Deborah Woods on sat 16 dec 06
I have recently tested three white to off-white "stoneware" bodies.
Although I liked two of them for their throwing properties, they appear
underfired to me. My usual body is Laguna 75. It's a nice toasty brown,
and feels and looks vitrified. The white bodies I just tested were,
Standard 181, Laguna 55, and Laguna 65. One interesting thing is that my
signature on the bottom, was not even melded with the bodies. After going
to cone 6 (6 flat, 7 ranging between 10 to 11 o'clock top to bottom) I
could take my finger and wipe it over my signature and partly wipe it
away. Please don't suggest that I do a water test or whatever. I don't
care if the pots hold water, if they still feel powdery and cheap they're
not good enough to me. Maybe I should try a cone 6 "porcelain" instead. I
was leaning towards stoneware for strength, my only experience with
porcelain at cone 10 were pots that broke easily. If anyone has any
suggestions for clays I should try I would appreciate the help. Thanks.--
Deborah Woods
Lynn Goodman Porcelain Pottery on sat 16 dec 06
Hi Deborah,
I have always found white stoneware to be a pain in the butt. It
doesn't throw well because it's gooey, and it isn't really white. The
only thing going for it, if you use one that actually vitrifies at
^6, is your glazes will probably fit pretty well. You just need to
try bodies that indicate that they are ^4--6.
I use Standard #551 porcelain. I find it very easy to throw, and it's
fairly well-behaved. It is vitreous and translucent (even at ^5 1/2,
which is where I fire). The only thing is, you will have to
reformulate your glazes; #551 contains Grolleg which increases the
coefficient of expansion, so you'll get some crazing.
Lynn
On Dec 16, 2006, at 10:41 AM, Deborah Woods wrote:
> I have recently tested three white to off-white "stoneware" bodies.
> Although I liked two of them for their throwing properties, they
> appear
> underfired to me. My usual body is Laguna 75. It's a nice toasty
> brown,
> and feels and looks vitrified. The white bodies I just tested were,
> Standard 181, Laguna 55, and Laguna 65. One interesting thing is
> that my
> signature on the bottom, was not even melded with the bodies. After
> going
> to cone 6 (6 flat, 7 ranging between 10 to 11 o'clock top to bottom) I
> could take my finger and wipe it over my signature and partly wipe it
> away. Please don't suggest that I do a water test or whatever. I
> don't
> care if the pots hold water, if they still feel powdery and cheap
> they're
> not good enough to me. Maybe I should try a cone 6 "porcelain"
> instead. I
> was leaning towards stoneware for strength, my only experience with
> porcelain at cone 10 were pots that broke easily. If anyone has any
> suggestions for clays I should try I would appreciate the help.
> Thanks.--
> Deborah Woods
Lynn Goodman
Fine Porcelain Pottery
Cell 347-526-9805
www.lynngoodmanporcelain.com
Maid O'Mud on sun 17 dec 06
I use Tucker mid smooth stone, a very white, smooth
stoneware. It fires to vitrification at ^6 just fine. I use
it for my tableware; it's been in/out of the dishwasher
for years. All M^6G work just fine (bonus!!)
I also use Mid-cal 0 when I want a dark ^6 body.
I made my front foyer tiles from this clay, so I
KNOW the clay is strong.
YMMV
Sam Cuttell
Maid O'Mud Pottery
RR 1
Melbourne, Ontario
N0L 1T0
CANADA
"First, the clay told me what to do.
Then, I told the clay what to do.
Now, we co-operate."
sam 1994
http://www.ody.ca/~scuttell/
scuttell@ody.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: "Deborah Woods"
> I have recently tested three white to off-white "stoneware" bodies.
> Although I liked two of them for their throwing properties, they appear
> underfired to me. My usual body is Laguna 75. It's a nice toasty brown,
> and feels and looks vitrified. The white bodies I just tested were,
> Standard 181, Laguna 55, and Laguna 65. One interesting thing is that my
> signature on the bottom, was not even melded with the bodies. After going
> to cone 6 (6 flat, 7 ranging between 10 to 11 o'clock top to bottom) I
> could take my finger and wipe it over my signature and partly wipe it
> away. Please don't suggest that I do a water test or whatever. I don't
> care if the pots hold water, if they still feel powdery and cheap they're
> not good enough to me. Maybe I should try a cone 6 "porcelain" instead. I
> was leaning towards stoneware for strength, my only experience with
> porcelain at cone 10 were pots that broke easily. If anyone has any
> suggestions for clays I should try I would appreciate the help. Thanks.--
> Deborah Woods
>
Deborah Woods on sun 17 dec 06
Thanks-I am pretty much just looking for a white body for use with
one of my glazes. The glaze looked wonderful on those bodies I tested, it
was the clay I was not satisfied with. Maybe I will try a cone 6
porcelain. as I said before, I was concerned about strength, which is why
I started with stoneware.
A funny story. If I were still firing to cone 10, I would use a clay
called, Melissa's White Stoneware. I found the recipe in one of my books
in school. Fast-forward to me smashing pots I don't like on my front step,
I pick up this pot made with this clay and drop it and it bounces off the
concrete. Okay. I pick it up again, this time I drop it from like 4 feet
off the ground. Bounces. I try one more time and decide that this pot is
meant to live, and that this might be one of the strongest clays I've ever
used.
Dave Finkelnburg on sun 17 dec 06
Deborah,
I know we all have to rely on our experience. The
experience you have apparently, from your posts,
indicates porcelain is weak. At mid-fire (~c5)
commercial pottery in the US is virtually all
porcelain, partly because it is consistently stronger
than stoneware. Porcelain tile is frequently
specified in architectural settings for the same
reason. This does not mean porcelain cannot be poorly
made or fired, just that properly fired the glass
phase in porcelain, when combined with good inert
ingredients and a glaze that fits well is the
strongest readily available ceramic to studio potters.
I personally prefer the plastic forming properties
of stoneware, and the color response of porcelain.
Argghhh...the search for a perfect clay body never
ends! :-)
Good potting,
Dave Finkelnburg
--- Deborah Woods wrote:
> Thanks-I am pretty much just looking for a white
> body for use with
> one of my glazes.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mayssan Shora Farra on mon 18 dec 06
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:41:57 -0500, Deborah Woods
wrote:
I have recently tested three white to off-white "stoneware" bodies.
>Although I liked two of them for their throwing properties, they appear
>underfired to me. My usual body is Laguna 75. It's a nice toasty brown,
>and feels and looks vitrified. The white bodies I just tested were,
>Standard 181.
Hello Deborah:
I can only speak about Standards as I get all my clays from them for
geographical reasons.
181 is actually a ^10 body although we used it when I first strted in
pottery at ^6 and it did work none of this powderiness you are talking
about. But now i use Standard 563 which is a true ^6 body and ivory white.
I like it a lot for my Claybeings especially since they are so fragile
anyway.
I liked throwing with the 181 better because it had Molochite and could
take more abuse.
Standard also has a porcelainous clay 213 that matures at ^6 and also a
grolleg porcelain formulated for ^6 365.
I cannot give feed back on the porcelains as they didn't work well for my
purposes but I really like the 563.
I wish you best of luck finding the clay that matches what you want.
Mayssan (that is not the name of a guy :) in Charleston WV USA
http://www.clayvillepottery.com
| |
|
