CINDI ANDERSON on sun 16 sep 01
I have learned from you all that there there is no way to use low fire clay and get a functional piece that is dishwasher safe, microwave safe, and durable.
So I have a problem when I see low fire functional pieces in all the galleries and stores. They are usually very pretty, very nicely decorated. But I have a problem every time I see them; I think consumers are being ripped off because they don't know that the pieces won't last. I have succumbed to a few myself, and they work for a while but eventually chip or crack.
I am not trying to judge low fire ceramists. But trying to understand. Am I exaggerating how bad this problem is? Are there some low fire bodies that truly are vitrified? Do these artists bisque at high fire, then glaze at low fire? Or am I correct in my apprehension?
Thanks
Cindi
Fremont, CA
Val on sun 16 sep 01
>Cindy please explain to me....
I fire functional ware at 04 to bisque and then glaze and fire 06..is
this not a good thing?....what should I be doing ?
thanks
> I have learned from you all that there there is no way to use low fire clay and get a functional piece that is dishwasher safe, microwave safe, and durable.
>
> So I have a problem when I see low fire functional pieces in all the galleries and stores. They are usually very pretty, very nicely decorated. But I have a problem every time I see them; I think c>
> I am not trying to judge low fire ceramists. But trying to understand. Am I exaggerating how bad this problem is? Are there some low fire bodies that truly are vitrified? Do these artists bisque >
> Thanks
> Cindi
> Fremont, CA
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
>
Val Mann w.w.
Certified Duncan Ceramics teacher
Memory Box Artist
Val@tlaz.com
WAR DOESNOT DETERMINE WHO IS RIGHT;WAR DETERMINES WHO IS LEFT!!
YESTERDAY'S CHILD CERAMIC & ART STUDIO
London Ont. Canada
WHOLESALER OF BISQUE...order your friendship balls & Christ.ornaments now!!!!
SEMINARS/CLASSES: Ceramics, decorative art, oils and Bob Ross oils, Watercolour, one stroke, screen painting and
pen & Ink, oil rouging,Gensis
http://www.tlaz.com/scans
icq #1592406
fax-(519) 649-1025,phone (519)649-0119
Rick Monteverde on sun 16 sep 01
Cindi -
I've come to the same conclusion, that low fire is essentially for
decorative pieces only. I use some bowls I make for fruit bowls and
the like where they just sit on the countertop, but even those get
chipped pretty quickly just from being handled and things being moved
around near them. I like the bright glazes and lower wear and tear on
the kiln though, so I'm beginning to line the tops of our cabinets
with my "experiments". When I give items to friends, I always tell
them they're just countertop or cabinet decorations, not to relied
upon for practical service. They still seem happy with them in that
context. Where you can get a good glaze fit, you can fire
stoneware/^5/^6 stuff and then use the low fire glazes too. I haven't
done much of that myself yet, and the results weren't very good, but
my mistakes were clear and I can learn from them. I've read that some
people are even doing some porcelains that way, and I just got some
^6 porcelain I'm going to try it with. I'm sure porcelain is more
difficult than stoneware clays, but I like the translucence and other
finished characteristics.
Learning to swim in the deep end...
- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI
JCL1876@AOL.COM on mon 17 sep 01
Cindy,
As a potter who has been working with majolica and a red earthenware body for
over 20 years using the pots in my home as well as selling them locally and
nationally I'd have to say beware of making general statements about the
functionality of any so called functional pots be they low, midrange, or high
fire pottery. There are many functional potters out there who know very
little about the actual physical characteristics of well vitrified and well
chosen glazes. I've used many a reduction fired, over reduced, high fire pot
that after the 1st trip through the dishwasher turned as punky as any low
fire talc body. There are also thousands of so called cone 6 electric kiln
pots that were really fired to cone 4 as far too many potters are unaware of
just how true their kiln sitters are and if you check the specs that clay
fires cone 6-8. The structural integrity of a body and glaze have more to do
with understanding the nature of the clay and glazes you work with at the
temperature of choice and adjusting your making, firing, and glaze choices
accordingly. My own pots get dropped, banged, and put through the dishwasher
daily and look no different than the highfire pots I also use. If a potter
makes functional pots to sell, it is also their responsibility to understand
the physical nature of the clay and glaze specific to its intended use.
CINDI ANDERSON on mon 17 sep 01
Hi,
Thanks for your comments. I agree that many potters do not know enough about their
high fire clays and glazes also. But I do know that, and I am trying to learn the
same for the low fire.
What kind of body do you use that is so durable? Is it your own or a commercial
body? Can your pieces be microwaved?
Thanks
Cindi
JCL1876@AOL.COM wrote:
> Cindy,
> As a potter who has been working with majolica and a red earthenware body for
> over 20 years using the pots in my home as well as selling them locally and
> nationally I'd have to say beware of making general statements about the
> functionality of any so called functional pots be they low, midrange, or high
> fire pottery. There are many functional potters out there who know very
> little about the actual physical characteristics of well vitrified and well
> chosen glazes. I've used many a reduction fired, over reduced, high fire pot
> that after the 1st trip through the dishwasher turned as punky as any low
> fire talc body. There are also thousands of so called cone 6 electric kiln
> pots that were really fired to cone 4 as far too many potters are unaware of
> just how true their kiln sitters are and if you check the specs that clay
> fires cone 6-8. The structural integrity of a body and glaze have more to do
> with understanding the nature of the clay and glazes you work with at the
> temperature of choice and adjusting your making, firing, and glaze choices
> accordingly. My own pots get dropped, banged, and put through the dishwasher
> daily and look no different than the highfire pots I also use. If a potter
> makes functional pots to sell, it is also their responsibility to understand
> the physical nature of the clay and glaze specific to its intended use.
Ron Roy on wed 19 sep 01
It is true - just firing higher is no guarentee your ware will have a high
degree of functionality - but it is possible.
At low fire - trying to get a properly vitrified body is impossible without
very strict quality controlls - I would say impossible for a studio potter.
Such ware should be labled - in a permanent way - not suitable for
microwave cooking.
Either that or make sure you have adequate liability insurance because
sooner or later - someone is going to burm themselves.
RR
>As a potter who has been working with majolica and a red earthenware body for
>over 20 years using the pots in my home as well as selling them locally and
>nationally I'd have to say beware of making general statements about the
>functionality of any so called functional pots be they low, midrange, or high
>fire pottery. There are many functional potters out there who know very
>little about the actual physical characteristics of well vitrified and well
>chosen glazes. I've used many a reduction fired, over reduced, high fire pot
>that after the 1st trip through the dishwasher turned as punky as any low
>fire talc body. There are also thousands of so called cone 6 electric kiln
>pots that were really fired to cone 4 as far too many potters are unaware of
>just how true their kiln sitters are and if you check the specs that clay
>fires cone 6-8. The structural integrity of a body and glaze have more to do
>with understanding the nature of the clay and glazes you work with at the
>temperature of choice and adjusting your making, firing, and glaze choices
>accordingly. My own pots get dropped, banged, and put through the dishwasher
>daily and look no different than the highfire pots I also use. If a potter
>makes functional pots to sell, it is also their responsibility to understand
>the physical nature of the clay and glaze specific to its intended use.
Ron Roy
RR# 4
15084 Little Lake Rd..
Brighton,
Ontario, Canada
KOK 1H0
Residence 613-475-9544
Studio 613-475-3715
Fax 613-475-3513
coldbozo@TSTT.NET.TT on wed 19 sep 01
Hello to All ,
[!!!I DO NOT USE THESE BODIES TO COOK WITH OR
MICROWAVE ------
TEST ALL GLAZES FOR FOOD OR DRINK AT ALFRED'S
OR OTHER - PLEASE AND THANK YOU !!!]
If anyone is interested Behrens did this type of
work in his book [ Glaze Projects ] page 34
A Majolica Glaze .
The body he suggests when bisqued to cone
06 [ orton large cone ] - " can be expected to
have the tightness of stoneware ".
There are no exotic ingredients and the body
is designed to throw .
If the glaze on that page bothers you [ has Li20]
then I suggest you use the other version in his
second book.
I use a variation of this body for - coil building -
uses cullet and earthenware clay . The cullet leaks
Na20 , so when freshly made will throw , but the
body is thirsty. Upon ageing it turns to stone.
Since I have access to Vitreous Porcelain Enamel
recipes , I have used these enamels as glazes on
this body .
So I have a body maturing at 08 small cone orton
and glazes at 750 to 870 deg.c [ say 015 orton
small cone ].
In Parmelee's reprinted book you will also find
a silicate glaze formula for 900 deg.c [ 012 orton
small cone ] a majolica , but it can be reformatted
to be clear.
I have been using my clay body , for tea cups [ no
handles ] and a teapot . My teapot has only recently
developed a hairline crack , from being slammed
in the sink.
This is about 3 to 4 years of use.
I believe the cullet "glues" the structure together .
I can also make a low expansion frit , instead of the
cullet , which may give even more resistance to hot
boiling water. Something new to test .
These clay bodies of mine are water tight , having
been stood [ tea cup / teapot ] on a white paper
napkin full of water for 24 hours.
Try the Behrens recipes [ 06 , 04 ] see if it works
for you . Pg 50 of his book , mentioned above may
have an 08 body.
RON -
I can say yes , to your Talc / Clay , slip / glaze mixture
as I have recently melted the bottom of my test kiln
doing this .
Fortunately , my test kiln is just old refractory soft blocks
held together by a galvanised strap and one large block
for the top and one for the bottom.
Easily removed and thrown away.
Until later ,
Khaimraj
From: Wanda Holmes at Alistia
Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 4:28 pm
Subject: Re: Low fire "functional" ceramics: oxy moron, right?
At cone 1 my local red earthenware has a porosity of .2% and is stronger
than the locally available cone 5 bodies. Beyond cone 1 it starts to become
brittle. And I'm not using any strict or fancy quality controls - I use an
electric kiln with a controller and fire with its preset cone 1 program.
How much more vitrified could it be?
Wanda
-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@L...]On
Behalf Of Ron Roy
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 11:34 PM
To: CLAYART@L...
Subject: Re: Low fire "functional" ceramics: oxy moron, right?
It is true - just firing higher is no guarentee your ware will have a high
degree of functionality - but it is possible.
At low fire - trying to get a properly vitrified body is impossible without
very strict quality controlls - I would say impossible for a studio potter.
Such ware should be labled - in a permanent way - not suitable for
microwave cooking.
Either that or make sure you have adequate liability insurance because
sooner or later - someone is going to burm themselves.
RR
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using TSTT Webmail.
http://www.tstt.net.tt
Wanda Holmes at Alistia on wed 19 sep 01
At cone 1 my local red earthenware has a porosity of .2% and is stronger
than the locally available cone 5 bodies. Beyond cone 1 it starts to become
brittle. And I'm not using any strict or fancy quality controls - I use an
electric kiln with a controller and fire with its preset cone 1 program.
How much more vitrified could it be?
Wanda
-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG]On
Behalf Of Ron Roy
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 11:34 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Low fire "functional" ceramics: oxy moron, right?
It is true - just firing higher is no guarentee your ware will have a high
degree of functionality - but it is possible.
At low fire - trying to get a properly vitrified body is impossible without
very strict quality controlls - I would say impossible for a studio potter.
Such ware should be labled - in a permanent way - not suitable for
microwave cooking.
Either that or make sure you have adequate liability insurance because
sooner or later - someone is going to burm themselves.
RR
>As a potter who has been working with majolica and a red earthenware body
for
>over 20 years using the pots in my home as well as selling them locally and
>nationally I'd have to say beware of making general statements about the
>functionality of any so called functional pots be they low, midrange, or
high
>fire pottery. There are many functional potters out there who know very
>little about the actual physical characteristics of well vitrified and well
>chosen glazes. I've used many a reduction fired, over reduced, high fire
pot
>that after the 1st trip through the dishwasher turned as punky as any low
>fire talc body. There are also thousands of so called cone 6 electric kiln
>pots that were really fired to cone 4 as far too many potters are unaware
of
>just how true their kiln sitters are and if you check the specs that clay
>fires cone 6-8. The structural integrity of a body and glaze have more to
do
>with understanding the nature of the clay and glazes you work with at the
>temperature of choice and adjusting your making, firing, and glaze choices
>accordingly. My own pots get dropped, banged, and put through the
dishwasher
>daily and look no different than the highfire pots I also use. If a
potter
>makes functional pots to sell, it is also their responsibility to
understand
>the physical nature of the clay and glaze specific to its intended use.
Ron Roy
RR# 4
15084 Little Lake Rd..
Brighton,
Ontario, Canada
KOK 1H0
Residence 613-475-9544
Studio 613-475-3715
Fax 613-475-3513
____________________________________________________________________________
__
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 thu 20 sep 01
Hi Wanda,
Yes 0.2 is enough - so is 2.0. The usual problem with earthenware clay is
it's variability - I see the absorption numbers on a red earthenware clay
from Ohio on a regular basis and cannot predict absorption if I use a
significant amount of that clay in a body.
I think the problems are easier to overcome at cone 1 than at cone 04 by
the way.
How do you test the absorption? And do you test for it on every new batch?
All I am saying - if you want to overcome the problems that come with
unvitrified clay - it is easier if you fire higher - and I say - starting
at cone 6.
If you want to make durable glazes it is easier if you fire higher - again
starting at cone 6.
RR
>At cone 1 my local red earthenware has a porosity of .2% and is stronger
>than the locally available cone 5 bodies. Beyond cone 1 it starts to become
>brittle. And I'm not using any strict or fancy quality controls - I use an
>electric kiln with a controller and fire with its preset cone 1 program.
>
>How much more vitrified could it be?
>
>Wanda
Ron Roy
RR# 4
15084 Little Lake Rd..
Brighton,
Ontario, Canada
KOK 1H0
Residence 613-475-9544
Studio 613-475-3715
Fax 613-475-3513
Wanda Holmes at Alistia on thu 20 sep 01
Ron, thanks for the clarification. It not only helps me to better
understand the debate going on here, it also gives me a good heads up as to
what to watch out for.
I've spent a lot of time in the last year testing clay bodies and trying to
finally decide whether to work at 02-01 range or the 4-6 range. I want to
choose one or the other to reduce the number of variables in my work and
because I feel that working with one set of bodies and one range, I can
spend less time testing and more time refining my skills.
I'm a software engineer turned potter, so there is a real danger that I will
test myself to death and avoid what is for me much harder - the questions of
art.
To date, these are my arguments for working at 02-01 Range:
Less stress on kiln; lower firing costs, faster firing
Lots of comercial glazes, underglazes, slips, etc. avail.
Bright colors possible
Arguments against:
Glaze chemistry tricky for making my own glazes
Clay/glaze bond may be weak
Less opportunity to develop textural surfaces
Not a lot of other folks developing glazes for this range, so there is
little reference data to draw from
White clay bodies I've tested do not reach desired vitrification
My arguments for 4-6 are:
Greater range of glaze possibilites, esp. w/textures, surface effects
Glaze chemistry not as tricky
Should get greater clay/glaze bond
Better color development w/mason stains in some tests
Glaze development less dependent on expensive frits
Lots of glaze recipes available at this range
White clay bodies available with good strength & porosity profiles
Arguments against:
Loss of brightness in some colors
Not as many commercial products - glaze, underglaze, slips, etc. - avail.
Higher firing costs
Greater stress on the kiln elements
Wanda
-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG]On
Behalf Of Ron Roy
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:56 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Low fire "functional" ceramics: oxy moron, right?
Hi Wanda,
Yes 0.2 is enough - so is 2.0. The usual problem with earthenware clay is
it's variability - I see the absorption numbers on a red earthenware clay
from Ohio on a regular basis and cannot predict absorption if I use a
significant amount of that clay in a body.
I think the problems are easier to overcome at cone 1 than at cone 04 by
the way.
How do you test the absorption? And do you test for it on every new batch?
All I am saying - if you want to overcome the problems that come with
unvitrified clay - it is easier if you fire higher - and I say - starting
at cone 6.
If you want to make durable glazes it is easier if you fire higher - again
starting at cone 6.
RR
>At cone 1 my local red earthenware has a porosity of .2% and is stronger
>than the locally available cone 5 bodies. Beyond cone 1 it starts to
become
>brittle. And I'm not using any strict or fancy quality controls - I use an
>electric kiln with a controller and fire with its preset cone 1 program.
>
>How much more vitrified could it be?
>
>Wanda
Ron Roy
RR# 4
15084 Little Lake Rd..
Brighton,
Ontario, Canada
KOK 1H0
Residence 613-475-9544
Studio 613-475-3715
Fax 613-475-3513
____________________________________________________________________________
__
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 sat 22 sep 01
Hi Wanda,
Let me just ramble on a bit - I'm very busy these days so I won't try to be
"nice" - just give you my thoughts.
Last time I looked at glaze firing costs were about $5 in electricity for a
18" square electric kiln - long time ago - so lets say $20 now - the diff
between cone 1 and cone 6 might be - $5 tops.
I can add another con to the lower firing - you will need more melters at
cone 1- in this case mostly frits - not even the midrange fluxes (CaO, MgO,
ZnO and SrO) are going to help much at cone 1. So any savings in
electricity and element costs are probably going to be wiped out.
Harder to make stable glazes and solve fit problems down there as well -
both need silica and silica needs to be melted.
so I don't think cost of firing is a factor.
When I was teaching - we fired to cone 8 - had to replace elements every
year - thats 150 firing per year - glaze and bisque. At cone 6 I would
expect them to last longer - lets say 175 - so at cone 1 lets say 200
firings - it's a wild guess but you can figure out ball park numbers for
how much element costs are per firing.
Your augments for and against are very good and I can't add much to them -
being able to count on vitrification is a big plus - it does not take many
losses per kiln to wreck any justification for working at the lower cone.
I would say - taking into consideration your pro and cons - there is no
choice - as you say - thousands of cone 6 recipes out there - and more to
come.
If it's a reliable product you are after your job will be infinitely easier
at cone 6.
There is the argument that less firing is better for the environment - true
- but if you have to use more frit - they need to be melted - well melted -
and then you have to melt em again.
You can look at the above as an argument for firing even higher - where the
spars are starting to help with the melt. You may find your colour response
not as good and many electric kilns (most I think) are not built well
enough for it. It would be easier and cheaper to make glazes however.
Well I'm starting to cover what you have already covered - if you need more
comments - just give me a poke.
RR
>Ron, thanks for the clarification. It not only helps me to better
>understand the debate going on here, it also gives me a good heads up as to
>what to watch out for.
>
>I've spent a lot of time in the last year testing clay bodies and trying to
>finally decide whether to work at 02-01 range or the 4-6 range. I want to
>choose one or the other to reduce the number of variables in my work and
>because I feel that working with one set of bodies and one range, I can
>spend less time testing and more time refining my skills.
>
>I'm a software engineer turned potter, so there is a real danger that I will
>test myself to death and avoid what is for me much harder - the questions of
>art.
>
>To date, these are my arguments for working at 02-01 Range:
>Less stress on kiln; lower firing costs, faster firing
>Lots of comercial glazes, underglazes, slips, etc. avail.
>Bright colors possible
>
>Arguments against:
>Glaze chemistry tricky for making my own glazes
>Clay/glaze bond may be weak
>Less opportunity to develop textural surfaces
>Not a lot of other folks developing glazes for this range, so there is
>little reference data to draw from
>White clay bodies I've tested do not reach desired vitrification
>
>My arguments for 4-6 are:
>Greater range of glaze possibilites, esp. w/textures, surface effects
>Glaze chemistry not as tricky
>Should get greater clay/glaze bond
>Better color development w/mason stains in some tests
>Glaze development less dependent on expensive frits
>Lots of glaze recipes available at this range
>White clay bodies available with good strength & porosity profiles
>
>Arguments against:
>Loss of brightness in some colors
>Not as many commercial products - glaze, underglaze, slips, etc. - avail.
>Higher firing costs
>Greater stress on the kiln elements
Ron Roy
RR# 4
15084 Little Lake Rd..
Brighton,
Ontario, Canada
KOK 1H0
Residence 613-475-9544
Studio 613-475-3715
Fax 613-475-3513
Wanda Holmes on sun 23 sep 01
Thanks, Ron. You're points on firing costs and kiln elements are very well
taken. I just yesterday (before reading your note) decided to go with cone
6. Your note reinforces my comfort with my decision.
Wanda
-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG]On
Behalf Of Ron Roy
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 7:42 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Low fire "functional" ceramics: oxy moron, right?
Hi Wanda,
Let me just ramble on a bit - I'm very busy these days so I won't try to be
"nice" - just give you my thoughts.
Last time I looked at glaze firing costs were about $5 in electricity for a
18" square electric kiln - long time ago - so lets say $20 now - the diff
between cone 1 and cone 6 might be - $5 tops.
I can add another con to the lower firing - you will need more melters at
cone 1- in this case mostly frits - not even the midrange fluxes (CaO, MgO,
ZnO and SrO) are going to help much at cone 1. So any savings in
electricity and element costs are probably going to be wiped out.
Harder to make stable glazes and solve fit problems down there as well -
both need silica and silica needs to be melted.
so I don't think cost of firing is a factor.
When I was teaching - we fired to cone 8 - had to replace elements every
year - thats 150 firing per year - glaze and bisque. At cone 6 I would
expect them to last longer - lets say 175 - so at cone 1 lets say 200
firings - it's a wild guess but you can figure out ball park numbers for
how much element costs are per firing.
Your augments for and against are very good and I can't add much to them -
being able to count on vitrification is a big plus - it does not take many
losses per kiln to wreck any justification for working at the lower cone.
I would say - taking into consideration your pro and cons - there is no
choice - as you say - thousands of cone 6 recipes out there - and more to
come.
If it's a reliable product you are after your job will be infinitely easier
at cone 6.
There is the argument that less firing is better for the environment - true
- but if you have to use more frit - they need to be melted - well melted -
and then you have to melt em again.
You can look at the above as an argument for firing even higher - where the
spars are starting to help with the melt. You may find your colour response
not as good and many electric kilns (most I think) are not built well
enough for it. It would be easier and cheaper to make glazes however.
Well I'm starting to cover what you have already covered - if you need more
comments - just give me a poke.
RR
>Ron, thanks for the clarification. It not only helps me to better
>understand the debate going on here, it also gives me a good heads up as to
>what to watch out for.
>
>I've spent a lot of time in the last year testing clay bodies and trying to
>finally decide whether to work at 02-01 range or the 4-6 range. I want to
>choose one or the other to reduce the number of variables in my work and
>because I feel that working with one set of bodies and one range, I can
>spend less time testing and more time refining my skills.
>
>I'm a software engineer turned potter, so there is a real danger that I
will
>test myself to death and avoid what is for me much harder - the questions
of
>art.
>
>To date, these are my arguments for working at 02-01 Range:
>Less stress on kiln; lower firing costs, faster firing
>Lots of comercial glazes, underglazes, slips, etc. avail.
>Bright colors possible
>
>Arguments against:
>Glaze chemistry tricky for making my own glazes
>Clay/glaze bond may be weak
>Less opportunity to develop textural surfaces
>Not a lot of other folks developing glazes for this range, so there is
>little reference data to draw from
>White clay bodies I've tested do not reach desired vitrification
>
>My arguments for 4-6 are:
>Greater range of glaze possibilites, esp. w/textures, surface effects
>Glaze chemistry not as tricky
>Should get greater clay/glaze bond
>Better color development w/mason stains in some tests
>Glaze development less dependent on expensive frits
>Lots of glaze recipes available at this range
>White clay bodies available with good strength & porosity profiles
>
>Arguments against:
>Loss of brightness in some colors
>Not as many commercial products - glaze, underglaze, slips, etc. - avail.
>Higher firing costs
>Greater stress on the kiln elements
Ron Roy
RR# 4
15084 Little Lake Rd..
Brighton,
Ontario, Canada
KOK 1H0
Residence 613-475-9544
Studio 613-475-3715
Fax 613-475-3513
____________________________________________________________________________
__
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.
| |
|
