In addition, the factory owners would contract with their workers for
$x per dinner plate and $y per twiffler (where x was slightly larger
than y), but then rename all the dinner plates produced by the potter
on contract as twifflers and pay them the lower rate per item made
after they emerged from the oven.
That didn't matter to the consumers of the time, however, and I don't
think there was a change of name in the sales floor based upon the
payroll adjustments.
Cheers,
Tim
On Jul 23, 2010, at 3:12 PM, George Miller wrote:
> Mark,
>
> The size of twifflers and other wares changed over time.
> In
> their competition with each other, the Staffordshire potters and
> later the
> American potters set up a series of price fixing lists. However,
> they got
> around their own prices lists in a couple of ways. One was to give
> a larger
> discount off the lists, another was to classify vessels as seconds
> that
> would be at a lower price and the third way was to make their
> vessels larger
> that the inch sizes on the price fixing lists. The increasing sizes
> were to
> appeal to the buyer who would be getting larger vessels for the
> smaller
> size. There is some discussion of this in the following articles:
>
>
>
> George L. Miller
>
> 1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th
> Century
> Ceramics. *Historical Archaeology*. Vol. 14, 1980: see page27
>
>
>
> 1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and
> Economic
> Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. *Historical
> Archaeology*Vol. 21 No. 1, page 11.
>
>
>
> George L. Miller and Amy C. Earls
>
> 2008 War and Pots: The Impact of Economics and
> Politics
> on Ceramic Consumption Patterns. *Ceramics in America 2008*. Page
> 79.
>
>
>
> Leonard Whiter
>
> 1970 *Spode: A History of the Family, Factory and Wares
> 1733-1833*. Praeger
> Publishers, New York.
>
>
>
> Whiter presents some good primary information on the potters
> increasing
> sizes of their vessels on pages 62-64. Here are a couple of his
> quotes:
>
>
>
> Page 63 From the Wedgwood archives, dated 1807 about
> Josiah Spode
> II’s wares
>
>
>
> “To succeed in Country trade we must not be niggardly in our sizes,
> the best
> markets act otherwise e.g. Spode’s pint jugs hold three half-
> pints . . . J.
> Ridgway makes larger ware than anyone.”
>
>
>
> Page 63-64
>
> “The anonymous writer protested that ‘The monstrous size of goods is
> the
> bane of all our porfits’ and warned darkly that, if left uncorrected
> by the
> potters themselves, ‘it will then be indispensably necessary to
> adopt such
> measures, as may in the event establish that power in the hands of
> those
> whose authority cannot be slighted’. Legislation was actually
> proposed in
> 1826 to regulate sizes in pottery . . . since luckless assistants
> in china
> shops are still trying to explain to disbelieving laymen such
> peculiarities
> as ‘seven-inch plates’ which measure eight inches.”
>
>
>
> In the Enoch Wood Papers at the Potteries Museum in Hanley,
> Staffordshire
> (now on line) there is a copy of a printed document titled
> “Proceedings at
> the Yearly General Meeting of Manufacturers of Porcelain & Earthen-
> ware, in
> the Staffordshire Potteries, … July 22nd, 1806.” In that document
> is the
> following statement:
>
>
>
> “The Committee have to deplore that not withstanding the several
> consultations that have been held upon the Advice given in a Pamphlet,
> entitled “The Ruin of the Potters, and the way to avoid it,”
> relative to the
> sizes of various Articles of Ware, which from Time to Time have
> increased to
> a very great Evil, highly injurious to Manufacturers, not only in
> additional
> Expense in getting up, but particularly detrimental to those who
> adhere to
> what should be considered a Standard Size:”
>
>
>
> W. H. Warburton
>
> 1931 *The History of Trade Union Organization in North
> Staffordshire*
> . London.
>
>
>
> Page 180 “Another and common method of selling of ware
> the actual
> size of which was larger than the nominal, i.e. a 10-inch plate
> would be
> sold as an 8-inch plate, an 8-inch plate as a 6-inch, etc. All of
> these
> methods were practiced in the nineteenth century.”
>
>
>
> Page 181 “Competition in sizes was also taking place at
> the same
> time. [1850s] In 1860 it was stated before Parliamentary Committee
> that
> pottery-ware sizes had greatly increased during the previous few
> years.”
>
>
>
> *************************
>
>
>
> These practices continued into the twentieth century.
>
>
>
> *Wedgwood Current Shapes and Prices* June 1939 has columns listing
> “Trade
> Size” and “Actual Size.”
>
>
>
> Plates, Concave
>
> Trade Size
>
> Actual size
>
>
>
> 8”
>
> 9 3/16”
>
>
>
> 7”
>
> 8 1/8”
>
>
>
> 6”
>
> 7”
>
>
>
> 5”
>
> 6 1/8”
>
>
>
> 4”
>
> 5 1/8”
>
>
>
> Carr China Co. of Grafton West Virginia ca 1916 list of vessels to be
> eliminate to cut down on waste during WWI also lists “Trade sizes” and
> “Actual Sizes” Copy in the National Archives Record Group 61.
>
>
>
> Plates,
>
> Trade Size
>
> Actual size
>
>
>
> 8”
>
> 9 ½”
>
>
>
> 7”
>
> 9”
>
>
>
> 6”
>
> 8 1/8”
>
>
>
> 5”
>
> 7 ¼”
>
>
>
> 4”
>
> 6 ¼”
>
>
>
>
>
> Given these brief sources, I would place vessels down to the size
> below what
> they measure. For example if I had a plate that measured 8.75
> inches in
> diameter, I would probably call it a twiffler that in the potters’
> price-fixing lists would have a trade size of 8 inches.
>
>
>
> Peace,
>
> George L. Miller
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Doms, Keith <[log in to unmask]
> >wrote:
>
>> According to George Miller
>>
>> Muffins: 3-7 inches
>> Twiffler: 8 inches
>> Dinner Plate: 9 inches or greater
>> Platters: Are elongated
>>
>> The above mentioned sizes become standardized along with prices in
>> the
>> late 18th to early 19th C. They are eluded to in Miller's "War and
>> Pots" in Ceramics in America in America 2008.
>>
>> George should be able to give you more references.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Terry Majewski
>> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:09 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Twifflers, etc.
>>
>> George Miller should weigh in on this.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Mark
>> Branstner
>> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 8:46 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Twifflers, etc.
>>
>> Hey Guys
>>
>> Hist Arch 101 question, so please bear with me ...
>>
>> Are there REALLY standardized dimensions (i.e., six inch vs. 7-inch
>> or whatever) for dinnerware vessel forms, e.g., table plates, supper
>> plates, twifflers, and muffins, etc. Do these descriptors apply to
>> 1820-1860 assemblages? And can somebody give me a readily accessible
>> reference to where this is laid out?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Mark
>> --
>>
>> Mark C. Branstner, RPA
>> Historic Archaeologist
>>
>> Illinois State Archaeological Survey
>> Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability
>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>> 209 Nuclear Physics Lab, MC-571
>> 23 East Stadium Drive
>> Champaign, IL 61820
>>
>> Phone: 217.244.0892
>> Fax: 217.244.7458
>> Cell: 517.927.4556
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>> "There's absolutely nothing wrong with Marxism, so long as you stop
>> at "A Day At The Races." If you keep on with "At the Circus," etc.,
>> suddenly, Marxism doesn't seem all that interesting and you start to
>> look for something a bit more competent, like Chaplinism or
>> Stoogeism" - Anonymous
>>
>> "I hope there's pudding" - Luna Lovegood (HP5)
>>
|