John Baymore on sun 3 nov 02
June =
I don't understand why these companies can't aspire to a professional lev=
el
of quality control in their products. There is definitely a lack of
integrity
in claybody formulation with quite a few big suppliers on both coasts in
this
country.
Generalities are dangerous but....... I think mainly it is because we,
potters, tend to let them get away with it. We tend to be "nice
people".... and very easy going. We are not usually the "type" to hire
lawyers at the drop of a hat. (Can you imagine Susan Beecher's good ole'=
Mr. Middleton's reaction to the same situation? ) We tend to roll ov=
er
and play dead. In a sense were are not being professionals about it.... =
so
why should they? If we were professionals...... we would not put up with=
it. (Can you imagine what your dentist would do if the fillings started =
to
crumble out of his patrient's mouths a few weeks after they were put
in...... and the supplier said ..."sorry.... formulation includes natural=
materials..... ruin of mine....not our fault"? )
Now in defense of the suppliers........... in many cases it is the potter=
's
own fault for not having much of a technical background and not doing
appropriate testing BEFORE putting materials to use. It doesn't take muc=
h
effort to make one pot out of the new batch of clay and fire it, or to ma=
ke
a 500 gram batch of the glaze and fire it before making 30,000 grams of i=
t.
Ceramics is a VERY technical field underlying the art part. Too many
don't have that piece of the puzzle.... and then wonder why they have
problems.
But now in defense of the potter........... at some level...... when you
buy a new car...... you expect it to stop when you step on the brakes. Y=
ou
shouldn't have to hire a mechanic to take off the wheels and check the
brakes before you drive it out of the showroom. Blended clay bodies
shouldn't be ALL that much different.
And all too many times, in my experience talking with potters all over an=
d
in doing consulting work, the problems potters get CLEARLY should have
been caught by the supplier's or the manufactrurer's QC program. Even wh=
en
the supplier takes the material back and replaces it........... any lost
time incurred by the potter waiting for the thing to get straightened out=
is not ususally considered. Nor the "ulcers". And if it is straightened=
out AFTER work has been produced..... it just about NEVER takes into
consideration the lost revenues.
When confronted by such situations, the suppliers typically just say "run=
of mine ....we're not responsible.... you don't know what you are doing..=
..
see the liability statement in our catalog."
In too many cases it is total crap.
And they can bet pretty safely that a person earning less than minimum wa=
ge
for their working time is not going to be hiring a lawyer at $150 an hour=
to "win" a case that invloves only say.......$1000 of product...... and
incur maybe a $5000 legal bill to do it.
Again a bit in the suppliers defense........ it seems that most potters a=
re
totally "price based" in their buying decisions. So manufacturers and
suppliers have little margin to play with for the fund things like better=
testing and QC programs and in being able to "eat" a big problem. They
have to keep the price as low as possible to keep customers.
I think this whole area TOO is a place the Potter's Council could have so=
me
positive impact. How about a "QC Approval" program....... an endorsement=
. =
Along the ISO 9000 idea.....but not as involved. The Council sets up the=
exact guidelines that a manufacturer has to meet....and if they do.......=
they get the PC stamp of approval. The stamp of approval lets potters kn=
ow
a bit about the reliability of the company's products..... and the way th=
ey
will be treated if a problem occurs. That could help a LOT.
Yes... this would take lots of money. But for me .... IF it could provid=
e
such services to the field...... much higher dues would be WORTH it to ge=
t
such needed programs in place. Unfortunately....... I do this for a
living.... and many potters do not. So high dues would be an impediment
for them to be members..... not good. Maybe there needs to be a "sliding=
scale" of dues.
Thinking on the "fly here .
The good news is that there is plenty of room for someone to come along
with
high standards and a sense of integrity, and make a good living supplying=
a
quality product. There is definitely a market for it.
There's a market ONLY if potters vote with their feet. Or actually with
their "bucks".
I "voted with my bucks" many years ago. I had been buying from a somewha=
t
local supplier (Boston area 70 miles +/-) and the QC of the products beca=
me
awful and the service was terrible and the technical folk I talked to kne=
w
less than I did. So I now pay MORE to get my materials ....... mainly fo=
r
the shipping......... from a supplier located much further away from me
(Sheffield Pottery Supply....western Mass...... 200+/- miles) and my
heartaches have decreased greatly. BTW...... they are GREAT people to de=
al
with. Any tiny amount that I pay more now is WELL worth the "peace of
mind".
Clay and glaze materials are only a tiny FRACTION of the costs associated=
with making claywork. You TIME is worth FAR more. =
Best,
..............................john
PS: With comments on other manufacturers problems creeping into this
discussion......... and recommendations for other suppliers
too............. I think the "What is with Laguna" message header should =
be
changed..... that is why I am doing so here. Not that I am defending the=
m
in particular............ but I think it is unfair to single them out in
the message header that is acting as a "reference" for problems with
general supplier QC and customer service.
John Baymore
River Bend Pottery
22 Riverbend Way
Wilton, NH 03086 USA
603-654-2752 (s)
800-900-1110 (s)
JohnBaymore.com
JBaymore@compuserve.com =
David Beumee on sun 3 nov 02
Dear John,
I think there may be alot of potters who don't know where to begin when/if they read the words
on a box of moist clay that says: "because (XYZ manufacturer) has no control over the uniformity of clay
and other raw materials used to blend, and because of the variety of applications, glazes and techniques,
and potential uses of this product, (XYZ manufacturer) does not warrant results obtained from using this
clay body." I'd be happy to help anyone get started with the tools and guidelines needed to test their
clays. I also have some excellent cone 10 stoneware, white stoneware, and porcelain throwing body
recipes I'd be happy to share. But if, for instance, the Potter's Council were to take on the task of
approving a clay body recipe, how could shoddy manufacturers be held to task? Any well tested body
can be ruined by a manufacturer who does'nt care what they're doing. Then the Potters Council might be
held responsibility for someone else's mistake. Here are three recipes that represent the best of the best
of my research. Any Clayart potter that wants to, mix up a small batch. If you like the recipe, if you like the
way the body throws, if it has the right amount of shrinkage and absorption percentage for you, if it
doesn't have warping or cracking problems, if it has the right working texture and fired color, if it fits your
glazes, let's hear your results. Then you can take the recipe to your manufacturer and have them make
you up a batch. If they screw up, you'll know it.
SS1- 18B Rev.#2, Stoneware, cone 10-11 reduction
25 Champion ball clay excellent workability
20 New Foundry Hill Creme 15% shrinkage @ cone 11
30 50 mesh Hawthorn Bond 0.2% absorption @ cone 11
10 Newman Red no warping or cracking
10 G-200 feldspar dense, beautiful texture
5 200 mesh silica tan/brown fired color
fits GTS 2-10 (excellent glaze fit)
Rev. DB2B white stoneware, cone 10-11 reduction
20 #6 Tile 16% shrinkage @ cone 11
17 EPK 0.26% absorption @ cone 11
10 Old Hickory #5 ball clay no warping or cracking
31 C-1 Marblemix filler clay (Laguna) smooth texture
12 G-200 feldspar light grey fired color
10 200 mesh silica fits GTS 3-10 (excellent glaze fit)
dense, "just right" feel
add: 1.5% Macaloid
McKinnell JB Variation Porcelain, cone 10-11 reduction
48 Grolleg very good workability
18 G-200 feldspar 17.5% shrinkage @ cone 11
20 200 mesh silica 0% absorption @ cone 11
14 Pyrax (pyrophyllite) no warping or cracking
very fine and smooth texture
add: 2% Macaloid white fired color
fits GTS 2-10 (excellent glaze fit)
Recipe works best wet mixed.
If dry mixed, add wet mixed Macaloid if possible
David Beumee
Earth Alchemy Pottery
806 East Baseline Road
Lafayette, CO 80026
11/3/02 6:21:47 AM, John Baymore wrote:
>June
>
>
>I don't understand why these companies can't aspire to a professional level
>of quality control in their products. There is definitely a lack of
>integrity
>in claybody formulation with quite a few big suppliers on both coasts in
>this
>country.
>
>
>Generalities are dangerous but....... I think mainly it is because we,
>potters, tend to let them get away with it. We tend to be "nice
>people".... and very easy going. We are not usually the "type" to hire
>lawyers at the drop of a hat. (Can you imagine Susan Beecher's good ole'
>Mr. Middleton's reaction to the same situation? ) We tend to roll over
>and play dead. In a sense were are not being professionals about it.... so
>why should they? If we were professionals...... we would not put up with
>it. (Can you imagine what your dentist would do if the fillings started to
>crumble out of his patrient's mouths a few weeks after they were put
>in...... and the supplier said ..."sorry.... formulation includes natural
>materials..... ruin of mine....not our fault"? )
>
>Now in defense of the suppliers........... in many cases it is the potter's
>own fault for not having much of a technical background and not doing
>appropriate testing BEFORE putting materials to use. It doesn't take much
>effort to make one pot out of the new batch of clay and fire it, or to make
>a 500 gram batch of the glaze and fire it before making 30,000 grams of it.
> Ceramics is a VERY technical field underlying the art part. Too many
>don't have that piece of the puzzle.... and then wonder why they have
>problems.
>
>But now in defense of the potter........... at some level...... when you
>buy a new car...... you expect it to stop when you step on the brakes. You
>shouldn't have to hire a mechanic to take off the wheels and check the
>brakes before you drive it out of the showroom. Blended clay bodies
>shouldn't be ALL that much different.
>
>And all too many times, in my experience talking with potters all over and
>in doing consulting work, the problems potters get CLEARLY should have
>been caught by the supplier's or the manufactrurer's QC program. Even when
>the supplier takes the material back and replaces it........... any lost
>time incurred by the potter waiting for the thing to get straightened out
>is not ususally considered. Nor the "ulcers". And if it is straightened
>out AFTER work has been produced..... it just about NEVER takes into
>consideration the lost revenues.
>
>When confronted by such situations, the suppliers typically just say "run
>of mine ....we're not responsible.... you don't know what you are doing....
>see the liability statement in our catalog."
>
>In too many cases it is total crap.
>
>And they can bet pretty safely that a person earning less than minimum wage
>for their working time is not going to be hiring a lawyer at $150 an hour
>to "win" a case that invloves only say.......$1000 of product...... and
>incur maybe a $5000 legal bill to do it.
>
>Again a bit in the suppliers defense........ it seems that most potters are
>totally "price based" in their buying decisions. So manufacturers and
>suppliers have little margin to play with for the fund things like better
>testing and QC programs and in being able to "eat" a big problem. They
>have to keep the price as low as possible to keep customers.
>
>
>I think this whole area TOO is a place the Potter's Council could have some
>positive impact. How about a "QC Approval" program....... an endorsement.
>Along the ISO 9000 idea.....but not as involved. The Council sets up the
>exact guidelines that a manufacturer has to meet....and if they do.......
>they get the PC stamp of approval. The stamp of approval lets potters know
>a bit about the reliability of the company's products..... and the way they
>will be treated if a problem occurs. That could help a LOT.
>
>Yes... this would take lots of money. But for me .... IF it could provide
>such services to the field...... much higher dues would be WORTH it to get
>such needed programs in place. Unfortunately....... I do this for a
>living.... and many potters do not. So high dues would be an impediment
>for them to be members..... not good. Maybe there needs to be a "sliding
>scale" of dues.
>
>Thinking on the "fly here .
>
>
>
>The good news is that there is plenty of room for someone to come along
>with
>high standards and a sense of integrity, and make a good living supplying a
>quality product. There is definitely a market for it.
>
>
>There's a market ONLY if potters vote with their feet. Or actually with
>their "bucks".
>
>I "voted with my bucks" many years ago. I had been buying from a somewhat
>local supplier (Boston area 70 miles +/-) and the QC of the products became
>awful and the service was terrible and the technical folk I talked to knew
>less than I did. So I now pay MORE to get my materials ....... mainly for
>the shipping......... from a supplier located much further away from me
>(Sheffield Pottery Supply....western Mass...... 200+/- miles) and my
>heartaches have decreased greatly. BTW...... they are GREAT people to deal
>with. Any tiny amount that I pay more now is WELL worth the "peace of
>mind".
>
>Clay and glaze materials are only a tiny FRACTION of the costs associated
>with making claywork. You TIME is worth FAR more.
>
>
>Best,
>
>..............................john
>
>PS: With comments on other manufacturers problems creeping into this
>discussion......... and recommendations for other suppliers
>too............. I think the "What is with Laguna" message header should be
>changed..... that is why I am doing so here. Not that I am defending them
>in particular............ but I think it is unfair to single them out in
>the message header that is acting as a "reference" for problems with
>general supplier QC and customer service.
>
>
>John Baymore
>River Bend Pottery
>22 Riverbend Way
>Wilton, NH 03086 USA
>
>603-654-2752 (s)
>800-900-1110 (s)
>
>JohnBaymore.com
>
>JBaymore@compuserve.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.
>
>
Jose A. Velez on sun 3 nov 02
John said:
"I think this whole area TOO is a place the Potter's Council could have some
positive impact. How about a "QC Approval" program....... an endorsement.
Along the ISO 9000 idea.....but not as involved. The Council sets up the
exact guidelines that a manufacturer has to meet....and if they do.......
they get the PC stamp of approval. The stamp of approval lets potters know
a bit about the reliability of the company's products..... and the way they
will be treated if a problem occurs. That could help a LOT."
John, I am not a professional potter nor a member of the Council, just a
ceramics enthusiat, but I do use clay and confront the same problems except
in a smaller scale. I do agree wholeheartedly with what you have expressed.
It might be difficult to put in place an ISO 9000 type program. I would
suggest the publication of a set of standards or guidelines. Even if the
Potter's Council does not certify the suppliers, the existance of the
Standards/Guidelines would enable the potter to ask if the supplier abides
by those Stds. and we can favor with our business those that do. This in
itself I think will create a basis and an expectation of Quality Control by
the suppliers.
Best regards,
Jose A. Velez
Gavin Stairs on sun 3 nov 02
John,
What ACerS and similar bodies have generally been involved in is the
promotion and publication of research in ceramics, and the general
amelioration of practices in industry by suasion and example. Other
learned societies have been more involved in standards promulgation and the
like. I doubt that ACerS would be much interested in getting into quality
systems like ISO 9000. ISO 9000 is itself applicable to ceramics industry
as much as it is to any other industry. As others have noted recently (eg
mel about AP Green), we (potters) are generally a very small drop in the
bucket for large ceramics supply firms. If they were to adopt ISO 9000
type quality assurance, it would not likely be at the instigation of
potters. Similarly, green practice standards (eg ISO 14000) are generally
promulgated outside the industry for general application to all
industry. I don't think ACerS would be ready to take on such a grand theme
already covered by others. But you never know.
What would be more in keeping with tradition at ACerS would be to publish
example bodies and or glazes developed and tested by members, with a view
to improving the general practice in some way. Or to publish papers on the
proper design of bodies and glazes for studio pottery operations, and the
proper operation of quality control and amendment programs for the
same. This would be entirely appropriate to the society as a whole or to
the Potters' Council in particular. None of this would in any way open the
society to any liability for non-compliance complaints, as might an
accreditation program.
I would say that the proper first approach to this question would be by way
of writing and publishing papers on good practice. In fact, I believe that
this is quite in line with the Potters' Council mandate.
Gavin
At 08:21 AM 03/11/2002 -0500, John Baymore wrote:
>I think this whole area TOO is a place the Potter's Council could have some
>positive impact. How about a "QC Approval" program....... an endorsement.
>Along the ISO 9000 idea.....but not as involved. The Council sets up the
>exact guidelines that a manufacturer has to meet....and if they do.......
>they get the PC stamp of approval. The stamp of approval lets potters know
>a bit about the reliability of the company's products..... and the way they
>will be treated if a problem occurs. That could help a LOT.
| |
|
