We looked in every open field and nearly every exhibitor's booth - and beyond a few rare examples of appropriately priced Virgina, New York and Pennsylvania stoneware, we did not see much of anything that peaked our interests. By 11:00 am - all we had purchased was two M&M cookies and a couple Gatorades. Anything that was quality - the dealers knew what they had and the remaining was what I would call - decorative or mass produced imports, but beyond that - nothing was historically important or museum quality. It was a disappointing and some-what frustrating day for myself. However, my nephew did enjoy himself with his first visit to Brimfield.
It appeared this would be the first time in all the years I have been going to Brimfield - that I did not find an important piece of redware. I have found many Beverly, Massachusetts; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Maine, Vermont and related examples, but this was possibly the first day I would come home empty handed.
We left the flea market around 11:00 am. It appeared we were defeated. Pickers are not always going to have their day and this seemed like one of those days. I have had a number of finds recently and I cannot expect to consistently have them day-in and day-out, but as long as I do - I am not going to complain.
On our way home, we stopped at a number of antique and vintage shops along the drive to the Mass Pike through Brimfield and Sturbridge, Massachusetts. There was nothing more than shops selling used twentieth-century glass, "old stuff" and the type of inventory the American Pickers would sell.
As we approached the on-ramp to the Mass Pike, I decided to drive past it and try one more shop. And it was in this shop - that we discovered a very important piece of American history.
"Charlestown (Massachusetts) became an important center for the potter of the eighteenth-century. There is much documentary evidence about them, but not a piece of their pottery. It is almost certain, however, that a great deal of the better-made ware of early type emanated from Charlestown. It was (still under research - however, Wakins suggests otherwise in this article) sold by the boatload along the coast, even (purportedly) in Maine and Connecticut." (Lura Woodside Watkins, The Magazine Antiques - 1957)
The idea of Charlestown redware not existing in 1957 when Lura Woodside Watkins wrote her article for the Magazine Antiques is still in belief today - and I have both proven and will continue to prove this theory wrong. It does exist. The majority was destroyed, but fortunately some intact examples do exist.
Currently, it's near impossible to identify a piece properly, but hopefully my future writing will help readers understand the characteristics and importance of Charlestown's redware production. Very few have researched the Charlestown ceramcs found when the area was excavated for the Central Artery Project in the 1980s and I have been fortunate enough to have studied the remains extensively.
"So little pottery dating from the eighteenth-century is in existence today...The major proportion of utensils made at the Daniel Bayley Pottery (Newburyport, Massachusetts), and probably in other potworks of the period, were undecorated and purely utilitarian.
The lard pot (or dye pot) is a straight-sided, open mouthed jar, including toward the base. It is unglazed outside, but glazed within. On its outer surface it is well smoothed, but the telltale ridges left by the potter's fingers in turning are visible on the interior surface.
Bayley's lard pots (or dye pots) were sometimes lined with coffee-colored glaze, or, quite as often, with greenish - or mottled dark brown.
It would be impossible to distinguish them (Bayley's pots) from similar jars made in any one of a hundred New England potteries." (Lura Woodside Watkins, The Magazine Antiques - 1938)
I completely disagree with Watkins. There were so few eighteenth-century potters that, if studied properly - one can identify lard or dye pots to specific cities, towns and makers of the period in New England. I have studied the utilitarian wares of Charlestown and Newburyport - and Portsmouth, New Hampshire - and each, is unique in form, glaze, production and weight. The eighteenth-century wares were unique when compared to the nineteenth-century. The nineteenth-century utilitarian wares are tough to properly attribute, but I do not feel the earlier ones are that difficult.
"During the early decades of the eighteenth-century, some forty potters were active in the town (Charlstown), and the term Charlestown ware became synonymous with redware. Sad to say None of this great production can be identified with certainty today." (William Ketchum, American Redware - 1991, page 49)
The Charlestown wares can be identified today and if you have not guessed it yet, my nephew and myself discovered an early jar within the antique or vintage shop we last visited.
I hope you can respect my decision to not show you the form publicly, but I will show you the interior glaze. This exact interior glaze is represented in the Charlestown archaeological collection in a similar utilitarian form. The jar we found is in wonderful condition for its age. The only condition issues are the loss to part of the interior glaze due to everyday eighteenth-century use within the kitchen and household.
Charlestown, Ma Utilitarian Redware Jar
Features Unique Butterscotch and Cranberry Interior Glaze
Circa 1740-1780
Found in Sturbridge, Ma
This following jug is a part of the Abington, Massachusetts Historical Society's collection of eighteenth-century John Henry Benner redware. The Benner attribution is debatable. The jug demonstrates a similar exterior glaze. The Charlestown pot and jug are not believed to be related. Lura Woodside Watkins photographed much of Abington's collection for her book, "Early New England Potters and Their Wares." Based on what I have seen in Charlestown and how unexpected the glaze colors are - this jug may have been made by John Henry Benner despite it appearing to be a nineteenth-century form and glaze.
Probably a Massachusetts Made Redware Jug
Possibly John Henry Benner - Abington, Ma
Possibly John Henry Benner - Abington, Ma
18th or Very Early 19th Century
Photo Courtesy: Abington, Ma Historical Society
I personally don't understand why more collectors are not interested in utilitarian wares. Any such eighteenth-century American wares which were not destroyed are fascinating. Very few examples have survived so it is my belief that any such survivor should be cherished. I enjoy the eighteenth-century utilitarian wares as much as I do the nineteenth-century artistic wares - and in some instances, I prefer the eighteenth-century products.
The forms and glazes are what collectors desire most today, but most of these are nineteenth-century. There doesn't appear to be anywhere near the respect for the eighteenth-century kitchen forms - and with the idea of nearly no eighteeenth-century wares surviving - owning such a piece is much more than a mere example of early redware. It can tell the story of America's struggle for independence, the undertaking it took for a potter to succeed against the superior imported wares and a time in American history that most artifacts today have disappeared. It is my belief that any serious collector should have an example of eighteenth-century redware in their collection. However, there is not likely enough to go around.
Look Ahead: I am off to Brimfield for Day 2 later this morning. I will write a report on the better redware and stoneware examples later this week or next. I also have a lead on a possible eighteenth-century Daniel Bayley lard or dye pot later today that is lacking an attribution. It has a rare green interior glaze. We'll have to wait and see how this turns out.
Much more to come...
No comments:
Post a Comment