John Baymore on thu 17 jun 99
------------------
(clip)
................ was pleased with his honesty when I asked him if there
were any other complaints of bloating with Amador. The answer was yes,
a few. Any changes in the Amador mix in the past years? Yes.About a
year ago their supply of silica sand (used as grog in the clay) was no
longer available in California, so they were forced out of necessity to
switch to a FELDSPAR sand=21 And yes, when they tested this material in
their lab, it did give them some results that they were less than
pleased with. It is more of a flux, of course, which lowers the
maturation point of the clay body, as compared to silica sand. So
instead of being labeled a cone 10 clay body which used to be somewhat
tolerant of temps above cone 10, now it's a cone 10 clay body which
appears to JUST handle cone 10. And if there is any carbon or gases left
in the body from body reduction still there when the clay starts to
vitrify, guess what? It gets trapped there, and may bloat the clay out
as the gases continue to expand and try to escape. Brooks talked to one
of his lab techs (also named John) and had him call me back. This John
was also very willing to try and help me out. He said they were
experimenting with the Amador mix and he is sending me a box of it to
work with and compare. With the experimental mix they are cutting down
on the amount of powdered feldspar that they had put in the mix in the
past (which was there in order to have a vitreous body). Didn't think
to ask him why they didn't do that when they first switched to a
feldspathic sand
.
(clip)
To Kelley's friend Dave,
So the manufacturer of a product DECIDES (this is key here) to change the
composition of their product and puts it out for sale apparently without
doing adequate testing (which it sounds like they might NOW be doing) to
assure that the product is reasonably suitable for the function that it
purports to have. They admit to being AWARE that the product is now
inferior to the older product but appreantly did not attempt to warn the
consumer of this fact before continuing to sell the product.
Because of this deliberate change, a user of the product sold loses the
investment of many labor hours, consumed fuel/energy, and consumed raw
materials, not to mention develops some =22bad will=22 with his customers =
due
to untimely delivery and shipping delays.
And it sounds like all they do as a response is basically say....=22sorry
about that....we know about that and we are working on it=22. (But do it
very politely and civilly.....being nice people.) They also add some
suggestions so that you can maybe salvage what is left of the product if
YOU change your procedures and YOU test to see if the results can somehow
be made acceptable.
What is wrong with this picture?
This case doesn't seem to me to be covered by the =22....we are not
responsible for anything because these raw materials come out of the ground
and are variable and we can't control that=22 defense that is all too often
used in dealings with studio potters. This change was a consious
decision....a deliberate substitution of materials that have QUITE
different basic known compositions. They DECIDED to sub one material for
another.
I also wonder a bit about the basis for the weird substitution necessity.
Yes.... silica sand from ONE supplier may not have been available. But was
there NO silica sand anywhere? Could they have not paid a little more for
a while for sand from a little further away but still gotten silica sand
and produced a similar body? Could they have =22eaten=22 the temporary
additional cost? Couldn't they have charged and extra penny or two a pound
to cover the expense? Did they sub a material that was NOT a reasonable
direct replacement (except maybe in particle size) based mostly on
manufacturing cost considerations? Was it that the feldspathic material
was the same cost as the silica sand and THAT was as much a deciding factor
in the selection of a material as the chemical and physical properties?
This is a somewhat curious substitution. I'd like to know the thinking
that went into this substitution. I regularly USE granular feldspar and
granite in some of my woodfiring bodies. I know exactly what it will do in
there. It does NOT perform at all like granular quartz materials, which I
also add, except in the wet working phase of the process.
One wonders if the =22merchantability=22 laws apply here which basically say
that an item sold has to be reasonably suitable for it's intended and
advertised use.
The fact that they could not get their usual silica sand is not the
potter's problem....it is the body manufacturer's problem. (It seems like
it is attempting to be be shifted to the potter's problem =3Cwg.) THEY need
to find a suitable material replacement.
(If BMW couldn't get it's usual pistons for it's engines and subbed ones
made for different stress factors from Brand X .........and the engine
wouldn't let the car perform to it's normal specs and it kept breaking down
because of the pistons....... wouldn't you expect that sombody from BMW
would do at least a little something about it for you?)
Would YOU substitute a feldspathic material for a silica material and
expect that there would not be significant differences in the end product?
This isn't a situation where =22the run-of-mine of the SAME raw material
changed=22........ which is itself barely a defense to not doing incoming
materials testing and outgoing product testing before shipping.
At the least, I'd be politely but firmly pressing for replacement of the
FULL order of defective clay AND additional free clay (or materials credit)
in an amount to cover the lost labor hours and energy costs of ALL that has
been produced.
You may not win it.....but it'd maybe help other potters in the long run.
Please don't just =22roll over and play dead=22. You can be assertive and =
firm
and STILL continue to be be a nice person.
Best of luck.
Best,
...................john
John Baymore
River Bend Pottery
22 Riverbend Way
Wilton, NH 03086 USA
603-654-2752
JBaymore=40compuserve.com
John.Baymore=40GSD-CO.COM
=22Earth, Water, and Fire climbing kiln firing workshop Aug. 20-29,1999=22
| |
|
