Which cups go with what saucers?

I saw this while out shopping today.
I wondered what the wee saucer was for and found the 755 cup not far away.
I put them together and lo ... they fit.
The saucer is small. It measures just 13.9mm across.
Could it be a 739 vitrified saucer?
Cup and saucer have the same glaze and back stamp, and they fit,
but the handle is just 1.5mm short of the perimeter of the saucer.
Do they belong together?


18/6/14 yes it is a 739. Yes they are a correct pairing, although later the 739 was replaced by the 4619 as the correct saucer for the Carlton cup. See also:
http://newzealandpottery.forumotion.net/t5249-vitrified-cups-and-saucers-a-guide#19616

Yes, I believe these do go together. I have a few of these sets, same cup and saucer.  

Ta, leish.
I'll assume the saucer is the 739 for now and have a look though the gallery later to see if there are any others.

The 739 is the vitrified version of the 805 coupe [shallow] shape which would have to be the most common saucer shape Crown Lynn made as it accommodated tulips and shape 25 cups.  However there are numerous vitrified saucers and only a few are in the Gallery from the Museum records and I think they will be one of the hardest shapes to identify as there are no measurements and no photos/drawings.

I am presenting here three duos, all assumed to be the standard pairing of 781 and 805.
Fleurette is the only pattern I had to work with. I have 13 cups and 15 saucers.

Setting aside Duo 1 the cups and saucers are about 50/50 Duo 1 and Duo 2 as they are shown below.
To some extent the pictures speak for themselves but I have added notes anyway.

I believe the order I have given is order of manufacture. Duo 1, 2, 3 left to right.

Duo 1 is a freak. Larger saucer, "5" impressed on cup base, different handle, lighter weight
Duo 2 Saucer foot ring matches Duo 1 in diameter, handle is high, impressed NEW ZEALAND on cup
Duo 3 Larger foot ring on saucer, handle is low, raised MADE IN NEW ZEALAND on cup, heavier weight





The differences I have stated are consistent throughout all the cups and saucers I have.
All Duo 3s are heavier than Duo 2s. All handles are higher on Duo 2s than Duo 3s.
Duo 1 differs a lot from both Duos 2 & 3. Besides what I have already said you may note for yourself that the pattern is also coarser on Duo 1.

Although I have presented only Fleurette here I believe these differences will be consistent throughout the 781s and 805s, including Colour Glaze and patterned sets.

However, I also have one Caribbean Ware saucer which I bought with a South Pacific cup of the same colour, already paired, from an op-shop in Hikurangi. There were no tulips in sight. The cup has no obvious marking but held in a certain way with the light just right I believe i can see an impressed NEW ZEALAND mark. I have read elsewhere that the pairing of Caribbean Ware saucer and South Pacific cup is incorrect.
This saucer has the small foot ring (same diameter as Duo 2) but the ring is heavier than those on the Fleurette saucers. The weight is also consistent with that of the Duo 2 saucers. It stands higher than all my Fleurette saucers, but is the same diameter (give or take) as all but the freak (Duo 1). I have no explanation for any of this.

(What I have not discussed above is the SIZE of the green backstamp:
It does vary but the variation is not necessarily consistent with the shape differences.)

Update
I'd hazard a guess the the cup in my Duo 3 is a 3062, which superseded the 781 (but don't hold me to it). I have not yet found whether the matched saucer has had a number change too. Ev tells me that later saucer was a 4058.
Update 9/2/12 PM
I've been looking through the Collectors Guide at cups with the handle type of my Duo 1. Val dates them all late 50s, early 60s. None have either New Zealand mark on the base, and all are quite fine. Patterns include: Rose Marie British, Kelston British, and Gay Gold British. Fleurette also dates from late 50s (or early 60s).

OMG!   And I thought Fleurette was simple.

Glenys,
The Fleurette is incidental, and may be a bit of a distraction.
It's just that these are the only tulips I had to play with in making a study of the 781s and 805s.

I'm on a journey to find out whether the vitrified duo above is a correct pairing, and whether the saucer is a 739. (leish's comments were very helpful but I need to work through it myself.) 805s is the first leg.

--------------------------------------------------
Matching pieces of Fleurette to make up a set is harder than patterns or Colour Glaze because they are handpainted and you can see the variations in the painting.
Most of mine came as a set but I have had to buy some replacements too.
You have to be very patient to get them at an affordable price.

And if you want to make Fleurette really difficult you could move on to the later shapes, which I have avoided. They may be sturdier but the simple shape contrasted with the pattern is really what makes it look good.

The 805 saucer was given the four digit number of 4058 but it doesn't have a date when first made.  It is recorded between the Rimmed Oatmeal Greece 4051 made in 1981 and the Embossed Jam Dish 4059 made in 1982.  
Hmmm now I see all of those coupe shaped plates listed with their four digit numbers and will have to try and find some ..... !
I guess any of the coupe shape patterns made after 1964 would do ...?

Edits to add:
1981 and 1982 price lists show that they were still using the old three digit numbers for 781 cups and 805 saucers ..... very odd when all of the other shapes have four digits.

I'm surprised it's so late. Were tulips still being made then, or was it for shape 25s (were they being made then)?
There is no pic in the gallery for 4058.

Autumn Splendour was still being made in 1981 and used the shape numbers 781 cup and 805 saucer. As far as I know Autumn Splendour never had a matching shape 25 cup.
I just found this info Jeremy and I'm not sure what to use as an example in the Gallery as I can't find any record of anything made using that number and perhaps I should stop using surrogates ...?

Hasn't been a problem to anyone but me has it?
I think it best to have as many gallery places filled as possible,
so I wouldn't remove anything.
If there was a way to indicate a surrogate that might be helpful,
and possibly even allow you to put a few more numbers in too.
For the 4058 for example you could use a non-committal (say, white) 805 to give an idea of the shape. Better than nothing.
It may even turn out that the one you use really is a 4058!

BTW I am amazed that no one has turned up an 863 vitrified tulip yet.
I think it would be the perfect cup. Shape and durability.
You said elsewhere that the 739 was the vitrified version of the 805.
Presumably it is the saucer to match the 863 (which I see has already disappeared from the gallery). If it was the same size as well as shape it is not the right number for the one I have paired with the 755. [18/6/14 739 is smaller than 805 and was the correct saucer for the 755, although 755s were later sold with 4619 saucers.]

And more importantly, Ev, I'd appreciate your comments on my thoughts about three shapes of tulip and saucer, in this topic and also in the impressed New Zealand topic.

I have a duck egg vitrified tulip - it is a fraction smaller than the usual tulip cup. Is that the one you mention Jeremy? How do you tell if its the number you are after?   

leish, it sounds good. To be honest I really have no idea but Ev may. If it is a vitrified tulip cup then it just may be the 863, and we have a gap in the gallery waiting for it.

I see you have not posted photos before but you have emailed.
You seem to be watching the forum keenly so it would be good to learn to post them yourself. It's tricky at first but easy when you know.

I'm guessing you have a few other treasures members and guests would like to see and read about. Whichever way you choose to go about it, in my opinion it would be good to have a shot comparing it with a standard tulip, and perhaps another clear shot for the gallery if Ev thinks it's the right one.

I'd love to see it.

Duck Egg Blue is all vitrified, so I would be thrilled to see a tulip in that glaze thanks leish

Righto, I've just seen my kiddies out the door and off to school so will get onto some photos! Yay! 

Jeremy Ashford wrote:leish, it sounds good. To be honest I really have no idea but Ev may. If it is a vitrified tulip cup then it just may be the 863, and we have a gap in the gallery waiting for it.

I see you have not posted photos before but you have emailed.
You seem to be watching the forum keenly so it would be good to learn to post them yourself. It's tricky at first but easy when you know.

I'm guessing you have a few other treasures members and guests would like to see and read about. Whichever way you choose to go about it, in my opinion it would be good to have a shot comparing it with a standard tulip, and perhaps another clear shot for the gallery if Ev thinks it's the right one.

I'd love to see it.

I've just sent photos to the site - I promised to do my best to learn how to post them myself asap!
Sorry to create another job for you to do Ev!

Cat-a-lat wrote:Cup shape 754 with matching, but unknown shape number saucer, Symphony British backstamp. Saucer is a classic shallow bowl shape.

Cat-a-lat, the 754, below, sits happily on an 805 but I gather from your matched pair above, and your observation that the saucer has a "classic shallow bowl shape", that the 805 is not correct.
Kelston Potteries 754 on Fleurette 805 saucer.

18/6/14 I believe the 805 is a replacement for a similar, earlier, saucer shape that dates from before the 700 and 800 numbers were allotted, which I think was not until mid- or late-1950s. Thus, there will be no number for some slightly larger diameter early tulip and early 754 cups.*

30/5/15
*I now realise why, to some extent, there is an apparent randomness to 700 and 800 numbers which I have previously put down to belated numbering.

What I now find to be the case is that as items numbered became obsolete (eg Toby jugs), the numbers were re-allotted to new shapes. By 1964 the number of new shapes exceeded available three digit numbers and a new four digit numbering system was established.

The 805 saucer shape appears to be quite an old shape, and like most tableware shapes underwent constant modification over the duration of Crown Lynn's existence, in this case slight reduction in diameter and significant increase in thickness.