Last year I obsessed about a Moore attribution for brown-bordered plaques. The good thing about a sound attribution is that the more items that turn up, the stronger the attribution becomes. The four plaques below, I think, further strengthen the argument that the brown-bordered plaques were made by Moore's and not Scott's. Although all the plaques below are unmarked, few would dispute that the first plaque is Moore's, because the pink-bordered decoration is very typical of that pottery and found on many marked pieces.
The first thing to note is that the brown-bordered plaques are usually larger than their pink counterparts. Here are the two Odd Fellows plaques laid side by side. The brown-bordered plaque is almost an inch longer on either side.
But now look at the two Sailor's Farewells, which you would expect to be the same size. Although they both have brown borders, one plaque is about an inch shorter than the other on either side.
So despite their different decoration, the two smaller plaques look as if they came from the same mould. The small Sailor's Farwell is perhaps a transitional item made around 1860, before Moore's abandoned their smaller moulds in favour of bigger plaques.
Finally look at the decoration of the two Odd Fellows plaques. It is hard to believe that they weren't decorated in the same pottery.
So if the two smaller plaques came from the same mould, they were likely potted in the same place. If the two Odd Fellows plaques have the same decoration, they were likely decorated in the same place. And that place seems most likely to be Moore's.
Thanks to Ian Sharp for drawing my attention to a copper transfer plate used by Maling, and given to the Laing Art Gallery by Frederick Maling in 1938 (see Moore and Ross, 'Maling - The Trade Mark of Excellence'). Huge thanks also to Sarah Richardson and Amy Barker at Tyne and Wear Museums for processing my request for an image so quickly. Here it is.
It is similar to one I wrote about a year ago in the Sunderland Museum, except that it includes the 'Crimea' transfer. The transfers of the Sailor's Farwell and Return are almost identical to the versions used by Moore's in Sunderland (more on that later). But this transfer plate comes from Tyneside. The transfers appear on a fabulous wedding jug I picked up a year ago (click to enlarge and move between the images below). The jug is unmarked, but has a date inscription of 1857.
The images are difficult to compare, but after an hour of squinting at photos, I'm satisfied the transfers on my jug originate from this copper plate. When flicking from image to image, please bear in mind that the jugs' transfers have been applied to a curved surface, which distorts the imprint here and there.
Giving the jug a firm Maling attribution helps with a plaque I'd been wondering about. Both Maling and Fell used versions of the bridge transfer below. But the similarity of decoration with the jug (see images below) makes me more confident of a Maling attribution.
As promised above, here are Moore's (Sunderland) versions of the same transfers. Very similar at first glance, but clearly from another transfer plate. So there are at least 4 similar versions of this group of transfers (Maling, Moore, Scott and the transfer plate donated by the Ball's family to the Sunderland Museum).
Finally, below is mug made by Maling in the 1930s with imprints from the same transfer plate. Thanks to Ian Sharp for the photos below. Ian sold the cup as a reproduction and writes:
The mug was produced for a London retailer during the 1930s. Many other items within this range were produced including Masonic jugs, plates, bowls and frog mugs. Many of these pieces were frequently unmarked, as requested by the retailer! Many, however, were produced bearing the Maling Castle mark which was used during the period. The transfers were taken from the original 19th century copper plate which was in Maling’s possession.
To the untrained eye, this mug looks to be a typical 19th century piece. However, the lustre application is not typical with that of an earlier piece, the colour is also “wrong”. The handle is shaped and moulded to the body as opposed to being applied seperately. The shape and size of the mug does look typical of an earlier piece.
Less reputable or less knowledgeable dealers, and even auctions houses, frequently pass these items off for 19th century originals. At the time of writing there is a masonic bowl on eBay with a price tag of almost $1000. Buyer beware!
At first glance these plaques might not look that exciting, but they are the rarest of wonders. They were fired in the same kiln, on the same days, almost certainly decorated by the same person, and they have been displayed on the same walls (or dressers) for the last 175 years.
How do I know that? Well you try matching up four plaques like this. These Garrison Pottery plaques are sometimes marked 'Dixon, Phillips & Co' (around an anchor), or 'Dixon Co', or, like the plaques above, sometimes have no mark at all. Plaques like this were produced from 1839–1865, and the quality of lustre and potting varied hugely over that period.
These plaques have a lovely buttery copper-lustre edges from c1840s. The splashed borders, made by dropping turpentine onto a still-wet pink-lustre ground, are uncannily similar – the drips having been applied with the same rhythm on each plaque, starting in one corner and working round. All four plaques are lightly potted (they stack well together) and have a slightly gritty or granular feel, from where they received the same shower of kiln dust.
Plaques are most often found as singles or pairs. Even series like The Bottle are rarely recorded in anything more than twos. (Plaques were more expensive than children's plates, which do seem to have been sold as sets.) So if I'm excited about the group above, it's because it is the largest true set of plaques I've ever seen.
The jug below is attributed to Cornfoot, Colville & Co, North Shields, c1830. I bought it on the internet knowing there were condition issues. Not least, it appeared discoloured and yellow. When it arrived it was obvious it had been painted, all over, in wood varnish. After sitting unloved in my office for a few months, I took my chances with a can of cellulose thinners. Here are the results: 'before' pictures on the left, 'after' pictures on the right. You can click to enlarge and move from image to image.
Although the jug will always have a few cracks, it has a new lease of life. It took hours of patience to reverse someone's 10 minutes of madness with a paintbrush. But the jug is now in our sitting room and no longer destined for a box in the attic.
Apologies for the long radio silence. Other aspects of life have taken over for a while. So I was delighted when Norman Lowe agreed to write a piece for this blog. Norman is a great enthusiast of all things Wearside, and has contributed much to this site already.
When Stephen asked me to contribute a guest blog my thoughts immediately turned to his investigations into plaques with transfers that he attributed to Newbottle. From reading Andrew Fletcher's 'Potteries of Newbottle' we now know a lot more about their management and their products. It’s clear that a considerable number of people worked in Newbottle’s potteries until 1861 at least. Unfortunately, very few marked pieces are known, including three plates with the impressed mark “Newbottle” in the Sunderland Museum. Otherwise we are left with plaques now attributed to Newbottle described in previous blogs, and a limited group of other unmarked items in the V&A and Sunderland Museum.
However, last year I purchased a mug commemorating the birth of George Hope in November 1855. My father’s middle name was Hope and we’re descended from the Hope family who lived in Gateshead in the 17th and 18th centuries, so I hoped that this George might have been part of that family. However, I was disappointed to find that he was part of the Auckland branch of the family and was born in Sherburn. The enamel decoration and handwriting were characteristic of the Sunderland and Tyneside potteries, but the location made Tyneside less likely. By far the nearest pottery to Sherburn was Newbottle, raising the possibility it was made there. But more evidence was needed. Imagine my surprise when a few months later a very similar mug came up for sale, this time dated 1866. By then Dawson and Dixon had ceased trading. So aside from Newbottle, only the Southwick potteries of Scott and Moore, Ball’s at Deptford and some smaller-scale enterprises remained in that area. And this time the mug had an inscribed location, Middle Rainton, even closer to Newbottle. But, as Stephen said at the time, it would be nice to find a third one from the same area. And within a few weeks a third mug did turn up, this time dated 1868 and inscribed Low Moorsley, again very close to Newbottle. The pictures show that the enamel decoration and especially the calligraphy (compare the letters in the three versions of George) were very similar and were very likely produced by the same person.
So at this time, what was happening with regard to the Newbottle potteries? My own investigation of the census returns shows that in 1841 there were 30 people in Newbottle working as potters of some kind, rising to 41 in 1851, then falling to 34 in 1861, and only 5 by 1871, by which time the pottery industry in Newbottle must have almost ceased. So dates of 1855, 1866 and 1868 fall within the period of pottery activity in Newbottle although the latest ones would be during the time of decline.
If they were all produced by the same person, would it be possible to guess their identity? One candidate would be Robert Beckwith who in 1851 is listed as a potter painter aged 24 and also as the son of the co-owner of the main High Pottery. In 1861 aged 34 he is stated to be an earthenware painter, and in 1871 he has become an innkeeper, presumably after the run-down of the pottery. William Wade Brodrick, the son of the other co-owner in 1851 is also a possibility as he also was listed in 1851 as an earthenware painter but by 1861 had become co-owner with his brother Edward and might have become too involved with management to actually decorate pots himself. No-one else is described in the census returns for 1851 and 1861 as an earthenware painter, which was presumably a specialised task.
I’d like to finish with a bit of speculation concerning a bowl that I’ve had for a number of years and which I have written about in an article for the Northern Ceramic Society Newsletter. On one side it has a previously unrecorded view of Sunderland Bridge including the name E Barker and on the other, the name Ann Lax. I suggested that the view of Sunderland Bridge was presumably the work of Edward Barker, who is shown in the records of Scott’s Southwick Pottery as being an engraver who received payments from the Southwick Pottery between 1796 and 1800. Comparison with other such views in Baker’s book ‘Sunderland Pottery’ indicate that it is an early engraving and could well have been made between 1796 and 1800. So perhaps it was made for Scott’s Southwick Pottery. However, research shows that there were two people by the name of Ann Lax born in or shortly after this period, one on 2 June 1800 at South Shields and the other on 17 May 1804 at Houghton-le-Spring. If the subject were the Ann Lax of Houghton, she would have been born within a very few miles of the Newbottle Pottery. To add further interest, Andrew Fletcher tells us that, between 1779 and 1801, the Newbottle High Pottery was managed by Henry Scott, father of Anthony Scott of Southwick Pottery, and from 1801 to 1825 by George Scott, Anthony’s brother. Perhaps Edward Barker supplied engravings to more than one member of the Scott family. And maybe, just maybe, this is a very early piece of Newbottle pottery. The style of enamel decoration is quite unusual, including a black cross in the centre of many of the flowers. It would be very interesting to hear of other pieces with such decoration.
For years I've been tormented by the plaque below, which I didn't bid hard enough for on eBay. Shortly afterwards, the new owner got in touch to say it had a FELL & Co impress over anchor, for Thomas Fell, St Peter's Pottery, Newcastle. Until today, I hadn't seen a photo of the mark.
I'd noticed an indistinct circular mark on a plaque in my own collection. But it was so unclear, I dismissed it as an impression left by the stilt the plaque rested on inside the kiln.
The plaque falls into a group that share some elements of lustre decoration found on 1850s' plaques marked Dixon Co, so that's where I placed it on this website. However, a plaque amongst a job lot of junk at my local auction house got me thinking (see below).
Again, the mark is fairly indistinct, but this time there's no doubt that it's a maker's mark. As with my plaque above, black speckles of kiln dust are trapped in the impress. Here's what I hoped the mark might be.
This prompted me to recontact the owner of the first plaque in this post. Huge thanks to him for providing a photo. And here it is, the FELL & CO mark, as clear as day.
So if the three plaques above are Fell & Co, how many other plaques can reliably be attributed to Fell? The first two plaques below have the same transfers as those above. The third pairs with the first, so is attributed to Fell also. N.B. this is a different Seek Ye transfer to those that appear on Maling-attributed plaques.
The decorative elements of the plaques below so strongly match the marked plaques above, that they also must be attributed to Fell. The mould of the second plaque is also similar. Some of the decorative lustre elements on these plaques later appear on Dixon plaques of the 1850s (the colliding meteorite motif for instance), but there is a far greater similarity to the Fell plaques above. What's more, these plaques are likely c1830s, so precede the Dixon plaques by two decades.
So there's more work to be done rearranging attributions on this site. And, once again, this shows how dangerous it can be making attributions based on similarities of decoration alone. Just for the satisfaction of it, here are the three marks again below.
One feature of Newbottle-attributed plaques appears to be clumsily applied black enamel. Even the plaque donated to the Victoria and Albert Museum (right below) by descendants of the owners of Newbottle High Pottery has a clumsily applied black border.
This put me in mind of another Newbottle-attributed plaque from c1845, which also has smudgy black edges. Analysis of decoration is an imprecise science, but does provide a link, of sorts, between the c1830s plaques above and the mid 40s plaque below.
There were a couple of other entries in Andrew D Fletcher's article The Newbottle Potteries that caught my eye. Firstly, the V&A doesn't appear to have listed all of the Fairbairn's gift in their online catalogue. Fletcher quotes, presumably from another V&A catalogue list, as follows:
Earthenware pot and cover, painted in purple (gold) lustre. It stands 5 3/8 inches by 3 7/8 in diameter. The pot of inverted truncated conical form, with two adherent ring handles; the domed cover has a round knob. Both pieces painted with houses in landscapes.
So this shows that Newbottle High Pottery was indeed producing items with purple lustre, in the 1830s, under Fairbairn's management. I've e-mailed the V&A for a photo, but as yet had no response. This adds strength to the Newbottle attribution of the 'group 2' transfers, which appear on purple/pink lustre plaques.
The next extract from Fletcher explains how the Broderick and Beckwith partnership dissolved in 1852. It's unclear where this reference comes from.
The said partnership between John Broderick and James Beckwith was dissolved by mutual consent. John Broderick departed this life, 4th February last, intestate, leaving Elizabeth his wife, and children William Wade, Edward, Robert, Margaret Jane & Elizabeth Julia Broderick. John being both an earthenware manufacturer and grocer and was indebted to William Goodburn on account of both trade businesses and William Wade Broderick inherited the aforesaid. William & Edward carried on earthenware manufacture and their mother carried on the grocery businesses.
There are a few things of note here. John Broderick died, leaving debts and no will. His sons took over the pottery and carried on producing earthenware. The effects of the pottery would surely have been divided at the end of the Broderick-Beckwith partnership. So what was James Beckwith's share? It's not beyond the realms of possibility that he was given the pottery's copper transfer plates - amongst them those he'd saved from fire in 1836 - to sell on. We already know they formed a significant proportion of the pottery's assets.
So it would seem that Moore's acquired the transfer plates from Beckwith sometime after 1852. That's slightly earlier than I'd supposed (my guess was c1855), but there's no knowing how long it would have taken to find a buyer.
Huge thanks to Rebecca Wallis at the Victoria and Albert Museum for providing photos of the lustre pot donated by the Fairbairns family (shown below). It should appear in their on-line catalogue soon. N.B. several of the Sunderland potteries produced items with similar stylised houses and trees. This pot proves, however, that Newbottle indeed produced pink/purple lustre items.
First of all, huge thanks to Jennifer Morrison, Tyne and Wear Archaeology Officer, for pointing me to a copy of Andrew D Fletcher's booklet, 'The Newbottle Potteries', which is crammed full of census information, details from deeds, and press cuttings, set out in date order.
Two entries in particular caught my eye. Firstly, an extract from the Sunderland Herald, January 2nd, 1836, titled 'Fire at Newbottle'.
On Monday last a fire broke out in Newbottle Pottery, belonging to Messrs Robert Fairbairn & Co. The flames were first discovered at 11 in the evening. Fortunately the water barrels of the establishment were well replenished at the time, and by the prompt exertion of those about the premises, (amongst whom the women were particularly diligent) the fire was speedily extinguished. The painting shop, however and the store belonging to the dish making department, were, in spite of their exertions, entirely consumed, and a quantity of unfinished earthenware was destroyed. By the commendable activity of two men of the names of Holmes and Beckwith, upwards of £100 worth of copper plates was got out previous to the destruction of the printing shop. The amount of damage is not yet ascertained.
This story gives a feel for the various buildings at Newbottle, but surely the most striking aspect is the value of the copper plates. Two men perhaps risked their lives to save them. I got varying answers when trying to look up what £100 in 1836 would be worth today, but the next extract puts the figure into perspective.
Fletcher includes a transfer deed from 1850 including a description of the pottery as follows.
On the gateway or road leading into the pottery on the west and also all that pottery consisting of two kilns with several pan-houses, packing houses, warehouse, workmen's houses and other erections and buildings with the open yard and vacant ground premises formerly belonging to the owners of the Newbottle Pottery and now to the Earl of Durham [... ] subject to a provision of redemption in such indenture contained on payment by the said John Broderick & James Beckwith (who have purchased the said premises for the sum of £350.00).
I've omitted a rambling list of names in the middle, but the interesting detail is the sum of £350 in 1850 for premises relative to the sum of £100 in 1836 for copper plates. Copper plates were precious - worth risking your neck for - and made up a hefty chunk of the overall value of a pottery. So little wonder if when the Broderick and Beckwith partnership ended, they decided to sell the transfer plates as a separate item, and looked outside Newbottle to get the best price for them. This, I think, gives a credible explanation for why they ended up at Moore's.
In my previous post I wrote about the attribution of a group of transfers - which appear on pink-lustre items c1845-55 - to Newbottle High Pottery. I've found no record yet of pink-lustre items having been made at that pottery, so the attribution raises all sorts of questions. Was the pottery large enough to have produced all the items with the group 2 transfers? It would have required a reasonable number of potters, printers and painters. What event in the 1850s caused the transfer plates to move from Newbottle to Moore's? What were the links between those Sunderland potteries? Why did Newbottle stop making pink-lustre items and revert to making brown ware and flower pots as described in Baker?
Firstly, click here to see the limited group of items donated to the V&A, by W H Fairbairns, 'grandson of the owner of Newbottle High pottery'. Not an item of pink lustre among them.
Baker states that, almost a century before, the Austin, Moore, Scott and Dixon families had lived around Newbottle and trained as potters at the firm of Byers and Co, Newbottle. Anthony Scott appears to have managed that pottery for a period up until 1788, before setting up his own business in Southwick. Robert Fairbairns then ran the pottery until sometime after c1841. So the items in the V&A all likely predate the 1840s, and perhaps pink lustre wasn't being produced at Newbottle during that period.
Sometime between 1841 and 1851 the pottery was taken over by John Brodrick and James Beckworth (Baker). I'm indebted to Norman Lowe who has looked up census records from around that time. He writes:
The number of people apparently working in the pottery industry in Newbottle were: 1841, 29; 1851, 40; and 1861, 31. So it seems that the Newbottle potteries were more active in 1851 than either before or afterwards. Of these, 7 people were there throughout including James Beckwith. There were no members of the Brodrick family there in 1841, and also no members of the Fairbairns family at any time in the period.
This fits with our narrative, that between c1845-55 Newbottle stepped up its production and had the capacity to make a significant body of lustre pottery. It also suggests that by then the Fairbairns family had ceased involvement with the pottery, and gives us a face-value explanation for why lustre items from that period don't form part of the gift to the V&A. Baker states the number of people employed by Beckwith and Brodrick in 1851 as 46: 22 men, 13 women and 11 boys.
Norman further writes that:
In 1851 a pottery (apparently the “High” pottery) was clearly owned by John Brodrick and James Beckwith. It would seem to have been a fairly significant concern as there was one pottery painter, 6 printers, a platemaker, 3 turners, a cutter, and 22 general workers. There was also Thomas Swailes, an earthenware dealer, so they presumably had their own salesman. By 1856 the partnership seems to have terminated and in 1861 Beckwith had retired, Brodrick had disappeared, presumably died, but John Beckwith, son of James, 30 is still listed as a potter. Baker indicates that this development was mainly for brown ware and closed down before 1878.
So my view is that, up to 1851 at least, a Newbottle pottery, owned by Brodrick and Beckwith, was a going concern with printers and a painter. Perhaps, then, the sale of transfers to [Moore's] was after they split up sometime in the mid-1850s.
Again this dovetails with the attribution of a large number of transfer-printed lustre items to Newbottle c1845-55. What's more, Norman provides a credible reason for the transfer plates moving to Moore's in the mid 1850s. The pottery, perhaps finding it hard to compete with its larger Sunderland neighbours - Dixon's, Moore's and Scott's - decided to focus on producing less labour-intensive items.
Norman further adds that in 1841:
The total number of people working in pottery in Sunderland including Newbottle was 282, so the 29 at Newbottle was 10% of the total. We know that there were 30 at North Hylton, so that leaves 223 for the remainder, Garrison, Dawson, Moore and Scott (ignoring any others), an average of 56 each. In other words Newbottle and North Hylton were each just over half the size of the “major” potteries. By 1851 we’ve lost North Hylton but the 40 at Newbottle is still 10% of the 395 for Sunderland as a whole.
None of this proves that Newbottle High Pottery made the pink-lustre items with the group 2 transfers. It does, however, suggest that it was possible for the pottery to have produced plaques in those kind of numbers.
We're trying to get hold of a copy of Andrew Fletcher's 'Potteries of Newbottle' (2005), which might further help. If you have one, or know the author, please get in touch.
Two items of interest have come up since I wrote my last post. Firstly, a brown-bordered plaque with the 'plate 3' Prepare transfer. So it appears that the transfer plate did make it to Moore's after all, but was very rarely used by that pottery. Secondly, a Newbottle-attributed plaque with the 'plate 3' Praise Ye transfer came up at auction this week. Unusually, it is of the larger-sized plaque mould, on which Richard Cobden appears, and has the flower decoration around the transfer that appears to be specific to Newbottle.
In my June 14 post, I looked at transfers I'd attributed to Scott's, and divided them into two groups. The group 1 transfers were straightforward enough, because they were traceable back to known Scott wares from the 1830s and 40s. The group 2 transfers' only link with Scott's was that they appeared on the brown-bordered plaques from the 1860s. However, I've since reattributed the brown-bordered plaques to Moore's. So that leaves us with an orphaned group of plaques with group 2 transfers from c1835-1860, the period before they likely arrived at Moore's.
To recap, here are the transfers. Firstly the religious verses.
The plate 2 Prepare transfer appears on a variety of plaque forms. The first below is attributed to Newbottle, the rest are currently homeless.
The plate 3 Prepare transfer also appears to have started life at Newbottle High Pottery, and is found on a similar limited group of plaque forms...
Likewise, the plate 3 Thou God transfer...
...and the plate 3 Praise Ye transfer.
So if the transfers above started life at Newbottle in the 1830s and ended at Moore's in the 1860s, the strongest contenders to have made the (as yet unattributed) pink-lustre plaques above are Newbottle and Moore's.
The argument for Newbottle... The black and yellow Praise Ye plaque was presented to the V&A in 1905 by a descendant of the owners of Newbottle High Pottery, along with a variety of other items. Some have questioned the breadth of objects donated, but archaeological digs of the High Pottery site have since confirmed the provenance of the most contentious items. The fact that Newbottle had two Prepare transfer plates suggests it was making plaques in considerable quantities.
The argument against Newbottle... Very little is known about the lustre items Newbottle produced, as they don't appear to have marked anything (all the plaques above are unmarked).
The argument for Moore's... Most of the 'group 2' transfers appear on brown-bordered plaques now attributed to Moore's.
The argument against Moore's... We have a very clear idea of what Moore's was doing in the 1840-50s, and there's no evidence they used any of the plaque forms above, which never appear with Moore transfers. Conversely, the group 2 transfers don't appear on Moore plaque forms until c1860. Furthermore, there's no evidence of Moore's decorating plaques with hand-painted flowers or green (or blue) corners. And, the Prepare plate 3 above doesn't appear on brown-bordered plaques, so apparently never made it to Moore's.
So it's looking like a one-horse race. If it were just the plaques above, we might say why not? And allow the new attribution to pass with little more thought. But attributing the group 2 transfers to Newbottle opens the doors for a an array of other plaques, which, until now, had no links with that pottery.
The non-religious group 2 transfers are set out below.
The May Peace and Plenty transfer appears on c1845-55 plaques of similar forms to those above, some of those with green or blue corners.
The Mariners' Arms and Mariners' Compass transfers also appear on these plaque forms, and another (shown third below), which at first glance looks like a Dixon plaque, but is more heavily potted.
A transfer of Richard Cobden appears on the small rectangular group 2 form (first below). It also appears on rectangular plaques, larger than those with brown borders attributed to Moore. It's likely these were made c1846, when the Corn Laws were repealed.
A verse dedicated to R. Cobden also appears on the small rectangular plaques, and plaques with blue corners. A verse titled The Farmer sometimes pairs with the R. Cobden verse, and appears on plaques with blue corners and plaques decorated with flowers like those above.
And finally, a view of the Cast Iron Bridge Over the River Wear also appears on the group 2 plaque forms.
So that makes a hermetic group of 11 transfers and at least 7 plaque moulds, that don't precisely match anything produced by the larger Sunderland potteries - Dixon's, Scott's or Moore's - until c1860 when the transfers appear on the Moore-attributed brown-bordered plaques. All this is consistent with the transfer plates and moulds being at a self-contained location - a smaller pottery producing lustre items. And we have a credible Newbottle provenance, for the religious plaques at least.
More research needs to be done, but the only realistic attribution for these plaques, with the information currently available, is Newbottle High Pottery.
Stephen Smith lives in London, and is always happy to hear from other collectors. If you have an interesting collection of plaques, and are based in the UK, he will photograph them for you. Free advice given regarding selling and dispersal of a collection, or to those wishing to start one. Just get in touch...
This website is indebted to collectors, dealers and enthusiasts who have shared their knowledge or photos. In particular: Ian Holmes, Stephen Duckworth, Dick Henrywood, Norman Lowe, Keith Lovell, Donald H Ryan, Harold Crowder, Jack and Joyce Cockerill, Myrna Schkolne, Elinor Penna, Ian Sharp, Shauna Gregg at the Sunderland Museum, Keith Bell, Martyn Edgell, and Liz Denton.