The BackstampPottery and porcelain marks, traced to the reference that records them.

Leeds Pottery

Leeds, Yorkshire, England · Pottery · also recorded as Warburton and Britton

Transcribed by Igor Kukolj from Chaffers, William. Marks and Monograms on European and Oriental Pottery and Porcelain, 1891, Reeves & Turner, London, p.729. Scan: archive.org/details/marksmonogramson00chaf (leaf n748). Checked 22 August 2026.

Marks

Plate I🔗

The A crown above the letter G mark as engraved in Chaffers 1891, page 729
A crown above the letter G · engraved in the source
Recorded on a pair of green and white shell-shaped dishes of Leeds pottery.Chaffers 1891, p.729paired by position

Chaffers writes only 'this mark is on a pair of green and white shell-shaped dishes'. The sentence names no letters, so the pairing here is by the mark's position on the page beside it, not by anything the source states.

Plate II🔗

The LEEDS POTTERY twice, crossed saltire-wise mark as engraved in Chaffers 1891, page 729
LEEDS POTTERY twice, crossed saltire-wise · engraved in the sourceChaffers 1891, p.729no sentence on this page

The engraving is set on this page but no sentence on it describes this mark. It is reproduced without a claim attached rather than borrowing a description from elsewhere.

Plate III🔗

The C G above W mark as engraved in Chaffers 1891, page 729
C G above W · the letters impressed · engraved in the source
Recorded on a cup and saucer of white English pottery, with paintings of landscapes and the raised wicker border common to this manufactory.Chaffers 1891, p.729

This is the mark Chaffers calls 'that in the margin'.

Plate IV🔗

The C G mark as engraved in Chaffers 1891, page 729
C G · engraved in the sourceChaffers 1891, p.729attributed to leeds by the source, not demonstrated

Chaffers writes 'the mark of C. G. has been attributed to Leeds' — a report of an attribution, not a finding of his own.

Plate V🔗

The An arrowhead mark as engraved in Chaffers 1891, page 729
An arrowhead · engraved in the sourceChaffers 1891, p.729supposed early mark

'The arrowhead is also supposed to be an early mark.' The source hedges it and so does this entry.

Plate VI🔗

The An arrowhead, second form mark as engraved in Chaffers 1891, page 729
An arrowhead, second form · engraved in the sourceChaffers 1891, p.729supposed early mark

Chaffers engraves two arrowheads on this page and describes them in one sentence without separating them.

What the source records

Why this differs from other listings

The first sentence on this page is the one most Leeds mark lists leave out: Queen's ware was made by most of the makers and the pieces are so alike in pattern and quality that Chaffers calls it almost impossible to tell one maker from another. Every mark below it inherits that caution, and this entry keeps the two together instead of presenting the marks as identifications.

The source page

Page 729 of Chaffers 1891, the source for this entry
Chaffers 1891, p.729 — public domain, from archive.org/details/marksmonogramson00chaf (leaf n748). Check the transcription against it.

What this entry does not establish

Questions

What marks does Chaffers 1891 record for Leeds Pottery?

6 on p.729: A crown above the letter G; LEEDS POTTERY twice, crossed saltire-wise; C G above W; C G; An arrowhead; An arrowhead, second form. 6 of them are engraved in the source and are reproduced above; the rest are described in words only.

What dates does the source give?

None. Chaffers dates no mark on this page, so this entry gives no date either.

Where was Leeds Pottery?

Leeds, Yorkshire, England. The source also records the name as Warburton and Britton.

Is the A crown above the letter G attribution certain?

No, and the source says so. Chaffers flags it — paired by position. Chaffers writes only 'this mark is on a pair of green and white shell-shaped dishes'. The sentence names no letters, so the pairing here is by the mark's position on the page beside it, not by anything the source states.

Can this page tell me what my piece is worth?

No. This site reports what one nineteenth-century reference recorded, and cites the page so you can check it. It does not authenticate objects, value them, or offer an opinion on a specific piece.

Marks like this one