Covered sugar bowl, east London, c. 1744. Hard-paste porcelain with an underglaze blue ‘A’ to the base. H. 78 mm. (Collection of the Melbourne Cricket Club Museum, accession No. M5369.1, photograph by courtesy of Erin O’Brien). This bowl comprises China clay (60 wt% hydrous) and a lead-free glass frit (40%). These Bow first patent porcelains represent one of the stellar achievements in English decorative arts yet a state of denial has accompanied both the specifications (1744 patent) and these porcelains themselves. Such porcelains can compare with Meissen on the basis of the use of a refractory China clay, the high-firing technology, the absence of lead in either of the body or glaze, the inferred co-firing of body and glaze, the resistance to thermal stress, and the brilliant indigenous and exotic decorative idioms.

Tea canister, East London, c. 1746. Magnesian, high-Al porcelain, unmarked. H. 122 mm. Collection of the National Gallery of Victoria. This canister is decorated with the Island House pattern and is of Bow attribution. The importance of this item is that compositionally and decoratively it constitutes a link-piece between Bow first patent and second patent porcelains, moreover it was the first indication that Bow was producing steatitic wares. For a more detailed discussion relating Bow to magnesian porcelain output see Daniels (2007) and our talk given to the International Ceramics Fair & Lecture, London June 2007. This canister with very high Al reflects a high-clay content (possibly a china clay) as found in Bow first patent porcelains. It also has alum added to the paste composition as inferred to be present in some early phosphatic second patent Bow porcelains. The high MgO content is strongly indicative of the addition of steatite (Prof. Ian Freestone, pers. comm. 2006). Further evidence for a Bow attribution is based on the range of colours used, the decorative idioms employed, the use of extensive chocolate brown, and the highly characteristic feature of Bow whereby the gilding is applied over chocolate brown. The conclusion we draw is that this canister shows a number of features which question the current notion of “precursor Bow” as applied to the Bow first patent specification of 1744 and to the ceramic products derived from that patent based purely on form and decoration. Further work in progress is likely to demonstrate that the supposed hiatus in form and decoration between Bow first and second patent wares is not nearly so marked as has been thought. Moreover when one factors in a range of bridging compositions coupled with evidence from contemporary documents which demonstrate that Bow was referred to as Bow by 1742 at the very latest, if not in the 1730s, then the notion of ‘precursor Bow’ is questionable.

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 the early Bow phosphatic output in relation to the quality of the porcelain, potting, and enamelling – see Daniels (2003) and Ramsay and Ramsay (2007b).

Plate in underglaze blue, east London, c. 1746-1747. 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.

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.

 

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).

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.

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.

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