Is this a pitcher ...MORIAGE and it's value ?

Thank You. Bobby

I just had to come and see what all the fuss was about ;~) "It's Nippon Moriage, not a very good one, and probably had a paper or foil label, hence no marks." Just as posible that the piece was made from a slip mold http://www.boothemold.com/Mold/SiteMoldMenu.htm Ever wonder where the reproductions of many pieces of pottery come from? In today's world you can take any piece and send it for 3D analysis, have a slip mold made overnight, hire inexpensive labor to paint, and claim that the piece is "anything." Seriously with CAD/CAM and computers overnight is not an exageration. Order before you go to sleep and have it when you wake up. http://www.xpress3d.com/?src=gprototype-mold Roseville Pottery Reproductions, McCoy Reproductions, and all the other "unmarked pieces" out there. Here is the cost of a slip mold. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/CERAMIC-SLIP-MOULD-MOULDS-MOLD-GRAPE-CLUSTER-PITCHER_W0QQitemZ190333407940QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Crafts_Ceramic_PotteryMaking_SM?hash=item2c50c152c4&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262 On unmarked grape pitcher alone.. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=grape+cluster+pitcher+%22unmarked%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi= Well at least nobody is claiming that George Washington drank from it. But of course that is possible also... Really when you consider the Jappanese tradition of pottery and ceramics it is not the norm for them to not mark their pieces. There wasn't a fuss I just felt comfortable saying I didn't know.

It is the beak and the style of the piece that does not remind me of moriage. Typically oriental pieces are very light in design. As an example.. early Schönwald though definetly bavarian in design is distinct in that it is more rugged than the contemporary pieces. I mean that unless you can substantiate why the piece is more rugged than typical pieces of that period it is difficult with an unmarked piece to do so. http://www.schoenwald.com/eng/unternehmen/historie.htm?nav=20&l=E&depth=0 I as an example have As an example: http://www.kovels.com/priceguide/kovels_moriage/1997/pitcher/1481837.html or http://www.kovels.com/priceguide/kovels_moriage/ Where in the pieces illustrated do you see the beak and design that your piece has? Now I made no offer, no my tummy isn't growling, and no I'm not interested in the piece. Because of the design of the piece I go back to my original assumption that it is Pate-Sur-Pate http://www.antiqforum.com/pate_sur_pate_minton_albion_birks.html That my friend was a kindness.. but if you prefer it to be dragonware well so be it.. but that would be one unusual piece as unmarked dragonware... and also the profile of the piece and beak doesn't fit that genre of pieces. That is not to say that anyone is the definitive expert: As an example I have an entire set of bavaria similar to this: http://cgi.ebay.com/2-Schonwald-Bread-Plates-US-Zone-Butterfly-Germany-40s_W0QQitemZ140058010039QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item209c1ba1b7&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 And... "Porzellanfabrik Schönwald" from the town of Schönwald in Bavaria; writing reads 'Alt Schönwald' (Old Schönwald). Mark is rated "problematic" due to misleading information and/or incorrect depiction by both Roentgen and Kovels. Facts are: first registration was at the RWZR under #151709 on October 25th 1911, it was refreshed 1931. However the version you have (three digit decoration ID under mark) was introduced after RWZR registration #513071 on June 17h 1939; it was used in that form until 1950. And lets be succinct it is beautiful bavarian pieces pre 1932 but explicitly designed to be more rugged as to be problematic for experts.. But again.. unless you get the facts.. unless you have this thing slam dunk identified, it just doesn't ring moriage