shary boyle on tue 31 may 11
Has anyone else had problems with "Matt and Dave's" porcelain??
Does everyone agree that in order to call something porcelain it must be: c=
=3D
lean-bodied (no spotting or texture)=3D2C semi-translucent and visibly vitr=
if=3D
ied?
We three ceramic artists from Ontario=3D2C Canada are having major issues w=
it=3D
h this company and their product- but the company is refusing to acknowledg=
=3D
e the problems with the clay=3D2C give us a refund or take any responsibili=
ty=3D
whatsoever.=3D20
I drove from Toronto to Alfred NY to purchase this porcelain slip and clay =
=3D
based on their glowing blog describing it as a 'revolutionary new porcelain=
=3D
"=3D2C easy to use and beautiful. I bought large quantities of the mid-fire=
a=3D
nd high-fire slip and body.
After casting and assembling my delicate figurative work in both mid-fire a=
=3D
nd high-fire=3D2C I was aghast to find all of my work covered in a fine spe=
ck=3D
ling of black and brown spots after firing. This is not a case of a few 'ir=
=3D
on-oxide dots" as described on Matt and Dave's blog/website- the entire war=
=3D
e is COVERED thoroughly in small dots and speckles. Not only is both the mi=
=3D
d-fire and high-fire slip and clay spotted=3D2C but it has no appearance of=
b=3D
eing vitrified or translucent whatsoever- it is chalky=3D2C dense and looks=
l=3D
ike beige plaster.
The upside: it IS easier to cast=3D2C releases from the mold well=3D2C and =
has =3D
less cracking/warping than porcelain. Because it isn't.
My work is collected internationally by the fine art market=3D2C and it is =
im=3D
possible to pass off this product as "porcelain". It is NOT porcelain nor w=
=3D
ill any collector buy it as such. After many tests using different firing t=
=3D
emperatures=3D2C the clay remained completely spotted and non-translucent=
=3D2C =3D
proving the fault lay with the product=3D2C not my usage of it.=3D20
I started researching other local ceramicists who have used Matt and Dave's=
=3D
(bought from different sources and batches)- and found the only other user=
=3D
s of this product I know have HAD THE EXACT SAME PROBLEMS.=3D20
Furthermore: there is NO commercial glaze that any of us know of or have te=
=3D
sted that does not CRAZE on this "porcelain". Matt and Dave's do not have a=
=3D
single recipe or recommendation for a glaze that fits their product.=3D20
We have sent photos of the problems to Matt and Dave's- and I have returned=
=3D
samples of all I bought to them at my own expense by post- but this compan=
=3D
y refuses to acknowledge our results and WILL NOT refund.=3D20
BUYER BEWARE!!!
I would be greatly interested if anyone else out there has found similar pr=
=3D
oblems with Matt and Dave's products or business ethics? Does anyone have a=
=3D
glaze recipe that does not craze on this product??=3D20
Shary Boyle
Toronto=3D2C Canada
www.sharyboyle.com
=3D
Karen Gringhuis on wed 1 jun 11
Shary -=3D20
I know no one who has tried Matt and Dave's casting slip. I was about to=
=3D
try it but after reading your post, maybe not! I do know of two potters =
=3D
who
have tried and rejected their throwing porcelain.=3D20
I have made one test of Standard Ceramics (Pittsburgh) porcelain casting
slip with good results. It's rated to C/6 but showed no problems fired t=
=3D
o
C/10. I was NOT going for translucency and made my cast too thick - but i=
=3D
t's
did not warp or slump. I know and like their management.=3D20
Unfortunately your experience reminds all of us to TEST TEST TEST before
going all out with anything in ceramics.=3D20
Having checked their web site, I see that Tucker Ceramics offers porcelai=
=3D
n
casting slip. Having dealt briefly with them once and liked them, I am
curious as to your reasons for not using their slip since they are in you=
=3D
r
area?
Randall Moody on wed 1 jun 11
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM, shary boyle wrote=
:
> Has anyone else had problems with "Matt and Dave's" porcelain??
>
> Does everyone agree that in order to call something porcelain it must be:
> clean-bodied (no spotting or texture), semi-translucent and visibly
> vitrified?
>
> We three ceramic artists from Ontario, Canada are having major issues wit=
h
> this company and their product- but the company is refusing to acknowledg=
e
> the problems with the clay, give us a refund or take any responsibility
> whatsoever.
>
I haven't used their casting slip but I have used their clay for throwing. =
I
didn't see enough difference in how the clay behaved during throwing or
firing to justify the 94 cents a pound cost. I would think that at the
inflated price they charge that they would be more responsive to their
customers. Some of the undergraduates use the PFP casting slip but I think
that they do it mainly due to the hype of the product and the "cool" logo.
Have you run any other slip through the same molds to see if they have the
same issue?
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
Lynn Goodman Porcelain Pottery on wed 1 jun 11
Hi Shary,
I bought one box of their ^6 porcelain, and I agree with you. It is
very difficult to work with, and all my glazes (balanced for ^6
grolleg porcelain) crazed badly. I have a partial box just sitting in
my studio, because I refuse to waste any more of my time trying, in
vain, to get it to work. I've written it off.
Matt and Dave--do you read clayart? Do you want your product to sell?
Listen to your customers!
Best,
Lynn
Lynn Goodman Porcelain
Cell 347-526-9805
www.lynngoodmanporcelain.com
Brandon Phillips on wed 1 jun 11
I've never used the casting slip, only the cone 10 clay. There was a
bunch of hype so I bought a box(30...35#?) I thought the clay threw
really well for a porcelain but...I had terrible problems with the clay
tearing during trimming(yes, I checked my tools) and handle pulling was a
nightmare, it was like using short clay right out of a mixer. After
firing I noticed swirls all over the bottom of the pots which indicated to
me that the clay wasn't mixed thoroughly, also makes me think they're
using a really dirty ball clay in the mix, just my guess. I also had lots
of little cracks on the bottoms...that could've been my fault, not sure.
I've never recommended it to anyone...you can get a house porcelain from
just about any supplier for much cheaper that performs better.
Brandon Phillips
supportyourlocalpotter.blogspot.com
John Britt on wed 1 jun 11
I think the Dave is Dave Finklenburg who is on clayart.
Here is the answer to the spotting question,and the glaze fit question. =
=3D
It is on=3D20
their blog:=3D20=3D20
http://slipcast.blogspot.com/2011/04/technical-update.html
Think that they are trying to come up with some not crazing glazes.
Johnbrittpottery.com
Sandy miller on wed 1 jun 11
I bought a box to test a few months ago and loved it! Thought it threw wel=
l
and had pretty good luck with my porcelain glazes.
Liked it better than the porcelain I was currently using. I threw 6 teapot=
s
with it and had no problem joining spouts or pulled handles.
anyway just my 2 cents......... I gave it two thumbs up for me!
All that said I am back with Tucker Clay, best stuff ............. at least
in my studio :)
yours in clay,
Sandy Miller
www.sandymillerpottery.com
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Lynn Goodman Porcelain Pottery <
lgoodman@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Hi Shary,
>
> I bought one box of their ^6 porcelain, and I agree with you. It is
> very difficult to work with, and all my glazes (balanced for ^6
> grolleg porcelain) crazed badly. I have a partial box just sitting in
> my studio, because I refuse to waste any more of my time trying, in
> vain, to get it to work. I've written it off.
>
> Matt and Dave--do you read clayart? Do you want your product to sell?
> Listen to your customers!
>
> Best,
> Lynn
>
>
> Lynn Goodman Porcelain
> Cell 347-526-9805
> www.lynngoodmanporcelain.com
>
Fredrick Paget on wed 1 jun 11
>
I have been using these clays for about a year now and I like the way
they handle. I could wish for a bit of translucence but the overall
handleing is very good. Less cracking and slumping than my old
porcelain.
I saw the crazing too but remembering the same problem from years ago
with some Bailey clear cone 10 glaze I just added about 10 percent
more silica to the glaze and it is fine . I use Tom Coleman TC103
clear cone 10.
Fred Paget
--
Twin Dragon Studio
Mill Valley, CA, USA
David Finkelnburg on thu 2 jun 11
As Fred notes, glaze fit can be problematic, but the problem is always
solvable. Blaming a clay body for glaze fit problems is just not fair.
A glaze begins with a recipe which is mixed and applied (note that includes
how thick the glaze is applied). Then the glazed ware is fired. Each of
these steps can and does affect glaze fit. Which of these steps is under th=
e
control of the clay body manufacturer?
Virtually every clay body has at least a slightly different Coefficient of
Thermal Expansion (CTE). Matching a clay body CTE precisely to a glaze so
crazing will not occur takes some time, effort, and testing but it can be
done.
Dave Finkelnburg
http://www.mattanddavesclays.com
-----------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 16:44:11 -0700
From: Fredrick Paget
I have been using these clays for about a year now and I like the way
they handle. I could wish for a bit of translucence but the overall
handleing is very good. Less cracking and slumping than my old
porcelain.
I saw the crazing too but remembering the same problem from years ago
with some Bailey clear cone 10 glaze I just added about 10 percent
more silica to the glaze and it is fine . I use Tom Coleman TC103
clear cone 10.
John Britt on fri 3 jun 11
Dave,=3D20=3D20
Claudia Dunaway gave me some of your clay to test so I will try some cela=
=3D
dons to=3D20
find a match for you. Once we get one glaze they we can use the COE /CTE =
=3D
to=3D20
estimate other matches.
Also, I was at Homer Laughlin and they used a magnetic separator to get i=
=3D
ron out=3D20
of a clay slurry (deflocculated) and then flocculated it to be filter pre=
=3D
ssed. I=3D20
imagine that the cost would be prohibitive though.
johnbrittpottery.com
Karen Gringhuis on fri 3 jun 11
Kudos to JOHN BRITT!!!
The idea of finding one glaze which fits and then searching for others
similar makes real sense to me. An actionable approach - no high tech.
equipment needed.
| |
|
