Talk:Ironstone china

Reference Cleanup

This article is chock full of references--which is delightful--but many of the references were entered as bare url's. Mainly because of link rot, this is not a good idea (see Link Rot). I went through and repaired all the bare url's.

Also, I consolidated the many references deriving from the same source. For instructions on how to do this, see "Multiple references to the same footnote".

To make citing even easier, there are citation templates for when you're not sure what to include.

I removed one or two references where there was a bit of overkill; e.g., that ironstone is collected is not likely to be so challenged as to require three sources. I moved the collectors' website link to the External Links section. The publicity flier for the Raven Mason collection was already there.

Lastly, there are a couple of sources cited here that may not meet WP guidelines for reliable sources. I'm no ironstone expert, so the websites I wonder about may be produced by experts in the field; however, the websites in question do not provide any information or credentials explaining their expertise or authority. I left them in, but if anyone can produce replacement sources that are more reliable, it might further strengthen the article's credibility. It does seem like there's already been a bit of editing warfare...Richigi (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Mason's vs. Masons

I restored an apostrophe (and added a similar one) to Mason's after a good faith edit removed it. As far as I can tell, the name of the company was Mason's (not Masons); it was always so-spelled on their marks throughout their history (http://www.janicepaull.com/xmark/marks.htm). It seems that all the references on this article also refer to the company as Mason's.

Please offer rationale and discuss before removing them again. Unnecessary apostrophes get on my last nerve too, but there's another kind of apostrophe abuse: taking them out when they're called for. Richigi (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What is ironware

The article does not actually say what ironware is only when it was produced. It seems it may be similar to stoneware in that high firing temperature vitrify the clay but what differences are there to stoneware? It needs a ceramicist to add to article.

• The first line of the article states what it is: "type of vitreous pottery"
• Re. "vitrify the clay", like all types of pottery it is made from a mixture of materials, of which clay is just one type.
• "It needs a ceramicist": a ceramic engineer would be the best person to comtribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.100.181.173 (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but an article by Lars Tharp (linked in the article) says 'Technically the clay body of ironstone is a very dense earthenware containing china stone'. Presumably by 'china stone' Tharp means Cornish Stone, which is similar to the Chinese porcelain stone (petuntse) but not identical. I believe other English stoneware (e.g. by Doulton) would not usually contain Cornish Stone.109.158.40.227 (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

'China stone' is the same as 'Cornish stone', with the former being the more common name. It has some similarities to the stones used in China, although as you note it is not identical. 'Petuntse' is an inaccurate & antiquated term. 'Pottery stone' is the widely used name and 'Porcelain stone' is very rarely used. I don't understand your comment to stoneware given the reference describes it as earthenware.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.98.204.203 (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You've done a good job here of trying to determine what "ironstone" is. It's a problematic term because it is a commercial name that became a collector's term and made its way into archaeology. A lot of archeologists oppose its use, given that it doesn't really clearly demote anything, except that the mark on the bottom of the vessel will read one of the synonym names, like "Ironstone China" and the like.

While ironstone is commonly semi-vitrified, not all vessels marked as "ironstone" are vitrified, especially as the decades wore on and these vessels were produced by more companies competing on price. Most archaeologists class it as one of the evolutions of earthenware, alongside "creamware", "pearlware" and "refined white earthenware". All of these represent changes in clay composition and firing temperatures and every pottery had its own recipes that changed through time, most of which are not recorded.

The cup image "Ironstone cup titled "Flowers of Literature"" does not appear to be ironstone and ought to be deleted. The body is thin and appears too porous and the wrong colour. The heavy surface crazing is uncharacteristic of semi-vitrified ceramics. 2001:1970:519E:8500:918D:5D21:D2E1:8CBE (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)