File:Transfer printing on enamels, porcelain and pottery - its origin and development in the United Kingdom (1907) (14590285087).jpg

Identifier: transferprinting00turn (find matches)
Title: Transfer printing on enamels, porcelain and pottery : its origin and development in the United Kingdom
Year: 1907 (1900s)
Authors: Turner, William, -1643
Subjects: Transfer-printing Pottery Enameled ware
Publisher: London : Chapman and Hall New York : Keramic Studio Pub. Co.
Contributing Library: Getty Research Institute
Digitizing Sponsor: Getty Research Institute

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
istorically for underglaze production. Then comesTurner, of Lane End, fourth ; Spode and Yates, fifth;William Adams, of Greengates, sixth; Thomas Minton,of Stoke, seventh; and Herculaneum, eighth. Wecannot carry it further. In the case of Wedgwood nodate can be fixed for his blue underglaze printingbecause he promised his men that he would notintroduce it at Etruria as long as he lived; and wehave no reason to assume otherwise. The cases of Baddeley of Shelton, Palmer ofHanley, also those of Swansea and Leeds are souncertain that it is impossible to date them down,however confident we may feel in an intellectualsense, that they all produced underglaze blue printedtransfers before the end of the 18th century. Notonly they but very probably others as well. There isthe case of Bristol, for instance ; but Champion onlyturned out a few trial pieces, and they may have beenprinted elsewhere. We are equally at sea regardingfixed dates with Sunderland, Newcastle-on-Tyne, the 92 Plate No. XXXV.
Text Appearing After Image:
Fig. C18. PLATE, EARTHENWARE, BLUE PRINT.J. & W. RlDGEWAY. Summary of Glaze Question. Don pottery and others. Even at Liverpool there isa difficulty about the period of underglaze. The over-glaze there, of course, is fixed by the date of Messrs.Sadler and Greens affidavit for patent. But theunderglaze is a different question. Gatty gives anaccount of a pepper box, painted in blue underglaze,made by Richard Chaffers, who died in 1765. Marksand Monograms records another, dated 1769,probably made by his son. In any case they wereearly, and if painted in underglaze blue why not printin underglaze blue ? Well, Worcester tried andsucceeded very early, technically, and, probably^artistically, but we have no dated specimens ; and Dr.Wall does not seem to have continued his experiments.Haslem hints that the cobalt was not sufficientlypurified as one reason. There were probably others.The public taste has much to (do with such events.When the time arrived, when Turner, at Caughley in1780, b

Note About Images