Talk:Alan Caiger-Smith

Revival

The source quoted says the technique (reduced lustre) died out. Marshall46 (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• The article suggested he revived tin-glazing: this is incorrect as it never died out. Should Mr.Caiger-Smith have done something else that is noteworthy then it should, of course, be included. It is, however, false to claim he revived tin-glazing.
• And in respect to lustre glazes, when is this supposed to have died out? After Wedgwood's Fairyland Lustre? After Royal Lancastrian? Crown Devon lustre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.66.111 (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As a long-time editor, you know that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. If you can provide a reliable source for your opinion it can be added to the article alongside the reliable source you disagree with. Marshall46 (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither tin glaze nor lustre glaze died out necessitating 'revival' or were a 'lost art'. And in respect of each:

• Tin glaze - a little on the history in the C20th century has been given in some recent edits, including [1]
• Lustre glaze - C20th makers predating Mr.Caiger-Smith include: A.E. Gray & Co, UK; Beatrice Wood, USA; Camark Pottery, USA; Carlton, UK; Clement Massier, France; Crown Derby, UK; Ellis Ceramics, Australia; Gordon Forsyth, UK; Gunda, Australia; Jean Barol, France; Keeling & Co., UK; Maling, UK; Moira Forsyth, UK; Noritake, Japan; Pates Potteries, Australia; Poillon Pottery, USA; Poole Pottery, UK; Royal Doulton, UK; Royal Lancastrian, UK; Rozenburg Royal Delftware Factory, Netherlands; Rye Sussex Pottery, UK; W.J. 'Bill' Gordy, USA; Wedgwood, UK; Zsolnay, Hungary

Some relevant C20th books & articles which predate those from Mr.Caiger-Smith:

• ‘Practical Production of One-fire Lustre Glazed Pottery.’ J.Am.Cer.Soc. 27, 62, 1944. A technical article..
• ‘Ceramic Glazes.’ 2nd edition. C.W.Parmelee. Industrial Publications, Inc. Chicago. 1951. Contains a sizeable part of a chapter on techniques & recipes.
• ‘Reduced Lustres.’ C.Vincent Davis. Ceramic Age 64, 44. 1954. A technical article.
• ‘Industrial And Manufacturing Chemistry.’ G.Martin. C. Lockwood and son, 1955. Gives a background on the science.
• ‘The Chemistry And Physics Of Clays And Other Ceramic Materials.’ A.B.Searle, R.W.Grimshaw. Interscience Publishers, London. 1959. Gives a background on the science.
• ‘Ceramic Glazes.’ F. Singer & W.L.German. Borax Consolidated, London. 1960. Contains a sizeable part of a chapter on techniques & recipes.
• ‘Industrial Ceramics.’ F.Singer & S.S.Singer. Chapman & Hall, London. 1963. Contains a sizeable part of a chapter on techniques & recipes.
• ‘Ceramic Glazes.’ K.Shaw. Applied Science Publishers, 1971. Contains a brief mention on technique and current use.
• “Glazes For The Craft Potter. H.Fraser. Pitman, London. 1974. Contains a brief mention on technique and current use.

The aim of my edits has not be to deride Mr.Caiger-Smith's ware, however it is incorrect to claim he 'revived' the 'lost art' of tin glazes & lustre glazes. As I believe you were the original contributor of the content and have reverted recent edits I ask you to reconsider such claims and edit accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.66.111 (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be familiar with industrial pottery but don't seem to know Caiger-Smith - some of your sources post-date his work. See Caiger-Smith, Lustre Pottery, Chap.9, "Revival", in which he talks about the decline of reduced lustre in the C16th and the various types of lustre produced from the C18th onwards, including de Morgan and Zsolnay. It may be so that he didn't revive reduced lustre on tin-glaze single handed, but his experiments at Aldermaston were ground-breaking. If you can find a source that says that he didn't do what Grove says he did, by all means put it in.

Sign your posts, please - despite posting for several years, with a strong POV, you seem determined to cover your identity.Marshall46 (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, I am glad you acknowledge that Mr.Caiger-Smith did not revive these techniques. For myself, I have never had an issue with his work being acknowledged, just that it is correctly described.
• '... It may be so that he didn't revive reduced lustre on tin-glaze single handed" He didn't revive it, as is evidenced by the many makers that predated him. Those makers listed above form a continuum from the turn of the C20th to the 1970s & beyond.
• '.. in which he talks about the decline of reduced lustre in the C16th .." I don't believe anyone would dispute that the use of lustre glazes has seen various high points, but that is very different to claiming it died out, was lost and then was revived.
• '.. some of your sources post-date his work.' Whilst therefore acknowledging some pre-date his work you didn't note which you believe are post-dated. Of those listed above, just one was published after, by one year, the earliest publication in the bibliography whereas eight others are older, and by up to 30 years ... I elected not to list a number of other books published even earlier in the century.
• '.. his experiments at Aldermaston were ground-breaking.' And if they were then, when appropriately supported by authoritative references, they should be mentioned. However, the work did not revive a lost art.
• The makers I listed included individual makers, those working at larger studios and those at factories. When considering whether a technique is still in use what is the relevance of the type of premises in which it is being used?
• 'If you can find a source that says that he didn't do what Grove says he did, by all means put it in.' I will assume you are aware of the significant challenges and limited value of attempting to prove a negative. That both tin glazes & lustre glazes, along with books & articles, were in production from long before, up to, concurrent and beyond Mr.Caiger-Smith output is sufficient evidence that he didn't 'revive' a 'lost art'. Neither does it deride his wares.
• 'POV'??? Correct information supported by authoritative references ... how truly wicked of me.
• 'you seem determined to cover your identity' Such as the use of a pseudonym? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.66.111 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

In light of the extensive evidence demonstrating that neither tin glazes nor lustre glazes were lost arts will you re-write your claim of primacy by Mr.Caiger-Smith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.66.111 (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not my claim, it's a quotation from Grove Art. Marshall46 (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It was you who added to the article, and it is you who has been vocal in defending its inclusion. So, "In light of the extensive evidence demonstrating that neither tin glazes nor lustre glazes were lost arts will you re-write your claim of primacy by Mr.Caiger-Smith?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.66.111 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit

A recent edit I made was changed because, apparently "This is a quote from Grove Art. You cannot change a quote." OK, but:

- There is no reference for this quote.

- These techniques were not lost before Alan Caiger-Smith started to use them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.187.78.150 (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I have corrected the link so that it now goes to the relevant page of Grove Art.I have also qualified the quote with reference to Caiger-Smith's "Lustre Pottery". If a quotation is questionable, the best way to deal with it to cite a different authority, not to alter it. Pelarmian (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)