Manises

Manises, near Valencia, Spain · Maiolica

Transcribed by Igor Kukolj from Chaffers, William. Marks and Monograms on European and Oriental Pottery and Porcelain, 1891, Reeves & Turner, London, p.158. Scan: archive.org/details/marksmonogramson00chaf (leaf n177). Checked 22 August 2026.

Marks

The A hand within a circle, dated 16 · 10 mark as engraved in Chaffers 1891, page 158 — 1610
**A hand within a circle, dated 16 · 10** · painted in lustre · *engraved in the source*
Recorded on a Spanish maiolica dish in rich copper lustre approaching ruby, in Oriental patterns on a drab ground, formerly in Mr Reynold's Collection.Chaffers 1891, p.158
The date is split either side of the hand — 16 to the left, 10 to the right. Chaffers notes the device is engraved 'much reduced in size' from the original.

The M with a small o above mark as engraved in Chaffers 1891, page 158 — 1610–1611
**M with a small o above** · large lustre letters, with annulets round · *engraved in the source*Chaffers 1891, p.158
Found on the BACK of the dish above, while the dated hand is on the front. Chaffers records a similar plate carrying the same M° on the back with 1611 on the front — so the two marks work as a pair, front and reverse.

What the source records

The manufactory was in existence before the sixteenth century.Chaffers 1891 · p.158
The lustred ware made there was held in great request by the Pope, cardinals and princes.Chaffers 1891 · p.158
It continued in production, though in a state of dilapidation and decay, down to Chaffers' own day.Chaffers 1891 · p.158
The later Manises work is characterised by the copper-red tones of its lustres.Chaffers 1891 · p.158

Why this differs from other listings

The Manises marks are split across the piece: a dated device on the front, the M° on the back. Chaffers records two plates with this arrangement, one dated 1610 and one 1611, which means a bare M° on a reverse is only half the mark and the date may still be present on the face.

The source page

Page 158 of Chaffers 1891, the source for this entry — Chaffers 1891, p.158 — public domain, from archive.org/details/marksmonogramson00chaf (leaf n177). Check the transcription against it.

What this entry does not establish

Chaffers gives no range for the M° mark beyond the two dated plates he cites.
'Before the sixteenth century' is as precise as the source gets on the works' founding.