Hi Todd,

Can't be of much use but I notice the mark has that inverted V shape which in Japanese pottery usually is a reference to Mount Fuji so that might be a clue for your searches. It has a nice almost Lustreware glaze and that line of lighter glaze around the inside looks like wispy smoke and was possibly intended by the potter. I like the lotus flower form.

I can't tell from the photo's if it is  of soft earthenware or much harder stoneware.  Anyway I have added a link showing many studio potters marks I have not gone through them but you never know your luck your mark maybe there. 

Cheers and happy hunting

Michael

https://chano-yu.com/famous-japanese-potters-and-marks/

Hi Michael,

Thanks so much for the link. I have bookmarked it. I found some similar marks, but not a real match. 

I hadn’t even considered the possibility that the glaze loss was intentional. It is uniform around the bowl, you may be right. I’ve never seen that... 

I will look up the difference between stone and earthenware, and try to figure it out. 

Its stoneware 😉 

Todd,

Earthenware can feel sort weak, light and perhaps flimsy to the touch. Most every day use dinner plates made in Europe especially England  was made from earthenware. Stoneware is much harder and stronger feeling. It is fired to a much higher temperature to the point that the clay body is vitrified to an almost porcelain look and feel. I am sure if you went along to a local china retailer and asked to see a earthenware bowl and then a stoneware bowl you would get the idea.

Michael 

Ah Ha We cross posted !

Haha, yes. I watched a youtube video. When the guy on the video tapped both types, that verified what I already had thought. The sound of the tap with my fingernail was of the higher pitched variety. It is much like porcelain, as you say. The base has a grainer feel than porcelain, although the base rim is very smooth, almost like porcelain. 

@watership
Hey friend 🙂 hope you're doing well! 
You'll have to tell me about all those cool items on the shelf in the background another time (that green glazed lidded bowl looks awesome; and I'm curious what's inside the big wooden box?!).

As for the current piece - could you maybe send another closer picture of the mark if it's not too much trouble?
Just for fun later to see if I can learn something looking for it if I get the time. 

Looks something almost like the Meissen crossed swords vertically and 3-4 horizontal lines intersecting through it currently? Not sure if I'm seeing it right, and also appears to have Arabic numerals? 144/or/744?

So, here's what my opinion is (and as you and I love to echo: "take it with a grain of salt" ha)..
I think this would fall more under the “MCM” (Mid-century modern) jurisdiction of pottery types to be honest.

Think more Rookwood/McCoy side of things, but not limited to those specifically - maybe even European?
The above names likely won't be the final result either, as I think those also have distinct marks themselves from what I remember...but that is my opinion only, and I'm very largely unfamiliar with those types of wares: could quite possibly be one of them or even Japanese, who knows!
Let's see what we can find out; I think a couple of the other members here are quite knowledgable with 20th century western pottery too.

Maybe they'll be able to provide some info/recognize something..

The only reason I'm suggesting the other/western styles is 2 things - and there's always exceptions as I often forget myself, so let's wait and see what else might be said:

1) The Arabic numbers/"western numbers" - I attached a picture in this post of Japanese number marks in Kanji often used on studio wares when made in a set/series, and then there's also sometimes the usage of Hiragana types too (from my understanding).
Which leads to my next conspiracy..

2) Perhaps this was a mold number?
This isn't uncommon to see on western pottery types, but it could be a series number, ect as well.
It's very evenly proportioned (from what I can see), but you'd know best having it with you. Does it seem 100% "perfect" or close to it?

I'm not saying it's not impossible for a gifted potter to achieve similar to this, or that molds are only exclusively used in western productions; but that was another theory I had in mind myself. 

On the glaze:
Michael brings up a great point about the lighter ring sheen possibly being intentional with the glaze technique used by the potter - I would wager that as well. 

Studio pottery is a strange world to get lost in.
Quite fun and a good way to always have a puzzle to work on/be entertained by, but quite time consuming and tedious ha. 

Best,
-JRN

Forgot the photo of the numbers.. apologies..

For my sins, here's a Kutani studio bowl I have with a similar iridescent quality, you can see it a bit in the back 🙂 

I quite like it.  

I do own a brown glazed garuda (posted some while ago) that is from Thailand, so they did favor that brown glaze in Southeast Asia, but your piece is not as primitive and that smokey wave on the interior is artfully sophisticated.

Hello JRN,

You never disappoint, my friend. Lots to think about. I took some more pics of the mark...but am not sure they are better. It is difficult to make out. After looking at Michael’s link, I thought the bottom half of the mark might signify Raku....but it goes without saying, I am far from certain 😋 

I took a picture next to a Japanese martaban with a typical shade of brown that I’m sure you are familiar with, for comparison. 

I was thinking something similar yesterday, about a mold, trying to find irregularities in the form. I looked again today, and it still appears uniform. So that is a possibility. 

Forgot to mention yesterday, something interesting. There is a cavity in the base, evidently. You might have already gleaned this from the two venting holes on the base (one with a spot of the glaze applied over it). I’ve never seen that before. Probably a hint to the origin, but not an easy one to decipher I’d imagine. 

Nice Kutani bowl. I’ve never seen one similar to that, interesting colors. 

I’ll post some pictures of the green bowl and boxed item. The bowl is quite a fancy little thing, but not very old I presume. It does have a mark. The item in the large box was one of the 1st items I ever posted on this site, if memory serves me. A Japanese inkwell that Xin expertly identified. 

Hi Sharon,

Sorry, the picture with the martaban was more applicable to your observation. The typical brown glaze is also the 1st thing that came to mind when I spotted this piece. But when I examined it further I decided it wasn’t quite of that variety, as you also concluded. It has a tea-dust aspect to it, although not in the obvious, classic way. 

The item in the box...

Early 20th Japanese, I think was the verdict. Still one of my favorite things. 

Thanks for giving me an excuse to post it again, JRN 😋 

The item in the box is not Japanese imo. It's chinese by way of the five toed dragon. Just my thoughts. 

Nice piece. 

Mark 

Hi Mark,

I looked over the old posts and I think you are right. My memory wasn’t very accurate. The general conclusion was late Qing, early Republic. Although I think Japanese wasn’t ruled out entirely. 

Here is Peter’s quote, answering my question as to the differences between genuine Ming and this piece. 

“The decorations are ok and very close, however, the actual color of the enamels are off. The yellow is "too yellow" for example. During the early 20th C. a very large number of "Wanli" type boxes were made in both China and Japan. The Japanese examples were particularly good, they can often be spotted quickly due to the occasional use of a red line(s) on the unglazed edges of the  lids and bottoms which were added to help line the two side up for putting the box together. 

Peter”

The red lines aren’t there which helps identify it as more likely Chinese.

Not sure if anyone brought up the toes at the time, nice catch Mark.