Badly written; this scrawl is 235. The eBay vendor of this piece read it - not unreasonably - as 'ZJ5'
Badly written; matching with other pieces of similar shape identifies this as 313/9.
Ground away; grinding the base has almost obliterated part of 315/5.
The suffix letter 'S' (for Small) and the number '5' (5 inch) are frequently confused, particularly when the result looks like a date, eg '1925' for '192S' and '1945' for 194S'.
It's usually easy to tell the difference though. The letter 'S' is incised in a single stroke whereas the top of number '5' is clearly a separate stroke. Also, a number suffix always has a slash or dash separating it from the shape number, whereas a letter suffix usually has no separator.
Dated 1935? No - numbered 193 s.
Mistakes at the pottery
Premier Pottery Preston was not a relaxed workplace. The pressure was on. Incising signatures and shape numbers was commonly done late in the day, by anyone available, and mistakes happened. Such mistakes present a problem for cataloguing. An unexpected or anomalous number cannot necessarily be dismissed as a 'mistake', and while some shapes are sufficiently plentiful and well-documented that a mistaken example can be confidently recognised, that's not always the case.
Pieces with wrong numbers were typically stray one-off errors, but there was also the occasional bungle in assigning numbers when the numbering was first being set up. Two shapes would be inadvertently assigned the same number, then when the mistake was realised one of them would be given a new number - but not before a few pieces had been made. For example, number28was assigned to two Early Series shapes, one of which (the popular 'ginger-jar' vase) was promptly re-numbered42.
Mis-spelt (both in the same handwriting) - 'Remed' and 'Remeued'.
Remued's characteristic glazes are hard to reproduce convincingly but it's been attempted.
This piece is not Remued, despite the signature, yet perhaps it is not a deliberate 'fake' either. The name Remued has become so identified with its characteristic drip-glaze style that it is often taken to be a generic name. Items are offered for sale as 'Pates remued', 'Diana remued', and even in the US 'van Briggle remued'. Maybe the maker of this piece was merely striving for a characteristic style (and maybe not, too!).
Premier was by no means the only pottery to use applied decoration of gumleaves and twig-handles. Here are two fine examples by Florenz. Such pieces are usually signed 'Florenz', but not always, and they are sometimes mistaken for Remued.
Even more suspicious. A bad copy of a Remued koala, plus a Remued signature and an incised shape number similar to the 'Alphabet' series. It came to light, surprisingly, in Ohio, USA. If genuine such a piece would be worth thousands.
Two examples are recorded, both in the same handwriting, probably both done at the same time.
Other 'PPP' brands
Premier Pottery Preston is not the only pottery to have used the letters 'PPP'. Several others are known. Their styles of pottery are quite different however, as is the style of the PPP insignia.
This is the PPP brand most frequently confused with Premier Pottery Preston. Here the initials stand for Pacific Pottery Products, of Long Beach, California, USA.
Items have shape numbers in the same range as Remued and PPP. Base inscriptions however are impressed not incised. The glaze is usually a plain single colour but examples are found with sponged glazes, not unlike some of Premier's sponged glazes.
A range of tableware, made in Japan and marketed in the US.
The Premier Pottery Preston stamped monogram.
Studio pottery from New Zealand (Personalised Pottery Products, Nelson)
The Remued sticker is real enough but the item it's attached to is not Remued. The sticker has been peeled off a Remued piece and re-applied. The manner of damage to the sticker is usually a giveaway in such cases - not merely worn (as is common) but torn and crinkled.
Other 'Dee' signatures
A few early pieces from Premier Pottery are recorded signed by David Dee, co-founder of the pottery. Other pieces signed 'Dee' however, in particular souvenir ware from the Sunraysia district, are sometimes mistakenly supposed to be by him or his son Walter Dee. The Dee signature on this souvenir ware is actually the initials of the potter, Doris Evelyn Ezard (1912 - 1993).
Ezard's studio was located at the Rosemont Guest House in Mildura, Victoria. During the 1960s and 1970s her pottery was sold through the guest house and probably other local tourist-oriented outlets as well. Pieces usually feature decoration of oranges, grapes, or the historic gaol in the nearby town of Wentworth.
(Thanks to Carol and Brien Flint for this information.)
Oranges & "Mildura"
Height; 6.5 cm.
Base incised Dee.
The Peoples Potteries
Brick pattern & "Wentworth Gaol".
On some examples also "1879-1979".
Diameter; 10 cm. Base incised Dee
Some Ezard pieces are signed Dee Rosemont but most are simply Dee.
Catherine Webb research collection
For comparison - from Premier Pottery,
signatures by David Dee and son Walter Dee.
A range of small hand-painted cast pottery from the UK.
Fake gumleaves. These pots are genuine Remued, but somebody set out to enhance their monetary value by adding gumleaves. The fake gumleaves may not be easy to spot but there are some tell-tale signs to watch out for;
The leaf colours and surrounding touch-ups are often in brighter colours than the base pot, almost garish.
The expected 'M' suffix after the number is missing. That's not necessarily diagnostic - sometimes genuine gumleaf pieces lack the 'M' - but these pieces always lack it.
Most diagnostic of all - carefully examine the pattern of flowing and streaking in the drip-glazing. Genuine gumleaves affect the flow because they were there before glazing. With fakes however, the pattern of running streaks etc can continue beneath the applied leaf and emerge uninterrupted on the other side.
Who are the culprits? These fakes vary in quality, implying that they may not all be the work of the same person. Although applied to Early Series pots, the materials used indicate a recent origin.
The two pieces shown here with leaves removed were treated with paint-stripper by their owners. The third piece looks highly suspicious but hasn't suffered such drastic treatment - its owner quite likes the idea of having an intact one in the collection. Re-examination of images has turned up further suspicious examples and one has been deleted from this website. We now have misgivings too about our interpretation of the unusual 42s "ginger-jar" vase shown under 'Modelling & Painting" on the One-offs page.