Probably the most common pattern to be found on 18th century Worcester porcelain and yet on the early pieces, probably some of the most finely painted (see lobed teapot of c.1753/54).The obvious care taken on some of the early moulded wares shows the high esteem in which this pattern was held.For a pattern to remain in production for some 25 - 30 years was most unusual in a period where tastes changed so rapidly.The standard Worcester tea-service of the 1750's comprised teabowls, coffee cups and saucers (with only one saucer used between cup and teabowl), a teapot, sugar bowl, cream jug, slop bowl and small coffee cans? Articles such as teapot stands and spoon trays were thought to be included only in services for the gentry and yet to make a list of items found in the "Prunus Root" pattern you must include these pieces and many, many more. Mustard pots (both wet and dry), sweetmeat dishes, pap boats, potted meat pots, many different shapes of cream and milk jugs and a full range of miniature or "toy" pieces.
So why was a pattern, thought to be derived from the Chinese blue and white wares of the 1730's and 40's, to become so popular in Middle England? It's ability to be fitted to the huge variety of shapes produced by the Worcester factory is certainly a valid reason. It,s simplicity of design and ease of reproduction fits with our current knowledge of the age and skills of the Worcester painters (John Sandon admits to having produced a passable replica of the pattern). If we accept all this, great anomalies still remain. Probably the most common article to be found in this, and indeed any Worcester pattern is the coffee cup and yet, having talked to the most knowledgeable experts in 18th century Worcester, no one recalls having seen a coffee pot. I know that coffee pots are not the most common of articles but surely if "Prunus root" is as common as it appears why should such a piece not exist? What about plates and dishes? A pattern so able to fulfill a receptive market would surely have covered the full range of wares. Surely this helps to explain the fascination of collecting antique porcelain and particularly Worcester porcelain with it's vast array of patterns and shapes.
The standard mark on Worcester porcelain up to about 1760 is currently called a "workmans mark" but to date no one has satisfactorily come forward with a practical explanation of the meaning of these marks. By studying a single pattern I hope to shed some light on this puzzle but to date I have raised more questions than answers. What the marks ARE NOT is becoming clear - They certainly aren't "painters marks" - the disparity in quality of execution on similarly marked pieces is far too great to represent a single painter. They obviously don't represent a single pattern - on some thirty odd pieces of pre-1760 "prunus root" I have 20 different marks. The thought that they may represent a "foreman" of a group of painters doesn't really stand up, again on quality grounds. I have a common mark across a range of fluted pieces but then the same mark appears on a plain teabowl and saucer. That they should merely be random marks, possibly imitating Chinese would again seem unlikely and pointless. Could they indicate the shade of blue, the mix of cobalt ? Similar marks appear on pieces of the same shading - but not always! What about date marks ? a not uncommon practice in some continental factories. I do have similar marks on similar pieces that can be dated close together by current thinking. Whilst this is possible, there still appear to be anomilies - a scratch cross mug of lovely pale blue and a fluted teapot of much darker blue and greyer paste ? Was the paste mix changed for larger more difficult items? Because these marks exist, our enquiring mind needs a reason. One day maybe we will have the definitive answer.