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)
>
|
