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