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)

Invalid claims

The claim that Alan Caiger-Smith "revived and perfected two virtually lost techniques: the use of tin glaze and painted pigments on red earthenware clay, and the firing of lustres on to tin glazes" is historically inaccurate. While he was a craftsman who introduced these methods to a new audience in Britain, the techniques themselves were never lost to history.

Neither tin glaze nor lustre glaze ever died out necessitating a revival, and neither technique was ever lost. The assertion in the Wikipedia article relies on a single source, Grove Art Online. While Grove Art Online is an encyclopedia, it is a tertiary summary source rather than primary historical research.

When summary statements from such sources are copied without cross-referencing broader ceramic history, myths become codified as facts.

To expand upon the inaccuracy of the claims:

1.) The techniques never died out or became lost The assertion implies that tin glazing and lustre firing had vanished from the world until Caiger-Smith rediscovered them. This is historically incorrect. Tin glazing has been used continuously since the 9th century and was actively practiced throughout the 20th century in traditional pottery areas across Italy, Spain and France.

Similarly, the specific reduction method used for lustre firing never died out globally. In the 19th century, decades before Caiger-Smith began his work, artist potters like William De Morgan in England and the Cantagalli workshop in Italy had already researched, revived and commercialized these exact techniques. The narrative fails to distinguish between a technique being lost to the world and simply being out of fashion by studio potters in Britain.

2.) Numerous technical books predate Caiger-Smith The idea that these methods were lost is further disproven by the abundance of literature describing them well before Caiger-Smith published his own research. Multiple technical manuals, historical treatises and instructional guides detailed the chemistry and firing processes of tin glazes and lustres throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. These widely available publications provided complete formulas and instructions, ensuring the technological knowledge remained uninterrupted and accessible in libraries and academic institutions long before his experiments began.

3.) Contradiction by himself The claim ignores Caiger-Smith’s own historical documentation. In his books, Tin-Glaze Pottery and Lustre Pottery, he provided researched histories detailing who was practicing these methods up until his own era. It is inconsistent to describe the techniques as lost or needing a revival when the he himself documented their continuous history and recent uses by other potters.

4.) Misrepresentation of research as trial and error The claim suggests he figured out the process through trial and error, which diminishes his academic work. In reality, Caiger-Smith was a scholar who relied on existing historical records to guide his kiln designs and glaze recipes.

He translated and annotated Cipriano Piccolpasso’s 16th century manuscript, The Three Books of the Potter's Art, which detailed the recipes and methods for tin glazes and lustres. He used this historical literature as a roadmap for his experiments, showing the knowledge was available in libraries rather than lost to time.

5.) A personal reconstruction, not a global revival Caiger-Smith did not uncover a forgotten secret for mankind. Instead, he undertook years of personal experimentation to replicate a process in a British studio. ~2026-24692-77 (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)