Bill Edwards on sat 1 sep 01
Hi,
M.L. in canada - down load Matrix when you can and if
you run into any problems I will try and help you
along the way. I run several programs but this one
seems to ring the bell for what you are looking for
and is easy to use/understand. I'm sure you can find
others using other programs willing to do the same!
William Edwards
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
Alisa Clausen on sun 12 oct 03
> Dear Alisa,
> I read your post with great interest. Ian is a fun person! His
system
> is excellent, too!
> Regarding glaze calculation, I heartily commend your effort to
calculate
> Seger formulas by hand. That is the only way, I feel, that you can truly
> understand what glaze calculation software does.
> However, once you master the manual method, it makes sense to me to
> automate that process and use software to get you to the Seger formula
> quickly.
>
Thank you David for you advise.
I am ever hesitant with glaze calculation programs because I am not getting
what I want from numbers.
True, that by calculating the glaze, I can predict what should happen. It
is that "should" word that I cannot
work with.
With both understanding Seger and making predictions, but still making the
glaze, firing it and examing the glaze, am I satisfied.
The Grid method has such high appeal to me, because I have a visual tile
with straight forward backup information telling me why each square on the
grid did what it did.
I heartily believe the entire big picture of glaze chemistry is important to
understand. What was that about the ignorant being blissful? Now that I
am delving into it, I realize, of course, that understanding Seger shows me
why it is an important component of glaze testing. Just like anything else,
understanding something, like our materials, opens the enormous highway to
potential and sucesses. However, I am committed to see what the glaze does
in my kiln, not what it should do by what the computer tells me. Computers
are great, kilns are greater for my purposes.
I will in time, work out my personal balance for using both.
As for glaze calculation programs, there are several to try. I have not
thought a lot about it for now. John and Ron's would probably be my choice
because I "know" them from our correspondence on the list and off. There
are several I can download to try out and I thank the Clayarters who have
sent me links to them.
best regards from Alisa in Denmark
getting into the shorter days and longer nights. No kids playing outside
until 10pm, but then we believe in seeing forward to those days again, when
we feel blue from the darkness.
Tony Hansen on mon 13 oct 03
This is a topic on which a pretty long book
could be written. It is actually amazing how often
the firing does not tell us things that the chemistry
does. The firing does not tell us why the glaze is
crazing, why it is matte, why it is running, why
it is pink instead of green, etc. Sometimes a firing
leads us to believe that a glaze test is a complete
failure but the numbers show that it should work.
Subsequent work reveals that kiln cooling, thickness,
material choice, chemistry used for a material,
or a ton of other things are the problem.
Engineers at the frit companies work with
numbers, and when things do not work those numbers
are often vindicated and other things are found to
be the problem.
Chemistry really shines when you work within a \'system\'
and make small changes. If glaze A is working and you
want to adjust a certain physical property, calculation
really works. If you are taking a stab in the dark with
a completely new recipe and materials and what to predict
what it is going to do in your circumstances calculation
sometimes sucks, it is just one piece of the puzzle.
The trick is to relate the properties of an existing glaze
to its formula and work to understand the link better and
better over time. Once you understand the degree of control
over properties is remarkable.
Material blending, like the techniques Ian teaches are
invaluable. It is really nice that we have proponents
of both approaches, the rivalry lets observers choose which
approach is better for them. I think both camps agree that
both approaches are valuable and complement each other.
-----------8<--------
I am ever hesitant with glaze calculation programs because I am not getting
what I want from numbers.
True, that by calculating the glaze, I can predict what should happen. It
is that \"should\" word that I cannot
work with.
--------
Tony Hansen, Digitalfire Corp.
Alisa Clausen on mon 13 oct 03
Hi Tony,
I am ever hesitant with glaze calculation programs because I am not getting
> what I want from numbers.
> True, that by calculating the glaze, I can predict what should happen. It
> is that \"should\" word that I cannot
> work with.
That one paragraph does not sum up my opinion. The rest of the post does
though! and there are we in agreement that both "camps" are important and
absolutely relevant to each other.
If you are taking a stab in the dark with
> a completely new recipe and materials and what to predict
> what it is going to do in your circumstances calculation
> sometimes sucks, it is just one piece of the puzzle.
> The trick is to relate the properties of an existing glaze
> to its formula and work to understand the link better and
> better over time. Once you understand the degree of control
> over properties is remarkable.
>
> think both camps agree that
> both approaches are valuable and complement each other.
>
There we can really agree, as I said I need to find my personal balance for
both approaches.
People learn things in different orders, but once all t he pieces are on the
table, a big complete shape is formed.
This is a very exciting time and with so much research available in so many
forms, i have plenty to do to keep out of trouble. But I like trouble
sometimes. Clayart room?
regards from Alisa
Louis Katz on mon 13 oct 03
I don't see the difference between using ions or oxides unless there
are different amounts of different ions of the same metal. If there
were I don't know how you would determine the amounts of each. I think
this will just end up as a different system of comparison, different
ratios will turn up, but will be equivalents to ratios used in the
other system.
To toot my own horn, I will be giving a short lecture on Glaze
calculation, that is how to do it for Mathiphobes at the NCECA
conference in March. I will try to get the entire thing into the NCECA
journal after the conference. If it is much delayed I may publish it to
the web or submit it to Ceramics Technical or one of the other mags. It
may be appropriate for Pottery Making Illustrated or CM. I have been
giving this lecture for a few years and have it down to 1 1/2 hours but
will be given only 1 hr at NCECA. It probably won't be as funny as it
usually is, something has to give.
Louis
Ron Roy on wed 15 oct 03
I had nothing to do with John's program by the way - except being a beta
tester and advisor.
I learned to calculate by hand - or should I say slide rule - the
calculators weighed about 20 pounds and could only do addition and
subtraction. I don't recommend anyone learn to do the calculations by the
way - the useful information you would get by doing that is better gotten
from a complete list of the real analysis of the materials you use.
First the Seger formula.
Then some limits to work to.
Then a list of material complete with analysis including 5 LOI.
If you know where the MgO is it is easy to add it or reduce it - it is
really quite simple once you get by learning how to use a program. Learning
how to calculate by hand simply makes the job longer - and to my way of
thinking is a needless step.
RR
>As for glaze calculation programs, there are several to try. I have not
>thought a lot about it for now. John and Ron's would probably be my choice
>because I "know" them from our correspondence on the list and off. There
>are several I can download to try out and I thank the Clayarters who have
>sent me links to them.
>best regards from Alisa in Denmark
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Phone: 613-475-9544
Fax: 613-475-3513
Nancy Udell on mon 11 oct 04
Taking the plunge this year and would really like to learn once and for =
all how to do this calculation thang... (misspelling intentional) =20
I understand the concept of unity formula; I understand the concept of =
limit formulae; I have downloaded a couple glaze calculation programs =
off the internet (and even tried to read through the instruction =
manuals). No luck! It's just not coming easily. =20
Does anyone know of a class being given sometime this year or next that =
would really delve into glaze calculation? My goal would be to come =
away from the class with an ability to use one program and to understand =
the results it spits out and the ability to make adjustments, =
substitutions, analyze a recipe etc... I'm in the Washington DC area =
but can travel most anywhere ... =20
Thanks!
Nancy
Ron Roy on tue 12 oct 04
Hi Nancy,
I'm doing a two day workshop in Arkansas Feb. 5 &6th.
Flat Rock Studio
Clay Supplies & Gallery
479.521.3181
2002 S School, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Kelley is organizing it and there is a limit to the number of partisipants.
Just me talking and illustrating how it works. It will help and you can ask
questions but they will be mostly beginners I think so I won't be able to
go into a lot of detail.
A better one for you would be the 5 day hands on type.
Non booked as yet but if you care to come to Ontario - in July I am fairly
certain there will be one at Loyalist College - just down the road from us
here. Loyalist is in Bellville - on the North Shore of Lake Ontario. A long
days drive from Washington - certanly no more than a day and a half.
Send me your mailing address and phone # and I will put you on the "to
notify" list. That way I can let you know when others are being planned.
You may want to attend my talk at NCECA this next March - all about how I
used glaze calculation to come up with my own shino type glaze.
Let me know if you need more on this - RR
>Taking the plunge this year and would really like to learn once and for
>all how to do this calculation thang... (misspelling intentional)
>
>I understand the concept of unity formula; I understand the concept of
>limit formulae; I have downloaded a couple glaze calculation programs off
>the internet (and even tried to read through the instruction manuals). No
>luck! It's just not coming easily.
>
>Does anyone know of a class being given sometime this year or next that
>would really delve into glaze calculation? My goal would be to come away
>from the class with an ability to use one program and to understand the
>results it spits out and the ability to make adjustments, substitutions,
>analyze a recipe etc... I'm in the Washington DC area but can travel most
>anywhere ...
>
>Thanks!
>
>Nancy
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Phone: 613-475-9544
Fax: 613-475-3513
Nicol on wed 13 oct 04
I did a two day workshop with John Hesselberth last year. ( the co-author
of the book and software on Mastering Cone 6 Glazes)
Excellent workshop, I would HIGHLY recommend it.
contact info:
http://www.masteringglazes.com
http://www.frogpondpottery.com/
Bob Nicol
struggling in PA (OK shivering) to continue wearing my Hawaiian shirts.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG]On Behalf Of Nancy Udell
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 9:06 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Glaze calculation
Taking the plunge this year and would really like to learn once and for all
how to do this calculation thang... (misspelling intentional)
I understand the concept of unity formula; I understand the concept of limit
formulae; I have downloaded a couple glaze calculation programs off the
internet (and even tried to read through the instruction manuals). No luck!
It's just not coming easily.
Does anyone know of a class being given sometime this year or next that
would really delve into glaze calculation? My goal would be to come away
from the class with an ability to use one program and to understand the
results it spits out and the ability to make adjustments, substitutions,
analyze a recipe etc... I'm in the Washington DC area but can travel most
anywhere ...
Thanks!
Nancy
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
karen gringhuis on fri 15 oct 04
Nancy -
Short of a course, 3 suggestions:
HyperGlaze software - I think Richard has built into
this teaching features which would be a great start.
Val Cushing's HANDBOOK includes discussion and
worksheets to guide you.
Ian Currie's workshops are excellent particularly if
combined with the above.
IMHO it's worth the effort to understand glazes. You
can take Cushing's discussions of various ingredients
and start tweaking glazes you already know. Keep lots
of notes.
Good luck.
=====
Karen Gringhuis
KG Pottery
Box 607 Alfred NY 14802
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
Louis Katz on fri 15 oct 04
Nancy,
A Handbook of Pottery Glazes by David Green is excellent reading and
teaches glaze calculation as a history lesson. I think you'll find it
readable.
Don't get the idea that the basic process is complicated. Its not.
Louis
My online (free) calculator is at:
http://falcon.tamucc.edu/~lkatz/gc1/input.htm
It is not very instructive, not customizable, doesn't include some
important oxides, is very limited in scope, but does figure out recipes
from mol formulas .
On Oct 15, 2004, at 3:42 PM, karen gringhuis wrote:
> Nancy -
>
> Short of a course, 3 suggestions:
>
> HyperGlaze software - I think Richard has built into
> this teaching features which would be a great start.
>
> Val Cushing's HANDBOOK includes discussion and
> worksheets to guide you.
>
> Ian Currie's workshops are excellent particularly if
> combined with the above.
>
> IMHO it's worth the effort to understand glazes. You
> can take Cushing's discussions of various ingredients
> and start tweaking glazes you already know. Keep lots
> of notes.
>
> Good luck.
>
> =====
> Karen Gringhuis
> KG Pottery
> Box 607 Alfred NY 14802
>
>
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
Lili Krakowski on mon 6 mar 06
Sorry for anyone intimidated by Glaze Calculation.
Sorrier when the Intimidated One is a woman, because I suspect, fear, dread
that this is part and parcel of the Intimidation of Women Re: Science--which
Larry Summers alluded to at Harvard, and it cost him a lot of pain! My
Mother was convinced Major Body Parts would atrophy at best, fall off at
worst, in women who could "do math" beyond a shopping or laundry list,
understand "scientific" stuff beyond the making of mayonnaise...I had hoped
those times were gone...
Glaze Calculation with a program is easy. With pencil, paper, calculator it
is no more difficult than mapping out a long trip, and deciding what to
pack. It is more challenging than chess, and requires less skill than a
British crossword puzzle. It is a matter of sitting down and doing it.
With all due modesty I suggest whoever is intimidated try the Basic Internet
Glaze Course. Work at it for a few hours and see what happens.
To my biased mind--at SAC we learned glaze calculation from day one--glaze
calculation is an essential part of today's potting.
Once upon a time it did not matter: the ONLY materials around were clay,
ash, cullet, soda, and like that. Stuff you found locally.
Today we get refined and varied materials from all over the world. Today
we have choices, and the making of these choices is key to making good
glazes. And we care more about the "goodness" of glaze. We want, the market
demands, glazes that meet certain criteria, which are best checked by
calculation.
And I would add this--said she, sticking her head into the noose--even those
among us who cherish and pursue antique and arcane glazes--the look that
"made" 12th Century Chinese Porcelain, or Medieval British Earthenware, or
whatever great-- can benefit from being able to calculate these glazes.
No. Glaze calculation is not essential. Many a splendid potter has never
used, cared, learned etc. Fine. It is a choice. And still I think the
right choice is to learn it, and if one hates it, dismiss it from the point
of view of knowledge, not intimidation.
Lili Krakowski
Be of good courage
Elizabeth Priddy on mon 6 mar 06
Ok, I have to disagree with you here.
a. mel doesn't do it either and he's a man
b. I got excellent marks in chemistry, calculus, and finite math
c. glaze calculation makes my eyes glaze over
I understand the principles and, as a qualified owner of my
own time, I am not going to spend time on this.
I don't butcher my own meat either. But I can make dishes
that will make your mouth water.
A basic knowledge of chemicals and minerals and glaze
formulation and firing is essential. But not every part of
pottery is for every potter.
I think a mastery of brushwork helps people design work
and is an essential element of beautiful work. But I don't
think people have to learn how to do it in detail before they
decide that is not their path.
You can have fine pottery without any glaze at all. "A jack
of all trades is a master of none" has a powerful grain of
truth in it.
E
Lili Krakowski wrote:
Sorry for anyone intimidated by Glaze Calculation.
Sorrier when the Intimidated One is a woman, because I suspect, fear, dread
that this is part and parcel of the Intimidation of Women Re: Science--which
Larry Summers alluded to at Harvard, and it cost him a lot of pain! My
Mother was convinced Major Body Parts would atrophy at best, fall off at
worst, in women who could "do math" beyond a shopping or laundry list,
understand "scientific" stuff beyond the making of mayonnaise...I had hoped
those times were gone...
...No. Glaze calculation is not essential. Many a splendid potter has never
used, cared, learned etc. Fine. It is a choice. And still I think the
right choice is to learn it, and if one hates it, dismiss it from the point
of view of knowledge, not intimidation.
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
Lee Love on tue 7 mar 06
I just started looking at Currie's grid method. This may be a way for folks
to go who don't find glaze calculating appealing. Looking at his 32 little
cups, you are put more in mind of Easter Egg coloring than being in a
chemical laboratory.
--
Lee In Mashiko, Japan
http://mashiko.org
http://seisokuro.blogspot.com/
Hank Murrow on tue 7 mar 06
On Mar 6, 2006, at 10:52 PM, Lee Love wrote:
> I just started looking at Currie's grid method. This may be a way for
> folks
> to go who don't find glaze calculating appealing. Looking at his 32
> little
> cups, you are put more in mind of Easter Egg coloring than being in a
> chemical laboratory.
And it allows you to investigate materials for which there is no
analysis. This is a key advance for such potters. Once you see how your
wild material reacts with alumina and silica........the many potential
glazes on the tiles beg to be elaborated.
Cheers, to Ian,
Hank in Eugene, enjoying the pre-conference workshop at Lane CC.
>
>
> --
> Lee In Mashiko, Japan
> http://mashiko.org
> http://seisokuro.blogspot.com/
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
www.murrow.biz/hank
cliff daniels on tue 12 sep 06
Hi everyone,
So I have this Glaze Calculation Software, and if
it is ever going to be anything other than a
glaze recipe database, I need to learn how to use
it. I have this recipe which is somewhat
appealing, but which had a note that said COE is
low, raise to at least 65. Use less Talc,
increase sodium, Magnesium, and potassium.
Original Recipe:
Gerst.Bor. 99 31
Talc 14
Custer Feld. 20
EPK 5
Silica 30
add RIO 15
This is what I came up with.
GB 99 30
Talc 10
Custer 27
Silica 22
Whiting 6
add RIO 15
Of course I haven't tested it yet. Si:Al is
10.74
Al is .275, Si is 2.95, MgO is actually lower,
but CaO and K2O are higher. COE is 65.4. These
all seem to be acceptable ranges, but are there
things I am missing?
Any feedback?
The Mud Man
Clifford Daniels
1 Calvin Coombs Rd.
Colrain, MA 01340
413-624-0251
mudmanpottery@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Edouard Bastarache Inc. on wed 13 sep 06
Cliff,
do you know the name of the method used to
calculate the COE?
Later,
Edouard Bastarache
Le Français Volant
The Flying Frenchman
Sorel-Tracy
Quebec
edouardb@sorel-tracy.qc.ca
www.sorel-tracy.qc.ca/~edouardb/Welcome.html
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/smart2000/index.htm
http://www.pshcanada.com/Toxicology.htm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30058682@N00/
http://thepottersshop.blogspot.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "cliff daniels"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:11 PM
Subject: Glaze Calculation
> Hi everyone,
> So I have this Glaze Calculation Software, and
> if
> it is ever going to be anything other than a
> glaze recipe database, I need to learn how to
> use
> it. I have this recipe which is somewhat
> appealing, but which had a note that said COE is
> low, raise to at least 65. Use less Talc,
> increase sodium, Magnesium, and potassium.
>
> Original Recipe:
>
> Gerst.Bor. 99 31
> Talc 14
> Custer Feld. 20
> EPK 5
> Silica 30
> add RIO 15
>
> This is what I came up with.
> GB 99 30
> Talc 10
> Custer 27
> Silica 22
> Whiting 6
> add RIO 15
>
> Of course I haven't tested it yet. Si:Al is
> 10.74
> Al is .275, Si is 2.95, MgO is actually lower,
> but CaO and K2O are higher. COE is 65.4. These
> all seem to be acceptable ranges, but are there
> things I am missing?
>
> Any feedback?
>
>
>
> The Mud Man
> Clifford Daniels
> 1 Calvin Coombs Rd.
> Colrain, MA 01340
> 413-624-0251
> mudmanpottery@yahoo.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or
> change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> reached at melpots@pclink.com.
>
Ron Roy on wed 13 sep 06
Hi Clifford,
Good for you for asking.
First - your revision only totals 95 without the iron is that correct?
Your alumina and silica levels are down so you have changed the way the
glaze will look by doing that - and you made it unstable because the
alumina is lower than recommended. You also lowered the MgO enough to make
a difference as well.
If you look at the expansion of that glaze with the iron included you will
see - the expansion is not all that low.
If someone had asked me to raise the expansion of that glaze a significant
amount I would say it's not possible and have the same result - I would
simply say - make sure the iron is in it to keep the expansion at a safe
level.
It is always a good idea to test any glaze you think has to low an
expansion with the clays you are using - there are some clays on the market
that will dunt and/or shiver with this glaze - even with the iron in it.
Let me know if you need any help with glaze calculation - I think it's a
good idea to have potters around that can do it.
RR
>Hi everyone,
>So I have this Glaze Calculation Software, and if
>it is ever going to be anything other than a
>glaze recipe database, I need to learn how to use
>it. I have this recipe which is somewhat
>appealing, but which had a note that said COE is
>low, raise to at least 65. Use less Talc,
>increase sodium, Magnesium, and potassium.
>
>Original Recipe:
>
>Gerst.Bor. 99 31
>Talc 14
>Custer Feld. 20
>EPK 5
>Silica 30
>add RIO 15
>
>This is what I came up with.
>GB 99 30
>Talc 10
>Custer 27
>Silica 22
>Whiting 6
>add RIO 15
>
>Of course I haven't tested it yet. Si:Al is
>10.74
>Al is .275, Si is 2.95, MgO is actually lower,
>but CaO and K2O are higher. COE is 65.4. These
>all seem to be acceptable ranges, but are there
>things I am missing?
>
>Any feedback?
>
>
>
>The Mud Man
>Clifford Daniels
>1 Calvin Coombs Rd.
>Colrain, MA 01340
>413-624-0251
>mudmanpottery@yahoo.com
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
cliff daniels on sat 16 sep 06
Thank you everyone for your thoughtful responses.
I have been away from the list for a few days,
but am happy to see your responses. First, the
Glaze is Ketchup Red, Cone 6, oxidation, and my
original recipe did not add up to 100. I used
Glazemaster, and reset it to 100, then added 15%
Iron. Actually the program called for 16.6% RIO,
but I left it at 15. It didn't occur to me that
an ingredient was missing. I like the feedback
about keeping ratios the same. I actually read
more emails, and decided to avoid using GB, and
went with a frit-based formula:
ff 3195 32
talc 11
custer 21
om4 5
silica 21
whiting 10
COE 66
Si:Al 11.38
Anyway, I have no expectations, since it's glazed
and ready to fire. I'll see what it looks like.
I tested it with overlaps of several other
glazes.
I am trying to remember the source. At first I
thought it came from Frog Pond Website, but then
I had a vague memory of taking it from CM last
year some time. So, at the time I wrote the
notes, Idid not label them as mine, and then I
assumed they were John's--re the low COE.
Anyway, Looking at the iron as more than just a
colorant makes sense to me, given the large
quantity. I am concerned about Iron leaching. I
guess I'll see what happens and then worry about
leaching if I like the glaze. Feedback on the
new version? Did I mess it up even worse?
I look forward to hearing from you.
The Mud Man
Clifford Daniels
1 Calvin Coombs Rd.
Colrain, MA 01340
413-624-0251
mudmanpottery@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
| |
|
