On his appointment, says Bachelier, his first care was to abandon ‘_la grossière imitation du Japon_’, and to furnish the _ateliers_ with pictures, models, and prints, ‘_dans tous les genres, pour remplacer les productions chinoises qu’on y copiait encore_.’[183] Both M. de Fulvi and his brother died in 1751, the company was broken up, and but for the energy and influence of a certain M. Hultz, of whom nothing further is known, the manufacture would have come to an end. We must remember that on the death of the finance minister, his former enemy, Madame de Pompadour, practically took his place. Her power was at that time at its height (she ‘reigned’ from 1745 to her death in 1764), so that we may perhaps regard the M. Hultz of Bacheliers memoir as one of the favourite’s ‘ghosts.’ It was certainly the influence of the Marquise de Pompadour that induced Louis XV., in 1753, to sign the _arrêt_ by which the title of _Manufacture Royale de Porcelaine_ was conferred on the establishment. At the same time many important privileges were granted. The establishment was now removed to Sèvres, where a plot of ground containing some glass-works, the property of the favourite, was bought for 66,000 livres, and the new factory set up in an adjacent domain that had formerly belonged to the musician Lully. The king subscribed for a quarter of the new capital. The troubles, however, were not yet ended: the workshops were badly built and badly arranged. Finally, in 1759, Louis took over all the shares of the company, which was at that time in liquidation. A yearly grant of 96,000 livres secured the financial position. In all these arrangements we see the hand of the Pompadour, and still more in the keen way in which the business side of the establishment was pushed. At the New Year a sale took place at Versailles, in the palace. The king presided, and fixed the prices of the porcelain. A large purchase of china on these occasions was a sure way to royal favour and promotion.[184] A good deal of uncertainty hangs over the nature of the early work produced at Vincennes, and no definite mark has been assigned to the factory, before the time when the permission to use the double L was granted, in 1751 or 1753. When, however, the royal cipher occurs without a year letter, there is some presumption in favour of a date previous to the latter year (PL. D. 55). We should infer from what Bachelier tells us that up to 1748 the designs were chiefly derived from Oriental china. But in addition the following forms and styles were in use in the pre-royal period at Vincennes:--