Our Research Results

RAMSAY, W. R. H., GABSZEWICZ, A. & RAMSAY, E. G., 2001. Unaker or Cherokee clay and its relationship to the 'Bow' porcelain manufactory. Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle 17: 474-499.

This, our first research paper, accepts as an initial premise, the claim in the 1744 ceramic patent of Edward Heylyn and Thomas Frye The material is an earth, the produce of the Chirokee nation in America, called by the natives ‘unaker’, the propertys of which are as follows, videlicet,...... Based on the patent's wording, the geology and the physiography of the Carolinas, coupled with historical documents including the diary of Thomas Griffiths (agent for Josiah Wedgwood) we set out for the Appalachians in search for the possible location of this clay supposedly used in Bow first patent porcelains.

RAMSAY, W. R. H., GABSZEWICZ, A. & RAMSAY, E. G., 2003. The chemistry of 'A'-marked porcelain and its relation to the Edward Heylyn and Thomas Frye patent of 1744.
Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle 18: 264-283.

Predicated on the work in our first paper, where we demonstrated that the clay referred to in the 1744 patent was a china clay (90% halloysite, 10% kaolinite), we present in this second paper a chemical analysis of this clay. In addition we calculate a theoretical composition of any porcelain made according to the 1744 patent using 50% by wt Cherokee clay and 50% by wt any reasonable mid Georgian lime-alkali glass. Using ternary discriminant diagrams we are able to show that there is but one group of English porcelains which conforms chemically to the theoretical composition calculated by us. This group is the hitherto little known and unattributed 'A'-marked porcelains. Based on this research work we conclude that we have identified the 'long lost' products of the 1744 patent of Heylyn and Frye.

RAMSAY, W. R. H., HILL, G. & RAMSAY, E. G., 2004a. Re-creation of the 1744 Heylyn and Frye ceramic patent wares using Cherokee clay: implications for raw materials, kiln conditions, and the earliest English porcelain production. Geoarchaeology 19: 635-655.

Here we decided to put to the test the various claims circulating in the English ceramic literature that the 1744 patent was not worth the paper it was written on and that the unaker based formula was almost certainly unworkable. Using Cherokee clay and a lime-alkali glass frit we produce analogue Bow first patent porcelains following the specifications contained in the 1744 patent. The wares were fired to the bisque (~950°C), glazed using a clay-glaze mixture, and then fired to a 'heat-work' level of Orton cone 9 - 90° deflection at 150°C per hour (1279°C). Modal mineralogy of the fired body comprises Ca-plagioclase and two glassy phases, one of which is the remnant glass frit and the second the melt phase. We conclude that the 1744 patent was in fact a practical working recipe and represents a landmark document in English ceramic history.

RAMSAY, W. R. H., HANSEN, J. & RAMSAY, E. G., 2004b. An 'A'-marked covered porcelain bowl, Cherokee clay, and colonial America's contribution to the English porcelain industry. In Ceramics in America, Robert Hunter, ed, Chipstone Foundation, 60-77.

Here we investigate one of the iconic pieces of English ceramics, namely the covered sugar bowl in the collections of the Melbourne Cricket Club Museum. We discuss the decorative origins of the four brilliantly painted vignettes on body and lid and we present a chemical analysis of both the porcelain (~60 wt% china clay, ~40 wt% lime-alkali glass) and its associated glaze. We suggest that the Philadelphia ceramic tradition may have been more influential in the development of the earliest porcelains in the English speaking world than has been recognised to date.

RAMSAY, E. G. & RAMSAY, W. R. H., 2005. An 'A' marked porcelain tea canister: Implications for early English porcelain production. World of Antiques and Art, August 2005 - January 2006, André Jaku Publisher, New South Wales, Australia, pp. 76-79.

This contribution investigates an early English ceramic tea canister held in the collections of the National Gallery of Victoria. Based in connoisseurship and composition we accept that the canister is of Bow attribution and from its composition we show that it has links with Bow first patent porcelains ('A'-marked group) and has a moderate magnesian composition (4.7 wt% MgO). We present two possible theoretical recipes for the porcelain body, one of which involves the use of steatite. Based on subsequent comments by Professor Ian Freestone we now accept that of the two, the steatitic recipe is the more likely (see Ramsay and Ramsay 2007a,b). We conclude that this tea canister represents a key link piece between Bow first patent and second patent ceramics, and we propose that Bow was producing magnesian wares by the mid 1740s.

RAMSAY, E. G. & RAMSAY, W. R. H., 2006. Bow first patent porcelain: New discoveries in science and art. The Magazine Antiques. Brant Publications, New York, September issue, pp. 122-127.

Here we summarise a number of our scientific findings with respect to Bow first patent porcelains. We recognise that this group of wares more than any other mid 18th English porcelain group (especially Chelsea) is the only assemblage which can compare with Meissen based on the use of a refractory china clay, the inferred co-firing of body and glaze, the resultant high-firing body, its resistance to thermal stress, and the remarkable decoration lavished on these wares. Decorative idioms include both highly original indigenous themes taken from the London theatre and local engravings, coupled with exotic themes including blanc de chine, famille vert and famille noir, Japanese Kakiemon, Meissen indianische Blumen, and fables, all allied to the skills of Staffordshire mould-makers and slip-cast potters, melded into the brilliant indigenous hard-paste output of Bow which has set the standard for all subsequent English concerns.

RAMSAY, W. R. H., DAVENPORT, F. A. & RAMSAY, E. G., 2006. The 1744 ceramic patent of Heylyn and Frye: 'Unworkable unaker formula' or landmark document in the history of English ceramics? Proceedings of The Royal Society of Victoria 118 (1): 11-34.

We have been struck for a number of years by the plethora of adverse or negative comments made regarding what we now regard as a landmark document in English ceramic history, namely the 1744 patent of Heylyn and Frye. For over 100 years successive commentators have tended to marginalise and underestimate the significance of this set of specifications. In this account we review the literature relating to the 1744 patent over the last 250 years and we show that these negative attitudes and beliefs are variably predicated on a number of works and claims that do not bear close scrutiny. We conclude that these ceramic specifications represent arguably the most important ceramic document in English ceramic history.

RAMSAY, W. R. H., & RAMSAY, E. G., 2007a. Bow: Britain's pioneering porcelain manufactory of the 18th century. Paper delivered at the International Ceramics Fair & Seminar, Park Lane Hotel, June 2007, 16pp.

This paper summarises much of our work to date and presents evidence for our contention that Bow produced at least three recipe types namely a Si-Al-Ca hard-paste, phosphatic (bone ash)  soft-paste body, and a magnesian (steatitic) body. We conclude that possibly for too long English ceramic connoisseurship may have evolved under a mistaken self-belief of inferiority when compared with the splendours and technical triumphs which we tend to associate with Continental porcelains. In fact the technical, artistic, and entrepreneurial advances in English ceramics during the late 1730s-1740s, as represented by Bow, represent an unrivalled period in English decorative arts.

Download 'Bow: Britain's pioneering porcelain manufactory of the 18th century' here (PDF)

RAMSAY, W. R. H. & RAMSAY, E. G., 2007b. A classification of Bow porcelain from first patent to closure c. 1743 - 1774. Proceedings of The Royal Society of Victoria 119 (1): 1- 68.

Some 50 items of Bow origin are chemically analysed and based on these analyses the theoretical recipe in each case is calculated. Three major groups of Bow wares are recognized namely a hard-paste Si-Al-Ca body, a phosphatic (bone ash) group, and a magnesian (steatitic) group. In the case of the phosphatic wares five recipe classes and a high-lead subgroup are identified and a comprehensive visual classification for curator and collector is presented. see download. This contribution is the first detailed investigation of variations in composition through an entire factory output and emphasises the urgent need for more detailed studies based on complete chemical analyses, as was initially done by Church (1881) and Eccles and Rackham (1922). This highly important contribution to ceramic scholarship fell into the doldrums during the 1930’s, 1940’s, 1950’s, 1960’s, and even to a certain extent during the 1970’s – termed the hobby science period. We emphasise the importance of composition in the study of English ceramics and conclude that the contribution to porcelain development by the Bow proprietors has been significantly underestimated.

RAMSAY, W. R. H., & RAMSAY, E. G, 2008. A case for the production of the earliest commercial hard-paste porcelains in the English-speaking world by Edward Heylyn and Thomas Frye in about 1743. Proceedings of The Royal Society of Victoria, 120 (1): 136-256

This paper investigates the prevailing notions regarding what constitutes hard-paste porcelain. We note that the concept of 'true hard-paste' porcelain is in fact an accident of both geography and timing and we agree with Professor Nigel Wood that the use of kaolin clay, while obligatory in Western hard-paste ceramics, is an optional additive in Asiatic wares. Based on a number of criteria we argue that Bow first patent porcelains are in fact hard-paste thus predating William Cookworthy's production in Devon by a quarter of a century.

DANIELS, P., & RAMSAY, W. R. H.,
2009. Bow porcelain: New primary source documents and evidence pertaining to the early years of the manufactory between 1730 – 1747, and John Campbell’s letter to Arthur Dobbs. Southern Institute of Technology Journal of Applied Research (SITJAR) NZ. see download
Such has been the dominance of the notion of the artistic pursuit (form, decoration, potting) over and above other legitimate forms of enquiry that a Bow attribution for the 1744 patent porcelains and the patent document itself are being denied by some contemporary writers, who refer to both as ‘precursor Bow’. Using previously unpublished, primary source, contemporary documents the authors propose that a letter written by John Campbell of Lazy Hill plantation, Bertie Co, North Carolina is one of the most important items of correspondence in English ceramic history. Inexplicably, although this letter discusses and names Bow, its white clay, and its china ware production based on a site visit by Campbell, it does appear that this fragmentary correspondence has never been read in its entirety nor placed in its correct historical context by anyone prior to Daniels (2007) since it was reported on by Toppin in 1959. This research supports Daniels (2007), who dates the letter to around April 1745. Based on Campbell’s movements on either side of the Atlantic using unpublished material, the latest he could have been on the Bow site was mid 1742 and more likely late 1739 if not before. It is argued that contemporary documents have a highly significant role in ceramic research and based on this paper it now appears that the chronology of the early Bow porcelain output needs to be reassessed.

RAMSAY, W. R. H., & RAMSAY E. G., 2009.
North Carolina Cherokee clay and early English porcelain. Talk given to the San Francisco Ceramic Circle December 20th, 2009. see download