Ramsay, W. R. H., Gabszewjcz, 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as follows, videlicet,……Based on the patent’s wording, the geology and the physiography of the Carolinas, coupled with historical documents including the diary of Thomas Griffiths (agent for Josiah Wedgwood) we set out for the Appalachians in search for the possible location of this clay supposedly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., 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, 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, 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.

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. 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. 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.

RAMSAY, W. R. H., SUTTON, K., & RAMSAY E. G., 2011. Bow porcelain: Glaze compositions associated with the phosphatic wares ~1742-1774. Glaze compositions taken from a transect of the Bow phosphatic output c. 1742-1774 are presented. It is shown that the Bow glaze composition is highly distinctive and hardly changed over some 30 years. With time there was a minor reduction in PbO relative to SiO2.What does emerge is that we now have an additional discriminant to separate early Bow compositions (phosphatic, high clay, steatitic) from wares made at later factories such as Lund’s Bristol and Worcester. Bow glazes have attracted considerable comment as to their visual appearance, especially those glazes associated with early wares. Our research based on the current elemental detection levels used in this paper suggests that such visual appearances may be non-diagnostic and of more significance are a number of visually obvious body types which allow a better understanding of the development of the Bow concern dating from the 1730′s. A copy of this paper can be downloaded here.

RAMSAY, W. R. H., RAMSAY, E. G., & GIRVAN, L., 2011.  Lund’s Bristol porcelain……and both are called fine ornamental white china.

Copies of this monograph will be available in June 2013 from:-

Barry Lamb Reference Works (P&D) Ltd.
9 Commercial Road, Swanage, Dorset, England,
BH19 1DF Phone: + 44 (0) 1929 424423
Email: Sales@referenceworks.co.uk

This paper elucidates the range of body and glaze compositions used by Benjamin Lund at Bristol. Recipes included steatite, bone ash, glass cullet and crushed silica. A study of attributions based on objective science is now able to commence reattributing wares to Lund’s Bristol formerly thought to be Limehouse, Broad Street Worcester, early Warmstry House, Worcester and even an example regarded as a ‘fake’. Moreover the use of technology pathways allows for insights into factory linkages which might not be obvious based on stylistic features. A copy of this paper may be downloaded here.

RAMSAY, W. R. H., DANIELS, P., & RAMSAY, E. G., 2013. The Limehouse Porcelain Factory: Its output, antecedents & the influence of the Royal Society of London on the evolution of English porcelain based on composition and technology pathways. Published privately, Invercargill, NZ. ISBN: 978-0-473-23459-1. Three porcelain compositions attributed to the Limehouse porcelain manufactory are recognised and both body and glaze compositions of each are presented. Two of these compositions have been identified for the last 20 years, namely the silica-aluminium (Si-Al) and the silica-aluminium-calcium (Si-Al-Ca) bodies, whilst a third composition of the magnesium-phosphorus (Mg-P) type is newly documented and is tentatively attributed to Limehouse. Criteria to distinguish visually these three ceramic types are provided and a compositional stratigraphy for the Limehouse output is erected extending from late 1745 - early 1748. Preliminary results are presented which allow the compositional differentiation of Limehouse porcelains from Lund's Bristol and a discussion on technology pathways linking Bow to Limehouse and thence to Lund's Bristol and Worcester is given. Limehouse, far from being innovative, was in fact highly derivative at several levels both from Bow and earlier experimental firings, commissioned by members of the Royal Society of London dating back to the beginning of the 18th Century, if not earlier. We recognise that porcelain development in England was much more indigenous, diverse, and complicated than may have been realised to date in that the presence of high-fired Si-Al-Ca and Si-Al bodies coupled with the inferred use of china clay predate Meissen by some 30 years. This grand tradition in porcelain development based on rational English experimental science and technology has remained largely opaque to previous ceramic studies over the last 150 years predicated on the notion of the primacy of the artistic pursuit. In fact, as at least three recipe types used by English porcelain makers are unique, one wonders how any foreign technology could have influenced this development. In addition to discussing the new scientific work and its impact on the chronological development of early English porcelains, documentary evidence surrounding the establishment of the Limehouse Factory is reviewed in an attempt to determine the extent of its operating period and its place within the associated technology. Evidence discovered in parish registers, land tax assessments, insurances, letters, and newspaper advertisements recorded by earlier researchers and one or two recent discoveries not yet in the ceramic literature are co-ordinated, presented in chronological order, and evaluated.

PAT DANIELS, ROSS RAMSAY, & GAEL RAMSAY, 2013.  The George II busts and historic wall brackets: The motivation, symbolism and technology by which the models can be dated to 1745-6 and attributed to the first Bow factory in Middlesex 92 pages. 77 black & white illustrations & 4 colour & 6 charts. Soft covers. Limited edition of 150 copies. £ 20.00. This contribution to English porcelains follows on from a number of previous publications which can be traced back to our initial work recognising that 'A'-marked porcelains were made at Bow commencing by around 1743. This monograph researches the social and political setting of the day, the iconography of both bust and bracket, the chronological succession in the manufacture of these busts and brackets, the reasons for their production, and their chemical composition. Two broad groups are recognised, namely a pre-Culloden group and a post-Culloden group and this two-fold grouping is further subdivided chronologically. A total of 19 busts is recognised but if the Willett bust is not the Edkins bust and if the Fox bust and bracket are not the Darragh/Newton bust and bracket the number rises to 21. The authors conclude that a significant re-evaluation of the early development of the English porcelain industry is now more than timely.

PAT and PRISCILLA DANIELS AND DR ROSS RAMSAY, 2015. New research into the Potteries of West Cumberland following the discovery of a Whitehaven creamware ship bowl inscribed Success to the Mary and Betty/Capt Joseph Benn 25 pages, 1 black and white illustration & 2 colour illustrations including the cover. Soft cover, limited edition. Copies of this publication may be obtained at:- Resurgat Publishers <resurgat@outlook.com> Phone + 44 (0)1367 243163 for the cost of £ 7.00 UK and £ 10 overseas including both postage and packing. Payment can be by cheque, paypal, or bank transfer. If necessary please ring to confirm which method. It might appear that the Whitehaven region has been a major potting site dating back to the 1600's and associated with some of England's more illustrious potting families including Aaron Wedgwood I, II, II; Tunstalls, Gouldings, and Shaws; yet a casual glance at the ceramic literature might suggest that this area has been all but airbrushed out of existence. As we conclude in our publication; It seems incredulous that the extensive Cumbrian potting industry is so consistently ignored and that an outstanding potter such as Aaron Wedgwood III is given no attention in ceramic history. Considering Aaron Wedgwood senior was actually born in Burslem of the same family as the renowned Staffordshire potters you would think he might have gained some reflected glory instead of being reduced to a mere "Staffordshire expert"! Hopefully, by further investigations into this region's potteries, we can endeavour to correct these injustices. What does emerge is that if a pottery item is impressed with Wedgwood this does not necessarily mean that it has anything to do with Staffordshire.

W. R. H. RAMSAY AND E. G. RAMSAY, 2019. Fallacies in Western decorative arts ceramic studies Abstract of Lecture given to the Canadian Society of Decorative Arts Conference, Kingston, Ontario, September 28th, 2019.  The most significant claim in Western ceramic arts has been the pre-eminence afforded Meissen both technologically and artistically. The Meissen Porcelain Manufactory has been awarded the role model as having been the first in the West to have produced a high-fired porcelain body in the manner of the Chinese by around 1708. With the recent chemical analyses, both body and glaze of the Burghley House jars known to have been in existence prior to 1683, the belief as to the primacy of Meissen needs to be re-assessed. Based on the chemical composition of the Burghley House jars, historical accounts, and the patent application by John Dwight of 1672 it appears that on the balance of probability, Dwight was the author of these jars dating to around 35 years prior to Meissen. A discussion is provided as to the significance of both body and glaze types found on the Burghley House jars, why John Dwight should be regarded as the father of the high-fired, refractory porcelain body (in fact several porcelain bodies using a variety of clay types), and the first to attempt a Si-Al-Ca glaze in the West.