page 2
