Posted 12 years ago
timandeb
(3 items)
I bought this pot because I liked it, but can't seem to find out anything about it. Does anyone know who signed this? On bottom it is hand numbered 174/1000 and has a "made en Mexico" sticker.
hoping to find out more about this pot | ||
Pottery11092 of 12586 |
Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate
Posted 12 years ago
timandeb
(3 items)
I bought this pot because I liked it, but can't seem to find out anything about it. Does anyone know who signed this? On bottom it is hand numbered 174/1000 and has a "made en Mexico" sticker.
Help us close this case. Add your knowledge below.
Create an account or login in order to post a comment.
I've seen the mark before. Mexican potter - possibly contemporary. Search R. Galvan for similar.
I have searched R. Galvan and so far haven't seen a matching signature or any pots like this one. I won't give up though!
I know this post dates back 8 years, but I have also been searching that long to find out who "R. Galvan" really is.
I do know that "R. Galvan" is positively Mexican pottery. Many pieces can be found with the original "Made in Mexico" stickers. Or evidence on the bottom of the pot that the sticker has been removed.
I also know that maybe 15 years ago, or so. there was an article, complete with photos, of a Mexican potter, identified as R. Galvan, with more information. That web site is no longer available, and the saved link stopped working.
I also know that the signatures vary somewhat, as if signed by different hands. And that originally copies of Acoma pots were the most common, but now other tribes, especially Hopi, designs are being produced, (and even some "Mata Ortiz" replicas are being made.) The many different designs, sheer number of pots on the market, plus the slightly different signatures, suggest this may actually be factory pottery, not made by an individual.
If someone can give a link to a reputable site with more information, that would be helpful. But please, no links to claims it is Native American. It definitely is not.