It is really no exaggeration to say that in the minds of many collectors of Derby porcelain, the name Bloor (very rarely prefaced with 'Robert') is contemplated with negativity and, perhaps, even derision. Such a negative viewpoint is really very unfair, as we hope we can make clear.
Robert Bloor was born on a date currently unknown, but unlikely to have been much later than c.1780, given that he purchased, in 1811, the Derby porcelain works from Michael Kean (an Irishman who had run the business in a generally satisfactory manner from 1796, the year Duesbury II died) and William Duesbury III, who never took any active part in managing, or running, the business.
Bloor had been involved in running the business, in the capacity of clerk and salesman, for some time before the 1811 purchase. It is, incidentally, not clear how Bloor had managed to acquire the very substantial sum of £5,000, plus the purchase of various annuities (the value of which we have been unable to determine), which he utilised to pay for the business, and this is, we would have thought, a fertile area for further academic study.
That Bloor was able to buy the business was, ignoring any questions of his financial wherewithal, itself fairly remarkable. There had been considerable infighting amongst the factory owners. Bloor was not regarded particularly favourably and there were even some suggestions that he might have been a toper. He nevertheless entered into a lease, by means of hire purchase, of the premises and business in 1811. He remained the owner until his death in 1846.
Having bought the Derby concern, Bloor, who undeniably possessed considerable commercial acumen, commenced the process of expanding the business of the company to levels never hithertofore seen. It has historically been the case that academics have reviled Bloor for allowing the quality of the body of the porcelain, and, much more controversially, the quality of the painting, to deteriorate. Whilst there is definite truth in the former allegation, the latter is much more easily refuted. It is really pretty hard to substantiate the charge that the overall quality of production diminished under Bloor. During the period that he was actively and deeply involved in running the business, he employed artists of great quality, such as John Hancock Jr., William Cotton, Moses Webster, George Robertson, Leonard Lead, Richard Dodson and, pre-eminent of all, William 'Quaker' Pegg. Although the painting and, especially, the gilding, could be said to be somewhat showy, that design ethic was firmly in keeping with the spirit of the Regency age.
It is, we would suggest, an absurdity to throw opprobrium at Bloor for providing precisely the products that his customers clearly wanted. It was certainly a significant, if not decisive, factor in the decline of the Flight Barr enterprise that their owner's failure to adapt to the falling demand for neoclassical designs led to a gradual decline in that business and its eventual absorption by their arch-rivals, Chamberlain's. That Bloor produced pieces to a price and, in doing so, possibly allowed the porcelain body somewhat to deteriorate, seems to us to be a commercial decision that, on balance, worked. It is worth saying that the Derby Mercury, at least, writing in 1825, took the view that a Bloor service produced in that year "for the express use of a nobleman" was "superior in every respect to any ever before got up in this town". Whatever, had he not taken control of the Derby concern at the time that he did, it seems that it is at least a possibility and, perhaps, a probability, that the business would have failed altogether in, or around, 1811.
It is, of course, fair to say that eventually Bloor's customers started to turn to other manufacturers, whose wares were themselves (at least so far as the body was concerned) of superlative quality (Ridgway/Daniel et cetera) but much of that loss of business occurred from, and after, the time when Bloor was heading towards insanity; in 1828 he had to retire from the business altogether and took no further part in it, though it remained in his ownership until his death in 1846.
In addition to the fact that Bloor possibly saved the company, should also be borne in mind the fact that he added to the range and maintained the reputation of many of the company's products. For example, the wide range of figures produced by the pre-Bloor Derby business was continued and, indeed, added to, by means of examples modelled by the sons of Samuel Keys.
On balance, we think it is reasonable to say that Robert Bloor deserves, perhaps, a more august position in the pantheon of the greatest British porcelain manufacturers. His business was just that-a business. He most certainly was not an artist, but it is also debatable whether any of his rivals could truly be said to be so. Ultimately, they had to be in tune with the aesthetic desires of their clientele, so as to achieve commercial success and, perhaps more importantly, to steer well clear of the possibility of bankruptcy-which could lead to imprisonment at that point in time! Even more importantly, and if our comments as to the possible failure of the business in 1811 are correct, it is down to Bloor that the Derby concern has an unbroken history from 1748 until the present date.
We wonder whether part of the reason that Bloor pieces are not as well regarded as they should be is because, currently, there is no textbook specifically relating to that period of the company's production. We, however, have no aversion to stocking the works of the Bloor Derby factory! We usually have pieces dating from the Bloor period in stock. Not all are, however, listed on the website, for reasons of space. If you would like to know exactly what we have for sale, please let us know.
The photo is of a lovely Bloor inkset recently sold by us.