Lon and Meta--thanks for the lead and the references.  I'm familiar with
lustre ware, but I thought it was on whiteware/ironstone pastes.  This is a
redware paste--a very hard, thin example--almost like stoneware.  The
interior white slip is quite thin and the clear glaze on both sides is
slightly crackled--apparently with age/damage rather than intentionally.
The blue on the exterior is a clear bright blue--pretty much the basic blue
on a color spectrum.  Where the two color zones intersect there is a narrow,
almost black band--it seems to be from one color being placed over the
other.  The brown zone is a deep, dark brown and since it is under the clear
glaze, it doesn't seem to be a case of copper lustre which has darkened.

Does the further description help?  Lustre would certainly fit the time
period for the site as well as going along with the several colors of
transfer print ware we have.

                        Lucy Wayne
>>
>Lucy,
>I think that Meta has hit it on the the head.  You have found a fragment
>from a copper lustre vessel.  I expect that the white slip is fairly thick.
> What you now perceive as brown slip was once a copper lustre surface.
>Where I differ from Meta is that I believe that these vessels were produced
>into the 1830s (though, she is absolutely correct in pointing out that they
>are reintroduced in the 1870s into the early 20th century (this is
>referenced in Jewetts book on English ceramic production).  I have a a wide
>variety of these vessels in my own ceramic collection including a "can" mug
>(my favorite beer mug!!), a shaving mug (in a reference from the 1920s -
>sorry its at the office- the author illustrates a shaving mug that is
>extremely similar to mine that is claimed to be George Washington's - I
>don't know about mine but it makes a great coffee mug), beakers, cups,
>bowls, and the ever present pitchers.  I have found them in early to mid
>19th century contexts in sites throughout upstate New York.  Also, you
>should be aware of another surface treatment that is sometimes referred to
>as "sand finish", which are very small broken pieces of angular ball clay
>that are sometimes applied to the exterior - often in an annular band.  I
>have always found fragments with this finish (archaeologically) covered in
>white slip.  However, I own an example where the entire bowl is covered in
>copper lustre.  I also believe that these vessels were highly curated.  In
>Upstate New York, New England, and the Mid-Atlantic where I have antiqued
>extensively, these are fairly common ceramics in antique shops and are
>usually in very good shape - they are rare archaeologically.  I believe
>that these were often kept as display pieces in china cabinets or as
>garnishes like "witch balls".  If I could see the color of blue that is
>found on the exterior vessel I could make a better assesment of whether it
>is a late 18th - early 19th century vessel as opposed to one of the later
>pieces.  The earlier vessels can be found in both dark blue, a dark green
>(fairly rare in New York), and a blue green.  In addition there are
>examples where the exterior of the vessel has applied sprigged finishes
>that have been painted in polychrome.  My favorite piece in my collection
>is a pitcher with an annular dark blue band that has an applied sprig of
>Putties being pulled by a swan - to make it even better the spout was
>broken and replaced by a Tinker in the 18th or 19th century in copper -
>these days its hard to tell where the ceramic that immitates copper ends
>and the actual copper starts (For those Histarchers that are crazed
>antiquers like myself the best part is that piece cost a lousy $8 at an
>antique show!).  Best of luck.
>                Lon
>
>