Bow Porcelain I https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/ Bow Porcelain I Teapot (b) Teapot, east London, England, c. 1747. Bow soft-paste phosphatic porcelain of the New Canton period. Height 28.5 cm. (Taylor collection). Photo courtesy of Bonhams. Decorated in enamels and comprising 27% ball clay, 38% bone ash, 2% lead glass, 4% lime-alkali glass, 29% crushed silica (wt% hydrous). Decoratively this pot shows linkages in palette and style of painting to Bow first patent porcelains (Ramsay et al., 2003). This sophisticated pot demonstrates the very best in te early Bow phosphatic output in relation to the quality of the porcelain, potting, and enamelling ? see Daniels (2003) and Ramsay and Ramsay (2007b). https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=173529318 173529318 Coffee Can Coffee can, east London, England, c. 1747-1750. Bow phosphatic porcelain. Height 60 mm. Private collection. This mug contains 18.2 wt% ball clay, 3.1% lead glass, 4.8% alkali glass, 46.3% bone ash, and 27.6% crushed silica and conforms to compositions of the New Canton period ~1747-1753/1754. It is thickly potted, heavy, and is painted in bright blue with the banana tree, stork, and fence pattern; see Parkside Antiques (1982: No. 6). https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=173529307 173529307 Coffee Cup Coffee cup, east London, England, c. 1746. Bow high-magnesian (steatitic) porcelain. Height 5.8 cm. (Taylor collection.) This cup contains 6.3 wt% MgO and 8 wt% PbO which converts to 20 wt% talc (hydrous) and 21 wt% lead glass. A Bow attribution is based on the presence of the Island House pattern, the palette used, and the gilding over red-brown enamel. https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=173529308 173529308 Fluted Decagonal Cup Fluted decagonal cup, East London, England, c. 1`744. Hard-paste porcelain with an incised ?A? to the base. H. 60 mm. Private collection, photograph courtesy of Mercury Antiques. Compositionally this cup comprises 65.2 wt% SiO2, 19.8 wt% Al2O3, and 5.4 wt% CaO. The chemistry of this cup's body indicates that the clay used was a refractory China clay possibly derived from the lands of the Cherokee Indians in Macon County, NC. as specified in the 1744 ceramic patent. Decoration on this cup suggests the influence of J. G. Horoldt's decorating studio at Meissen with trailing flowers in the indianische Blumen manner. It is precisely because the form, potting, and decoration does not conform to much of the English ceramic output of the 18th C that there has been such problems during the past in deriving a reliable attribution for this cup https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=173529309 173529309 Mug Mug, East London, England, 1772. Soft-paste phosphatic porcelain marked "RD & MY Tidswell 1772." (Collection of the British Museum BM: 3-4.1. Photo courtesy of A. Gabszewicz. This documentary mug is the type item for the Tidswell period c. 1770 ? 1774 and is characterised by the reintroduction of glass cullet ? both lime alkali and lead glass; see Ramsay and Ramsay, 2007: Table 14. Members of this period tend to be underfired and translucency is very poor to non-existent. https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=173529310 173529310 Large Octagonal Plate Large octagonal plate, Limehouse, England, c. 1746-47. Si-Al-Ca porcelain. Fitzwilliam, Cambridge. Micro-sampling of a range of porcelain items has been able to match compositionally a number of Limehouse wares to compositions derived from sherds recovered from the archaeological excavation of that factory site. In addition, current sampling has been able to extend the Limehouse compositional output and propose a compositional stratigraphy for that potworks. As noted by Ian Freestone, the vagaries of archaeological sampling may have to date provided us with a skewed representation of compositions produced at Limehouse. Of note is that the decoration around the border of this platter is almost certainly by the same artist, who provided the internal decoration to the alleged "fake" Lund's Bristol sauceboat shown on this Gallery page. Finally we note that claims in the literature to be able to attribute ceramic items to Limehouse based on the appearance of the porcelain body or the nature of the glaze may have little substance unless it is clearly stated which of the three Limehouse bodies recognised to date the comparison is being made against. https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=173529311 173529311 Pickle Dish Pickle dish, attributed to Limehouse, England. Soft-paste magnesian-phosphatic (Mg-P) porcelain. Ex Godden Collection (Bonhams, May 2011, Sale 19105, Lot 254). Excavations on the Limehouse site at 20 Fore Street have recognised two compositional variants amongst the wasters recovered, namely a Si-Al type and a Si-Al-Ca type. More recently, further work by Jay and Cashion has identified a compositional intermediary between these two end members. In addition, anecdotal claims in the literature state that Limehouse also employed steatite/soapstone in some of its output, but till now no documentary evidence in the form of published analyses, method of analysis, the name of the analyst, or precision levels has appeared in the literature. Such a state of affairs is more in keeping with the hobby science period in English ceramic studies, which developed subsequently to the pioneering work by Eccles and Rackham in the early 1920's. Our joint research (2013) on the Limehouse manufactory is the first to document the presence of a magnesian-phosphorus (Mg-P) body with accompanying illustrations. Discriminatory features, both chemical and physical, to distinguish between all three major bodies have been published in our 2013 Limehouse monograph where we tentatively attribute such Mg-P porcelains to Limehouse. However, to date 47 waster analyses from 20 Fore Street have failed to identify either a magnesian or a magnesian-phosphatic body. Likewise on-site excavations have failed to unearth raw materials supporting the use of either soaprock or bone ash. We have suggested that possibly, if of Limehouse origin, such magnesian porcelains may not have been manufactured at 20 Fore Street but rather on another site shared with Rayner and Stanton on the north side of Fore Street. Alternatively the possibility arises that these magnesian wares are not Limehouse and if so, two other considerations arise. Firstly these wares as documented by us in our Limehouse monograph derive from earlier Bow or secondly from later Lund's Bristol. The former suggestion of a Bow derivation takes on added significance now that we have demonstrated that Bow was producing both Mg-P-Pb and Mg-Pb porcelains as found in the George II busts and associated wall brackets by 1745 (Daniels, Ramsay, and Ramsay, 2013). On the other hand our research into Lund's Bristol (2011) has likewise shown the presence of both Mg-P-Pb and Mg-Pb bodies. The possibility that Limehouse did not employ soaprock in its porcelains takes on added weight in view of the perceived problems experienced by that concern by mid 1747 coupled with our claim based on correspondence by William Borlase (FRS) that by that date the Kynance Cove deposits on the Lizard, Cornwall had become depleted and no longer economically viable. Although the jury is still out in regard to a Limehouse attribution for this group of Mg-P wares, unqualified claims in the literature that such wares are Limehouse underscores the fallacies associated with notions as to the primacy of the artistic pursuit divorced from both archaeological and compositional evidence. In addition, perceptions that Limehouse was highly innovative in regard to the use of moulding, the replication of silver shapes, the use of soapstone, and the first to use underglaze blue decoration have possibly held up our understanding of the development early English porcelains for the last 20 years. One glance at the brilliant moulding of the George II busts and wall brackets, dated by us to 1745-46 demonstrates the significance of Bow at a very early date. Continually we see in the literature the deleterious influence of the millstone syndrome that real Bow did not commence to make real porcelains for real people till c. 1747 and hence the unsubstantiated and in our opinion fallacious assumption that the commercial Bow output including the use of bone ash and soapstone, the use of moulding, and the employment of underglaze blue decoration was preceded by Limehouse. www.Bowporcelain.net The porcelain web site of W. R. H. and E. G. Ramsay (February, 2014) https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=173529312 173529312 Plate Plate in underglaze blue, east London,c. 1742-43 or earlier. Bow soft-paste phosphatic porcelain of the Developmental period (ball clay 22 wt%, bone ash 33 wt%, lead glass 7 wt%, alkali glass 4 wt%, gypsum 8 wt%, crushed silica 26 wt%). Diameter 305 mm. (Taylor collection). The plate is thickly potted, heavy, and painted in bright blue with the Disconsolate fisherman pattern; see Amors (1997: No. 7). Compositionally this plate approximates the recipe specified in the Bow second patent of 1749 with 25 wt% crushed silica, 25 % ball clay and 50% virgin earth. In this case virgin earth comprises bone ash, glass cullet, both alkali and lead glass, and a distinct amount of gypsum (8 wt%). In some instances we have demonstrated that other members of the Developmental period had alum added rather than gypsum. https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=173529313 173529313 Press Moulded Sauce Boat Press moulded sauce boat, Lund?s Bristol, England, c. 1749 ? mid 1750. Soft-paste magnesian-phosphatic-plumbian porcelain lacking any mark or embossing. L. 223 mm. Private collection. This sauce boat came up for auction at Bonhams (Sale number18425, June 30th, 2010: lot 52) where it was described as a "problem sauce boat" mid 18th century or circa 1980. Reasons given as to why this sauce boat was possibly a "fake" rest with its under firing, its thin potting and "brittle" quality, its crazed glazing, and the clear underglaze blue decoration, which lacks blurring. A compositional study of both the body and glaze of this sauce boat demonstrates that no "faker" would have had knowledge of the highly characteristic composition, which characterises a group of non-embossed Bristol wares. Consequently we contend that this sauce boat is genuine Lund's Bristol. A research paper detailing the various compositions produced at Lund's Bristol and the technology pathways running from Bow, through Limehouse, to Lund's Bristol and thence to early Worcester has been submitted for publication. There is no scientific evidence for the notion found in the literature that Bow (c. 1748), was derivative from Limehouse (1746-48), which in turn was derivative from Greenwich (c. 1743-47). https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=173529314 173529314 Sauce Boat Sauce boat in underglaze blue, East London, c. 1764-1768, unmarked. Soft-paste phosphatic porcelain. H. 100 mm. (Private collection). Moulded with fruits and painted with Oriental style flowers, insects, and an internal cell border and external gadrooning; see Parkside Antiques (1988: No. 12). This boat belongs to the Bowcock period (1755 ? ~1769) when gypsum was reintroduced to the paste, glass cullet was removed, crushed silica increased to around 45 wt% and ball clay reduced to around 15 wt%; see Ramsay and Ramsay, 2007: Table 13. Compositionally the Bowcock period was characterised by a more homogenious body, which tended to be lighter in weight, more porous and chalky looking with a tendency to stain in unglazed areas. Translucency in earlier members displays what Tilley terms "Bow brown" while later members show a reduction in light transmission. https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=173529315 173529315 Teapot (a) Teapot, east London, England, c. 1747. Bow soft-paste phosphatic porcelain of the New Canton period. Height 28.5 cm. (Taylor collection). Photo courtesy of Bonhams. Decorated in enamels and comprising 27% ball clay, 38% bone ash, 2% lead glass, 4% lime-alkali glass, 29% crushed silica (wt% hydrous). Decoratively this pot shows linkages in palette and style of painting to Bow first patent porcelains (Ramsay et al., 2003). This sophisticated pot demonstrates the very best in te early Bow phosphatic output in relation to the quality of the porcelain, potting, and enamelling ? see Daniels (2003) and Ramsay and Ramsay (2007b). https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=173529317 173529317 George II porcelain bust (and socle) George II porcelain bust and socle, height 17 3/4 ins with incised 3 on the socle. Dudley Delevingne Collection. This bust is regarded by us as part of a post-Culloden commission of 12 busts, possibly by Sir Henry Fox or the Duke of Richmond, and dates to mid 1746. Seven busts of this commission have been located suggesting an attrition rate of some 40%. The bust was initially analysed by Reginald Milton in 1962 and has been reanalysed by Daniels, Ramsay and Ramsay (2013). Our analysis demonstrates that this bust is of the Mg-Pb type comprising crushed silica, soapstone, a lead frit, and possibly a small component of lime-alkali bottle glass. Our analysis in no way conforms with that provided by Reginald Milton for Dudley Delevingne. Image courtesy of C. Daniels. https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=186665319 186665319 George II resurrected waster bust George II resurrected waster bust with a bespoke cast-iron stand, c. early 1745. Compositionally this bust is of the unusual Mg-P-Pb type comprising soapstone, crushed silica, bone ash, lead frit, and a small addition of lime-alkali bottle glass. This waster bust is regarded by us as the first to have emerged from the kiln largely intact and consequently belongs to the pre-Culloden group of busts that we recognise. Daniels, Ramsay, and Ramsay (2013) propose that this bust was 'rescued' by John Brittain at the Bow site in early 1745 and by descent through his daughter, Miss Brittain, was acquired by William Edkins and in turn on being auction by Sotheby's on 21st-23rd April, 1874 (Lot 470) was bought by Henry Willett and now resides in the Brighton Museum and Art Gallery. Image courtesy of C. Daniels. https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=186665321 186665321 Polychrome bowl Polychrome bowl decorated after the Chinese in famille rose colours, Bow Al-Mg-P porcelain, c. 1742-1744, 12.1 cm diameter. Private collection. The body of this bowl has a high-fired appearance as demonstrated by the very high content of aluminium (33 wt% Al2O3), is well-potted having a tight-fitting, blemish-free glaze distinctive of Bow, and is highly translucent with a greenish hue. The distinct amounts of P2O5 and MgO are assumed to reflect the use of both bone ash and steatite/soapstone by the Bow proprietors. The glaze is a characteristic Bow glaze (Ramsay et al., 2011b) with high PbO, K2O greater than or equal to CaO and low Al2O3 and MgO. The decoration on this bowl belongs to a stock pattern produced at Bow over a long period of time, but is rendered very individually by a painter, whose hand has only been found on one or two other typically Bow examples, although visual examination indicates the paste composition found in these other bowls differs from this example. Whilst an inordinate degree of discussion is found in the literature regarding the visual appearance of Bow glazes, which might appear to be less than diagnostic, little attention has been afforded a range of Bow body types (Al-Mg-S, Mg-Pb, Mg-P-Pb, Al-P, Al-Mg-P, Si-Al-Ca, and Si-Al) many of which are visually distinctive and highly informative regarding the early development of Bow from the 1730's. The visual appearance and chemical composition of this inferred high-fired body contained in this bowl resonates with that of an Al-Mg-S Bow tea canister decorated with the Island House pattern (Ramsay and Ramsay, 2005; 2007a; 2007b) as discussed elsewhere in this section. Furthermore, the use of both inferred soapstone and bone ash in the ceramic body of this bowl demonstrates technology linkages to the Willett/Edkins/John Brittain George II waster bust, through to some of the Lund's Bristol output, and thence to early Worcester. The attribution of a Mg-P body in wares decorated with apparent Limehouse stylistic idioms is currently under investigation and there is a body of opinion that such porcelains, as detailed by us in our Limehouse monograph (Table 3) may not in fact be Limehouse. Here one should keep an eye out for on-going research by Dr Bill Jay. Photograph by Cilla Daniels. https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=190417367 190417367 Coffee cup, Bow East London Coffee cup, Bow East London, c. 1745, height 60 mm (private collection). This press-moulded coffee cup has a decagonal footrim, fluting, and a plain loop handle. The body has a high P2O5 content (24.3 wt%) and a prominent lead glaze (53 wt% PbO). One of the major arguments voiced against our work relating the A-mark group of porcelains to the Bow manufactory can be traced back nearly half a century to Charleston and Mallet (1971) when they wrote in connection to the A-mark group of porcelains; ....bears no resemblance whatever, in shapes, details of potting, or enamelling to the later Bow wares. Out of this has grown the mantra; Anywhere but Bow and anyone but Heylyn and Frye. So influential has this claim by Charleston and Mallet been that the following quote influenced by these two authors appeared in the literature in 2015; No single model associated with the 'A'-mark class corresponds to its presumed heir apparent, a surprising anomaly. We beg to disagree. The above coffee cup in our opinion is the "missing link" in English porcelain studies. It has a distinct A-mark shape but has a Bow Defoe-New Canton period phosphatic composition, which has been recognised by us as stretching from 1744-1755. https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=200726497 200726497 Shell Dish Shell dish, soft-paste Mg-P composition, regarded as false Limehouse (private collection). This shell dish is part of a group of soft-paste wares which have been grouped with Limehouse for the last 25 years based on decorative idioms which appear to conform with that factory. The porcelain body has ~ 12 wt% MgO and ~ 8 wt% P2O5 with low PbO. The glaze is a moderate lead-bearing glaze with 18.5 wt% PbO. When one considers archaeology, composition, and historical documents we now regard this shell dish not to be of Limehouse derivation as set out in our recent publication (Ramsay, Daniels, and Ramsay, 2015). On this basis there are two alternative factories that one must look to, based on our current knowledge, as an attribution for this shell dish. The first is Bow prior to mid-1746 and the second is Lund's Bristol. Predicated on our joint work with Pat Daniels regarding the dating and attribution of the George II busts and historical wall brackets we would contend that such soft-paste look-alike Limehouse wares can be attributed to Bow. If we are correct, then there is a significant body of wares, which for the last 25 years has been misattributed to Limehouse. https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=201094468 201094468 Fluted Coffee Cup (from 'A'-marked group) Fluted coffee cup of the 'A'-marked group sold at Woolley and Wallis Salisbury, 4 June 2008, Lot 511. This cup was produced using a mixture of Cherokee clay imported into London c. 1743 and finely ground calciferous, lead-free, bottle glass. The cup is decorated in the Chinoiserie manner with flowering stems and precious objects using iron red, green, brown, with gilding. Also present is the characteristic decagonal foot rim to the cup. https://www.bowporcelain.net/apps/photos/photo?photoID=206203920 206203920