Bow Porcelain Glaze Compositions Associated with the Phosphate
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
31063_rsov_proceedings_128.2 21:02:11 12-01-30 Yellow Magenta Cyan Black Sect 1 Front Sect 1 Front Yellow Magenta Cyan Black 21:02:11 12-01-30 31063_rsov_proceedings_128.2 BOW PORCELAIN: GLAZE COMPOSITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PHOSPHATIC WARES ~1742–1774 WILLI A M R.H. RA MS A Y 1, KEN SUTTON 2 & ELIZ AB ET H G. RA MS A Y 3 1,2Faculty of Health, Humanities and Computing, Southern Institute of Technology, Tay Street, Inver- cargill, 9810, New Zealand. 1Email: [email protected]. 2Email: [email protected]. 3The Southland Museum and Art Gallery, Queens Park, Invercargill, 9810, New Zealand. Email: [email protected]. RA MS A Y W.R.H., SUTTON K & RA MS A Y E.G., 2011. Bow porcelain: Glaze compositions associated with the phosphatic wares ~1742–1774. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 123(2): 161-171. ISSN 0035-9211. Glaze compositions associated with 23 Bow phosphatic porcelain wares are presented. These composi- tions represent a transect through the manufactory’s bone ash production, stretching from the mid 1740s through to the closure of the concern in the mid 1770s. The glaze employed was essentially a three compo- nent SiO2-PbO-K2O glaze with PbO > 40 wt%. CaO is a small but persistent additive. These glazes show a cryptic compositional drift over time with a minor increase in K2O relative to SiO2 and PbO. Likewise SiO2 increases through time relative to PbO. Key words: Bow porcelain, glaze, composition, bone ash. BY 1750 east of London on the Essex boundary with tion in America, and a glass, assumed to represent Middlesex, a porcelain manufactory known widely a lime-alkali glass, used in various proportions for as ‘New Canton’ or more simply as ‘Bow’was op- both the porcelain body and the glaze. This detailed erating and this concern had by 1755 a turn-over in specification has for various reasons over the last 100 china sold to the value of £18,115 8s 9d (Adams and years been both marginalised and underestimated by Redstone, 1981). The proprietors listed on the first numerous workers and Ramsay et al. (2006) review extant insurance policy for the Bow China Manufac- the various reasons as to why these misconceptions tory with the Sun Assurance Company and dated July and confusion have arisen. Moreover the Si-Al-Ca 7th, 1749 were Thomas Frye, a portrait painter and porcelains, products of this patent, have now been mezzotint artist, Edward Heylyn, a member of the identified (Ramsay and Ramsay 2007b; Ramsay et Saddlers’ Company and an active merchant with the al. 2003). The site of manufacture of these Bow first New World, and John Weatherby and John Crowther patent wares is uncertain but was likely to have been —both glass sellers with a wholesale pottery business in the vicinity of Bow village, located on or close to at St Catherine’s-by-the-Tower. A fifth member of the the Middlesex-Essex boundary. group has generally been assumed to be Alderman Subsequently Thomas Frye filed a second patent George Arnold, a wealthy linen-draper, alderman of in 1749 known variously as the Bow second patent, the City of London, and an apparent land speculator the 1749 patent, or the 1749 patent of Thomas Frye. in the Carolinas. The first documentary evidence that This patent stipulates the use of crushed silica, pipe at least two of these proprietors were interested in clay, and a substance referred to as ‘virgin earth’. It the manufacture of porcelain relates to the so-called has now been demonstrated that virgin earth com- 1744 patent of Heylyn and Frye, which was filed in prised variable mixtures of bone ash, glass cullet, and December 1744 and entered or ‘inrolled’ in April of gypsum (Ramsay and Ramsay 2007b). It is widely the following year, though see Daniels and Ramsay regarded that it was this recipe or paste specifica- (2009) who demonstrate, using the letter by John tion, dominated by bone ash, which sustained the Campbell, that Bow was in existence most likely factory through to closure in 1774 and became the by the 1730’s. This patent specifies the use of white subsequent basis for the English bone china industry. clay known as uneka1the produce of the Chirokee na- Numerous detailed accounts and/or exhibitions of the Bow factory and its output have appeared commenc- 1 Here the Cherokee Indian spelling of the word is used rather than the Anglicised version unaker ing with Hurlbutt (1926), followed by Tait (1959), 161 31063_rsov_proceedings_128.2 21:02:11 12-01-30 Yellow Magenta Cyan Black Sect 1 Back 162 W.R.H. RAMSAY, K. SUTTON & E.G. RAMSAY and then more recently by Adams and Redstone METHODS AND RESULTS (1981), Gabszewicz and Freeman (1982), Brad- shaw (1992), Gabszewicz (2000a), and Begg and Micro samples of glaze from a range of Bow phos- Taylor (2000). Current and recent research (Daniels phatic porcelains covering the bulk of the bone ash 2007; Daniels and Ramsay 2009; Ramsay and Ram- output from ~1742–1774 were collected, mounted say 2005, 2007a, 2007b, 2008; Ramsay et al. 2003, in epoxy blocks, polished, and subjected to analysis 2004a, 2004b, 2011) demonstrates that this ceramic using a JEOL 840A scanning electron microscope concern has been considerably underestimated by equipped with an Oxford Instruments ATW X-ray previous workers at several levels - compositionally, Energy Dispersive Spectrometer. Operating and de- technically, artistically, and chronologically. Ram- tection levels are as specified in Ramsay and Ramsay say and Ramsay (2007b) argue that the confluence (2007b: Appendix 1). Major components of the glaz- demonstrated by the Bow porcelain manufactory in es comprise SiO2, PbO, and K2O, which collectively intellect, technological development, entrepreneurial comprise some 93wt % or more of each glaze. Other drive, financial acumen, and the linkages with the minor constituents often include Na2O, Al2O3, MgO, best in the English artistic world including painting, and persistent CaO. Average analyses for each of the engraving, and sculpture all contained within a few four groups are given in Table 2. In the case of the years, is possibly unparalleled in the entire history of Tidswell period one analysis only is available. British decorative arts. Three analyses are presented for the Develop- In a previous contribution (Ramsay and Ramsay, mental period and these are characterised by low 2007b) the compositional range of the first patent Si- K2O relative to the other three groups. Average K2O Al-Ca porcelains and the second patent phosphatic is 1.4 wt% whilst PbO is high at 52% and CaO is wares produced by Bow, ranging from the Develop- prominent at an average of 2.9%. Twelve analyses mental period2 (~1742–1743) through to the Tidswell are available for the Defoe-New Canton period. PbO period (1770–1774) was presented. This composi- averages 48.7%, SiO2 44.5%, and K2O 2.4%. CaO is tional stratigraphy was erected based on results ob- still a minor component averaging 1.9%. During the tained from the sampling of dated porcelain items Bowcock period PbO declines and for the seven sam- and the dated specifications of the first and second ples averages 41.9% whilst SiO2 surpasses PbO at patents. In addition a record by Josiah Wedgwood of 50.2%. K2O likewise increases relative to both PbO the composition used by Bow by the mid-late 1750’s and SiO2 and averages 3.7%. CaO remains essential- was also integrated with this compositional stratigra- ly static at an average of 1.65%. One glaze sample phy (Table 1). for the Tidswell period is available and this compares This new contribution documents the composi- with the average for the Bowcock period with SiO2 tion of the lead-dominated glazes associated with 51.4%, PbO 40.1%, K2O 4.1%, and CaO 1.7 wt%. the Bow phosphatic wares. The key objective of this For all groups, sulphur as SO2, looks to be a little high work is the need to elucidate the variability of the in some instances, possibly reflecting interference glaze compositions used on phosphatic wares at Bow with Pb peaks. through time and to determine whether there are, if These results demonstrate that the Bow glaze any, distinct changes in glaze composition coinciding composition used on the phosphatic wares was with the documented changes in porcelain composi- broadly constant over a thirty year period from c. tion. The glaze compositions arrived at have been 1742–1774. The glaze type is high-lead glaze with grouped according to the compositional classifica- PbO >40% and K2O varying from 0.8–4.9%. CaO tion of their host porcelain bodies as given by Ram- is a small but ubiquitous component, which ranges say and Ramsay (2007b). from 0.3–4.4%. Whilst there is a general homogene- ity in the high-lead glaze used at Bow, when broken down into groups based on the porcelain body reci- pes a subtle cryptic drift in glaze composition can be 2 Ramsay and Ramsay (2007b) dated the onset of the Devel- opmental period to ~1746. Current research strongly sug- discerned with both an absolute and relative increase gests that a range of experimental Bow phosphatic bodies in K2O when compared to both SiO2 and PbO and most likely dates back to the 1730s. For this contribution a concomitant decline in PbO (Table 2, Fig. 1). The the base of the Developmental period is placed at ~1742 and highest absolute levels of PbO (~58 wt%) are to be the base of the Defoe-New Canton period (formerly New found in glazes used during the Developmental and Canton period) at ~1744.