Now we are talking!

I'm delighted that there are people out there who care about this stuff.

Re: 'Astbury-type', we've always referred to it as 'glazed red earthenware',
but I prefer the simple 'redware' (slipping into GRE merely as an abbreviation).
I should add, however, that we now have a huge body of redwares almost
certainly made by AN Astbury (common Staffordshire name). Excavations on an
18th-century pottery factory site in Shelton, Stoke-on-Trent, in 1992 exposed -
amongst other things - a large waster dump containing - you guessed it - glazed
and biscuit tea and coffee wares of the type under discussion. These have
mould-applied relief decoration in white, inlaid agate band, turned and cut
flutes, and other weird stuff which we are not used to seeing. Stylistically we
thought 1730/40. Documentary study by Rodney Hampson showed that between 1728
and 1744 one John Astbury was tenant of the potworks and was, therefore,
probabaly reponsible for the wasters excavated. This date range is supported by
vessels commemorating the capture of Portobello in 1739. On the down-side, fine
though these redwares are, there's not a whole lot to distinguish them from
similar wares from a dozen other N. Staffordshire sites. [This makes life
easier!]

As for our Jackfield friends: 'blackware' or 'refined blackware' suffices for
us. We use the latter if we have a multi-period group containing 17th-/early
18th-century once-fired blackwares. I'm now quite happy to leave off the
additional "so-called 'Jackfield-type' wares", which has cluttered up my text
for so long. The point is well-made that a label is just that, as long as we
can recognise it, but equally there is no excuse for us to be sloppy in our
approach.

It's a pleasure to chat - beats work!

David Barker