GEORGE L. MILLER

Classification andEconomic Scalingof 19th CenturyCeramics

ABSTRACT

Archaeologi cal classification of ceramics is an out­growth of the study of material from 17th and 18thcentury sites and as such they reflect the classificationsystem in use during those centurie s. By the 19thcen­tury the range of wares available was greatly reduceddue to the success of the English ceramic industrywhich displaced many fine ware types such as whitesalt glazed stoneware and tin-glazed earthenware. Themajor type available in the 19th century was Englishwhite earthenware which included creamware, pearl­ware, whiteware , and the stone chinas. By the 19thcentury classification of these wares by potters ,merchants, and people who used them was by howthey were decorated (i.e., painted , edged, dipped,printed etc .) rather than the ware types as defined byarchaeologists. Using a classification based on decora­tion will achieve two things: an ability to integratearch aeological data with historical data and establish­ment of a more consistent classification system than isnow possible using ware types .

The second part of this paper generate s a set of indexvalues from price lists, bills of lading, and accountbooks which can be used to study the expendituresmade on cups , plates, and bowls from archaeologicalassemblages from the first half of the 19th century .Expenditure patterns from five sites are discussed .

Introduction

Ceramic classification by historical archae­ologists has developed through a synthesis ofceramic history and knowledge of the com­mon ceramic types recovered from excava­tions. Prior to the mid-l960s, most historicalarchaeology projects involved 17th and 18thcentury projects such as Jamestown,Williamsburg, Fort Michilimakinac, andLouisbourg. The study of ceramics from thesesites established a typology based on ware

types which are a breakdown of a classifica­tion system that separates ceramics into por­celain, stoneware, and earthenware. Each ofthese broad categories are subdivided intowares. Porcelain for example is subdividedinto hard paste, soft paste , bone china, andoften by country of origin. Stoneware andearthenware are broken into types based onobservable differences in glaze, decoration,and paste , e.g., tin-glazed earthenware, lead­glazed redware, white salt-glazed stoneware,combed slipware, German salt-glazed stone­ware, creamware, rockingham ware, pearl­ware , lustreware, and many others.

Classification of 17th and 18th centurywares do not present great difficulties becauseof major recognizable differences betweenthem. In addition to ease of classification,most of them can be identified as to country oforigin , which facilitates the study of traderelationships. The terminology used forarchaeological assemblages follows that usedby the potters, merchants, and the people whobought the ceramics, thus facilitating synthe­sis of archaeological and historic information.However, in the 19th century things changed.

In the second half of the 18th century, arevolution took place in the English ceramicindustry. This period saw the introduction oftransfer printing , calcinated flint, liquidglazes, Cornish clays , calcinated bone, canalsfor transporting raw materials and finishedproducts into and out of the potteries, steampower for working clay and pottery, tariffsagainst Chinese porcelain, favorable tradetreaties with the Continent, and astute market­ing of creamware which culminated in Englishdomination of the world ceramic tablewaretrade by the 1790s.

Marketing of creamware wrecked havoc inthe pottery industries of England and the con­tinent. Tin-glazed ware, white salt-glazedstoneware, and to some extent even orientalporcelain were displaced from the market. Thepervasiveness of English tableware is wellillustrated by the following comment from B.Faujas de Saint-Font from his travels to

2

England, Scotland and the Hebride s whichwas published in 1797:

Its excellent workmanship, its solidity, the advantagewhich it possesses of sustaining the action of fire, itsfine glaze, impenetrable to acids , the beauty and con­venience of its form, and the cheapness of its price,have given rise to a commerce so active and so univer­sa l that in travelling from Paris to Petersburg, fromAmsterdam to the furthe st part of Sweden , and fromDunk irk to the extremity of the South of France, one isserved at every inn with English ware. Spain, Portugal,and Italy are supplied, and vessels are loaded with itfor the Eas t and West Indies and the continent ofAmerica. (as quoted by Arthur Hayden 1952:135-36).

England's conquest of the world tablewaremarket was through the vehicle of creamware.This ware is an 18th century product, and inthat context it function s like any other warei.e. , it is eas y to identify through the charac ­teri stic s of its glaze and paste . Out of cream­ware evolved pearlware in the 1780s. Laterstone china, ironstone , and whiteware weredeveloped . These emerged out of creamwareand pearlware and are not nearly as identifi­able by differences of glaze and paste.

Table , tea, and toiletware assemblages fromthe 19th century consist almost entirely ofcreamware, pearlware, whiteware , stonechina, and porcelain along with some fairlyrare type s such as basalt and lustre glazedredware. Difference s between creamware,pearlware, whiteware , and stone china areminor when compared to the differencesbetween ware type s in the 17th and 18th cen­turies.

When archaeological interests advanced toinclude 19th century sites , it was quite naturalto expand the ware type classificat ion systemas an evolution of the 18th century types suchas creamware and pearlware. However, bythe 19th century, ceramics were being des­cribed by the type of decoration they re­ceived, and ware types became less impor­tant. Ware types used by archaeologists forclassification of 19th century assemblagesoften depend on such things as a slight amountof blueing in the glaze, absence of blueing in

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 14

the glaze , a slight cream-like color to thepaste, and density or compactness of theware.

These differences in the 19th century are theresult of an evolution of one type out ofanother such as whiteware out of pearlware .Whiteware does not have a date of introduc­tion, but it is known that by the 1820s it wasdeveloping from pearlware. If an assemblageof ceramics from the first half of the 19th cen­tury is placed before six archaeolog ists andthey are asked for counts of creamware, pearl­ware , whiteware, and stone china wares, theresults will probably be six different enumera­tions. The question of how much blueing theglaze has to have before it is pearlware orwhich sherds have the density to be classifiedas stone china all hinge on person al opinions.Attempts have been made to define pearlwareusing the Munsel Color Book (Lofstrom1976:6); however, there is no way of knowingif the archaeological definition of pearlware isthe same as that of 19th century potte rs andmerchants .

Archaeological reports dealing with the firsthalf of the 19th century leave the reader withthe impression that pearlware is one of themajor products of that period. However, whenexamining 19th century documents such asprice fixing lists , account books, bills of lao­ing, and newspaper advertisements, the termpearlware rarely occurs. Simeon Shaw's TheHistory of the Staffordshire Potteries (1829)and Chemistry of. . . . Compounds used in theManufacture of Porcelain, Glass and Pottery(1837), does not mention pearlware except asan unglazed white body developed byChetham and Woolley which was similar tojasper and basalt (Shaw 1829:225). Ivor NoelHume has shown that the term " china­glazed" was used for pearlware in the late18th century, but even this term seems to berather limited in its occurrences (NOel Hume1969a). The term " PEARL WARE" as part ofthe potter's mark was used by two firms, onebeing Chetham and Woolley (1796-1810)which used it for its unglazed white stoneware

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS 3

discussed above. The other firm was Skinnerand Walker which was in business during the1870s (Godden 1964:580). At least IO otherpotters used the world "PEARL'.' a~ part ofceramic marks in such combinations as"PEARL STONE CHINA," "PEARLWHITE," "PEARL CHINA," and "PEARLIRONSTONE" (see Appendix A). Most ofthese firms began operating in the 1830s and1840s and they were producing whitewares,often'with a slight blue tint to the ceramicbody rather than the glaze (Godden 1964).Archaeologists have defined pearlware asthough it was something static; however, anarticle titled "Pearlware" by Mellany Delhompresents a sequence of eight recipes for pearl­ware from the Wedgwood factory dating from1815 to 1846 (Delhom 1977:62-3). TwoWedgwood plates marked " PEARL" in th.eauthor's collection would fall under our classi­fication of whiteware. One of these pieces hasa date code for 1861 . Blue tinted wares fromthe 1850s through the 1860s are discussed inAppendix A. Documents examined for t~is

paper suggest that pearl ware or "Pearl WhiteWare" existed throughout most of the 19thcentury , but its characteristics were continu­ally evolving.

Creamware also lasts out the century ,However, from the 1820s on it is rarely founddecorated, and the variety of forms in which itwas available became limited to such things aslarge kitchen bowls , chamber pots, and bedpans. In almost all 19th century price lists andpotter's and merchant's bills, it is referred toas " CC ware" and is almost never decorated.In short, the ware types archaeologists areattempting to use to classify their collectionsare elusive as to their definitions in the 19thcentury.

What does the present classification systemfor the 19th century ceramics by ware typesgive us?

A. Chronology? Yes, in a rough sort of way.B. Country of origin? It is not a question usually askedbecause almost all fine wares with the except ion ofporcelains in 19th century sites are English.

C. Ease of classification? Definitely not.D. Consistency in classification? Definitely not.E. An ability to integrate data with historicaldocuments? Definitely not.

F. Information on social statu s? Nothing seems to indi­cate that the ware type is related to status with theexception of porcelain .

Social status of any commodity is related tohow much the objects costs. Prices for potterywere determined by how they were decorated.Fortunately, the Staffordshire potters had aseries of price fixing agreements in the 18thand 19th centuries and some of them havesurvived. Price fixing lists are available for1770, 1783, 1795, 1796, 1814, 1833, and 1846(see Appendix B for citations). These pricelists provide cost information for the varioussizes of vessels according to how they aredecorated. They reveal the classification sys­tem used by the potters for their products.

These price ctaegories, based on decora­tion, were well established by the 1790s. Manyof these types were used throughout the 19thcentury. Terms like pearlware, whiteware,stone china, and ironstone rarely appear in theprice lists and account books. Creamware i.sthe only ware type appearing in the lists, and Itappears as "CC" for cream color. On everylist so far examined, CC was used for undec ­orated vessels, and it was the cheapest typeavailable. All other types are defined by theprocess used to decorate the object.

Four groups based on decoration becomeevident from examining these lists . A break­down of the groups are as follows:

First or lowest level: Undecorated-almost alwaysreferred to as CC, but in the second half of the 19thcentury, the terms " Common" and " white' earthen­ware" or " Earthenware" sometimes are used. Un­decoraled vessels after the 1820s tend to be chamberpots, plates, bowls, and forms related to kitchem use.Plain white ironstone is also called stone china, andwhite granite became popular in the 1850s and is anexception to the above . It was higher priced than CCvessels.

Second level: Minimal decoration by minimallyskilled operatives. Types in this group include shell

4

edge, sponge decorated, banded, mocha, and "com­mon cable" (finger trailed slip). In all of these types,there is a fairly wide range in the decoration on onevessel compared to another of the same size and form.For example, two mocha bowls are never exactly alike.Shell edge plates are another good example; the colorcan be applied by a worker oflow skill level because allthat is involved is a series of short brush strokes alongthe rim. Later, in the 1840s and 1850s shell edge vesselsjust have the color applied parallel to the rim, and theydepend on the molding to lend an effect to the edge.The second level encompasses the cheapest ceramicsavailable with decoration.

Third level: This level is made up of painted wareswith motifs such as flowers, leaves, stylized Chineselandscapes or geometric pattern s. With this group thepainters needed to have enough skill to duplicate pat­terns so that sets of matched pieces could be as­sembled . Painting at this simple level produced wareswhich were priced between the second level and trans­fer printed wares . While painted decoration on utili­tarian tea , table, and toilet wares were relatively in­expensive, there is another group of painted wares ofmuch higher quality done by very skilled artist-crafts­men which would rank among the most expensivewares available . However, most of the painted waresfrom North American sites bear simple stylized motifswhich required minimal artistic skill and were almostalways cheaper than transfer printed vessels. Excep­tions to this may be cases where the transfer print isused as an outline for the application of colors . Unfor­tunately, none of the price lists consulted have pro­vided price information on objects which are decoratedby printing in combination with painting.

Fourth level: Transfer printing represents one of thegreat English innovations in decorated ceramics . Bythe l790s underglazed transfer printing was becoming acommon way of decorating ceramics in theStaffordshire potterie s, as indicated by the price fixinglists of 1795 and 1796 (Mountford 1975:10-11). Withtransfer printing it was possible to have intricatelydecorated and exactly matching pieces at a cost farbelow similarly hand painted pieces. In the 17905,transfer printed vessels were three to five times moreexpensive than undecorated CC vessels, but the pricedifferential of printed and CC vessels decreased tobetween one and a half to two times the cost of CC bymid-19th century.

Early in the 19th century, willow pattern was desig­nated as the cheapest transfer printed pattern avail­able , and, as such, it was given its own column in theprice fixing lists. None of the price lists examined indi­cate any price differential based on the color of thetransfer print. However, at least until the 1850s flowprinted patterns were higher priced than regular trans­fer printed patterns. Most North American archaeolo­gical assemblages dating to the first half of the 19thcentury have few wares which exceed transfer printedwares in terms of cost status. The major exception tothis is porcelain for which little has been found in theway of prices . As transfer printed wares became

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY , VOLUME 14

cheaper compared to CC wares, their consumptiongreatly increased . This is particularly observable onsites dating after the War of 1812.

The above four categories are especiallyvalid for the first half of the 19th century andaccount for most of the table, kitchen, andtoilet wares recovered from North Americansites dating to this period. Porcelain is themajor exception to this ; its relationship to theStaffordshire earthenwares will be worked outwhen more price information has been col­lected.

Beginning in the mid-1850s , a major changetakes place in ceramic prices and tastes. Untilthat point, undecorated wares were thecheapest type available . By the mid 1850sprice lists and bills begin listing large quanti­ties of undecorated white ironstone or whitegranite. Prices for this new type are oftenequal to prices for transfer printed vessels ofthe same form and size. Bills of sale forceramics from the late 1850s through the 1870scontain few transfer printed wares, and theyappear to have been replaced by undecoratedironstone. From the mid-19th century, thereappears to be a weaker relationship betweenfinal cost of the vessels and their decoration.An analysis of the movement of undecoratedironstone into a position of status comparableto transfer printed wares would provide aninteresting insight into ceramic marketing atmid-century.

Those who are familiar with ceramics fromthe first half of the 19th century will realizethat the types discussed above encompass alarge proportion of the ceramics recoveredfrom excavations of that period . The majortype missing from the above discussion isporcelain. It too can be segregated into deco­rative categories. However, porcelain rarelyoccurs undecorated, and the author has neverseen porcelain decorated at what is labeledlevel two , i.e., shell edge, sponged, mocha,banded, or common cable. It would appearthat persons decorating porcelain had moreskill than was needed for level two decoration.

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS 5

Ceramic Prices

Little research has been done on ceramicprices. This is probably due to the paucity ofdocuments, complexity of the subject , and therelatively small contribution ceramics made tothe over-all economy. A variety of documentsfrom different levels in the ceramic marketingstructure contain ceramic prices and descrip­tions . Potters ' wholesale prices for example ,can be recovered from bills, statements, andprice lists sent by potters. Potters ' wholesaleprices are also available from price fixing listspublished by potters associations. Some of thelarger potters such as Josiah Wedgwood andJohn Davenport also maintained retail outletsin London which means there were pottersretail and wholesale prices (Lockett 1972: 10).The amount of pottery sold directly to theconsumer by the potters through their ownretail outlets appears to be quite small. Mostceramics were purchased wholesale by twotypes of middlemen. One was the wholesalejobber who resold the wares at a jobberswholesale price, and the other was the mer­chant who resold the ceramics at a retail priceto the ultimate user. The number of middle­men can vary from one (potter to user) tomany. Each establishment along the chain ofsales added their profit to the ultimate cost ofthe wares to the consumers. From this discus­sion it can be seen that there are three basicgroups of businessmen dealing with ceramics :potters, jobbers, and retail merchants, all ofwhom could have wholesale and retail prices .Two additional sources of ceramic prices areprobate inventories and accounts of estatesales which for the most part deal with secondhand goods. However, second hand priceswill not be dealt with in this study .

Besides the mercantile structure, ceramicprices are affected by transportation costs,tariffs, changed in technology, inflation, defla­tion, and currency fluctuations . Further com­plicating the study of ceramic prices is thenature of the product. Ceramics range from

being a basic necess ity to a high status luxurygood . These divergent roles are covered by awide range offorms, types of decorations, andsizes of vessels , and all of these variablesaffect prices. Such a range of complexitiescombined with the relatively minor role cera­mics play in the overall economic pictureprobably account for why price studies suchas Tooke and Newmarch's classic six volumework , A History of Prices . . . from /792 to/856 (/928) do not deal with ceramics.

The study of ceramic prices can beapproached from several directions . Onewould be to attempt the study of prices fromone geographic location, such as a port likeMontreal or New York. Success of such astudy would depend upon the quantity andquality of records that have survived .Research so far indicates that few records areavailable. A detailed study of ceramic pricesand descriptions from a city of importationcould provide knowledge of the range oftypes, forms, and sizes being imported , andcost information which would have applica­tion for the immediate surrounding area.Unfortunately, it is not possible to have cera­mic price 'studies for all of the communitieswhere they will be useful. Even if the recordswere extant, the cost of such a large projectwould be immense .

A second approach would be to work withpotters' wholesale prices; this makes a greatdeal of sense because of the dominant roleplayed by the Staffordshire potteries . Theserecords tend to be easy to identify, and theyusually contain a high level of descriptiveinformation, but documents containing pot­ters' wholesale prices are not common. How­ever, the potters ' price fixing lists of 17%,1814, 1833, and 1846 along with the 1855 pricelist from the Fife Pottery in Scotland aredetailed and provide an excellent startingpoint for studying ceramic prices (AppendixB). From these lists, prices for CC, edged, andtransfer printed platters, plates, muffin dishes,soup tureens, and sauce boats have been

6

abstracted (Appendix C). Using the cost of 16different shapes and sizes of vessels in ee,edged, and transfer printed styles, a ceramicprice index was generated and plotted againstthe New York all Commodities Index ofWholesale Prices for /798 to /860 (Figure I).Even though there are only five data points forthe ceramic prices, it is still possible to get animpression of the relationship of the cost ofceramics in comparison to the cost of othercommodities. It appears that ceramic priceswere falling somewhat faster than the othercommodities. This picture may change asmore price information is collected and suchthings as porcelain and tea ware are workedinto the cumulative price data.

In addition to allowing for a comparison ofthe relationship between ceramic prices and

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 14

the cost of other relationships between ee,edged, and transfer printed vessels. Figure 2illustrates the cumulative prices for each ofthe three groups (ee, edged, and transferprinted) used in Figure I. It is clear that mostof the price decline took place in decoratedwares. This graph also illustrates the greatstability of the prices for the ee vessels. From1796 to 1855 transfer printed vessels droppedalmost 70% in wholesale price while shelledged vessels only fell about 37%. However,CC prices only fell about 19% over the same60 year period. The five price lists used togenerate Figures 1 and 2 clearly illustrate theproductivity of studying potters' wholesaleprices. However, this approach is limitedbecause of the scarcity of price lists.

A third approach to ceramic prices is to

I. ' \

[. .

• 1\

. ,(

I KIlO 1'10

...\ r •

I HIn

...1H I J . h

1 'h O

11'1»

I "0

FIGURE 1. Comparison of ceramic prices and other commodities prices . A = Ceramic prices using the average costsfor 1833 and 1846 as a base . Prices derived from 48 vessels (one-third CC. edged. and printed) for the year 1796,1814. 1833. 1846. and 1855 (Appendix 3). B = The New York all commodities Index of Wholesale Prices using the baseperiod 1824-1842 (Cole 1969:135-6).

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS

A

7

3l

c __

n

•1790

•111 11.•

I H3J•

111 4 11•185)

FIGURE 2. Cumulative prices for 16 vessels for the years 1796. 1814, 1833, 1846 and 1855. A = cumulat ive totals oflines S, C. &D. S = prices for the cheapest type of transfer printed vessels, usually willow ware. e = prices for the samevessels in edged (shell edged) . D = prices for the same vessels in ee.

study the changing cost relationships betweenthe various decorative types . Potters' whole­sale prices from the 1790s through the 1850sindicate exceptional stability in the prices ofundecorated CC ware. This stability makesCC vessel prices a convenient scale forobserving changing cost ratios among the

various decorative types. For example Figure3 illustrates the number of eight inch platesavailable in shell edged, undecorated iron­stone , willow pattern, and other transferprinted patterns that one could purchase forthe cost of one dozen CC plates of the samesize from 17% to 1874. Documents used to

8 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY , VOLUME 14

,[-----,-------- - - - -..-- - - - - ...

" " "

10

I I

12

180 5 18 15 1825 18) 5 I M4j 18 55 18 65 18 75

FIGURE 3. The number of 8 inch plates available in shell edge, willow pattern, other transfer printed patterns, andundecorated ironstone for the cost of 12 CC plates of the same size.

~ = years for which there is data-- = other transfer printed patterns

willow pattern-- - plain white ironstone-- - shell edge

generate this graph include potter's andwholesale merchants prices (Appendix B).

Two things are clear from examining Figure3. One is that the prices of the decorativetypes were declining through time towards theprice of CC plates . The second point is thatthe price of one decorative type does not dropbelow the price of another decorative typealthough they may meet as in the case of shelledge plates and CC plates. This suggests thateven though the relationships between thetypes are changing, the classification of themseems to hold.

Figure 4 graphically represents the numberof painted, printed, and undecorated ironstoneand porcelain cups and saucers that couldhave been purchased for the cost of a dozenCC cups and saucers. With cups and saucersthere appears to be less of a decline towards

the price of CC ware. Here again, the types donot cross price lines except for undecoratedironstone. When white ironstone became pop­ular in the l850s, it came into the market at astatus level comparable to transfer printedwares.

Figure 5 presents the same information forbowls. It again shows prices declining towardsCC ware with a maintenance of the decorativeclasses over time. All three of these figuresillustrate the usefulness of CC ware in observ­ing status changes over time. Documents usedto create these graphs included Staffordshirepotters' wholesale prices, English merchants 'wholesale prices, and North American mer­chants' wholesale prices. By studying pricerelationships rather than actual cost, the num­ber of usable documents are greatly increased.

The above discussion has demonstrated the

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS

~

- _ e_---- -4 _

---

~~----

LO

9

11

L.

1'9 1 0;

.. .. ....

FIGURE 4. Number of London size handless cups and saucers in painted, printed, undecorated ironstone, andporce lain available for the cost of 12 CC cups and saucers of the same size.

A = years for which there is dataporcela intransfer printedplain white ironstonepainted

usefulness of CC ware as a vehicle for filteringout price differences related to factors dis­cussed earlier. Stability of CC prices providean excellent scale to measure changes in otherdecorative types. The examination of the costratio between CC and other decorative typessuggest that prices decline over time towardsthe cheapest type available. The ability of thecheapest type to decline in price was limited toits margin above production cost. Because thecheapest type probably already enjoyedeconomy of scale in production, the only wayfor its price to decrease was through declinesin material cost or improvements in tech­nology. Such changes of course would affectall types. Josiah Wedgwood made an astuteobservation on the price cycle of ceramicswhen he began his 1759 notebook of experi­ments. He summarized the declining of prices

for white salt-glazed stoneware as follows:

White stoneware was the principle article of our manu­facture ; but this had been made a long time, and theprice s were now reduced so low that the potter couldnot afford to bestow much expense upon it. ..

The article next in consequence to stoneware was animitation of tortoise-shell , but as no improvement hadbeen made in this branch for several years , the con­sumer had grown tired of it; and although the price hadbeen lowered from time to time in order to increase thesales, the expedient did not answer, and somethingnew was wanted to give a little spirit to the business(Mankowitz 1966:27).

Increasing demands by lowering pricesappears to be a one way process in which con­sumption is increased, status declines and,when the market is saturated, the demandfalls. This cycle can be repeated until the sel­ling price bottoms out at the point where it can

10

10

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 14

/ .. ----- ....- / ,- -.- - -4 _ ' ...., ,

"-_ ...\ - - - - ­\ .. --- -- -..

"' .... ...., ,

----;,£-\:---------" ~

4 4 4 4 4

IHb 1815

FIGURE 5. The number of size 12 bowls available in dipped, painted, printed, and basalt for the cost of 12 CC bowls ofthe same size.

~ = years for which there is data-- - basalt--- - = transfer printed------ = painted--= dipped

no longer be lowered because of productioncosts. If demand continues to fall beyond thispoint, then production stops and the consumeris left with the choice of the next more expen­sive or the next cheaper type. With CC ware,the next lower level was tinware.

Shell edge plates provide an excellentexample of this process. By the 1850s, theprice for shell edge plates was close to theprice of CC plates. Three bills from theFahnestock Papers from 1858, 1861 , and 1862list the price for blue edge plates as equal tothe price for CC plates (Appendix B).Archaeological assemblages and ceramic billsafter the 1860srarely contain shell edge plates.The demand did not exist at the price thepotters had to have for production so it wasgreatly reduced.

For the archaeologist, or any other scholarstudying material culture, the ability to scale

assemblages in socio-economic terms is veryimportant. Until now archaeologists haveranked assemblages from sites in relativeterms such as the purchase pattern, presenceof matched sets , presence of expensive formssuch as tureens; and the decorative type pre­sent, i.e., sites with transfer printed ware wereranked higher than sites with shell edge wares(Miller 1974a, 1974b; Teller 1968; Stone 1970).

Ranking without an interval-value scalelimits the ability to do socio-economic analy­sis of collections. For example, it is easy tosay that an assemblage with a matching set ofteaware represents a higher status than onewhich lacks it. However, if one site has amatching set of transfer printed teaware andanother has a matching set of transfer printedtableware, then the ability to rank begins tobreak down . Even when assemblages can beranked as to status, it is not possible to know

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS 11

CC Index Numbers andArchaeolog ical Assemblages

Using CC index values is quite simple. Oncethe minimal vessel count has been completed,the plates, cups, and bowls should be groupedby decorative type. Then a year is selectedfrom the tables presented in Appendices 0, Eand F. If the site has a long occupation, then itmight be best to break the assemblages intotime units and use more than one scale be-

index value regardless of the type and origin ofthe document suggests something aboutmarketing practices. If the standard practicewas for jobbers and retailers to base theirprices on a percentage increase of the potterswholesale prices, then the ratios between thecost of CC and the other decorative typeswould be intact through the various levels ofthe mercantile system. Using an index valuesystem based on CC wares greatly increasesthe number of documents that can be usedtogether to create an overview of the changingrelationships of the various types of ceramicsavailable throughout the 19th century. If theright documents can be found, it will even bepossible to relate tin and glassware to ceramicindex values . Catalogs from Sears andRoebuck, Montgomery Ward, and Eatons willbe useful for this in the very late 19thcentury.

TABLE 1CC INDEX VALUES FOR TEN INCH

SHELL EDGE PLATES

Origin of pricelist

StaffordshireMontrealStaffordshirePhiladelphiaStaffordshireStafford shireStaffordshireStaffordshireScotlandPhiladelphia

Potter' s price listJobber' s billPotter's price listJobber' s account bookPotter's price listPotter' s billPotter's billPotter's billPotter's price listJobber' s bill

Document type

1.331.371.331.331.291.331.331.201.201.00

CCIndexvalue

1796180218141824183318361838183918551858

Date

how close or far apart two assemblages arefrom each other. Time adds another dimen­sion to the problem. For example , does anassemblage from 1790 with a matched set ofshell edge plates rank above an assemblagefrom 1855 with a matched set of willow plates?It is easy to see the significance of developingan interval scale of value .

Potters' wholesale prices indicate a highdegree of stability in the prices of CC ware.Figures 3, 4 and 5 illustrate the usefulness ofCC ware in observing changes in the cost ofdecorative types. Given this evidence, a seriesof index values has been generated for plates,cups, and bowls using the price ofCC vessels.These are presented in Appendices 0, E, andF.

Generation of CC index values is quitesimple. Because plain CC vessels are thecheapest refined earthenware available in the19th century they are given a value of one .Index values are generated by dividing thecost of a CC vessel into the cost of other typesfor which the index value is wanted. In gener­ating the CC index numbers, the followingguide lines were used . Foremost was that eachdocument used was treated as an assemblage.To put it another way, prices from one docu­ment were not used against prices in anotherdocument. For a document to be usable, it hadto have CC wares and size information in addi­tion to the decorative types for which theindex values were being calculated. Control­ling these factors means the only variable beingobserved is decoration. In other words, thecost of a seven inch shell edge plate has to bedivided by the cost of a seven inch CC platefrom the same bill, or the cost of a London­size transfer printed cup has to be divided bythe cost of a London-size CC cup. In this waythe variables are controlled. The resultingindex numbers have a great deal of consis­tency . For example, consider the CC indexvalues for inch shell edge plates worked outfrom potters' and jobbers' wholesale prices inEngland and North America (Table 1).

These documents are more fully describedin Appendix B. The consistency of the CC

12

cause the index values change through time.Next, the index values are multiplied times thenumber of vessels recovered of each type. Forexample , consider the plates from the factoryarea of the Franklin Glass Works of PortageCounty , Ohio, This site was occupied from1824 to ca. 1832 (Miller 1974b). The CC scaleused for this collection is for the year 1824which is as close as the present set of scalescan come to the period of occupation. Theindex values used are for eight inch plates(Table 2). The average expenditure on platesfor this collection is about 1~ times as expen­sive as the cost of plain CC plates . AverageCC index values were also worked out forcups , bowls , and for the same vessel formsfrom the assemblage of a house area on thesite (Table 3). From the above index values, itcan be seen how this system will allow theeconomic scaling of assemblages and scalingwithin assemblages.

For example, consider the difference inexpenditure levels between cups, plates, andbowls . Figure 6 is a graphical representationof the average CC index values for cups,plates, and bowls for six ceramic assemblagesfrom four sites. Data used to create this graphis contained in Appendix G. In four of the sixassemblages , the average expenditure abovethe cost of CC ware is the highest for cups .The cumulative average for cups is 18% higherthan plates and 31% higher than bowls. Thissuggests that tea ware functioned more in a role

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 14

of status display than plates or bowls. The lowaverage value of bowls in the CC index scalemay be related to their dual functions , i.e.,less expensive kitchen ware bowls being aver­aged with more expensive tableware bowls.From these six assemblages, it is easy to seethe usefulness of the CC index numbers indealing with archaeological assemblages.They would also be useful in dealing withprobate inventories which contain descrip­tions of the decorative types . A comparison ofscaling of second hand prices to one done withCC index numbers would be interesting andcould provide information on whether usedgoods maintained the relative value positionsbetween decorative types or they declinedvalue in a disproportional pattern. Having aninterval value scale for ceramics is going toincrease our ability to perform socio-eco­nomic analysis of archaeological collections .

Availability Value Range

When considering an interval value scale, itis quite natural to wonder what the ends of thescale look like and how great the distance isbetween the bottom and top. For refinedearthenware, plain undecorated CC is thecheapest, and, as such, it is the measuringdevice for the scale. However, redware andyelloware bowls and possibly mugs all prob­ably have an index value of less than one.Plain and enamelled tinware vessels also

TABLE 2CC INDEX VALUES FOR PLATES FROM THE FRANKLIN GLASS WORK SITE

NumberType CC index value times recovered value

CC 1.00 x 5 5.00Edged 1.29 x 24 30.96Willow 2.86 x I 2.86Other printed 3.21 x 3 9.63

totals 33 plates 48.45average value 48.45 = 1.47

33

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS 13

TABLE3CC INDEXVALUES FORPLATES. CUPS.

AND BOWLSFROMTHEFACTORY AND HOMEAREASOF THEFRANKLIN GLASSWORKS SITE.

should have a value less than one, and whendocuments are found allowing index values tobe created for these types, they will be addedto the system.

The upper end of the scale is more difficultto define. Some idea of how far above the costof CC the market went is provided by thecommissioned table service Josiah Wedgwoodmade for Catherine the Great of Russia in1775. This service cost about £3,500. If theequivalent vessels were purchased in un­decorated creamware, they would have cost51 pounds, 8 shillings and 4 pence (Mankowitz1953:46). Catherine the Great's set cost 68times as much as plain creamware. Commis­sioned services tell us little about the range ofwhat was available as standard production,but a printed price list by Ridgeway from 1813provides some insight into this question. It istitled "SCALE FOR CHINA, TEA, ANDBREAKFAST SETS" and lists 21 priceranges for a number of vessel forms(Ridgeway 1813). Prices given and use of theterm "China" suggest that the vessels areporcelain. Unfortunately, none of the pricecategories have decorative type descriptions,or information other than vessel form. Twelvecups and saucers range in price from 9 shill­ings to 4 pounds 3 shillings . Another problemwith this list is that it is not clear whether theprices are wholesale or retail. In the 1814pricefixing agreement of the Staffordshire potters,a dozen CC cups and saucers sold for 18pence. If the 1813 Ridgeway list representswholesale prices for porcelain, then it wouldappear that the cheapest English porcelain setof 12 cups and saucers was at least 6 times as

PlatesCup sBowls

Factory Collection

\.472.111.37

Home Collection

\.862.15\.54

expensive as the equivalent CC cups andsaucers. The upper end of the scale indicatesthat the most expensive Ridgeway cups andsaucers were 53 times more expensive thanplain CC ones. If the Ridgeway list representsretail prices, then the differences would not beso great. However, the 53 to 1difference doesseem to indicate the great range that wasavailable in tea and tableware.

The range of values suggested above doesnot begin to be reflected in the six assem­blages plotted on Figure 6. The highestaverage value above the cost of CC warecomes from the Walker Tavern in CambridgeJunction, Michigan (Grosscup and Miller1%8). None of the average values for this siteexceed 2Y.z times the value ofCC and these aretypical assemblages for 19th century sites inNorth America.

In considering the low average CC indexvalue from archaeological assemblages, it isnecessary to keep in mind the process ofdeposition. Excavated collections usuallyrepresent an accumulation of what was brokenor discarded. For tableware there are differ­ential breakage rates and potential for discardto be taken into consideration. For example,tin cups or silver mugs will outlast ceramic orglass mugs , and even when they are beyonduse, the silver would not be discarded. Differ­ent ceramic forms also have differentialbreakage rates. Cups for example are moresubject to breaking than saucers because ofthe amount of handling they receive and theirrepeated exposure to abrupt temperaturechanges as they are filled and refilled with hotand cold beverages. Some perspective on thisdifferential breakage can be gained by observ­ing the high ratio of saucers to cups in secondhand stores and at church bazaars.

In addition to differences in breakage ratesin various vessel forms, there are differentialrates of breakage which are related to howfrequently vessels are used. The examplewhich most readily comes to mind is the set of"best" dishes versus the every day dishes. Ifthe "best" dishes are only used to serve

14

2 .4

2.2

2.0

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 14

,f

FIGURE 6. The average value of cup s, plates, and bowls above the cost of CC vessels from four sites. Plates plus cupsplus bowls equal 100%.

-MlQ = Plates UIIIIIIII cups = bowls

TYPE OF SITE DATE SCALE APPENDIX ITEM

A. Tenant farmer ca. 1800-1840s 1824 G AB. Tenant farmer ca 1840-1860s 1846 G AC. Frontier log 1840 to ca 1830s 1824 G B

cabinD. Glass worker 's 1824 to ca 1832 1824 G C

houseE. Glass factory 1824 to ca 1832 1824 G CF. Country tavern ca 1834 to 1850s 1846 G D

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS 15

Sunday dinner, then they are only used forone meal a week, whereas the everyday dishesaverage 20 meals a week. In other words , theeveryday dishes have 20 times the chance ofwinding up as part of the archaeologicalsample . Thus, ' when the average CC indexvalue is worked out for plates , cups , andbowls from a site, it will probably be weightedtowards the everyday dishes and provide avalue somewhat on the low side.

Probate inventories , on the other handrepresent accumulations of what has survivedand been saved rather than what was brokenand discarded. Therefore , if CC index valuesare averaged for plates , cups, and bowls fromprobate inventories , the higher ratio of "best"dishes would provide a higher average valuethan the archaeological assemblage.

When using CC index values on archae­ological assemblages, the researcher mustremember that the sample generally repre­sents what was broken and discarded overtime. Probate inventories represent what sur­vived and was present in a household at onepoint in time. It is very important to use thehistorical records available to round out aview of what was in use . The CC index valuesare a tool which provide a start towardsanalysis of collections.

Conclusions

1. Wares types can only provide chrono­logical information during the 19th century.Their identification is questionable at times,and there is little evidence that ware typeswere used during the 19th century in the sameway that they were used in the 18th century.

2. Decorative types such as plain CC ,edged, painted, dipped, and printed were themajor classification used during the 19thcentury. Classification based on the decora­tive types has several advantages.

A. Integration of historical and arch­aeologic data,

B. Consistency of identification, and

C. Classification will reflect economicclasses.

3. During the 19th century ceramic pricesappear to have declined somewhat faster thangeneral commodity prices.

4. Prices of undecorated CC vessels werefairly stable during the 19th century providingan excellent scale against which to measurechanges in the value of other decorative types.

5. Using the price of CC vessels , indexvalues have been created from a variety ofdocuments such as bills of lading , price lists ,price fixing lists, account books , and invoicestatements.

6. These index numbers can be used tocalculate the average cost above CC vesselsfor plates, cups, and bowls from archaeo­logical sites and inventories, allowing sites tobe scaled in terms of their expenditure onceramics.

Appendix A, Part 1Pearlware in the 19th Century

Pearlware development in the late 18thcentury was influenced by three events. Onewas the right for potters to use Cornish chinaclays. That right was won in a court case in1775 which allowed for the production ofwares other than porcelain to be made fromthe clays (Finer and Savage 1%5: 17). Thesecond factor was that the demand for cream­ware was beginning to subside as marketswere saturated and people became tired of it(Finer and Savage 1%5:237). The fact thatpearlware resembles hard paste porcelaindoes not appear to be an accident. ConsiderJosiah Wedgwood's comments to his partnerThomas Bentley when he was developingpearlware in March 1779:

I find to my grief that I cannot make any great improve­ment in my present body but it will be China, . . .However, to give the brat a name you may set a cream­color plate and one of the best blue and white onebefore you, and suppose the one you are to name

16

another degree whiter and finer still, but not trans­parent, and consequently not china, for transparencywill be the general test of China (Finer and Savage1965:231).

A further comment in August 1779 reiteratesthe above:

Your idea of the cream color having the merit of anoriginal, and pearl white being considered as an imita­tion of some of the blue and white fabriques, eitherearthenware or porcelain, is perfectly right, ... (Finerand Savage 1965:237).

The impression is given that Wedgwood andBentley both realized that in copying hardpaste porcelain their product was limited inthe heights of its status by porcelain. Withcreamware, Josiah Wedgwood was able,through dynamic marketing, to place his pro­duct in a very high status position, and it madegreat inroads into the market traditionallyoccupied by porcelain. For example, considerhis commissions for sets of creamware to theRoyal families of England and Russia as wellas lesser nobility of other countries. Neverbefore had earthenware competed with porce­lain in status. However, time was taking itstoll on creamware, and the taste makers of18th century Europe were beginning tobecome tired of it. The rights to produce por­celain in England was held by patent (Finerand Savage 1965:17). Given these circum­stances Wedgwood was attempting to comeup with a new product to market. That pro­duct was pearlware which both he and hispartner seem to have recognized as a copy ofporcelain, and it was approached withhesistancy.

To "gain a place in the sun" for pearlware,had to depend on its decoration rather than thenature of the ware. Undecorated pearlware isa rare occurrence. The transition to decora­tion as the important vehicle of marketingrather than the ware seems to begin withpearlware. The term pearlware itself is rarelyused in account books, advertisements, orbills of lading. Instead, vessels were describedaccording to how they were decorated.

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 14

The third factor affecting pearlware was aseries of increasingly high protective Englishtariffs against the importation of porcelain. By1799 the duty rate was over 100% on Chineseporcelain (Haggar 1972:185). Pearlware'sdevelopment came at the time when a voidwas being created and it moved into that void.

Pearlware decoration in the late 18th andearly 19th centuries was dominated by aplethora of pseudo-chinese motifs that havebeen labeled chinoiserie. These types of decor­ation also occur on early ironstone and stonechina. Like pearlware, these wares often havea blue tint to their glaze in imitation of porce­lain. The appearance and motifs of thesewares suggest they took the place of Chineseporcelain in the English market. Adoption ofterms like China glaze and stone china lendfurther weight to this argument. Ivor NoelHume has demonstrated the use of the termchina glaze for pearlware in the late 18thcentury (Noel Hume 1969).

Production of pearlware was taken up by ahost of potters in Staffordshire and other areasof England. When these potters moved intothe production of pearlware they naturally hadto develop body and glaze formulas for itsproduction. Adjustments of these formulasand evolution of them through time created arange of products with gradually decreasingamounts of bluing in the glaze. This led towhat archaeologists have been classifying aswhiteware. Unfortunately whiteware was notthe invention of any one potter, and there is nofixed date for its introduction. Any archaeo­logist that has dealt with ceramics from thefirst half of the 19th century knows that whenidentifying the wares from that period, threegroups emerge: one that is obviously pearl­ware, one that is obviously whiteware, and athird group which is in between the first two.Unfortunately archaeologists have picked astatic definition for pearlware which workswell in the 18th century but breaks down in the19th century because pearlware was continu­ally evolving. For example, Mellany Delhomin her article "Pearlware" presents a series of

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS 17

six formulas for pearl body used in theWedgwood factory from 1815 to 1846 (Delhom1977).

What the factors were that led to a gradualwhitening of pearlware are open to specula­tion. Technology obviously could have been afactor , but alone it does not seem to be areason for moving towards a whiteware. Per­haps the introduction of bone china by JosiahSpode around 1800 and its greatly increasingpopularity during the first quarter of the 19thcentury was the reason. Bone china, unlikeoriental hard paste porcelain does not have abluish cast to it, and it is very white. Its popu­larity was such that the Wedgwood factorybegan producing it by 1812 because theircustomers were turning from their products tobone china produced by others (des Fontaines1977: 135-36). With the new taste being for awhiter procelain, it would follow that bluetinted pearlware was subject to pressure tocopy the new porcelain. The fact that theWedgwood Pearlware formulas date from1815 to 1846 and post-date their introductionof bone china, suggests that bone china mayhave been a factor in these changes.

Two different approaches to whiteningpearlware seem to have been taken . Manypotters just reduced the amount of cobalt inthe glaze. The second solution was to addcobalt to the body and give it a very light bluetint which through a clear glaze looks muchwhiter than pearlware defined by archaeolo­gists. These adjustments do not appear to bemajor changes in the potteries, and there isalmost no discussion of them in the historicalliterature. The potter's perception of howunimportant these changes were is reflectedby two things-one is the lack of informationon them, and the second is that in some casesthe name pearl stays with the new ware . Forexample, at the end of the Staffordshirepotters price fixing list of 1846, there is a briefdiscussion of the discount rates for specialshapes in cream colored ware in terms of costsfor pearl white granite and pearl white ware.

The potters seem to have made no distine-

tion between whiteware and pearlware. Theblue in the glaze is gone but the name lingerson. According to Godden, the Wedgwoodfactory reintroduced the term "pearl" as animpressed mark around 1840 and cont inued touse it until 1868 when they switched toan impressed "P" (Godden 1964:658).Llewellynn Jewitt commented on this latter­day-pearlware in 1865 when he observed thatit was "not a pearl of great price, but one forordinary use and of moderate cost." (NoelHume 1969:396). The author has twoWedgwood plates with the impressed mark"PEARL," and one has a date code for 1861.Both of these would be classified as white­wares if the definition of bluing in the glaze isused to define pearlware.

Around the 1840s use of the term pearlseems to have undergone a revival in popu­larity. This can be seen in the list of pottersthat incorporated the term pearl in some oftheir marks. Along with this came blue tintedironstone in which the bluing is very obvious.This appears to be related to the growing pop­ularity of undecorated ironstone in the 1850s.There is a reference to blue tinted ironstoneproducedby Thomas Till and Son's which wasexhibited in the Crystal Palace Exhibition of1851. They offered two pattern shapes , onecalled Albany and the other Virginia. Bothwere available in "White Granite" or " PearlWhite Granite" (Godden 1971:95). What wasmeant by these terms is clear from the follow­ing description of William Taylor's pottery inHanley as described by Jewitt:

In 1860 the works passed into the hands of WilliamTaylor, who commenced making white Granite andcommon colour and painted ware , but he discontinued,and confined himself to white granite ware for theUnited States and Canadian markets, of both quali­ties-the bluish tinted for the provinces and the purerwhite for the city trade (Godden 1971 :95).

A clue as to the popularity of blue tinted iron­stone is provided by a description of waresexhibited at the American Centennial Exhibi­tion of 1876 in Philadelphia.

18

The Dresden Pottery Works , of East Liverpool , Ohio,exhibited ironstone china table and chamber ware.This ware is shaded with blue, and resembles the wellknown Liverpool ironstone (The Potters Gazette , 9December 1876:6) .

In another description from the CentennialExhibition, the term pearl white takes on adifferent meaning:

The Centennial, then, has been of great benefit to theAmerican manufacturers of earthenware. . . . thedemand for plain white goods has been cultivated, anda beautiful pearl-white article is now demanded in lieuof the old blue-gray tinted wares of Staffordshire (ThePotters Gazette 27 January 1877:2).

How long the term •'pearl" lasted and howstrongly it was associated with blue tintedbodies is not clear as indicated by the lastquotation which associated pearl-white withwares that showed no trace of bluing. Fifteenof the I6 marks which incorporate the word"Pearl" (second part of this appendix) predatethe McKinley Tariff of 1890 which requiredmany English potters to add England to theirmarks.

Adding cobalt to the body to whiten theslight yellow color of the clays was a fairlywide spread practice and probably is stillbeing done today. Karl Langenbeck in his1895 Chemistry of Pottery states that". . . it is customary in the case of whiterbodies, to add a small amount of cobalt, toneutralize any faintly yellowish cast, whichthey may show" (Langenbeck 1895: 120). TheManual ofPractical Potting published in 1907states that: "In some cases, the chief differ­ences between granite and CC is that theformer is stained white, while the latter is not(Binns 1907:24). The 1924 Clay ProductsCyclopedia offers the following definition:

QUEEN'S WARE' IRONSTONE' and GRANITEWARE--These terms are used indiscriminately bypotters to indicate a grade of white earthenware fordining room service one grade higher than c.c. ware.

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 14

The y are made of superior quality materials, the bodybeing slightly stained by a solution of cobalt, whichgives it a bluish-white cast (Guignon 1924: 185).

Summary

In the 19th century, it would appear thatpearlware went through a complex evolution.Up to around the 1820s the glaze had a dis­tinctly blue tint. When bone china becamepopular in the first quarter of the 19thcentury,it probably influenced the earthenware manu­facturers to create a whiter ware. Gradually,the cobalt in the glaze was decreased, and, insome cases, a small amount was added to thebody to create a whiteware without a blue tint.Later, probably in the 1840s, there was a re­newed interest in whiteware with a bluish tint.A manifestation of this was the addition ofcobalt to the body resulting in a bluish whitewhich was more subtle than pearlware with itsblue tinted glaze. Beginning in the 1850s plainundecorated ironstone became popular andwas available in two types-one of which hada blue tinted body which in several cases wasreferred to as pearl white, pearl stone china,pearl ironstone, and pearl white granite. Atthe same time, there was also a pearl white­ware available. This suggests that the pottersdid not perceive the differences which archae­ologists have chosen to call pearlware andwhiteware. Use of the term pearl becamemore common when undecorated ironstonebecame popular, perhaps because decorativeterms obviously could not be applied to plainobjects.

Beyond chronology, there are few, if any,reasons to organize ceramics by ware types.Interpretation and synthesis of archaeologicaldata with historical sources will be greatlyfacilitated by organizing ceramics according totheir form and the decoration they bear. Forexample, it makes little sense to separate shelledge plates into creamware, pearlware, andwhiteware.

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS

Appendix A, Part 2

Ceramic Markers Incorporating the Word " Pearl" in Their Makers Mark .

19

Term Potter Dates Source

Pearl (impre ssed) Wedgwood Post 1779 page 55, Eliza Meteyard The Wedgwood Handbook , firstpublished in 1875 " Sugar basin , in white ware ; edged ingold, and decorated with flowers . .. " (Meteyard 1963).

PEARL or P Wedgwood ca . 1840-1868 (Godden 1964:558)(impressed) for full word

- letter usedafter 1868

PEARL Wedgwood Date mark George L. Miller collection, GLM 16, transfer printed and" NSP" 1861 painted plate .

PEARL WARE Chetham & Woolley 1796-1810 (Godden 1964:14) This is described as a white Jasper byS. Shaw (\829 :225).

PEARL STONE Podmore. 1834-1859 9G7B I Parks Canada CollectionWARE Walker & Co G514 Gordon L. Gros scup Collection

XIOI Arnold R. Pilling CollectionX320 Arnold R. Pilling Collection

PEARL WHITE Wood & Brownfield ca . 1838-1850 (Godden 1964:684)

Pearl Samuel 1839 From a cache of pottery dated 1839, see Arnold R.China Alcock & Co Mountford 1967, page 31. Time capsule buried by S.

Alcock , most pieces dated 1839.

PEARL CHINA W. Baker & Co 1839-1893 George L. Miller Collection, GM9, both marks are on thePW IRONSTONE same piece .

OPAQU E PEARL J. Clementson ca . 1839-1864 George L. Miller Collect ion, GM84

PEARL CHINA E. & E. Wood ca . 1840-1846 Enoch and Edward Wood (Godden 1964:686) XII3Arnold R. Pilling Collection

PEARL WHITE Goodwin Pottery Co 1844- (Barber 1904:105)

PEARL WHITE Cork & Edge 1846--1860 (Godden 1964:174)IRONSTONE

Pearl China B & Co 1863-1865 George L. Miller Collection, GM8(probably Bodly (Godden 1964:82)& Co)

PEARL Ford, 1865-1880 George L. Miller Collection, GM67IRONSTONE Challinor & Co (Godden 1964:254)CHINA

PEARL WARE Skinner & Walker ca. 1870-1880 (Godden 1964:580)

PEARL WHITE Baker & Co. Ltd . 1893-1932 (Godden 1964:51)

Dat

e

1770

Feb

.14

1783

Sep

t.23

1787

Dec

.27

1795

June

24

1796

Jan

.8

1796

Apr

il21

1802

Dec

.31

1814

Typ

espr

esen

tan

dus

ed

Con

tain

sm

ostly

CC

pric

esw

itha

few

blue

pain

ted

piec

es

Mos

tly

blue

edge

dw

ithso

me

pain

ted

war

es

CC

and

pain

ted

war

es

Thr

eelis

ts,

basa

ltw

are,

and

"com

mon

crea

m­

colo

ured

war

e."

CC

war

epr

ices

and

defi

niti

ons

ofsi

zes

for

cham

ber

pots

,bo

wls

and

tea

pots

.

CC

,ed

ged,

pain

ted,

dipp

ed,

basa

ltan

dpr

inte

d

CC

,ed

ged

and

pain

ted

CC

,ed

ged,

unde

rgla

zed

lined

,w

illow

,tr

ansf

erpr

inte

d,di

pped

,pa

inte

d,

whi

tegl

aze

,an

dE

gypt

ian

blac

k.

App

endi

xB

Sou

rces

for

Cer

amic

Pric

es

Doc

umen

ts

Pric

ing

fixi

nglis

t,S

taff

ords

hire

Pot

ters

(Mou

ntfo

rd19

75:3

-S)

Pric

efi

xing

list,

Sta

ffor

dshi

reP

otte

rs(M

ount

ford

1975

:9)

Cer

amic

Bill

from

Bri

stol

,E

ngla

nd.H

ugh

Ow

en,

1883

, Tw

oC

entu

ries

of

Cer

amic

Art

inB

rist

ol:B

eing

aH

isto

ryo

fthe

Tru

eP

orce

lain

byR

ich

ard

Cha

mpi

on.

..,

Lon

don,

Bel

lan

dD

alby

.

Pric

efi

xing

list,

Sta

ffor

dshi

reP

otte

rs(M

ount

ford

1975

:9-1

0)

Pric

efi

xing

list,

Sta

ffor

dshi

reP

otte

rs(M

ount

ford

1975

:11)

Pric

efi

xing

list,

Sta

ffor

dshi

reP

otte

rs(M

ount

ford

1975

:11)

Cer

amic

bill

from

Mon

trea

l,C

anad

aPu

blic

Arc

hive

sof

Can

ada,

Tho

mas

Cum

min

gsPa

pers

Man

uscr

ipt

MG

24/D

44

Pric

efi

xing

list,

Sta

ffor

dshi

reP

otte

rs"S

taff

ords

hire

Pot

teri

es.

Pri

ces

Cur

rent

ofE

athe

nwar

e,"

n.d

.She

etpr

inte

dby

Tre

gont

ha,

Bur

slem

.18

14is

hand

wri

tten

onth

edo

cum

ent

and

the

1846

pric

efi

xing

list

refe

rsto

re-e

stab

lishi

ngth

epr

ices

of1

81

4-t

he

two

lists

have

man

ypr

ices

inco

mm

on.

I\) o I ~ :Xl o }:

­ r }:­ :Xl

o I }:­ m o r o o < < o r C ~ m ~ ~

1824

1833

Nov

II

1836

Feb

26

1838

Jan.

20

1838

Feb

.1

1839

Feb

.20

1846

Jan

.26

1855

Mar

ch

1856

Apr

il5

1856

Jun

e6

CC

,edg

ed,w

illow

,pr

inte

d,

dipp

ed,

and

pain

ted

CC

,edg

ed,

will

ow,

prin

ted

,di

pped

,an

dpa

inte

d

CC

,edg

ed,

pain

ted,

will

ow,

prin

ted,

and

dipp

ed.

CC

,ed

ged,

pain

ted

,an

dpr

inte

d.

CC

,ed

ged,

pain

ted

prin

ted,

and

dipp

ed.

CC

,ed

ged,

and

prin

ted

.

CC

,edg

ed,d

ippe

d,pr

inte

d,

and

Egy

ptia

nbl

ack.

CC

,ed

ged

,sp

onge

d,w

illow

,pr

inte

d,an

dfl

ow.

Com

mon

teas

,pa

inte

d,w

hite

gran

ite,

whi

tech

ina

,an

dW

hite

Fre

nch

chin

a.

An

acco

untb

ook

ofth

eP

hila

delp

hia

Chi

nam

erch

ant,

Geo

rge

M.C

oate

s.C

ourt

esy

ofth

eH

enry

Fra

ncis

Du

Pon

t,W

inte

rthu

rM

useu

m,

Win

tert

hur,

Del

awar

e.Jo

seph

Dow

nsM

anus

crip

tC

olle

ctio

n,N

o.

64X

18.

Pric

efi

xing

list,

Sta

ffor

dshi

reP

otte

rs"S

taff

ords

hire

Pot

teri

es:

At

aG

ener

alm

eetin

go

fM

anuf

actu

res

Hel

d.

..

inH

anle

y.

..

Mr.

Ral

phS

teve

nson

inth

eC

hair

..

.N

ET

LIS

T.

..

adop

ted

from

the

11th

ofN

OV

EM

BE

R,

1833

"pr

inte

dby

W.

Row

ley,

Han

ley,

Sta

ffor

dshi

re.

Bill

of

Lad

ing

from

John

Wil

kins

onof

the

Whi

teha

ven

Pot

tery

toJo

hnD

awso

nan

dsh

ippe

dto

Mai

tlan

d,K

enne

dy&

Co

.,P

hila

delp

hia.

Unc

atal

ogue

ddo

cum

ent

inth

eW

arsh

awC

olle

ctio

no

fB

usin

ess

Am

eric

ana,

Sm

iths

onia

nIn

stit

utio

n,

Was

hing

ton

D.C

.

Bill

ofL

adin

gfr

omW

illia

mA

dam

s&

Son

sPot

tery

inS

toke

-upo

n-T

ren

t­na

me

ofc

usto

mer

not

onb

ill-

ho

wev

erit

isst

ampe

dby

the

U.S

.C

usto

ms

atP

hila

delp

hia.

Unc

atal

ogue

ddo

cum

ent

inth

eW

arsh

awC

olle

ctio

no

fB

usin

ess

Am

eric

ana,

Sm

iths

onia

nIn

stit

utio

n,W

ashi

ngto

nD

.C.

Bill

ofL

adin

gfr

omW

illia

mA

dam

s&

Sons

Pot

tery

inS

toke

-upo

n-T

rent

toA

dam

sB

roth

ers-

pla

ceun

know

n.

Unc

atal

ogue

ddo

cum

ent

inth

eW

arsh

awC

olle

ctio

nof

Bus

ines

sA

mer

ican

a,S

mit

hson

ian

Inst

itut

ion

,W

ashi

ngto

nD

.C.

Bill

ofL

adin

gfr

omR

idgw

ay,

Mor

ley

,W

ear

&C

o.P

otte

ryin

She

lton

,S

taff

ords

hire

toG

eorg

eB

reed

ofP

itts

burg

h.U

ncat

alog

ued

docu

men

tin

the

War

shaw

Col

lect

ion

ofB

usin

ess

Am

eric

ana,

Sm

iths

onia

nIn

stit

utio

n,W

ashi

ngto

nD

.C.

Pric

efi

xing

agre

emen

tof

the

Sta

ffor

dshi

reP

otte

rs(M

ount

ford

1975

:12-

14)

Pric

elis

t,R

ober

tH

eron

,Fi

feP

otte

ry,

Sco

tlan

d(F

inal

yson

1972

:118

).

Tw

obi

llsfr

omM

arst

on&

Bro

ther

sof

Bal

tim

ore

toF

ahne

stoc

kB

roth

ers,

Get

tysb

urg,

Pen

nsyl

vani

a.F

ahne

stoc

kpa

pers

inpo

sses

sion

of

Geo

rge

L.

Mill

er.

() ~ ~ =n ~ 5 z » z o ~ o z o 3: (5 CIl

() » r Z G) o ." ~ ~ () m Z --l

C :D ~ () m ~ 3: (5 CIl

I\)~

1857

Feb

.4

Feb

.5

Sep

t.28

Oct

.16

1858

Feb

.9

Oct

.2

1860

Mar

ch19

1861

Mar

ch25

1871

Mar

ch31

1874

Feb

.19

Feb

.25

1881

May

11

Com

mon

teas

,pr

inte

d,w

hite

gran

ite,

and

whi

tech

ina.

CC

,co

mm

onte

as,

edge

d,pr

inte

d,w

hite

gran

ite,

and

colo

ured

.

Com

mon

teas

,pr

inte

d,an

dw

hite

ston

e.

Whi

teea

rthe

nwar

e,an

dw

hite

gran

ite.

CC

,sp

onge

d,w

hite

gran

ite

CC

,ir

onst

one

CC

,w

hite

gran

ite

App

endi

xB

Con

tinue

d

Four

bills

from

Mar

ston

&B

roth

ers

ofB

alti

mor

eto

Fah

nest

ock

Bro

ther

s,G

etty

sbur

g,P

enns

ylva

nia.

Fah

nest

ock

pape

rsin

poss

essi

ono

fG

eorg

eL.

Mill

er.

Tw

obi

llsfr

omT

urnb

ull

&C

o.of

Phi

lade

lphi

ato

Fah

nest

ock

Bro

ther

sof

Get

tysb

urg,

Pen

nsyl

vani

a.F

ahne

stoc

kpa

pers

inpo

sses

sion

ofG

eorg

eL.

Mill

er.

Abi

llfr

omSa

mue

lS

chob

erof

Phi

lade

lphi

ato

Fah

nest

ock

Bro

ther

so

fG

etty

sbur

g,P

enns

ylva

nia.

Fah

nest

ock

pape

rsin

poss

essi

onof

Geo

rge

L.M

iller

.

Abi

llfr

omS

tirk

,Fi

eld

&C

o.to

Fah

nest

ock

Bro

ther

sof

Get

tysb

urg,

Pen

nsyl

vani

a.F

ahne

stoc

kpa

pers

inpo

sses

sion

ofG

eorg

eL

.M

iller

.

Bill

from

J.C

lem

enst

onB

roth

ers

ofH

anle

y,S

taff

ords

hire

toW

arne

r,K

line

and

Co.

ofP

hila

delp

hia.

Unc

atal

ogue

dm

anus

crip

tin

the

War

shaw

Col

lect

ion

ofB

usin

ess

Am

eric

ana,

Sm

iths

onia

nIn

stit

utio

n,W

ashi

ngto

n,D

.C.

Bill

sof

Lad

ing

from

God

dard

&B

urge

ssP

otte

ryL

ongt

on,

Sta

ffor

dshi

reto

thei

row

nfi

rmo

fB

urge

ssan

dG

odda

rdin

Phi

lade

lphi

a.O

rigi

nals

are

inth

epo

sses

sion

ofG

eorg

eL

.M

iller

.

Bill

from

J.L

eopo

ld&

Co.

ofB

alti

mor

eto

Tho

mas

Woo

d&

Co.

ofM

axM

eado

ws,

Vir

gini

a.O

rigi

nal

inth

epo

sses

sion

ofG

eorg

eL

.M

iller

.

I\)

I\)

I ~ :D o » r » :D o I » m o r o o < < o r C ~ m ~ .j>,

CLASSIF ICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS 23

Appendix e

Prices of ee, Edged, and Transfer Printed Vessels

The following prices are for CC vessels and are quoted in English Pence per dozen. Sources aregiven in Appendix B.

Inchsize 1796 1814 1833 1846 1855

Flat dishes (oval) 10 24 30 22 30 24II 36 36 27 36 3012 48 42 33 42 3614 72 66 51 66 5416 120 108 81 108 8418 180 168 126 168 126

Covered dishes 10 144 144 108 144 108Bakers 10 36 42 30 42 33

12 72 60 54 60 54Table plates 18 18 14 21 15Twiffiers 14 14 10 16 12Muffins 7 12 12 9 14 10

6 10 10 7~ 12 8Tureens II 360 360 252 360 324Sauce tureens 5 120 120 % 120 108Sauce boats largest 36 36 24 36 30

Totals 1302 1266 944.5 1275 1056

24 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY , VOLUME 14

The following prices are for transfer printed vessel and are quoted in English Pence per dozenSources are given in Appendix B.

Inch 1814 1833 1855size 17% Willow Other Willow Other 1846 Willow Other

Flat dishes 10 180 108 144 42 78 108 36 54(oval) 11 216 144 180 60 108 144 48 72

12 252 180 252 84 144 180 54 %14 432 252 360 108 192 252 78 12016 504 3% 504 144 288 3% 120 18018 720 576 648 252 432 576 216 288

Covered dishes 10 504 360 432 144 252 360 144 216Bakers 10 252 180 216 72 126 180 81 108

12 324 252 360 120 192 252 108 144Table plates 78 48 60 27 36 48 24 24Twiffiers 54 42 48 21 30 42 18 18Muffins 7 48 36 42 18 27 36 15 15

6 42 30 36 15 22 30 12 12Tureens 11 12% 792 1008 432 576* 792 432 684Sauce tureens 5 432 360 432 288 324 360 216 288Sauce boats large 78 72 84 54 60 72 42 60

Totals 5412 3828 4806 1881 2887 3828 1644 2379

*Interpolated price

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS 25

The following prices are for shell edged vessels and are quoted in English Pence per dozen.Sources are given in Appendix B.

Inchsize 17% 1814 1833 1846 1855

Flat dishes (oval) 10 36 36 27 36 3011 48 48 36 48 3612 60 66 48 66 4814 120 108 81 108 6616 180 168 126 168 9618 252 240 180 240 168

Covered dishes 10 216 216 120 216 120Bakers 10 60 60 48 60 36

12 108 108 78 108 60Table plates 24 24 18 24 18Twiftlers 18 18 14 18 15Muffins 7 16 16 12 16 12

6 14 14 10 14 10Tureens 11 576 432 324 432 360Sauce tureens 5 180 180 120 180 132Sauce boats largest 48 48 30 48 36

Totals 1956 1782 1272 1782 1243

26 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 14

Appendix D. Part 1CC Index Values for:

Plates. Twifflers and Muffins

1787 1796 1802 1814 1824 1833 1836 1838 1839 1846 1855 1858 1861 1862 1874

inchCC . all sizes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Edged 10 1.33 1.37 1.33 1.33 1.29 1.33 1.33 1.20 1.20 1.008 1.29 1.23 1.29 1.29 lAO 1.25 1.29 1.13 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.007 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.38 1.33 1.33 1.14 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.006 lAO lAO 1.33 1.33 1.45 lAO 1.17 1.25 1.00

Sponged 10 1.208 1.257 1.206 1.15

Underglazed 10 1.67lined 8 1.71

7 1.676 I. 70

Painted 10 2.178 1.67 2.367 2.25

6 2.18 2.10

Ironstone 10 1.69 1.698 1.80 2.00 1.80 2.257 1.78 2.00 1.78 2.176 2.00 1.75

Willow 10 2.67 1.93 2.50 1.608 3.00 2.86 2.10 2.44 1.507 3.00 2.77 1.506 3.00 2.00 2.73 1.50

Other 10 4.33 3.33 3.22 2.57 3.00 2.27 2.20 1.60Transfer 8 3.86 3043 3043 3.21 3.00 2.81 3.00 2.45 2.63 1.50printed 7 4.00 3.50 3.50 2.92 3.00 2.44 2.57 1.50

6 4.20 3.60 3.60 2.50 2.93 3.00 3.00 2.50 1.50

Flow 10 20408 2.507 20406 2.25

Porce lain 10" enamelled" 8

76 4.80

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS 27

Appendix D, Part 2

Decorative Types, Description for Plates:

Decorative Types:

cc

The following terms are commonly used indescribing plates: dishes, table plates, soupplates , twiffiers, muffin plates, bread andbutter plates, dessert plates, and cup plates.Dishes almost alway s refer to platters. Noneof the documents consulted contain the wordplatter. Table plates, supper plates, and twif­fler s are size classes, and none of the docu­ments listed more than one size for theseobjects. However, different potteries some­times had a half an inch difference betweentheir table plates. The Staffordshire potter'sprice fixing lists for 1814, 1833, and 1846 givethe following sizes :

Anyone who has measured plates from thefirst half of the 19th century realizes that theydo not fall into such nice even measurements.Perhaps these sizes represents a pre-firingmeasurement. The Henry Francis Du Pont ,Winterthur Museum has a copy ofa thrower'sand turner's handbook from ca. 1820 for theSpode Factory which lists 8 inch bread andbutter plates as being 9~ inches in diameterwhen thrown and 5 11/16 inches when fired(Spode 1820:166-67). Once again, it is hopedthat further research will shed more light onthis subject. Creamware index values havebeen generated for 10,8, 7, and 6 inch plates.When dealing with archaeological assem­blages, the index value for 8 inch plates (twif­flers) was used for calculating the average costof plates above CC ware .

Table platesSupper platesTwiffiersMuffin plates

10 inches9 inches8 inches7, 6, 5, and 4 inches

Common acronym for cream colored orcreamware. The term lasted well into the 20thcentury; however, by the 1860s other termsbegan to replace it, such as common colorcommon body, and white earthenware. Plainwhite creamware is available today in suchplaces as dime stores and some departmentstores. Its color is slightly lighter than thecreamware from the 1820s, but when it is heldnext to a piece of ironstone there is no doubtas to what it is. The Manual of PracticalPotting , published in 1907, states that: "Insome cases the chief difference betweengranite and CC ware is that the former isstained white, while the latter is not" (Binns1907:24). CC ware represents the cheapestwhiteware available from the 1790s on throughtoday. In the price fixing list of 1814, only fourforms were not available in CC ware . By theprice fixing list of 1833, over three dozendifferent forms were not available in CC ware .In archaeological assemblages from the 1820son , the usual forms recovered in CC ware areplates, bowls and chamber pots . In today'smarket, CC ware is usually limited to plates,bowls and cups. Nineteenth century docu­ments always have CC ware as the cheapesttype , and nothing suggests that it was decor­ated.

Edged

The most commonly used term for what iscalled shell edge. The potters price fixing listof 1783 deals largely with shell edge which itlists as " edged with blue." This list indicatesit was an item of considerable production bythat date. In addition to plates and dishes ,

28

edged ware was available in salad dishes, souptureens, sauce boats, and butter tubs . By the19th century, most shell edge vessels wereplates and dishes . Blue and green were themost common edge colors and there is noindication of any difference in price betweenthem. Shell edge remained common in cera­mic bills into the 1860s, by which time it wassometimes the same price as CC plates of thesame size .

Sponge

Not common in flatware. More often it isfound on teaware and bowls. The 1855 pricelist of Robert Heron's Fife pottery pricessponge decorated plates at the same level asedged decorated.

Underglaze Lined

A simple line or sometimes two lines paintedon the rim and the inner edge of the marley.Correspondence from Josiah Wedgwood tohis partner in 1771 and 1772 indicates that theywere using a mechanical device for guiding theapplication of bands on their creamware(Finer and Savage 1%5:116-18). TheWedgwood Catalog for 1774 lists green doublelines, brown double lines, and blue lines asdecorative types (Mankowitz 1953:57). Theonly price information found was from the1814 price fixing list which described the typeas "Under Glazed Lined ." The simplicity ofthis design can be misleading as to its eco­nomic status. Its price is above edged plates.Creamware and pearlware plates with one ortwo simple brown or blue lines around the rimare fairly common in collections from ParksCanada sites from the War of 1812 period .

Painted

Plates with painted designs are not common inthe 19th century. For the late 18th century, a

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 14

price was found for blue painted plates, andsome prices were found for painted plates in1836 and 1838. Motifs on the earlier paintedplates were probably stylized chinese sceneryof floral motifs while the later ones are almostcertainly floral types . Interestingly, none ofthe price fixing lists showed prices for flat­ware. Nothing was found to suggest that bluepainted and polychrome represented a pricedifference .

Willow

The "old war horse" of transfer printed pat­terns. Willow was one of the first patterns tobe transfer printed under-the-glaze. By 1814,the potters fixed its price below that of othertransfer printed patterns. It is still availabletoday.

Transfer Printed Patterns

With the separation of willow ware as acheaper type of transfer printed ware, otherpatterns assumed a higher status. Part of thismay have been due to smaller economy ofscale and the speed with which patterns losttheir popularity. The price fixing lists of 1814and 1833 both list willow as a cheaper form ofprinted ware. However, the 1846 price fixinglist only has one price level for printed wares,and it repeats the prices for willow ware fromthe 1814list. The 1846 list claims to be restor­ing the prices of 1814 which except for transferprinted wares it does. Robert Heron's 1855 listalso divides willow from other printed pat­terns. Willow was cheaper than other patternsexcept in plates from 10down to 3 inches. Forthese the price for each size is the same. Noneof the documents consulted suggest that thereis a price difference for different colors inprinted wares. Nothing was found on prices ofvessels which combined printed and painting.

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS 29

Flowing Colors

Often referred to as blue flow. Flowing colorswere almost always associated with transferprinted patterns. However there are examplesof blue and purple painted vessels in flowingcolors. Robert Heron's 1855 price list hasflowing colors at almost 60% above the priceof transfer printed plates and muffins plates .For other forms , the cost difference was notso great. More information will be needed toproject the long term cost status of flowingcolors.

White Granite or Ironstone

Until the late 1840s the stone chinas were

usually decorated, sometimes combiningtransfer printing and painting. The only pricedata found for this early period is from a seriesof auctions held by the Mason Factory(Godden 1971 :115-6). Price information fromthese auctions is limited to the minimumacceptable bid, and no attempt was made towork this information into index numbers . Inthe mid-1850s, plain white ironstone or granitecame into popularity. It appears to have comein at a level comparable to transfer printedwares. None of the price lists examined hadprices for white ironstone with embosseddecoration as a separate price category. Per­haps some of the index numbers representwhite ironstone with molding. More detailsare presented in Appendix E, Part I.

30 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 14

Appendix E Part 1CC Index Values for Tea Cups and Saucers

T ype s 1770 1795 1796 1802 1814 1824 1846 1856 1857 1858 1860 1871 1874 1875 1881

notgiven 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

CC unhd 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00hd . 2.09 1.80 1.67 1.55notgive n

S po nged unhd . 1.17hd .not

White givenG lazed unhd. 1.33

hd . 2.00notgive n 1.60 1.44 1.60

Pa int ed unhd . 1.33 1.80 1.50 1.23 1.17hd . 2.60 2. 17 1.77

Ironst one noto r White give n 3.33G ra nite unhd . 3.60 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.50 2.77 2.00(undec- hd . 5.00 5.00 3.23 2.75orate d) not

give n 3.00 4.20 4.00Printed unhd . 4.09 3.40 3.00 2.45 3.00

hd . 5.18 4.20 3.67 3.00 4.00not

Porcelain given 4.00 6.00undescribed unhd.

hd.not

Porcel ain give nPlain wh ite unhd. 5.83

hd.not

Porcelain give n 3.00Printed unhd .

hd .not

Porcelain given 4.00

Lu stre unhd.hd.

hd . : with handleunhd. : without handlenot given : not mentioned

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS 31

Appendix E, Part 2

Decorative Types, Description for TeaCups and Saucers

Teas are more difficult to deal with than flat­ware due to their size variations and becausethey came with or without handles. Size clas­ses include: Norfolk, London, Irish, andBreakfast. London, in addition to being a sizecan also refer to the shape. Shapes include:Grecian, French, and Canova among others.Price fixing lists and potters' price lists sug­gest that the standard cost for handled cupswas one shilling extra per dozen. In additionto handles, it was possible from roughly 1795to 1814 to order cups and saucers with abrown line around the rims at one shillingextra per dozen. Parks Canada sites from theera of the War of 1812 occasionally have bluetransfer printed cups and saucers with brownlined rims.

With these many variables, it is difficult tobe sure that same size and type are beingcompared over time . Prior to the 1860s, mostcups are unhandled and of London size. Billsof lading for ceramics coming to North Amer­ica usually provide size and handle informa­tion; however, merchants' account books andwholesalers bills rarely do. When the lattermention handles, it is almost always becausethe cups are handled. This situation forces theresearcher to use some information in which ithas to be assumed that the cups are un­handled. When more information has beencollected the cases where this assumptionexists can be tested. For the present, acategory of "handles not mentioned" hasbeen provided. Figure 3 illustrates the numberof painted, printed, ironstone, and porcelaincups and saucers available for one dozen CCcups and saucers. In this table, the data pointsfor 1795, 1796, 1814, 1846, 1871, and 1875 areall based on unhandled London size cups andsaucers. The other data points are assumed toalso be unhandled London size cups and

saucers. However, descriptions were oftenlacking for one or two of the decorativeclasses. The erratic behavior of the ironstoneline in Figure 3 may indicate that some of theCC index numbers mix handled and un­handled cups .

When calculating CC index values for teas,handles were treated as an additional form ofdecoration. In other words, the cost of ahandleless CC London size cup was dividedinto the cost of the same size CC cupwith handles and all other decorative cupswith and without handles. In several cases thecost of handled cups of one decorative typewas equal to or more costly than handlelesscups of the next decorative type . Forexample, in the price fixing list of 1796, adozen CC cups and saucers with handles costthe same as a dozen painted cups and saucerswithout handles . In the price fixing lists of1814 and 1833 , a dozen CC cups and saucerswith handles actually cost more than a dozenpainted cups and saucers without handles.This may have been a factor in the persistenceof handleless cups in the 19th century. Per­haps the next step up in decorative type waspreferred over handles on a less expensivetype.

Teaware decorative types

CC

Cream colored. Like plates, CC teas in the19th century always refer to undecoratedvessels. The term lasts into the 20th century.However, CC cups and saucers from thesecond half of the 19th century might be closerto what archaeologists would call whiteware.Bills from the 1850s and 1860s sometimes usethe term "common teas" for the cheapesttype available. Because of the low status ofCC teas , their prices are often missing in thedocuments, complicating the building of anindex of cost above CC teas. This was particu­larly true for the documents from the 1830s.

32

White glazed

This term is from the 1814 price fixing list andmay represent plain undecorated pearlware. Ifthis is the case, then pearlware definitely had astatus above CC ware. Hollow wares andteawares are the only types available in"White Glaze." Plain undecorated pearlwareteaware is rare and nobody that the author hasconsulted recalls observing any.

Painted

Prices for painted teas are common. Someearlier price lists list them as blue painted;however, there is no evidence at this point inthe research to suggest that polychromes areany more expensive than blue painted teas.Another term used to describe painted cupsand saucers is colored teas . No evidence hasbeen found for such terms as peasant paintedor gaudy dutch.

White granite or ironstone

Bills from 1857 and 1860 have ironstone andprinted teas as being equal in price. This is thebest evidence that plain white ironstone had astatus comparable to transfer printed teaswhen the former became popular in the 1850s.From the 1850s into at least the 1880s, whiteironstone is very common in the bills

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY , VOLUME 14

examined, and the amount of transfer printedteas greatly declines.

Flowing colors

Unfortunately only the 1855 price list of theFife Pottery had flowing color teas, and it didnot have CC teas which meant the price couldriot be scaled. The following color teas were20% more expensive than regular transferprinted teas.

Porcelain

This is a major area where more information isneeded. Potters that produced CC ware usu­ally did not produce porcelain; therefore, doc­uments containing porcelain prices rarelyhave the necessary CC ware prices to scalethem. However, wholesalers' bills andaccount books often list porcelains, but thedescriptions are a little brief. Terms likePorcelain teas, China teas, or French Porce­lain are typical of the descriptions. Prices ofthe porcelain teas in the second half of the19th century may be for German, Austrian, orCzechoslovakian porcelain which was makinginroads on the traditional market for Englishand French porcelain. Teaware appears tohave been available in porcelain more oftenthan flatware and bowls. Judging from thedocuments examined, porcelain appear torepresent the top of the line in price.

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS 33

Appendix F, Part 1

CC index Values for Bowls

1802 1814 1824 1833 1836 1838 1846 1855 1858

CC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Dipped 1.20 1.20 1.29 1.40 1.20 1.20 1.10Sponged 1.10White glazed 1.60Painted 2.33 1.60 1.67 1.71 1.80 1.60 1.60 1.30Printed 2.80 2.50 2.57 3.00 2.80 2.00 2.00Flow 2.40White granite 2.00or ironstoneBasalt 6.00 6.00

Appendix F Part 2 of the bowls in the 1833 price fixing list arepresented as follows:

Establishing the cost of an individual bowlof a given size, for example, a size 6, would beaccomplished by dividing the dozen cost bysix. The matrix table below gives the indi­vidual size of bowls as priced by the 1833 pricefixing list.

Decorative Types, Description for Bowls

Bowls present another set of problems instudying ceramic prices. Marketing of bowls isdirectly related to their size. Common sizesfor bowls are 3s, 6s, 9s, 12s, 18s, 24s, 30s, 36s,42s, and 48s. These numbers are the quantitysold as a potters dozen, i.e., bowls classifiedas 6s come six to the dozen and those classi­fied as 24s come 24 to the dozen. Potter'sprice lists often present the price per dozenwhich is variable according to the size of thebowls being ordered. For example, the price

Type

CCDippedPaintedPrinted

Cost per dozen

21d27d36d54d

Type Cost per dozen Cost per bowls

4s 6s 12s 24sCC 21d 5Y4 3Yz 1% '?11Dipt 27d 6% 4Yz 2Y4 1~

Painted 36d 9 6 3 lYzPrinted 54d 13Yz 9 4Yz 2Y4

34

Knowledge of how the pricing structure worksallows more flexibility in generating pricescale relationships. Consider, for example, abill which presents the following:

Ware Unit price Total

8 CC bowls 24s Yild@ 7d16 dipped bowls 12s 2\4d@ 36d4 painted bowls 4s 9d @ 36d8 printed bowls 6s 9d 72d

A cursory examination of the above list sug­gest that the differences in the size eliminatesany scaling of their value in relation to CC,i.e. , the same size for each decorative type isnot represented. However, by multiplying theunit price times the size , the potter's dozenprice can be derived. In the above case , thebill use s the values from the 1833 price fixinglist. Other vessels commonly sold in potters'dozens include teapots, sugar-bowls,creamers, chamber pots, mugs, and jugs(pitcher). This pricing system appears to be anout growth of the system used to pay opera­tives in the potteries . Wages were fixed perdozen units completed, and the dozen wasadjusted according to vessel size.

Wholesale and retail documents from NorthAmerica indicate less use of the potter's dozenin favor of sizes such as half pint , pint, quart,two quart, and gallon sizes with 12 bowls tothe dozen. In figure 5, the CC index values for1802, 1814, 1833, 1836, 1838, 1846, and 1855use the cost per potters' dozen in the calcula­tions. The 1824 prices are based on pint sizebowls, and the index for 1858 uses number 30bowls. However, evidence in the 1858 billsuggests the use of straight dozen countsrather than potter's dozens.

Bowls , Decorative Types

CC

Bowls function both in food preparation andtable service. The kitchen is seldom con-

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 14

sidered as an area of social display , and thisprobably helps to account for the stayingpower of CC bowls as a marketable item. Inthe larger sizes, bowls are often available inonly CC and dipped, suggesting their place ofuse and the limits of their usefulness in statusdisplay. CC bowls were sometimes in com­petition with yelloware and crockery bowls inthe larger sizes, and prices for these wares willbe needed to better understand bowls in termsof social status.

Dipped

This term is rather vague in its meaning. Itappears in the price fixing lists of 1814, 1833,and 1846. The 1824 account book and bills ofthe Fahnestock Brothers in the 1850s and1860s do not use the term dipped but usemocha and colored. The colored bowls appearto be cheaper than painted bowls and probablyare some variant of dipped. In the 1836 list ofminimum working prices for potters, thewages for "dipped" ware included banded,mocha, blue banded, and common cable(Mountford 1975:20). The wages for all fourtypes are the same, suggesting that dippedbowls as listed in the price fixing lists andother documents could have meant any ofthese types. Therefore , they have been treatedas one type in the indexing, and the resultingvalues are consistent. Dipped bowls are thecheapest decorated bowls available and arecomparable to sponged and edged vessels instatus.

Sponged

Very close to the price structure for dippedbowls. However, only one price has beenlocated.

Painted

Again there is nothing to indicate a differencebetween the cost of blue painted and poly­chrome painted bowls . The prices of painted

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS 35

bowls closely follow the rise and fall of dipped Appendix Gbowl prices.

Printed

Prices for transfer printed bowls seem to havethe same relationship to CC prices that teasdo, i.e. , there was no large drop in pricetowards them. Printed bowls are related totableware assemblages . Larger bowls areoften not available in transfer printed patterns.Once again, there is no evidence for pricedifferences related to color of the transferprint.

Flowing colors

Only one price available. In 1855 it was 20%more expensive than regular transfer printedbowls.

White Granite or Ironstone

Only one price was collected with the neces­sary CC price for scaling. Again, it shows thatplain ironstone was sold for the same price astransfer printed vessels.

Basalt or Egyptian Black

Basalt is a stoneware body containing maga­nese dioxide. It is rather fine grained andalmost always unglazed. Basalt continued tofunction as a ware type because of its greatdifference in appearance from CC, pearlware,whiteware, and ironstone. Basalt mostcommonly occurred in teapots, sugar-bowls,creamers, and ornamental items such asvases. Bowls of basalt were probably teaequipage. Only the price fixing lists of 1814and 1846 provided basalt bowl prices, andconsidering the latter list was designed torestore the prices of 1814, the straight line inFigure 4, may be deceptive.

This appendix contains the minimal vesselcount for cups, plates, and bowls from thefour sites graphically represented in Figure 6.Along with the vessel counts are the calcula­tions involved in generating the averagevalues of cups, plates , and bowls in terms ofthe cost above CC vessels.

Tenant Farmer's House: -Item A

The Moses Tabbs house on Pope 's Freehold, St. Mary's County, Maryland, wasoccupied by tenant farmers from the 1780s toaround 1860. Excavation of the cellar of thisstructure by the St. Mary's City Commissionproduced occupation debris dating from about1800 to 1860. The occupation level wasdivided into two units by a dirt ramp into thecellar which appears to have been built aroundthe early 1840s (Miller I974a). The firstassemblage is from the pre-ramp occupation(ca . 1800 to ca. 1840), and it has been indexedwith the scale of values for 1824. The secondassemblage is from the post-ramp occupation(ca . 1840 to ca. 1860), and it has been indexedwith the scale of values for 1846.

Jonathan Hale Log Cabin: Item B

Jonathan Hale's log cabin was built bysquatters in 1810 and was occupied by theHale family until around 1830. It is located inSummit County, in the Connecticut WesternReserve of Ohio (Horton 1%1). The site wasexcavated by David Frayer under the direc­tion of David S. Brose of Case WesternReserve University. The Minimal vessel countused for this appendix was compiled by theauthor during the summer of 1971: Scaling thiscollection was done with the index for 1824.

36

Glass Workers House and GlassFactory: Item C

The Franklin Glass Works was built inPortage County, Ohio, in 1824 and abandonedby 1832 (Miller 1974b). Portage County islocated in the Connecticut Western Reserve ofOhio. Excavation of the factory area wasunder the direction of David S. Brose of CaseWestern Reserve University. The house areawas excavated by the author for the WesternReserve Historical Society . The index valuesof 1824 were used to scale these collections .

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY , VDLUME 14

Walker Tavern: Item D

The Walker Tavern was built around 1834on the Detroit to Chicago Road 60 miles westof Detroit. A small trash dump and basementfill dating from the 1830s to about 1850 wasrecovered from the excavations carried out byGordon L. Grosscup of Wayne StateUniversity. The ceramics report was writtenby George L. Miller (Grosscup and Miller1968). This assemblage was indexed by usingthe 1846 set of CC values.

Tenant Fanner's HouseSite:Context I Pre-basement ramp Dates ca . 1800-ca. 1840Context 2 Post-basement ramp Dates ca . I840-ca. 1860

Scale Scaleused Context I used Context 2

Type 1824 1846of Index Number Index Number

Form decoration value recovered Product value recovered Product

Cups Sponged \.23 est x I \.23Painted \.44 x 3 4.32 \.23 x 13 15.99Printed 2.45 x 4 9.80

Total 3 4.32 Total 18 27.02Average value \.44 Average value \.50

Plates CC \.00 x 2 2.00 \.00 x 2 2.00Edged \.29 x · 5 6.45 1.13 x 13 14.69Willow 2.63 x 3 7.89Printed 3.21 x I 3.21 2.63 x I 2.63

Total 8 I \.86 Total 19 27.21Average value \.46 Average value 1.43

Bowls Dipped \.20 x 4 4.80 \.20 x 4 4.80Painted \.67 x I \.67

Total 5 6.47 Total 4 4.80Average value 1.29 Average value \.20

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS 37

Site: Jonathan Hale Log Cabin Site: Walker TavemDates ca. 181G-ca. 1830 Context I Basement Fill

Dates ca . I834-ca . 1850ScaleYear Context I

Type of 1824decora- Index Number

Form tion value recovered Product ScaleUsed Context 1

Cups CC 1.00 x 3 3.00 Type of 1846Sponged 1.44est x 2 2.88 decora- Index NumberPainted 1.44 x II 15.88 Form tion value recovered ProductPrinted 3.00 x I 3.00

Total 17 24.72 Cups Sponged 1.15 x 1 1.15Average value 1.45 Printed 2.45 x 8 19.60

Plates CC 1.00 x 4 4.00 Total 9 20.75

Edged 1.29 x 16 20.64 Average value 2.31

Total 20 24.64 Plates Edged 1.13 x 2 2.26Average value 1.23 Printed 2.63 x 14 36.82

Bowls CC 1.00 x 2 2.00 Total 16 39.08

Dipped 1.20 x 1 1.20 Average value 2.44

Painted 1.67 x 4 6.67 Bowls Dipped 1.20 x 3 3.60Yellow 1.00est. x I 1.00 Printed 2.80 x 7 19.60

Total 8 10.87 Total 10 23.20Average value 1.36 Average value 2.32

Site: Franklin Glass WorksContext I House area Dates 1824-ca. 1832Context 2 Factory area Dates 1824-ca. 1832

Scale Scaleused Context I used Context 21824 1824

Type of Index Number Index NumberForm decoration value recovered Product value recovered Product

Cups Painted 1.44 x 18 25.92 1.44 x 12 17.28Printed 3.00 x 15 45.00 3.00 x 9 27.00

Total 33 70.92 Total 21 44.28Average value 2.15 Average value 2.11

Plates CC 1.00 x 5 5.00Edged 1.29 x 31 39.99 1.29 x 24 30.96Willow 2.86 x I 2.86Printed 3.21 x 13 41.73 3.21 x 3 9.63

Total 44 81.72 Total 33 48.45Average value 1.86 Average value 1.47

Bowls CC 1.00 x 4 4.00 1.00 x 2 2.00Dipped 1.20 x 6 7.20 1.20 x 4 4.80Painted 1.67 x 3 5.00 1.67 x I 1.67Printed 2.50 x 4 10.00 2.50 x I 2.50

Total 17 26.20 Total 8 10.97Average value 1.54 Average value 1.37

38

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is an outgrowth of a research project on shelledge decorated wares which was started when I was anemployee of the St. Mary's City Commission, St. Mary'sCity, Maryland. I would like to thank the Commission forallowing me to take cop ies of my notes on shell edge andceramic prices with me when I took my present positionwith Parks Canada . I would also like to thank ParksCanada for allowing me to continue my research on shelledge decorated wares and for providing research trips tothe Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum,Winterthur , Delaware, and to the Smithsonian Institution,Washington D.C. to examine ceramic price lists, bills oflading, and account books held by these institutions. Iwould part icularly like to thank Arlene Palmerwho broughtseveral important sources to my attention in the JosephDowns Manuscript Collection in the Winterthur MuseumLibrary . Susan Myers is to be thanked for arranging myuse of the Warshaw Collection of Business Americana inthe Smithsonian Institution. Lorene Mayo of the WarshawCollection was helpful in locating price lists and havingthem cop ied for my use. My research trip to the WarshawCollection would not have been nearly so productive with­out her direction to documents that I would have missedin my search of the collect ion. Information on price fixinglists from England was provided by Arnold Mountford ofthe City Museum and Art Gallery of Stoke-on-Trent. andadditional price information was provided by V. Tyrrell ofthe City Central Library of Stoke-on-Trent. I would like tothank Steve Demeter of Commonwealth Associates forproviding some prices on American White Granite ware.Last but not least I would like to thank my colleagues atParks Canada for their helpful suggestions, comments,and encouragement. In particular I would like to thankLynne Sussman, Dorothy Griffiths, and Louise Lepine.

REFERENCES

A DAMS. WILLIAM AND S ONS

1838 Bill of lading dated 20 Janu ary 1838 from theWilliam Adams & Sons Pottery, Stoke-upon­Trent. No customers name ; however, it bears acustom s house stamp from Philadelphia.

1838 Bill of lading dated I February 1838 from theWilliam Adams & Sons Pottery, Stoke-upon­Trent. Sold to Adams Brothers. Probably inNorth America, possibly Philadelphia .Both are uncat alogued documents in theWarshaw Collection of Business Americana inthe Smith sonian Institut ion, Washington , D.C.

B ARBER, EDWI N A TLEE

1904 Marks of American Potters. 1976 reprint , ArsCeramic Ltd. , Ann Arbor, Michigan.

BINNS. CHARLES F. (COMPILER AND EDITOR)

1907 The Manual of Practical Potting . Revised andenlarged, 4th edition, Scott Greenwood & Son,London.

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 14

BROWN, M ARLEY R.1973 "Ceramics from Plymouth , 1621-1800." In

Ceram ics in Am erica, edited by Ian M. G.Quimby, pp. 41-74. Univer sity Press of Virginia,Charlottesville.

C LEMENSTON BROTHERS. J .1871 Bill of lading dated 31 March 1871, from the J.

Clementson Brothers Pottery, Hanley, Stafford­shire to Kilne and Co. of Philadelphia. An un­catalogued document in The Warshaw Collec­tion of Business Americana in the SmithsonianInstitution, Washington , D.C.

C OATES. G EORGE M .

1824- Account book of George M. Coates, a china1834 merchant from Philadelphia . Original held by the

Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum ,Joseph Downs Manuscript Collection, No. 64 x18, Winterthur, Delaware.

C OLE ARTH UR

1%9 Wholesale Comm odity Prices in the UnitedStates /700-/86/ . John son Reprint Corp., NewYork.

C OLLAR D. ELIZABETH

1%7 Nin eteenth-Centu ry Pottery and Porcelain inCanada. McGill Univer sity Press, Montreal.

C UMMINGS PAPERS, THOMAS

1802 Invoice of Earthenware shipped from Montreal ,31 December 1802, Public Archives of Canada ,Ottawa.

D ELHOM, M. M ELLANAY

1977 " Pearlware." In Wedgwood: Its Competitorsand Imitators /800-/830. edited by Arthur R.Luedders, pp. 61-95, vol. 22, Wedgwood Inter­national Seminar , Ars Ceramics Ltd ., AnnArbor, Michigan.

E VANS. WILLIAM (COMPILER)

1846 " Art and History of the Pott ing Business , Com­piled From the most Practical Source s, for theEspecial use of Working Potters." The Journalof Ceramic History (3): 21-43.

FAHNESTOCK BROTHERS

1855- Bills to Fahne stock Brothers, a General Store in1863 Gettysburg, Penn sylvania . Originals owned by

George L. Miller.

F AUlAS D E S AINT-FOND. B.1907 A journey through England and Scotland to the

Hebr ides in 1784, by B. Faujas de Saint-Fond; arevised edition of the English translation , ed.,with notes and a memoir of the author, by SirArchibald Geikie . . . H. Hopkins , Glasgow.

FINER. ANN AND GEORGE SAVAGE EDITORS

1%5 The Selected Letters ofJosiah Wedgwood, CoryAdams and Mackay, London.

CLASSIFICATION AND ECONOMIC SCALING OF 19TH CENTURY CERAMICS 39

FINLAYSON. R . W.

1972 Portn euf Pott ery and Other Early Wares.Longman Canada Ltd ., Don Mills. Ontario.

D ES F ONTAINES. J OHN

1977 " Wedgwood Bone China of the First Period." InWedgwood: Its Compe titors and Imitators 1800­1830. Edited by Arthur R. Luedden , pp.135-159, vol. 22, Wedgwood InternationalSeminar, Ars Ceramica Ltd ., Ann Arbor , Michi­gan .

G ODDARD AND B URGESS

1874 Bills of lading dated 19 February and 25February, 1874 from Goddard and BurgessPottery of Longton, Stafford shire to their ownfirm of Burgess and Goddard in Philadelphia .Original owned by George L. Miller.

G ODDEN. GOFFREY A.

1964 Enc yclopedia of British Pott ery and PorcelainMarks , Bonanza Books, New York.

1971 The JIlustrated Guide to Mason 's Patent Iron­stone China and related Wares: Stone China .N ew Stone . Grani te China-and Their Manufac­turers. Praeger Publishers, New York.

GROSSCUP. G ORDON AND G EORGE L. MILLER

1968 "Excavations at Walker Tavern , CambridgeState Historical Park, " report submitted to theMichigan Department of Conservation.

G UIGNON. F. A .

1924 Clay Products Cyclopedia. Industrial Publica­tions Inc ., Chicago .

H AGGAR. R EGINALD AND ELIZABETH ADAMS

1977 Mason Porcelain and Ironstone 1796-1853:Mile s Ma son and the Mason Manufactories .Faber and Faber, London.

HAGGAR. REGINALD

1972 " Miles Mason. " English Ceramic Circle. (2): pp ,183-99.

HAYDEN. ARTHUR

1952 Chats on English China . Revised and edited byCyril G. E. Bunt, Ernest Benn Ltd., London .

H ORTON. JOHN J.

1961 The Jonathan Hale Farm : A Chronicle of theCuyahoga Valley . Publication No.6, TheWestern Reserve Historical Societ y, Cleveland.

LAGENBECK. KARL

1895 Chemistry of Pottery. Chemical Publishing Co.,Easton, Pennsylvania.

L EOPOLD & C O" J .

1881 Bill dated 11 May 1881 fromJ . Leopold&Co.,ofBaltimore to Thomas Wood & Co. of MaxMeadows , Virginia. Original owned by GeorgeL. Miller.

L OCKETT. T . A .

1972 Da venp ort Pottery and Porcelain: 1794-1887.Charle s E. Tuttle Inc. , Rutland, Vermont.

L OFTSTROM. E DWARD U.1976 "A Seriation of Historice ceramic s in the Mid­

west , 1780-1870." Paper delivered at the JointPlains-Midwest Anthropological Conference,October.

M ANKOWITZ. W OLF

1953 Wedgwood. Spring Books, London .

M ETEYARD. ELIZA

1963 The Wedgwood Handbook: A Manual for Col­lector. Reprint Timothy Trace , Peekshill, NewYork .

MILLER. G EORGE L.1974a "Tenant Farmer' s Tableware: Nineteenth­

Century Ceramics from Tabb 's Purchase ."Maryland Historical Magazine 69(2): 197-210.

1974b " History of the Franklin Glass Works, PortageCounty , Ohio, 1824-ca. 1832" Manuscript for theWestern Historic al Society, Cleveland , Ohio.

M OUNTFORD. ARNOLD R.

1967 " Samuel Alcock 's Hill Pottery, Burslern." InReport No.2 f or 1966, pp. 30-31. City of Stoke­on-Trent Museum, Archaeological Societ y,Hanle y, England.

M OUNTFORD. ARNOLD R. (EDITOR)

1975 " Documents related to English Ceramic s of the18th & 19th Centuries." Journal of CeramicHistory 8: 3-41.

N OEL H UME. IVOR

1969a " Pearlware: Forgotten Milestone of EnglishCeramic History ." Antiques 95: 390-97.

OWEN. H UGH

1883 Two Centuries ofCeramic Art in Bristol: Being aHistory of the True Porcelain by Richard Cham­pion . . . , Bell and Dalby, London.

THE POTTERS GAZETTE

1876 East Liverpool , Ohio , Vol. VI, No.3 , December9, pp. 6.

1877 East Liverpool, Ohio , Vol. VI, No. 10, January27, pp. 2.

RIDGWAY . M ORLEY. W EAR & CO.

1839 Bill of Lading dated 20 February, 1839 from theRidgway Morley, Wear & Co. Pottery ofShelton, Staffordshire to George Breed of Pitts­burgh . An uncatalogued document in The War­shaw Collection of Business Americana ,Smith sonian Institution, Washington D.C.

RIDGWAY, & S ONS. JOB

1813 " Scale for China tea , and Breakfast sets, JobRidgway & Sons ' Manufactory, Cauldon Place,

40

Staffordshire Potteries, Commencing Januarylst , 1813," Allbut and Gibbs, Hanley ,Staffordshire. A one page printed price list in theStaffordshire County Library, Hanley , Stoke­on-Trent.

ROTH . RODRIS

1961 ' T ea Drinking in 18th-Century America: ItsEtiquette and Equipage," U.S . NationalMuseum Bulletin No. 225. Contributions fromthe Museum of History and Technology, Paper14, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

SHAW, SIMEON

1829 History of the Staffordshire Potteries; and theRise and Progress of the Manufacture ofPotteryand Porcelain: With References to GenuineSpecimens, and Notices of Eminent Potters.1968 reprint by Beatrice C. Weinstock, GreatNeck, New York.

1837 The Chemistry of the Several Natural and Arti­ficial Heterogeneous Compounds used in theManufacturing Porcelain, Glass and Pottery .1900 reprint by Scott, Greenwood and Co.,London, England.

SPODE & Co.. JOSIAH

1820 "Throwers' and Turners ' Handbook, " Originalheld by the Henry Francis du Pont WinterthurMuseum, Joseph Downs Manuscript Collection,No. 65 x 574, Winterthur, Delaware.

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 14

STAFFORDSHIRE POTfERIES

1814 "Staffordshire Potteries Prices Current ofEarthenware, Tregortha, Burslern , Stafford­shire. " A one page printed price list.

1833 " Staffordshire Potteries at a general Meeting ofManufacturers, " Monday . October 21.

STONE. GARY WHEELER

1970 "Ceramics in Suffold County, MassachusettsInventories 1680-1775." The Conference His­toric Site Archaeology Papers 1968 3 (Part 2):73-90 .

TELLER. BARBARA GoRELY

/968 "Ceramics in Providence, 1750-1800: An Inven­tory Survey." Antiques 94(4): 570-77.

TOOKE. THOMAS AND WILLIAM NEWMARCH

1928 A History of Prices of the State of the Circula­tionfrom /792 to /856. reprint Adelphi Co., NewYork, 4 vols.

WILKINSON. JOHN

1836 Bill of lading of the Whitehaven Pottery dated 26February, 1836 sold to John Dawson and con­signed to Maitland, Kennedy & Co., Phila­delphia. Uncatalogued document in the War­shaw Collection of Americana in theSmithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

GEORGE L. MILLER

PARKS CANADA

OTfAWA. ONTARIO

CANADA KIAOH4