I would suggest that instead of "agatized glaze" the term motled glaze may be more appropriate though I haven't seen the piece. "Agated" etc. are best applied to paste rather than glaze. I would echo others concern about an assignment to either Buckley or Jackfield-I have looked at collections with "Jackfield" that are clearly wood ash glazed 19th c (with irradecence) or simply iron colored lead glazes (black) [under oxidation].  
Silas Hurry
Historic St. Mary's City


-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: James Brothers <[log in to unmask]> 

> Darn my fingers, agatized (banded like agate). Sort of a tiger stripe. 
> Black-glazed redware works, for some reason I overlooked that one. 
> 
> On Sep 11, 2008, at 10:50 PM, Patrick Tucker wrote: 
> 
> > Not sure what you mean by "agitated," but it sounds somewhat like 
> > black-glazed redware. This is the archaeological category for the 
> > type, not 
> > the decorative type listed in pottery manufacturers' records. I have 
> > not 
> > seen this category in temporal contexts later than the 1830s. 
> > 
> > Regards, 
> > 
> > Pat Tucker 
> > 
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of 
> > James 
> > Brothers 
> > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 3:10 PM 
> > To: [log in to unmask] 
> > Subject: Pottery Type 
> > 
> > I have a pottery fragment from Virginia (late 1700s to end of 19C 
> > context). Earthenware, dark red paste. Glaze on one side is lustrous, 
> > other side is black and dark brown agitated. I'm pulling a blank, any 
> > suggestions? 
> > Thanks 
> > Jim Brothers