When Clarice Cliff’s ware became very sought after in the late 80’s there was soon a spate of fake pieces on the market. Some were shapes made from scratch by people with some idea how to cast and decorate a piece, other pieces were old pottery with a Clarice Cliff backstamp added. The latter are usually easy to spot as they are not Clarice’s shapes. However, some new collectors might be fooled by the most carefully made fakes. 

The ‘best’ we have seen are Lotus jugs decorated in ‘Original Bizarre’. This was issued from 1927 to 1930, and is an easier pattern to copy than the landscapes or abstract, as it has just simple broad, straight lines. The forgers have used very similar paints, which they have applied in a reasonably convincing way, and have re-created the shape well.

These particular fakes appeared about 5-7 years ago, but now present an on-going problem , more to dealers than collectors, as people who buy them cannot legally sell them on, as with the ‘Clarice Cliff’ backstamp this is fraudulent in Britain and some other countries.

The jugs have made their way around the world (it was rumoured they originated in Ireland) and this example was found in America. The shape itself is very well recreated, and the piece initially looks like an authentic Clarice Lotus jug. The first thing that would make us suspicious is that the paint is just TOO shiny: there is no ‘wear and tear’, no worn areas through usage. The actual colours are very close to those Clarice used.

The forgers have chosen this simple geometric pattern as Clarice abstract and landscapes are virtually impossible to get ‘right’ as there are so many freehand brushstrokes.

Next, if we look inside, the glaze on the inside surface is very regular, there are no glaze runs, no darker patches, no ‘pooling’ of glaze: on original pieces the ware is often marked with irregular glaze runs, even glaze ‘pin prick holes’ on the inside.

However, the BIGGEST clue to spot a fake, is that on the underside of the handle there is an ‘air hole’. When ceramics are fired, any part of the body of any thickness (such as a handle) needs a hole for moisture to escape as the piece is heated up. For some unknown reason, Clarice’s jug don’t have these, but the forgers HAD to put a hole to their pierce or it would have self-destructed in the kiln!

The last clue is to closely inspect the backstamp. Although the wording and letter ‘style’ is correct for this a 1928 to 1930 (B2)  ‘rubber’ backstamp, in re-creating it the forgers have made the letters too thin, and the ‘Hand Painted, seems to have been drawn in part by hand, whereas the original is a typeface. The traditional ‘Honeyglaze’ Clarice used to cover here pottery is completely visible on the base, and here you can see it is too light, too clear, looks ‘wrong’. Also, the un-glazed foot rim is too clean, they could not fake ‘age’ on this.
If you are unfortunate to find an example like this in your collection, in Britain it is illegal to try and sell it, instead report it to your local Trading Standards, or from anywhere in the world please contact us.

Many thanks to Sally Dunning for the photos.