Identifier: transferprinting00turn (find matches)
Title: Transfer printing on enamels, porcelain and pottery : its origin and development in the United Kingdom
Year: 1907 (1900s)
Authors: Turner, William, -1643
Subjects: Transfer-printing Pottery Enameled ware
Publisher: London : Chapman and Hall New York : Keramic Studio Pub. Co.
Contributing Library: Getty Research Institute
Digitizing Sponsor: Getty Research Institute

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
99, writing 43 years after the patent w^asapplied for, must have been overstating the case, whenit said that the process originated at Liverpool in 1752. 5. Another feature to consider is that the earthen-ware tiles were alone dealt with in the affidavit, althoughthe certificate mentions the tiles and earthenwaregenerally. The trade in tiles was a large one, com-paratively, and to secure it was evidently the objectof Sadler and Green. Tiles were painted at Battersea(vide Janssens Sale List in 1756). It is not known ifany were printed there. Hence, perhaps, the linedrawn in the certificate by Shaw and Gilbody thatthey had never heard of printing having been done onearthenware ; although they may have heard (whichwas possible) that Battersea had printed on enamels.Not only, however, had Battersea printed on enamelsas early as 1753, but Bow had printed, or had obtainedprinting, on porcelain as early as May 28th, 1756.That was before the date of affidavit and certificate i6 Plate No. VII.
Text Appearing After Image:
Fig. A 17. MUG, PORCELAIN, BLACK PRINT.Derby. Origin. for patent. Bowcocke was a commercial traveller forBow works. By his notes we find that he visitedBristol on March 27th, 1756, and Dublin and Notting-ham in 1768. If all his memoranda had been recoveredit is probable that he would be found to have visitedLiverpool as well. Be that as it may, it would bestrange indeed if Shaw and Gilbody, being potters,should not have heard of Bow having printed transferson porcelain. If, as alleged by some, that Bow printedat Liverpool, they must have heard of it—for, surely,Sadler and Green would not allow them to run therisk of making a false certificate under the statute,for which there was sure to be a heavy penalty.However, they certainly steered clear of any penaltyby certifying that no one had printed previously uponearthenware. Whatever was the arriere pensee in theirminds, it was true, so far as we know, that no personpreviously had printed transfers upon delft tiles. Itwas here that Sad

Note About Images