Two unusual Hotel/Railway saucers: E/W or vitrified? 1 vit, 1 needs further study

I remember Janice had a question related to this somewhere in on a topic about an odd saucer I found. I'll track that down sometime and link it.

Done: https://www.newzealandpottery.net/t5481-unusual-e-w-saucer-shapes-jumbo-jumbo-6-inch-shallow#20651

From Jim's collection, here are two Crown Lynn railway or hotel saucers (702?) in earthenware (left) and vitrified.


As expected the vit is slightly smaller than the earthenware.
The earthenware sauce has a very crisp, sharp, rolled edge.

The earthenware saucer is unmarked but presumed to be Crown Lynn.

Jeremy could you please check the 702 with the Portage info for measurements and anything else relevant.  It's always good to double check our shape numbers.

http://www.nzmuseums.co.nz/esearch/object?a=3384&q=702

It was quite a busy day visiting today, first Val's then Jim's.
I didn't get to take any measurements.

I've started calling these 702s now as Portage has done so.

Here is an example of a 702 at Portage with the NZG mark:
http://www.nzmuseums.co.nz/account/3384/object/486632/Saucer

Their measurements are 156 x 27 so I'm guessing Jim's NZG will be the same diameter and his earthenware one would be about 3mm wider.

They are definitely railway-cup-sized saucers.

Later ....

Well, my own e/w railway saucer is only 150 OD (x 62 ID well), six mm smaller than the vits, so I must compare it to Jim's one sometime as it's approaching a cm smaller.

https://www.newzealandpottery.net/t5052-n-z-rly-refreshment-rooms-crown-lynn-saucer#21752

I think Jim's earthenware saucer is about 160mm across. My own 1948-1955 earthenware Refreshment Rooms 702 is only 150mm OD x 23 H and surprisingly is smaller than my 1971 vitrified NZR saucer (156 x 22). I thought my vit one might be a 4631 but the date for that is later. I know the Railway cups (700s) were beefed up some time after 1960 but beyond that I have no explanation for what I see as a discrepancy.

I will visit Jim some time and measure his saucers.

I need to spend more time there.

I have been looking at the relationship between the 753 and 780 shapes and between Jim, Val, and myself there are many examples to measure. Jim and I both have clear glazed white Ambrico 753s which I believe are different sizes (having not yet seen them side by side): curiously the other 753/780s in various different sizes are all sooo very PINK!

I have been sucked in to your saucer post Jeremy and have had a look at the Portage samples of the 702 shape, about 22 in all. Their Diameter varies between 154mm (for a bisque sample) and 157 mm but most are 156mm , the height also varies from 26 to 28mm.

Manufacture dates noted are from 1948/55, , 1960/69, 1972 and 1983.

All are noted in the information as being vitreous ceramics and the 1972 for NZR is Super Vitreous with 72 included in the backstamp and the 1983 for RNZNavy is also Super Vit. but no year number.

Hope this helps in your research.

I am puzzled with your suggestion that some of your saucers are NZR and earthenware, you mention one from 1948/55 which is also only 150mm dia.
It is my understanding that from about that period NZR china was all Vitrified
as was the case for other Govt institutions because of the much better wear factor.

**** I do keep referring to my saucer as earthenware below but please note that it has now been established that it is vitrified, but an earlier Crown Lynn vitrified ware that unlike the later product was prone to crazing. ****

Jonno,
Thanks for your interest.

I'm afraid I don't have access to Jim's saucer as it is at his house.
It has no base mark so I cannot say definitively that it is Crown Lynn, but it is the same profile, top and bottom. As for being earthenware, I would not have said as much at the time if I had not been pretty sure, but I am unable to elaborate without having it in hand.

I can however confirm my own earthenware saucer is just that: it was previously posted here: https://www.newzealandpottery.net/t5052-n-z-rly-refreshment-rooms-grindley-cup-cl-saucer#21752

Here is the photo from that topic again along with description ...

48-55 backstamp, 150mm OD, 62 ID well, fine crazing all over, chip

It appears to be 25mm high. I have no tape on hand, but I did check the diameter measurement yesterday and it is correct.

There are two reasons for me to assert that it is earthenware.
1 Although the presence of crazing does not necessarily guarantee that a piece is earthenware rather than vitrified the degree of crazing here does support the claim.
2 The base stamp, as you will see from the photo is a Crown Lynn cursive script variant 1948 to 1955 with no vitrified mark.

There are two 48-55 vitrified backstamps in the gallery, linked below.
https://www.newzealandpottery.net/gallery/More-Crown-Lynn-Galleries/Crown-Lynn-Backstamps-and-Stickers/crown-lynn-vitrified-1948-1955-pic_7897.htm
https://www.newzealandpottery.net/gallery/More-Crown-Lynn-Galleries/Crown-Lynn-Backstamps-and-Stickers/crown-lynn-vitrified-with-unusual-surround-pic_5519.htm

Jim's NZG 48-55 cursive vitrified at top of topic is a third.

It may or may not have relevance that the saucer carries a Refreshment Rooms monogram rather than one of the NZR ones. The cup shown with it (I eventually worked out) is English. In the top right photo of the montage you will see the earthenware sauce with the larger (1971) super vitrified saucer beneath.

I can offer no explanation for the existence of earthenware railway saucers, but my own example alone is evidence that such a thing does exist. For me the surprise is that it is smaller than the vitrified saucers as that goes against previous findings about relative size: Jim's larger saucer does confirm my previous observation that from the same mould a vitrified item will be smaller than an earthenware one.

Two measurements confirm that this Refreshment Rooms saucer is NOT from the same mould as the standard vitrified ones: whilst the diameter of the whole saucer is smaller those of both the cup well and the foot ring are larger. Whether that still makes it a 702 saucer I do not know. There is still a lot we have to learn about Crown Lynn.

Portage Ceramics Trust has items in its collection that have not yet turned up on the forum but we also have some that they do not.

Somewhere I have some info on when Crown Lynn started making vitrified ware and I can't find it atm but I know it was very early on, for example when they made the first railway cups.
I would be highly surprised if your railway saucer was earthenware and not vitrified Jeremy, even with all of your speculations I am no where near convinced. Earthenware would not take the endless dishwashing and helter skelter railway life!
I have been checking out Olive Hale's Exhibition records from 1983, which is where Gail Henry and Val Monk got a lot of early backstamp information. Also Stuart Park's Commercial Ceramics exhibition catalogue from 1978 which refers to many Crown Lynn marks history.
I'm not sure if you have heard of either or studied their research?
I think that a piece of vitrified ware tells me it's vitrified by the feel it gives. Not by any other way except if it has a stamp that says it's vitrified.
Jeremy I have struggled many times with your tiny backstamp photos, when as far as I'm concerned that is one of the most important features on a piece of pottery. Please try to put a decent sized photo of stamps and base marks in the future thanks.

Ev, I generally include a backstamp in montages to confirm what I have written, and only present them in a large format if required for a gallery.

But as you ask, here is the back stamp as big as I can meaningfully make it. It is a very scrappy stamp but still readable. No hint of the word vitrified, just Crown Lynn New Zealand. Note the degree of crazing, not usually found on vitrified ware.

I have also taken a closeup of the chip too as you may be able to tell more about the body from this exposed clay.


The measurements of this saucer definitely vary from my expectation of a 702, and thanks to Jonno's number crunching you can see it also varies from all examples at Portage.

The combination of smaller overall outside diameter with larger footring and larger cupwell make it clear this is not your normal 702. But it is definitely CL.

I will add info on Jim's larger (earthenware ???) 702 (???) when I next visit him.

Yes, I am aware that CL, as Ambrico, was producing vitrified wares very early on, and I too see no sense in making an earthenware railway saucer when the technology and skill were available to make vitrified. I just present it as I see it.

(And I have found a few oddities that don't seem to fit the general pattern.)

---------------------------------------------
Here's some bigger pics of Jim's big saucer. The "Linda" sticker indicates that it actually belongs to his daughter Linda, but sits in his collection.

Ev has examined my small railways Refreshment Room saucer now and declared it vitrified.

It's an odd size (small) and it avoided a vitrified stamp, but I accept Ev's experience here.

I'll try to catch up with Jim's one next week and add some more info then.