American Potters and Pottery

AMERICAN

POTTERS

and

POTTERY

by

JOHN RAMSAY

ILLUSTRATED

COPYRIGHT 1947, BY

JOHN RAMSAY

All rights reserved—no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief passages in connections with a review written for inclusion in a magazine or newspaper.

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE COLONIAL PRESS INC., CLINTON, MASS.

FOR

HOMER EATON KEYES

MY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE DEBT DUE HIM FROM ALL STUDENTS OF AMERICAN CRAFTS

INTRODUCTION

WRITING this book has been a very pleasant experience. Difficulties of all sorts have been met, and the arrangement of so much heterogeneous material into a clear and readable study brought on several headaches. But it has been, on the whole, interesting work, although the final result is hardly as complete and comprehensive as I would like. The mere listing of twelve hundred makers of pottery, and of a hundred types and variations of the ware, with some description of their technical characteristics and processes of manufacture, threatens to make a rather ponderous tome, so that the complete story of American pottery may have to wait until someone has time and patience to write two more volumes.

If this single volume were meant to be a study of the manufacture of pottery, it would be necessary to preface it with an apology. If it were intended as a history of the pottery industry of the United States, further apologies would be in order. Since I have written from the standpoint of a collector of pottery, both subjects have been considered, but topics of considerable historical and technical significance have been compressed into very small space, because their interest to the collector is slight, while other material, which does interest collectors, has been expanded to what may seem, to others, unreasonable length. Thus collectible pottery—its types, manufacture and makers—is considered in detail, while other wares, as well as much early and recent ceramic history, are covered only sketchily.

A great deal of the material included is necessarily a résumé of what has already been published on the subject of American pottery. In this, I have been able to include and correlate much which has appeared only in periodicals, or has been buried in reports and publications not available to the casual reader. Some practical knowledge of the processes of manufacture, and the ownership of several hundred examples of American pottery, plus, of course, thorough examination of hundreds, not to say thousands, more, has helped me to put the technical data into fairly understandable shape. This technical information is really necessary for a thorough knowledge of the subject, but its scientific terminology requires careful translation for the non-technical reader. In this, as in the historical outline, I have been able to add to, and even correct, previously published material, but have tried to do this tactfully. Any reader who knows this previous work will recognize my emendations and corrections, with my authorities for them in important cases, but I have found no reason to write in controversial style.

The two check-lists are possibly the most important sections of the book, and its strongest claim to a place on the collector’s shelf. Neither is complete, although that of pottery types must be nearly so. The list of potters and potteries has involved a great deal of work, and still shows unavoidable blanks. But a complete and accurate study of any one of our early potteries includes a tremendous amount of research—historical, genealogical, technical and even archeological. Local records have to be searched for names and dates, and excavation of the site is often the only way to determine the types of ware made there. All this has been done by many investigators, but, after forty years of such work, less than three hundred potteries, many quite unimportant, have been so completely documented. Consequently, I have felt justified in including less definite information on five hundred more.

This check-list has been intended to include the location of each pottery, the name of the owner or potter and his successors, the dates of foundation, of any changes in ownership, and of the final closing. To these facts are added the types of ware made, with any makers’ marks used, or any distinguishing characteristics, and such pertinent facts as can be stated briefly, with occasional references to the text. This standard has been impossible to maintain, so all potteries for which approximate dates and production data are available have been included. As it happens, the most difficult date to pin down is that of the final closing of a pottery. So many of them were operated as side lines by farmers or small business men that, unless terminated by fire or flood, they just petered out over a period of years.

The list of pottery marks is entirely tentative. The statement no mark in the check-list itself means only that no mark used by that maker is known to the writer or the authorities on whom he depends, but there are only a few cases in which this statement can be definite. Absolute it can never be, since the individual potter might always be seized by a whim to inscribe his name on the soft clay of a piece he had just made. Marks in general are the most difficult to locate of all the information I have tried to compile. Most histories, particularly the technical and geological ones, omit any mention of them, so that I have had to depend largely on examination of the ware itself. This again is difficult, since very few potteries marked their entire output, and many, of course, never used any formal mark. On the other hand, the existence of a piece marked with its maker’s name is conclusive evidence of his existence, and a number of potters are included in the check-list on that evidence alone.

The information included in the list, and consequently in the text, has come from many sources. Previously published books and articles, which are listed in the bibliography, are naturally the sources for much of it. John Spargo’s Early American Pottery and China is the most complete from the collector’s standpoint, but Ries and Leighton’s, Barber’s and Jervis’ books have also been most helpful. These have been supplemented by many local histories, which usually mention their first potter, but are distressingly vague about his products and his successors. Again, early directories and the files of old newspapers, usually tedious but in this case fascinating reading, have added many details. Finally, various reports of federal and state Geological Surveys have occasional paragraphs on early potteries, and odd bits of information have been picked up here and there, from marked examples of pottery, local traditions, even old grave-stones. These have been fitted together like picture puzzles, so that the complete history of a particular pottery, given in the text or outlined in the check-list, may have been gathered from half a dozen sources. Exact references to these sources, either in the text or as foot-notes, have been almost entirely omitted, largely because of the amount of space they would require.

This work is, unfortunately, decidedly spotty, practically complete for some sections of the country, and sadly incomplete in others. This, of course, is due entirely to the amount of research which has been carried on. I have been able to work only in territory which has already been adequately covered, rather than in those states where really important material remains to be developed. Yet the government census of 1840 states that the county in which I have spent four years had eleven potteries in that year. I have been able to locate only six, with two additional possibilities, which seems a fair indication of the extent to which the industry as a whole has been documented. So far as the industry itself is concerned, it has been difficult or impossible to secure information from those connected with it today, either in the field of production or research. Dr. Ries, writing in 1908 after a similar search for material, comments on the startling lack of knowledge in nearly all quarters, and the same condition seems even more startling thirty years later.

For those sections which are really adequately covered, I have to thank many people. In addition to the books already mentioned, Dr. Stout’s monograph on the clay industries of Ohio, Dr. Weygandt’s The Red Hills and Mr. Belknap’s study of the artists and craftsmen of Essex County, Massachusetts have been particularly valuable. For more personal, and more valued assistance, I am greatly indebted to Mrs. Knittle for her contributions on the Ohio potteries; to Mr. Reinert, who has given me more unpublished material than anyone else; and to Dr. Weygandt again, for material on the eastern Pennsylvania potteries; to Mrs. Buxby for additional data on the long story of the industry in Essex County, and to Dr. Norton for other information on New England; to Mr. Mallory and Mr. Van Huyning for their help in the problem of Southern pottery; and, for additional information, Miss Anna Nixon, Mrs. Charles H. Watkins, Miss Mabel Weber, Mr. George L. Whitlach, Mr. Walter J. Sparks, Mr. J. J. Dronenburg, Mr. George S. McKearin, Mr. Richard C. Smith, Mr. Eugene Houghton, Mr. W. T. B. Gordy. In fact, I have been asking questions about pottery for so many years that I cannot remember all the kindly people I have pestered. I do remember, gratefully, that, while some of those who might reasonably have been expected to show some interest failed me, many others went out of their way to help. Much technical information, as well as historical data, has come from Mr. Reinert, and finally, I very gratefully remember the late Mr. Homer Eaton Keyes, editor of Antiques, without whose encouragement and advice this book would never have been written.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PART I

CHAPTER

PART II

PART III

POTTERY TYPES

A.     REDWARE

B.     STONEWARE

C.     BROWNWARE

D.     YELLOW-WARE

WHITEWARES

A.     EARTHENWARE

B.     PORCELAIN

PART IV

CHECK LIST OF AMERICAN POTTERS

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY, DELAWARE, MARYLAND, AND EASTERN WEST VIRGINIA

NEW ENGLAND AND NEW YORK

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA, WEST VIRGINIA, AND THE MIDDLE WEST

THE SOUTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

POTTERS MARKS

INDEX

PERSONS, FIRMS AND POTTERIES

PLACES

GENERAL

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

(Top) Blue Rockingham and White Granite, Wm. Brunt, Jr., East Liverpool, Ohio (1866-1878); (center), Brownware, opaque cream slip, brown glaze markings (Mogadore, Ohio, c.1870).

(Bottom left) Redware, modeled by hand, probably Bell Pottery, Waynesboro, 1833-1880; Redware, Solomon Bell, Winchester, Va., c.1830; Brownware, Ohio, c.1870.

(Bottom right) Brownware hounds, modeled by hand, unglazed, painted, Tuscarawas County, Ohio, c.1860; Brownware, buff glaze, Eastern Ohio, c.1870-80 (Author’s Collection).

1. Potter at foot-operated or Kick-Wheel

2. Potter’s ball of prepared clay centered on wheel, top flattened

3. Potter’s thumbs start depression for hollow interior, fingers holding outside diameter (courtesy of Antiques Magazine)

4. Thumbs have formed interior down to thickness of bottom, opening widened by outward pressure

5. Fingers of one hand and knuckles of other make walls of cylinder thicker and higher

6. Cylinder widened at rim by reversing pressure

7. Cylinder widened at shoulder by greater pressure of hand inside vessel

8. Interior of vessel smoother by same method (courtesy of Antiques Magazine)

9. Partially dried vessel cut from wheel and reversed, base formed and surface smoothed with ribstick whose support allows greater accuracy

10. Pennsylvania redware lamp, redware slip-cup, used for applying lines of slip decoration, metal coggle-wheel for crimping rims and incised lines (Clement Collection, Brooklyn Museum)

11. Pennsylvania sgraffito barber’s bowl, dated 1793 (courtesy Philadelphia Museum of Art)

12. Pennsylvania sgraffito mug (same)

13. Pennsylvania pie-plate decorated with sgraffito and colored slip, dated 1838 (same)

14. Pennsylvania slipware bulk-jar (c.1830) same

15. Pennsylvania sgraffito flower-pot, incised rim with rope moulding (1826), (courtesy of the Philadelphia Museum of Art)

16. Pennsylvania redware jar, slip and incised decoration (c.1792), (courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art)

17. Pennsylvania redware Puzzle-Jug, mottled glaze with incised decoration (c.1809), (courtesy of the Philadelphia Museum of Art)

18. Redware tile, from a pottery near Bethlehem, Penna., c.1790 (Clement Collection, Brooklyn Museum)

19. Stoneware money-bank, blue decoration (Richard C. Remney, Philadelphia), 1859-1900 (courtesy of the Philadelphia Museum of Art)

20. Pennsylvania redware; slipware plates and platter, coffee-pot and flowerpot, mottled glazes, money-bank, modeled bear and dog, dark manganese glazes (Author’s Collection)

21. Stoneware pitcher, incised and blue decoration, Warne & Letts, South Amboy, N. J., c.1807

22. Rockingham Apostle pitcher, modeled by Daniel Greatbach at the Jersey City Pottery, c.1839-1845

23. Rockingham Pitcher, Salamander Works, Woodbridge, N. J., 1845 (All Clement Collection, Brooklyn Museum of Art.)

24. Rockingham bull-calf, Abraham Cadmus, Congress Pottery, South Amboy, N. J., c.1850 (Clement Collection, Brooklyn Museum of Art)

25. Rockingham hound-handled pitchers; New Jersey, probably Trenton, c.1860; Bennington, Vt., c.1852; Jersey City, N. J., modeled by Daniel Greatbach, c.1839-1845; Ohio, probably East Liverpool, c.1870 (Author’s Collection)

26. Rockingham Rebecca-at-the-Well and Rose tea-pots, Edwin Bennett, Baltimore, Md., 1856-1900 (courtesy of the Philadelphia Museum of Art)

27. Yellow-ware bowl, white slip decoration, New Jersey, 19th Century (Clement Collection, Brooklyn Museum)

28. New England slip-decorated redware, early 19th century

29. Stoneware jar, blue caricature of Stephen A. Douglas, Lewis & Cady, Burlington, Vt., 1860 (both courtesy of George S. McKearin)

30. New England redware, early 19th century (both courtesy of Antiques Magazine)

31-32. Stoneware jug, blue and incised decoration, John Crolius, New York, dated 1775 (courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art)

33. Stoneware water-cooler, blue and incised decoration, Paul Cushman, Albany, N. Y., c.1806-1832 (courtesy of George S. McKearin)

34. Stoneware figures, blue decoration, of Staffordshire inspiration, New York State, c.1850

35. Stoneware jar, blue decoration, Abraham Mead, Greenwich Co. (courtesy of the Brooklyn Museum of Art)

36. Stoneware jug, blue and incised decoration, Daniel Goodale, Greenwich, Conn., 1818-1830 (Clement Collection, Brooklyn Museum)

37. Stoneware jar, blue and incised decoration, Thomas Commeraw, Corlear’s Hook, New York City, c.1790-1835 (courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art)

38. Stoneware Inkwell, incised decoration, New York State, c.1850 (courtesy of George S. McKearin)

39. Flint Enamel doe figure, Bennington, Vt., 1847-1858 (courtesy of George S. McKearin)

40. Rockingham Tulip vase, similar to Sandwich glass pieces, Bennington, 1847-1858 (Author’s Collection)

41. Rockingham cow creamer, Bennington, Vt., 1847-1858 (courtesy of the Brooklyn Museum)

42. Rockingham pitcher, immature brown glaze, probably fired only once, and experimental; Norton & Fenton, Bennington, Vt., 1845-1847 (courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum)

43. Rockingham lion figure, Bennington, Vt., 1847-1858 (courtesy of J. Hasbrouk Wallace, Brooklyn Museum)

44. Rockingham sugar-bowl, Bennington, Vt., 1847-1858 (courtesy of the Brooklyn Museum)

45. Redware water-cooler, applied and incised decoration, light brown glaze, Ohio, c.1930-40 (courtesy Ohio State Museum)

46. Redware sugar-bowl, dark brown glaze, Eastern Ohio, c.1830-40 (courtesy of Rea M. Knittle)

47. Redware flower-pot, brown glaze decoration on unglazed clay, Greensboro, Penna., c.1890 (courtesy of Dr. Paul R. Stewart)

48. Redware platter, modeled from silver design, Eastern Ohio, c.1830-50 (courtesy of Rea M. Knittle)

49. Redware pitchers, red-brown glaze decoration on unglazed clay, Hamilton & Jones, Greensboro, Penna., c.1890 (courtesy of Dr. Paul R. Stewart)

50. Stoneware water-cooler, applied and blue painted decoration, Eastern Ohio, c.1850 (courtesy of Rea M. Knittle)

51. Slipware plate, Zoar, Ohio, c.1834-50, the star motif an emblem of the community (courtesy of the Ohio State Museum)

52-53. Stoneware water-cooler, applied and blue painted decoration, Hamilton & Jones, Greensboro, Penna., c.1880 (courtesy of Dr. Paul R. Stewart)

54. Stoneware jar, 20-gallon capacity, blue stencilled decoration, James Hamilton, Greensboro, Penna., c.1875 (courtesy of Dr. Paul R. Stewart)

55. A ceramic business card, buff body, blue relief lettering, Flint Enamel Frame, 1851-1854 (courtesy of the East Liverpool Historical Society)

56. Rockingham type pitcher, two eagles in relief on each panel, immature solid-color brown glaze, probably burned only once and experimental, probably East Liverpool, c.1840 (Author’s Collection)

57. Stoneware jar, incised decoration touched with blue, inscribed Hurra for Van Buren, Western Pennsylvania or Ohio, c.1836 (courtesy of the Massillon Museum)

58. Brownware flower-pot, incised decoration, semi-mat glaze, Ohio, c.1850-60 (courtesy of Rea M. Knittle)

59-60. Stoneware water-cooler, applied and impressed decoration, inscribed Buck and Breck, 1856, commemorating the Presidential campaign of James Buchanan; E. Hall, Tuscarawas Co., Ohio, 1856 (courtesy of Rea M. Knittle)

61. Brownware Voodoo Jug, black semi-mat glaze touched with paint, Zanesville, Ohio, c.1850 (courtesy of the Ohio State Museum)

62. Brownware dog door-stop, unglazed, George Bagnall, Newcomerstown, Ohio, c.1870-75 (Author’s Collection)

63. Brownware ink-well, unglazed, Ohio, c.1850 (courtesy of Rea M. Knittle)

64. Brownware covered jar, relief decoration, bird finial, brown glaze, John N. Stout, Ripley, Ill., c.1866-1880 (courtesy of Rea M. Knittle)

65. Redware jug, dark streaked glaze, Galena, Ill., c.1860 (courtesy of Mrs. W. D. Hurm)

66. Brownware picture-frames, semi-mat glaze, Summit County, Ohio, c.1860 (courtesy of Rea M. Knittle)

67. Brownware fat-lamp, mat glaze, Wayne County, Ohio, c.1860 (courtesy of Rea M. Knittle)

68. Stoneware jug, applied decoration, rattlesnake and Civil War soldiers, and brownware mug, Cornwall Kirkpatrick, Anna, Ill., c.1860-1900 (courtesy of Mrs. W. D. Hurm)

69. Rockingham sugar-bowl, shallow bowl, relief scrolled rim, swan inkwell, all copied from Staffordshire earthenware, Liverpool, c.1850-60 (courtesy of the Ohio State Museum)

70. Flint Enamel water-cooler, green and brown glaze, Salt & Mear, East Liverpool, Ohio, 1841-1853 (courtesy of the Ohio State Museum)

71. Redware jar, unglazed, from early Virginia Pottery, 18th Century (courtesy of Mr. Walter J. Sparks)

72. Rockingham pitcher, green and tan Flint enamel type glaze; sugar-bowl, similar in form to Ohio brown glass bowls and tea-pot, shaded brown glaze, shallow bowl, cake-mold and pie-plate, mottled glazes, East Liverpool, Ohio, c.1840-1890

73. Rockingham pitcher, relief of seated hunter, Daniel Boone, light tan mottled glaze, octagonal deep platter, copying Staffordshire ware, seated spaniel door-stop, and shoe flask by Knowles, Taylor & Knowles, dark mottled glazes, deep dish and paneled pitcher, East Liverpool, c.1850-1890 (both Author’s Collection)

74. Redware, slip decorated bowl, flask and plate, from the Moravian potteries of North Carolina, 1756-1830 (courtesy of Joe Kindig, Jr.)

75. Stoneware water-cooler, applied and blue painted decoration, Solomon Bell, Strasburg, Va., c.1845 (courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art)

76. Redware, slip decorated bowl, flask and plate, from the Moravian potteries of North Carolina, 1756-1830 (courtesy of Joe Kindig, Jr.)

77. White earthenware sauce-boat, blue decoration, Bonnin & Morris, Philadelphia, 1771-1772 (Clement Collection, Brooklyn Museum)

78. Redware flower-pot, bowl and jar, shaded or mottled bright green, orange and cream glaze, Bell pottery, Strasburg, Va., 1843-1900

79. Redware vases, shaded cream, orange and green glaze, redware jar, tan glaze with brown decoration (both courtesy of George S. McKearin)

80. Stoneware jug, olive green streaked glaze, Odom & Turnlee, Knox Hill, Fla., 1859-1860

81. Stoneware voodoo jug, olive green glaze, Odom & Turnlee, Knox Hill, Fla., 1859-1860

82. Stoneware jar, light olive green glaze, Odom & Turnlee, Knox Hill, Fla., 1859-1860

83. Stoneware jar, dark brown glaze, J. B. Long, Byron, Ga., c.1830-1850 (all courtesy of the Florida State Museum)

84. Porcelain pitcher, decorated in color and gold with a portrait of Washington; Tucker & Hemphill, Philadelphia, 1832-1838 (courtesy of the Philadelphia Museum of Art)

85. Porcelain vase, Dr. Henry Mead, New York, 1816, Owned by the Philadelphia Museum of Art

86. White earthenware sweetmeat dish, blue decoration, Bonnin & Morris, Philadelphia, 1771-1772 (Clement Collection, Brooklyn Museum)

87. Porcelain pitcher, decorated in color and gold, Tucker & Hemphill, Philadelphia, 1832-1838 (courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art)

88. Majolica Sunflower compote, Griffin, Smith & Hill, Phoenixville, Penna., 1879-1890 (Author’s Collection)

89. Porcelain pitcher, decorated in color and gold, Thomas Tucker, Philadelphia, 1826-1828

90. Design for porcelain vase, Thomas Tucker or Tucker & Hemphill, Philadelphia, 1826-1838 (both courtesy of the Philadelphia Museum of Art)

91. White earthenware pitcher, printed decoration with title Landing of Gen. Lafayette at Castle Garden, New York, 16th of August, 1824, and gold bands, American Pottery Co., Jersey City, 1843 (courtesy of George S. McKearin)

92. Light tan stoneware pitcher, relief decoration of hunting scene, D. & J. Henderson, Jersey City, N. J., 1829-1833 (courtesy of George S. McKearin)

93. Parian pitchers, white relief on blue hammered ground, large two United States Pottery, Bennington, Vt., 1852-1858, center probably Bennington (courtesy of George S. McKearin)

94. Parian vase, blue and white, United States Pottery, Bennington, Vt., 1852-1858 (Clement Collection, Brooklyn Museum)

95. Parian pitchers, white relief, United States Pottery, Bennington, Vt., 1852-1858 (Clement Collection, Brooklyn Museum)

96. Yellow-ware mug, blue and white bands, Jabez Vodrey, East Liverpool, O., c.1850; white earthenware plate, Vodrey & Frost, Louisville, Ky., 1839-46, (courtesy of the East Liverpool Historical Society)

97. Majolica pitcher, George Morley, East Liverpool, O., 1884-1890 (courtesy of the East Liverpool Historical Society)

98. White earthenware pitcher relief of the Murder of Col. Ellsworth, 1862, Millington, Astbury & Poulson, Trenton, N. J. (Clement Collection, Brooklyn Museum)

99. White earthenware Moss Rose pitcher, and porcelain Lotus-ware vase, Knowles, Taylor & Knowles, East Liverpool, O., 1870-1890 (courtesy of the East Liverpool Historical Society)

100. White earthenware platter, blue decoration, Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg, Edwin Bennett Pottery Co., Baltimore, Md., 1890-1900 (courtesy of Mr. George A. Bauer)

PART I

CHAPTER I

Definition

THERE are almost as many classifications of clay ware as there are studies of the subject, each criticizing, directly or by implication, its predecessors. Consequently, the introduction of yet another one is undertaken with regret, and only because it appears absolutely necessary. Collectors and students of that type of ceramic ware we know as early American pottery can afford to disregard many differences of definition and terminology in the existing classifications, but find them all extremely vague concerning their especial favorite. Previous writers have detailed the qualities and characteristics of hard and soft paste porcelains, Leeds, Liverpool and Wedgwood earthenwares, rouge flambee and Rose du Barry glazes and other details completely foreign to our simple American ware, and then added insult to injury by slighting that completely. Jervis, in his really excellent Cyclopaedia of Ceramics, published for American readers in 1902, devotes one short paragraph out of six hundred and seventy post quarto pages to the slipware pottery of Pennsylvania, and dismisses Dr. Mercer’s experiments in that technique with the words, the whole effort seems one of wasted energy. So it becomes evident that a study of American pottery which is to give a clear picture of the subject must begin with the tiresome detail of setting up specific types.

The previous classifications have neglected this ware so completely that they have given us neither a clear definition nor a specific name for it. Since it is generally spoken of as pottery or American pottery, and those terms are clearly understood in the field of Americana, it seems best to retain them, or, more concisely, pottery alone. Yet some authorities, particularly in France, have applied this name to any receptacle or vessel made of clay, while others draw a distinction between pottery and porcelain.

To be specific, the writers first mentioned divide pottery into china—a name derived, of course, from the country where the first porcelain originated—earthenware and stoneware. Other writers make only two main divisions according to paste or body, including as porcelain—or china—all wares having white, vitreous and translucent bodies, and as pottery all wares with opaque bodies. Still another school divides all ceramic ware into hard and soft bodies, classing true or hard-paste porcelain, stoneware, and some types of earthenware, such as basalt, jasper and Semi-Porcelain or Hotel Ware together. Their soft-bodied wares then include soft-paste porcelain and Bone China, most white earthenware, and all our American pottery except stoneware, which, it will be noticed, appears in different company in each of the three classifications. In fact, the term is applied today to a type of hard-burned art ware made in Europe which would not be recognized by a collector of American stoneware. To add to this confusion, the general public has always insisted on calling all white tableware, irrespective of its technical composition, china, whether earthenware or porcelain. Finally, this general public includes many of the historians whose scant references are often the only clues to the existence of early potteries, so that they frequently mention earthenware, and even more explicitly, queensware, when it is evident that they are describing only the crudest type of pottery.

Thus it is necessary to set up our own definitions, which, while open to criticism, may serve at least until better ones are worked out. The simplest and most understandable criterion appears to be the color of the body, that is, of the