Rod Wuetherick on sat 16 apr 05
> I suspect the reason so many potters do not object to crazing is in direct
> relationship to their ability to correct the fault.
I've read a number of notable responses Ron's comment from John, Des, etc.
Could it be we haven't give this statement some logical latitude? Ron has
been making glazes long enough to know some glazes just CAN'T be made craze
free. When I read Ron's comment I just thought that this was an "unsaid"
Of the many potters I have met over the years, perhaps not as many as some
of you. It does really seem to me that many, many potters DO in fact leave a
glaze crazed when it could be corrected. I know from personal first hand
experience - me. 2-3 years ago I would often be "lazy" and perhaps not fix a
fault rationalizing that, "hey it's on high fire stoneware/porcelain - no
The absolute truth of the matter is if we have a glaze that can be made
craze free without severe body adjustments and still retain it's colour and
surface characteristics, and we don't fix it - then we are simply lazy!
From practical experience when I used B-MIX there are 2-3 bowls left in my
cupboard that are crazed and have survived our rather robust kitchen
etiquette. On the other hand I have just about every bowl that I made in the
same period without crazing still around. I realize this is highly
unscientific but it does prove (at least to me) that in good conscience to
my customers; if I can supply them with a non-crazed surface for the
purposes of longevity then that is what I should do. I feel the bacteria
argument with high-fire really doesn't wash as others have said as well.
So to make a long post even longer I DO agree that their are MANY potters
out there that do not fix glaze faults that have simple straight forward
fixes. I would venture that 3 out of 5 potters use glazes that have fixable
faults on a regular basis.
Forget about the bacteria and think about the modulus of rupture. Haven't
Ron Roy and Tony Hanson performed specific tests with real data on this
exact phenomenon in the past? Both proving that non-crazed ware is
Isn't this what Ron was saying in much less than the 200 or so words that it