SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY ? NUMBER 43 
HANDCRAFT TO INDUSTRY 
Philadelphia Ceramics in the 
First Half of the Nineteenth Century 
Susan H. Myers 
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS 
City of Washington 
1980 
ABSTRACT 
Myers, Susan H. Handcraft to Industry: Philadelphia Ceramics in the First 
Half of the Nineteenth Century. Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology, 
number 43, 117 pages, 32 figures, 1980.?Early in the nineteenth century, Phila?
delphia potters, like many American craftsmen, began to feel the effects of nascent 
industrial and economic change that would transform small traditional hand?
crafts into industries. Economic historians long have debated about the rate at 
which expansion took place during the first half of the century. In the Philadel?
phia potteries, the beginnings of industrialization were evident in developments 
before and during the War of 1812 when embargoes provided temporary relief 
from the competition of English factory-made tableware and permitted American 
craftsmen briefly to emulate this mass-produced molded pottery. The crisis of 
1819, however, and the economic fluctuations of the 1830s kept progress at a 
slow pace, though the depressions of the 1830s actually made an important, if 
negative, contribution by forcing out several of the city's traditional potteries 
and a substantial part of its handcraft labor force. In the 1840s, the environ?
ment finally was conducive to the exploitation of the growing potential for 
expansion and thus the decade witnessed unprecedented economic and industrial 
growth. Capitalization and output more than doubled; molded tableware, pat?
terned after Enghsh styles, finally was successfully manufactured and marketed; 
new and more industrial products and techniques were introduced; several small 
potteries developed into factories of moderate size; and a semiskilled labor force 
threatened its traditional highly skilled counterpart. By 1850 there were still some 
conservative shops in operation and the use of powered machinery remained in 
the future, but small potteries where family members and an apprentice or 
journeyman made simple products by age-old hand methods were dying phe?
nomena, progressively outnumbered by their industrial counterparts. 
The process of industrialization and economic expansion in the Philadel?
phia potteries is significant not only as part of the history of the trade in that 
city but also because comparison with available data suggests that the Philadel?
phia example reflects patterns of change over much of urban American pottery 
manufacture. In conservative rural areas change came more slowly but it appears 
that potters in other East Coast cities were affected by many of the same factors 
that influenced development in Philadelphia and that they responded in much 
the same way. 
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of copies and is recorded in 
the Institution's annual report, Smithsonian Year. COVER DESIGN: Abraham Miller factory, 
Callowhill Street, Philadelphia (see Figure 23). 
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 
Myers, Susan H 
Handcraft to industry. 
(Smithsonian studies in history and technology ; no. 43) 
Bibliography: p. 
1. Ceramic industries?Pennsylvania?Philadelphia?History. 2. Potters?Pennsylvania?Phila?
delphia?History. I. Title. II. Series: Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian studies in history 
and technology; no. 43. 
HD9611.8P48M9 338.4'7'7380974811 78-13390 
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, VS. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 
Contents 
Page 
Introduction 1 
Abbreviations of Sources 2 
Acknowledgments 2 
The Effects of the War of 1812 3 
The 1820s 15 
More Clearly Defining the New Industry 22 
A Period of Expansion 30 
Conclusion 43 
Appendix I: Checkhst of Philadelphia Potters, 1800-1850 50 
Appendix II: Census Statistics on Manufactures 91 
Appendix III: Potters' Inventories 97 
Appendix IV: Exhibitions of American Manufacturing at the Franklin 
Institute 99 
Notes 105 
References I l l 
Frequently Consulted Sources 113 
111 
HANDCRAFT TO INDUSTRY 
Susan H. Myers 
Introduction 
In the first half of the nineteenth century, urban 
American manufacturing underwent a series of 
changes that transformed many traditional hand?
crafts into industries. Small family workshops were 
replaced by factories, hand processes were super?
seded by mechanized techniques, and semiskilled 
workers intruded upon the highly skilled tradi?
tional labor force. 
This paper outlines the process of early nine?
teenth-century industrialization in one area of 
American manufacturing, ceramics, produced in a 
representative urban center, Philadelphia, Penn?
sylvania. It considers the effects of economic and 
industrial changes during the first half of the cen?
tury on products, technology, shop organization, 
labor force, and profits in Philadelphia ceramics 
manufacture. 
American ceramics generally have been studied 
either by collectors interested primarily in the most 
beautiful or unusual items or by historians of the 
decorative arts concerned with the basic work of 
documenting craftsmen and their characteristic 
products. Emphasis has been placed heavily on 
aesthetic merit, focusing attention either on the 
"folk art" qualities of traditional household pottery 
or the stylistic elements of more sophisticated re?
fined ceramics. Strictly utilitarian ceramics such as 
roof tiles, drain pipes, and fire bricks, which have 
no artistic pretentions, have been largely ignored 
and consequently little is known about a very im?
portant part of the potter's output. Many other 
factors essential to a thorough analysis of the 
Susan H. Myers, Department of Cultural History, National 
Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington, D.C. 20560. 
development of American ceramics?industrializa?
tion, economic changes (both local and national), 
developing technology,^ market demand, changing 
labor force, and the relationship of other manu?
factures to ceramic production?have received 
limited treatment in this context if they have been 
considered at all. In short, ceramics have been 
treated as a decorative or folk art rather than as an 
integral part of the development of American 
manufactures. 
Ceramics have been an important manufacture 
in both rural and urban America from the earliest 
seventeenth-century settlements up to the present 
day. The almost endless range of products into 
which clay can be formed and the great variety of 
purposes, both utilitarian and decorative, to which 
it can be put, make ceramics a needed and valued 
manufacture in almost every society. 
The history of American ceramics manufacture 
up to the twentieth century loosely conforms to 
three broad categories of development. 
One is the handcraft tradition in which sturdy 
pottery for use in the kitchen, dairy, or tavern was 
produced by age-old hand processes in small family 
operated potteries. This humble pottery was made 
by the earliest colonists and continued to be made 
well into the nineteenth and, in some rural areas, 
even into the twentieth century. 
Another type of production, the industrial manu?
facture of decorative and table wares, was estab?
lished in many urban potteries by 1850. Made 
largely in molds, ceramics of this more refined 
type eventually were produced almost entirely by 
mechanized processes in factories rather than family 
potteries. For several decades around midcentury, 
the handcraft and industrial traditions existed side 
by side, though the latter progressively superseded 
the former. 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
Strictly utilitarian, nondecorative ceramics com?
prise the third type of development. Such neces?
sities as drain pipes and roof tiles were produced 
by traditional potteries throughout their history. 
In industrial factories, however, the great poten?
tial of ceramic materials was more fully exploited. 
The result was a proliferation of utilitarian prod?
ucts: chimney flues and tops, stove tubes, cooking 
furnaces, industrial fire-clay products, drain, sewer, 
and water pipe, chemical stoneware, druggists' ware 
such as mortars and pestles, ointment and pill pots, 
and eventually sanitary ware, and electrical porce?
lain. 
The first half of the nineteenth century witnessed 
many changes in all types of ceramic production. 
Developments took place first in the cities, where 
the forces of industrialization were felt earliest. 
Philadelphia, with a long and active history of 
ceramics manufacture dating from the seventeenth 
into the twentieth century, provides an excellent 
model for study. Its potteries reveal the traditional 
nature of the trade before the onset of industriali?
zation, the reactions and adjustments of potters to 
the new influences, and the end product of a com?
pletely altered system. This study covers specifically 
the years between the time of Jefferson's 1807 em?
bargo, which afforded significant stimulus to Ameri?
can manufactures, and 1850, when industrialization 
of Philadelphia ceramics was well underway, al?
though powered machinery was not yet in use. 
Pottery offers a particularly useful reference for 
such a study, not only because it is an important 
manufacture, but also because it represents a typi?
cal or standard reaction to the economic and indus?
trial forces of the nineteenth century. Ceramics 
were not in the forefront of industrial develop?
ment, as were textiles, the most progressive and 
the most frequently cited early nineteenth-century 
manufacture. Pottery production took a slower 
course, generally reacting to and assimilating rather 
than creating economic and industrial changes. 
Therefore, it represents a more typical experience 
and one that is rarely revealed in analyses of the 
earliest and most innovative manufacturing devel?
opments. 
ABBREVIATIONS OF SOURCES.?In the assembling 
of data for this study, extensive use was made of 
several groups of source material. These are listed 
as "Frequently Consulted Sources" under "Refer?
ences." Each group is assigned an abbreviation and. 
within each group, the entries (arranged generally 
in chronological order) are numbered. Citations of 
these sources employ the group abbreviation plus 
the source's entry number in the list for its group. 
References to the third edition of Edwin AtLee 
Barber's landmark volume The Pottery and Porce?
lain of the United States are also made in shortened 
form. Abbreviations used in the notes, illustration 
credits, and appendices are as follows: 
ACCP Archives of the City and County of Philadelphia 
B Barber, Edwin AtLee. The Pottery and Porcelain 
of the United States, third edition, revised and 
enlarged. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1909 
CP City of Philadelphia 
DMMC Joseph Downs Manuscript and Microfilm Collec?
tion. The Henry Frandis du Pont Winterthur 
Museum. Winterthur, Delaware 
FIM manuscripts in the Archives of the Franklin In?
stitute, Philadelphia 
FIP publications of the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia 
MC schedules (including manufacturers) in the U.S. 
Bureau of the Census records 1820-1860 
PD Philadelphia city directories 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.?I wish to express my thanks 
to those who have generously given assistance. 
C. Malcolm Watkins, senior curator at the Smith?
sonian Institution, has provided invaluable guid?
ance. His generosity in sharing his vast knowledge 
about Amercan ceramics has been of the greatest 
importance. Robert Vogel, Smithsonian Institu?
tion, has answered technical questions and provided 
editorial assistance; Anne Golovin, Smithsonian In?
stitution, has read the manuscript and offered help?
ful criticism. Others have answered questions and 
have provided data relevant to Philadelphia pottery 
that they have found in their own research. Among 
these are Arlene Palmer, Winterthur Museum; 
Phillip Curtis, Newark Museum; James Mitchell, 
William Penn Memorial Museum; Bradford 
Rauchenberg, Museum of Early Southern Decora?
tive Arts; Robert Gianinni, Independence National 
Historical Park, Philadelphia; Betty Cosans and 
Jane Claney, Philadelphia; Lelyn Branin, Prince?
ton; Chris Sheridan, Williamsburg; J. G. and Diana 
Stradling, New York. Elizabeth Hill at the Joseph 
Downs Manuscript and Microfilm Collection, Win?
terthur Museum, and Ward Childs at the Archives 
of the City of Philadelphia have been of particular 
assistance to me in using their respective collections. 
Gwen Edwards is to be thanked for preparing the 
typescript. 
NUMBER 43 
FIGURE I.?Slip-decorated red earthenware excavated at 
Franklin Court in Philadelphia: a (diameter: 19 cm) and b 
(diameter: 20.3 cm) found in a 1730-1760 context and 
identified as local in manufacture; c (diameter 29 cm) from 
a 1780-1820 context and probably also made in Philadelphia. 
(Collection of Independence National Historical Park.) 
The Effects of the War of 1812 
In the prosperous commercial city of Philadel?
phia, a substantial pottery industry was in opera?
tion by the mideighteenth century. Serving markets 
not only in Pennsylvania but in New York, Mary?
land, and New England as well,^ Philadelphia pot?
tery was in considerable demand. Indeed it was so 
highly prized that potters in other cities imitated 
it and advertised their ability to make "Philadel?
phia earthen ware of the best quality." ^ 
Archaeologists working at Franklin Court in 
Philadelphia have excavated an extensive sampling 
of eighteenth-century ceramics, much of which has 
been determined to have been made in the city 
(Figures 1, 2). Archaeologist Betty Cosans has re?
ported that almost all of the locally manufactured 
ware found at Franklin Court is common pottery 
for kitchen, dairy, and general household use. A 
few examples have been found that indicate an 
attempt to make refined tableware (Figure 3). 
Ms. Cosans suggests that eighteenth-century Phila?
delphia potters had captured the market for utili?
tarian household pottery, nearly excluding the 
English competitors. Locally made common earth?
enware appears at Franklin Court in fifteen times 
greater quantity than English ware of the same 
type.* 
Philadelphia household earthenware included 
bowls, dishes, plates, milk pans, platters, jugs, but?
ter pots, tankards, pipkins, and skillets fashioned 
in English seventeenth- and eighteenth-century 
styles.^ The materials and methods of production 
used by eighteenth-century Philadelphia potters 
were very traditional. Forms generally were made 
on a potters' wheel. Shallow bowls, plates, and 
dishes often were pressed or draped over a mold. 
The principal elements used in the manufacture 
of this pottery?red earthenware clay and lead 
glaze?had been familiar to traditional potters for 
centuries. In Philadelphia the same abundant local 
red clay that was used in the city's brick works 
almost certainly was employed in the production of 
pottery. It probably required some refinement to 
make it suitable for throwing. 
Earthenware is porous and must be covered with 
a glaze to make it watertight.'* Traditionally this 
had been either a clear lead glaze or one to which 
oxides such as copper, iron, or manganese were 
added to give a relatively uniform color. Potters 
a 
FIGURE 2.?Common household black-glazed 
earthenware probably of Philadelphia manu?
facture, excavated at Franklin Court in a 
1730-1760 context: a, diameters: 12.7 cm left, 
15.2 cm right; b, heights: 7 cm left, 5 cm 
right; c, heights: 10.6 cm left, 7.2 cm right; 
d, diameter: 14 cm. (Collection of Inde?
pendence National Historical Park.) 
often applied decorations of various types under 
the clear glaze. 
The most common glaze on wares excavated at 
Franklin Court is a plain glaze to which manganese 
or iron was added to produce a black or dark brown 
color (Figure 2). Decorated earthenware appears in 
the excavated materials in about one-half the quan?
tity of the dark- and clear-glazed examples. Decora?
tion was added by drawing with a liquid clay slip 
on the unglazed body. In some cases, a coating of 
slip was applied to the body and the drawing was 
done on top of this. Both types of decoration 
sometimes were enhanced by splashes of oxide color?
ants in green or brown. The usual clear lead glaze 
was applied over the finished decoration (Figure 1). 
Sgraffito, a traditional Germanic style of decora?
tion often associated with Pennsylvania potters, is 
found very little in the Franklin Court materials. 
In this technique, the potter covered a piece with a 
slip of a color that contrasted with the clay body 
beneath. He then incised a design through the 
slip before adding the clear glaze. 
Philadelphia potters appear to have adhered 
closely to these traditional ways until the early-
nineteenth century when national and interna?
tional events brought about an upheaval in the 
American economy that dramatically affected 
American manufacturing generally and the Phila?
delphia pottery industry in particular. 
Events leading up to and surrounding the War 
of 1812 provided great stimulus to America's nas?
cent manufactures. In the early years of the French 
and English difficulties, America experienced a 
period of interrupted but nonetheless great pros?
perity occasioned by its advantages as a neutral 
among belligerents. As agents of an uninvolved 
country, American ships carried much of the world's 
trade while English, French, and most other Euro?
pean shipping was tied up by the conflict. The 
accelerated commercial prosperity was, however, 
brought to a halt by Jefferson's embargo, imposed 
at the end of 1807. Fearing American involvement 
in the war, Jefferson imposed an embargo pro?
hibiting buying or selling with belligerent nations 
and America was forced to relinquish her shipping 
advantages. 
The embargo, followed by the Nonintercourse 
Act in 1809, and America's ultimate involvement 
in the War of 1812, kept commerce in a disad?
vantageous position, but manufactures profited. 
Diminished imports led to rises in the price of 
manufactured goods and many businessmen shifted 
their capital from shipping to developing American 
industries. Still in its early stages of development, 
American manufacturing was launched upon a 
period of expansion that lasted until the end of 
the war in 1815. 
The embargo deprived Philadelphia of many 
commodities, among which were foreign?especially 
British?ceramics. Philadelphia potters enthusias?
tically responded to the obvious advantages of the 
situation. The result was dramatic development and 
change of both a temporary and a long-range 
nature. 
The 1810 census of manufactures records fifteen 
potters in the City and County of Philadelphia with 
a total output valued at |85,450. The directory for 
the next year indicates a $93,950 output. These 
were substantial amounts. In 1840 the manufac-
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
tures census records only nine potteries with $52,800 
total output. In 1850, after a boom in ceramic 
activity, the totals jump to fourteen potteries and 
$122,350 output.^ 
Much of the development during the period 
of the embargo and the war took the form of short?
lived ventures attempting to make fine earthenware 
in the English style to fill the demand for the 
FIGURE 3.?Red earthenware coffee pot covered with a white 
slip and decorated in imitation of English Whieldon-type 
wares; probably made in Philadelphia; excavated at Frank?
lin Court in a 1740-1760 context. Height: 20.3 cm. (Col?
lection of Independence National Historical Park.) 
absent imported ware. The first response to the new 
demand for locally manufactured fine earthenware 
was the Columbian Pottery, a joint venture by 
Alexander Trotter and Philadelphia typefounders 
and entrepreneurs Archibald Binny and James 
Ronaldson. 
In 1807 Binny & Ronaldson advertised in the 
Savannah Public Intelligencer: 
A PERSON, who has been bred in Britain to the POT?
TERY BUSINESS, in all its branches, with the express view 
of establishing that important Manufacture in Philadelphia, 
has now arrived here, and taken measures for the commence?
ment of the above business. Being anxious to procure the 
best possible materials which he has no doubt are to be 
found in abundance in many parts of the United States, 
he hereby solicits the attention of such patriotic gentle man 
throughout the Union, as may feel disposed to Patronize his 
establishment, to such CLAYS or FLINTS, (particularly the 
Black Flint) as may be found in their rspective neighbor?
hoods, and invites them to send specimens of such as they 
may think worthy of attention, to Messrs. BINNY & 
RONALDSON, Letter-Founders, Philadelphia, accompanied 
by a written description of the quantity in which the article 
may be procured, its situation, distance from water carriage, 
and such other remarks as may be thought useful, when the 
various specimens shall be carefully analized, and the result 
communicated to the doners, if required. 
It is particularly requested, that attention may be paid to 
sending specimens of clay that are free from all ferruginous 
or irony matter, as the presence of iron totally unfits them 
for the uses for which they are intended, and all those which 
assume a reddish color when burnt will not answer, as the 
purest white is desired. Specimens may be sent in small 
quantities weighing from one to two pounds, and by that 
mode of conveyance which will be least expensive.s 
The "PERSON . . . bred in Britain to the POT?
TERY BUSINESS" was almost certainly Alexander 
Trotter, who is known to have been making pottery 
in Philadelphia by 1808.9 
Specific evidence of the association of Trotter 
with Binny and Ronaldson appears in an 1812 
indenture in which William Mitchell was appren?
ticed to "Masters Alex* Trotter & Binney & Ron?
aldson." In 1810 Trotter is listed in the city direc?
tory as a potter at Cedar Street near Thirteenth, 
just a few blocks from the Binny & Ronaldson 
type foundry. This presumably was the site of the 
pottery; in 1813 Trotter is listed there as the 
"Columbian potter." ^? 
Binny and Ronaldson were quick to see that the 
embargo provided a good opportunity for the 
development of an American tableware manu?
factory. Their foresight was rewarded with suc?
cess. The Columbian Pottery was proudly viewed 
NUMBER 43 
as an example of Philadelphia's contribution to 
the growth of an American fine earthenware in?
dustry. In 1808 the table service at the "great 
Republican dinner of July 4" was enhanced by an 
"elegant jug and goblets from the new queensware 
manufactory of Trotter & Co." In November 1808 
their products were included among a group of new 
American manufactures praised as "evidence of the 
increase of public spirit." Specifically noted were 
"yellow-tea pots, coffee pots and sugar boxes" at 
$3.00 per dozen and "red-tea pots, coffee pots and 
sugar boxes" at $2.50 per dozen. Governor Simon 
Snyder, certainly refe;rring to this factory, noted in 
his December 1809 message to the Pennsylvania 
Legislature, that "we have lately established in 
Philadelphia a queensware pottery on an extensive 
scale." 11 
The success of their business was emphasized 
further in an 1811 advertisement in which "THE 
PROPRIETORS OF THE COLUMBIAN POT?
TERY" announced that 
they have greatly improved the quality of their WARE, as 
well as added to their Works, so as to enable them to keep 
a constant supply, proportioned to the increasing demand. 
Dealers from all parts of the United States will find their 
interest in applying as above, where there is always on hand 
a large assortment of TEA and COFFEE POTS, PITCHERS 
and JUGS, of all sizes, plain and ornamented, WINE COOL?
ERS, BASONS and EWERS, BAKING DISHES, &c. &c. at 
prices much lower than they can be imported. 
An 1813 advertisement lists a similar range of 
products noting prices per dozen according to size: 
AMERICAN 
Manufactured Queensware, at the following reasonable 
rates?viz 
Chamber Pots 
Ditto ditto 
Wash Hand Basons 
Ditto ditto 
Pitchers 
Coffee Pots 
Ditto ditto 
Tea Pots 
Ditto 
Pitchers 
4s a $2 25 per doz 
6s 1 80 ditto 
4s 2 ditto 
6s 1 60 ditto 
4s 2 70 ditto 
4s 5 ditto 
6s 4 ditto 
12s 2 25 ditto 
18s 1 80 ditto 
6s 1 80 ditto 
Dinner Plates 75 cents per dozen?all other sizes, with every 
other article of Queensware, in proportion. 
In this advertisement the potters appealed to their 
prospective customers with the assertion that "the 
above rates are less than half the price of the 
cheapest imported Liverpool Queensware can be 
purchased at." No doubt their ware was cheaper 
than imported counterparts, which, when still avail?
able, would have sold at inflated prices because of 
their scarcity.^^ 
An interesting addition to the advertisement is a 
note that "their new manufactory of White Queens?
ware will be ready for delivery in all May," imply?
ing that the above-listed "Queensware" was not a 
white ware. It may have been red or yellow ware 
of the type mentioned in an earlier advertisement. 
Evidence that wares from the Columbian Pottery 
were respected enough to be marketed outside 
Philadelphia appears in a 25 May 1810 advertise?
ment from the Alexandria (Virginia) Gazette in 
which William Ramsay, a prominent merchant, 
advertised that he had in "constant supply . . . a 
neat assortment of Earthen Ware, from the Colum?
bian Pottery, Philadelphia." In December of the 
same year, N. Hingston announced in the Gazette 
that he was expecting to "receive in a few days a 
general assortment of ware from the Columbian 
manufactory'' at his "Glass, Queens Ware, 8c China 
Store." 13 It is quite likely that Trotter's earthen?
ware also was being marketed in Baltimore and 
other cities along Philadelphia's coastwise trade 
routes. 
The closing date of the Columbian Pottery 
probably corresponds with the 1814 cancellation 
of the apprenticeship of William Mitchell. In 
1813 the pottery is listed for the last time in the 
Philadelphia city directory and by 1815 Trotter 
appears in the directory for Pittsburgh where 
"Messrs. Trotter & Co. have established a Queens?
ware Pottery, at which they manufacture pitchers, 
coffee and tea pots and cups, bowls, jugs, &c. simi?
lar to those of the Potteries in Philadelphia." i* 
Binny, Ronaldson, and Trotter apparently real?
ized that the market for local queensware was a 
temporary phenomenon as readily as they had seen 
the need for such a pottery initially. The British 
blockade of the United States seaboard, started in 
November 1812, concentrated its first efforts on the 
Chesapeake and Delaware bays and by 1814 prob-
bly had begun to affect the Columbian Pottery's 
coastwise business adversely. 
Other Philadelphia potters had begun by this 
time to make fine earthenware and they must have 
offered some competition to the Columbian Pottery. 
Captain John Mullowny advertised in 1810 that his 
Washington Pottery on Market Street between 
Sixteenth and Seventeenth was manufacturing fine 
ceramics: "RED, YELLOW, AND BLACK COF-
8 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
FEE P O T S , T E A POTS, P I T C H E R S , etc. etc." 
An October 1810 letter written by Mullowny to 
President Madison, accompanying a pitcher sent to 
him from the manufactory and soliciting aid, 
revealed that the pottery had opened on 4 March of 
that year. Mullowny said that he was the proprietor 
of the works but that the actual "manufacturer" 
was "Mr. James Charleton (an englishman by 
birth.)" 15 
A substantial capital?"about 15000$"?had 
gone into the venture. T h o u g h we know nothing 
of Madison's reaction to Mullowny's request for 
"support and encouragement," the manufactory 
appears to have been successful, at least for several 
years. T h e ware apparently was marketed over a 
considerable distance. When the pottery was 
offered for sale in 1815, the stock was "recom?
mended to the notice of gentlemen who have vessels 
(and spare room) bound to Virginia, North and 
South Carolina, Georgia, and New Orleans . . . it 
being an article of commerce before the war to 
those States." ^'^ 
T h e Washington Pottery advertised throughout 
1810 and 1812. On 10 February 1812, a significant 
advance in methods of production was announced. 
New and handsome patterns, both of Turn'd and Pressed 
Ware, (the latter being the first manufactured in America) 
will be ready for delivery by the 15th inst. and a supply 
constantly kept up in future. Those friends will be pleased 
to find the Ware much improved in fashion, neatness and 
utility.i7 
A glowing market for Mullowny's tableware ap?
parently had prompted him to introduce press-
molding, a technique that had been in use in the 
English factories for decades. Press-molding is the 
forming of a piece by pressing clay into a mold. 
T h e process would have been of particular im?
portance to this expanding fine-ware manufactory 
because it offered variety and refinement of forms, 
as well as speed and repetit ion in production. 
Mullowny was mistaken in thinking himself the 
first maker of press-molded ware in America?this 
had been done in isolated cases even in the eigh?
teenth century. 
Unquestionably due to the introduction of this 
important technological advance, Mullowny had 
greatly expanded the range and probably the 
quality of his goods by October when he adver?
tised: 
THE public are informed that Soup and Shallow PLATES 
are now ready for delivery in addition to the following 
articles, of which a constant supply is always kept up. 
CUPS & SAUCERS, 
SUGARS & CREAMS, 
Gallon, Quart, Pint & Half Pint Grelled & Plain PITCHERS, 
Gallon, Quart, Pint and Half Pint BOWLS, 
SALT and PEPPER BOXES, 
STEWING DISHES that will stand the fire, 
BASINS and EWERS, 
WINE COOLERS, 
MANTLE ORNAMENTS & GARDEN POTS, 
Quart, Pint and Half Pint MUGS, 
GOBLETS, TUMBLERS & EGG CUPS, 
BUTTER TUBS & BUTTER BOATS, 
PICKLING JARS & JELLY POTS of all sizes, 
MILK PANS, &c. &c. Sec. 
The Plates manufactured at the Washington Pottery, 
will be found by experience superior to imported plates, 
when necessary to stew on a chafing dish or embers, as they 
will stand the heat without cracking.is 
In March 1815 the Washington Pottery and all its 
stock along with Mullowny's two brick kilns and 
their contents, 260,000 bricks, were offered for sale 
and Mullowny's name disappears from the city 
directories.i^ 
His pottery apparently was taken over by David 
Seixas, who was listed in the city directory by 1818 
as a "queensware manuf." at Market west of Six?
teenth Street, the same block as the earlier Mul?
lowny factory.-" Seixas, however, apparently was 
operating the pottery before that date as evidenced 
by a lengthy description of "the [earthenware] 
factory of Mr. David G. Seixas" in the Niles' Weekly 
Register (Baltimore) of 1 November 1817. Al?
though Niles does not specify the location of this 
factory, it seems likely that this was the operation 
reflected in the next year's Philadelphia city direc?
tory. 
Niles' description provides great detail concern?
ing the processes in use in this quite sophisticated 
manufactory. Clay and flint were carefully pro?
cessed and mixed to produce a fine white body 
which then was formed "on wheels of horizontal 
and vertical movements." Wheels of horizontal 
movement presumably were standard potters' 
wheels on which pieces could be " thrown," or a 
mold could be placed on the wheel and the clay 
forced into it. Wheels of vertical movement un?
doubtedly were turning lathes of the type shown in 
Figure 4. A piece affixed to the spindle of such a 
lathe would revolve around a vertical axis while 
its shape and surface were refined by the applica-
NUMBER 43 
FIGURE 4.?Potters' turning lathe. (Figure 2 in The Cabinet 
Cyclopaedia by Dionysius Lardner, 1832.) 
tion of a sharp tool. After completion of this form?
ing of the body, 
handles and spouts, &c. are subsequently affixed?the vessels 
are perfectly dried, and placed in cylindrical pots [saggers], 
these are placed in columns in an oven or kiln, and exposed 
to a heat of 80? of Wedgwood's Pyrometer. When the kiln 
is cold the ware [is] withdrawn, and each piece separately 
immersed in the intended glaze. This is prepared principally 
of oxide of lead and powdered flint?and all coulours are 
imparted to it by the addition of metalic oxides?of zinc 
for straw yellow, of cobalt for blue, of iron for red, of 
chromate for green (this is prepared from the Baltimore 
chromate of iron). . . . A second firing in another kiln under 
a heat of about 10 degrees, Wedgwood?causes the glaze to 
pass into a state of perfect vitrifaction. The ornamental 
painting is performed with variously coloured glasses, ground 
to an impalpable powder and mixed with essentials oils? 
these are melted on the ware in an enamel kiln, by a heat 
at which the glaze softens. 
The pitcher in Figure 5, molded in the diamond 
relief pattern popular in English imported earthen?
ware of the period, has been attributed to Seixas' 
manufactory. The clay body is light in color and 
the glaze is green?presumably composed of lead 
oxide, powdered flint, and "Baltimore chromate 
of iron." Though the piece shows no evidence of 
the overglaze enamel decoration described by the 
Register, it does show traces of gilding. Seixas' 
green, as well as his blue, yellow, and red glazes, 
may have been designed to mask any imperfections 
in the clay body as a transparent glaze would not. 
The pitcher suggests that the Seixas pottery may 
have been operating as early as 1816. On the front 
of the pitcher, under the spout, is a portrait medal?
lion of David Seixas' father, Gershom Mendes 
Seixas, a New York City rabbi who died in 1816. 
By that year Seixas could have taken over the 
Mullowny factory which had been offered for sale 
in March 1815. The complexity of the manufac?
turing process described by Niles' Register in 1817 
certainly suggests that the pottery had been in 
existence for some time by that date. Though 
Seixas was not listed at the site until 1818, it would 
not be unusual for the city directory to be two years 
behind in its recording of such data. Indeed it is 
known with certainty that Mullowny opened the 
earlier pottery in March 1810 yet the directory did 
not list him there until 1813.21 
Though the pitcher has been attributed to Seixas' 
"Trenton" pottery, between 1812 and 1816, the 
origin of that attribution is unknown and no evi?
dence has come to light to suggest that such a 
manufactory ever existed or that Seixas was in 
Trenton during that period. Indeed he was in 
Philadelphia in 1812 when he advertised that he 
was selhng "SOLDER . . . LONDON & SWED?
ISH COPPER . . . SHEATHING NAILS" at 151 
South Front Street, and in 1813 he still was listed 
in the directory at that address.^2 
Seixas almost certainly was not a potter himself 
and presumably he hired someone to operate the 
manufactory. This was only one of several ven?
tures in which he was involved. In addition to his 
1812 Front Street shop, Seixas is said to have re?
peated "the experiments of Daguerre in this coun?
try, without having had any instruction in this 
beautiful art. He likewise found out the secret of 
the enameled surface cards . . . and he engaged in 
their manufacture for some time. So also he made 
printing ink, and contrived several other useful and 
ornamental matters. . . ." ^^  By late 1819 or early 
1820 Seixas privately began the instruction of deaf 
and dumb children, which lead to the establish?
ment of the Pennsylvania Institution for the Deaf 
and Dumb in April 1820. He was hired as its first 
principal but in 1822 was dismissed because of a 
scandal in which he appears to have been wrongly 
accused. He subsequently was supported by several 
city residents in the establishment of a new school, 
10 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
4 ..f ?^ 
K- ^^ Wy Sriiti 
FIGURE 5.?Pitcher molded in a relief diamond pattern that is similar to English examples of 
the first quarter of the nineteenth century; green glazed and showing traces of gilding; 
attributed to David Seixas' manufactory, which was operating in Philadelphia by 1818 and 
probably earlier; under the spout is a portrait medallion of his father Gershom Mendes 
Seixas, a New York City rabbi who died in I8I6. Height: 23 cm. (Collection of the Museum 
of the City of New York, gift of Mrs. Louis J. Reckford.) 
the Philadelphia Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb, 
at which he is listed in the 1824 directory.^* 
The queensware manufactory appears in the city 
directory through 1822. Seixas may have been 
forced to close it in the midst of his considerable 
difficulties at the Pennsylvania Institution. Operat?
ing during the postwar years when imports were 
flooding the market, it is not likely to have been a 
highly successful venture in any case.^ ^ 
Daniel Freytag is the only one of the potters 
already operating in Philadelphia at the time of 
the embargo who is known to have made refined 
earthenware to meet the new demands. The 1811 
city directory notes that "Daniel Freytag, 192 
NUMBER 43 11 
S. Fifth Street, manufactures about 500 dolls, (and 
is increasing fast) of a finer quality of ware, than 
has been heretofore manufactured in the United 
States. This ware is made of various colours, and 
embellished with gold or silver. . . ." s^ 
All of these attempts to make fine ceramics were 
short lived and all, with the exception of Daniel 
Freytag's, were initiated by people who were not 
established Philadelphia potters, but entrepreneurs 
looking for profitable investments. These ventures 
came into existence to meet the temporary demand 
for refined tableware of local manufacture and were 
destined to failure with the reappearance of 
imports. 
The few years of freedom from competition were 
not sufficient for the establishment of an American 
fine ceramics industry on a solid footing. The pro?
duction of fine white tableware comparable to 
English examples was an expensive and difficult 
undertaking. Potters had to locate materials for 
the sophisticated clay body and glaze and arrange 
for their economical transport to Philadelphia. 
Some potters attempted to circumvent these prob?
lems by making their tableware from red clay, 
covering it with a clear or black glaze. Some may 
have covered the red body with a white clay slip 
to make it look like a finer light-bodied article as 
eighteenth-century potters had done (see Figure 
3). The "yellow ware" made by John Mullowny 
and by the Columbian Pottery may have been of 
this type. It also could have been made from a 
light-burning, yellowish clay, but, if this is so, it 
appears to have been regarded as different from 
actual white-bodied earthenware. 
It is certain, however, that a true white earthen?
ware was being made by David Seixas and probably 
by the Columbian Pottery. The Seixas pitcher in 
Figure 5 is made of a light clay body. The article 
in the 1 November 1817 issue of Niles' Register, 
in praising what it said was "the only white ware 
pottery in the United States," stressed Seixas' 
uniqueness in overcoming the difficulties usually 
involved. 
If we had not obtained proof of its domestic origin, we 
should not have hesitated to believe it, from its general 
appearance, to be of transatlantic production. In this belief 
we should have been chiefly guided by the knowledge that 
many attempts have proved unsuccessful, to imitate the 
Liverpool white crockery. We should have been biassed 
[sic] by the popular opinions that the United States could 
not furnish suitable materials. Or if the materials could be 
had that we were ignorant of the art of compounding them. 
But the result of the research and exertions of Mr. Seixas, 
the proprietor of the pottery alluded to, at once sets aside 
the erroneous prejudice of these opinions. We are informed 
from an authentic source, and its gives us satisfaction to 
promulgate, that every material which he makes use of is 
derived from our own soil, and exists in such abundance 
that they may be said to be inexhaustible. . . . 
His success in white earthenware production was 
so impressive that the Register devoted considerable 
space to describing how the clay and flint were 
processed. 
The principal of the materials are clay and flint. The former 
is of a grayish blue colour, and contains pyrites of sulphur 
and iron chemically combined, the presence of which impairs 
the colour of the ware. They are separated by an economical 
and expeditious process, an art not practised or kno^vn in 
the European potteries. The clay is copiously diffused in 
water and passed through fine lawn sieves to detach the 
larger particles of sand, 8cc. 
The flint is of a grayish black colour. It is exposed to a 
strong heat, and is suddenly plunged into cold water. By 
frequent repetition of calination and refrigeration, whiteness 
and friability ensue. It is then ground to powder finer than 
super fine flour, so perfectly inpalpable that it will remain 
many hours suspended in water, it is then subjected to a 
purification to extract the small portion of oxide of iron it 
usually contains. 
It is then mixed by measure with the purified liquid clay? 
both of a fixed specific gravity, and the mixture poured 
into vats, the solids in time subside?the water is run off? 
the residuum further exposed to the solar heat, until the 
remaining water has evaporated to suit it for forming 
Binny & Ronaldson in their Columbian Pottery 
appear also to have manufactured true white 
earthenware. Their 1807 Savannah advertisement 
requesting clay samples with the caution that "all 
those which assume a reddish color when burnt 
will not answer, as the purest white is desired" 
leaves no doubt of their intentions. In April 1813 
they advertised that "their new manufactory of 
White Queensware will be ready for delivery in 
all May." ^ ' 
In addition to the need for obtaining materials, 
new techniques had to be introduced and, very 
importantly, workmen either had to be trained in 
the requisite skills or imported from English fac?
tories. One 1811 observer commented that "earth?
enware, yellow and red, and stone ware are exten?
sively made [in Philadelphia]; experiments shew, 
that ware equal to that of Staffordshire might be 
manufactured, if WORKMEN COULD BE PRO?
CURED." Binny and Ronaldson and John Mul?
lowny had English potters managing their shops 
12 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
and Mullowny, in his 1810 letter to President 
Madison, had explained that the factory "will be 
extended as soon as workmen can be obtained or 
boys taught the art of manufacturing as in Eng?
land." The particular mention by Niles' Register 
with regard to Seixas that "no foreigner has ever 
had any concern, or superintendence or employ in 
his manufactory" serves to emphasize the rarity of 
this phenomenon.2^ 
More time and a more favorable economic cli?
mate would be required to overcome these obstacles 
and to develop an American fine tableware industry 
large and efficient enough to compete with the well-
established English factories. Economic historians 
analyzing the overall effect of the war period on 
American manufacturing have concluded that this 
was a period of premature growth that could not 
be supported after the end of the war with the 
resulting resumption of imports. "America lacked 
British manufacturing efficiency and was not yet 
ready to claim any birthright as a manufacturing 
nation." ^ ^ 
Certainly this was true of the manufactories that 
had appeared in Philadelphia solely to take ad?
vantage of the short-lived demand for locally made 
fine ceramics. It was not, however, as true of 
potteries set up to produce general earthenware 
before the war. To be sure, these established pot?
teries recognized an opportunity to increase their 
profits and attempted to supply the market for fine 
earthenware while continuing to make their tradi?
tional goods. But these potters could rely on their 
standard products to sustain business when imports 
were reintroduced and thus they were able to 
weather the crisis. Ultimately, the embargo and 
war had a far-reaching positive influence on Phila?
delphia ceramics manufacture and brought about 
changes that pointed the way toward its eventual 
industrialization. 
The experiences of Andrew Miller and his sons 
illustrate the changes taking place in the Philadel?
phia ceramics industry during the period. In 1785 
Andrew purchased property on Zane [now Filbert] 
Street between Seventh and Eighth where he estab?
lished the Miller family pottery. By 1799 he had 
taken his sons, Andrew, Jr., and Abraham, into the 
business and in 1809 he apparently turned the 
entire operation over to them, changing the pottery 
name to "Abraham & Andrew Miller, jr." In 1821 
Andrew Miller, Jr., died and Abraham took over 
sole management of the pottery, operating it until 
his death in 1858.30 
The Millers were highly successful potters and 
very important figures in the Philadelphia ceramics 
industry. They readily saw the potential offered by 
the embargo and war and changed their production 
to take advantage of this opportunity. Like other 
Philadelphia potters, the Millers undoubtedly ex?
panded profits by increasing their production of 
standard utilitarian earthenware, which had come 
into wider use as a substitute for the embargoed 
ceramics. 
Of greater importance to the future of the Phila?
delphia industry, however, was the fact that they 
began the production of "black and brown china," 
a type of tableware that could successfully compete 
with imported fine ceramics but required none of 
the sophistication of their manufacture. The pro?
duction of black-glazed "china" was not an innova?
tion on the Millers' part although they appear to 
have been the first to make this type of ware in 
Philadelphia. So-called "Jackfield" pottery, a fine 
red-bodied ware covered with a rich black glaze, 
was made at Jackfield in Shropshire, England, by 
the mideighteenth century and was a common 
product of the Staffordshire potteries as well. 
Andrew Miller probably had been among the 
many Philadelphia potters making the brown- and 
black-glazed kitchen and other common household 
wares that had been a major part of the eighteenth-
century potters' output. Sometime between 1808 
and 1810, he adapted his traditional materials to 
the manufacture of a finer product in imitation of 
English tableware. As elementary as this adaptation 
seems, it was important to the nineteenth-century 
Philadelphia ceramics industry.^'i 
Black-glazed "china" was peculiarly well suited to 
this industry that was still essentially traditional 
but was attempting to compete with sophisticated 
imported products. The local red clay continued to 
be used, thus avoiding the necessity of locating and 
learning to work with the light-colored clay used in 
the manufacture of English refined tableware. The 
glaze was a standard lead glaze to which manganese 
was added to produce the dark color. 
Though dark-glazed "china" was introduced to 
replace the embargoed imported wares, it continued 
to be made after the end of the war. Indeed it 
remained in regular production at least until mid-
century (see Figure 6). The success of this product 
NUMBER 43 13 
over such a long period was due not only to the 
cheapness of its manufacture but also to its adapt?
ability to changing market demands. During the 
war brown- and black-glazed "china" served as a 
substitute for English white earthenware. Indeed 
the Millers noted as late as 1820 that "many of the 
articles which we make are equally esteemed with 
& supply the place of white English ware." In 1820 
this certainly was an exaggeration and in the same 
notation, they pointed out the damage imports 
were doing to their business.^^ As the industry 
began to revive in the 1820s, however, black-glazed 
wares, especially teapots, regained importance as 
good market products. Now, however, they no 
doubt were serving a different market, selling prob?
ably to a clientele lower in the social strata. 
Though they were tablewares with a degree of 
refinement beyond general utilitarian kitchen ware, 
they were not in the current styles and would have 
been considered crude in comparison with fine white 
earthenware esteemed by fashionable taste. 
The expansion of the manufacture of black-glazed 
ware probably was responsible for the introduction 
into common usage of the sophisticated techniques 
of press-molding and lathe-turning. Both techniques 
were in limited use before 1820. John Mullowny 
proudly indicated in an 1812 advertisement that he 
made "Pressed Ware" and the pitcher in Figure 5, 
probably made by David Seixas around 1816, is 
press-molded. The 1817 description hy Niles' Regis?
ter of a wheel of "vertical movements" in Seixas' 
manufactory strongly suggests that he was lathe-
turning as well.^3 But it probably was not until the 
1820s when Philadelphia dark-glazed tableware was 
produced in quantity that potters began to adopt 
press-molding and lathe-turning as standard proce?
dures. 
The inclusion of plaster molds in an inventory of 
the Miller pottery made at the time of the death 
of Andrew Miller, Jr., in 1821, suggests that molds 
were in use for the manufacture of the finer dark-
glazed hollow ware by that time.^* That the Millers 
also were lathe-turning their fine ware by 1820 is 
FIGURE 6.?Black-glazed teapot made by Thomas Haig, c. 1830. Although like most Philadel?
phia earthenware, this teapot was not marked, it was attributed to Thomas Haig by Edwin 
AtLee Barber, a well-known late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century historian of American 
ceramics whose hand-written label on its base reads: "From / Pottery of Thomas Haig / Phila?
delphia, Pa. / Made about 1830, or previous, / at Fourth St. works. / Procured by E. A. 
Barber / Jan. 1891." On the turned footring of the tea pot are three scars that were left by 
stacking devices used to raise the pot onto small points of contact so that the glaze would not 
stick to the surface below it in the kiln. Height: 15.5 cm. (Collection of the Philadelphia 
Museum of Art.) 
14 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
FIGURE 7.?The listing of "one band wheel" in the 1821 inventory of the stock in trade of the 
pottery of Abraham and Andrew Miller, Jr., suggests that the pottery may have been using 
this type of "band" or "great" wheel, commonly found in the more sophisticated English 
factories. (Figure 1 in The Cabinet Cyclopaedia by Dionysius Lardner, 1832.) 
evidenced by the note in the Census of Manufac?
tures that two turning lathes were in operation in 
their shop. The 1821 inventory of the pottery 
includes three turning lathes.^^ (Figure 4) 
The war period must be credited with attracting 
to Philadelphia two of its most important potters. 
Thomas Haig, a queensware potter from Scotland, 
almost certainly was working at Alexander Trotter's 
Columbian Pottery in 1810 when the city directory 
lists him as a potter near the manufactory. He, like 
Trotter, may have come to Philadelphia through 
the efforts of Binny & Ronaldson. By 1819, Haig 
had opened his own pottery, an earthenware manu?
factory on North Fourth Street above Poplar Lane.^^ 
Branch Green established a stoneware factory on 
Second Street above German town Road in 1809.^ ^ 
A potter in Troy, New York, as early as 1799, Green 
had come to New Jersey in 1805 as evidenced by an 
advertisement in a Trenton newspaper announcing 
that "James Morgan, Jacob VanWickle and Branch 
Green have established a manufactory at South 
River Bridge under the firm name of James Morgan 
& Co.," where they were making stoneware.^^ From 
this vantage point Green apparently saw the need 
for a stoneware manufactory in Philadelphia and 
decided to leave the Morgan partnership. Although 
there had been stoneware production in Philadel?
phia earlier, notably the eighteenth-century pottery 
of Anthony Duch^, this major urban area had no 
stoneware potter when Green arrived and was 
importing such ware from New Jersey and presum?
ably from abroad.3^ A jug made by Green in 
Philadelphia is illustrated in Figure 8. 
By the time the war ended, the Philadelphia 
pottery industry had developed in ways that ex?
tended beyond its brief experience as a center for 
the manufacture of refined earthenware. Three of 
Philadelphia's most progressive nineteenth-century 
potters?Abraham Miller, Thomas Haig, and 
Branch Green?were established. Potters had not 
yet proved themselves ready to compete with all fine 
imports, but Abraham Miller and probably others 
had made the substantial addition of the more 
sophisticated black-glazed tablewares to their tradi?
tional products. The manufacture of these wares 
encouraged the regular use of two technological 
advances, press-molding and lathe-turning. Potters 
also had added another important product, stone?
ware, that would be a staple of future industrial 
ceramic production. 
NUMBER 43 16 
W < 
FIGURE 8.?Stoneware jug made at Branch Green's Philadelphia factory, 1809-1827, and detail 
of the mark. Height: 37.5 cm. (Collection of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Com?
mission, William Penn Memorial Museum.) 
The 1820s 
The disastrous effects of the postwar influx of 
foreign goods made it abundantly evident to Phil?
adelphia potters, as it did to other manufacturers, 
that they were at the mercy of foreign, especially 
English, imports. American manufacturing needed 
considerable encouragement if the country was to 
free itself from its dependence on imported goods 
and successfully compete with "the products of old 
and highly improved establishments." *? Efforts soon 
were underway to revive the Philadelphia ceramics 
industry, both by the potters themselves and as 
part of a larger interest in the promotion of Ameri?
can manufactures generally. 
The earliest postwar expression of government 
support for the domestic manufactures that grew 
up during the war period was the Tariff Act of 
1816. Though this act established rates higher 
than any of the previous tariff laws, the average 
duty still was only about 20 percent. The direct 
effects of changes in tariff legislation are hard to 
measure. Levying a tax of 20 percent ad valorem 
on "china ware" (set at I21/2 percent in 1790), 
earthenware and stoneware (set at 5 percent in 
1794), and porcelain (not mentioned separately in 
the earlier schedules but undoubtedly included 
under the 1790 "china ware" tax of I21/2 percent), 
it is unlikely that the act had much effect on 
the development of the Philadelphia ceramics 
industry.^i 
Certainly the tariff was inadequate to encourage 
domestic production of white earthen "china ware." 
Far more than a 20 percent tariff would have been 
required to induce potters to continue their at?
tempts at competition with the English fine earth-
16 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
enware. Likewise, the small tariff restriction could 
not have stimulated the establishment of American 
porcelain manufactories. 
Brown- and black-glazed "china ware," on the 
other hand, may have gotten some benefit from the 
tariff. Unlike queensware or porcelain, dark-glazed 
tableware was a product that Philadelphia potters 
could realistically expect to manufacture at a quality 
and price competitive with the foreign counterparts. 
During the postwar slump in demand for American 
ceramics, the tariff may have provided some assist?
ance in keeping these wares marketable. Sales of 
American brown and black "china" had greatly 
improved by 1824 when the Franklin Institute 
stated that such wares had "finally excluded the 
imported Article from the American Market." ^ ^ 
Common earthenware as distinguished from more 
refined "china ware" probably was not in great 
danger from foreign imports by 1816 but the tariff 
may have provided some advantage in the generally 
unfavorable economic climate. If, indeed, Philadel?
phia had captured the market for utilitarian earth?
enware in the eighteenth century, it is not likely 
that that advantage was lost in the nineteenth. 
Stoneware manufacture may have benefited from 
the tariff. Branch Green was probably well estab?
lished by 1816 and we know from the example 
illustrated in Figure 8 that he was capable of making 
utilitarian stoneware of good quality. The following 
1819 bill of sale *^  lists some of the general house?
hold goods he was producing. 
Eliza Henry 
Bot of Branch Green 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
3 
1 
1 
31/2 
4 
4 
3 
1/4 
V4 
'/2 
Doz 
" 
" 
" 
" 
" 
" 
" 
" 
" 
'* 
" 
" 
" 
" 
1 Gall 
'/2 
Vi 
1 
1/2 
1/4 
1 
1/2 
' 
' 
' 
' 
' 
' 
' 
1/4 " 
pt. 
1/2 pt 
Chambers 
1st size 
2nd size 
1 G all 
Jugs 
" 
" 
pitchers 
" 
" 
Jars 
" 
" 
" 621/2 
" 
Butter Tubs -
" 
Milk pots 
- 7 . 
5. 
12.50 
3.00 
1.00 
2.50 
1.50 
3.00 
2.50 
1.50 
3.50 
2.50 
2.00 
6.00 
1.75 
1.25 
1.25 
35.75 
Though Green probably was relatively successful in 
his Philadelphia manufactory, stoneware was not 
yet as well established a product as standard utili?
tarian earthenware. The tariff, however small, may 
have provided needed support for Green's factory. 
Pressure for more adequate government protec?
tion was minimal for several years after the imposi?
tion of the 1816 tariff. In responding to the ques?
tions in the 1820 Census of Manufactures, however, 
American potters generally bemoaned the poor state 
of their business and Philadelphia potters were no 
exception. Thomas Haig and Abraham and Andrew 
Miller, Jr., reported depressed conditions in their 
businesses. Haig noted that he was employing two 
men and four boys in 1820 as opposed to seven men 
and five boys in 1815 and 1816, and that the market 
value of his yearly output had dropped from $5000 
in 1815 and 1816, to $2000 in 1820. A & A Miller 
indicated the employment of six boys with average 
sales of $6000 "for 2 years last past" and noted their 
production as being "somewhat less than half the 
quantity manufactured in the years 1814-"15 & 
"16?".? 
The Millers' report includes a lengthy explana?
tion of the role that they thought renewed imports 
had played in their firm's economic problems: 
The articles above enumerated have been tried for 10 or 
12 years and arc esteemed as highly as the European articles 
of which they are an imitation. There is a sufficient quantity 
of skill at market for the manufacture of a quantity equal 
to the consumption of the United States?the quantity 
manufactured at present is somewhat less than half the quan?
tity manufactured in the years 1814-"15 & "16? 
Notwithstanding, many of the articles which we make are 
equally esteemed with & supply the place of white English 
ware?yet as the latter are sold to the dealers at a price 
somewhat lower than we can afford ours, it happens that 
they (the dealers) find it their interest not to keep any of 
ours on hand because it would very generally hinder the sale 
of those which afford them a larger profit?the price of 
each to the consumer being the same. 
The demand for Tea pots & Coffee pots would be such as 
to exclude the english ware of the same kind from the market 
were it not frequently imported by foreign agents and 
being of too little value to kept [sic] long in store it is 
frequently sold for less than cost.45 
The crisis of 1819, however, stimulated greater 
public interest in American industries. During the 
1820s, pamphlets favoring protection proliferated 
and Congress regularly was petitioned for higher 
duties. Tariff acts passed in 1824 and 1828 provided 
more protection to some manufactures though 
ceramics were not among them. An important ex?
pression of the greater enthusiasm for domestic 
industries were the societies and mechanics' insti?
tutes that became active in many cities for the pro-
NUMBER 43 17 
motion of American manufactures. The Philadel?
phia Society for the Promotion of National Industry 
was established in 1819 on the principle that "if 
there be any one truth in political economy more 
sacred and irrefragable than another, it is that the 
prosperity of nations bears an exact proportion to 
the encouragement of their domestic industry?and 
that their decay and decrepitude commence and 
proceed pari passu with their neglect of it." *^  The 
Maryland Institute for the Mechanic Arts was estab?
lished in Baltimore in 1826, and the American 
Institute of the City of New York in 1829. 
Among these societies, the most important to 
Philadelphia potters was the Franklin Institute, 
founded in 1824 and, like its counterparts in other 
cities, concerned with "the promotion and encour?
agement of manufactures and the mechanic and 
useful arts." *^  Philadelphia potters often displayed 
their wares at the Institute's annual exhibitions of 
American manufactures. Though the Franklin In?
stitute was not always successful in perceiving or 
influencing the course of development, it played a 
part in the revival of the ceramics industry in the 
1820s, and its records reveal a great deal about 
ceramics manufacture in Philadelphia during the 
period. 
The three judges of the "Committee on Earthen?
ware" for the first Franklin Institute exhibition in 
1824 were Abraham Miller, potter; William Shuffle-
bottom, china merchant; and James Ronaldson, 
letter founder and formerly a partner in the Binny 
& Ronaldson-Alexander Trotter queensware pot?
tery. Combining their knowledge of the production 
and sales aspects of American ceramics, the three 
men expounded at length on the current state of 
the art, the difficulties it faced, and their hopes for 
its development: 
The Specimens of [Abraham Miller's] Pottery Ware (of a 
quality superior to the common coarse Articles, the Manu?
facture of which has long since been estalished) that have 
been presented at the exhibition, though not great in quan?
tity, are nevertheless very interesting to the public, they show 
that we posess [sic] the raw material for this important & 
intricate business. Important, on account of the general & 
increasing consumption of the Articles; intricate, on account 
of the endless modifications the materials are susceptible of, 
and the innumerable processes employed to prepare articles 
of Pottery for the gratification of luxury, as well as the 
ordinary uses of society. 
Considering that the raw materials, which are used in the 
Pottery, while left in the earth, are to their owners & the 
State as if they did not exist; that their manufacture would 
create them a value, & call into action the ingenuity & 
industry of a great number of people, & at the same time 
increase the extent of the home market for the products of 
agricultural & other labour, & by increasing the produce of 
our Country widen the field of Commercial enterprise & 
employment, the Pottery business is highly deserving of 
Public Patronage. 
Although Pottery is one of those branches of industry, 
the product of which is in general demand, it is to be 
remarked that only the making of coarse & heavy articles, 
has been the spontaneous production of European countries, 
& the reason for this grows out of the nature of the busi?
ness: Expensive establishments are necessary, & no previous 
knowledge can save those who begin this trade from the 
errors & imperfections that attend its establishment, a long 
series of experiments must be gone through, before the best 
materials can be found; and before the Potter has become 
acquainted with his Clays, Flints, Earths &c, & the proportion 
in which they must be used to make good Ware, he will, at 
great expense & with extra labour, make a large quantity of 
very inferior ware, which cannot be sold in competition with 
what comes from places where the business is already estab?
lished: these difficulties have given rise to extraordinary 
exertions & various contrivances among the nations of Europe 
to get the Pottery business established in their respective 
countries. 
In consequence of the high perfection to which this 
Business has been brought in some foreign countries, where 
it has interested the National Government, & men of first 
rate genius, & immense Capitals, the combined effects of 
which aided by long experience, has, besides making those 
engaged in the Art perfectly acquainted with all the prop?
erties of the materials, made the Workmen most expert in 
all the various branches of the trade. The American has 
now to compete with the greatest difficulties, difficulties that 
have rendered unsuccessful the few attempts that have been 
made to carry on this business amongst us. 
At present the United States pays for its supply of Pottery 
a considerable tax to foreign industry, and the Pottery 
business holds out to our Citizens a wide field for the 
employment of skill, capital, industry, & a great source of 
wealth. 
Your Committee hope the wisdom of Government & the 
enterprise of our citizens, will render the nation independent 
of foreigners for this necessary of life, the want of which 
will always be severely felt should we unfortunately be 
involved in a European war, & as every privation suffered 
by the people, to a certain extent paralises [sic] the Govern?
ment, the nation & the citizens have an interest in being 
independent of foreigners for the production of the Pottery.48 
The judges had clearly stated the Franklin In?
stitute's and their own opinion that the develop?
ment of an American fine ceramics industry was a 
desirable and?with the assistance of "the National 
Government, & men of first rate genius, & immense 
Capitals"?an achievable goal. The Institute was a 
strong and constant advocate of this view. 
Abraham Miller, a judge of the Committee on 
Earthenware, a member of the Board of Managers, 
18 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
and the only ceramic entrant at the Franklin Insti?
tute's first exhibition, prepared a display designed 
to illustrate the committee's and the Institute's 
viewpoint. His "Platinated or Lustre pitchers, with 
a specimen of Porcelain & of White ware," were 
precisely the sorts of wares that the Institute advo?
cated. These items showed that "we have the 
materials for the various branches of this Manu?
facture." But Miller's entry almost certainly was 
prepared for this first exhibit at the Institute only 
to reinforce the judges' contention that fine wares 
could be made in America, thereby hoping to 
encourage other potters to establish such pro?
duction. There is no evidence that Miller continued 
to make these types of wares on a regular basis. It 
was not until 1845 that any white ware again was 
noted in his Franklin Institute entries.*^ 
The Franklin Institute was not, in fact, able to 
stimulate a successful fine ceramics industry in 
Philadelphia. William Ellis Tucker's porcelain 
factory opened in 1826 and, until its closing in 
1838, the factory delighted the Institute's judges 
with its entries (Figure 14). But this venture, 
though very important as an early American porce?
lain manufactory, was an isolated case. It was 
constantly in financial difficulty and did not stimu?
late the establishment of other fine-ware factories. 
Even Abraham Miller, a spokesman for the Franklin 
Institute, stuck to his dependable market products? 
common earthenware (Figure 9), black-glazed ware, 
earthenware furnaces, and fire bricks?during the 
1820s and 1830s and did not take up the production 
of white earthenware or porcelain. In the absence 
of assistance from the national government in the 
form of an adequate protective tariff and apparently 
in the absence of assistance from "men of . . . im?
mense Capitals," called for by the judges, established 
Philadelphia potters were not willing to take the 
risks involved in such an enterprise.^? 
The Franklin Institute had much more success 
in its encouragement of the Philadelphia red-bodied 
tablewares, such as that made by Abraham Miller 
as early as 1810. During the 1820s red, brown, and 
black "china" was exhibited by Miller and Thomas 
Haig and the judges made extensive comment on 
its importance. 
At the first exhibit in 1824, they said that Abra?
ham Miller's 
Red & Black Glazed Teapots, Coffeepots & other Articles of 
the same description . . . exhibit a growing improvement in 
FIGURE 9.?Glazed earthenware jar, probably made by Abra?
ham Miller. An inscription on the base reads "October / Th 
7 / 183 (?) / A. Miller / Miss Miller" suggesting that the 
piece may have been made by Miller for his unmarried 
sister Rebecca. Height: 23.8 cm. (Collection of the Henry 
Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum.) 
the manufacture, both in the quality & forms of the articles. 
It is but a few years since we were under the necessity of 
importing a considerable proportion of these Articles for 
Home consumption, but since our Potters have discovered the 
Art of making it equally good, if not superior to the Article 
imported, Se rendered it at a price equally low, it has finally 
excluded the imported Article from the American market .si 
In the next year, judgment was rendered that black 
and red tableware 
made by Thomas Haig of Philadelphia, from clay taken in 
the city . . . are considered of very superior quality, and 
are in the opinion of the judges better than goods of the 
same kind, brought from England. The body of the ware is 
perfectly burned and deprived of all absorbent qualities. 
The glaze is good and free from cracks, and the workmanship 
is neat.52 
In 1826 the Committee reported: 
Red Ware . . Coffee pots & Teapots Pitchers Mugs Cake 
moulds &c . . . are of very superior quallity [sic] of their 
NUMBER 43 19 
FIGURE 10.?^Red earthenware pitcher attributed by Edwin 
AtLee Barber to Thomas Haig, c. 1830. A note written by 
Barber and attached to the bottom of the pitcher states: 
"Similar ware from this pottery was exhibited at Franklin 
Institute in 1826 and was awarded a bronze medal for best 
red earthenware. Bought by E. A. Barber Jan. 13, 1891." 
Height: 19.7 cm. (Collection of the Philadelphia Museum of 
Art.) 
kinds . . . . They shew a material improvement since the 
last exhibition and are very creditable to the manufacturers? 
indeed your judges have seen nothing equal to them . . . 
The Black Wares from these factories are also excellent 
and certainly the best of the kind which the Judges have 
seen.53 
In the same year Andrew George, formerly a 
stoneware potter, exhibited tableware for the only 
time. He displayed 
> Andrew George & Co. 
George's "lustre'' is likely to have been black-glazed 
ware rather than true lustre. A heavy concentration 
of the metallic oxide (probably manganese) used to 
10 
8 
5 
2 
4 
I 
Lustre Tea Pots 
" 2 Mugs 6 Pitchers 
Red Tea Pots 
" Pitchers 
" Mugs 
demi PP 
produce the black color, could give the glaze a 
lustrous surface. True lustre, however, was formed 
by the application of metallic salts to an already 
fired glaze. The piece then was refired at a low 
temperature to adhere the lustre. The published 
reports failed to mention George, and in their 
hand-written notes the judges commended him only 
for his "Red Ware" and "Black Wares," the latter 
probably referring to what George had called 
"lustre." It is most unlikely that any genuine at?
tempt at this sophisticated manufacture, however 
poor the outcome, would have been entirely ignored 
since the judges were very anxious to encourage this 
type of production.^* 
By 1827 the "Black and Brown Earthen Ware 
made from the clay of this City by Thomas Haig" 
was said to be a "kind of ware . . now made in 
such perfection that the importation of it has ceased, 
and the manufacturers of such deserve well of the 
Country." ^ ^ 
Such repeated commendations showed both pro?
gressive improvement in the quality of these table?
wares and an interest in the product on the part of 
the judges. Awards were granted not only on 
absolute quality but on the improvement exhibited 
from one year to the next. 
The pitcher illustrated in Figure 10, undoubtedly 
an example of Haig's red tableware, illustrates the 
partly traditional and partly fashionable nature of 
these products. Although this pitcher is an example 
of what was sometimes called "red-glazed ware," the 
glaze itself is not in fact red, but is a clear glaze that 
allows the red color of the clay body to show 
through. A shape typically found on English fine 
earthenware of the period has been formed from 
the local red clay and decorated both with tradi?
tional splashes of brown (probably iron oxide) 
under the clear glaze and with more sophisticated 
narrow bands that probably were incised on a 
turning lathe. No examples of nineteenth-century 
Philadelphia brown-glazed ware have been identi?
fied. 
An example of black-glazed tableware?more 
popular and made over a longer period than the 
red and brown-glazed counterparts?is illustrated 
in Figure 6. Abraham Miller advertised as late as 
1857 that he manufactured "first quality BLACK 
GLAZED TEA POTS." =6 
The Franklin Institute gave some encouragement 
to the manufacture of strictly utilitarian nondeco-
20 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
rative wares. In 1824 the Institute announced 
awards 
to the person who shall have made in Pennsylvania, during 
the year ending September 1, 1825, the largest quantity of fire 
bricks, equal in quality to the imported, and not exceeding 
in price five dollars per 100?A bronzed medal [and] to the 
maker of the best crucibles of earthenware, or other cheap 
material, suitable for brass founders. The crucibles must be 
able to resist heat as well as those made of black lead 
[a misnomer for graphite], and to stand at least seven heats 
in a brass-founder's furnace. They must be capable of 
holding at least forty pounds of metal: one dozen of crucibles 
must be exhibited, together with a certificate of their having 
been made in the United States?A silver medal.^'' 
These heat resistent or refractory materials were 
of secondary importance in the eyes of the judges on 
the earthenware committee. But they were becom?
ing very important to the potters. During the 1820s, 
as potters searched for dependable products that 
would not have to compete with imported English 
tablewares, they began to turn to utilitarian prod?
ucts, for which there would be an increasing 
demand. 
"A few thousand best quality Fire Bricks" were 
offered for sale by the Columbian Pottery in 1813 
though these could have been imported rather than 
made at the manufactory. Fire bricks were made 
by Abraham Miller at least as early as 1821, and an 
1857 source stated that his father, Andrew, had 
made them in the eighteenth century.^^ The Frank?
lin Institute's initiation of an award for fire bricks 
evidently was received with some enthusiasm by 
Thomas Haig and Tucker 8c Bird, both of whom 
exhibited them in 1826.^ ^ 
The manufacture of fire brick is a logical exten?
sion of the potter's trade. Pottery kilns, which reach 
high temperatures, should be lined with a refractory 
material such as fire brick, which is able to with?
stand heights and fluctuations of temperature in 
repeated usage, consequently extending the work?
ing life of the kiln. The same refractory clay of 
which the fire bricks are made can be used by the 
potters to make saggers, protective containers in 
which some types of pottery are fired to facilitate 
kiln stacking of delicate objects or to shield pieces 
from direct contact with the kiln atmosphere. 
By 1823 Abraham Miller had introduced another 
utilitarian product that would be an important part 
of his as well as other Philadelphia potters' out?
put?portable earthenware furnaces. No extant ex?
ample of Miller's furnaces has been identified but 
they probably looked very much like the simple 
FIGURE 11.?Abraham Miller's charcoal-burning portable 
cooking furnaces, made as early as 1823 in "a variety of sizes 
?some calculated to receive a small tea kettle and others a 
large cauldron," with or without bale handle, and "pro?
tected with Iron hoops" undoubtedly were very like the 
simple devices illustrated at top (from the 1833 Albany city 
directory) and bottom left (height: 18 cm, Collection of the 
Oakland Museum). Fuel was placed onto a grate through 
the top of the furnace and the ashes were removed through 
the hole at the bottom. The back of the rim is dished so 
that an opening is left for draft between the cooking vessel 
and the rim. The child's toy (bottom right) is a miniature 
version of a more complex earthenware furnace on which a 
greater number of items could be heated. The fuel was 
placed on the grate through the top opening and the ashes 
were removed from the opening below. The chimney at the 
back created the necessary draft. Height: 24.8 cm. (Collec?
tion of the Monmouth County Historical Society.) 
devices illustrated in Figure 11. Fuel was placed on 
a grate and the ashes could be removed from the 
opening at the bottom. They were "rendered very 
safe & permanent by being protected with Iron 
hoops, or cased with sheet Iron. . . ." ^ ? 
In an 1824 advertisement Miller described the 
utility of these devices in some detail. They appear 
to have been employed primarily in summer either 
in the hearth or outdoors to provide a contained 
source of heat for cooking and laundering, thus 
avoiding the use of a fireplace or large stove that 
would require more fuel and would make the house 
uncomfortably hot. Miller pointed out that "many 
place their furnaces in the yard; and we have heard 
of one lady at least, who has had the backs and jams 
of her kitchen-chimney-place nicely whitewashed, 
being fully determined not to use the same during 
the summer season for any culinary purpose." ?i 
One of their major selling points was minimal 
fuel consumption. Miller related in his 1824 ad 
that "so little fuel is necessary that mention has 
been made to us of one family who did most of their 
cooking in one of these furnaces, and consumed but 
one barrel of charcoal in five weeks!" The Franklin 
Institute agreed that "they comand but a small 
quantity of fuel." "^  
There can be no doubt that these were very suc?
cessful products. In 1824 the judges of the Franklin 
Institute commented on "the extensive sale Sc con?
tinued demand for them" and in 1825 they reported 
that they had "examined a number of Earthen ware 
chaffing vessels, now known in this place by the 
name of Clay furnaces?their goodness and useful-
ALBANY 
Sortalile :f tirtiiite iFactdrs, 
NO. 7U WASHINGTONST. 
J A C O B H E N R Y 
PROPRIETOR, 
Will famish hii cottoBMrt with ail K>f u ?i 
?izet of PORTABLE FURNACEiJ, deliver-
?d al hii factory io Atbaay. 
-He ii ready to furoiali hit cutlomers and the 
public gaDerally? with aoy auaotlty, at a mo 
?iCBt'f waroiog; aod will warrant ibem 
Sual to any ever offered in ,liik roarkei le factory of Mr. Uearj ia tbd fli?t coe ?( 
the kiod ever eatabliahed io Albaoy, and it 
the ooly ooe wheie Portable Fumareo arc at 
fretefit maoufactared. 
Jumt, 1B8S. 
22 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
ness is now so generally known that your Committee 
has only to observe that this specimen of an eco?
nomical mode of having a small fire owes much 
credit to Mr. A. Miller the maker." A Baltimore 
merchant advertised in 1825 that Miller's furnaces 
had "gained such celebrity, from their durability, 
as to need no praise." ^^  
Miller indicated in his 1824 advertisement that 
he "employs thirty eight men and boys in making 
small earthen furnaces for family use, manufactur?
ing weekly about one thousand." Unquestionably 
this was a seasonal occupation, the demand limited 
primarily to the summer months, but the output 
and labor force were nonetheless extremely im?
pressive."* 
Miller's furnaces were "offered for sale [in] a 
variety of sizes?some calculated to receive a small 
tea kettle and others a large cauldron." Undoubt?
edly marketed at his Zane Street pottery, they also 
were sold by at least one Philadelphia china mer?
chant probably by 1824 and definitely between 1825 
and 1829. The price, presumably determined by 
size, ranged between 37i/2 cents to 75 cents "plain" 
and might rise to 871/2 cents with a bale handle. 
They were advertised in Alexandria, Virginia, in 
Baltimore (where they sold for "871/2 cents to $2, 
iron bound and cased"), and undoubtedly else?
where."^ 
If the Franklin Institute was not successful in 
stimulating the particular course of development 
of ceramics production it desired in Philadelphia 
during the 1820s, it did serve other important func?
tions. It showed interest in and encouragement for 
Philadelphia ceramics and it provided a place where 
potters could see the products of other potteries and 
keep up to date with advances made in their in?
dustry. Very importantly, the Franklin Institute 
offered a place for potters to show and thereby 
advertise their products. Large numbers of people 
visited the manufacturers' displays, sometimes as 
many as 40,000 during the short three-day period 
of the exhibit."" 
During the 1820s, Philadelphia potters and the 
Institute's judges often differed concerning the best 
course of development for the ceramics industry. 
The Institute placed most of its emphasis on domes?
tic "china," especially porcelain and white earthen?
ware, but this did not stimulate Philadelphia 
potters to add such wares to their production. The 
outstanding exception, the porcelain factory of Wil?
liam Ellis Tucker, was in continual financial diffi?
culty and only illustrated what potters already 
l^new?that conditions were not conducive to fine-
ware production in Philadelphia. The Institute 
was more successful in encouraging the manufac?
ture of "china" in the form of black-glazed table?
wares, which already had proved themselves stable 
market products. 
The judges failed to give strong emphasis to 
fire bricks and other refractory and utilitarian 
wares, which were, in fact, the most promising 
products. The potters, however, knew the im?
portance of this type of ware and continued to 
expand its manufacture. 
Unlike the Institute's judges who held hopes for 
competitive fine-ware production, potters had no 
such lofty goals. Their concern, quite logically, 
was with products that would maintain or increase 
their profits immediately. In the 1820s this was 
particularly important as they struggled to recover 
from the postwar depression. 
More Clearly Defining 
the New Industry 
In the mid- and late-1820s the Philadelphia 
ceramics industry started to prosper again. An in?
creasingly favorable climate for domestic manu?
factures attracted two major potteries to the city. 
And by the end of the decade, the number of 
potters working in Philadelphia factories began to 
rise after a steady decline since 1814. 
In 1827 one of the city's most important nine?
teenth-century potters, Henry Remmey, Jr., came 
to Philadelphia. On 4 May 1827 Henry Remmey, 
Jr., and Enoch Burnett bought Branch Green's 
stoneware factory near Germantown Road and 
Second Street for $3800."^ In January of the next 
year, Burnett and Remmey advertised themselves 
as Green's successors: 
OLD STONEWARE 
ESTABLISHMENT 
Burnett & Remmey, successors to Branch Green, respectfully 
inform their friends and dealers generally in that article, 
that they have purchased Branch Green's Establishment, near 
the forks of Second Street and the Germantown Road, where 
they manufacture and keep on hand, an extensive assortment 
of Stone and Earthenware, of a superior quality, and will 
supply orders of any amount, as low as any in the City.es 
NUMBER 43 23 
FIGURE 12.?Stoneware face pitcher attributed to Henry Remmey, Philadelphia; dated 1838. 
The name of Lewis Eyre, a Philadelphia resident, is stamped on the collar. Height: 24 cm. 
(Collection of the Smithsonian Institution.) 
24 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
FIGURE 13.?Stoneware pitcher made by Henry Remmey. The inscription below the handle 
reads: "Muvy [or Mary] P Hall / by her friend / Henry Remmey." Height: 25 cm. (Collec?
tion of Howard and Catherine Feldman.) 
Henry Remmey, Jr., was the great grandson of 
John Remmey (Johannes Remmi), who had come to 
Manhattan from the Rhine Valley around 1731 and 
was one of the first potters to make stoneware in 
this country. Henry's father, Henry Remmey, Sr., 
had left New York and gone south to Baltimore by 
1817, at which time he appears as a potter in that 
city's directory. In 1820 Jacob Myers' Baltimore 
"Stone ware establishment [was] conducted by 
Henry Remmy & Son, late of N.York" ("& Son" 
certainly referring to Henry Remmey, Jr.). In 1824, 
Henry, Jr., first is noted as a potter in the Baltimore 
directory. No Henry Remmey (junior or senior) is 
listed in Baltimore after 1829; both men may have 
moved to Philadelphia by that date. Henry Rem?
mey, Sr., is not heard from again until 1839 and 
1840 when, probably an old man, he is listed as 
"Gent" in Philadelphia."^ 
Henry Remmey's partner, Enoch Burnett, un?
doubtedly was the person of that name who was a 
potter's apprentice in Baltimore in 1813. Although 
Burnett does not appear in the Philadelphia direc?
tories until 1829, the 1827 deed for the purchase of 
the Green property indicates that he already was a 
resident of the city. He is not listed in Baltimore 
or Philadelphia during any of the intervening years. 
Burnett may have come to Philadelphia in advance 
of Remmey to complete the transactions with 
NUMBER 43 25 
Branch Green or he may have been working as a 
potter there when the opportunity arose to buy the 
Green factory. Remmey, however, was the major 
figure in the business and he bought out his partner 
in 1831 for $2000. Burnett continues to be Hsted as 
a potter in the Philadelphia directories as late as 
1836. He had returned to Baltimore by 1840.'^ ? 
Henry Remmey, Jr., was very successful in his 
Philadelphia pottery. After buying out Burnett, he 
expanded his holdings in 1834, 1835, and 1836 to 
include seven additional properties in the area sur?
rounding the pottery. Apparently doing well, he 
advertised regularly between 1833 and 1835 in 
Paulson's Advertiser that "he always has, at the 
above old established factory, for sale, on pleasing 
terms, an extensive assortment of STONEWARE," 
and "that he has constantly on hand, . . . a large 
assortment of Stoneware, such as Jugs, Jars, Pitchers, 
Butter Pots, Water Jars, Milk Pans, Filtering Jars, 
etc. etc. Articles made to order at the shortest 
notice." '^ i (See Figures 12, 13 for examples of Henry 
Remmey's stoneware.) 
William Ellis Tucker, like Henry Remmey, found 
the climate of the reviving ceramics industry during 
the 1820s favorable enough to establish a manu?
factory in Philadelphia. But his porcelain venture 
met with far less success than Henry Remmey's 
stoneware factory. 
With the financial and moral assistance of his 
father, Benjamin, always a major influence on the 
business, William Ellis Tucker opened a factory in 
Philadelphia in 1826 (see Figure 14). In October of 
that year he exhibited at the Franklin Institute 
three small, white earthenware jugs, but noted that 
time and apparently the incomplete state of his 
works had prevented him from including examples 
of his porcelain. By February of the next year, 
however, he advertised that 
a Few pair of American China Pitchers, manufactured by 
William Ellis Tucker, at his Factory, at the North West 
corner of Schuylkill Front and Chesnut-streets, being a part 
of his first kiln, may be had at his Father's, No. 44 North 
Fifth-street . . . after the 20th of March, a constant supply 
of assorted American China and fine Earthenware, will be 
kept for sale at W. E. Tucker's Ware House, No. 46 North 
Fifth-street . . . . 
The Franklin Institute judges that year commended 
Tucker "for the degree of perfection to which he 
has brought this valuable and difficult art." ^ ^ 
The Institute consistently praised Tucker's porce?
lain. In 1828 the judges reported "that they have 
compared [Tucker's] sample, called technically 'first 
choice,' with the best specimens of French China, 
and found it superior in whiteness, and the gilding 
well done. The same remark applies to the paint?
ing, with some exceptions; this part of the process 
being still susceptible of some improvement." In 
1830 "much improvement was apparent, especially 
in the painting and other ornamental parts, and the 
committee remark that the forms are generally 
chaste, and copied from the best models." Similar 
commendations continued in 1831, 1833, and 1835. 
An "American gentleman in Paris [writing] to his 
friend in Chester County," Pennsylvania on 29 Oc?
tober 1830 remarked that "among the specimens of 
porcelain from all quarters of the globe, that from 
PHILADELPHIA is ranked second to the French, 
which is the first. All that is wanting in TUCKER'S 
Manufactory to make the article equal if not su?
perior is the moulding." ^^  
The Tucker enterprise was a very significant early 
attempt to make porcelain in America and, as the 
judges noted, the products were creditable imita?
tions of the imported counterparts (see Figure 14). 
But the factory was constantly in financial straits 
and never was a prosperous business. In his first 
year in operation. Tucker attempted to ease his 
financial worries by taking on a partner, John N. 
Bird, and in 1828 he took another, John Hulme 
(see Figure 14a,6). Neither association lasted more 
than a year. 
Next he sought government aid by appealing 
to President Andrew Jackson. 
I am emboldened to present the following proposition for 
your consideration and with profound respect submit to 
your superior wisdom & judgment to dispose of it as you 
sense of the interests of the country may justify, viz. In 
consideration of twenty thousand dollars being served to me 
by Congress, I will bind myself to impart to the Government 
of the United States after receiving the sum a complete 
and perfect knowledge of every branch of my business in 
the formation of American Porcelain, so that the discovery 
shall for ever be secured to the country.^4 
Not a president to encourage federal support of 
private enterprise, Jackson rejected the proposal as 
unconstitutional, though he did place an order with 
the Tuckers for a porcelain service. 
Unsuccessful in this request, both Benjamin and 
William Ellis Tucker took their plea for help to the 

NUMBER 43 27 
FIGURE 14.?^Vase-shaped pitcher (a) with lavish overglaze 
enamel polychrome fruit and floral decoration characteristic 
of Tucker's porcelain and the contemporary European styles 
it emulated; made in 1828 during Tucker's brief association 
with John Hulme as indicated in the detail of the base in 
b. Height: 24 cm. (Collection of the Smithsonian Institu?
tion.) c. Tea light made at the Tucker and Hemphill por?
celain manufactory, c. 1833-1835. A candle or oil flame kept 
food or drink warm on the top and at the same time radiated 
light through the translucent porcelain chimney. Drawn in 
sepia on the teapot is a scene of the Fairmount Water Works 
in Philadelphia; on the chimney is a rustic landscape. 
Height: 28.5 cm. (Collection of the Philadelphia Museum 
of Art, Bequest of Bertha L. Landis.) d, Porcelain vase made 
in the mid-I830s as a commemorative piece showing a 
polychrome overglaze enamel vignette of the Tucker manu?
factory at its first location in the old Philadelphia Water?
works. Three white pitchers apparently have been set out to 
dry on the fence at the left; to the right, black smoke is rising 
from the top of a firing bottle kiln. The amphora shape, 
caryatid handles, and heavy use of gilding exemplify the 
pervasive influence of the English and French Empire style 
on the products of the factory. This vase was decorated by 
Thomas Tucker, William Ellis Tucker's brother and the 
factory's chief designer and decorator. Height: 36.1 cm. 
(Collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Gift of 
Eliza Amanda Tucker in Memory of Thomas Tucker.) 
FIGURE 15.?Porcelain pitcher, signed in red on the base: 
"Smith Fife & Co. / Manufacturers / Phila." Smith and Fife 
are thought to have been former Tucker workmen who made 
a brief and unsuccessful attempt to compete with him in 
1830. This, according to family tradition, was one of two 
pitchers exhibited at the Franklin Institute in 1830. Height: 
19 cm. (Collection of The Brooklyn Museum.) 
senators from Pennsylvania and to two members of 
the United States House of Representatives, by 
means of William's letter that offered 
a proposition to Congress, that if they would give me $40,000 
to enable me to put up a handsome manufactory, and to 
increase my business I would convey to the United States, 
a complete description of the difficult art of making porcelain, 
so as to secure for ever the benefit of the discovery to our 
country.75 
This too was refused. 
In 1831 Tucker finally met with some financial 
relief through the partnership purchased by Judge 
Joseph Hemphill. Hemphill's $7000 investment pro?
vided the capital needed to move and expand the 
factory, but William Ellis died in the next year. 
Though the factory appears to have had a period of 
moderate success under Hemphill, personal and 
national financial difficulties forced him to give up 
the business in 1837, at which time he leased it to 
Thomas Tucker, William's brother and the pottery's 
chief decorator. The factory was closed altogether 
in 1838.''? 
One reason for the chronic difficulty of the porce?
lain manufactory may have been a failure to adver?
tise adequately as was suggested by Poulson's Ameri?
can Daily Advertiser, which editorialized on 24 Jan?
uary 1831 that 
Tucker has great merit for his ingenuity, enterprise and 
perseverance. . . One thing he seems to need?the bell and 
the speaking trumpet. It is vain that he makes the most 
splendid ware in the world, unless he lets the public know 
it. Once telling is not enough?more noise should be made 
about it. He and his friends, and the friends of American 
Industry, should arouse public attention to the manufacture. 
The divergent experiences of Remmey and Tucker 
suggest, however, that the latter's failure was caused 
by more profound factors that had to do with the 
nature of the American ceramics industry during 
this period. 
The manufacture of stoneware was a relatively 
simple process and was becoming well established 
throughout the country. The major drawback to its 
widespread production?accessibility of materials? 
had steadily diminished as the nation's transporta-
28 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
tion network expanded. Stoneware was a solid mar?
ket product and would prove adaptable to the city's 
industrial future. 
T h e manufacture of porcelain was considerably 
more complicated and Tucker had embarked on a 
much more speculative venture than Remmey. T h e 
problems of such manufacture were much the same 
as they had been immediately after the war. T h o u g h 
the materials for porcelain production were present 
in America (Tucker's major porcelain ingredients, 
kaolin and feldspar, came primarily from Pennsyl?
vania and Delaware, respectively). Tucker had diffi?
culty working with these unfamiliar elements. Ben?
jamin recorded some of his early problems in an 
1827 letter: 
The difficulties he [William Ellis] has since met with, from 
the detection of foreign substances in our American mate?
rials, that at a high temperature form new chemical com?
binations, which destroy either the beauty or the texture 
of the ware has greatly obstructed his progress.^? 
In 1828 he noted that "more than fifteen thousand 
Dollars have been expended in bringing it porcelain 
[sic] to its present perfection." ^^  
T h e investment required to equip the pottery 
was great and the labor costs were very high. T h e 
Franklin Institute had pointed out that "most of 
the capital expended [in porcelain manufacture] is 
for labour." ^^  Either native workmen had to be 
trained in the unfamiliar techniques or a new labor 
force had to be imported from England or France. 
T h e porcelain produced through such effort and 
expenditure had little hope of competing favorably 
with imports from the established foreign factories. 
These problems were compounded by a short de?
pression in 1834 and another, of longer duration, in 
1837-1838. T h e latter undoubtedly was a factor in 
the closing of the factory. 
Tucker 's was not the only pottery that closed 
during the 1830s. Though the well-established 
Remmey, Haig, and Miller potteries weathered the 
alternating periods of prosperity and depression 
that characterized the 1830s, several smaller, more 
marginal establishments did not. Four of Philadel?
phia's traditional potteries closed in the short period 
between the print ing of the 1833 and the 1835-1836 
directories.^^ 
T h e Gilbert family pottery, which was operating 
before 1785 on Branch Street between T h i r d and 
Fourth, is not listed in the directories after 1833, nor 
is there any indication that another potter took over 
the site. Michael Gilbert, the principal figure in the 
pottery, died in 1831. Henry Gilbert, probably his 
son, continued to work as a potter at least unt i l 1860 
but is listed at a great variety of addresses after 
1833 and obviously was not operating the family 
pottery.^i 
T h e last of a series of potteries that had operated 
along Nor th Second Street, some of them since the 
late-eighteenth century, finally was closed during 
the 1830s. T h e Miller and Moser pottery at 310 
Nor th Second is listed in the city directories for the 
last time in 1833. In the 1835-1836 directory, Daniel 
K. Miller appears as an accountant. George Moser, 
his brother-in-law and former partner in the pottery, 
worked as a potter for the last time in 1837.^^ 
T h e pottery of John and Daniel Linker at 302 
Nor th Second Street is listed in the city directory 
for the last time in 1833. Neither man was potting 
in Philadelphia after 1836. By 1833 J o h n Keichhne 
had withdrawn from the pottery of Keichline and 
Haslet at 314 Nor th Second Street and, though 
William Haslet advertised in that year that he was 
continuing to operate the business, it is not listed 
in the 1835-1836 directory; Haslet appears therein 
as "capt of watch." ^^  
T h e closing of these potteries may, in part, have 
been the consequence of their presence on land 
that had become more densely settled and more 
valuable as the city expanded. T h e ever-present 
danger of fire along with the noisomeness of smoke 
and fumes from the kiln, made potteries increas?
ingly unwelcome as areas grew more crowded. 
T h e map in Figure 32 indicates that potters 
showed a tendency to locate themselves away from 
the center of Philadelphia as early as the 1790s. 
Population growth occurred in an arc-like pattern 
centered on the Delaware River at the eastern end 
of the City of Philadelphia (bounded by the two 
rivers on the east and west and by Vine and Cedar 
(also called South) streets on the nor th and south). 
T h e pottery industry retreated from this expanding 
arc of development; relocated and new potteries 
appeared in the less densely settled nor thern and 
southern districts of surrounding Philadelphia 
County and in the western part of the city. 
In the 1790s, six potteries (indicated by numbers 
19, 20, and 21 on the map) were operating in the 
southeastern quarter of Nor thern Liberties, beyond, 
but still close to, the nor thern city limit. Between 
1800 and 1850, fourteen potteries (1, 4 -11 , 13-15, 
NUMBER 43 29 
^ R 
m / 
L ^ ^ 
K 
1^  
"'ft 
H H H P ' 
w^ 
l n ^ 
' - " 
( i 
^i J 
FIGURE 16.?Red earthenware mold used by Isaac Spiegel for 
the drape molding of small dishes; marked "Isaac Spiegel 
July 4th 1854." Diameter: 9.7 cm. (Collection of the Phila?
delphia Museum of Art.) 
17, 18) were established farther afield in the north?
ern sector of that district and in the more remote 
Penn, Kensington, and Spring Garden districts 
north of Vine Street. South of Cedar (the southern 
city limit), two potteries (31, 32) were established 
in the 1790s and three more by 1850 (33, 34, 35). 
West of Broad Street, five potteries (38-43) ap?
peared between 1800 and 1850.8* 
Conversely, by 1850 only one pottery (30) was still 
operating in the city east of Broad Street, where a 
total of twelve (22-30, 36, 37) had operated be?
tween 1800 and 1850. And even in the few blocks 
of southeastern Northern Liberties that once had 
been the northern outreaches of development, no 
potteries were established after 1819 and all were 
gone by 1840. 
The four traditional potteries that closed in the 
mid-1830s (20, 24) were in the path of population 
expansion. As they became more obtrusive and 
the land more valuable for other purposes, they 
must have been pressured to move out. Their fail?
ure to re-establish themselves elsewhere in the city, 
however, suggests that reasons other than location 
must also have been involved. All were, as far as 
we know, small-scale producers of domestic items 
of a common traditional type. Still clinging to the 
craft traditions, these simple shops probably were 
being surpassed by larger, more progressive potteries 
that were modernizing to meet changing demands. 
This likelihood is reinforced by a comparison of 
the inventory of the pottery of Michael Gilbert 
made at his death in 1831 and another for the 
pottery of Thomas Haig who died in the same year. 
The "Artickles in the Pottery'' of Michael Gilbert 
totalled $182.00 while Thomas Haig's were valued 
at $638.50. The Haig pottery was making com?
mon earthenware but it was also making the newer 
refractory ware as indicated by $20.00 worth of 
fire brick and $6.00 worth of brick molds included 
in the inventory. Also listed are $30.00 worth of 
"Sagers," used for firing finer quality ware, and 
$15.00 in "Moulds," (distinguished from brick 
molds) undoubtedly being used for the production 
of the popular black-glazed ware that Haig had 
been making for at least seven years, Michael 
Gilbert's inventory, on the other hand, gives no 
indication that he was making anything but the 
standard traditional earthenware. His inventory 
includes no mention of fire bricks or fine ware. It 
does include $5.00 worth of "Moulds" but these 
are more likely to have been used for the traditional 
slab- or drape-molding of shallow forms (Figure 16) 
than the forming of the more sophisticated black-
glazed hollow ware.8? 
While Haig had undertaken the production of 
refractory earthenware and black-glazed ware, 
Michael Gilbert, and probably the Second Street 
potters as well, were still operating within the old 
traditions. The days were numbered for such 
small, conservative potteries in any case but the 
periods of economic depression in the 1830s no 
doubt speeded up the process. 
The disappearance of these Philadelphia pot?
teries at the particular point between 1833 and 
1836, before the crisis of 1837-1838, may be related 
to the economic difficulties generated by the battle 
between President Jackson and Nicholas Biddle 
over the rechartering of the Second Bank of the 
United States, which was in Philadelphia. Jackson's 
re-election in 1832 virtually assured that the Bank, 
to which he was outspokenly opposed, would not 
survive after 1836 when its charter expired. Biddle, 
President of the Bank, in an effort to convince 
businessmen that the Bank was vital to their well-
being, reduced the number of loans from August 
1833 to 1 November 1834 on a pretense of closing 
out the doomed Bank's affairs. The effect was 
30 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
FIGURE 17.?Glazed earthenware cake mold stamped "J&T 
HAIG" on the rim (detail enlarged in lower illustration); 
made by James and Thomas Haig, 183I-I878. There was a 
market for this type of common household earthenware 
throughout much of the nineteenth century. Diameter: 
22.9 cm. (Collection of the Smithsonian Institution.) 
devastating to many businesses and for a time suc?
cessfully convinced businessmen that deflation in?
evitably would result when the Bank closed. If 
indeed these traditional potteries were declining 
by the early 1830s, it is quite possible that Biddle's 
short term contraction of loans led to their destruc?
tion. 
The failure of these potteries further reinforced 
the tendencies in Philadelphia ceramics manufac?
ture that had been established in the preceding 
decade. Though there would be some demand for 
traditional kitchen earthenware throughout the 
century (Figure 17), urban potters in an indus?
trializing city like Philadelphia no longer could 
depend solely on their traditional product. They 
were forced to adapt to new demands if they were 
to survive. For Philadelphia potters the future was 
more promising in the development of utilitarian 
products, than in a venture such as Tucker's por?
celain factory that still had to compete with im?
ported counterparts on unfavorable terms. 
A Period of Expansion 
Historians generally agree that a period of rapid 
growth took place in the American economy some?
time between 1815 and 1850, though there is dis?
agreement about precisely when this began.8<5 
In the Philadelphia potteries the potential for 
economic and industrial expansion was evident in 
the war and postwar period. But development fol?
lowed a fluctuating course between the war and 
the 1837-1838 depression. A shift away from the 
traditional handcraft of the eighteenth century 
toward the industry of the nineteenth was taking 
place, but only gradually. 
In the 1840s the national and local environment 
was finally conducive to the exploitation of the 
growing potential for expansion. National devel?
opments?widening of domestic markets both in 
the coastal cities and into the West, urbanization, 
improvements in transportation, and the evolution 
of new technology?encouraged the advent of 
industrialization. 
In Philadelphia, local factors were working to?
ward the same ends. Though the city had been 
surpassed in size and importance by New York by 
1820, its growth in the first half of the ninetenth 
century was impressive. In 1800 the population of 
Philadelphia County had been 81,009 but by 1850 
it grew to 408,762, adding over 150,000 residents 
between 1840 and 1850. In 1800 the city still had 
been huddled close to the Delaware River but by 
1820 it was growing rapidly and it reached a peak 
in the 1840s, expanding primarily into the northern 
and western suburbs.^^ 
Once the commercial center of the nation, Phil?
adelphia lost much of its trade to New York in the 
first half of the century, giving up not only a 
profitable import but also re-export trade. Phila^ 
delphia successfully shifted emphasis to manufac?
turing and by 1850 it was a leading industrial 
center. Textiles, followed by metal and chemical 
industries, flourished in the 1820s, 1830s, and 1840s. 
Coastal export of Pennsylvania coal expanded 
NUMBER 43 31 
Steadily between 1820 and 1850 bringing enormous 
coastal export profits to the city.^^ 
These national and local developments stimu?
lated great prosperity and change in the Philadel?
phia ceramics industry. Betwen 1840 and 1850 the 
value of Philadelphia's ceramic output, as reflected 
in the census of manufactures for each of those 
years, more than doubled. A total output of $52,800 
in 1840 had become $122,350 in 1850. Even more 
impressive was the leap in "Capital invested," which 
expanded from only $31,600 in 1840 to $119,200 in 
1850, indicating a great optimism about the in?
dustry's future. The number of potteries operating 
in Philadelphia increased by slightly more than 
50 percent during the decade.^^ 
The types and styles of wares manufactured in 
the Philadelphia potteries changed markedly dur?
ing the 1840s. Simple black-glazed tableware made 
from the local red clay began to give way to a 
new and decorative molded ware that reflected the 
growing nineteenth-century taste for elaboration. 
Made from a finer white or buff-colored earthen?
ware clay, forms followed the current English styles. 
They were glazed in a variety of ways, and described 
as "White Ware," "Yellow Ware," or "Rockingham 
Ware," the last referring to a mottled, brown-glazed 
ware. The term "Rockingham" was adopted from 
a similar ware made at Rockingham in Swinton, 
Yorkshire, England. Two Philadelphia examples 
of "Rockingham Ware" are illustrated in Figures 
18 and 19. 
FIGURE 18.?Rockingham-glazed shaving mug, attributed to 
Abraham Miller, about 1848. Height: II.4 cm. (Collection of 
the Philadelphia Museum of Art.) 
FIGURE 19.?Rockingham-glazed shaving mug, attributed to 
Abraham Miller, with detail of the base showing a paper 
label written by Edwin AtLee Barber: "Shaving Mug, / 
Rockingham. / Made by Abraham Miller / Philadelphia / 
about 1848. / Procured from Thos F. Darragh [a workman 
in Miller's factory] / Septem. 1891." Height: 10.8 cm. (Collec?
tion of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.) 
32 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
English white earthenware had been greatly 
admired and its production attempted by American 
potters for decades. Now expanding domestic 
markets made it economically feasible for American 
potters to imitate some of the more sophisticated 
types of English ware with the assurance that there 
would be some demand for their products. Con?
current improvements in transportation made it less 
expensive for potters to transport raw materials 
to their potteries and finished ware to a geographi?
cally widening market. The migration of workers 
from the Staffordshire potteries between 1839 and 
1850 provided much of the skilled labor force 
essential to fine-ware manufacture. 
The exploitation of the molding process was a 
key element in the expansion of the manufacture of 
decorative ceramics during the 1840s. Its potential 
for elaboration made molding very suitable to the 
growing taste for highly decorated ware, while its 
capacity for speed and repetition made it essential 
to the development of mass production. A historian 
of American ceramics has commented that the 
introduction of these types of molded wares was 
an "innovation, which . . . had the indirect effect 
of transforming potteries into factories." ?^ This 
is so not simply because molding was introduced? 
that had happened much earlier?but because, 
during the 1840s, other elements in the society and 
the economy prompted the adaptation of the process 
to mass production on a large scale, which in turn 
led to the development of factories. 
Molding was not a new process to American 
potters. It had been in widespread use in eigh?
teenth-century English factories and was employed 
in isolated instances in America in that century 
as well.^i 
Though innovators in New Jersey eventually 
took the lead in the adaptation of molding to mass 
production of the new light-bodied wares, Philadel?
phia potters were in the forefront of the use of 
molding in the United States in the early nine?
teenth century. John Mullowny made "Pressed 
Ware" in 1812 and the Seixas pitcher illustrated in 
Figure 5 was press-molded. It seems likely that 
Alexander Trotter and Daniel Freytag also would 
have used molds in their wartime production of 
fine earthenware.^2 
Abraham Miller probably had introduced the 
regular use of press-molding in his manufacture of 
black-glazed ware by 1821. An inventory of the 
pottery made in that year includes nine dollars' 
worth of "Plaster, and other moulds." ^^  Plaster 
molds are likely to be used in making refined ware, 
where absorption of the moisture from the clay in 
order to free the form from the mold is more criti?
cal than in the production of less complex ware? 
bricks or traditional drape-molded plates. Molds 
for the latter are more likely to be made of clay 
or wood (see Figure 16). 
In 1825 Thomas Haig's Franklin Institute entry 
included "One Black half gallon Pitcher, (dia?
mond)," suggesting that Haig may have been mak?
ing molded pitchers similar in form to the Seixas 
example in Figure 5. We know also that in 1825 
Haig, through a Philadelphia china merchant, was 
marketing oval teapots?forms that cannot be 
thrown on a potter's wheel and certainly were being 
made in molds.^* 
It was not until the mid- to late-1840s that Phila?
delphia potters began production of light-bodied 
decorative ware in the new taste. Abraham Miller 
advertised "White, Yellow, or Rockingham Ware" 
in 1849 and may have made them somewhat 
earlier.^^ 
As late as 1835 he still was exhibiting his stan?
dard "black and red earthenware" at the Franklin 
Institute. In the next two exhibitions in 1838 and 
1840, Miller did not enter a display but in 1842 
he presented "the finer kinds of earthenware, as 
plates, vases, and ornamental flower pots. . . ." "^ 
This could have been a display of decorative 
molded ware in a light clay body and of a style 
similar to the wares being produced in New Jersey. 
It is logical that Miller, always an innovator, would 
have been attempting to keep up with the changing 
market. In 1843, however, he was chided by the 
judges for failing to develop a more timely and 
sophisticated ware. "The success that has attended 
the efforts of Mr. Miller in the manufacture of 
common earthenware, should prompt him to at?
tempt a competition with the foreign article in the 
finer kinds." ?^  It was not, in fact, until 1845 that 
"white ware" was specifically mentioned as part 
of his exhibit. 
No. 1546, earthenware, made and deposited by Abraham 
Miller, Philadelphia. This ware from Mr. Miller is better 
than any he has before exhibited, and it is particularly 
gratifying to observe the great improvement in the white 
ware. This alone merits the First Premium; but Mr. Miller 
being a member of the Board of Managers of the Institute, 
the regulations forbid any award.98 
NUMBER 43 33 
By 1849 white, yellow, and Rockingham wares were 
standard products in his factory. The Rocking?
ham-glazed mugs in Figures 18 and 19, dated about 
1848, are attributed to Miller. 
The increased demand for decorative molded 
ware prompted the establishment of new potteries 
in Philadelphia. Ralph Bagnall Beech, a potter 
from Staffordshire, was working in Philadelphia by 
1846 when he was awarded a "Third Premium" at 
the Franklin Institute for a "small lot of earthen?
ware . . . a good article,?well finished." ^^  In 
1851 he exhibited the following: 
No. 2607. Japanning on Earthenware, by R. B. Beech, 
Kensington. The japanning is well done, and some of the 
decorations beautifully executed. A Third Premium 
Japanning on an earthenware body is to the judges a new 
feature in the arts, and admits of a wide application.ioo 
Practised as early as the seventeenth century, 
japanning was an imitation of Oriental lacquer 
but it usually was accomplished by applications of 
special types of varnish rather than the complicated 
and delicate process of true lacquering. During the 
period that Beech was working, japanning?par?
ticularly on metal and papier-mach^?was experi-
FIGURE 20.?Hexagonal vase (a) made by Ralph Bagnall 
Beech and decorated with a portrait of Stephen Girard. The 
piece illustrates a japanning process patented by Beech in 
1851 in which a water color and varnish mixture, rather 
than a glaze, was applied to an earthenware surface "for 
ornamental purposes." Height: 40.8 cm. (Collection of the 
Philadelphia Museum of Art.) On the base is an indistinct 
mark: "RALPH B BEECH / . . / JU . . . / KENSING?
TON PA." This probably is the same as the mark shown 
more clearly on a fragment (b) excavated in Philadelphia. 
Height: 9.5 cm. (Collection of Independence National His?
torical Park.) 
34 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
encing a great popularity, especially in England 
where it was produced in considerable quantity. 
Beech, in applying the process to earthenware, is 
said to have hired a Philadelphia japanner, D. D. 
Dick, to assist in the execution of the first pieces 
of the new ware. In 1851 Beech was granted a 
patent for an "Improvement in Ornamenting 
Baked Earthenwares"?a varnishing technique that 
unquestionably was japanning?that included the 
inlaying of "pearls [probably mother-of-pearl, which 
was popular as inlay in japanning], gems, etc.'' 
No. 8140.?Improvement in Ornamenting Baked Earthen?
wares. 
I do not intend herein to claim the general application of 
oil-painting to china or earthenware; but what I do claim 
as my invention, and desire to secure by letters patent, is? 
First. The application of coloring water mixed with 
varnish, or its equivalent, to the surface of baked earthen?
wares, for the purpose of giving to such ware a surface of 
sufficient body, and of sufficient brilliancy, for ornamental 
purposes; thus obviating the necessity of the glazing process, 
substantially as herein described. 
Second. The inlaying of pearls, gems, &c., on china and 
baked earthenware, for ornamental purposes, substantially as 
herein above described. 
Third. The peculiar cement and process by which I 
affix pearls and gems to the china or baked earthenware. 
RALPH B . BEECH loi 
The vase in Figure 20 has been identified as an 
example of this style of surface decoration. On 
its base is an indistinct mark that can be read 
only as "RALPH B BEECH / . . . / JU . . . / 
KENSINGTON PA" but probably was meant to 
read "RALPH B. BEECH, / PATENT, / JUNE 
3, 1851, / KENSINGTON, PA." as is shown on 
the base fragment also illustrated in Figure 20. 
The vase is decorated with a full-length portrait of 
Stephen Girard in white on a blue-black ground 
(presumably "coloring water mixed with varnish") 
with elaborate gilt detailing. The use of gilt was 
commonly found in japanning of other materials. 
Beech is said to have produced a number of vases 
decorated with portraits of prominent men by 
William Crombie, a landscape and floral painter 
from Edinburgh.i?2 
Two vases illustrating both the varnishing and 
inlaying techniques described in the patent are 
mentioned by Barber in the third edition of The 
Pottery and Porcelain of the United States, pub?
lished in 1909. These vases were at that time in 
the possession of Beech's daughter. Similar in form 
to the example shown in Figure 20, they also were 
mi^m 
FIGURE 21.?Earthenware pitcher molded in the likeness of 
Daniel O'Connell, an Irish patriot; attributed to the Haig 
pottery, 1891. According to Barber, the Haigs' O'Connell 
pitchers were made from an old mold that had been used at 
Ralph Bagnall Beech's pottery. Height: 18.5 cm. (Collec?
tion of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.) 
"richly ornamented with clusters of fruit and flow?
ers inlaid in mother-of-pearl. The ground is black 
enamel, filled to the surface of the pearl and rubbed 
smooth." 1?^  
Beech was relatively successful in the potting 
business in Philadelphia. By 1850 his pottery 
employed 11 workers and his annual output was 
$4500. In addition to japanned ware, he also made 
yellow and Rockingham wares among which was a 
portrait pitcher molded in the likeness of an Irish 
patriot Daniel O'Connell who died in 1847 (Figure 
21).104 
In 1852 Beech is listed in the city directory as a 
"porcelain manuf" rather than a "potter." He had 
in fact made porcelain as early as 1851 when his 
Franklin Institute entry included "Porcelain Flower 
and Scent Vases" as well as japanned earthenware. 
Beech is listed as a porcelain manufacturer through 
NUMBER 43 35 
1857 when, according to Barber, he left Philadel?
phia for Honduras "in the interest of the Honduras 
Inter-Oceanic Railway" and died there of yellow 
fever soon after his arrival.i?^ 
The location of Beech's porcelain manufactory 
is not known. It is possible that he was connected 
with a second new enterprise during his years as a 
porcelain manufacturer. In 1853 and 1854 Kurl-
baum and Schwartze, Kensington, displayed por?
celain at the Franklin Institute. They are listed in 
the city directories as porcelain manufacturers as 
late as 1859. Charles Kurlbaum and John T. 
Schwartze were chemists, not potters, and it is pos?
sible that Ralph Beech was hired by them to 
operate their porcelain works on North Front 
Street. The overlap in dates of activity between 
the two porcelain ventures and the fact that Beech 
listed no address for a manufactory of his own, 
make a connection between the two undertakings 
possible.i"" 
The Franklin Institute found the porcelairi dis?
play of Kurlbaum & Schwartze 
the best American porcelain we have ever seen. The body is 
perfectly vitreous, and in this respect equal to the best 
French. The style of shapes is good, but not original; the 
edges, &c., are well finished, and, in fact, the deposit is 
nearly equal to the best French or English porcelain ware.io'' 
Examples of porcelain made by Kurlbaum and 
Schwartze are in the collection of the Philadelphia 
Museum of Art (see Figure 22). 
More important than decorative ware in stimu?
lating the intense development in the Philadelphia 
ceramics industry during the 1840s was the increas?
ing manufacture of refractories, general utility ware, 
and chemical stoneware. The production of fire 
brick was greatly expanded during the 1840s as 
the demand for them increased for blast furnace 
linings, boiler settings, and other industrial pur?
poses. And refractory clay was adapted to other 
domestic and industrial forms that required its 
heat-resistant properties. 
By 1840, utilitarian wares, especially refractories, 
were produced widely enough to warrant inclusion 
in the classification system used by the commercial 
city directory. The heading "Manufacturers of 
Earthen Pottery Ware, of every description" was 
expanded to read "Manufacturers of Earthen Pot?
tery ware, of every description. Stove Cylinders, 
Portable Furnaces, Fire-Bricks and Slabs, &c &c." 
Such wares were an important part of Abraham 
Miller's output by 1840 when he advertised the 
sale of 
a large Assortment of PORTABLE FURNACES, STOVE 
CYLINDERS, FIRE BRICKS and SLABS, TEA-POTS and 
FIGURE 22.?Teapot (height: 21.8 cm), two cups and saucers, cream, and sugar (height; 17.6 cm) 
from a dinner service made at the porcelain manufactory of Kurlbaum and Schwartze, 1853-
1859. (Collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.) 
36 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
EARTHENWARE, PIPE CASES, DENTISTS' FURNACES, 
MUFFLES, SLIDES, &c. &c.?KAOLIN and CLAYS, crude 
or prepared; SILEX and SPAR, crude or levigated to an 
impalpable powder, and free from impurities. 
Interesting are the "Dentists' Furnaces," probably 
similar in scale and design to his cooking fur?
naces.i?^ By 1845 Miller also was making "Drug?
gists' Wedgwood, Imitation Mortars and Pestles, 
of all sizes, superior and excellent articles; also 
Ointment and Pill Pots, Tiles, Preserving Pots." i?^ 
And by 1849 the variety and extent of his utilitarian 
output was impressive, apparently outstripping his 
common earthenware and tableware production. 
SPRING GARDEN POTTERY, 
Willow Street, below Broad, 
PHILADELPHIA. 
ABRAHAM MILLER, 
MANUFACTURER OF 
Portable Dentists' and Culinary Furnaces, Stove Cylinders, 
Fire Bricks first quality. Stourbridge size, do. common size 
and quality black glazed Tea-Pots, common earthenware, 
superior do., also. White, Yellow, or Rockingham Ware, 
Dentists' Muffles, Slides, fee. Wedgwood Mortars, Druggists' 
Jars, Funnels, Tiles, &c., Patch Boxes for Druggists and Per?
fumers, Kaolin and Clays, crude and prepared; Silex and 
Felspar, crude or levigated to an impalpable powder, and 
free from impurities, kept constantly on hand, or ground 
to order at the original Furnace Manufactory. 
FIGURE 23.?The Callowhill Street site where Abraham Miller was in business between 1852 
and 1858. The print illustrates the extent to which his works, once quite traditional, had 
expanded into a factory of moderate size. (Collection of Mrs. Joseph Carson.) 
^ ^ , ^ : ; ^ & ^ i ^ ^ ^ | ^ ^ , y ; ; ^ S ^ ^ 
Ot .nartc Sf'A. F. MjtrncLts No V / i ( I'y^.^jLd ^ M* i^^i^OJli^tfa-iilOi.'i 
ABK UILLER 
Manufac tu re r of Portabli- Fu rnaces , lyliuders, Fire Bricks & Tile, 
Doiilisl Furnares.MuffleN &:c SuperiorEarllieuwAre ta:*" 
(ALLOWHFLL BELOW BROAD ST. 
PHILADELPHIA. 
NUMBER 43 37 
FIGURE 24.?^An unusual form (a), undoubtedly an example of chemical stoneware, probably of 
the type made in Philadelphia. On the reverse side is a third outlet of smaller dimension. 
Height: 75.5 cm. (Collection of Waynesburg State College.) On the right are fragments of 
chemical stoneware excavated at the site of Moro Phillips' Trees Point, Virginia, manufactory. 
Maximum dimension: b, 15 cm; c, 24 cm. 
By 1857 the importance of fire brick in Miller's 
output was reflected in the changing of the name 
of his pottery to "Abm. Miller's Spring Garden 
Pottery and Fire Brick Manufactory" n" (Figure 
23). 
Many new potteries were drawn to Philadelphia 
in the 1840s to meet the expanding demand for 
refractory wares. By 1843 the commercial direc?
tories had to adjust their classification system once 
again. In that year separate headings were given 
to "Fire Brick, Tile, Cylinder, and Portable Fur?
nace Manufacturers" as distinguished from "Manu?
facturers of Earthen Pottery." Though most potters 
made both common household pottery and refrac?
tory ware, the production of the latter was exten?
sive enough by 1843 to distinguish it as a separate 
industry. The importance of these products con?
tinued to grow throughout the decade.m 
By 1845 Henry Remmey was making "Chemical 
Apparatus" at his stoneware factory and, like the 
refractories, this soon became a major product.n^ 
Stoneware, which is fired to a high temperature, 
has a hard and vitrified surface that resists the 
action of many acids and consequently is suitable 
for working with and storing chemicals (see Figure 
24). As Philadelphia's important chemical industry 
expanded, the production of chemical stoneware 
logically followed. 
38 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
FIGURE 25.?Pitcher made by Henry Remmey's son Richard 
C. Remmey, who worked in Philadelphia between 1858 and 
1904. Long after his factory had converted to industrial pro?
duction, Remmey continued to make such traditional pieces. 
The pitcher is inscribed to "M.S." and dated 1870. Height: 
17 cm. (John Paul Remensnyder Collection, Smithsonian 
Institution.) 
Other potters soon broke Remmey's monopoly 
of the manufacture of household as well as chemi?
cal stoneware. The Haigs had introduced stone?
ware production by 1843 though it is not known 
how soon they began making chemical ware. John 
Brelsford was a potter by 1846 and by 1849 he had 
established the "Northern Liberties Stone Ware 
Manufactory" at New Market and Germantown 
Road. In 1853 he advertised that he made water 
pipes, chemical stoneware, and general household 
ware. By 1850 these two potteries had a substantial 
portion of the stoneware market. In the census of 
manufactures for that year, Brelsford's stoneware 
output is valued at $5500, James & Thomas Haig's 
is $8000 and Remmey's is only slightly greater 
$8550.113 
By 1855 Moro Philhps had established a Phila?
delphia factory for the manufacture of chemical 
stoneware. Barber notes that Moro Phillips estab?
lished a stoneware pottery in Virginia "on the 
James River . . . about six miles below Wilson's 
Landing" and in 1853 moved the manufactory to 
Philadelphia. Phillips, however, called himself a 
Philadelphian on the 1850 deed for the purchase 
of the James River "Trees Point" property where 
his manufactory was to be located. An "M. Phillips" 
is listed without occupation in the Philadelphia city 
directory by 1849 but there is no listing specifically 
for Moro Phillips until 1855 when he appears at 
his West Philadelphia chemical ware manufactory. 
At the Trees Point pottery site, part of a kiln and 
many fragments of chemical and domestic stone?
ware recently have been discovered (Figure 24). 
This manufactory apparently operated concurrently 
with that in Philadelphia."* 
Phillips saw the potential in Philadelphia's thriv?
ing chemical industry and by 1860 the wisdom of 
his investment was evident. According to the manu?
factures census for that year, Phillips was producing 
$10,000 worth of "Pottery for Chemicals" and had 
established the Aramingo Chemical Works, where 
he produced $109,000 in "Oil of Vitriol" (sulfuric 
acid), "Muriatic Acid" (hydrochloric acid), "Aqua 
Fortis" (concentrated nitric acid), and "Nitric 
A c i d . " 115 
Though the Remmeys eventually regained their 
eminence in the manufacture of stoneware, their 
business had for the moment been damaged by 
the competition from the enterprising Phillips. In 
1860 Remmey's output dropped to $6500, which 
was $2050 less than that of 1850.ii6 
Chemical apparatus was new and important to 
the Philadelphia stoneware factories but its manu?
facture did not preclude the continuing produc?
tion of household stoneware. This durable ceramic 
material had replaced the more porous and break?
able earthenware for many household purposes. 
Common stoneware was unquestionably still in 
demand in the city and its manufacture was ex?
tensive. 
All of Philadelphia's stoneware factories made 
household pottery. Two of Henry Remmey's stone?
ware pitchers, decorated in cobalt blue, are illus?
trated in Figures 12 and 13. Henry's son Richard 
C. Remmey made household stoneware in the tra-
NUMBER 43 39 
ditional style of his father throughout his career, 
even in the late-nineteenth century when the Rem?
mey company had become a major producer of 
industrial ceramics (Figure 25). 
A storage jar and a cooler made by John Brels?
ford are illustrated in Figures 26 and 27 and a jar 
made by James and Thomas Haig is shown in 
Figure 28. Moro Phillips also made household 
stoneware but no examples of his Philadelphia 
pottery have been identified."^ 
The expansion of the 1840s?the greater invest?
ments and output, new and more industrial prod?
ucts, and the changed technology?had a significant 
effect on the size and organization of the potters' 
shops. The 1840 census of manufactures indicates 
that the average shop had five workers and none 
had more than 18. By 1850 the average number 
of workers had jumped to 11. Much of the rise 
took place in the potteries of Abraham Miller, 
who had 45 workers, and James and Thomas Haig, 
who had 32.ii8 
The decade was one of unusual growth for these 
two potteries, which had remained in the forefront 
of Philadelphia ceramics development for most of 
the century. In 1840 Abraham Miller expanded his 
business, moving his growing manufactory to James 
Street near Broad and retaining his warehouse at 
the old site of the Zane Street pottery. The move 
undoubtedly was responsible for his greatly en?
larged work force by 1850. In this eventful decade 
Miller became prosperous enough to be listed in 
two publications of Philadelphia's "Wealthy Citi?
zens." His assets were valued at $50,000 and he was 
described as "an honest, respectable, and good citi-
FIGURE 26.?Stoneware storage jar made and signed by John Brelsford, 1846-1857. Height: 
26.8 cm. (Collection of the Smithsonian Institution.) 
40 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
FIGURE 27.?Blue-decorated water cooler made at John Brels?
ford's stoneware pottery at New Market Street and German-
town Road, 1846-1857. Height: 39 cm (Private Collection.) 
zen" who "made his money at the potting and fur?
nace business." "^ James and Thomas Haig also 
expanded during the 1840s, establishing a new 
pottery at 545 North Second Street by 1843.12? 
The great increase in the number of workmen 
in the Haig and Miller potteries suggests an im?
portant change in these shops. What once were 
small family operated potteries, perhaps with one or 
two apprentices, had become by 1850 small-scale 
factories. A small and traditional unit had grown 
into an industrial one. Output had expanded, 
much greater variety of production had been intro?
duced, more sophisticated technology had been 
utilized, and the labor force required in a single 
shop had increased. 
The pottery labor force was markedly affected 
by the changes of the 1830s and 1840s. An exodus 
of workers occurred in the mid-1830s when four 
traditional potteries closed; by 1840 a new and 
more industrially oriented group of workers had 
appeared. Of 25 men who can be identified as 
pottery workers in 1833, 15 had either left Phila?
delphia or had found a new occupation in the 
city when the next directory was published for 
1835-1836. By 1839 three others had done the 
same. In 1837 10 pottery workers were added to the 
directory listings but none of them were the earlier 
workers returning to their jobs.i^i 
Several factors appear to have been important in 
determining a worker's future during the 1830s. 
One was the number of years he had been in the 
Philadelphia potteries, an average of 11 years (by 
1833) for those who continued to be employed in 
.'///. 
pnir^AX>r.i.r'rjA " '-' 
FIGURE 28.?^Jug, excavated at Franklin Court, Philadelphia, 
in a context dating c. 1840-1860, that indicates that James 
and Thomas Haig were not only potters but china, glass, and 
queensware merchants as well. Height: 26.5 cm. (Collection 
of Independence National Historical Park.) 
NUMBER 43 41 
the industry and 8.3 years for those who left. 
A second factor was the type of experience a 
worker had had in the trade. Four of the seven 
men who weathered the 1830s were members of 
families that operated Philadelphia potteries, or 
they themselves had managed their own potteries 
at sometime in the past. It is probable that they 
had a more comprehensive knowledge of the opera?
tion of a pottery manufactory than the average 
worker?a decided advantage in the uncertain job 
market. And, in this small industry, such indi?
viduals would have been known to, and possibly 
quite familiar with, most proprietors. Only three 
of the 18 men who left between 1833 and 1839 had 
family connections in the potteries and two had 
operated their own shops. 
Two workers, Charles Boulter and William 
Henry, unquestionably were able to stay in the 
Philadelphia potteries during the 1830s because 
of their outstanding ability. Henry had been a 
potter in Philadelphia for 11 years by 1833. He 
was almost certainly a good and dependable worker; 
he remained in Philadelphia until 1859, spending 
over twenty years at Abraham Miller's factory 
(Figure 29). Boulter, though only in Philadelphia 
for five years by 1833, had been at Tucker's por?
celain factory. His knowledge of the sophisticated 
skills in use there would have been an asset in 
finding employment. Both men changed addresses 
between 1833 and 1837 and appear to have gone 
to Miller's pottery. Miller's successful works, fol?
lowing the trend toward industrialization, easily 
weathered the 1830s and could have absorbed 
these two good workmen. An indication of Miller's 
esteem for them appears in his will in which each 
received a bequest of $400.1" 
Little is known of the eighteen workers who left 
the Philadelphia potteries by 1839 but it is likely 
that many of them had been at the traditional 
potteries that closed during the mid-1830s. The 
addresses given for them in the directories were 
almost certainly their residences. If it is assumed 
that they lived near their place of employment? 
commonly the case in this period?then 11 workers 
can tentatively be associated with either the Curtis, 
Gilbert, or one of the Second Street potteries that 
had closed by 1836. It appears that the mid-1830s 
marked the exodus of not only traditional potteries 
but also of much of the traditional pottery labor 
force. These traditional craftsmen would have had 
difficulty finding jobs that offered salaries com?
mensurate with their skill in traditional produc?
tion. In the progressive potteries of Miller or the 
Haigs or in the new and industrially oriented 
Innes, Dowler, or Grum refractory and general 
earthenware manufactories that opened between 
1837 and 1840, unskilled and cheaper labor could 
perform an increasing number of tasks. The re?
maining small traditional shops, which needed 
only a limited work force, were not likely to hire 
them. 
FIGURE 29.?Stoneware chicken fountain marked "HENRY / 
PHILA." This piece probably was made by William Henry 
who worked in Philadelphia between 1823 and 1859. There 
is no evidence, however, that Henry ever operated his own 
pottery or that he worked for any of Philadelphia's stoneware 
potters. Height: 20.3 cm. (Collection of the Henry Francis 
du Pont Winterthur Museum.) 
42 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
FIGURE 30.?An 1861 pencil drawing illustrating the Market Street pottery operated by John 
and Maria Grum between 1837 and 1851, by Peter Owens and Gideon Tilton, 1855-1861, and 
by Peter Owens alone, 1862-1866. (Courtesy, Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, 
DMMC 8.) . 
By 1839 a total of 16 potters had left the city 
altogether.123 Though it is almost impossible to 
trace them, it is likely that some of them went to 
one of the many traditional potteries operating in 
rural southeastern Pennsylvania, where there would 
have been a greater market for their skills in the 
traditional potteries still operating there. It is 
known, for example, that a John Linker was a 
potter in Chester County by 1850 and a Henry 
Linker was there by 1860. The John and Daniel 
Linker pottery closed in 1833 and John had left 
Philadelphia by 1837. Potter Henry Linker, 
possibly a brother of John, had left Philadelphia 
b y 1852.12* 
After 1835 a change in the nature of the labor 
force is evident. More unskilled workers had 
entered the industry. A man who was a potter in 
one year might have been a constable in the pre?
ceding year, and might be a dentist or a grocer in 
the next few years, and he might return to the 
pottery shops at a later date. The ease with which 
a worker switched into pottery from any occupa?
tion, regardless of how unrelated it might be, indi?
cates that much of the formerly required skill had 
NUMBER 43 43 
gone out of the potters' job. Considerable ability 
was required for the traditional hand production 
of pottery and many years of training were neces?
sary to enter this trade. Probably as early as the 
1830s and certainly in the 1840s and 1850s there 
were an increasing number of processes in the new 
factories that could be performed by someone with 
little or no special skill. The new decorative ware 
was molded and most of the utilitarian products 
were undoubtedly molded or extruded. Though 
skill was required to design and form a mold, there 
was little skill involved in pressing the clay into the 
molds to form the finished products. 
A change in the stability of workers is evident 
after 1835. Potters who came to Philadelphia be?
tween 1835 and 1850 showed a greater tendency to 
remain in the trade (an average of 10.4 years) 
than did those who began work between 1800 
and 1835 (8.0 years).i^s Apparently, greater pros?
perity in the ceramic industry in the later period 
provided more job security to workers. 
Concurrent with these changes within the potters' 
shops were changes from outside. Few potteries had 
been attracted to Philadelphia since the war. In 
the late 1830s and 1840s, however, as the market 
expanded and profits increased, new manufactories 
were again drawn to the city. Fine-ware potteries 
were established by Ralph Bagnall Beech in 1846 
and by Kurlbaum and Schwartze in 1853. New 
refractory and general earthenware potteries ap?
peared in great profusion: Jacob Dowler by 1840; 
John and Maria Grum by 1839 (Figure 30); Adam 
Moffit by 1850; George Sweeney in 1843; Henry 
Benner (formerly brickmaker), earthenware and 
refractory ware manufacturer, by the early 1840s; 
Samuel Innes, "potter and fire-brick mr.," by 1837; 
and Clayton & Berry, making fire brick, by 1849.1^^ 
It is difficult to determine precisely how Phila?
delphia potters were affected by the changes that 
took place in the ceramics industry during the first 
half of the nineteenth century. Though a move?
ment away from the traditional handcraft had 
begun as early as the War of 1812, it progressed 
very slowly and fitfully and the average potter prob?
ably was not aware of the importance of these 
developments. 
The closing of several traditional potteries during 
the mid-1830s and the concurrent loss of jobs by 
men trained to work in these conservative shops 
may have been the first unmistakable evidence that 
the old system was coming to an end. It was 
probably not until the 1840s, however, that potters 
fully realized that the future was in industrial 
products and techniques and understood the effect 
that this would have on them personally. 
Owners and workers undoubtedly reacted differ?
ently to the developments taking place in the pot?
teries. Most of the pottery manufacturers who 
survived the 1830s fared well during the 1840s 
and must have seen advancing industrialization 
as a very positive influence. Their monopoly was 
challenged by many new potteries, but improving 
profits were widespread and there was enough pros?
perity to go around. New demands forced potters 
to develop different products but greater use of 
mechanical devices and the expanding market 
promised profits large enough to compensate hand?
somely for their trouble and investment. The great 
jump in capital invested between 1840 and 1850 
clearly attests to a positive attitude. 
For traditional workers, the 1830s and 1840s were 
less agreeable. The exodus of potters in the mid-
1830s dramatically pointed out the waning demand 
for traditional handcraftsmen. In the 1840s, the 
status of conservative potters continued to worsen 
as mechanical devices, requiring a less skilled and 
consequently less expensive labor force, performed 
an increasing number of processes in the shops. 
Though workers remained longer in the trade 
after 1835, few of these were the same men who 
had worked in the earlier family potteries. Many 
changes had taken place within a relatively short 
period and potters must have been painfully aware 
that the cheaper labor force and new technology, 
which could produce more than the traditional 
workers and at less cost, threatened to replace 
them entirely. 
Conclusion 
By 1850 Philadelphia ceramics manufacture 
could no longer be characterized as a handcraft 
but was rapidly developing into the more modern 
industrial counterpart. Though aspects of the 
traditional system would linger for some time, hand 
processes were being replaced by mechanical de?
vices, small family potteries were becoming fac?
tories, traditional hand workers had been intro?
duced to the threat of an unskilled and low-paid 
44 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
labor force, and new and more industrially oriented 
products had taken the place of traditional house?
hold earthenware. 
The process of industrialization had taken many 
years. It began with the burst of manufacturing 
activity stimulated by the embargo and the War 
of 1812, then was slowed down by the postwar 
depression. In the late 1820s it began to accelerate 
again, but was hampered once more by the eco?
nomic fluctuations of the 1830s. In the late 1830s 
and throughout the 1840s conditions finally were 
favorable to extensive economic and industrial 
development. 
Between 1850 and 1860 the ceramics industry 
continued to grow but at a more moderate pace. 
According to the manufactures censuses, ten new 
potters and fire-brick manufactories were estab?
lished in Philadelphia during the decade. This 
was, however, a net gain of only four. Total yearly 
output rose by about 45 percent (compared with 
over 100 percent between the 1840 and 1850 cen?
suses). Capital invested in the industry dropped 
slightly. The number of pottery workers increased 
from 156 in 1850 to 190 in 1860 but this was 
actually a decrease of six in the average number of 
workers per shop. During the 1850s potters placed 
still greater emphasis on utilitarian products and 
biggest profits accrued to those specializing in fire 
brick and other refractories.i^^^ 
Technological developments involved improve?
ments in fuel and power sources. In 1850 potters 
were using only horse and hand power but by 1860 
seven potteries and fire-brick manufactories were 
using steam power, probably to drive the clay-
working machinery. J. Sc T. Haig had a "10 Horse 
Steam E." in their factory in 1860 as did John 
Neukumet, a fire-brick maker. Two potters had 
engines as small as one horse power.i^s 
Six factories were using coal as all or part of 
their fuel by 1860 though only one potter, Abra?
ham Miller, had done so in 1850. Coal was un?
doubtedly replacing wood for the firing of kilns 
and would also have been in use under the boilers 
that provided steam for the potteries' engines. 
Coal is a more efficient fuel than wood, which tra?
ditionally had been used to fire the kilns. In 
Philadelphia, a center for the marketing of Penn?
sylvania coal, it was readily available. J. & T. Haig 
noted specifically that they were using "A[nthra-
cite] Coal." It is possible that the other potteries 
that were firing with coal also were using this hard 
a 
NUMBER 43 45 
type, which produces a hot, slow-burning fire that 
would have been ideal for the high temperatures 
and long firing time of pottery kilns. The clean 
burning of anthracite coal, as opposed to the smoky 
bituminous, would have been an added benefit to 
these urban potteries.i^^ 
In broad outline the experience of Philadelphia 
potters during the first half of the nineteenth cen?
tury appears to parallel that of ceramic manufac?
turers in other American cities. Between 1800 and 
1850, urban potters were confronted with economic 
and industrial influences that forced drastic change 
in their trade; the end result was the transformation 
of a handcraft into an industry.i^" 
During the embargo and war period, many 
American potters undoubtedly prospered, as did 
Philadelphia potters, because of the increased de?
mand for common earthenware. Fine-ware manu?
factories developed in some cities though not as 
extensively as in Philadelphia. In Chester County, 
Pennsylvania, Thomas Vickers 8c Son advertised in 
FIGURE 31.?Money banks in the form of log cabins made by 
Thomas Haig, Jr., in stoneware (a) and earthenware (6). 
On the base (c) of the earthenware example is incised the 
signature "Thomas Haig Jr." and the date "March 16th 
1852." The initials " T H " are stamped in front of the door 
of the cabin. The stoneware bank also is signed by Thomas 
Haig and is dated "June 3rd 1852." Log cabins were asso?
ciated with Whig party candidates in 1840 and 1844 and the 
association perhaps carried over to the 1852 contest between 
Franklin Pierce (Democrat) and Winfield Scott (Whig). 
(Stoneware example, height, 11.5 cm, in the collection of the 
Brooklyn Museum of Art, gift of Mrs. Huldah Call Lorimer 
in memory of George Burfor Lorimer; earthenware bank, 
height, 11.8 cm, in the collection of Gary and Diana 
Stradling.) 
1809 that "the Subscribers have, with very consider?
able exertion, in experimental research, executed a 
flattering essay towards the establishment of a 
Queens Ware Manufactory." i^ i 
On the base of a porcelain vase in the collection 
of the Philadelphia Museum of Art there once was 
a label that read "Finished in New York 1816." 
This vase is said to have been made at the pottery 
of Dr. Henry Mead who petitioned the New York 
Common Council concerning the use of paupers 
and criminals "in the manufacture of porcelain" 
in 1820.132 If it is of Dr. Mead's manufacture, it 
probably was made sometime between 1818 and 
1824. An 1824 newspaper notice reveals that he 
had "expended . . . six years of perseverance, to 
establish a manufactory of that ornamental and 
durable ware known by the name of French Por?
celain or China Ware." His business was in very 
poor financial condition in that year, however, and 
he announced that he would have to close the fac?
tory unless he could induce 
a patriotic public to lend their aid in its support and preser?
vation; and for that purpose it is now proposed to form an 
association under the name and title of the Porcelain and 
Earthernware Manufactory, with such a capital as may be 
found necessary to carry the above object into full operation, 
and a Charter to be applied for at the next Legisla?
ture. . . .133 
Nothing is known of Dr. Mead's porcelain factory 
after 1824. Presumably he was unsuccessful in his 
bid for public support. 
The manufacture of brown- and black-glazed tea 
ware during and after the War of 1812 was not 
limited to Philadelphia. "BLACK TEA POTS at 
Auction 10 crates Jersey Teapots" were advertised 
in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1816. These could 
have been made at the Elizabethtown teapot manu?
factory of Peter Lacour and Son, which was offered 
for sale in 1818. 
Notice to Potters 
To be Sold, at Public Vendue, on Saturday the 14th of Feb?
ruary next, at two o'clock P.M. at the Union Hotel in 
Elizabethtown, the TEA POT MANUFACTORY, formerly 
occupied by Peter Lacour & Son, together with the Lot of 
Land attached to the same. Said Manufactory is well cal?
culated either for a Tea Pot or Earthen Ware Manufactory. 
As it is presumed no person will purchase without first 
viewing the premises, it is deemed unnecessary to particu?
larize. Terms, which will be liberal, will be made known on 
the day of sale, and attendance given by 
Caleb O. Halsted 
46 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
Peter Lacour and Peter Lacour, Jr., appear in the 
tax records for Elizabethtown from 1811 through 
1815 but are not included in the next two lists in 
1820 and 1822; presumably they left the town after 
their manufactory closed.i^* 
Another Elizabethtown potter, John Griffith, was 
operating a tea pot manufactory in the 1820s. A 
press-molded black-glazed teapot in the collection 
of the Yale University Art Gallery is stamped with 
the name of this potter who died in 1824 leaving 
$5465.40 worth of "Tea Pots on hand." i^ s 
The 1820 Census of Manufactures notes that a 
Baltimore potter was making "Brown & Black 
Coffee & Teapots, Round and pressed. Pressed on 
them Hunting parties, and other figures." In 
Boston "thirty crates black glazed TEA POTS" 
of "American Manufacture" were offered for sale 
in 1812. These may have been from Philadelphia 
or New Jersey. Sanford Perry and Thomas Crafts, 
however, were making black-glazed teapots in 
Whately, Massachusetts, by the early 1820s."6 
Dark-glazed tablewares, especially teapots, were 
made in America in far greater quantity than pre?
viously has been recognized. The simplicity of 
their manufacture made than a logical product for 
traditional American potters. The judges of the 
Franklin Institute stated in 1824 and 1827 that 
American brown- and black-glazed ware had en?
tirely excluded the English counterparts from the 
market. This may have been an exaggeration, but 
at the very least it indicates that such ware was 
made and marketed very successfully in this coun?
try. The $5465.40 worth of teapots listed in John 
Griffith's inventory attests to the huge output at 
that factory.13^ 
Many American potters suffered in the postwar 
depression as Philadelphia's potters did. In the 
1820 Census of Manufactures, potters often com?
mented that sales were "30 per cent worse then 
[sic] 3 years ago" or "50 per cts worse than 3 year 
ago"; that "the establishment is at this time con?
siderable [sic] out of repair the demand and sale 
of the articles manufactured dull." i^ s 
In the 1820s, the industry began to revive. In 
Baltimore, the number of apprentices entering the 
trade increased markedly between 1819 and 1822, 
and by 1827 three new potteries had been estab?
lished there.130 In Jersey City, the Jersey Porcelain 
and Earthenware Company began operation in 
1825 and in July of the next year, newspapers 
praised the 
porcelain manufactory at Jersey City, established about 8 
months since, [which] is now going on with a fair prospect 
of success . Skillful and experienced workmen have 
been induced to come over from France, and a variety of 
articles of porcelain have already been finished at the 
establishment. A still greater quantity of porcelain vessels, 
many of them executed with great ingenuity and perfection, 
after the finest models of the antique, are now ready for the 
oven. We have seen several of the articles manufactured 
there, which, in the purity and delicacy of their texture, 
are nothing inferior to the finest French porcelain.i^o 
The porcelain business, however, was unsuccessful 
at Jersey City. 
The effects of the depressions of the mid- and 
late-1830s on American potters are not well known. 
Pearce's thesis on Baltimore potters indicates that 
that city paralleled Philadelphia in the loss of 
traditional potteries during the decade, but more 
local studies are needed to determine how wide?
spread this phenomenon was.i*i 
There is no question, however, that many urban 
American potteries were industrializing and ex?
panding during the 1840s, as were the Philadelphia 
manufactories. The first commercially successful 
factory making light-bodied molded tableware in 
the English style was opened at the former por?
celain works in Jersey City by D. & J. Henderson 
in 1828; by the 1840s the manufacture was becom?
ing widespread. New factories for its production 
sprang up at East Liverpool, Ohio; Woodbridge, 
New Jersey; Baltimore, Maryland; and Bennington, 
Vermont. Established potteries added the product 
to their output, as Abraham Miller had done i*^  
(Figures 18, 19). 
The manufacture of utilitarian products, espe?
cially refractories, was adopted by potters in cities 
other than Philadelphia during the late 1820s 
and became relatively widespread in the 1830s and 
1840s. In Manhattan, William Haggerty, in busi?
ness since 1818, turned to the manufacture of 
portable clay furnaces in 1827 and Washington 
Smith opened a factory for the manufacture of 
portable furnaces and stoneware in 1833. A stone?
ware pottery owned by Alexandria, Virginia, mer?
chant Hugh Smith was making "a large assortment 
of earthen furnaces" by 1829, and by the same date 
Jacob Henry in Albany, New York, was manufac?
turing the type of furnace illustrated in Fig?
ure ll ."3 
NUMBER 43 47 
Baltimore potter Mauldin Perine made fire brick 
by 1840. In Bennington, Vermont, Christopher 
Webber Fenton obtained a patent for "a composi?
tion of matter for the manufacture of Fire Bricks" 
in 1837. Absalom Stedman was operating a "Fire 
Brick and Stone Ware Manufactory" in New 
Haven, Connecticut, in 1831. By the 1840s fire 
bricks were common products of potteries in many 
cities.i*^ 
In adapting to improving economic conditions 
and the initial stages of industrialization in the 1820s 
and 1830s, Philadelphia's traditional potters chose 
to concentrate their production more on utilitarian 
goods than on the molded refined wares. This 
appears to have been the case in Baltimore and 
New York as well. These large urban areas pro?
vided a ready local market for tablewares and being 
important port cities, they possessed the capability 
to market widely and to import raw materials eco?
nomically; nevertheless, they were not pioneers in 
the manufacture of decorative ware. 
Several explanations for this initial concentration 
on utilitarian products are suggested by the Phila?
delphia example. Industrialization in a variety of 
fields was felt earliest in populous cities like New 
York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. Here potteries 
already existed and could be adapted to serve the 
new industries. In Philadelphia, metal and chemi?
cal manufactories were developing rapidly between 
1820 and 1840 and both required quantities of 
ceramic products. 
Coinciding with industrial demand was the cau?
tiousness of some potters about adding new table?
ware products to their output. In spite of force?
ful encouragement from the Franklin Institute 
during this period, Philadelphia potters consistently 
avoided introducing new types of decorative ware 
until the 1840s. Their businesses had been hurt 
by the resumption of imported fine tableware after 
the end of the war and they apparently determined 
in the 1820s and 1830s that utilitarian and indus?
trial ceramics were more reliable and profitable 
products. 
It is possible also that nondecorative utilitarian 
ware was a logical extension of these potters' usual 
household production while the new decorative 
ware required a self-consciously "artistic" orienta?
tion that did not evolve naturally from their 
previous focus on traditional ware. 
When new decorative-ware factors were estab?
lished in Philadelphia and elsewhere, many of the 
master potters and workmen came not from a back?
ground in American traditional pottery manufac?
ture but from abroad, a great number of them 
from Staffordshire, where their training had been 
in the production of fine ware. 
Throughout the period covered by this study, 
Philadelphia remained a major center for Ameri?
can ceramics production. Although the city lost its 
prominent position in fine-ceramics manufacture, 
and although its traditional earthenware potteries 
began to disappear, it adjusted to new and more 
lucrative types of production. In a logical progres?
sion of events, potters adapted to a changing 
economy and an industrializing nation by trans?
forming their handcraft into an industry. 
48 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
MIiDLil)il?iM 
?yw "H L i ^ | ^ _ _ , 
_ULJU':i;auLr?l_ 
L . l _ l 
?L. 
LU" LiU.L: Jfc J ^ L^ ^  fe 
- j ., __^ .^ 
siTOsL i) LA L_ 1 . Z J C JL 
|r;7f]i 1^ 1.^ 1 VviiJLjL_il_JA^ji. 
I J Q J L J J U I J 
' ? ?>oa i 
'LJil , 1 - I L 
. ? ? ? . > ! ! . J U L J-. 
_-L.^xvicxjr;jL.Ai 
1 ^ :^J| 
1^1" LJG! 
1.1 
?^nni I'^n 
^llLJLLLUiUiL^ 
>htEriLlLLLLL||L: '" 
ILLLILLL^L^L^LLII 
f LLL_L_i t L I \?\? 
^LC-LLULL-Lbi r teLl L T L 
LL. tisiTiMTj^ r .^ .^ Uf.-iL I -t I Ll I r I ? 
| _ L _ | L Z I L ' " " l_L^. I I , L :LZL=L_ ._L t : LLLL I : l_ Ll_ I _ 1 L I - \-
LLLJJI L I L L-r L 
t L L i 5^ I !?!_:;_::-^LL ' 
i_?L^L_L.r I I I iVs I ii ^t I'lw r ? :rri?'/-?'4 
L L l I I 1 X? t ! 1 li'inv 1 , I _  j ^ t I . i l _ ^ L ? . v'^  
LLtebb : [ l t z t ^LL tb^h^ t^KL i : t zz lL lL& 
"36)p^, , , .,, 
L_JL( 
; a ' ' " ' " H ] c j j 
\\?LL-LLLLIJ'^^, I u 
. td I I \\ I Ll . L_ 
' ^^"^EaOLtLLIL^ULLl 
?qa Hunnnrr-r-^J' * tLb~y 
L._l iLiirr- ',L_ii ' 
~M. 
FIGURE 32.?Map locating the potteries included in the 
"Check List of Philadelphia Potters.' The site numbers on 
the map correspond to the following list in which are noted 
the site addresses, the names of the people who managed 
and/or owned the potteries, and the dates during which they 
were at the sites. Philadelphia's inconsistent method of 
house numbering during the first half of the nineteenth 
century, along with imprecision and variability in recording 
NUMBER 43 49 
addresses in the city directories, have made a precise address 
impossible in some cases. Changes in street numbers after 
1856 are noted in parentheses. 
1. Brown between Cherry and Vienna Streets: Isaac Spiegel, 
1837-c. 1855; Isaac Spiegel, Jr., c. 1855-1870-1-. 
2. North Front below Oxford Street: Kurlbaum 8c 
Schwartze, 1853-1859. 
3. North Second Street below Diamond: Robert E. King, 
1853-1870 4-. 
4. Near Second Street and Germantown Road (sometimes 
listed as Franklin and School Streets): Branch Green, 
1809-1827; Burnett & Remmey, 1827-1831; Henry Rem?
mey, 1831-1847; Ralph Bagnall Beech, 1847-1851. 
5. 109 Frankford Road: Isaac English, 1816P-1843; Joseph 
English, 1843P-1857?; Samruel English, 1866. 
6. 20 or 22 Frankford Road (near Queen Street): John C. 
Jennings, 1820-1825?; William Jennings, 1829P-1833; 
Samuel P. Innes, 1837P-1858. 
7. New Market Street and Germantown Road: John Brels?
ford, 1846-1857; N. Spencer Thomas, 1858. 
8. 500 block of North Front Street (probably at number 
537): James Charlton, 1813-1819; Charlton & Haigs, 1817. 
9. 545 (975 by 1858) North Second, above Poplar Lane: 
James & Thomas Haig, 1843-1870+ . 
10. 456, 458, and 460 North Fourth, above Poplar Lane: 
Thomas Haig, 1819-1831; James & Thomas Haig, 1831-
1843? 
11. Marshall Street above Poplar Lane: Henry Remmey, 
1847-c. 1865. 
12. 952 North Ninth, above Poplar Lane: Hyzer & 
Lewellen, 1857-1870-h. 
13. Eleventh and Coates Streets, (listing changed to Ninth 
and Coates by 1847): Jacob Dowler, 1840-1865. 
14. Ridge Road between Washington and Wallace Streets: 
Andrew George, 1833-1842; Sweeny & Haig, 1843; George 
Sweeny, 1844-1870-f. 
15. Ridge Road above Brown Street: Joseph L. Hesser & 
Co., 1850. 
16. North Street above Sixteenth: Charles Boulter, 1860-
1870+. 
17. James (now Noble) Street between Thirteenth and Broad 
streets (listed at Callowhill Street, between Thirteenth 
and Broad streets after 1852): Abraham Miller, 1840-
1858. 
18. Coates Street: Joseph Gossner, 1811-1841?; Joseph Goss-
ner (son), 1841?-1861. 
19. 334 (or 324) North Front Street: Mayer & Bartres, 1799-
1800; Joseph Rine (or Ryan), 1800-1809; Wallace & Cox, 
1813-1817. 
20. North Second Street 
302: John and Henry Linker, 1820-1822; Linker and 
Potter, 1819, 1823-1824; John and Daniel Linker, 
1825-1833. 
310: John Hook, 1791-1793; Martin Moser, 1793-1804; 
Moser & Jennings, 1805-1818; Miller & Moser, 1819-
1833. 
312: John Hook, 1794-1809. 
314: Michael Miller, 1791-1799; Michael Miller (son), 
1805-1814; Keichline & Co. or Keichline and Haslet, 
1828-1833. 
316: John Justice, 1791-1799. 
21. 247 North Second Street: Andrew Mattern, 1785-1814. 
22. I l l North Front Street: Adams & Brothers, 1839-1843. 
23. 133 (or 131) North Third Street: Henry Myers, 1794-
1811; Henry Myers, Jr., 1803-1811. 
24. Branch Street between Third and Fourth: Michael & 
Matthias Gilbert, 1785; Michael Gilbert, 1791?-1793; Ann 
Gilbert, 1795-1800; Michael Gilbert (son), 1801-1831. 
25. North Fourth above Cheiry Street (also listed as 136 
Sassafras): George Fry, 1805P-1817. 
26. 76 North Fourth Street: John Thompson, 1785-1801. 
27. Market Street 
175: Howcraft & Hook (Howcraft & Co.), 1805-1811. 
177: Samuel Sullivan, 1800-1804. 
28. Zane (now Filbert) Street between Seventh and Eighth: 
Andrew Miller, 1790-1799; Andrexv Miller & Son (Sons), 
1799-1808; Abraham & Andrew Miller, Jr., 1809-1821; 
Abraham Miller, 1821-1840. 
29. 234, 236, 238, or 240 Market Street: John Hinckle, 1785-
1811. 
30. 17 and 19 South Eighth Street: William Headman, 
1800P-1822; George Headman, 1823-1838; George & 
David Headman, 1829-1847; David Headman, 1829-1854. 
31. South Fifth between Cedar and Shippen: Michael Frey?
tag, by 1794-1807; Daniel Freytag, 1808-1824. 
32. 405, 407, and 409 South Front Street: John Curtis, 1797-
1831?; Henry L. Benner, 1835-1843. 
33. Southwest corner of Fifth and Christian Streets: 
Journeymen's Pottery, 1844-1845; Michael Larkin, 1845-
1868. 
34. Reed below Church Street: McWhorter & Sheets, 1848-
1853; John McWhorter, 1854-1858. 
35. Southwest corner of Greenwich and South Second Streets: 
Clayton & Berry, 1849-1851; Richard M. Berry, 1853-
1858; Berry & Simpson, 1858-1862. 
36. Cedar (or South) Street near South Tenth Street: Andrew 
George & Co., 1816-1818. 
37. Cedar near South Thirteenth Street: Columbian Pottery 
(Alexander Trotter, Binny & Ronaldson), 1808-1814? 
38. Southwest corner of Chestnut and Schuylkill Sixth (now 
Seventeenth) Street: Tucker & Hemphill, 1832; Joseph 
Hemphill, 1833-1837; Thomas Tucker, 1838. 
39. Market Street between Schuylkill Sixth and Seventh (now 
Seventeenth and Sixteenth) Streets: John Mullowny, 
1810-1815; Market Street west of Schuylkill Seventh: 
David G. Seixas, by 1818-1822. 
40. 87 (1725 by 1858) West Market Street: John & Maria 
Grum, 1839-1851; CD. Biggs & Co. 1853; Owens 8c 
Tilton, 1855-1861; Peter Owens, 1862-1866. 
41. Market Street between Schuylkill Second and Third 
(now Twenty-first and Twentieth) Streets: Bastian 8c 
Spiegle, 1825. 
42. Market Street and Schuylkill Second (now Twenty-first) 
Street: Adam Moffitt, Jr.(?) 1850. 
43. Schuylkill Front (now Twenty-second) and Chestnut 
Streets (Old City Water Works): William Ellis Tucker, 
1826-1831; Tucker 8c Hemphill, 1831-1832. 
44. Chestnut and Thirty-Second Streets, West Philadelphia: 
Moro Phillips, 1855-1871? 
Appendix I 
Checklist of Philadelphia Potters, 1800-1850 
The following checklist of potters working in 
Philadelphia between 1800 and 1850 includes all 
data concerning individual potters found in the 
reference materials consulted in this study. The 
checklist can be considered complete only for the 
period 1800-1850. Potters working during that 
period have been traced as early as 1785 and as 
late as 1870. Those working only before 1800 or 
after 1850 have been included in the list in a 
few instances. 
City directories are a major source of information 
for this checklist. Between 1793 and 1870 one or 
more directories were printed in every year except 
1812, 1815, 1826, 1827, and 1832. These directories 
of the city's residents sometimes were supplemented 
by a separately printed listing of businesses. Thirty-
nine city and commercial directories were searched 
completely for potters and pottery establishments. 
The directories that were searched in this complete 
manner are noted with an asterisk in the list of 
Philadelphia city directories under "References." 
All potters located in this search or found in any 
other data were traced further in the city directories 
to determine the limits of their period of activity. 
Issues of the directory preceding and following the 
known dates of operation of an individual were 
checked until there was no appearance for two or 
more consecutive years. 
City directories are extremely useful sources of 
information but they must be used cautiously. 
Data for the annual listing were compiled by can?
vassing the city's population. Variability in the 
ability or inclination of individual canvassers pro?
duced differences in spelling of names and recording 
of addresses that make the researcher's job more 
difficult. The problem is compounded by the in?
consistent method of house numbering that pre?
vailed in Philadelphia until 1856 when a city 
ordinance instituted a uniform system. In the 
checklist, modern names for major streets are 
supplied in brackets following the nineteenth-cen?
tury directory designations. 
The directories are not a complete listing of 
every resident in the city in any given year. In 
the course of studying Philadelphia potters, it has 
been noted that potters' apprentices are not listed 
as such in the directories. It appears that workmen 
beyond the apprenticeship status also are omitted 
in some instances. For example, workers?includ?
ing a foreman?in the Tucker porcelain factory 
who are known from other references, do not appear 
in the city directories. 
The advantages of the directories, however, are 
very great if these limitations are taken into con?
sideration. They provide a year-by-year listing of 
the name, occupation, and address of a large part 
of the city's population available nowhere else. 
Though they do not include every potter working 
in Philadelphia, they are very complete in listing 
pottery establishments (see also Appendix II.) Di?
rectories are essential in determining the relative 
rises and declines in the number of potters and 
potteries in Philadelphia over a given period. 
In the checklist potters' names are organized 
alphabetically, family name first. Where several 
spellings of a name have been encountered, the 
version found in the most reliable source, or the 
one found most often, has been used. Alternate 
spellings follow in parentheses. After the name of 
each potter are the dates during which he was 
potting in Philadelphia. The system used for 
abbreviating frequently consulted sources is out?
lined in "Abbreviations of Sources." 
Adams k Brothers 1839-1843 
"Crockery manufacturers" at 111 North Front 
Street, 1839-1843 (PD 51, 52, 54, 56, 57). 
Adams, George 1811-1822 
Potter at various addresses, 1811-1814. He prob?
ably was working for Thomas Haig and/or James 
Charlton in 1816 and 1818 when he was at Front 
Street above Poplar. In 1819 Charlton died and 
Haig established a new pottery elsewhere, but 
Adams remained in the same area, listing him-
50 
NUMBER 43 51 
self as a potter at "Maiden" through 1822. At 
this address he was close to the John C. Jennings 
pottery, which began operation in 1820, and he 
was within a few blocks of many of the other 
Northern Liberties potteries. (PD 24, 26-28, 
31-33,35,36.) 
American Porcelain Company 1835 
The Tucker/Hemphill porcelain factory was 
incorporated as the "American Porcelain Com?
pany" in 1835. Thomas Tucker was employed 
as the factory manager. For $5000 he agreed to 
disclose the "secrets" of porcelain manufacture 
and to keep those "secrets" from any other in?
terests for a period of five years. The new com?
pany never actually was formed.^ 
Anderson, Hugh H. 1810 
Potter at "18 Sassafras Alley" in 1810 (PD 23). 
Awl (Awll), Charles 1839-1864 
Listed irregularly in the directories as a potter, 
1839-1864. In 1858 he appears as "police," in 
1859 as "watchman," and in 1862 as "clerk." In 
1847 and 1848 he showed no occupation. (PD 51, 
52, 54, 62, 64, 65, 71, 78, 80, 81, 88, 89, 94, 97, 99.) 
PBagaly & Ford 1843 
Exhibitors at the Franklin Institute in 1843, who 
showed "No. 724, two porcelain baskets, made by 
Bagaly & Ford, deposited by H. Tyndale, a well 
finished article for American manufacture" (FIP 
13, pages 29-30). The location of the Bagaly & 
Ford manufactory is not specified in the judges' 
report and it is not certain that this was a Phila?
delphia company. 
Bailey, Asher 1811-1814 
Potter hsted at 83 Christian in 1811, and at 33 
Catharine in 1814 (PD 24, 27). 
Baker, Jacob 1826P-1841 ? 
Jacob Baker, along with Isaac Spiegel, "tended 
the kilns and superintended the preparation of 
the clays" at the Tucker and Hemphill porcelain 
works (page 152). He is listed in the 1835-6 city 
directory as a potter at "Browne n Budd" (PD 
45) and appears as a potter on Brown Street in 
the 1841 state tax assessment.^ 
Basten, John 1826P-1838? 
According to Barber, Basten was an Englishman 
who was foreman of the Tucker and Hemphill 
porcelain factory "for many years" (B, page 151). 
He was probably the same person as John Bastian. 
Bastian (Baston), John 1837-1862 
Potter at various addresses, 1837-1862. He was 
probably the same person as John Basten. (PD 
47, 51, 52, 62, 63, 65, 68, 71, 74, 76, 78, 80-82, 88, 
89, 94, 97.) 
Bastian & Spiegle 1825 
Listed in the city directories as potters on High 
[Market] Street between Schuylkill Second 
[Twenty-first] and Third [Twentieth] (PD 39). 
The partners were probably John Bastian (Basten) 
and John or Isaac Spiegel. 
Batho, John 1796-1818 
Potter at various addresses, 1796-1804. Listed at 
466 North Front Street between 1805 and 1811 
and at 502 North Front, 1813-1815. He appar?
ently was working for Thomas Haig and/or 
James Charlton between 1813 and 1818. (PD 7, 
8, 15-23,25-31.) 
Beamer, Andrew 1785-1793 
Potter at Sugar Alley, between Fifth and Sixth 
Streets in 1785 and at 23 Sugar Alley in 1793 
(PD 1, 3). Almost certainly working at Andrew 
Miller's pottery on Zane Street, sometimes re?
ferred to as Sugar Alley, between Seventh and 
Eighth streets. In 1796 and 1798 Andrew Beamer 
is listed as a grocer (PD 7, 9). 
Beech (Beach), Ralph Bagnall 1845-1857 
According to Barber, Beech was an English potter 
from Wedgwood's Etruria works who came to 
Philadelphia in 1842 and worked for Abraham 
Miller until 1845 (B, pages 552-553). He appears 
in the directories as a potter at Schuylkill Front 
[Twenty-second] Street near Vine in 1845 and 
1846. In the latter year he exhibited at the 
Franklin Institute "No. 692, a small lot of earth?
enware, by R. B. Beach, Philadelphia, deposited 
by E. B. Jackson. A good article,?well fin?
ished,?and worthy of a Third Premium" (FIP 
16, page 411). Between 1847 and 1851, he was a 
potter at School and Edward streets, the location 
of Henry Remmey's old factory from which he 
had moved by 1847. (PD 62-65, 70, 71, 73, 74.) 
Beech is included as a potter in the 1850 census 
of manufactures (MC 3; see Appendix II). 
In 1851, Beech exhibited at the Franklin Institute 
examples of "Japanning on Earthenware" (FIP 
18, page 19) and in the same year he obtained a 
patent for tjie process. 
No. 8140.?Improvement in Ornamenting Baked Earthen?
wares. 
I do not intend herein to claim the general application 
of oil-painting to china or earthenware; but what I do 
claim as my invention, and desire to secure by letters 
patent, is? 
52 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
First. The application of coloring water mixed with 
varnish, or its equivalent, to the surface of baked earthen?
wares, for the purpose of giving to such ware a surface of 
sufficient body, and of sufficient brilliancy, for orna?
mental purposes; thus obviating the necessity of the 
glazing process, substantially as herein described. 
Second. The inlaying of pearls, gems, 8cc., on china 
and baked earthenware, for ornamental purposes, sub?
stantially as herein above described. 
Third. The peculiar cement and process by which I 
affix pearls and gems to the china or baked earthenware. 
RALPH B . BEECH 3 
Illustrative of the first described process is a 
hexagonal vase (Figure 20) decorated with a full-
length portrait of Stephen Girard that is now in 
the collection of the Philadelphia Museum of 
Art. An indistinct stamped mark on the base 
can be deciphered only as "RALPH B BEECH 
I . . . I ]\] . . . I KENSINGTON PA." This 
probably was intended to read "RALPH B. 
BEECH, / PATENT, / JUNE 3, 1851, / KEN?
SINGTON, PA." as shown in Figure 20 on the 
fragment excavated in Philadelphia. Beech is said 
to have made other such items decorated with 
portraits of famous people. Barber states that 
these were done by William Crombie, a landscape 
and flower painter from Edinburgh. According 
to Barber the first pieces of Beech's japanned 
ware were done by D. D. Dick, who appears in 
the city directories as a japanner at "Wheeler's 
ct" during the 1850s (PD 71, 74, 76, 78, 80-82, 
84, 88, 89). Barber indicates in the 1909 edition 
of The Pottery and Porcelain of the United 
States that there were at that time in the posses?
sion of Beech's daughter two vases illustrating 
both the varnishing and inlaying techniques de?
scribed in the patent (B, pages 553-554). 
In 1807 they placed the following ad in a Savan-
tute "Porcelain Flower and Scent Vases" as well 
as japanned earthenware (FIP 17, page 16). He 
called himself a porcelain manufacturer rather 
than a potter from 1852 to 1857 (except for 1856 
when he designated his listing as "earthenware"), 
but the location of his porcelain manufactory 
is uncertain. He may have been the potter who 
made the porcelain exhibited at the Franklin 
Institute in 1853 and 1854 by Kurlbaum & 
Schwartze, who are listed in the city directories 
at a porcelain manufactory on North Front Street 
below Oxford, 1854-1859. There is no evidence 
that either of these two men was himself a potter. 
(PD 76, 78, 80-82, 84, 88, 89; FIP 19, page 22, 
FIP 20, pages 59-60.) 
After Beech gave up potting, Thomas Haig is said 
to have bought some of his molds, among them a 
pitcher molded in the likeness of Daniel O'Con?
nell, an Irish patriot. According to Barber, the 
Rockingham-glazed pitcher (Figure 21) was made 
by Haig until much later in the century (B, pages 
176-177). Beech is said to have left Philadelphia 
around 1857 and to have gone to Honduras "in 
the interest of the Honduras Inter-Oceanic Rail?
way." Soon after his arrival there he died of 
yellow fever (B, page 554). 
Benner, Henry L. 1835-1852 
Potter in 1835-6 and earthenware manufacturer 
through 1843 at 405, 407, or 409 South Front 
Street, the site of the old Curtis pottery. In 1842 
and 1843 he listed both the Front Street address 
and a new address at 39 German Street. From 
1844 through 1852, he was at the latter address 
only. Probably expanding his works in 1844, he 
added refractory wares to his general earthen?
ware product by that year. (PD 45, 47, 51-53, 55, 
56, 58-65, 68, 71, 74, 76.) Maker of "Furnaces, 
Fire Brick and Earthen Wares" in the 1850 manu?
factures census (MC 3; see Appendix II). Before 
becoming a potter, Benner had been a bricklayer 
by 1811 and a brickmaker by 1829. (PD 25, 41.) 
Berry (Barry), Richard M. 1849-1862 
Working in partnership as "Clayton & Berry, 
Manufacturers of Fire Bricks, Tiles, Cylinders, 
and Portable Furnaces" at the southwest corner 
of Greenwich and Second streets, Southwark, by 
1849. Clayton may have been Jonathan Clayton 
who is listed in the city directories as a carpenter 
at Greenwich above Second during the three 
years of the Clayton & Berry association. The 
partnership continued through 1851 and adver?
tised in 1849 and 1850 in the commercial city 
directories: 
CLAYTON it BERRY, 
FIRE BRICK MANUFACTORY, 
S.W. Corner of Greenwich and Second Streets, 
SOUTHWARK. 
Fire Bricks, Stove Bricks, Cylinders, and Cylinder Bricks, 
Bakers' Tiles, Furnaces and Furnace Tiles, for Grates, and 
every article in the Fire Brick line, made of the best 
materials, constantly for sale. 
All orders in our line filled at the shortest notice. 
In 1853 Richard M. Berry was operating the 
NUMBER 43 53 
pottery alone and continued to do so until 1858 
when he was again in partnership, this time as 
"Berry & Simpson." This association continued 
through 1862. Simpson's identity is unknown. 
(PD 68, 69, 70-74, 79-82, 84, 87, 91, 95-97.) 
Clayton 8c Berry are included in the 1850 census 
of manufactures as makers of furnaces, cylinders, 
stove tile, and fire brick. In 1860 Berry & Simpson 
are included as fire brick makers. (MC 3, 4; see 
Appendix II.) 
Best, Henry 1841, 1859 
Listed in the 1841 county tax assessment as a 
potter near Pennsylvania Avenue and Schuylkill 
Eighth [Fifteenth] Street. He probably was a 
workman at the nearby Abraham Miller factory 
that opened around 1840. His location was only 
a few doors from that of William Henry who was 
a Miller employee. Henry Best may have been 
the "Best" whose "wages at [the Abraham Miller] 
pottery" were paid on 9 April 1859 and recorded 
by the executors of Miller's will under "inciden?
tal expenses of carrying on pottery from July 
1858 to March 1859 inclusive." * 
Biggs, C. D., & Co. 1853 
Listed in the 1853 commercial directory as makers 
of "Water Drain Pipes, Fire Bricks, Cylinders, 
and Portable Furnaces, Earthen Pottery Ware, 
Rockingham Ware, Coal Cylinders, and Nursery?
men's Flower Pots, etc." at 87 West Market Street 
(PD 79). This was formerly the pottery of John 
and Maria Grum and by 1855 it had been taken 
over by Owens & Tilton. 
Binny & Ronaldson 1808-1814? 
Archibald Binny and James Ronaldson were in 
partnership as typefounders at Cedar [also called 
South] Street and Eleventh from 1796 until 1815 
when Binny retired.^ The two men were entre?
preneurs whose endeavors included an association 
with Alexander Trotter in a queensware manu?
factory, the Columbian Pottery at Cedar Street 
near Thirteenth, between 1808 and c. 1814 (see 
entries for Alexander Trotter and Columbian 
Pottery). Their product included yellow and red 
tea sets (B, page 111), 
In 1807 they placed the following ad in a Savan?
nah newspaper: 
TO THE FRIENDS OF 
AMERICAN MANUFACTURES. 
A PERSON, who has been bred in Britain to the 
POTTERY BUSINESS, in all its branches, with the ex?
press view of establishing that important Manufacture in 
Philadelphia, has now arrived here, and taken measures 
for the commencement of the above business. Being 
anxious to procure the best possible materials which he 
has no doubt are to be found in abundance in many parts 
of the United States, he hereby solicits the attention of 
such patriotic gentle man throughout the Union, as may 
feel disposed to Patronize his establishment, to such 
CLAYS or FLINTS, (particularly the Black Flint) as may 
be found in their respective neighborhoods, and invites 
them to send specimens of such as they may think worthy 
of attention, to Messrs. BINNY Sc RONALDSON, Letter-
Founders, Philadelphia, accompanied by a written descrip?
tion of the quantity in which the article may be pro?
cured, its situation, distance from water carriage, and 
such other remarks as may be thought useful, when the 
various specimens shall be carefully analized, and the 
result communicated to the doners, if required. 
It is particularly requested, that attention may be paid 
to sending specimens of clay that are free from all 
ferruginous or irony matter, as the presence of iron totally 
unfits them for the uses for which they are intended, and 
all those which assume a reddish color when burnt will 
not answer, as the purest white is desired. Specimens 
may be sent in small quantities weighing from one to 
two pounds, and by that mode of conveyance which will be 
least expensive. 
The "PERSON, who has been bred in Britain to 
the POTTERY BUSINESS" was undoubtedly 
Alexander Trotter. In November of the same 
year, their products were listed in a Virginia 
newspaper as being among several new American 
manufactures.^ 
AMERICAN MANUFACTURE. 
The following new American manufactures, we quote from 
Hope's Price Current with pleasure, as an evidence of 
the increase of public spirit, and a sure presage of future 
prosperity and independence (Aurora.) . . 
EARTHEN WARE. 
Manufactured by Binny and Ronaldson. 
Yellow-tea pots, coffee pots and sugar 
per dozen 
Assorted ware, do. 
Red-tea pots, coffee pots and sugar boxes, 
per dozen 
boxes. 
1 25 
2 50 
On 18 May 1812, a potter's apprentice was bound 
to "Masters Alex'* Trotter and Binney & Ronald?
son." The indenture was cancelled on 7 February 
1814.^  This may be the closing date of the pottery. 
Boulter, Charles J. 1829-1872 
According to Barber, Charles Boulter was "at one 
time connected with the Tucker and Hemphill 
China Manufactory . . . where he remained until 
the works w-ere closed [in 1838]," eventually going 
to Abraham Miller's pottery (B, page 110). His 
54 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
addresses in the city directories, however, suggest 
that he may have worked at the porcelain manu?
factory roughly between 1829 and 1833, when he 
is listed as a potter near the site (PD 41-44). A 
pitcher in the collection of the Metropolitan 
Museum of Art is in the Tucker "Grecian" style 
and has a "B" on the bottom, suggesting that 
Boulter may have been either the mold-maker or 
the former of that piece.^ 
In the 1835-36 city directory. Boulter is listed at 
"Shrivers ct." which was close to Abraham Miller's 
Zane Street pottery and he continued at that 
address through 1840. By 1842 he was on Thir?
teenth Street near Miller's new James Street fac?
tory which was "conducted by his [Miller's] late 
Foreman, Mr. C. J. Boulter" (B, page 108). 
Boulter was at the Thirteenth Street address 
until 1852 when he changed his working address 
to 357 Ridge Road. (PD 45-47, 51, 52, 56, 57, 
59, 62, 64, 65, 68, 71, 74, 76.) This address change 
may have belatedly reflected Boulter's shift from 
a foreman in Miller's shop to operator of his own 
factory. In the 1850 census of manufactures he is 
listed as an independent potter making "General 
Pottery" (MC 3; see Appendix II) and in 1853 he 
exhibited fire bricks at the Franklin Institute 
(FIP 19, page 9; see Appendix IV). 
Barber notes that Charles Boulter took over the 
operation of Miller's pottery after the latter's 
death in 1858, but this is unlikely (B, page 110). 
Boulter is listed at his own pottery in both the 
1850 and 1860 censuses of manufactures. In 1860 
his pottery was in the Fifteenth Ward, which was 
close to but did not include the site of the old 
Miller pottery. (MC 3, 4; see Appendix II.) 
Boulter received a $400 legacy in Miller's will. 
Item?I give and bequeath unto Charles J. Boulter 
now or late in my employ . . . the Sum of Four hundred 
Dollars to be paid . as soon as conveniently may be 
after my decease. 
Also, he was paid $8.75 by the executors of the 
will for "making bricks" during the months the 
pottery was kept in operation by them after 
Miller's death. But no data suggest that Boulter 
bought the pottery. He is not at any time be?
tween 1852 and 1860 listed at the Miller pottery 
address. (PD 78, 80-82, 84, 88, 89, 92, 94.) Barber 
notes that Boulter "carried on the [Miller] busi?
ness for many years" after the latter's death and 
"subsequently moved the works to 1617-1627 
North Street" (B, page 110). In fact. Boulter's 
pottery is listed at North Street above Sixteenth 
by 1860 and we know that Miller's pottery was 
still in the hands of his executors as late as March 
1860 and was apparently closed at that time.^ 
(PD 94.) According to Barber, Boulter died in 
1872. The 1873 and 1874 directories list Charles 
Boulter, Jr., at the pottery and by 1875 it was in 
the hands of Boulter's daughters E. A. and A. L. 
Boulter (B, page 110; PD 106-108). 
Bowers, Jacob 1797-1817 
Potter in 1797, 1802, 1803, 1816, and 1817 at 
various addresses in Northern Liberties near both 
the Gossner pottery and the Second Street pot?
teries (PD 8, 15, 16, 28, 30). 
Bowers, John 1850-1851 
Listed in the city directories in 1850 and 1851 as 
a potter at Church above Reed (PD 71, 74). 
Boyer, Abraham 1842-1855 
Listed irregularly in the city directories as a potter 
from 1842 through 1855 at various addresses (PD 
56, 59, 62, 63, 68, 74, 76, 78, 80, 81). 
Brackney, Hazadiah 1849-1853 
Potter at various addresses, 1849-1853; listed as 
a driver in 1855 (PD 68, 71, 74, 76, 78, 81). 
Brelsford, John 1846-1858 
Potter at New Market and Germantown Road 
between 1846 and 1857. He may have operated 
his own pottery during all of this 12-year period 
although he listed himself only as "potter" until 
1849 when he advertised his "Northern Liberties 
Stone Ware Manufactory . . . orders received at 
John Eckstein's, 36 n 3d st, Cornelius & Son, 176 
Chesnut st." In the same year he listed the 
"Northern Earthenware Factory" but there is no 
indication that he continued to make earthen?
ware. Brelsford is included in the 1850 census of 
manufactures (MC 3; see Appendix II). In 1853 
the directory indicates that he was "manufr. of 
Chemical Apparatus, Stone Water Pipes, and 
Stoneware in general." (PD 63-65, 68-74, 76, 
78-82, 84, 88.) Two examples of his household 
stoneware are illustrated in Figures 26 and 27. 
In 1858 Brelsford still listed himself as a potter 
but he had changed his address to 958 North 
Fifth Street, and his old pottery had been taken 
over by N. Spencer Thomas, a chemist also listed 
in that year as a potter at "New Market n Ger?
mantown road" (PD 87, 88). 
Browers (Brower), Jacob 1817-1847 
Listed irregularly as a potter, 1817-1847 (PD 30-
NUMBER 43 55 
33, 35, 36, 41-44, 47, 54, 64). He was taxed $25 on 
personal property in the 1826 county tax assess?
ment. In the same year, Jacob Browers, Jr., was 
apprenticed to Jacob Browers, Sr. The indenture 
was cancelled in 1831.^ ? Browers, Sr., obviously 
operated his own pottery at least during the 
1826-1831 period of this indenture. 
Buck, Jacob 1850,1860 
Potter at Vienna Street above West in Kensington 
in 1850 and at "13 Wheat" in 1860. He was 
probably one of the Jacob Bucks listed in the 
intervening ten years as bartender, carpenter, or 
tinsmith at various addresses. (PD 71, 76, 80, 82, 
84, 88, 89, 92.) 
Burnett (Barnett), Enoch (Enos) 1827-1836 
Partner of Henry Remmey, Jr., in the Burnett & 
Remmey stoneware pottery. In May 1827 Enoch 
Burnett and Henry Remmey, Jr., purchased for 
the sum of $3800 the Branch Green stoneware 
factory and advertised in the following year: 
OLD STONEWARE 
ESTABLISHMENT 
Burnett k Remmey, successors to Branch Green, respect?
fully inform their friends and dealers generally in that 
article, that they have purchased Branch Green's Estab?
lishment, near the forks of Second Street and the Ger?
mantown Road, where they manufacture and keep on 
hand, an extensive assortment of Stone and Earthenware, 
of a superior quality, and will supply orders of any 
amount, as low as any in the City. All orders left at 
J. Thompson's Drug Store, Cor. of Market 8c Second Street, 
or at Read and Gray's China Store, Market Street, third 
door above Fifth, will be punctually attended to. 
N.B.?Country orders will be carefully packed delivered 
in any part of the City.n 
The association was a short-lived one and in 1831 
Remmey bought out his partner's half interest for 
$2000." 
Burnett is undoubtedly the same Enoch Burnett 
who was apprenticed to Baltimore potter Thomas 
Amos in 1813; he appears again in that city in 
the 1840-1841 and 1842 directories at the Maul-
den Perine pottery.^^ jjj t^e i827 deed for the 
purchase of the Branch Green property, Burnett 
listed himself as a Philadelphia resident, although 
he is not listed In the city directories there until 
1829. He continues to be listed as a stoneware 
merchant or a potter in Philadelphia through 
1836. (PD 41-45.) 
Burnett & Remmey (Barnett & Remmey) 1827-1831 
Partnership of Enoch Burnett and Henry Rem?
mey, stoneware merchants and manufacturers at 
North Second Street near Master, 1827-1831. 
Though they are called stoneware merchants in 
the city directories, an 1828 advertisement makes 
it clear that they also "manufacture . . . an 
extensive assortment of Stone and Earthen?
ware." ^^  (PD 41-44.) 
Burns, Cokely 1850. 1852 
Potter at Spooner's Avenue in 1850 and at Second 
above Franklin in 1852 (PD 71, 76). 
Burth, John 1820-1822 
Potter at Germantown Road near Fourth Street, 
about two blocks from the Branch Green pottery, 
1820-1822 (PD 33, 35, 36). 
Campbell, John 1814 
A potter at 102 Crown Street in 1814 (PD 27). 
Carothers, Robert 1813-1814 
A potter at Crown Street in 1813-1814 (PD 26, 
27). 
Carson, John 1849-1850 
Potter, 1849-1850, at Carlton Street above Thir?
teenth, near the Abraham Miller factory. He is 
called a brickmaker at the same address between 
1851 and 1853. (PD 68, 71, 74, 76, 78.) 
Chamberlain (ChamberHn), William H. 1850?-
1865 
Potter in Philadelphia from 1850 through 1865 at 
various addresses in Northern Liberties near the 
Remmey and Haig potteries (PD 71, 74, 76, 78, 
80-82, 84, 89, 92, 94, 96, 97, 100). Possibly the 
same William Chamberlain recorded by Barber 
as a "Philadelphian . . . employed as one of the 
decorators" at the Tucker and Hemphill porce?
lain manufactory (B, page 152). A William 
Chamberlain is listed in the 1835-1836 directory 
as a brickmaker (PD 45). 
Charlton, James 1810-1819 
Listed in the city directory in 1810 as a potter at 
Cedar near Thirteenth, perhaps working at 
Alexander Trotter and Binny 8c Ronaldson's 
Columbian Pottery. If that is true, he must have 
been immediately attracted away from the Colum?
bian Pottery by John Mullowny who indicated 
in a letter to President Madison dated 26 October 
1810 that "Mr. James Charleton (an englishman 
by birth)" was the "manufacturer" at the Wash?
ington Pottery of which Mullowny was "'proprie?
tor." ^^  In 1811 Charlton was listed at "Spruce 
near Schuylkill" closer to Mullowny's Market 
Street pottery. How long the association of 
Mullowny and Charlton continued is uncertain. 
66 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
By 1813 Charlton had moved to North Front 
Street. In 1817 he was in business with Thomas 
Haig as "Charlton 8c Haigs stone ware potters" at 
537 North Front Street. Haig had left this site 
to establish his own pottery at Fourth and Poplar 
by 1819. (PD 23, 24, 26-28, 30-32.) 
James Charlton died in December 1819. The 
absence of pottery-making equipment in the July 
1820 inventory of his "goods and Chattels" along 
with the presence of a considerable number and 
variety of ceramic tableware items listed therein, 
suggests that he may have given up potting and 
begun a china-marketing business shortly before 
his death. This possibility is reinforced by the 
fact that his widow Martha listed herself be?
tween 1820 and 1822 at a "China Store" at 417 
North Front, an address that had been added to 
James Charlton's last directory listing in 1819.^ *^  
(PD 33, 35, 36.) 
Charlton 8c Haigs 1817 
Partnership of James Charlton and Thomas Haig, 
listed in the 1817 city directory as stoneware 
makers at 537 North Front Street (PD 30). 
Clark, Israel 1808-1819 
Listed as a potter at 198 North Second or "back" 
of that address from 1808 to 1811 and from 1813 
to 1817 at 38 Bread. Both addresses were near 
the Gilbert pottery on Branch between Third and 
Fourth. In 1818 and 1819 he was a potter at 
different addresses. He probably was the same 
Israel Clark listed from 1821 to 1822 as "oyster 
cellar" at 81 Shippen, but who is gone from the 
directories by 1823. (PD 21-28, 30-33, 35, 36.) 
Clark, W. 1846-1847 
Potter at Fifth above Cedar, 1846 and 1847 (PD 
63, 64). 
Clark, WilHam 1818-1823 
Bound to Joseph Gossner on 10 August 1818, the 
indenture cancelled on 17 November 1823.^ ^ 
Clayton 8c Berry (Barry) 1849-1851 
Partnership of Richard M. Berry and probably 
Jonathan Clayton, as manufacturers of fire bricks, 
tiles, cylinders, and portable furnaces, 1849-1851 
(PD 68-73; see entry for Richard M. Berry). 
Colboack, Daniel 1833 
Potter at "N E Chester k Limon" in 1833 (PD 44). 
Columbian Pottery 1808-1814? 
Queensware pottery operated by Binny k Ronald?
son and Alexander Trotter, 1808-1814? (See 
separate entries for Binny k Ronaldson and 
Trotter.) Advertised in 1811: 
THE PROPRIETORS OF 
THE COLUMBIAN POTTERY, 
SOUTH STREET, BETWEEN TWELFTH AND THIR?
TEENTH STREETS, PHILADELPHIA, 
RETURN their sincere thanks to the patriotic citizens 
of the United States, for the very distinguished patronage 
they have hitherto received, and inform them, that they 
have greatly improved the quality of their WARE, as well 
as added to their Works, so as to enable them to keep a 
constant supply, proportioned to the increasing demand. 
Dealers from all parts of the United States will find 
their interest in applying as above, where there is always 
on hand a large assortment of TEA and COFFEE POTS, 
PITCHERS and JUGS, of all sizes, plain and ornamented, 
WINE COOLERS, BASONS and EWERS, BAKING 
DISHES, 8cc. 8cc. at prices much lower than they can be 
imported. 
In 1813 they advertised: 
Columbia Pottery, 
South-street, near Twelfth-street, 
PHILADELPHIA. 
The proprietors inform the public, that they can now 
be supplied with every article of 
AMERICAN 
Manufactured Queensware, at the following reasonable 
rates?viz 
Chamber Pots 4s a | 2 25 per doz 
Ditto ditto 6s 1 80 ditto 
Wash Hand Basons 4s 2 ditto 
Ditto ditto 6s 1 60 ditto 
Pitchers 4s 2 70 ditto 
Coffee Pots 4s 5 ditto 
Ditto ditto 6s 4 ditto 
Tea Pots 12s 2 25 diUo 
Ditto IBs 1 80 ditto 
Pitchers 6s 1 80 ditto 
Dinner Plates 75 cents per dozen?all other sizes, with 
every other article of Queensware, in proportion. 
The proprietors beg leave to remark, that the above 
rates are less than half the price of the cheapest imported 
Liverpool Queensware can be purchased at, and they 
also engage that the quality of the ware they now manu?
facture, will give general satisfaction. 
Their new manufactory of White Queensware will be 
ready for delivery in all May. 
NB A few thousand best quality Fire Bricks for sale.is 
Cooper, Alfred H. 1850 
In 1850 Alfred H. Cooper exhibited at the Frank?
lin Institute "1 Invoice Coarse Earthenware." 
The judges reported that it was "the commonest 
kind of red earthenware of very inferior quality 
in the body, in the soft lead glaze 8c of tasteless 
forms" (FIM 6, page 18). An Alfred Cooper is 
listed in the 1850 city directory as a merchant 
at 109 High [Market] Street (PD 71). 
NUMBER 43 57 
Cox, MenanK. 1813-1817 
Associated with William Wallace as Wallace and 
Cox, 1813-1817; listed separately as "potter" dur?
ing the same years (PD 26-28, 30). 
Cox, Samuel 1837-1840 
Potter on Apple Street in 1837 and on German-
town Road in 1839 and 1840 (PD 46, 47, 51, 52). 
Coxon, Jonathan 1847 
Listed as a potter in 1847 at Perry above Franklin, 
near the new Ralph Beech pottery (PD 64). Pos?
sibly the same Jonathan Coxon who later worked 
in Trenton, New Jersey.^^ 
Curtis, Charles 1805 
Potter at 54 Shippen in 1805 (PD 18). 
Curtis, Henry W. 1823-1843 
A potter in 1823 and 1824 at 122 Swanson. Ap?
parently a relative of John Curtis, he was at the 
407 South Front Street pottery address between 
1828 and 1833 but listed no occupation. After 
the family pottery closed, Henry Curtis is listed 
as a potter at various addresses between 1835 and 
1843. In 1844 and 1845 he was no longer a potter 
but listed his occupation as "trimmings." (PD 37, 
38, 40-46, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 62.) Henry Curtis, 
potter, was taxed $62.50 on his personal property 
in the 1841 Pennsylvania state tax assessment.^o 
Curtis, John By 1781-1796 
A John Curtis was potting in Philadelphia before 
1781 and died in 1796.^ 1 On 8 July 1790 John 
Curtis and Jacob Roat, potters in Southwark, 
announced the dissolution of their partnership 
and Curtis noted: 
John Curtis, wishes to inform his Friends, and the 
Public in general, that he still carries on the Potting 
Business, as usual, in all its various branches, at his 
Pottery Ware Manufactory in Front street, near the 
corner of Love lane, Southwark?Where any person may 
be supplied, on the most reasonable terms, with all kinds 
of EARTHEN WARE, Wholesale and Retail. 
JOHN CuRTis.22 
He is in the 1791 city directory as potter at 553 
South Front Street and in 1793 this listing ap?
pears along with "John Curtis, potter, 257, So. 
Second St." The next mention of John Curtis as 
a potter is in 1796 on South Front Street. (PD 
2, 3, 7.) 
Curtis, John 1797-1831? 
From 1797 through 1804 John Curtis, presum?
ably the son of the above mentioned John Curtis, 
was a potter at 405 South Front Street. Appar?
ently expanding the pottery, his address included 
407 as well as 405 South Front between 1805 and 
1822. He is Hsted at 405, 407, and/or 409 South 
Front Street as late as 1831 but is not listed as a 
potter after 1824. 
"Curtis , potter b of 407 S. Front" ap?
pears in the directories between 1825 and 1831 
and could refer to either John or Henry Curtis. 
One of these men was in a short-lived partnership 
as "Curtis 8c Gordon" (probably James Gordon) 
at 407 South Front in 1825. 
No Curtises are listed on South Front Street after 
1833, and the pottery site had been taken over 
by Henry L. Benner by 1835-1836. (PD 8-13, 
15-24, 26-29, 31-33, 35-43.) 
Curtis 8c Gordon 1825 
Listed at the back of 407 South Front, this prob?
ably was a partnership of potters James Gordon 
and John or Henry Curtis (PD 39). 
Darragh (Darrah), Thomas 1847-1870 + 
According to Barber, Thomas Darragh was ap?
prenticed to Abraham Miller in 1838 and stayed 
there as an apprentice and journeyman for 
twenty years (B, page 343). Miller died in 1858. 
Darragh is listed in the city directories 1847-1855 
at various addresses that generally were in the 
neighborhood of Miller's pottery (PD 64, 65, 68, 
71, 74, 76, 78, 80, 81, 89). Around 1845, according 
to Barber, Darragh made large Rockingham-
glazed tiles that were used as facing on the ex?
terior of Miller's warehouse and also made mot?
tled tiles for paving in front of Miller's house on 
Spruce Street (B, page 343). 
Between 1859 and 1869 Darragh appears irregu?
larly in the directories at various addresses; by 
1870 he was a superintendent at the Charles 
Boulter pottery (PD 97, 98, 103-105). In 1893 
when the first edition of Pottery and Porcelain 
was published, Darragh was working for Hyzer k 
Lewellen (B, page 343). 
Dasher, Charles 1805-1810? 
Bound as a potter's apprentice to Michael Freytag 
in 1805. The indenture was cancelled in 1810 
and he was rebound to Daniel Freytag.^^ 
Davis, Daniel 1846-1855 
Potter, 1846-1855, first at 539 North Second 
Street, and in 1854 and 1855 at "rear 543 N 2d." 
In 1857 he was a "clerk" at the latter address. 
His working dates as well as his location suggest 
that he was a potter at John Brelsford's stoneware 
factory. (PD 63-65, 68, 71, 74, 76, 80, 81.) 
58 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
Deal, Jacob 1847-1860 
Listed irregularly as a potter at various addresses 
in Northern Liberties between 1847 and 1860 
(PD 64, 71, 74, 78, 81, 82, 84, 88, 92). 
Dennison (Denison), James 1806-1833 
Potter at various addresses from 1806 to 1833; 
probably working at the Miller 8c Moser pottery 
at 310 North Second Street or at one of the other 
Second Street potteries from 1825 to 1833 when 
he was at 131 St. Johns. George Moser was also 
hsted at 131 St. Johns in 1828 and 1829, and this 
location was close to, if not part of, the Miller k 
Moser shop. (PD 19-24, 26-29, 31-33, 35-44.) 
Devincy, William 1828-1833 
Listed as a potter at 4 Pennsylvania Avenue from 
1828-1833 (PD 40-44). Possibly the same person 
as William Devinney. 
Devinney (Deviney), William 1839-1845 
Possibly the same person as William Devincy; 
listed irregularly at various addresses 1839-1845 
(PD 51, .54, 59, 62). 
Dowler, Jacob 1840-1865 
Jacob Dowler was a "fire brick Manuf." at 
Eleventh and Coates by 1840. He remained at 
that address (as Dowler k Beidelman in 1843 and 
J. Dowler k Co. in 1844) until 1847 when he hsted 
himself at "9th bel Coates." This change in ad?
dress, a difference of about two blocks, probably 
represents an expansion of the works rather than 
a move. His residence remained at Eleventh and 
Coates. In 1859 and 1860, Dowler apparently 
operated a coal yard as well as the fire brick works 
but by 1862, and thiough 1865, he was a brick?
maker only. (PD 52, 54, 56, 58, 60-65, 68, 70-73, 
76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 88, 89, 92, 94, 97-100.) The 
1850 census of manufactures indicates that he was 
making "Earthen Ware/8c Fire Tile" valued at 
$4500 (MC 3; see Appendix II). In 1872 a Jacob 
Dowler witnessed the will of potter George 
Sweeny.^ ^ 
Dowler and Beidelman 1843 
Listed in the 1843 commercial city directory under 
manufacturers of fire brick at Coates Street below 
Eleventh (PD 58). Dowler was Jacob Dowler. 
Downey, George 1837-1863 
Listed in the city directories at addresses near 
Schuylkill Eighth [Fifteenth] and Callowhill be?
tween 1839 and 1863. He was undoubtedly a 
workman at the nearby Miller factory which 
opened around 1840. (PD 47, 51, 52, 54, 59, 
62-65, 68, 71, 74, 76, 78. 80-82, 84, 88, 89, 92, 
96-98.) The 1841 county tax assessment shows 
him at a house on the east side of Eighth Street 
near William Henry, another Miller workman, 
and "Henry Best potter," probably also working 
at the new Miller manufactory. The 1842 
assessment again lists Henry and Downey at the 
Eighth Street location.^s Before he became a 
potter, George Downey had been a cordwainer 
[leather worker or shoemaker] at "Sch 8th ab 
Callowhill" (PD 43, 44). 
Dubois, John 1841-1846 
Potter at various addresses, 1841-1846 (PD 54, 
56, 57, 59, 62, 63). 
Edmund, Wilham 1814 
Listed in the directories in 1814 as a potter at 
"George above Twelfth" (PD 27). 
Elhott, Isaac 1850-1852 
Potter at "3 Gay's ct" [Kensington] in 1850 and 
at "18 Myrtle" [Spring Garden] in 1852 (PD 71, 
76). 
English, Isaac 1816?-1843 
According to one reference, Isaac English estab?
lished a pottery in the Frankford section of 
Philadelphia County in 1816.^ 6 Though his name 
does not appear in the city directories, he is 
listed as an earthenware potter in the Census of 
Manufactures in 1820. In that year he produced 
$2000 worth of "sugar moulds, milk [?] potts Jars 
Jugs mugs" at his "Pottery in the Borough of 
Frankford, Township of Oxford Philadelphia 
County." (MC 1; see Appendix II.) Isaac English 
never appears in the city directories but he prob?
ably was at the 109 Frankford Street address later 
listed by his apparent successors Joseph and 
Samuel English. English died in 1843 and ac?
cording to his will, filed on 17 January of that 
year, he left all his possessions to his wife Susan. 
These included 3000 fire bricks valued at 
and "finished and unfinished ware" worth 
The will makes no mention of a successor but the 
English pottery in Frankford continued in opera?
tion until at least 1860.^ ^ (See entries for Joseph 
and Samuel English) 
Enghsh, Joseph 1843?-1857? 
Possibly the successor to the pottery of Isaac 
English who died in 1843, and the proprietor of 
the "J.[?]V.T. English" pottery listed in the 1850 
manufactures census (MC 3; see Appendix II.) 
Joseph English is included in the 1856 and 1857 
NUMBER 43 59 
city directories as "earthenw. 109 Frankford" 
(PD 82. 84). 
Enghsh, Samuel 1859-1866 
Took over the English pottery in Frankford by 
1860 at which time he is included in the manu?
factures census as a maker of earthenware in the 
Twenty-third Ward, which included the old 
Borough of Frankford (MC 4). He is listed in the 
city directories as a potter in Frankford in 1859 
and 1860; in the 1860-1861 directory he is listed 
under "Potteries" at 109 Frankford, formerly 
Joseph English's address. He appears in the 
directories as a potter in Frankford through 1866. 
(PD 84, 88, 89, 94, 95, 96-101.) 
Etriss, George 1840 
Potter at "36 Mead" in 1840 (PD 52). 
Farley, John E. 1813-1814 
A potter at 468 Sassafras in 1813 and 1814 (PD 
26, 27). 
Fisher, George 1844 
A potter in 1844 at "Wood above Sch 2d [Twenty-
first]" (PD 59). 
Fowler, Henry 1845-1870-f 
Listed as a potter at various addresses from 1845 
through 1848. In 1850 and 1851 he was at Fraley's 
Alley and from 1852 through 1870 on Allen 
Street, both in Kensington. At these addresses he 
could have been working at the nearby English 
or Innes manufactories. The latter was closed by 
1860. (PD 62-65, 71, 74. 76, 78, 80-82, 84, 88, 89, 
92, 96-105.) 
Francis, James W. 1839-1870 + 
A potter at Filbert near Schuylkill Seventh [Six?
teenth] Street, 1839 through 1842; at Jones near 
Schuylkill Fifth [Eighteenth] Street from 1843 
through 1858, and at 26 North Eighteenth Street, 
1860-1870 (PD 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 62-64, 71, 
74, 76, 78, 80-82, 88, 92, 96, 99-101, 103-105). 
Francis, Joseph 1818-1826 
Potter at "Front above Poplar lane" in 1818 and 
at "500 north Front," probably the same location, 
1819-1824 (PD 31-33, 35-38). He probably was 
working at the James Charlton and Thomas Haig 
pottery at 537 North Front Street. After the 
1819 closing of that pottery, he may have gone to 
the new Haig pottery on Fourth Street or to the 
Jennings or English manufactories, which were 
within a few blocks of his Front Street address. 
In the 1826 county tax assessment, he is listed as 
a potter in the Fifth Ward, Northern Liberties.^^ 
Frederick, Charles 1826?-1838? 
A workman in the Tucker porcelain factory (B, 
page 152). His wares were marked with a script 
" F " or a " C F . " 29 
Freytag, Daniel 1806-1824 
Probably the son of Michael Freytag, Daniel 
Freytag was a potter at 409 North Front Street in 
1806 and 1807 and by 1808 was at the family 
pottery on South Fifth Street between Cedar and 
Shippen. When Michael Freytag changed his 
occupation to Justice of the Peace in 1808 he 
apparently retired from the potting business, 
turning the operation over to Daniel. (PD 19-21.) 
In 1810, Charles Dasher, an apprentice under 
Michael Freytag since 1805, was rebound to 
Daniel Freytag.^" By 1811 Daniel Freytag was 
making fine ware and was given special mention 
in the "Census" city directory. 
Pottery?Daniel Freytag, 192 S. Fifth Street, manufactures 
about 500 dolls, (and is increasing fast) of a finer quality 
of ware, than has been heretofore manufactured in the 
United States. This ware is made of various colours, and 
embellished with gold or silver; exports annually to 
foreign countries, about 500 dolls. (PD 24.) 
Freytag continued to operate the family pottery 
through 1824. Between 1816 and 1824 the pottery 
is listed at 137 or 139 Cedar. This address was 
right around the corner from the Fifth Street 
address. It is not likely that the pottery had been 
moved. The change may represent a variant in 
recording the address or an expansion of Freytag's 
property holdings?by 1818 he was operating a 
queensware store as well as a pottery at the site. 
He continued to operate both through 1824. The 
1825 directory listing of Mary Freytag, widow, 
"china k queen's ware store 139 Cedar" suggests 
that Daniel had died by that date. (PD 22-24, 
26-33, 35-39.) 
Freytag, Daniel C. 1816-1822 
Apparently not the same person as Daniel Frey?
tag. Daniel C. Freytag listed his occupation as 
"china etc. store" at 166 North Third Street in 
1816 and 1817 and at 68 North Third, 1818-1822. 
He was at the same addresses, 1817-1822, in 
partnership as "Freytag 8c Kempman, china glass 
and queensware store." Kempman's identity is 
unknown. (PD 28-33, 35, 36.) 
Freytag, Margaret 1798 
In the 1798 city directory as "potter, south fifth 
corner of small st." (PD 9) 
60 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
Freytag, Michael By 1794-1807 
Potter at South Fifth Street between Cedar and 
Shippen from 1794 to 1807. In 1808 he gave up 
potting and became "justice of the peace," main?
taining his address in the same block as the pot?
tery. (PD 4, 8-10, 12, 15-21.) Michael Freytag's 
pottery is undoubtedly the one referred to in the 
following 1797 advertisement: 
Earthen Ware Manufactory.?Cheap Iron Kettles. 
For Sale, Three large cast-iron Kettles or Boilers, gen?
erally used for boiling sugar in the West-Indies, and 
post askes, [sic] etc. in this country. Apply at the 
Earthen Ware Manufactory, in Fifth below South 
street.3i 
An apprentice, Daniel Asoy (?), was bound to 
Michael Freytag in 1804 and another, Charles 
Dasher, in 1805. The second indenture was can?
celled in 1810 and the apprentice rebound to 
Michael Freytag's successor, Daniel Freytag.^^ 
Fry, George 1803-1817 
Listed as a potter in the city directories, 1803-
1817 (PD 16-24, 27-29). In 1817 the "Pottery in 
4th St. above Cherry Alley formerly occupied by 
Geo. Fry" was advertised for rent.^^ This was 
close to?possibly the same as?the site operated 
by John Thompson earlier. 
Fry, John 1811-1817 
Potter from 1811 to 1817. He hsted his address 
at North Fourth Street and at 136 Sassafras and 
undoubtedly was working at George Fry's pot?
tery. (PD 24, 26-29.) 
Gaggers, Jonathan 1814 
A potter at 42 Artillery Lane in 1814 (PD 27). 
Garrison, James 1837-1869 
Potter at various addresses from 1837 to 1845. 
Garrison's addresses between 1847 and 1859 sug?
gest that he may have worked for Ralph Beech 
and later for Kurlbaum and Schwartze. He was 
on North Sixth Street, 1860-1869. (PD 47, 52, 
54, 56, 57, 59, 62-65, 68, 71, 74, 76, 78, 80-82, 88, 
89, 94, 98-103.) 
George, Andrew 1816-1818, 1826, 1828-1842 
Operating a pottery as "Andrew George k Co., 
stoneware potters" in 1816 and 1817, and listed 
in the city directory as "stoneware potter" in 
1818. This stoneware pottery may have been 
another Binny k Ronaldson venture. It was 
located at Cedar near Tenth Street, close to their 
typefoundry, and near the old Trotter works. In 
1819, the pottery apparently closed, Andrew 
George was a typefounder at "Bonsall," a small 
street in the neighborhood of the pottery and 
near the Binny k Ronaldson typefoundry. (PD 
28, 29, 31, 32.) Although Andrew George does 
not appear in the city directories again until 
1828, he was working as a potter in 1826 when 
"And^ George 8c Co in Zane Street" submitted 
to the Franklin Institute exhibit (FIM 3) the 
following: 
174 10 Lustre Tea Pots 
8 " 2 Mugs 8c 6 Pitchers 
5 Red Tea Pots 
2 " Pitchers 
4 " Mugs 
1 demi PP 
The "Lustre" probably was actually black-glazed 
ware (see page 19). The location of his pottery 
on the same street as Abraham Miller's pottery 
suggests some connection between the two men. 
By 1833 Andrew George had established a furnace 
manufactory on Ridge Road between Washington 
and Wallace streets. In 1837 and 1839, this was 
called a brick works and by 1841 he had expanded 
his interests, locating the "furnace factory" at 
"155 St. John" and "fire bricks" at the Ridge 
Road site. (PD 40-45, 47, 51, 53-55.) 
Andrew George died intestate by 1842 and his 
property descended to his sisters, one of whom 
was Elizabeth Sweeny, widow. Mrs. Sweeny sold 
her share of the property to George Sweeny, "Fire 
Brick Maker," who took over the operation of 
the pottery.31 
Gilbert, Ann 1795-1800 
Wife of the older Michael Gilbert and mother 
of the younger.^^ She apparently carried on her 
husband's pottery after his death in 1793, and is 
listed in the city directories as "widow potter" 
in 1795, 1796, and 1799. In the 1800 directory she 
is included under the heading for "Potters" but 
by 1801 her son Michael had taken over the 
pottery. (PD 5, 7, 10, 12, 14.) 
Gilbert, Henry 1828-1865 
Worked in the Gilbert family pottery on Branch 
Street in 1828 and 1829 and probably was there 
until the pottery closed sometime between 1833 
and 1835. After the pottery closed, he continued 
to work as a potter at various addresses at least 
through 1865. (PD 40-46, 51, 52, 54, 59, 62-65, 
68, 71, 74, 76, 80-82, 89, 92, 96-100.) 
NUMBER 43 61 
Gilbert, Michael 1785-1793 
Members of the Gilbert family were potters in 
Philadelphia before 1785. In that year Michael 
and Matthias Gilbert are listed in the city's first 
directory at the Gilbert family pottery on Branch 
Street. Matthias had disappeared from the direc?
tories when one next was published in 1791; 
Michael died in 1793.3? (PD 1, 2). Michael Gil?
bert, along with Christian Piercy, led the impres?
sive potters' display in the "Grand Federal Pro?
cession" in 1788. 
A flag, on which was neatly painted a kiln burning, and 
several men at work in the different branches of the busi?
ness. Motto?"The potter hath power over his clay." A 
four wheeled carriage drawn by two horses, on which was 
a potter's wheel, and men at work; a number of cups, 
bowls, mugs, 8cc. were miade during the procession; the 
carriage was followed by twenty potters, headed by Messrs. 
Christian Piercy and Michael Gilbert, wearing linen aprons 
of American manufacture.37 
Gilbert, Michael 1801-1831 
After Michael Gilbert's death, his widow Ann 
carried on the pottery business until their eldest 
son, Michael, took over in 1801. The second 
Michael operated the pottery until his death in 
1831.38 (PD 14^  15, 18-24, 26-29. 31. 32, 37-39, 
41-44; see inventory. Appendix III.) 
Gilbert. Samuel 1808-1810 
Brother of the younger Michael Gilbert and a 
potter at the Gilbert family pottery from 1808 to 
1810 39 (PD 21-23). 
Gordon, James 1823-1825 
Potter at various addresses from 1823 to 1825 (PD 
37-39). Probably a partner in the Curtis and 
Gordon pottery listed in the directory in 1825 at 
the back of 407 South Front, the location of the 
Curtis family pottery. 
Gossner (Gosner, Grosner), Joseph 1806-c. 1841 
Joseph Gossner was a potter at various addresses 
in the neighborhood of the Second Street pot?
teries in 1806, 1809, and 1810 (PD 19, 22, 23). By 
1811 he was established at a site in the 200 block 
of Coates Street where his family pottery operated 
until 1861. By 1820 he is called an earthenware 
manufacturer in the directories. Apprentice Wil?
liam Clark was bound to Joseph Gossner on 
10 August 1818, and the indenture was cancelled 
on 17 November 1823.*? 
Joseph Gossner owned several properties in addi?
tion to his pottery. These are listed in the tax 
records 1819-1826. Though he added and dis?
posed of a few properties during this period, 
there were no dramatic changes in the value of 
his holdings. They fluctuated between $2650 
(1823-1825) and $3225 (1822). The 1826 assess?
ment record shows: 
Joseph Gosner 
Frame House, 
Pot House 
Brick House 
Potter 
and 
New Brick house 
Two Brick 
houses Maria St. 
Frame House 
and Stable 
Maria Street. 
900 
550 
800 
550 
250 
3050 
By 1841, Gossner had died and the state tax 
assessment for that year lists his widow. Since 
1826 the number of Gossner properties had in?
creased and their valuation had more than 
doubled. 
Widow Gossners Est 
Brick House Sc Pot House 
2 do Coates St. 
4 do Maria St. $8375 
The 1841 assessment also lists Joseph Gossner, 
potter, who was taxed on personal property only, 
and undoubtedly was the earlier Gossner's son." 
(PD 25-33, 35-44, 46, 50, 52.) 
Gossner (Gossman, Gosner), Joseph 1841-1870 + 
Took over the operation of the Gossner family 
pottery probably in 1841 after the death of the 
elder Joseph Gossner. The younger Joseph is 
listed in the city directories at the Coates Street 
pottery between 1842 and 1861 when the pottery 
apparently closed. Gossner appears in the direc?
tories as a potter at different addresses between 
1864 and 1870+ . (PD 56. 57, 59. 62-65, 71, 72, 
74, 78, 80-82, 84, 88. 92, 96, 99-101, 104, 105.) 
Green, Branch 1809-1827 
Branch Green was a stoneware potter in Troy, 
New York, by 1799, when he placed the following 
announcement in the Troy Northern Budget: 
Two Journeyman Potters 
who can recommend themselves by their work, may find 
good encouragement to work in a Stoneware factory the 
ensuing season by applying to 
Branch Green.42 
In 1801 he placed the following ad in the same 
paper: 
62 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
Wanted Immediately 
Two hundred cords of Pine Wood to be delivered at 
Morgan Sc Smiths Stone Ware Factory, at the South-East 
part of the village of Troy, for which a generous price 
will be given. 
Also two or three Journeyman Potters that can come 
well recommended as workmen at the Stone-ware manu?
factory. 
Likewise two lads about 15 or 16 years of age, as Appren?
tices to the above Business. 
Apply to Messrs. Morgan Sc Smith or to the subscribers. 
Branch Green 
Rowland Clark 43 
And in 1802 he advertised again for two journey?
men potters. 
Two Journeyman Potters, that can recommend them?
selves by their work, will find good encouragement, for 
any length of time, not exceeding six years nor less than 
one, by applying to the subscriber. Their work will be 
confined to turning stone ware. 
Branch Green 44 
By 1805 Green had moved south to New Jersey, 
where it was advertised that "James Morgan, 
Jacob Van Wickle and Branch Green have estab?
lished a manufactory at South River Bridge under 
the firm name of James Morgan k Co." and were 
offering stoneware jugs, pots, and mugs for sale.*^ 
By 1809 Branch Green had moved to Philadel?
phia and had established his stoneware factory at 
"2d above Germantown road." He continued to 
operate the factory until 1827, when he sold the 
property to Henry Remmey, Jr., and Enoch 
Burnett for $3000.*^ (PD 22-28, 30-33, 35-38.) 
Branch Green is not listed as a potter in the 
Philadelphia city directories after 1824; he may 
have left the city after his 1827 sale of the pot?
tery. He appears again in Philadelphia from 
1841 to 1844 as "dry goods" at various addresses, 
and between 1845 and 1847 with no occupation. 
(PD 54, 56, 57, 59, 62-64.) He died intestate in 
1847.'^ ^ 
An example of Green's work is illustrated in 
Figure 8 and the 1819 bill of sale shown on page 
16 gives some idea of the range of stoneware he 
marketed. The account book of an unidentified 
Philadelphia china merchant indicates that on 
24 March 1826, Branch Green was "paid . . . in 
full" $22.32; on 21 April of that year his "bill 
stone ware" was $15.00; and on 6 May it was 
$20 .25 . " 48 
Green, George 1829-1833 
A potter at 75 Germantown Road from 1829 to 
1833 (PD 41-44). 
Green, Thomas 1843-1844 
Listed as "earthenware" at Lombard and Schuyl?
kill Seventh [Sixteenth] Street, and Spruce above 
Schuylkill Fifth [Eighteenth]. Probably a potter 
but may have been a seller rather than a maker 
of "earthenware." (PD 57, 59.) 
Griffith, Robert 1814 
Listed in the 1814 city directory as a potter at 
"Twelfth near Lombard" and "Cedar n Twelfth"; 
probably a workman in Trotter's Columbian 
Factory (PD 27). 
Grum, John and Maria 1837-1851 
In 1837 John H. Grum is first listed in the direc?
tory as a potter and by 1839 he is noted as potting 
at 87 West High [Market] (Figure 30). In 1840 
he is listed at the same address in the commercial 
directory under the general heading "Manufac?
turers of Earthen Pottery Ware of every descrip?
tion. Stove Cylinders, Portable Furnaces, Fire 
Bricks and Slabs, etc., etc." He continues to be 
listed as a potter at the High Street address 
through 1849. From 1849 thru 1851 the pottery 
is listed under the name of "M. Grum," presum?
ably Maria Grum, who first appears as a potter 
in 1848. John and Maria Grum are listed in one 
1849 directory (PD 68) and "M. Grum" appears 
alone in the other (PD 69). John may have died 
in that year. Maria probably was his wife. She 
advertised in 1849 and 1850 that she was making 
"all kinds of Earthen Pottery Ware. Coal Cylin?
ders and Nurserymen's Flower Pots, etc." (PD 
46, 47, 51-65, 68-74.) 
In 1852, the pottery had closed and Maria Grum 
was running a boarding house on Schuylkill 
Third [Twentieth] (PD 76). The pottery was 
operated by C. D. Biggs k Co. in 1853 and by 
Owens k Tilton by 1855 (PD 79, 81). 
Haars, Jacob 1830-1833 
Listed as "potter" at High [Market] above 
Schuylkill Fifth [Eighteenth] in the 1830, 1831 
and 1833 directories (PD 42-44). 
Hacket, James 1814 
A potter in the city directory in 1814 (PD 27). 
Hacket, S. 1814 
A potter in 1814 at 48 Shippen according to the 
city directory; may have been working at the 
NUMBER 43 63 
Freytag pottery on South Fifth near Shippen 
(PD 27). 
Hahnlen, Jacob 1840 
Listed in the 1840 city directory as a potter at 
120 North Second Street. In the two earlier 
directories he is listed as a hatter at the same 
address and in 1841 and 1842 as a hatter at a 
new address (PD 47, 51, 52, 54, 56). 
Haig, Ann 1848-1858 
Sister of James and Thomas Haig and daughter 
of the elder Thomas Haig. She worked at the 
family pottery, 1848-1858, and listed herself as 
"Haig, Ann, earthenware." In 1852 she listed 
"earthen ware k burnisher." Burnishing tools 
are included in the inventory of her estate after 
her death in 1858.^ 9 (PD 65, 68, 71, 74, 76, 78, 
80-82, 84, 88). 
Haig, James 1831?-1878 
Son of the elder Thomas Haig. Probably from 
1831 until his death in 1878 he was in partner?
ship with his brother Thomas.^? He first was 
listed as a potter at the Haig family pottery on 
Fourth Street in 1835. (PD 45-47, 51-74, 76, 
78-82, 84, 87-89, 91, 92, 94, 95.) 
Haig, James and Thomas 1831?-1870 + 
Sons of Thomas Haig, who took over the opera?
tion of the Fourth Street pottery probably in 
1831 after their father's death (see Figures 17, 
21, 28, 31). Their first listing in the city directory 
is in 1837 as "fire brick manuf., 456, 458 k 460 
N 4th" (PD 47). In 1842 James Haig is hsted 
separately as "earthenware manuf., 545 N 2d" 
and by 1843 the Haigs had established a second 
factory at that address. They purchased properties 
along this part of Second Street in 1842. 1845, 
and 1846.^ ^ In 1843 the Haigs were making a 
product, stoneware, at the Second Street site and 
were making earthen ware and refractory wares 
at the old Fourth Street pottery. From 1844 
through 1870, all production appears to have 
been on Second Street. Thomas continued to list 
himself individually at the old Fourth Street 
address, however. This could have been his 
residence but it also is possible that he still was 
operating the Fourth Street works. James Haig 
died in 1878 and the pottery was carried on by 
Thomas. (B, pages 116-117; PD 46, 47, 51-74, 
76, 78-82, 84, 87-89, 91, 92, 94, 95-105). J 8c T 
Haig are included in the 1850 and 1860 manu?
factures censuses (MC 3, 4; see Appendix II). 
In 1860 James k Thomas Haig are listed at 
975 North Second Street under "China, Glass 
and Earthenware Dealers" (PD 95). 
Haig, John 1854-1860 + 
Listed as "Haig John, earthenwr." [probably 
dealer] on Girard Avenue, 1854-1859, he also 
appears as a china merchant, 1858-1860+ at 
1236 Girard Avenue. Probably Thomas Haig's 
son who had been a coach painter in New York,^ ^ 
he listed himself in Philadelphia as "painter" 
1851-1853 and as "China [k] Coach painter" in 
1860. (PD 74, 76, 78, 80-82, 84, 88, 89, 94, 95). 
Haig, Robert 1823-1849 
A potter 1823-1833 at an address near the Haig 
family pottery where he undoubtedly was work?
ing, 1823-1833 (PD 37-44). His relationship to 
Thomas Haig is unknown?documents consulted 
do not list him as a son; he may have been a 
brother. In 1826, he was taxed $25 on his per?
sonal property.53 Between 1833 and the next 
directory in 1835-1836 Robert Haig left the 
Haig pottery and moved to a new address at 
Ridge Road near Broad Street where he almost 
certainly was working at Andrew George's fur?
nace manufactory. His move probably was occa?
sioned by the death of Thomas Haig in 1831, 
along with the demand for workers at the new 
George pottery which opened between 1831 and 
1833. After George's death in 1842, Robert Haig 
stayed on and apparently had some investment 
in the new ownership of George Sweeny. In 
1843 the pottery is listed as "Sweeny 8c Haig" 
and Robert Haig's 1849 will notes that he held a 
$1000 mortgage from George Sweeny.^* Haig 
worked at the pottery through 1848. (PD 45, 46, 
51,54,56-59,64,65.) 
Haig, Thomas 1810-1831 
According to Barber, Thomas Haig came to 
Philadelphia from Scotland where he had been 
trained as a queensware potter (B, page 116). 
In 1810 and 1811, he was a potter on Cedar Street 
near the Columbian Pottery where he probably 
was working. By 1814 he had changed his address 
to Poplar Lane, near Front Street, and continued 
there through 1818. At this address he was asso?
ciated for a time with James Charlton; in 1817 
the two men are listed as "Charlton 8c Haigs 
stoneware potters 537 N Front." Charlton died 
in 1819 and in the same year Haig is listed at a 
new pottery on Fourth Street, above Poplar Lane. 
64 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
In 1817 Haig had purchased property on the 
west side of Fourth Street, above Poplar, which 
appears to be the site upon which he established 
his new pottery.^^ He operated this pottery until 
his death in 1831 when his sons James and 
Thomas took over. (PD 23-25, 27, 30-33, 35-43.) 
Thomas Haig is included in the 1820 Census of 
Manufactures (MC 1; see Appendix II) and was 
an exhibitor at the Franklin Institute in 1825, 
1826, and 1827 (FIP 2, pages 21-22; FIP 3, page 
264; FIM 3. 4; see Appendix IV). He appears 
in the account book of a Philadelphia china 
merchant between 1825 and 1830.^ ^ 
July 4, 1825 
paid Thomas Haig for ware 
rec from him July 2nd Sc 5th in 
10 doz oval lea pots 
10 doz round tea pots 
5 doz 
1 doz " coffee pots 
5% for (cash ?) 
4 doz round creams seconds 
Nov. 26, 1825 
paid Tho^ Haig for ware 
March 24, 1826 
paid Thos Haid (sic) in full 
April 27, 1826 
paid Thomas Haig for tea pots 
June 9, 1826 
paid Tho ' Haig in full to this date 
Aug. 11, 1826 
paid Tho" Haig in full for 
domestic ware 
Jan.8 , 1827 
paid Tho ' Haig in full for 
domestic ware 
Feb.3,1827 
paid Tho^ Haig in full for 
domestic ware 
May 1, 1827 
paid Tho ' Haig in full for 
domestic ware 
June 23, 1827 
paid Tho ' Haig in full for ware 
Aug. 1st (?) 1827 
paid Tho ' Haig for ware July 30 ) 
June 25 j ^^ "^ ^ 
disc 5% .60 
Oct. 12, 1827 
paid Thomas Haig in full 
for domestic ware 
Feb.14,1828 
paid T h o ' Haig in full 
for domestic ware 
.1517.50 
15.00 
5.00 
2.00 
40.00 
2.? 
1.50 
30.32 
50.00 
6.48 
$22.02 
17.79 
10.52 
12.07 
19.40 
21.64 
11.40 
6.65 
11.33 
38.? 
May 1, 1828 
paid T h o ' Haig in full 
June 28, 1828 
paid Thomas Haig in full 
for ware to this date 
Oct. 6, 1828 
paid Thomas Haig in full 
for domestic ware to this date 
Nov. 3, 1829 
paid T Haig in full for domestic ware 
Oct. 15, 1830 
paid Thomas Haig in full for ware 
19.70 
14.73 
47.07 
9.02 
17.57 
Thomas Haig died intestate in 1831. (See Figures 
6, 10; also see Appendix III for the inventory 
of his pottery shop. 
Haig, Thomas 1831?-1870 + 
Son of the elder Thomas Haig. He was in part?
nership with his brother as James 8c Thomas 
Haig, probably by 1831, and continued to operate 
the pottery after his brother's death in 1878. 
Thomas Haig may have maintained the opera?
tion of the old Fourth Street pottery after "J 8c 
T Haig" transferred its production to the new 
Second Street site (by 1843). He continued to 
be listed as a potter at the Fourth Street address 
and it was not until 1860 that it was noted spe?
cifically as his residence. The Haig log cabin 
banks, when they are signed, bear his name only 
(Figure 31). (PD 46, 47, 51-74, 76, 78-82, 84, 
87-89, 91, 92, 94, 95.) 
Haines, John 1842-1860 
John Haines first appears as a potter in the 1842 
and 1846 county tax assessments.^^ when he was 
living in the same dwelling as Matthias Kocher-
sperger, a potter at Miller's Spring Garden Manu?
factory. Haines probably was one of Miller's 
workmen also. His first listing in the city direc?
tory, in 1850, is at "Brown bel Broad," close to 
the factory. From 1853 to 1858, he was a "brick?
maker" at various addresses and in 1860 he listed 
"fire bricks" for his occupation. (PD 71, 76, 78. 
80-82, 84. 88. 92.) 
Haines (Hanes), Michael 1839-1854 
Probably a potter at Abraham Miller's Spring 
Garden Manufactory, 1839-1851, when he is 
listed in the city directories at addresses nearby. 
He continues to be listed as a potter elsewhere 
in the city through 1854. (PD 51, 54, 57, 59, 62-
65,68,71,74,76,78,80.) 
Hains (Heins), Daniel 1797-1800 
A potter at "7, Appletree alley" in 1797 and at 90 
North Seventh Street in the next three years. 
NUMBER 43 65 
where he could have been working for the Head-
mans, John Hinckle, or Abraham Miller (PD 
8-12). 
Hand, Wilham 1826?-l 838? 
According to Barber, Hand was a workman in 
the Tucker factory. He was "an Englishman, 
widely known among the craft on account of 
his diminutive stature. . . ." (B, page 152.) He 
is thought to have marked his wares with an 
" H . " S8 
Harber, Joseph 1806-1807 
Bound to John Curtis on 23 June 1806. The in?
denture was cancelled on 6 July 1807.^ ^ 
Haring, John 1849-1854 
A potter on Germantown Road from 1849 to 
1854 (PD 68, 71, 74, 78, 80). 
Harned, Thomas B. 1826?-1838? 
Workman in Tuckers porcelain factory (B, page 
152). 
Haslet (Haslett, Hazlet, Hazlett), William D. 
1828-1842 
William Haslet and John Keichline were potters 
at 314 North Second Street from 1828 to 1831 
and were probably in business together there 
during those years. In 1829, 1830, and 1831, 
"Keichline 8c Co." are listed in the city directory 
as potters at that address and in 1833, Haslet 
placed the following announcement in The 
Pennsylvanian: 
Earthenware Manufactory. 
WILLIAM D. HASLET 
(OF THE FIRM OF KEICHLINE AND HASLET.) 
Informs his Friends and the Public, that he still con?
tinues to manufacture at the Old Stand, No. 314, North 
Second street, an assortment of Earthen Ware, of the first 
quality, which may he had on reasonable terms. Country 
and other orders punctually attended to. 
N.B. Sugar Pots made at the shortest notice.eo 
By the 1835-1836 city directory, the Second 
Street pottery had apparently closed and Haslet 
had become "capt of watch." From 1837 through 
1842 he was a "potter" again at various addresses, 
but he was "high constable" in 1843 and 1844. 
(PD 40-45, 47, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59.) 
Hayes (Hays), Elijah B. 1837-1855 
Listed irregularly in the city directories as a 
potter, 1837-1855. From 1845 to 1855 he was 
on Frankford Road near Queen, undoubtedly at 
the pottery of Samuel Innes, which was at that 
location. He was probably the same Elijah Hays 
listed as a mariner, 1833-1836, and as a carpenter 
in 1843. (PD 44, 45, 47, 54, 57, 62-64. 68, 74, 76, 
80,81.) 
Heacer, James L. 1850-1851 
Listed under "Potters" in the 1850 and 1851 
city directories at Ridge Road above Broad. He 
probably was working at Joseph Hesser's pottery 
about one block away. (PD 70, 73.) 
Headman, Andrew 1837 
Potter at the Headman family pottery in 1837 
(PD 46). Possibly the same Andrew Headman 
who earlier worked in Bucks County, Pennsyl?
vania, though no connection between the Bucks 
County and Philadelphia Headmans has been 
established.^1 
Headman, David 1828-1854 
Potter from 1828 to 1854. In the first year he 
listed himself at 7 North Eighth, a residence and 
not a pottery, and in the following years his 
address was 17 and/or 19 South Eighth, the 
Headman family pottery. He was associated with 
George Headman as "G 8c D Headman," earthen?
ware makers, 1829-1847. By 1855 David Head?
man apparently had retired from the potting 
business; he listed himself in the city directories 
as "Gent." (PD 40-47, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 62-
65,68.71.74,78,80,81.) 
Headman, Francis 1825 
A potter at 7 South Eighth Street, near the 
Headman family pottery, in 1825 (PD 39). 
Headman, George k David 1829-1847 
Partnership of George and David Headman, 
earthenware makers, at the Headman family 
pottery on South Eighth Street, 1829-1847 (PD 
41-47, 51, 54, 56, 57, 59, 62-64). 
Headman, George 1809-1861 
In partnership with William Headman, as "Wm 
8c Geo Headman, potters" at George Street near 
Eleventh, 1809-1813. From 1814 through 1822 
he was a potter at 9 North Eighth Street. This 
was probably his residence; he probably was 
working at the family pottery on South Eighth 
Street. From 1823 through 1828 he listed his 
address at the family pottery; and from 1829 to 
1847 he was in partnership there with David 
Headman as "G k D Headman," earthenware 
makers. He is listed in the directories as a potter 
through 1853. (PD 22-28, 30-33, 35-47, 51, 54, 
56, 57, 59, 62-65. 68. 71, 74, 78.) He died in 
1861, calling himself "potter" in his will.^^ 
Headman, Samuel 1835-1836 
A potter at 17 South Eighth Street, the address 
66 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
of the Headman family pottery, in 1835-1836 
(PD 45). 
Headman. William 1796-1829? 
In 1796. 1798, and 1799 William Headman is 
listed as a potter at 266 High [Market] Street 
(PD 7, 9, 11). By 1800 he was in South Eighth 
Street and by 1802 he was at 17 South Eighth 
Street where he established the Headman family 
pottery. He continued at this address through 
1822. Between 1809 and 1813 he, or his son 
William, Jr.. is also listed with George Headman 
as "Wm k Geo Headman, potters'' at George near 
Eleventh. (PD 13-28, 30-33, 35, 36.) He died in 
1834, having called himself a potter in his will 
written in 1829.''3 
Headman, Wilham, Jr. 1809?-1847 
First listed in 1816 as William Headman, Jr., 
potter at George Street near Eleventh. He may 
have been potting between 1809 and 1813 when 
he (or his father. William) was in partnership 
with George Headman as "Wm 8c Geo Headman, 
potters" at the George Street address. He con?
tinues to be listed as a potter on George Street 
through 1847. (PD 28, 30-33, 35-47, 52, 54, 56, 
57, 59, 62, 64.) 
Headman, William k George 1809-1813 
Partnership of William and George Headman 
on George Street, near Eleventh, 1809-1813 (PD 
22-26). 
Heffline,John 1845-1851 
A potter at various addresses, 1845-1851. In 
1850 and 1851 he listed an address within one 
block of Joseph Hesser's Ridge Road factory. By 
1852 he had given up potting and had become a 
bookbinder. (PD 62, 63, 68, 71, 74, 76.) 
Heim, Anthony 1844-1845 
A potter at 147 Germantown Road in 1844 and 
1845 (PD 59,62). 
Heinrich, Ludwig 1850 
A potter at "Buttonwood ab 13th" in 1850 (PD 
71). 
Heitz, Frederick 1847-1854 
A potter at various addresses, 1847-1854 (PD 
64,65,71,74,76,78,80). 
Hemphill, Joseph 1831-1837 
Judge Joseph Hemphill bought a partnership in 
William Ellis Tucker's porcelain works for his 
son. Alexander Wills Hemphill, on 31 May 1831. 
After Tucker's death on 22 August 1832, Joseph 
Hemphill became legal owner of the factory 
although Tucker's father retained executor's 
rights. In 1833 Hemphill became sole owner by 
the payment of $10,000 to the estate. In the 
same year Alexander Hemphill died and another 
son, Robert Coleman Hemphill, was brought into 
the business although he was never active in it. 
The porcelain works was incorporated by the 
State of Pennsylvania as the American Porcelain 
Company in 1835; however, the new company 
was never actually formed. In 1837 financial 
difficulties forced Hemphill to give up the busi?
ness, and the factory was leased to Thomas 
Tucker.64 jt ^as closed in 1838. Hemphill is 
listed as "china manuf." in the 1835-1836 and 
1837 city directories (PD 45. 46). 
Tucker and Hemphill, and Hemphill individu?
ally after Tucker's death, exhibited at the Frank?
lin Institute in 1831, 1833, and 1835. (FIP 8, 
page 327; FIP 9, page 391; FIP 10, page 323; see 
Appendix IV, also Figure 14.) 
Henry, Wilham 1823-1859 
A potter at St. Joseph's Avenue in 1823 and 
1824, and at Schuylkill Fourth [Nineteenth] near 
Market (about one block away) from 1828 to 
1833 (PD 37, 38, 40-44). It is possible that he 
was working at Tucker's porcelain factory several 
blocks away. By 1837 he is listed at an address 
near Schuylkill Eighth [Fifteenth] Street and 
Callowhill Road and remains in that area 
through 1859. (PD 46, 51, 52, 54, 57, 59, 62-65, 
68, 71, 74, 76, 78, 80-82, 84, 88, 89.) During 
these years, he undoubtedly was working at Abra?
ham Miller's second manufactory, on Callowhill 
Street near Broad. Although the first evidence 
we have of this new manufactory is an 1840 
announcement card (B, page 108), it may have 
been in operation earlier or Henry may have 
been hired to assist in the setting up of the new 
works. He was unquestionably one of Miller's 
most important workers; he was left $400 in 
Miller's will.*'^  William Henry appears in the 
1841 county tax assessment as "W. W. Henry, 
potter" and in the 1842 county and state tax 
assessment as "William W. Henry, Potter." In 
both years he was taxed for personal property 
only.'''' A stoneware chicken fountain (Figure 29) 
in the collection of the Winterthur Museum, 
marked "HENRY / PHILA." suggests that Henry 
may have operated a stoneware pottery of his 
own or that he worked for one of Philadelphia's 
stoneware potters. No evidence, however, has 
been found to substantiate either possibility. 
NUMBER 43 67 
Hess, John C. 1825-1833 
A potter at 26 Duke from 1825 to 1833 (PD 
39-44), he was undoubtedly working at one of 
the Second Street potteries. 
Hess, John P. 1829-1833 
Listed in the directories in addition to "John 
C. Hess" from 1829 to 1833 at the same address, 
26 Duke Street (PD 41-44). 
Hesser. Joseph 1850-1853 
Joseph L. Hesser 8c Co. placed the following 
advertisement in the 1850 commercial city di?
rectory (PD 72): 
PHILADELPHIA 
EARTHENWARE POTTERY, 
Ridge Road, above Brown street, 
PHILADELPHIA, 
JOSEPH L. HESSER 8c CO. 
MANUFACTURERS, 
Where they manufacture and keep constantly for sale a 
general assortment of EARTHENWARE. The Proprietors, 
being Practical Potters, and employing none but the best 
of Workmen, flatter themselves that they can give general 
satisfaction to all who will favour them with a call. 
Sugar Refiners' Moulds and Dips, Cake Moulds, Round 
8c Oval Tea Pots made at the shortest notice. 
Merchants are invited to call. All orders promptly 
attended to, 
N.B. Peters' line of Omnibuses pass the Factory every 
10 minutes. 
Hesser appears again in 1853 as a potter at 127 
Buttonwood. (PD 71, 72, 78.) 
Hinckle (Hinkle, Hinckel), John 1785-1811 
Operating a pottery in Philadelphia by 1785 and 
probably earlier, his address is listed as 234, 236, 
238, 240, or "bet 234 k 244" Market Street (PD 
1-5,7,8. 11, 12, 14, 16-25). 
Holland, Samuel 1814 
A potter in 1814; listed as a "person of color" 
(PD 27). 
Hook, John By 1785-1809 
John Hook, potter and apparently an unsuccess?
ful employer, advertised in 1785 for his runaway 
apprentice, George Fee; in 1792 for his runaway 
son, John Hook, Jr.; and in 1798, for another 
runaway apprentice, Kirkbride Stinson.^^ His 
pottery is listed in the city directories between 
1791 and 1793 at 310 North Second, and between 
1794 and 1809 at 312. He may have been asso?
ciated with Thomas Howcraft as "Howcraft k 
Hook," potters at 175 High [Market] Street, in 
1805. Howcraft is listed as a potter at 310 North 
Second between 1802 and 1804. (PD 2-A, 7, 8, 
10-13, 15-22.) 
Hook, John 1837-1851 
Listed without an occupation in the city direc?
tories from 1828 to 1833 at 254 South Third, the 
same address as potter William Hook. John 
Hook did not list himself as a potter until 1837 
and by that date both he and William had left 
the Third Street address. From 1837 to 1851 he 
is listed irregularly as a potter at various ad?
dresses. Between 1839 and 1841 he was a "col?
lector." His relationship to the earlier John 
Hook is unknown. Both he and William may 
have been John's sons, but neither carried on the 
family pottery at the old location. (PD 40-44. 46. 
51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 62, 65, 68, 71, 74.) 
Hook, William 1804-1837 
A potter listed at several addresses near the Sec?
ond Street potteries from 1804 to 1809. He 
probably was working at John Hook's pottery at 
310 North Second. He may have been associated 
with Thomas Howcraft as "Howcraft k Hook, 
potters" at 175 High [Market] Street, in 1805. 
After John Hook's pottery closed?by 1809? 
William was a potter at various addresses until 
1816. In that year he was at 354 South Third 
where he stayed through 1833, perhaps operating 
his own pottery. He was a potter at different 
addresses given in the 1835-1836 and 1837 di?
rectories and by 1839 had given up potting, 
being listed simply as "Gent." (PD 17-23, 25, 26, 
28, 29, 31-33, 35-38. 41-46, 51.) 
Howcraft (Hocraft), Thomas 1802-1817. 1831-
1833 
Potter at 310 North Second Street, the address of 
John Hook's pottery, from 1802 to 1804, and at 
175 High [Market] Street, 1805-1811. At the 
latter address "Howcraft 8c Hook" are listed in 
1805 and "Howcraft 8c Co." in 1810 and 1811. 
Thomas Howcraft was a potter on North Fourth 
Street in 1813 and 1814 and at 316 North Second 
in 1816 and 1817. He is not listed again until 
1829 and 1830, and then as a tanner, and in 1831 
and 1833, again as a potter. (PD 15-29, 41-44.) 
Howcraft and Hook 1805 
Association of Thomas Howcraft and either John 
or William Hook as potters at 175 High [Market] 
Street in 1805 (PD 18). 
Howcraft 8c Co. 1810-1811 
Pottery listed in the city directories at 175 High 
[Market] Street in 1810 and 1811. operated by 
Thomas Howcraft (PD 23-25). 
Hyzer, James 1855-1859 
Potter, 1855-1859. In 1860 he is listed without 
68 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
an occupation and James Hyzer, Jr., is listed as a 
potter. (PD 81, 82, 84, 88, 89, 94.) 
Hyzer, John (W.) 1853-1870 + 
Listed as "potter," or "firebricks," 1853-1870+ . 
In partnership with James Lewellen as "Hyzer 
8c Lewellen," manufacturers of fire brick from 
1857 to 1870+ , at 952 North Ninth. (PD 78, 
80-82, 84, 87-89, 91, 94, 96-103, 105.) 
Hyzer 8c Lewellen 1857-1870 + 
Partnership of John Hyzer and James Lewellen, 
1857-1870+ at 952 North Ninth Street (PD 84, 
87-89, 91, 94, 96-103, 105). The 1860 census of 
manufactures reveals they were making $9300 
in "Stove Linings k Fire Bricks that year" (MC 
4). Hyzer k Lewellen were in operation as late 
as 1893 when Barber's book was published and 
at that time were making "plain geometrical 
floor tiles of different colored bodies and of 
exceeding hardness . . . fire brick, furnaces, 
cylinders, dental muffles, and stove-linings" (B, 
page 345). Examples of their tiles are in the 
collections of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. 
Innes (Inis), Samuel P. 1837-1869 
Potter and fire-brick maker at 20 or 22 Frankford 
Road by 1837. He apparently was working at 
the old pottery site of William Jennings at "20 
Frank," which is listed in the city directories for 
the last time in 1833 (PD 44). Innes continued 
to operate this pottery through 1858. Between 
1860 and 1869, he is listed at various addresses 
and presumably had closed his Frankford pottery. 
(PD 46, 47, 51-53, 55-57, 60-65, 68, 70-73, 76, 
78, 80-82. 84, 88. 92, 96-101. 103, 104.) 
Jacoby, Samuel 1843-1850 
Potter near Sixth and Poplar, 1843-1850. He 
may have worked at Henry Remmey's pottery at 
Marshall above Poplar after Remmey's 1847 move 
to that site (PD 57, 59, 62, 64, 65, 68, 71). 
Jagres (Jagers), Jonathan 1809-1813 
Potter at 12 Farmer's Alley, 1809-1813 (PD 22, 
23, 25, 26). 
Jennings (Jenning, Ginnings), David 1837-1870 + 
Potter on Front Street, above Franklin, 1837-
1870 + ; undoubtedly working at the nearby pot?
tery of Samuel P. Innes on Frankford Road, 
which had formerly been operated by William 
Jennings (PD 46, 47, 51, 52, 57. 59, 62, 64, 65, 
68, 71, 74, 76, 78, 80-82, 84, 88, 89, 92. 96-105). 
Jennings (Ginning, Ginnings), John C. 1801-1825 
Working as a potter at addresses near the Second 
Street potteries, 1801-1819, he apparently was the 
partner of Martin Moser in the Moser and Jen?
nings pottery which opened at 310 North Second 
Street by 1805. After Moser's death in 1810 or 
1811, the partnership seems to have been con?
tinued by Moser's widow, Catharine. "Mozer k 
Jennings" or "Jennings k Mozer" appear in the 
city directories at 310 North Second Street in 
1805, 1809, 1810, 1813, and 1818. In 1820 Jen?
nings moved to Frankford Road (listed as 20 
Frankford by 1825), where he estabhshed a new 
earthenware manufactory which he operated 
until about 1825. At some time between 1825 
and 1829 this pottery was taken over by William 
Jennings, perhaps a son of John C. (PD 14-28, 
30-33, 35-39, 41.) 
Jennings, Wilham 1829-1833 
Took over John C. Jennings' earthenware manu?
factory at 20 Frankford Road by 1829, and con?
tinued to operate it through 1833. By 1837 the 
pottery was under the control of Samuel Innes. 
(PD 41-44, 46.) 
Journeymen's Pottery 1844-1845 
An association of earthenware potters which in?
cluded John McWhorter and Michael Larkin. 
In 1845 the association is listed as "Journeymen's 
Pottery, McWhorter, Larkin k Co.," located at 
the southwest corner of Fifth and Christian 
streets. John Shirley was a "Patent Earthen 
Sugar Mould Manufacturer" at this address in 
1845; apparently he was one of the "journeymen'' 
in the group. (PD 60, 61.) 
Justice, John 1791-1799 
Operating a pottery at 314 or 316 North Second 
Street, 1791-1799; died in 1799.''8 (PD 2-4, 8-10, 
12). 
Justice, Joseph 1837-1841 
Potter at 314 North Second Street, 1837-1841 
(PD 47, 51, 52, 54). 
Kalbach, Daniel 1837-1870 + 
Listed irregularly as a potter in the city direc?
tories at various addresses, 1837-1870+ ; in 1861 
his occupation given as "carpenter" (PD 47, 52, 
54, 59, 62, 64, 65, 71, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 89, 
92, 96, 98, 100, 104, 105). 
Keichline (Kechhne), John 1818, 1825-1833 
John Kechline is listed as a potter at 334 North 
Front Street in the 1818 city directory. He does 
not appear again as a potter until 1825, when 
John Keichline, presumably the same person, 
is hsted as a potter on North Second Street, 
with a dwelling house address on Duke Street 
NUMBER 43 69 
nearby. Keichline appears to have been in busi?
ness with William Haslet between 1828 and 1831 
when both men are listed as potters at 314 North 
Second Street (the address of Michael Miller's 
pottery by 1791 and until 1814). In 1829, 1830, 
and 1831 "Keichline 8c Co." are listed as potters 
at that address (PD 31, 39-44) and in 1833 
Haslet placed a notice in The Pennsylvanian. 
Earthenware Manufactory. 
WILLIAM D. HASLET 
(OF THE FIRM OF KEICHLINE AND HASLET.) 
Informs his Friends and the Public, that he still con?
tinues to manufacture at the Old Stand, No. 314 North 
Second street, an assortment of Earthen Ware, of the 
first quality, which may be had on reasonable terms. 
Country and other orders punctually attended to. 
N.B. Sugar Pots made at the shortest notice.69 
By 1835 John Keichline apparently had retired 
to become a "gent" (PD 45, 47). He may have 
been the John Kechline who was a potter in 
Baltimore in 1810.^ ? 
Kemp, Jacob 1793 
Mentioned in the 1793 will of Michael Gilbert 
as an "apprentice boy," who was to "have his 
Indentures given up and be free and discharged 
of his Apprenticeship from the day of my de?
cease.''^  
Kepler, Christian 1810 
Potter on Lilly Alley in 1810 (PD 23). 
Kersey, Jesse 1825 
Listed in the city directory as "stone ware 
manuf." on High [Market] Street in West Phila?
delphia (PD 39). In the same year he advertised 
in Poulson's American Daily Advertiser: 
Jesse Kersey 
Stone Ware Manufacturer, near the Schuylkill Permanent 
Bridge, offers for sale all the different kinds of Stone 
Ware, at the usual prices. 
Order left at E. 8c C. Yarnell 8c Co.'s No. 24 North 
Front-street, will be carefully attended to. 
He may have been the Jesse Kersey who was 
apprenticed to Philadelphia potter John Thom?
son in the 1780s and was a potter on his own in 
Chester County, Pennsylvania, as early as 1794. 
This Jesse Kersey sold his pottery in 1824 and 
was back in Chester County as a postmaster in 
West Chester by 1828." 
King, John 1839-1841 
"China manuf.," 1839-1841. In 1842, 1843, and 
1844 he is listed as a "chair manufacturer." 
(PD 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59.) 
King, Robert (E.) 1837-1870 + 
Listed irregularly as a potter at various addresses, 
1837-1848. He appears to have established his 
own pottery on Second Street south of Diamond 
in Kensington by 1853. The pottery operated at 
least through 1870. (PD 47, 51, 52, 56, 57, 59, 
62-65, 78. 81. 82, 84, 88, 94, 95, 96-103, 105). 
Kite, Jonathan 1811-1822 
Potter at various addresses, 1811-1822; may have 
been the father of another Jonathan Kite, who 
was a potter in Philadelphia by 1841 (PD 24, 
26-28, 30-33, 35, 36, 54). 
Kite, Jonathan 1841-1860 
Potter at various addresses, 1841-1860. By 1862 
he had become a "shoecutter." He may have 
been the son of the Jonathan Kite listed above. 
(PD 54, 56, 57, 59, 62-65, 68, 71, 74, 76, 81, 82, 
84, 88, 94, 97). 
Kochersperger (Kokersperger), Matthias 1841-
1870 + 
Potter at various addresses, 1841-1846. He had 
been a laborer in 1839. (PD 51, 54, 56, 57, 59, 
62, 63.) By 1848 he was listing his address at 
Brown above Thirteenth Street, where he con?
tinued through 1859. During these years he 
undoubtedly was working for Abraham Miller, 
whose factory was nearby. (PD 65. 68, 71, 74, 76, 
80-82, 84, 88, 89.) Kochersperger appears in the 
1842 and 1846 tax assessments, when he was 
living in the same dwelling as John Haines, who 
probably was a potter at Miller's factory by 
1850.^ 3 Kochersperger was apparently a potter 
of some importance in the Miller factory and 
was included in Miller's will in 1858: "I give 
and bequeath unto . . . Matthias Kochersperger, 
now in my employ . . . the Sum of Three 
hundred Dollars.^* After Miller's death, Koch?
ersperger was a potter at various addresses at 
least through 1870. In 1862 and 1863, he is listed 
in the directory with "tobacco" and "segars" 
respectively. (PD 94, 96-101. 103-105.) 
Krips (Kripps, Creps), Phihp 1809-1824 
Potter in 1809 and 1810 on North Third Street, 
and between 1811 and 1824 on St. John Street, 
which was near the Second Street potteries (PD 
22-24, 26-29, 31-33, 35-38). 
Kurlbaum k Schwartze (Schwartz) 1853-1859 
Exhibitors of porcelain at the Franklin Institute 
in 1853 and 1854 (FIP 19, page 22; FIP 20, page 
59; see Appendix IV). They are listed in the city 
directories as porcelain manufacturers, at North 
70 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
Front Street, below Oxford, in Kensington, 1854-
1859. Neither man was a potter. Kurlbaum un?
doubtedly was Charles Kurlbaum, who had a 
chemical laboratory. Kurlbaum 8c Co., at the 
southwest corner of Front and Oxford streets, in 
the same block as the porcelain manufactory. 
Schwartze probably was John T . Schwartze. a 
chemist on Front Street in 1853. although his 
name does not appear individually in the direc?
tories dur ing the 1854-1859 period. (See Figure 
22.) 
It is possible that Ralph Bagnall Beech was the 
potter for Kurlbaum 8c Schwartze. Beech listed 
himself in the city directories as a porcelain 
manufacturer, 1852-1857, but he always showed 
a home rather than a business address and no 
location for his porcelain works is known. (PD 
76, 78, 80-82, 84, 88, 89.) 
Larkin, James 1855-1866 
Apparently a relative of Michael and Joseph 
Larkin, James Larkin was a potter in Philadel?
phia, 1855-1866. From 1855 to 1859 and in 1864, 
1865, and 1866 he was on "Native" and in 1860 
he was on South Fifth Street near Michael 
Larkin's pottery. (PD 81, 82, 84, 88, 89, 92, 94, 
99-101.) 
Larkin. Joseph 1849-1850 
Potter at the rear of 235 Christian Street in 1849 
and 1850; presumably a relative of Michael 
Larkin, who operated a pottery at Fifth and 
Christian and listed his address at 233 Christian 
during these years (PD.68, 71). 
Larkin (Larkins), Michael 1842-1870 + 
Potter at various addresses, 1842-1845. In the 
latter year he was associated with John 
McWhorter as the "Journeymen's Pottery, 
McWhorter, Larkin k Co." at the southwest 
corner of Fifth and Christian streets. T h e Jour?
neymen's Pottery is not listed in the directories 
after 1845 but Michael Larkin continued to 
operate his own pottery at this site at least 
through 1868. He is listed as a potter at a resi?
dential address, 1869-1870+ . Larkin made gen?
eral earthenware as well as fire bricks and porta?
ble furnaces. (PD 56, 57, 59, 61-65, 68, 69, 71-73, 
79-81. 84, 88. 89, 91, 92, 96-105.) H e is included 
in the 1850 and 1860 manufactures censuses as a 
maker of "Earthen ware of various kinds" with 
output of $4500 in 1850 and $10,000 in 1860 
(MC 3, 4; see Appendix II). 
Lawrence Charles C. 1813-1817 
"Stoneware Manuf" in 1813 and "pot ter" at 
various addresses through 1817 (PD 26-29). He 
probably is the Charles C. Laurence of Burling?
ton, New Jersey, who advertised the sale of his 
stoneware in Philadelphia in 1810 (see page 106). 
In April 1814 The Trenton Federalist announced 
that "a Frame Building formerly occupied as a 
Pot-House . . . the property of Charles C. 
Laurance" in Burlington had been seized and 
would be auctioned at a Sheriff's Sale. After his 
sojourn in Philadelphia, Lawrence may have 
moved to East Cain Township , Chester County, 
Pennsylvania, where potter Charles Lawrence is 
recorded in 1822.'^ ^ 
Layburn, Zachariah 1811-1817 
Potter on Buttonwood Street near Nor th Sixth 
Street, 1811-1817 (PD 25-29). T h e pottery closest 
to him was that of Joseph Gossner, about five 
blocks away on Coates Street. Gossner moved 
there in 1811 and Layburn may have been one 
of his workers. 
Leonard, Wi lham 1817-1818 
Potter at different addresses in 1817 and 1818 
(PD 29, 31). 
Levering (Lavering), Zachariah 1814?1822 
Potter on Anne Street in 1814 and on Nor th 
Eighth Street below Buttonwood, 1818-1822. The 
pottery closest to him was that of Joseph Gossner 
about seven blocks away. He could have been a 
worker there. (PD 27, 31-33, 35, 36.) 
Levis, E. C. 1850 
Potter at "158 Wood" in 1850 (PD 71). 
Lewellen (Lewallen), James W. 1849-1870 + 
In partnership with John W. Hyzer by 1857 as 
Hyzer k Lewellen, fire-brick manufacturers, on 
Nin th above Poplar Street. James Lewellen had 
been a potter in Philadelphia as early as 1849 
and from that date through 1870+ usually is 
listed at the same address with either John or 
James Hyzer (not potters unti l 1853). I t does not 
appear that any formal association was formed 
until 1857. (PD 68, 71. 74, 76, 78, 80-82, 84, 87-
89, 91, 94, 96, 98-103, 105.) 
Lewton, Samuel 1850 
Potter at "Fairview ab Broad," near Abraham 
Miller's manufactory, 1850 (PD 71). 
Linker, Daniel 1823-1833 
Partner in the John k Daniel Linker pottery at 
302 Nor th Second Street, 1825-1833. Linker is 
listed separately as a potter at an address on 
NUMBER 43 71 
Noble Street, near the pottery and probably 
his residence, between 1823 and 1830. In 1831 
and 1833 he was at Frankford Road near Queen, 
which was close to William Jennings' earthen?
ware manufactory. It is possible that the John 8c 
Daniel Linker pottery had closed by 1831 and 
that Daniel had gone to work for Jennings. The 
continuance of the Linker pottery listing through 
1833 may be an error. (PD 37-44.) 
Linker, Henry 1820-1851 
Listed in the directory as a potter at 302 North 
Second Street, 1821 and 1822, and as the partner 
of John Linker at the family pottery at 320 
North Second Street, 1820-1822. Between 1823 
and 1851. he is listed irregularly as a potter at 
various addresses. (PD 33, 35-38, 41-44, 51, 52, 
54, 57, 59, 62-65, 68, 71, 74.) Linker was taxed 
on personal property in the 1823 and 1841 assess?
ments.^'' He may be the same Henry Linker who 
was a potter in Morristown, Pennsylvania, in 
1860." 
Linker, John 1816-1836 
Potter near Tammany Street in 1816 and 1817 
and by 1819 at 302 North Second Street. He 
apparently was the founder of the Linker family 
pottery, which is listed at 320 North Second, 
1819-1824, and at 302 North Second between 
1825 and 1833, presumably the same location. 
Between 1820 and 1822 the pottery is listed as a 
partnership of John and Henry Linker and in 
1819, 1823, and 1824 as Linker and Potter (see 
entry for Linker and Potter). Between 1825 and 
1833 John and Daniel Linker were the partners. 
In the 1835-6 directory John Linker is shown 
as a potter at Queen near Marlborough, close to 
the earthenware manufactory operated by Wil?
liam Jennings through 1833 and by Samuel Innes 
by 1837. (PD 28-30, 32, 33, 35-45.) He may be 
the John Linker who was a potter in Lionville, 
Pennsylvania in 1850.^ ^ 
Linker, John k Daniel 1825-1833 
Partnership of John and Daniel Linker, listed 
in the directories as potters at 302 North Second 
Street, 1825-1833 (PD 39-44). 
Linker, John k Henry 1820-1822 
Partnership of John and Henry Linker listed at 
320 North Second Street, 1820-1822 (PD 33, 35, 
36). 
Linker 8c Potter 1819, 1823-1824 
Listed in the city directories as potters at 320 
North Second Street, in 1819, 1823, and 1824. 
A Henry Potter is listed without occupation at 
302 North Second Street in 1819; he presumably 
was a partner in this manufactory. It is possible, 
however, that this listing is an error, transposing 
"Linker, John and Henry, potters" at 320 North 
Second (1820-1822) into "Linker and Potter, 
potters" at the same address (1819, 1823, 1824) 
and "Potter, Henry" (1819). (PD 32, 37, 38.) 
Linker, William 1828-1837 
Listed as a potter, 1828-1833, on Noble Street, 
near the Linker family pottery. By 1837 he had 
moved to a new location on Frankford Road 
near the Samuel Innes earthenware manufactory. 
(PD 40-44, 47.) 
Lomix. Caleb 1816-1817 
Potter at 198 Cedar Street, 1816-1817. He was 
located close to and may have been working at 
the Freytag pottery near Fifth and Cedar. He 
was a "waterman" in 1818. (PD 28, 29, 31.) 
McCartny, John 1805 
Potter at 306 North Second Street in 1805 (PD 
18). Probably working at the Mozer k Jennings 
pottery at 310 or at John Hook's pottery at 312 
North Second Street. 
McClasky, John 1814 
Potter at "Willow ab. Spruce" in 1814 (PD 27). 
McCoy, Daniel 1799-1800 
Listed as a potter at 48 South Street in 1799 and 
1800. Included in the list of "Potters" in the 
1800 directory, he probably was operating his 
own pottery. By 1801 he had changed his occu?
pation to "bottler." (PD 11, 12, 14.) 
McWhorter, John 1843-1858 
First appeared as a potter in Philadelphia in 
1843. Probably by 1844 and definitely by 1845 
he was associated with Michael Larkin as the 
"Journeymen's Pottery, McWhorter, Larkin k 
Co." at the southwest corner of Fifth and Chris?
tian streets. This venture apparently was unsuc?
cessful and by 1848 McWhorter was involved in a 
new partnership with Reuben Sheets as 
"McWhorter k Sheets," potters on Reed Street 
below Church, near the Reed Street wharf. This 
association continued through 1853 and in 1850 
"McWharter [sic] 8c Sheets" are included in the 
census of manufactures as makers of earthenware, 
$4000 annual output. (MC 3; see Appendix II.) 
In 1854 the two men are listed separately and in 
the next year Sheets disappears from the city 
directory. McWhorter continued to operate the 
72 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
pottery through 1858. (PD 57, 59, 61-63, 65, 67, 
68-74. 76. 78-82, 84, 88.) 
Mallady, James 1850-1851 
A potter in 1850 and 1851 and listed as "Gent" 
by 1853 (PD 71, 74, 78). 
Matchin, Joseph A. 1818-1819 
Potter at 497 High [Market] Street in 1818 and 
1819 (PD 31, 32). 
Mattern (Matterin, Martin), Andrew 1785-1814 
Andrew Mattern had established a pottery at 
247 North Second Street (listed as Second between 
Vine and Callowhill streets in 1785) by 1785 and 
continued to operate it until his death in 1814. 
His will indicates that his "Wife Mary shall have 
the Use and Income of my Messuages, Tene?
ments, Pot. House, Kiln and Lot of Ground 
situate on the East side of Delaware Second Street 
and West side of Cable Lane or New Market 
Street . . ." ''^  She may have continued the pot?
tery for several years?Andrew Mattern continues 
to be listed as a potter in the directories through 
1817?but the pottery had certainly ceased opera?
tion by 1818 when a Mary Mattern was listed 
alone as a widow. (PD 1-4, 7-9, 11-24, 26-28, 30, 
31.) 
Mayer and Bartres 1799-1800 
Potters at 324 North Front Street, 1799-1800 
(PD 10, 12). Neither partner's identity is certain. 
Nicholas and John George Mayer are listed in 
both directories at 326 and 330 North Front 
respectively. Neither is shown as a potter but 
presumably one or both were involved in the 
partnership. No Bartres is shown in either year. 
Mench, James 1829-1844 
Probably a workman at Daniel Miller's pottery 
at 310 North Second, 1829-1833, when he was 
at Goldsmith's Court, nearby. Mench is listed 
at the 310 North Second Street address of the 
Miller pottery, 1837-1846, though the factory was 
closed by 1835. In 1846 he is listed without 
occupation. (PD 41-44, 46, 51, 56, 57, 59, 63.) 
Miller, Abraham 1799?-1858 
Abraham Miller was the son of Andrew Miller 
and the brother of Andrew Miller, Jr. He ap?
pears to have been a partner in his father's pottery 
business on Zane Street [Filbert] during the years 
1799 to 1808. It is possible, however, that 
Andrew, Jr., presumably the elder of the two 
brothers, was the only son taken into partner?
ship. The city directories list "Andrew Miller 
k Sons" in 1800 and 1801 only. In all other years 
of the association it is listed as "Andrew Miller 
k Son." This could be an error in recording. 
The likelihood, however, that the partnership 
included only Andrew, Jr., is increased by the 
separate listing of Abraham as a "potter" at the 
family pottery in 1806. 1807, and 1808. Still a 
young man, Abraham may have been working at 
the pottery but not yet a partner. (PD 10-21.) 
By 1809, Abraham and Andrew Miller, Jr., were 
in partnership and Andrew. Sr., apparently hav?
ing withdrawn from the business, is listed sepa?
rately. Andrew, Sr., does not appear in the city 
directories as a potter after 1817. Abraham and 
Andrew Miller, Jr., are listed together in the city 
directories through 1824, although Abraham had. 
in fact, taken over the full operation of the family 
pottery in 1821 when his brother died.^o (See 
Appendix III for the inventory of the "stock in 
trade" of the pottery at the time of Andrew, Jr.'s 
death.) (PD 22-28, 30-33, 35-38.) "A k A Miller" 
are included in the 1820 Census of Manufactures 
as makers of "Common coarse earthen ware (not 
stone). Also, Black k brown tea pots and a great 
variety of other articles, known in commerce, by 
the terms black and brown china." (MC 1; see 
Appendix II.) Andrew Miller. Sr., retained own?
ership of the family pottery throughout his life?
time. He died intestate in 1826 and the pottery 
became the property of his two surviving chil?
dren, Abraham and an unmarried daughter, 
Rebecca Miller. In 1827 Abraham bought his 
sister's half of the pottery for $4660." 
Abraham Miller was an exhibitor at the Franklin 
Institute in 1824, 1825, 1835, 1842, 1843, and 
1845. (FIP 1, page 80. and FIM 1; FIP 2. page 
22, and FIM 2; FIP 10, page 323, and FIM 5; 
FIP 12, page 344; FIP 13, pages 29-30; FIP 15, 
page 390; see Appendix IV.) An important potter 
and a fairly wealthy man. Miller was elected to 
the Institute's Board of Managers in 1824 and 
served as a judge on the Committee on Earthen?
ware. (FIM 1; FIP 1, page 15.) 
Abraham Miller was an innovator in the develop?
ment of portable ceramic cooking furnaces (see 
Figure 11). In an 1823 Niles' Weekly Register 
there is noted: 
. . . a very extensive manufactory of black and red 
tea and coffee pots, 8cc. at Philadelphia?very cheap, and 
suitable for common use. Many other articles are to be 
made at this establishment, and especially portable earth-
NUMBER 43 73 
enware furnaces, for cooking, said to be very useful, con?
venient and economical in the saving of fuel.82 
This "establishment" undoubtedly was Miller's 
factory. He exhibited his furnaces at the Frank?
lin Institute in 1824 and 1825 (FIM 1; FIP 2, 
page 22), and the Judges' notes for 1824 include 
a description of them. 
We had also presented for our inspection an Article 
denominated a Portable Earthen Furnace manufactured in 
various forms 8c sizes, Sc which are rendered very safe 8c 
permanent by being protected with Iron hoops, or cased 
with sheet Iron, the extensive sale 8c continued demand 
for them, is a strong proof of their Utility and Con?
venience for Culinary 8c other purposes, they consume 
but a small quantity of fuel. In the use of these furnaces, 
to prevent any injurious effects from the charcoal vapour, 
it is necessary that they be placed on the Hearth or 
where there is a free circulation of Air. (FIM 1.) 
Miller advertised his furnaces in Philadelphia 
and Alexandria, Virginia, in the same year. 
ECONOMIC FURNACES. 
Mr. Andrew Miller, a potter in the city of Philadelphia, 
employs thirty eight men and boys in making small 
earthen furnaces for family use, manufacturing weekly 
about one thousand. Their utility is apparent from the 
extent of the demand?The love of novelty might induce 
a few to experiment with articles of this kind, but if not 
found to answer a beneficial purpose, they would soon 
be abandoned even by philosophical cooks and laundresses, 
?Our notice can merely serve to bring them more rapidly 
into general use, and as economy is, or ought to be, the 
order of the day, we doubt not that many ^ thrifty house?
keeper will be obliged to us for informing her, that in 
the use of these furnaces there is a great saving of fuel. 
Those who are over-nice will be further obliged to us 
for informing [?] them, that with a little management, 
they can keep their kitchens in as neat trim as their 
parlors. Many place their furnaces in the yard; and we 
have heard of one lady at least, who has had the backs 
and jams of her kitchen-chimney-place nicely whitewashed, 
being fully determined not to use the same during the 
summer season for any culinary purpose. 
The furnaces offered for sale are of a variety of sizes? 
some calculated to receive a small tea kettle and others a 
large cauldron. The price demanded for them is very 
moderate, and so little fuel is necessary that mention 
has been made to us of one family who did most of their 
cooking in one of these furnaces, and consumed but one 
barrel of charcoal in five weeksl 
Phil. Gaz.83 
In 1825 a Baltimore merchant, George Grundy, 
advertised: 
A. MILLER'S 
Proof cooking and preserving FURNACES. Prices from 
8714 cents to $2, iron bound and cased. These furnaces 
have gained such celebrity, from their durability, as to 
need no praise. Those who have tried them, can testify 
to their great usefulness.84 
We know that Miller marketed his pottery 
through a Philadelphia china merchant, George 
M. Coates, 1824-1829.^5 
Nov. 29, 1824 
Mdse Dr to Cash 
Abraham Miller in full 
March 1, 1825 
Mdse Dr To Cash 
paid Abrm Miller in full for 
ware 
May 3, 1825 
Mdse Dr To Cash 
paid Abrm Mill in full for 
ware 
September 14, 1825 
Mdse Dr To Cash 
paid A Miller in full for 
furnaces Sc tea pots 
April 21, 1826 
Abni Millers bill furnaces 
July 3, 1826 
Mdse Dr To Cash 
paid for furnaces to A. Miller 
July 21,1828 
Mdse Dr To Cash 
paid Abraham Miller for furnaces 
had from him viz June 10, 1828 
July 1, 1828 
July 24, 1828 
May 7, 1829 
Mdse Dr To Cash 
paid Abm Miller for furnaces 
deliver'd this day in full 
6.25 
39.40 
44.17 
206.69 
13.41 
106.15 
$1127 
18.56 
12.96 42.79 
19.76 
Following is an 1831 bill of sale for his products: 
Philadelphia Sept 24th 1831 
Mr Charles Wistar 
Bought of Abm. Miller 
Manufacturer of Portable Furnaces, Stove Cylinders, 
Fire-Bricks Se Slabs, Tea-Pots, and Earthen-Ware?at 
the original Furnace Manufactory, Zane street, near 7th 
St. Philadelphia. 
4 Chimney pots $ 8.00 
1 Twenty four in tita (tile ?) .62 
Received payment 8.62 
Abm Miller se 
Abraham Miller was very successful at his Zane 
Street pottery. By 1840 he was expanding, mov?
ing his manufactory to a new site between 
Thirteenth and Broad streets on James [Noble] 
Street in Spring Garden. Barber published an 
1840 announcement card, which contained the 
following information (B, page 108): 
74 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
ABRAHAM MILLER 
HAS REMOVED HIS MANUFACTORY 
From Zane Street to James, near Broad Street, 
SPRING GARDEN, 
Where his Works are now in full operation, conducted by 
his late Foreman, Mr. C. J. Boulter. 
His Warehouse continues in Zane Street, 
Next door West of its former place, where he has con?
stantly for Sale, by 
WHOLESALE OR RETAIL, 
A large Assortment of PORTABLE FURNACES, STOVE 
CYLINDERS, FIRE BRICKS and SLABS, TEA-POTS and 
EARTHENWARE, PIPE CASES, DENTISTS' FUR?
NACES, MUFFLES, SLIDES, Sec. 8cc.?KAOLIN and 
CLAYS, crude or prepared; SILEX and SPAR, crude or 
levigated to an impalpable powder, and free from im?
purities. 
Sales made only at the Warehouse, Zane Street. 
SILEX, or FELSPAR ground, or any article in his line 
made to order, as speedily as practicable. 
All Orders are to be left at the Warehouse, only, where 
they will be promptly attended to. 
Philad'a December 22,<i 1840 
Elliott, Printer 
51 Chestnut St. 
He retained the Zane Street site as a warehouse 
through 1851. Miller greatly expanded his prop?
erty holdings during the 1840s. In 1840 he 
bought a new residence on Spruce Street and 
throughout the 1840s purchased properties 
around the new manufactory. In 1851, he bought 
a property on Callowhill Street south of the 
pottery, erected new buildings there, and listed 
the pottery at the Callowhill Street address from 
1852 onward. He continued to operate the Cal?
lowhill Street manufactory (Figure 23) until his 
death in 1858." (PD 39-47, 51-74, 76, 78-82, 84, 
85, 87, 88.) 
Several advertisements in the city directories list 
the types of wares Miller was making in the 
1840s and 1850s. (See Figures 9, 18, 19.) 
Earthen Pottery Manufacturers. 
Miller Abraham, Zane st. between 7th and 8th, and Willow 
St. bet. 13th and Broad. Also Sugar Refiners' Moulds 
and Dips Manufacturer. (1845?PD 61.) 
Fire Brick, Tile, Cylinder, and Portable 
Furnace Manufacturers. 
Miller, Abraham, Factories, Zane st. between 7th and 8th, 
and Willow st. between 13th and Broad, where he also 
manufactures Druggists' Wedgwood, Imitation Mortars 
and Pestles, of all sizes, superior and excellent articles; 
also Ointment and Pill Pots, Tiles, Preserving Pots, 8cc, 
8cc. (1845?PD 61.) 
SPRING GARDEN POTTERY, 
Willow Street, below Broad, 
PHILADELPHIA. 
ABRAHAM MILLER, 
MANUFACTURER OF 
Portable Dentists' and Culinary Furnaces, Stove Cylin?
ders, Fire Bricks first quality, Stourbridge size, do. common 
size and quality black glazed Tea-Pots, common earthen?
ware, superior do., also. White, Yellow, or Rockingham 
Ware, Dentists' Muffles, Slides, 8cc. Wedgwood Mortars, 
Druggists' Jars, Funnels, Tiles, Sec, Patch Boxes for 
Druggists and Perfumers, Kaolin and Clays, crude and 
prepared; Silex and Felspar, crude or levigated to an 
impalpable powder, and free from impurities, kept con?
stantly on hand, or ground to order at the original 
Furnace Manufactory. 
Warehouse, Zane st, between 7th and 8th, Spring Garden 
Pottery, Willow st, below Broad. 
All articles in his line made to order at short notice. 
(1849?PD 69.) 
ABM. MILLER'S 
SPRING GARDEN POTTERY 
AND 
FIRE BRICK MANUFACTORY, 
No. 552 Callowhill, near Broad St., Spring Garden, 
Where are Manufactured and constantly for Sale, or 
Made to Order, PORTABLE, DENTIST, and CULINARY 
FURNACES, STOVE CYLINDERS, FIRE BRICKS and 
SLABS; first quality BLACK GLAZED TEA POTS; com?
mon EARTHENWARE, superior do. viz?WHITE, 
YELLOW and ROCKINGHAM WARE. DENTISTS' 
MUFFLES and SLIDES. WEDGWOOD MORTARS, 
JARS, FUNNELS, TILE and PATCH BOXES for DRUG?
GISTS and PERFUMERS, KAOLINS and CLAYS, crude 
and prepared; SILEX and FELSPAR, crude or levigated 
to an impalpable powder, and free from impurities, kept 
constantly on hand. 
Also GAS PIPES, CHIMNEY CAPS, various forms; 
STOVE PIPE CASINGS, PORTABLE CHIMNEYS, 
CRUCIBLES; SUGAR MOULDS and DRIPS made 
promptly to order, in any quality. (1857?PD 85.) 
An indication of Miller's wealth and public 
prominence during the 1840s is his inclusion in 
Wealth and Biography of the Wealthy Citizens 
of Philadelphia in 1845 and in its 1846 counter?
part. Memoirs and Auto-Biography of some of 
the Wealthy Citizens of Philadelphia. The only 
potter listed in either year, he was said to have 
assets of $50,000 and it was noted that he 
made his money at the potting and furnace business; 
was a member of the State Legislature during the ad-
NUMBER 43 75 
ministration of Governor Joseph Ritner; is an honest, 
respectable, and good citizen.ss 
The 1850 census of manufactures indicates that 
Miller's pottery was producing $24,000 in "Fire 
Brick Tiles and Earthern [sic] Ware etc." in that 
year (MC 3; see Appendix II). 
Abraham Miller died in July 1858. The "first 
account" submitted by the executors of his will 
indicates assets of $93,101.25. In addition to the 
pottery, he had acquired a substantial amount of 
stock in various local enterprises, had loans and 
mortgages out, and owned properties and ground 
rents around the city. It does not appear that 
Miller had ever married or had children, but 
he left generous bequests to various family mem?
bers, friends, and employees. These included 
$400 each to potters Charles Boulter and William 
Henry and $300 each to Samuel Stackhouse and 
Matthias Kochersperger.^^ 
In August, the executors advertised the pottery 
for sale in Philadelphia. 
CALLOWHILL STREET. 
POTTERY AND FIRE BRICK MANUFACTORY 
FOR SALE 
The Pottery of the late Abraham Miller, south side of 
Callowhill street, east of Broad, with a good will obtained 
by a position at the head of the business for more than 
fifty years. The lot is 105 feet on Callowhill street by 140 
feet to Carlton street, with two fronts. The Pottery build?
ings were erected in 1851. The kilns, etc., were designed 
after the most approved models. The arrangement of 
the shops, clay mills, vats, etc., cannot be excelled. There 
is a stock of 100,000 to 125,000 fire bricks on hand, of 
the well known and esteemed brands of the late pro?
prietor. The manufacture of dentists' materials, furnaces, 
and of all the finer descriptions of ware, has formed a 
principal feature in the business. There has always been 
a good retail done at the warehouse. 
To an energetic person this offers an opportunity rarely 
met with to become possessed of a business gathered to?
gether by years of close attention, the profits of which 
are safe and sure. 
For terms, which will be made easy, apply at the 
Pottery, where sales continue to be made on the usual 
credit, or to ANDREW H. MILLER, 244 North Third 
street, corner of New; JOHN H. CURTIS, Jr., 433 Walnut 
street, Philadelphia, Executors.90 
They also advertised in the New York Tribune, 
the Boston Daily Journal, and the Cincinnati 
Gazette.^^ 
It does not appear that the Miller pottery was a 
very saleable commodity. The effects of the de?
pression of 1857 may in part explain this. The 
executors indicated that they closed the pottery 
in March 1859 and that the last of the "stock 
of Fire Bricks moulds, machinery, etc." was sold 
on 11 April 1859. By March of the next year the 
pottery had evidently still not been sold because 
the executors paid $2 for "Locksmith for lock 
k key at pottery" and $5 for "Water rent 1860 at 
pottery." ^ ^ 
According to Barber, Miller's foreman, Charles 
Boulter, carried on the pottery after Miller's 
death (B, page 110). It appears extremely un?
likely that this was the case. No data on Boulter 
has suggested that he took over the Miller pot?
tery at any time. The accounting of Miller's 
estate indicates that the pottery was closed be?
tween March 1859 and March 1860, and it may 
have remained so for several years. The next 
known occupant of the site was the Keystone Fire 
Brick and Crucible Works, which was at 1330, 
1332, and 1334 Callowhill Street by 1867.?3 (See 
examples of Miller's pottery in Figures 9, 18, 19). 
Miller, Abraham k Andrew, Jr. 1809-1821 
Partnership of Abraham and Andrew Miller, Jr., 
sons of Andrew Miller. The partnership existed 
from 1809 until 1821 when Andrew, Jr., died, but 
it continued to be listed in the city directories 
through 1824. (PD 22-28, 30-33, 35-38.) "A. 8c 
A. Miller" are included in the 1820 census of 
manufactures (MC 1; see Appendix II.) They 
took a 14-year-old apprentice, Robert Smith, in 
1816 but the indenture was cancelled in 1822.^ * 
Miller, Andrew 1765?-1826 
Andrew Miller was a potter's apprentice in Phila?
delphia by 1765. He almost certainly was the 
Andreas Muller who married Apollonia Vonder 
Hurst in the German Reformed Church on 21 
May 1772.^ ^ By 1783 he was operating his own 
pottery when he placed the following advertise?
ment: 
ANDREW MILLER?All kinds of Earthen Ware made 
and sold by the subscriber at the Pot-house in Elfreth's-
alley, formerly occupied by Mr. Matthias Myer, between 
Arch and Race streets, Philadelphia. All orders from town 
or country shall be punctually complied with. Those at a 
distance in particular may depend upon having the ware 
well packed, and sent forward by thie first conveyance.96 
In 1785 he was a potter at a new address: Trot?
ter's Alley between Market and Chestnut streets 
(PD 1). In the same year he purchased property 
76 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
on Zane [Filbert] Street (also called Sugar Alley) 
between Seventh and Eighth, where he estab?
lished the Miller family pottery. He appears as a 
potter at this address in the 1790 population 
census, and in the next city directory in 1791 
(PD 2). In the 1798 federal tax assessment Mil?
ler's properties are shown to include a "house k 
Lott in Zan st" and adjoining frame stable and 
brick pot house valued at $750.?^ 
By 1799 Miller had taken his son Andrew, Jr., 
and possibly another son, Abraham, into the 
business?the city directories list "Andrew Miller 
k Son" (or "k Sons") through 1808. Between 1809 
and 1817 Abraham and Andrew Miller, Jr., are 
listed together and Andrew, Sr., probably taking 
a less active part in the business, is listed sepa?
rately. Andrew Miller, Sr., was taxed in 1811 
for his "Dwelling k pot Houses," valued at $5000. 
He is not listed as a potter after 1817 but he re?
tained ownership of the pottery throughout his 
lifetime. He died intestate in 1826.^ 8 (pj) 3.5^ 
7-28, 30, 36.) 
Miller, Andrew, Jr. 1799-1821 
Son of Andrew Miller and brother of Abraham 
Miller. He was presumably one of the sons taken 
into Andrew Miller's potting business in 1799 
as "Andrew Miller k Son" (or "k Sons"). This 
listing continues until 1809 when the name is 
changed to "Abraham and Andrew Miller, Jr." 
and Andrew, Sr., is listed separately. Abraham 
and Andrew, Jr., continue to be listed together 
in the city directories through 1824, although 
Andrew, Jr., died in 1821.^ 3 (See Appendix III 
for inventory of the "stock in trade" of the pot?
tery at the time of his death.) "A k A Miller, 
Potters" are included in the 1820 Manufactures' 
Census (MC 1; see Appendix II). (PD 10-28, 
30-33. 35-38.) 
Miller. Andrew 8c Son (k Sons) 1799-1808 
Partnership of Andrew Miller and one or possibly 
both of his sons, Abraham and Andrew, Jr. The 
"k Sons" listing appears in 1800 and 1801 and 
the singular in all other years. It may be that 
the partnership included only Andrew, Jr., pre?
sumably the elder son. (PD 10-21.) 
Miller, Daniel K. 1816-1833 
Potter at 412 North Second Street in 1816 and 
at the Moser and Jennings pottery at 310 North 
Second by 1817. By 1819 he was a partner in 
the pottery which became Miller k Moser in 
that year. (Jennings left the site by 1820.) Martin 
Moser had died in 1810 or 1811 and it appears 
that Catharine Moser, his widow, was Miller's 
partner between 1819 and 1828. In 1828 George 
Moser, Miller's brother-in-law, appears in the 
city directory as an earthenware manufacturer 
and it is likely that he had taken over the Moser 
interest in the pottery. In the same year Miller 
and Moser are listed as earthenware and portable 
furnace manufacturers. The Miller k Moser 
pottery closed sometime between the 1833 and 
the 1835-1836 directories and Daniel Miller is 
listed as a potter for the last time in 1833. He 
appears as an accountant in the 1835-1836 di?
rectory. (PD 28-33. 35-38, 40-45.) Daniel K. 
Miller died in 1868. Mentioned in his will are 
his deceased brother Jacob Miller, who had been 
a potter, and his deceased brother-in-law, George 
Moser.!''" 
Miller, Jacob 1810-1822 
Brother of Daniel K. Miller ^?^ and a potter at 
Artillery Lane (1810J or Rose Alley (1811-1822), 
both addresses near the Moser k Jennings, later 
the Miller k Moser pottery, at 310 North Second 
Street. (PD 23, 24, 26-29, 31-33, 35, 36.) 
Miller. Michael 1767-1814 
Michael Miller, potter, purchased three prop?
erties on the west side of Second Street in 1767, 
1769, and 1773 and a fourth property on the east 
side of Third in 1774.i?2 m^ pottery undoubt?
edly was on one or more of these properties. It 
is not listed in the first directory in 1785 but is 
in the second in 1791. The address given is 314 
North Second Street. Michael Miller's estate is 
advertised in The Philadelphia Gazette of 12 
April 1799.1"^ The pottery is not listed in the 
city directories between 1801 and 1804. but in 
1805 Michael Miller, presumably a son, appears 
as a potter at 314 North Second Street and con?
tinues there through 1814. (PD 2-4. 7-9, 11-13, 
18-27.) 
Miller and Moser (Moses) 1819-1833 
Earthenware manufacturers at 310 North Sec?
ond Street, 1819-1833, and successors to the 
Moser 8c Jennings pottery previously at that 
address. After Martin Moser's death in 1810 
or 1811, it appears that his widow, Catharine, 
continued her husband's partnership with John 
Jennings. By 1819 the business was styled "Miller 
and Moser" and the partners were Daniel K. 
Miller and presumably still Catharine Moser. 
NUMBER 43 77 
She is listed at the 310 North Second Street 
address through 1822. Between 1823 and 1825 
no Mosers are listed individually as potters in 
the city directories though the Miller and Moser 
pottery continues to appear. By 1828 George 
Moser, Daniel Miller's brother-in-law, appears as 
an earthenware manufacturer and probably was 
representing the Moser family's interest in the 
business. His family relationship to Martin and 
Catharine Moser is not known. The 1828 city 
directory indicates that Miller k Moser were 
manufacturers of portable earthen furnaces as 
well as general earthenware. The pottery closed 
sometime between the 1833 and the 1835-1836 
directories. (PD 32, 33, 35-44.) 
Minch, James 1828-1833 
Potter at 4 Pennsylvania Avenue, 1828-1833 (PD 
40-44). 
Mitchell, William 1812-1814 
Apprenticed to Masters "Alex"* Trotter k Binney 
8c Ronaldson" on 18 May 1812. The indenture 
was cancelled on 7 February 1814.^ ?* 
Moffitt, Adam 1842-1859 
Potter at various addresses, 1842-1859. In 1846, 
1848-1851 two Adam Moffitts are listed as potters 
at different addresses. One was probably Adam, 
Jr., who is not actually listed as "Jr." until 1855. 
Adam, Sr., may have been a workman for John 
McWhorter, 1850-1859, when he hsted his ad?
dress near Greenwich and South Second Street, a 
few blocks from the McWhorter pottery. (PD 56, 
57, 59, 62-65, 68, 71, 72, 74, 76. 78, 80, 82, 84, 88, 
89.) 
Moffitt, Adam, Jr. 1846-1869 
Listed in the city directories as Adam Moffitt Jr., 
potter, from 1855-1859. An Adam Moffitt is listed 
as a potter in the 1863, 1868-1869, and 1869 
directories; this listing probably is for Adam, Jr. 
He was probably one of the two Adam Moffitts 
listed as potters at different addresses between 
1846 and 1851. It was probably Adam Moffitt, Jr., 
who was operating a fire-brick manufactory at the 
southeast corner of Schuylkill Second [Twenty-
first] and Market streets in 1850. (PD 63, 65, 68, 
70-72, 74, 81, 82, 84, 88, 89, 98, 103, 104.) 
Moore, Samuel 1829-1836 
Potter near Queen and Marlborough streets, 1825-
1836; probably working at the William Jennings 
pottery (operated by Samuel Innes by 1837) about 
two blocks away on Frankford Road (PD 41-45). 
Morgan, George W. 1843-1852 
Potter at various addresses, 1843-1852. In 1853 
and 1854 he is listed as a dentist in the city direc?
tories. (PD 57, 59, 63-65, 68, 71, 74, 76, 78, 80.) 
Barber, in his first edition of Pottery and Porce?
lain in 1893 mentions a George Morgan, "who is 
still living and now in the employ of the S. S. 
White Dental Manufacturing Company, Philadel?
phia, when a boy turned a wheel for one of the 
throwers in the old [Tucker] China Manufactory" 
(B, pages 151-152). 
Morgan, Joseph 1826-1838 
According to Barber, Joseph was the elder brother 
of George Morgan and worked at the Tucker 
porcelain manufactory during all of its years of 
operation. He was a molder and used the mark 
"M." (B, pages 152, 402) 
Moser (Mozer, Moses), Catharine 1811-1822 
Widow of Martin Moser. She seems to have con?
tinued the Moser interest in the Moser 8c Jennings 
pottery at 310 North Second Street after her 
husband's death in 1810 or 1811. In 1819 the 
partnership name was changed to "Miller [Daniel 
K. Miller] and Moser." Catharine Moser is listed 
in the city directory at 310 North Second Street 
between 1811 and 1822 usually as "widow of 
Martin, potter." (PD 24-29, 31-33, 35, 36.) 
Moser, George 1828-1837 
George Moser was the brother-in-law of Daniel K. 
Miller and presumably was his partner in the 
Miller 8c Moser pottery at 310 North Second 
Street between 1828 and sometime between 1833 
and 1836 when the pottery closed. He is listed 
as an earthenware manufacturer or a potter in the 
city directories between 1828 and 1837. His family 
relationship to Catharine and Martin Moser is 
unknown. (PD 40-43, 45, 46.) 
Moser (Mozer), Martin 1793-1810? 
Operated a pottery at 310 North Second Street by 
1793 and until his death in 1810 or 1811. At this 
site he was in partnership with John Jennings as 
"Moser k Jennings" from 1805 to 1810 or 1811, 
and the partnership was continued, apparently 
by Moser's widow Catharine, after his death. (PD 
3, 4, 15-23.) 
Mozer 8c Jennings or Jennings (Genning, Ginnings) 
k Mozer (Moser, Moses) 1805-1818 
Partnership of Martin Moser and John Jennings, 
potters at 310 North Second Street, 1805-1810. 
After Moser's death, in 1810 or 1811, the partner?
ship was continued through 1818, apparently by 
78 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
Moser's widow, Catharine. By 1820 Jennings had 
moved to Frankford Road to establish another 
earthenware manufactory. (PD 18, 22. 23. 26, 31.) 
Mullowny (Mullony). John 1809-1816 
Captain John Mullowny is listed in the city 
directories as a brickmaker at Locust near Schuyl?
kill in 1809. In 1810 and 1811 he still is called a 
brickmaker in the directories but a 26 October 
1810 letter written by Mullowny soliciting en?
couragement from President Madison indicates 
that his pottery had been in operation since 
March of that year. The letter, which was ac?
companied by a pitcher made at the manufactory, 
reveals a great deal about the Mullowny venture. 
Sir 
I have the honor to send for your Excellencys acceptance 
pr the Sloop Unity Caleb Hand Master a Pitcher as a 
specimen of the ware manufactured at the Washington 
Pottery in Philada whereof I am proprietor and Mr. James 
Charleton (an englishman by birth) the manufacturer, the 
Pottery employs about 15000.$ capital and makes about 
150$ in value pr week, it commenced on the 4th March 
last, it will be extended as soon as workmen can be ob?
tained or boys taught the art of manufacturing as in 
England. As far as the ware merrits [sic], I beg leave to 
solicit your Excellencys support and encouragement, the 
materials are all in our Country, any information your 
Excellency may wish concerning such establishments will 
be given cheerfully.?with sentiments of respect I am 
Your Excellencys 
most obedient 8c 
very Humble [?] 
JOHN MULLOWNY los 
An advertisement that appeared in May, 1810 
gives a brief description of the types of wares 
made at the Washington Pottery. 
WASHINGTON WARE, 
MANUFACTURED IN PHILADELPHIA AT THE 
WASHINGTON POTTERY: 
RED, YELLOW, AND BLACK COFFEE POTS, 
TEA POTS, PITCHERS, etc. etc. 
AND FOR SALE, 
Wholesale and retail, at the ware-house, in High, between 
Schuylkill 6th and 7th streets. 
CONDITIONS . . ALL orders must be in writing, par?
ticularizing the quantity and quality?the order must be 
signed or endorsed by a citizen residing in Philadelphia, 
who is (in either case) expected to pay the cash or give an 
approved endorsed note as follows: 
Orders amounting to 30 dollars and under, cash. 
from 30 to 50 dollars, 30 days. 
from 50 to 100 dollars, 60 days. 
from 100 to 200 dollars, 90 
from 200 to 500 dollars, 120 " 
For prompt payment 1 per cent, per month deduction.? 
The ware must be selected or examined by the purchaser 
before delivery, as no deduction, abatement, or allowance 
will be made on any account after the delivery of any 
ware by package or otherwise. 
Any device, cypher, or pattern, put on China or other 
ware, at the shortest notice, by leaving orders at the 
ware-house as above.IOG 
By June the following had been added to this: 
JOURNEYMEN POTTERS, and a few BOYS, may find 
constant employment, by applying at N. 228, Pine st or 
the Ware House above.io? 
And by November there was yet another addi?
tion: 
Many NEW and ELEGANT PATTERNS of WARE, 
are now to be seen at the Ware House. The public are 
also informed that Plates and Dishes will be ready for 
delivery about the middle of December next.ios 
The sequence of Mullowny's addresses is unclear. 
Barber interprets the above ads to suggest that 
the Pine Street address was the pottery and the 
High [Market] Street address was the warehouse 
(B, page 112). In 1810 and 1811 Mullowny is 
listed in the city directories at 228 Pine Street 
only. In 1813, 1814, and 1816 the Pine Street 
address is not listed and "High near Sch 6th 
[Seventeenth]" has replaced it. It is likely that 
the pottery was established at the Market Street 
address originally. It was not unusual for the city 
directories to be two or three years behind in 
reflecting such a change. Mullowny is not actu?
ally listed as a potter at his "Washington pottery 
ware house," until 1813, the same year that the 
Market Street address first appears. But Mul?
lowny had, in fact, been a potter since 1810. (PD 
22-24, 26-28.) 
The Washington Pottery appears to have been 
very successful. The above mentioned ads appear 
again and again between May and December in 
1810. Two lengthy ads were placed in the Adver?
tiser in 1812. 
WASHINGTON POTTERY, 
MARKET, NEAR SCHUYLKILL SIXTH STREET 
Philadelphia, 28th January, 1812 
THE merchants residing in the country, who have 
favored the Washington Pottery with their custom, are 
frankly thanked by the proprietor. 
The friends to domestic manufactures in general, and 
those who have so frequently renewed their orders, are 
particularly informed that new and handsome patterns, 
both of Turn'd and Pressed Ware, (the latter being the 
first manufactured in America) will be ready for delivery 
NUMBER 43 79 
by the 15th inst. and a supply constantly kept up in 
future. Those friends will be pleased to find the Ware 
much improved in fashion, neatness and utility. Those 
customers residing jit a great distance, are informed some 
of the Ware is much reduced in weight?the old rates 
still continued, viz. 
Handsome GALLON PITCHERS, 31 cents wholesale? 
and other ware in proportion. 
Orders addressed to John Mullowny, Market street, 
next door to the Pittsburg Inn, near Schuylkill Sixth 
street, will be duly attended to, carefully packed, and 
sent according to directions. .loo 
WAREHOUSE OF THE 
WASHINGTON POTTERY, 
HIGH NEAR SCHUYLKILL SIXTH STREET, 
The public are informed that Soup and Shallow 
PLATES are now ready for delivery in addition to the 
following articles, of which a constant supply is always 
kept up. 
CUPS Sc SAUCERS, 
SUGARS 8c CREAMS, 
Gallon, Quart, Pint Sc Half Pint Grelled Sc Plain 
PITCHERS, 
Gallon, Quart, Pint and Half Pint BOWLS, 
SALT and PEPPER BOXES, 
STEWING DISHES that will stand the fire, 
BASINS and EWERS, 
WINE COOLERS, 
MANTLE ORNAMENTS 8c GARDEN POTS, 
Quart, Pint and Half Pint MUGS, 
GOBLETS, TUMBLERS Sc EGG CUPS, 
BUTTER TUBS 8c BUTTER BOATS, 
PICKLING JARS Sc JELLY POTS of all sizes, 
MILK PANS, 8cc. 8cc. 8cc. 
The Plates manufactured at the Washington Pottery, 
will be found by experience superior to imported plates, 
when necessary to stew on a chafing dish or embers, as 
they will stand the heat without cracking.no 
In March 1815, the pottery and stock were offered 
for sale. 
WASHINGTON POTTERY 
The entire Stock of this Establishment, 
WILL BE SOLD, 
AT PUBLIC VENDUE, 
On Friday Morning, 
The 24th instant, at ELEVEN O'CLOCK, 
AT THE WAREHOUSE, 
In Market street, above the Centre Square, 
near Schuylkill Sixth Street. 
The assortment is extensive, and for the convenience 
of purchasers, it is well packed in hogsheads, barrels and 
boxes. This Ware is recommended to the notice of 
gentlemen who have vessels (and spare room) bound to 
Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and New 
Orleans; at the latter place it answers particularly well, 
it being an article of commerce before the war to those 
States. 
Immediately after the sale of the above, the following 
articles will be offered for sale at the same place: 
A substantial Carriage, fit for service as a hack, a 
Sulkey and two Gigs, four new mahogany doors, made of 
superior wood and well seasoned, so as to prove the work?
manship, an elegant Wardrobe of Barry's make, a hand?
some Secretary, an entry Lamp, and sundry articles of 
furniture, two casks Pot Ash, a quantity of white broken 
Glass, two Counters with drawers, suitable for a store, 
fitted for the sale of groceries or earthen ware, a well 
painted Sign and part completed, fit to erect and a large 
Venetian Blind. 
ALSO, 
On Saturday, the 25th instant, 
About two hundred and sixty thousand new Bricks in two 
lots, one in the kiln at the corner of Spruce and Schuylkill 
Second street of about 100 thousand, the other in the 
kiln at the corner of Schuylkill Second and Locust streets 
of about 160 thousand. And immediately after the sale 
of the Bricks 
The Kilns in which they are, together with shed, and a 
quantity of boards, wheelbarrow, and utensils used in the 
brick-making business, will be sold. 
Terms at sale. 
NOTE:?The Pottery Establishment, Stock, etc, as well 
as the Brick Yard, Stock, etc. will be disposed of at private 
sale, on application at the Warehouse any time previous 
to the above named days of public sale. Terms will be 
liberal, by giving approved endorsed paper. 
Peter Kuhn, Auctioneer 
T. B. Freeman, Com. Mer.m 
Neither Mullowny nor the Washington Pottery 
is listed in the city directories after 1816, although 
a 1926 source notes that the pottery was continued 
by his successors after 1816 and that the pottery 
stood "until about forty years ago. . . ." ^^ ^ It 
appears that his immediate successor may have 
been David G. Seixas, who was operating a 
queensware manufactory, 1818-1822, at "High 
W. Sch 7th," probably the old Mullowny site. 
Myers (Meyers, Meyer), Henry 1793-1811 
Listed in the 1793 city directory as a potter at 
140 North Third Street. Thereafter he appears 
discontinuously in the directories through 1811 at 
133 North Third Street. In 1803, 1804, and 1805 
he is listed at a queensware store at the latter 
address and was not called a potter. He is called 
a "gentleman" in 1813 and 1814. (PD 3, 4, 8, 13, 
15-27.) 
In 1794, Henry Meyer, potter, advertised a 3 
story house at 144 North Third Street for sale or 
rent, and in 1799 he advertised for his runaway 
apprentice, Nehemiah Vanzant.^^^ 
Myers, Henry. Jr. 1803-1811 
Potter at 133 (or 131) North Third Street, 1803-
80 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
1811. In 1813 he was a "storekeeper" at the same 
address and in 1814 he listed a "dry good store" 
there. (PD 16-27.) 
Myers, John 1811 
Potter at "7 Marks' Lane" in 1811 (PD 24, 25). 
Myers, John S. 1844 
Potter at "Rose, near Kensington" in 1844. He 
was a saddler in 1846. (PD 59, 63.) 
Myers, Thomas 1802-1809 
Possibly a son of Henry Myers, Thomas Myers 
was a potter at 133 North Third Street, 1802-
1809. In 1810 and 1811 he was an accountant. 
(PD 15, 16, 18-23, 25.) 
Napp, Joseph 1850 
Potter at "2 Washington Market pi." 1850 (PD 
71). 
Neisser (Neiser, Niser. Nisser), Jacob 1805-1822, 
1839-1840 
Potter at various addresses 1805-1822. Not listed 
again until 1839 and 1840. In 1809, 1810, 1814, 
1839, and 1840 two Jacob Neissers are listed, with 
last names spelled differently and at different 
addresses. (PD 18-23. 25-29, 31-33, 35, 36, 51, 52.) 
Nippard (Nipperd), David 1846-1869 
Potter at various addresses, 1846-1860. He may 
have been working at the Haig pottery on Second 
Street above Poplar between 1847 and 1851 when 
he is listed at Poplar, near Third. In 1855 he is 
called a "hatter" rather than a "potter." (PD 
63-65, 68, 71, 74, 78, 81, 82, 84, 94, 96, 98-103.) 
Owens, Peter 1847-1866 
Peter Owens was potting in Philadelphia by 1847 
and was in partnership with Gideon M. Tilton 
as "Owens and Tilton," earthenware manufac?
turers at 87 West Market Street between 1855 and 
1861. Owens operated the pottery on his own 
between 1862 and 1866. He had worked at this 
Market Street pottery site in 1851 when it still 
was operated by Maria Grum, and in 1852. An 
1861 pencil drawing of the manufactory is illus?
trated in Figure 30. (PD 64, 71, 74, 76, 81, 82. 84, 
88, 89, 91. 94. 96-101.) 
Owens k Tilton 1855-1861 
Partnership of Peter Owens and Gideon M. Til?
ton. earthenware manufacturers at 87 West Mar?
ket Street, 1855-1861. (The street number was 
changed to 1725 Market by 1858.) They were 
making stoneware as well as earthenware by 
1859. The 1860 census of manufactures indicates 
that Owens 8c Tilton had $10,000 annual produc?
tion of "Flower Pots Drain Tile Earthen Ware" 
(MC 4). Owens k Tilton took over the pottery 
site formerly operated by John and Maria Grum 
(Figure 30). It also had been operated in one 
year, 1853, by C. D. Biggs k Co. (PD 79, 81, 82, 
84, 87, 89, 91, 94, 96.) 
Peasman, George 1805 
Potter at 265 South Sixth Street in 1805 (PD 18). 
Pedrick, John 1848-1850 
Potter at various addresses, 1848-1850; listed as 
"tavern," 1851-1853 (PD 65, 68, 71, 74. 76, 78). 
Philhps, John 1818 
Laborer in 1817, 1820, and 1821, and potter in 
1818 on Budd Street (PD 30, 31, 33, 35). 
Phillips, Moro 1853-1871? 
Barber notes that Moro Phillips had established 
a stoneware pottery in Virginia "on the James 
River . . . about six miles below Wilson's Land?
ing" in 1850 and by 1853 had moved his pottery 
to Philadelphia (B, page 178). Phillips, however, 
is shown as a Philadelphian in the 1850 deed for 
the Virginia property and may be the "M. Phil?
lips" listed in the Philadelphia directories as early 
as 1849. A specific listing for Moro Phillips as a 
chemical ware manufacturer in West Philadelphia 
first appears in 1855. The Trees Point pottery 
apparently operated concurrently with that in 
Philadelphia.!" (B, page 178; PD 68, 81). In 1856 
Moro Phillips was operating the Aramingo Chem?
ical Works as well as the pottery. His office was 
at 27 (sometimes listed as 25 or 29) North Front 
Street. (PD 68, 71, 76, 78, 80-82. 84, 87, 89, 91, 92, 
94, 95.) The 1860 census of manufactures indi?
cates that his pottery was producing $10,000 in 
"Pottery for Chemicals" annually and his Ara?
mingo Chemical Works was producing $109,000 
in oil of vitriol (sulfuric acid), muriatic acid 
(hydrochloric acid), aqua fortis (concentrated 
nitric acid), and nitric acid (MC 4; see Appendix 
II). 
According to Barber, Phillips made household as 
well as chemical stoneware. He relates that the 
pottery manufactory was moved to Camden, New 
Jersey, around 1867. (B, page 179.) This seems to 
have happened somewhat later. In a letter in the 
collection of the Eleutherian Millls Historical 
Library, dated 6 April 1871, Phillips notes that he 
has "broken up 8c removed my Pottery some two 
months ago." ^^ ^ 
Potter, Henry 1819, 1823-24 
The 1819 city directory lists a Henry Potter, 
NUMBER 43 81 
without occupation, at 302 North Second Street. 
He presumably was a partner in the [John] Linker 
8c Potter pottery at 320 North Second. It is pos?
sible, however, that there actually was no Henry 
Potter and that this listing is an error, transpos?
ing the listing "Linker, John and Henry, pot?
ters" at 320 North Second (1820-1822) into the 
listing "Linker and Potter, potters" at the same 
address (1819, 1823, 1824) and "Potter, Henry" 
(1819). (PD32, 37, 38) 
Purey, John 1800 
Listed under "Potters" in the 1800 city directory 
(PD 12). 
Randall, Jacob 1850-1852 
Probably a workman at Henry Remmey's second 
pottery, at Marshall Street above Poplar, 1850-
1852, because he is listed in the city directories 
as a potter at Poplar below Eighth Street (PD 71, 
74, 76). 
Reese, Lemuel 1829-1833 
Potter at Christian Street below Fifth, 1829-1833 
(PD 41-44). James records a Lemuel Rees who 
was a potter in Brandywine Township, Chester 
County, Pennsylvania, 1824-1842.""' 
Remmey, Edward 1837 
Potter at Second Street near Phoenix in 1837 and 
apparently working at Henry Remmey's pottery 
nearby (PD 46, 47). His relationship to Henry 
is not known. He was probably the same Edward 
Remmey who was working in Baltimore by 
1840.11^ 
Remmey (Remmy, Remey), Henry, Jr. 1827-c. 1865 
Barber (B. page 64), Oakley Raymond.^^^ and 
others state incorrectly that Henry Remmey. Sr., 
had established a pottery in Philadelphia by 
about 1810. The error may have derived from a 
confusion of the Branch Green pottery?estab?
lished in Philadelphia by 1809?with its descend?
ant taken over by Henry Remmey, Jr., in 1827. 
Henry Remmey, Sr.. was the grandson of John 
Remmey (Johannes Remmi) who came to Man?
hattan from the Rhine Valley around 1731 and 
was one of the first potters to make stoneware in 
this country. Listed in the New York city direc?
tories as late as 1815, Henry, Sr., had moved to 
Baltimore by 1817 when he appears in that city's 
directory as a potter. Apparently failing to estab?
lish his own pottery, he was operating that of 
Jacob Myers who advertised in 1820 that "My 
Stone ware establishment is conducted by Henry 
Remmy 8c Son, late of N. York." The son pre?
sumably was Henry, Jr., who in 1824 is first listed 
individually in the Baltimore directory.^^^ 
It was not until 1827 that "Henry Remmey Jun" 
(not Senior) from the "City of Baltimore" and 
Enoch Burnett formerly a Baltimore potter, 
purchased from Branch Green for $3800 a "piece 
and parcel of ground with all and singular the 
Buildings. Improvements, Rights. . . ." Although 
it was not specifically called a pottery, this was 
unquestionably Branch Green's stoneware factory 
at Second Street and Germantown Road. The 
new owners announced in 1828: 
OLD STONEWARE 
ESTABLISHMENT 
Burnett Sc Remmey, successors to Branch Green, respect?
fully inform their friends and dealers generally in that 
article, that they have purchased Branch Green's Estab?
lishment, near the forks of Second Street and the German-
town Road, where they manufacture and keep on hand, 
an extensive assortment of Stone and Earthenware, of a 
superior quality, and will supply orders of any amount, 
as low as any in the City. All orders left at J. Thompson's 
Drug Store, Cor. of Market 8c Second Street, or at Read and 
Gray's China Store, Market Street, third door above Fifth, 
will be punctually attended to. 
N.B.?Country orders will be carefully packed delivered 
in any part of the City.120 
Remmey's business apparently was prospering 
during the 1830's. In 1831 he bought out his 
partner's half interest in the stoneware factory for 
$2000, and in 1834, 1835, and 1836 he bought a 
total of six lots in the area around his pottery, 
probably expanding it.^^i Between 1833 and 1835 
he advertised: 
HENRY REMMEY, Jr's 
STONEWARE MANUFACTORY. 
Near the Forks of Second street and Germantown Road, 
Philadelphia. 
H.R. Jr. Informs his friends and the public in general, 
that he always has, at the above old established factory, 
for sale, on pleasing terms, an extensive assortment of 
STONEWARE. 
Also, on hand, WATER JARS, for hotels and private 
families, from two gallons to ten gallons. 
Orders received for the above articles at ISAAC 
THOMPSON'S Drug Store, northwest corner of Market 
and Second street, and at the CHINA HALL in the Arcade. 
[From 6 September 1834 on, the last phrase was dropped 
from the advertisement.] 122 
and again in 1835: 
82 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
HENRY REMMEY, Jr's 
OLD STONEWARE MANUFACTORY 
Near the intersection of Second st. and Germantown 
Road?Philadelphia 
H. Remmey, Jr., informs his friends and the public, 
that he has constantly on hand, at the above extensive 
establishment, for sale, a large assortment of Stoneware, 
such as Jugs, Jars, Pitchers, Butter Pots, Water Jars, Milk 
Pans, Filtering Jars, etc. etc. 
Articles made to order at the shortest notice. Fire 
Clay for sale. 
Orders left at Isaac Thompson's Drug Store, N.W. 
corner of Market and Second street, or at the Manufactory, 
will be punctually attended to.123 
By 1845 Remmey had added "Chemical Appara?
tus" to his usual "Stone Pottery Ware." This is 
the earliest known production of chemical stone?
ware in Philadelphia. 
Sometime between the publication of the 1846 
and 1847 city directories, Henry Remmey moved 
his pottery to a new site: Marshall Street above 
Poplar Lane. In 1847 Ralph Bagnall Beech is 
listed at the earlier Remmey pottery site and 
continues to be associated with that site through 
1851. By 1858 Henry Remmey's son. Richard 
Remmey, was working at the pottery. He is 
listed as "pipe manuf." in that year and as a 
"potter" in 1860. By 1863 Henry Remmey is 
listed at his residence without an occupation and, 
apparently retired, was a "gentleman" by 1865. 
Richard C. Remmey continued the operation of 
the family pottery. (PD 41-47, 51-55, 57-65. 69, 
71, 72, 74, 76. 78-82, 84, 88, 89, 92, 94. 96, 98-100.) 
(See Figures 12, 13, 25.) Henry Remmey is in?
cluded in the 1850 and 1860 censuses of manufac?
tures as a manufacturer of stoneware at an annual 
output of $8550 in 1850 and $6500 in 1860 (MC 
3, 4; see Appendix II). 
Rine, Joseph 1798-1806 
Potter at 234 (or 236) Market Street, 1798 and 
1799. This was the address of John Hinckle's 
pottery. In 1800 Rine was a "pot Manufacturer" 
on Duke Street and in the same year he advertised 
for a runaway apprentice, Frederick Gosner.^^^ 
He was at this pottery site through 1806. The 
pottery was on the corner of Artillery Lane [also 
called Duke Street] and Front Street and is usu?
ally listed at 334 or 324 North Front. (PD 9-19.) 
He probably was the same person as the Joseph 
Ryan who is listed as a potter at this site 1802-
1809. 
Ritchie, Abraham 1843-1846 
Listed in the directories, 1844-1846, at "Ather-
ton," which was about two blocks from the Fifth 
and Christian Street site operated by the Journey?
men's Pottery, 1844-1845, and by Michael Larkin 
by 1846. Ritchie had been a potter on Cedar 
Street in 1843. (PD 57, 59, 62, 63.) 
Roat, Jacob 1790,1818-1819 
On 8 July 1790 Curtis k Roat, earthenware pot?
ters in Southwark, announced the dissolution of 
their partnership, but John Curtis noted that he 
would be carrying on the business.^^s Roat ap?
pears as a potter in the 1818 and 1819 city direc?
tories. (PD 31, 32.) 
Roberts, Charles H. 1847-1848 
Charles H. Roberts was a constable in 1845 and 
1846. He became a potter for two years, 1847 
and 1848, and went back to being a constable in 
1849 and 1850. (PD 62-65, 68, 71.) 
Roberts, Thomas 1828-1833 
Listed as "potter, d h [dwelling house] 25 N 8th," 
an address close to both the Abraham Miller and 
the Headman potteries (PD 40-44). 
Robinson, Wilham 1845-1850 
Potter at "Dean's ct" in 1845 and at "Abbott's 
ct," 1846-1850 (PD 62-65, 68, 71). 
Rodarmel, WiHiam 1848-1852 
Potter at various addresses. 1848-1852 (PD 65, 
68,71,74,76). 
Routenwater (Roudenwater, Roundenwater, Rot-
tenwater, Rotenwalder, Rowenwalter), Nicholas 
1794-1810 
Listed in the city directories at 22 North Alley 
in 1793 with no occupation and as a potter there 
between 1794 and 1810. (PD 3, 4, 8, 14-23.) 
Russel, John 1809-1811 
Listed twice in the 1809 and 1810 city directories 
as "pot manufactory 18 Fitzwalter" and as "china 
painter Fitzwalter." In 1811 he was a china 
painter at the back of 198 North Second Street. 
(PD 22-24.) 
Ryan, Elizabeth 1811 
Listed as a potter on Poplar Lane in 1811 (PD 24). 
Ryan, Joseph 1802-1809 
Listed in the directories as a potter at 14 Artillery 
Lane [also called Duke Street] or at 334 North 
Front Street, 1802-1809. Probably a confusion 
with the Joseph Rine who operated the 334 North 
Front Street pottery and is in the directories only 
through 1806. (PD 15-22.) 
NUMBER 43 83 
Ryne, Joseph 1798-1799 
Potter at Hoffman's alley, 1798-1799. He may 
have been the same person as Joseph Rine and 
the Hoffman's alley address his residence. In the 
same years Joseph Rine is listed on Market Street 
at the address of the Hinkle pottery, where pre?
sumably he was working. (PD 9, 11) 
Sailor, Jacob 1820-1822 
Potter at Third near Germantown Road, 1820-
1822. He probably was working at Branch Green's 
stoneware factory on Second near Germantown. 
(PD 33, 35, 36.) 
Seixas, David G. 1818-1822 
David Seixas is listed in the city directories as a 
queensware manufacturer at "High [Market] W. 
Sch. 7th [Sixteenth]" 1818-1822. (PD 31-33, 35. 
36.) It is likely that this was John Mullowny's 
factory at High between Schuylkill Sixth and 
Seventh, which had been advertised for sale in 
1815. 
The Seixas manufactory was in operation by 
November 1817, when Niles' Register published 
the following lengthy description of the works: 
We have in our possession, several pieces of earthen?
ware, made at the factory of Mr. David G. Seixas near this 
city?if we had not obtained proof of its domestic origin 
we should not have hesitated to believe it, from its gen?
eral appearance, to be of transatlantic production. In 
this belief v/e should have been chiefly guided by the 
knowledge that many attempts have proved unsuccessful, 
to imitate the Liverpool white crockery. We should have 
been biassed [sic] by the popular opinions that the United 
States could not furnish suitable materials. Or if the 
materials could be had that we were ignorant of the art 
of compounding them. But the result of the research 
and exertions of Mr. Seixas, the proprietor of the pottery 
alluded to, at once sets aside the erroneous prejudice of 
these opinions. We are informed from an authentic 
source, and it gives us satisfaction to promulgate, that 
every material which he makes use of is derived from our 
own soil, and exists in such abundance that they may 
be said to be inexhaustible?and furthermore, that no 
foreigner has ever had any concern, or superintendence 
or employ in his manufactory. 
As this is the only white ware pottery in the United 
States we have obtained permission to lay before the 
public some particulars relating to the materials, and 
manipulation. 
The principal of the materials are clay and flint. 
The former is of a grayish blue colour, and contains 
pyrites or sulphur and iron chemically combined, the 
presence of which impairs the colour of the ware. They 
are separated by an economical and expeditious process, 
an art not practised or known in the European potteries. 
The clay is copiously diffused in water and passed through 
fine lawn sieves to detach the larger particles of sand, 8cc. 
The flint is of a grayish black colour. It is exposed to 
a strong heat, and is suddenly plunged into cold water. 
By frequent repetition of calcination and refrigeration, 
whiteness and friability ensue. It is then ground to powder 
finer than super fine flour, so perfectly impalpable that it 
will remain many hours suspended in water, it is then 
subjected to a purification to extract the small portion of 
oxide of iron it usually contains. 
It is then mixed by measure with the purified liquid 
clay?both of a fixed specific gravity, and the mixture 
poured into vats, the solids in time subside?the water 
is run off?the residuum further exposed to the solar 
heat, until the remaining water has evaporated to suit it 
for forming into the required vessels.?This is performed 
on wheels of horizontal and vertical movements?handles 
and spouts, &c. are subsequently affixed?the vessels are 
perfectly dried, and placed in cylindrical pots, these are 
placed in columns in an oven or kiln, and exposed to a 
heat of 80? degrees of Wedgwood's Pyrometer. When the 
kiln is cold the ware [is] withdrawn, and each piece 
separately immersed in the intended glaze. This is pre?
pared principally of oxide of lead and powdered flint? 
and all colours are imparted to it by the addition of 
metalic oxides?of zinc for straw yellow, of cobalt for 
blue, of iron for red, of chromate for green (this is pre?
pared from the Baltimore chromate of iron) the component 
parts of the glaze are diffused in a sufficiency of water to 
render the whole of the consistency of cream?the ware in 
being dipped therein absorbs a portion, leaving the solid 
parts on its surface. 
A second firing in another kiln under a heat of about 
10 degrees, Wedgwood?causes the glaze to pass into a 
state of perfect vitrifaction. The ornamental painting is 
performed with variously coloured glasses, ground to an 
impalpable powder and mixed with essential oils?these 
are melted on the ware in an enamel kiln, by a heat at 
which the glaze softens. 
Thus is the hitherto opinion that we must remain 
dependent on Europeans for white crockery, because of 
the supposed deficiency of suitable materials and talent 
to imitate theirs, proved erroneous, by the present appli?
cation of native materials wrought by the enterprise and 
industry of a native citizen.i26 
The green-glazed molded pitcher illustrated in 
Figure 5 probably is a product of Seixas' Phil?
adelphia manufactory (see page 9). Seixas prob?
ably was not a potter himself but had hired some?
one to operate the factory. This was only one of 
several ventures in which he was involved. In 
1812 he advertised that he was selling "SOLDER 
. . . LONDON k SWEDISH COPPER . . . 
SHEATHING NAILS" at 151 South Front 
Street. In 1813 he is listed in the directory at the 
same address without an occupation. He is said 
to have repeated "the experiments of Daguerre 
84 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
in this country, without having had any instruc?
tion in this beautiful art. He likewise found out 
the secret of the enameled surface cards . . and 
he engaged in their manufacture for some time. 
So also he made printing ink, and contrived 
several other useful and ornamental matters." By 
late 1819 or early 1820 Seixas privately began the 
instruction of deaf and dumb children which lead 
to the establishment of the Pennsylvania Institu?
tion for the Deaf and Dumb in 1820. He was its 
first principal but was dismissed in 1822. By 1824. 
he is listed in the directory (PD 38) at a new 
school, the Philadelphia Asylum for the Deaf and 
Dumb, by which time he had given up pottery 
manufacturing.^2^ 
Sheets, Reuben 1847-1854 
Partner of John McWhorter in the McWhorter 
and Sheets pottery near the Reed Street Wharf, 
1848-1853. Sheets is listed separately in the direc?
tories, 1847-1854, as a potter at 614 South Front, 
near the pottery. He probably was Robert P. 
Smith's partner in the Smith k Sheets Kaign's 
Point Pottery at Kaign's Point, New Jersey, in 
1844. (PD 60, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70-74. 76. 78. 79.) 
Shirley, John 1845 
Listed in the 1845 commercial directory as a 
"Patent Earthen Sugar Mould Manufacturer" at 
the southwest corner of South Fifth and Christian 
streets, the address of the Journeymen's Pottery. 
He appears also as a "mould mr." at the same 
address in the 1845 general directory. (PD 61, 62.) 
Shuster, Christian K. 1846 
Possibly the person listed in the 1846 county tax 
assessment as "Shuster/Late Potter" at an address 
on Coates Street between Tenth and Eleventh. 
The first name is not readable.^^s Christian 
Shuster is listed in the city directories at "Coates 
bel. 12th" without an occupation in 1847 and 
1848. (PD64, 65.) 
Smith, Catharine 1816-1818 
Potter at 314 North Second Street, 1816-1818 
(PD 28, 29, 31). 
Smith, Christian 1847 
Potter at 11 New Market Street, 1847. He prob?
ably was working at the Brelsford or the Haig 
pottery. (PD 64.) 
Smith, Fife 8c Co. 1830 
Smith, Fife k Co. exhibited two porcelain pitchers 
at the Franklin Institute in 1830 and the judges 
commented that they could not "omit also paying 
a merited compliment to Messrs. Smith, Fife 8c 
Co. of this city, for two beautiful porcelain 
pitchers, exhibited by them, and the committee 
had only to regret that their display was not more 
extensive" (FIP 6, page 6). The similarity of 
their known work (Figure 15) to that of William 
Ellis Tucker (Figure 14) suggests that they were 
former workmen of that factory. Arthur Clement, 
in Our Pioneer Potters, quotes a 20 December 
1830 letter from William Ellis Tucker to John F. 
Anderson in Louisville, Kentucky, concerning 
Smith and Fife: 
This is to inform you that Smith Sc Fife have absconded 
from this city without giving any intelligence where they 
were going, leaving their debts unpaid. Since which time 
the Sheriff has seized upon the scanty remains of their 
moulds etc. which will go but a short distance toward 
liquidating their debts?as I expect they intend going to 
your city, I thought it best to apprise you of these facts, 
so that you may not be taken in by them.129 
Neither partner's identity is known, but Fife may 
have been either William Fife, who was listed as 
a reed maker in the 1829 and 1830 city directories, 
or James Fife, listed at the same occupation in 
1830 and 1831. (PD 41-43.) William Fife's will 
was admitted to probate on 9 November 1830.^ ?^ 
Smith, Matthew 1849-1865 
Potter at various addresses, 1849-1865 (PD 68, 71, 
76, 78, 80-82, 84, 88, 94, 96, 98-100). 
Smith, Robert P. 1835-1841 
Potter at various addresses, 1835-1841. By 1843 
he was an earthenware manufacturer at Kaighn's 
Point. New Jersey. In the next year the pottery 
is listed in the commercial directory as "Smith k 
Sheets, Kaign's Point Pottery," a partnership of 
Smith and probably Reuben Sheets. (PD 45-47, 
51, 52, 54, 58, 60.) He may be the same Robert 
Smith who was apprenticed to Abraham and 
Andrew Miller, Jr., in 1816. The indenture was 
cancelled in 1822."^ 
Spiegel (Speigel, Spiegle. Spiggle, Spigle), Isaac 
1818-1870 + 
Listed as a potter at "Spruce near Schuylkill" 
between 1818 and 1822. He does not appear in 
the directories again until 1837. (PD 31-33, 35, 
36, 46.) 
According to Barber, Spiegel was a workman at 
the Tucker and Hemphill porcelain factory which 
operated between 1826 and 1838. He and "Jacob 
Baker tended the kilns and superintended the 
preparation of the clays, and it is said that the 
NUMBER 43 85 
former made many valuable suggestions to the 
proprietors of the works in regard to improve?
ments in the construction of the kilns." Barber 
illustrates one of a pair of amphora-shaped vases 
that were presented to Spiegel by Joseph 
Hemphill and notes that some of the moulds and 
machinery from the Hemphill works were trans?
ferred to Spiegel's pottery when the porcelain 
factory closed. (B, pages 143-144, 152, 155.) 
In 1825 "Bastian k Spiegle, potters" are listed in 
the city directory at High [Market] Street between 
Schuylkill Second and Third [Twenty-first and 
Twentieth] streets (PD 39). This could have been 
either Isaac or John Spiegel and Bastian may 
have been the John Basten who was, according to 
Barber, "foreman of the [Tucker porcelain] fac?
tory for many years" (B, page 151). 
Spiegel appears in the city directories in 1837 as 
a potter on Brown Street between Cherry and 
Vienna in Kensington. Barber notes that Isaac 
Spiegel retired in 1855 and was succeeded by his 
son, another Isaac Spiegel (B, page 155). In 1857 
"Isaac Spiegle sr" and "Isaac Spiegel, potter" are 
listed at the pottery address in the general direc?
tory. Between 1857 and 1863 only one Isaac 
Spiegel is listed as a potter but between 1864 and 
1870 an Isaac and an Isaac, Jr., again appear. (PD 
31-33, 35, 36, 39, 46, 54, 57, 60-65, 68, 69, 71, 72, 
74. 76, 78-82, 84, 85, 91.) According to Barber, 
the first Isaac Spiegel made "Rockingham, black 
and red ware of good quality, some in ornamental 
shapes, such as miniature barrels, card-baskets, 
and Rockingham figures" (B, page 155). Isaac 
Spiegel is included in the 1850 census of manu?
factures, making earthenware of $1200 annual 
value (MC 3; see Appendix II). 
Spiegel, John R. 1823-1833 
Potter on Apple Street near both the Gossner 
and the Haig potteries, 1823 and 1824. Either 
John or Isaac Spiegel was in partnership as 
"Bastian k Spiegle, potters" at High [Market] 
Street between Schuylkill Second and Third 
[Twenty-first and Twentieth] streets in 1825. 
Bastian may have been the John Basten who was, 
according to Barber, a foreman at the Tucker 
porcelain factory (B, page 151). John Spiegel was 
a potter on Filbert Street near Schuylkill Fifth 
[Eighteenth] Street, 1828-1833. At this address. 
he could have been a worker at the Tucker fac?
tory. (PD 37-44.) 
Spriggs, John 1799-1800 
Potter at 312 North Second Street, John Hook's 
pottery, in 1799 and 1800 (PD 10, 12). 
Stackhouse, Amos 1842-1861 
Potter at various addresses, 1842-1861. He prob?
ably was working for Jacob Dowler, 1844-1861, 
when he listed an address near the Dowler fac?
tory. (PD 56, 57, 59, 62, 63, 65, 71. 74, 76, 78, 
80-82, 84, 88, 89, 94, 96.) Amos Stackhouse ap?
pears as a potter in the 1841, 1842, and 1846 
state and county tax assessments.^^^ 
Stackhouse, Samuel P. 1829-1858? 
Samuel P. Stackhouse is listed in the city direc?
tories as "china manuf." at 60 Vine Street in 
1829 and 1830, and was at a "china store" on 
North Second Street between 1831 and 1837 (PD 
41-44). He may be the same Samuel Stackhouse 
who was left a bequest of $300 in Abraham 
Miller's 1858 will and was noted as "now in my 
employ." ^ ^^  
Stewart, William 1841-1844 
Listed in the city directories as a "porter" (pos?
sibly a misprint) in 1841 and 1842, and as a 
"potter" in 1843 and 1844, at 52 Perry. He was 
a "packer" by 1845. (PD 54, 56, 57, 59, 62.) 
Stiner, Jacob 1831-1833 
Potter at 199 North Water Street. 1831-1833 (PD 
43, 44). 
Stout, Sarah 1829-1833 
Listed in the city directories as Sarah Stout, 
"earthenware," on South Second Street, 1829-
1833; probably a dealer in, rather than a maker 
of, earthenware (PD 41-44). 
Subers (Subas), Amos 1803-1817 
Listed in the directories as a potter at 424 North 
Front Street, 1803-1806. After an interval of two 
years during which he was a tavernkeeper, Subers 
is listed as "lead potter" or "black lead potter" at 
372 North Front Street through 1817. He prob?
ably was making refractory crucibles which some?
times were composed of a mixture of graphite 
(often incorrectly referred to as black lead) and 
fire clay. These could be formed on a potter's 
wheel. (PD 16-23, 25-27, 29.) 
Sullivan, Samuel 1800-1805 
Samuel Sullivan advertised in 1800: 
The Earthen Ware Manufactory, for many years carried 
on by Mr. Wm. Standley, at his Yard and Pothouse in 
Market street, between 4th and 5th streets, is now in the 
hands of the subscribers, where a very large and general 
assortment of good Ware, may be had on the shortest 
notice; and Mr. Standley's former customers and others 
86 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
regularly supplied upon the most reasonable terms. 
SAMUEL SULLIVAN Sc Co.is* 
Sullivan is listed in the 1801 and 1804 city direc?
tories as a potter at 177 High [Market] Street. In 
1804 he also listed a 135 North Sixth Street ad?
dress and by 1805 he had dropped the High Street 
address of the old Standley pottery and he indi?
cated he was a potter at Sixth Street only. (PD 
14, 17, 18.) 
Suters (Suter, Suiters), James 1845-1870 + 
Potter at various addresses, in Northern Liber?
ties, 1845-1870+ (PD 62, 63, 65, 68, 71, 74, 76, 
78, 80-82, 84, 88, 94, 96-102. 104, 105). 
Sweeny (Sweeney), George 1842-1872 
In March 1843 George Sweeny purchased from 
Elizabeth Sweeny for $2000 "all that certain Lot 
or piece of ground and the Two Story Brick 
Dwelling Houses and other Buildings therein 
erected situate on the westerly side of the Wissa-
hicon or Ridge Turnpike road . . . South East?
ward from the South Westwardly Corner of said 
Ridge Road and Wallace Street." The deed for 
this transaction indicates that this was the prop?
erty of Andrew George, who had died intestate 
by 1842, and it was unquestionably the site of his 
Ridge Road pottery. Upon his death, the Ridge 
Road property descended to his legal heirs: two 
sisters, Margaret Napheys and Elizabeth Sweeny. 
And in 1842 Elizabetth Sweeny purchased her 
sister's share of this property.^^^ Elizabeth's 
family relationship to George Sweeny is not 
known. 
In 1842, George Sweeny first appears in the city 
directory, as a fire-brick maker at 155 St. John's, 
an address listed in 1841 for another Andrew 
George pottery?a "furnace factory." Sweeny 
evidently had been one of George's workmen at 
that site. By 1843 Sweeny had taken over the 
Ridge Road pottery and the St. John's Street fac?
tory was not mentioned again. Sweeny continued 
to operate the Ridge Road pottery at least through 
1870. He apparently took Robert Haig, also a 
former George workman, into partnership in 
1843?they appear in the commercial directory 
that year as "Sweeny k Haig." Sweeny probably 
bought out Haig's interest in the pottery, for 
when Haig died in 1849, he was holding a $1000 
mortgage from Sweeny secured upon the pottery 
property.i^" 
Sweeny was a very successful potter and had 
$30,000 annual output of "Pottery in General" 
in 1850, and $26,000 in "Cylinders / Fire Brick" 
in 1860 (MC 3, 4; see Appendix II). He often 
advertised in the commercial directories (PD 60, 
72. 79). 
GEORGE SWEENY, 
RIDGE ROAD POTTERY, 
Between Green and Wallace Streets, 
PHILADELPHIA. 
Where he Manufactures Fire Bricks, Portable Furnaces, 
Cylinders and Tiles, 8cc. He has also on hand an ex?
tensive assortment of Earthen Ware for wholesale and 
retail on the most liberal terms. Orders for home con?
sumption or for any part of the United States, will meet 
prompt attention (1844?PD 60.) 
RIDGE ROAD POTTERY, 
Ridge Road, above Thirteenth street, 
PHILADELPHIA. 
GEORGE SWEENY, 
MANUFACTURER OF 
Jars, Pitchers, 
Butter Potts, and 
Spittoons in great variety. 
Also, a general assortment of 
Earthenware. 
Fire Bricks for Stoves, 
Tiles for Grates, 
Cylinders for Radiators 
and other stoves, 
Baker's Oven Tiles, 
Stone Jugs, 
He manufactures and has constantly on hand. Cylin?
ders to suit Warnick, Leibrandt 8c Co.'s, and William P. 
Cresson's Oven and Radiator Stoves. 
All orders executed with promptness and despatch. 
An omnibus from the Exchange passes the Factory every 
ten minutes. (1850?PD 72.) 
RIDGE ROAD POTTERY. 
RIDGE ROAD ABOVE THIRTEENTH ST., 
PHILADELPHIA. 
GEORGE SWEENEY 8c CO., 
MANUFACTURERS OF 
C O O K I N G F U R N A C E S , 
FOR STONE COAL, COKE AND CHARCOAL. 
Fire Bricks for Stoves, Jars, Pitchers, Butter Pots, 
Tiles for Grates, and Spittoons in great variety. 
Cylinders for Radiators Also, a general assortment 
and other Stoves, of Earthenware, and a large 
Baker's Oven Tiles, supply of Flower Pots suitable 
Stone Jugs, for Nurserymen. 
They Manufacture, and have constantly on hand. 
Cylinders to suit Warnick Sc Leibrandt's and William P. 
Cresson's Oven and Radiator Stoves. 
All orders executed with promptness and despatch. An 
omnibus from the Exchange passes the Factory every ten 
minutes. (1853?PD 79.) 
Sweeny was still owner of his Ridge Road pottery 
when he died in 1872.^" (pj) 54^  56.58, 60-66, 
NUMBER 43 87 
68-74, 76, 78-82, 84, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 96-103, 
105) 
Sweeny k Haig 1843 
Partnership of George Sweeny and Robert Haig 
in a fire-brick manufactory on Ridge Road. The 
factory was operated by George Sweeny alone, 
1844-1872. (PD58) 
Taylor. Thomas 1837-1846 
Potter at various addresses, 1837-1846 (PD 47, 51, 
52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 62, 63). 
Tennent, James 1820-1822 
Listed in the city directories as "queen's ware 
manuf." at 122 South Fifth Street, 1820-1822. 
He may have been a workman at the Freytag 
queensware pottery near Fifth and Cedar. (PD 
33, 35, 36.) 
Thomas, N. Spencer 1858 
In 1858 N. Spencer Thomas is listed in the gen?
eral city directory as a chemist with his laboratory 
at 914 North Market. In the same year he appears 
in the commercial directory under "POTTER?
IES" at "New Market n Germantown road" where 
he apparently had taken over John Brelsford's 
pottery. Brelsford is listed at an address on 
North Fifth Street in that year. Thomas is not 
listed again as a potter in 1859 or 1860 but is 
continued as a chemist on New Market Street in 
those years. (PD 87-89, 92, 94.) 
Thompson, John 1785-1801 
Operated a pottery at 76 North Fourth Street by 
1785, through 1801 (PD 1-5, 7-12, 14). This was 
close to, possibly the same as, the site later 
operated by George Fry. 
Tilton, Gideon M. 1855-1861? 
In partnership with Peter Owens as "Owens k 
Tilton," earthenware manufacturers at 87 West 
Market Street. 1855-1861+ . Gideon Tilton is 
listed separately in the city directories in 1858, 
1859, and 1860, as a potter at 1725 Market, with 
a residence at the "Western Exchange Hotel." In 
1861 there is a listing for James Tilton, "potter, 
1509 Market." (PD 81, 82, 84, 88, 89, 91, 94, 96). 
Trotter, Alexander 1808-1814? 
According to Barber, Alexander Trotter was the 
proprietor of the Columbian Pottery, a queens?
ware factory, by 1808 (B, page 111). He appears 
in the city directories as a potter at Cedar near 
Thirteenth Street in 1810 and 1811 and as 
"Columbian potter" at the same address in 1813. 
(PD 23-26.) Trotter, in fact, appears to have been 
not the "proprietor" but the master potter at the 
Columbian Pottery. He was in business with 
Binny k Ronaldson. type founders near Tenth 
and Cedar, only a few blocks from the pottery. 
These men undoubtedly supplied the capital for 
this venture and Trotter was apparently the 
"PERSON . . . bred in Britain to the POTTERY 
BUSINESS in all its branches?" referred to in 
the advertisement placed in an 1807 Savannah 
newspaper by the firm ^^ ^ (see entries for Binny 
k Ronaldson and Columbian Pottery). 
In 1812 Masters "Alex"" Trotter 8c Binney k 
Ronaldson" took William Mitchell, a nine year 
old boy. as a potter's apprentice. The indenture 
was cancelled on 7 February 1814.^ 39 
Barber notes that examples of Trotter's work 
were exhibited at Peale's Museum in 1808 and 
that an "elegant jug and goblets from the new 
queensware manufactory of Trotter k Co." were 
part of the table service at the "great Republican 
dinner of July 4, 1808. . . . Governor Simon 
Snyder, in his message to the Pennsylvania Legis?
lature, in December, 1809, referred to this factory 
when he stated that 'we have lately established in 
Philadelphia a queensware pottery on an exten?
sive scale.' " The earthenware made at the Co?
lumbian Pottery "was claimed to be equal in 
quality and workmanship to the best made in 
Staffordshire.' (B, page 111.) 
Earthenware from the Columbian Pottery was 
advertised for sale in the Alexandria [Va.] Gazette 
in 1810. 
WILLIAM RAMSAY, 
Prince-street, opposite the Vendue Store, 
Offers for sale on the most reasonable terms, 
the following 
A R T I C L E S , 
Part of which are just received from Philadelphia: . . . 
A neat assortment of Earthen Ware, from the Columbian 
Pottery, Philadelphia?with which he will be constantly 
supplied. . . .140 
N. HINGSTON, 
At his Glass, Queens Ware, Sc China Store, Fairfax street, 
. . . expects to receive in a few days a general assortment 
of ware from the Columbian manufactory.i4i 
The 1814 cancellation of William Mitchell's 
apprenticeship may mark the closing of the 
Columbian Pottery.i*^ By 1815 Alexander Trot-
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
ter had left Philadelphia for Pittsburgh, where the 
city directory notes that 
Messrs. Trotter 8c Co. have established a Queensware 
Pottery, at which they manufacture pitchers, coffee and 
tea pots and cups, bowls, jugs. Sec. similar to those of the 
Potteries in Philadelphia.1*3 
An Alexander Trotter appears as a potter in the 
Baltimore city directories, 1819-1824."^ 
Tucker 8c Bird 1826-1827 
Partnership of William Ellis Tucker and John N. 
Bird in the porcelain factory established by 
Tucker in 1826. Charles Bird purchased the 
partnership for his son, John, before 13 April 
1826 and it ended by 5 February 1827."^ Tucker 
k Bird exhibited "white earthen ware" and "an 
arch, built of Fire bricks" at the 1826 Franklin 
Institute Exhibition. (FIM 3; see Appendix IV.) 
Tucker 8c Hemphill 1831-1832 
On 31 May 1831 Judge Joseph Hemphill pur?
chased for his son, Alexander Wills Hemphill, a 
partnership in William Ellis Tucker's porcelain 
manufactory at Schuylkill Front [Twenty-second] 
and Chestnut streets. Judge Hemphill proved a 
key figure in the history of the factory. The $7000 
paid for the partnership was a welcome stimulus 
which allowed for the relocation and enlargement 
of the factory. In 1831 Tucker and Hemphill 
were praised by the judge of the Franklin Insti?
tute for their "beautiful display of porcelain." 
(FIP 8, page 327; see Appendix IV.) The Tucker 
and Hemphill association was cut short by the 
death of William Ellis Tucker on 22 August 
1832. By 1833 Hemphill had taken over full 
operation of the factory.^''^ 
Tucker 8c Hulme 1828 
Partnership of William Ellis Tucker and John 
Hulme in the porcelain manufactory established 
by Tucker in 1826. Wealthy Philadelphian 
Thomas Hulme purchased the partnership for 
his son John before 9 April 1828 and it was 
dissolved by 10 June of the same year.^*'' A 
pitcher, made during this brief association, is 
illustrated in Figure 14a. 
Tucker, Thomas 1828-1837 
Thomas Tucker, brother of William Ellis Tucker, 
was taken into the Tucker porcelain factory as 
an apprentice in 1828. He eventually became 
chief decorator and manager of the works. After 
William Ellis Tucker's death in 1832, Joseph 
Hemphill, William's partner, retained Thomas 
Tucker as superintendent at the factory. In 1835, 
when the factory was incorporated as the "Ameri?
can Porcelain Company," Thomas was to be the 
factory manager. For $5000 he agreed to disclose 
the "secrets" of porcelain manufacture and to 
keep these "secrets" from other interests for a 
period of five years. The new company, however, 
was never actually formed. In October 1837 
Joseph Hemphill, faced with national economic 
difficulties as well as personal financial problems, 
withdrew from the porcelain works, leasing it to 
Thomas Tucker. The factory was closed in 1838. 
Thomas Tucker had a china store at 100 Chestnut 
Street by 1837, where he probably sold his own 
as well as imported ceramics. He is listed in the 
directories as a china merchant, 1839-1842 (PD 
51, 52, 55, 57). By 1842 he had given up the china 
store and had gone into the cotton business. 
Thomas Tucker died in 1890.^ ^^ 
Tucker, William Ellis 1826-1832 
In 1826 William Ellis Tucker, with financial 
and moral assistance from his father, Benjamin 
Tucker, opened a factory for the production of 
porcelain. In 1827 he advertised: 
AMERICAN PORCELAIN WARE 
A Few pair of American China Pitchers, manufactured 
by William Ellis Tucker, at his Factory, at the North 
West corner of Schuylkill Front and Chestnut-streets, 
being a part of his first kiln, may be had at his Father's, 
No. 44 North Fifth-street. 
All orders, left for the present, at the above number, 
will be promptly attended to, and, after the 20th of 
March, a constant supply of assorted American China 
and fine Earthenware, will be kept for sale at W. E. 
Tucker's Ware House, No. 46 North Fifth-Street, where 
orders will be received, and the articles manufactured 
and forwarded to any part of the United States.i49 
William Ellis Tucker is listed in the 1830 and 
1831 city directories as a china manufacturer at 
Chestnut and Schuylkill Second [Twenty-first] 
Street (PD 42, 43). 
Tucker was embarking on an expensive venture 
and the factory experienced a great deal of 
financial difficulty. Two unsuccessful partner?
ships?"Tucker 8c Bird" (John N. Bird), April 
1826-February 1827, and "Tucker 8c Hulme" 
(John Hulme), April 1828-June 1828 (Figure 
14)?were attempted, and President Jackson, two 
state senators and two United States Representa-
NUMBER 43 89 
tives were petitioned before some financial relief 
was obtained. This was in the form of a partner?
ship purchased by Judge Joseph Hemphill in 
1831. Judge Hemphill introduced a badly needed 
$7000 into the Tucker business, making possible 
the expansion and relocation of the factory. 
The first product of the Tucker factory was white 
earthenware, examples of which were exhibited 
by Tucker 8c Bird at the Franklin Institute in 
1826 (FIM 3). By 1827 Tucker was exhibiting 
examples of his porcelain which met with re?
strained praise from the Institute's judges. But 
in 1828 and 1830 he exhibited a product greatly 
improved in the judges' eyes, and in 1831 the 
judges felt that the new Tucker k Hemphill 
association was maintaining a "high reputation" 
and fully justified "the encomiums and medals 
awarded to them at our former exhibitions." 
(FIP 4, page 404; FIP 5, page 408; FIP 6, page 6; 
FIP 8, page 327.) The financial assistance pro?
vided by the Hemphill partnership was of short?
lived importance to William Ellis Tucker, who 
died on 22 August 1832. By 1833 Joseph 
Hemphill had taken over full operation of the 
factory.^^" (See pages 25-28; also see Figure 14.) 
Vivien, Lamontagne 1826?-1838? 
"Vivian, a Frenchman" is mentioned in Barber 
as one of the workmen at the Tucker factory. 
His mark was a "V." (B, pages 152, 402). Curtis 
notes an 1830 court case in which Lamontagne 
Vivien sued William Ellis Tucker for $300.^ 51 
Wagner, George 1809-1810 
Apparently a potter, 1809-1810, but listed as a 
"porter" in 1809 (PD 22, 23). 
Walker, Andrew Craig ?-1837 
Andrew Craig Walker was "one of the best hands 
employed in moulding the finer pitchers" at the 
Tucker and Hemphill porcelain manufactory (B, 
page 152.) Pieces marked with a "W" are thought 
to have been made by him, but it is not known 
whether he designed the molds or merely carried 
out the process of molding.^^^ An Andrew C. 
Walker is listed in the city directories. 1829-
1831, as a "china potter" at 19 Vernon and as a 
"china potter k sand paper manuf." at 321 (325) 
South Fourth Street, 1833-1837. If he worked at 
the Tucker and Hemphill factory during these 
years, his listed address, located near the Delaware 
River, was many blocks away from it?the pottery 
was in the west, near the Schuylkill River. It is 
possible that he worked at the porcelain factory 
and also operated a sandpaper manufactory at 
the South Fourth Street address. (PD 41-46.) 
Walker is not listed in the 1839 and 1840 direc?
tories, and when he appears again, in 1841, it is 
as "dry goods, 67 Cedar," near his earlier location. 
This listing continues through 1851. An Andrew 
Walker, at 67 Cedar Street, is listed under "POT?
TERS" in 1850 and 1851 commercial directories 
but he also continues to be listed at his dry goods 
store in the general directories during these years. 
Between 1852 and 1860 he listed the ambiguous 
occupation 'crockery,'' which probably meant a 
crockery store rather than a crockery manufac?
tory. It is not likely that a pottery would be 
listed in this manner; one of the 1860 directories 
calls it a "variety store." (PD 54, 56, 57, 59, 62-65, 
68, 70. 71. 73. 74, 76. 78. 80-82, 84. 88, 89, 92, 94.) 
Walker, Thomas 1841-1851 
Included in the 1841 state tax assessment as a 
potter at 388 North Front Street.^" Between 
1844 and 1851 he is listed in the city directories 
as a potter on Amber above Phoenix near the 
pottery operated by Henry Remmey through 1846 
and by Ralph Beech thereafter until 1851. (PD 
59,62-65,71,74.) 
Wallace 8c Cox 1813-1817 
Partnership of William Wallace and Menan K. 
Cox, potters at 334 North Front Street, 1813-1817 
(PD 26-28, 30). 
Wallace, Joseph 1833-1852 
Potter on Budd [also called New Market] Street, 
1833-1845, and at various other addresses through 
1852 (PD 44, 45, 54, 56. 57, 59, 62, 63, 65, 71, 74, 
76). 
Wallace, Thomas 1847 
Potter on New Market Street in 1847 (PD 64). 
Wallace (Wallis), Wilham B. 1806-1848 
Associated with Menan K. Cox as Wallace and 
Cox at 334 North Front Street. 1813-1817. Wal?
lace is listed separately in the directories between 
1806 and 1814 as "potter" or "porter," the latter 
probably a mistake, at 14 (or 13) Artillery Lane 
[also called Duke Street] and is listed at both the 
Front and the Duke Street addresses in 1813 and 
1814. By 1816 he is hsted at Second Street near 
Germantown Road and remains at this or another 
address near the Branch Green / Henry Remmey 
pottery through 1843. In 1841 he is called a 
"waterman" rather than a potter. He was in 
90 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
Southwark at various addresses. 1844-1848. (PD Worrell, Lewis 1811-1818 
19-24, 26-28, 30-33, 35, 36, 39-44, 47, 54, 56, 57, Potter at various addresses, 1811-1818 (PD 24, 
59. 62-65.) 26-29. 31). He may be the Lewis Worrall who 
Washington Pottery 1810-1815 appears in the 1820 census of manufactures as 
Pottery operated by John Mullowny, 1810-1815 an earthenware potter in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsyl-
(PD 26-28; see entry for Mullowny). vania (MC 1). 
Appendix II 
Census Statistics on Manufactures 
In 1810, for the first time, data on American 
manufactures were compiled as part of the popula?
tion census. The report was very abbreviated and 
noted that there were eight potteries in Philadel?
phia City producing pottery valued at $69,250 and 
seven potteries in Philadelphia County with prod?
ucts of $16,200 value. In subsequent decades, how?
ever, more detailed information was compiled and 
entires concerned with Philadelphia ceramics manu?
facture in 1820, 1840, and 1850 are contained in 
this Appendix. The original hand-written reports 
were used in all three cases. There was no manu?
facturing census in 1830 but the House of Repre?
sentatives in 1832 requested data on some manu?
factures for purposes of formulating tariff legis?
lation. The resultant 1833 publication. Documents 
Relative to The Manufactures in the United 
States, has been searched but no reference to Phila?
delphia potteries was found.^ 
The census of manufactures is a rich source of 
information but one that must be examined crit?
ically. The major fault in the three censuses 
cited here is incompleteness. The system of data 
collection was imperfect and many manufacturing 
establishments were overlooked. The 1820 census 
lists only three Philadelphia potteries though it is 
known from other sources that eleven were in 
operation. 
The 1840 and 1850 censuses, though still not 
complete, are far more inclusive documents than 
their 1820 counterpart. The 1840 census lists nine 
potteries and 13 are known from other sources. 
For 1850 14 potteries are listed and 20 are known. 
It is difficult to measure precisely the reliability 
of the data recorded about each pottery. Infor?
mation came from a major person at each estab?
lishment. Since this person should have been well 
acquainted with the business, one would expect 
that the data set down was relatively accurate. But 
individual considerations sometimes may have pre?
vented an absolutely candid reporting. It is known, 
for example, that some manufacturers resented the 
invasion of their privacy and feared that the in?
formation requested was tied to taxation. This 
fear may have caused them to understate the full 
extent of their operation. The problem was less 
critical in 1840 and 1850 when the census takers 
attempted to handle the data with greater con-
fidentiality.2 
The relative accuracy of data contained in the 
1840 and 1850 censuses is important since these 
records are cited in this paper as part of an argu?
ment supporting a period of dramatic growth in the 
pottery industry in the intervening decade. One 
complication in comparing these is the difficulty 
of working with the 1840 census: it includes only 
aggregate data on a ward-by-ward basis and does 
not record potteries individually by name as does 
the 1850 census. 
Both censuses show approximately the same 
accuracy in recording the number of potteries in 
operation in Philadelphia: each includes about 
two-thirds of the potteries known from all sources 
consulted in the study. And both censuses appear 
to include only the more prosperous potteries. 
In 1850 establishments producing less than $500 
worth of goods were excluded from the census. 
Though the 1840 census does not state such an 
exclusion, it is likely that the smaller, less con?
spicuous rather than the larger, more obvious 
establishments were overlooked. In fact, no pot?
teries with less than $600 output appear in the 
1840 census. 
The accuracy of the 1840 and 1850 censuses' 
recording of the number of workers in the Phila?
delphia pottery industry has been doublechecked 
against the city directories. The 1840 and 1850 
directories confirm the fact that the industry was 
growing markedly during the decade. Thirty-six 
potters (proprietors and workers) are listed in the 
91 
92 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
1840 directory. T h e number rose steadily during 
the 1840s and had doubled by 1850. T h e census 
of manufactures, however, records more workers in 
each of the two years; it also indicates a much 
greater increase in the number of pottery workers 
between 1840 and 1850. T h e census records 48 
pottery workers (not including proprietors) in 1840 
and 156 workers in 1850. 
T h e discrepancy between the directory and census 
figures is probably explained by peculiarities in 
the two types of data. T h e city directories prove 
to be a more complete record of the number of 
pottery establishments in operation, while the 
manufactures censuses are more useful as a record 
of the total number of people working in the pot?
tery business. Unlike the census, the city directory 
had no intention, either stated or implicit, of ex?
cluding small operations. Consequently the direc?
tories list more of Philadelphia's pottery establish?
ments than the census for the same year. 
Conversely the census of manufactures is a better 
indicator of the total number of workers. T h e 
censuses include all workers of any type found in 
the shops recorded. T h e city directories are less 
complete. Apprentices and even more advanced 
workers are not always listed. We know, for ex?
ample, that many of the workers?including a fore?
man?in William Ellis Tucker 's porcelain factory 
are not recorded in the directories. A second prob?
lem is the fact that many workers in a pottery shop 
are undoubtedly listed in the directories at a non?
specific occupation such as "labourer, ' ' and thus a 
researcher would not be able to identify them as 
pottery workers. 
T h e larger discrepancy in the number of workers 
listed in the directory and the census by 1850 can 
perhaps be explained by the growing number of 
unskilled jobs in the potteries. By 1850, it is likely 
that more pottery workmen would be listed as 
"labourer" or "moulder" in the directories. Con?
sequently a greater number of them would be over?
looked by a researcher because they have no ap?
parent connection with a pottery. T h e census, 
however, would remain an accurate reflection of 
workers of all types in the potteries recorded. 
Unfortunately no data exists to test the accuracy 
of the figures recorded for ou tpu t and capital in?
vested in the potteries recorded in the 1840 and 
1850 censuses of manufactures. Since both docu?
ments exclude some potteries, almost certainly the 
smallest and least successful, the financial status 
of the industry as a whole is somewhat under?
stated, though probably by a relatively small 
amount. I t is not likely that verification of the 
figures for individual potteries will ever be possible. 
T h o u g h the 1820, 1840, and 1850 manufactures 
censuses must be used with caution, they contain 
data?especially economic and technological data? 
available from no other source. All three censuses 
provide extremely valuable information about the 
individual potteries recorded. Each requested that 
the manufacturer indicate the amount of capital 
invested in the business, the value of its annual 
output , and the number of workers employed. In 
1820 and 1850 questions also were asked concerning 
the raw materials used, the machinery and type of 
power employed, and the wages paid to workers. 
Sometimes these were supplemented by remarks 
by the potters. T h e 1840 and 1850 censuses are 
complete enough to serve as rough indicators of 
the state of the industry as a whole. 
RECORD OF THE 1820 CENSUS OF MANUFACTURES 
(MC 1, roll 14) 
Questions to be addressed to the Persons concerned in Manufacturing Establishments by the 
Marshals and their Assistants, in taking the Account of Manufactures. 
Name of the County, Parish, Township, Town, or City, where the Manufacture exists. 
1. The kind? 
RAW MATERIALS EMPLOYED. } 2. The quantity annually consumed? 
3. The cost of the annual consumption? 
NUMBER 43 93 
NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED. 
MACHINERY. 
EXPENDITURES. 
PRODUCTION. 
4. Men? 
5. Women? 
6. Boys and Girls? 
7. Whole quantity and kind of Machinery? 
8. Quantity of Machinery in operation? 
9. Amount of capital invested? 
10. Amount paid annually for wages? 
11. Amount of Contingent Expenses? 
12. The nature and names of Articles Manufactured? 
13. Market value of the Articles which are annually 
manufactured? 
14. General Remarks concerning the Establishment, 
as to its actual and past condition, the demand 
for, and sale of, its Manufactures. 
Isaac English Pottery in the Borough of Frankford, Town?
ship of Oxford Philadelphia County Sc State of Pennsyl?
vania 
1. Clay Lead Sc Manganies [sic] 
2. 100 waggon loads clay two tons Lead lOOlb Manganies 
3. $650 dollars. 
4. 4 men 
9. $3000 dollars 
10. $400 dollars 
11. $200 dollars 
12. sugar moulds, milk [?] potts Jars Jugs mugs 
13. $2000 dollars 
14. The business has been very much depressed [?] for four 
or five years past and no prospect of [?] improvement. 
ISAAC ENGLISH 
Thomas Haigs Pottery Incorporated 
district of Northern Liberties, County of Philaa 
4. 2 men employed 
6. 4 Boys 
12. Earthenware generally 
13. About $2000 
14. In 1815 8c 16 employed 7 men and five boys, paid wages 
$1800 annually, and Market Value of articles annually 
made $5000 
A 8c A Miller Potters 
Philadelphia North Ward 
Value $240 
1. Clay about 80 Team loads 
Value $800 
Wood for fuel 190?200 Cords, Manganese 
Red Lead 
Value 
Value $28. 
4 Cwt 
2 Tons 
6. Six boys 
7. 3 Potters wheels, 2 Do turning lathes. 
8. All in operation. Clay Mill. 
9. $2500 to $3000 
10. $2000-$2300 
11. $300-$600. 
12. Common coarse earthen ware (not stone). Also, Black 8c 
brown tea pots and a great variety of other articles, 
known in commerce, by the terms black and brown 
china. 
13. Actual average sales for 2 years last past $6000 
14. The articles above enumerated have been tried for 10 
or 12 years and are esteemed as highly as the European 
articles of which they are an imitation. There is a 
sufficient quantity of skill at market for the manufacture 
of a quantity equal to the consumption of the United 
States?the quantity manufactured at present is some?
what less than half the quantity manufactured in the 
years I8I4-"15 8c "16? 
Notwithstanding, many of the articles which we make 
are equally esteemed with Sc supply the place of white 
English ware?yet as the latter are sold to the dealers 
at a price somewhat lower than we can afford ours, it 
happens that they (the dealers) find it their interest not 
to keep any of ours on hand because it would very 
generally hinder the sale of those which afford them a 
larger profit?the price of each to the consumer being 
the same. 
The demand for Tea pots Sc Coffee pots would be such 
as to exclude the english ware, of the same kind from the 
market were it not frequently imported by foreign agents 
?and being of too little value to kept [sic] long in store 
it is frequently sold for less than cost. 
A 8c A MILLER 
94 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
SCHEDULE OF MINES, AGRICULTURE, COMMERCE, MANUFACTURES, ETC., 1840, 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
(MC 2) 
No. of 
Potteries 
1 
I 
2 
1 
I 
1 
2 
Value of 
Manufactured 
Articles 
2500 
2500 
18000 
1800 
4000 
4000 
20000 
No. of 
Men 
Employed 
6 
6 
19 
3 
3 
3 
8 
Capital 
Invested 
1000 
1000 
12000 
600 
6000 
6000 
5000 
Ward 
Lower Delaware Ward 
Phila City 
Middle Ward 
Phila 
North Mulberry Ward 
City of Phila 
Northern Liberties Unincorporated 
First Ward 
District of Spring Garden Co. of Phila 
Second Ward 
Same 
First Ward 
Southwark County of Phila 
FEDERAL DECENNIAL CENSUS OF 1850, SCHEDULE 5: PRODUCTS OF INDUSTRY 
(MC 3) 
1. Name of Corporation, Company, or Individual producing Articles to the Annual Value of 
$500. 
2. Name of Business, Manufacture, or Product. 
3. Capital invested in Real and Personal Estate in the Business. 
Raw Material used, including Fuel. 
4. Quantities 5. Kinds. 
7. Kind of motive power, machinery, structure, or resource. 
Average number of hands employed. 
8. Male. 9. Female. 
Wages 
10. Average monthly cost of male labour. 
11. " " " "female " 
Annual Product. 
12. Quantities. 13. Kinds. 
6. Values. 
14. Values. 
R. B. Beech 
2nd Ward, Kensington 
2. Potter 
3. 3,500 
4. 
150 tons 
100 cds 
7. 
Hand 
5. 
Clay 
Wood 
6. 
412 
400 
8. 11 
12. 
9. . 
13. 
Henry L. Benner 
1st Ward, Southwark 
2. Pottery 
3. $2,000 
10. 180 
14. 
4,500 
11. 
NUMBER 43 
4. 
3,000 lb. 
100 Cord 
7. 
Hand 
8. 5 
12. 
5. 
Clay 
Red Lead 
Sc Other 
Material 
Wood 
9. 
13. 
6. 
$1,625 
10. 1( 
14. 
95 
Furnaces 
Fire Brick 
and Earthen 
Wares 
$4,000 
Clayton Sc Berry 
5th Ward, Southwarke [sic] 
2. Pottery 
Fire Clay 
3. $3,000 
5. 
Clay 
Sand 
White Sand 
Wood 
4. 
Tons 
100 
Loads 
100 
Loads 
25 
Cords 
100 
7. 
Horse 
8. 2 
12. 
1,200 
6,000 
12,000 
10,000 
Chas J. Boulter 
6th Ward, Spring Garden 
2. Potter 
3. 4,000 
4. 
80 cords 
7. 
Hand 
8. 5 
12. 
5. 
Clay 
Wood 
6. 
$350 
$100 
$ 37 
$450 
6. 
600 
320 
I I . 
9 
13. 
Furnaces 
Cylinders 
Stove Tyle 
Fire Brick 
Total 
10. $60 
14. 
$ 500 
$1800 
$2400 
400 
$5100 
II . 
q 
13. 
General 
Pottery 
10. 120 
14. 
4,000 
11. 
Jno. Brelsford 
7th Ward, Northern Libts. 
2. Potter 
3. $4,000 
4. 
150 tons 
5. 
Clay 
Wood 
7. 
Horse 
12. 13. 
Various 
Articles 
6. 
$1,300 
$1,100 
10. $160 
14. 
$5,500 
II . 
Jacob Dowler 
First Precinct, Third Ward, Spring Garden 
2. Potter 
3. 1,000 
4. 
100 
90 
7. 
Hand 
8. 5 9. _ _ _ ^ 10. 120 
12. 13. 14. 
55,000 Earthen Ware 
8c Fire Tile 4,500 
5. 
Ton Clay 
Cords Wood 
6. 
350 
780 
11. 
J. [?] V. T. English 
The Borough of Frankford 
2. Pottery 
3. $1,200 
4. 5. 
75 chords [sic] Wood 
4,000 Pounds Red Lead 
Clay 
7. 
Hand 
8. 5 
12. 
9. 
6. 
$300 
$250 
$250 
10. $120 11. 
13. 14. 
Earthen Ware $2,500 
J. 8c T. Haig 
2nd Ward, Kensington 
2. Potters 
3. 30,000 
4. 5. 
1040 tons Clay 
600 cds Wood 
7. 
Hand 
8. 32 9 
6. 
3120 
2500 
10. 800 11. 
96 
12. 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
13. 14. 
Stone Ware 8,000 
Earthen Ware 1,2000 [sic] 
Michael Larkin 
4th Ward, Southwark 
2. Earthen ware Potter 
3. .$7500 
4. 
125 Tons 
2500 lbs. 
15 Tons 
170 Cords 
5. 
Clay 
Red lead 
Blue Clay 
Wood 
7. Hand and Kiln 
8. 7 
12. 
Earthen ware 
of various 
kinds 
Mc Wharter [ 
9. " [sic] 
13. 
sic] 8c Sheets 
5th Ward, Southwark 
2. Pottery 
3. $2,000 
4. 
Tons 
100 
Cords 
75 
7. 
8. 3 
12. 
Pieces 
000 [sic] 
5. 
Clay 
Wood 
9. 
13. 
Earthen Ware 
6. 
188 
150 
45 
715 
10. 230 
14. 
$4500 
6. 
$160 
$375 
10. $75 
14. 
$40.00 [$4,000 ?1 
11. "[sic] 
11. 
Abraham Miller 
4th Ward, Spring Garden 
2. Manufacr of Fire Brick Tiles and Earthen-Ware 
3. 30-000 
4. 
644 
Tons 
5037 
Pounds 
450 
Cords 
52 
Tons 
Other 
7. 
Man Sc Horses 
8. 45 
5. 
Clay 
Red Lead 
Wood 
Coal 
Articles 
9. 
6. 
1689 
362 
1937 
263 
737 
10. ! 
12. 13. 
Fire Brick 
Tiles and 
Earthen 
Ware etc. 
14. 
$24-000 
Henry Remmey 
The District of Penn 
2. Stone Ware Manufacturer 
3. 5 000 
4. 
Tons 
225 
450 
5. 
Clay 
Wood 
Other 
6. 
850 
1800 
364 
Articles 
7. 
Hand 
8. 6 
12. 13. 
Stone Ware 
10. 192 
14. 
8550 
Isaac Speigel 
5th Ward, Kensington 
2. Potterer 
3. 1000 
4. 
50 Loads 
40 Cord 
7. 
Hand 
8. 2 
12. 
5. 
Clay 
Wood 
6. 
80 
140 
10. 60 
13. 
Earthenware 
14. 
1200 
George Sweeny 
5 th Ward, Spring Garden 
2. Pottery 
3. $25,000 
4. 
1000 Tons 
7. 
Horses 
20 
5. 
I Clay Wood (8:?) Sands 
Miscellaneous 
9. 
12. 
11. 
13. 
Pottery in 
General 
3,250 
50 
10. 800 
14. 
30,000 
11. 
11. 
11. 
Appendix III 
Potters^  Inventories 
J O H N JUSTICE ^ 
Inventory and appraisement of the Goods and Chattels 8cc 
of John Justice late of the Northern Liberty's Potter De?
ceased 
A Lot of Books 
One Field Bedstead Sc furniture thereto 
One Walnut Desk 
One Mahogany Bureau 
One Mahogany Oval Breakfast Table 
One Walnut Stand 
A Lot of China and Glass 
A Lot of Queensware 
A Lot of Pewter and Knives 8c forks 
One Pair of Looking Glasses 
A Lot of Candlesticks and Snuffers 
A Lot of Andirons Shovels and Tongs 
One Bedstead Bed and Bedding 
Two Trundle Bedsteads 
Two Bedsteads 
A Lot of Pictures framed 
A Lot of Iron and Tin ware 
Three Chests and One Trunk 
Three Suits of Wearing Apparel 
Two Hatts 
A Lot of Silver Buckles and Gold Seals [?] 
One Eight Day Clock Walnut Case 
One Walnut Dining Table 
One Pine Writing Desk 
One Ten Plate Stove 
One small open Stove 
Three small Six plate Stoves 
Fourteen chairs 
One Old round Tea Table and One Dining do 
Two Pine Tables 
A Lot of Iron Potts Kettles and Gridirons 
A Lot of Old Iron 
A Lot of Bottles 8cc 
A Lot of Cart Gears 
One Old Saddle and Bridle 
A Lot of Cedar Ware 
One Brass Kettle 
One Cot Bedstead 
A Clay Mill 
Twelve Cords of Pine Wood 
One Old Hand Engine 
Two Cedar pickling Tubs and One Ladder 
One Glazing Mill 
A Lot of Moulds Rolling Pins 8cc 
I 
7.10 
1. 2.6 
1.10 
1. 2.6 
. 5 
1. 2.6 
.12.6 
.10 
1.17.6 
. 7.6 
I. 2.6 
5. 5 
.15 
.15 
. 2.6 
. 5 
I. 2.6 
4.10 
. 7.6 
1.10 
7.10 
I. 5 
. 7.6 
4.10 
1. 2.6 
1.10 
1 
.15 
. 4 
.12.6 
. 7.6 
. 2.6 
1. 2.6 
. 3.9 
. 7.6 
.15 
. 3.9 
2. 
12. 
A Lot of Glazing Tubs and Buckets 
Whole of the Unburnt Ware 
One Cwt Red Lead 
Two Potters Wheels 
Whole of the Burned Ware 
Clay 
Cash 1420 ? Dollars 
100 
.10 
3. 
1.17.6 
1. 2.6 
25. 
3. 
532.11 
? 637.17.6 
Taken and Appraised this 20th day of February 1799 by us. 
JASSANAH [sp?] GiMBEL 
ANDREW M I L L E R 
Appraisers Sworn the l l t h 
day of April 1799 
Before 
J. WAMPOLE [title ?] 
S T O C K I N T R A D E O F 
ABRAHAM AND ANDREW MILLER, JR.^ 
Augt 15th 1821 
We the undersigned having been requested to value the 
stock in trade of?Abm & Andw Miller J r . - ( the latter 
having departed this life on the 3d of Augt 1821.) 8c the 
former being the surviving partner 8c administrator, do 
declare that to the best of our knowledge Se belief the 
value of the said stock is?as follows 
7.6 
7.6 
7.6 
Finished ware (best) 
Glazed biscuit 
Unglazed biscuit 
Ware in the Clay state 
Common ware in the warehouse 
Common ware unglazed 8c unburnt 
Do Do glazed, but unburnt 
Pine wood at cost 
Oak wood do 
Red Lead 5 CWT 
Manganese powder'd (at cost) 
Coarsely do 4 CWT 
Clay (crude [?]) 9 loads 
Do Prepared 14 do (at $5 
Blue Clay 
Hay 8c Straw 
Plaster, and other moulds 
Two glazing mills (one 5, the other 2) 
Four Potters wheels 
One band do 
$302."98 
45 "43 
93-33 
108 " 41/2 
188 "84 
2 0 - -
35 
161 "19 
6 5 - -
4 0 - -
47 "93 
12 "00 
22 "50 
70 - -
5 - -
3 - -
9 - -
7 - -
2 5 - -
3 - -
97 
98 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
Three turning Lathes 
Five longe 8c 2 flat cedar tubs 
One horse Sc Cart 
One wheelbarrow, shovels Se charcoal 
Four old ten plate stoves 
One small kiln (iron) band 
One iron crow [?], one pick, 2 other axes. 
mall Sc wedges 
One bathing tub 
Nine hundred Se seventy six large Saggars ^ 
Five hundred Sc fifty seven [?] do j 
Seventy seven quart mug 8c \ 
Two hundred Se twelve pint do do [ 
Two hundred Se seventy one tiles j 
Sand Sc Manure 
Crates Se other packages 
Four baskets 
One handle box 
Sundries 
Ditto 
Mortar, Buckets 8: Sundries 
Fire bricks (78) 
Two sieves 
1 5 - -
6 
3 5 - -
2 "121/2 
20 - -
5 - -
2 - -
4 - -
53 "32 
16-80 
I 00 
3 "50 
1 "50 
6 - -
4 - -
1 - -
2 - -
3 "121/2 
1 "00 
1 Bed 8c Bedstead bedding 
1 do do do 
Carpet old Chairs cradle 
Waiter 
15 yds. Carpeting 25 cents 
Kitchen Untensils [sic] 
Crockery Ware 
Artickles [sic] in the Pottery 
One horse $12 x Cart 10 
2 Wheels 10 each 
1 do 
1 Glazing Mill 
4 do Tubs 
Load of Clay 
Stove 
Quantity of boards 
of Moulds 
3 Rolling pins 
Marble Slab 
lot of Blue Clay 
2 Mill Irons 
yds 
Lot of Earthen Ware appraised by a potter 
5 
5 
2.50 
0.50 
3.75 
6.50 
4. 
22 
20 
5 
6 
1 
2 
2 
6 
5 
1 
3 
6 
3 
100 
$241.25 
7 5 - -
5 - -
X One Gold Repeater 
X One plain old silver watch 
[Signed] THOMAS HAIG 
JOHN C. GINNINGS 
WILLIAM HOOK 
GEORGE HEADMAN 
Xx These were belonging solely to Andw Miller, jr. 
MICHAEL GILBERT ^ 
An Inventory of Household Goods belonging to the 
Estate of Michael Gilbert disceased [sic] 
One ten plate stove $5 
" Looking Glass 3 
Pine breakfast table 1.50 
8 Windsor Chair ?37i/2 each 3 
One Bureau 2.50 
Bed 8c Bedstead bedding 12 
Walnut breakfast table 1 
12 yds Rag Carpet 2 
Andirons shovel Sc tongs 2 
Phila Nov. 29 1831 
T H O M A S H A I G * 
Appraisement of a Portion of the Goods Sc 
Chattels of Thomas Haig 
January 26th 1832 
$ cts 
Finished ware on hand 286.00 
Clay 48.00 
Wood 100.00 
Lead 8c Magness [sic] 56.00 
Sagers 30.00 
Sager Se Shap [Shop ?] boards 8c drums 13.00 
Weals [sic] 35.00 
Stock tubs etc 11.00 
Moulds 15.00 
Saws hatches Stoves etc 9.50 
Fire bricks 20.00 
Unfinished ware 10.00 
brick moulds etc. 6.00 
Sives Sc Graits [?] 1.00 
$638.50 
Appendix IV 
Exhibitions of American Manufacturing 
at the Franklin Institute 
The Franklin Institute of the State of Pennsyl?
vania was established in 1824 for "the promotion 
and encouragement of manufactures and the me?
chanic and useful arts." (FIP 1, page 7.) In that 
year it began a series of 26 exhibitions of American 
manufactures that were continued through 1858. 
The twenty-seventh and last was held in 1874. 
Manufacturers of a great variety of articles par?
ticipated in these exhibitions and committees of 
judges were appointed to comment upon the merits 
of products and award "premiums" accordingly. 
Following are the judges' comments on displays 
submitted by Philadelphia potters between 1824 
and 1858?an important record of the changes 
taking place in the industry over that period. These 
comments are extracted from the published reports 
as well as from the hand-written notes of the judges, 
which are preserved in the Archives of the Franklin 
Institute. The latter are included only if they 
contain data that does not appear in the published 
form. 
FIRST EXHIBITION (1824) 
Articles to be examined by the Committee on all Earthen?
ware . . 
No. 1 - Articles of Earthenware, from Miller 
No. 2 - Porcelain-?Metalic Lustre black Se redware 
No. 3 - Earthen, furnaces, for charcoal fuel 
No. 4 - Fire Bricks from Harper (FIM 1.) 
The Articles of American Manufacture which have come 
under the inspection of the Committee are those of Red 
Se Black Glazed Teapots, Coffeepots Se other Articles of the 
same description of Ware, all of which exhibit a growing 
improvement in the manufacture, both in the quality 8c 
forms of the Articles. It is but a few years since we were 
under the necessity of importing a considerable proportion 
of these Articles for Home consumption, but since our Pot?
ters have discovered the Art of making it equally good, if 
not superior to the Article imported, 8c rendered it at a 
price equally low, it has finally excluded the imported Article 
from the American Market. 
We had likewise under our notice a sample of Platinated 
or Lustre pitchers, with a specimen of Porcelain Se of White 
ware, which all go to show that we have the materials for 
the various branches of this Manufacture. 
We had also presented for our inspection an Article 
denominated a Portable Earthen Furnace manufactured in 
various forms 8c sizes, Se which are rendered very safe Sc 
permanent by being protected with Iron hoops, or cased 
with sheet Iron, the extensive sale Sc continued demand for 
them, is a strong proof of their Utility and convenience for 
Culinary Sc other purposes, they comand but a small quantity 
of fuel. In the use of these furnaces, to prevent any injurious 
effects from the charcoal vapour, it is necessary that they be 
placed on the Hearth or where there is a free circulation 
of Air. 
The whole of the above Articles, are from the Manufac?
tory of Abm Miller of Philada. (FIM 1, page 3.) 
VI. POTTERY. 
1. No specimens of this article were offered with a view 
to competition for a premium. The few articles that were 
exhibited were from the manufactory of Abraham Miller, 
Zane street, Philadelphia, consisting of red and black glazed 
tea pots, coffee pots, and other articles of the same descrip?
tion. Also, a sample of platinated or lustre pitchers, with a 
specimen of porcelain and white ware, all of which exhibited 
a growing improvement in the manufaucture, both in the 
quality and form of the articles. It is but a few years since 
we were under the necessity of importing a considerable 
proportion of this description of ware for home consumption, 
but since our potters have attained the art of making it equal, 
if not superior to the imported, and as cheap, they have 
entirely excluded the foreign ware from the American 
market. 
2. Portable earthen furnaces, from the same manufactory, 
rendered safe by being bound in iron hoops, are an article 
of great utility and convenience for culinary and other 
purposes. 
3. Fire bricks, by James Harper, jr. are well made and 
appear good; but this is an article the merits of which can 
only be known by experience. (FIP 1, page 80.) 
[See also pages 17-19.] 
99 
100 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
SECOND EXHIBITION (1825) 
SECTION IX. 
Earthen-Ware 8cc. 
395 One Black Teapot. 
397 One do. Coffeepot. 
398 One do. half gallon Pitcher, (diamond) 
399 One do. do . do. (plain) 
396 One Red Teapot. 
400 One Cake Mould, No. 6. 
401 One do. do. do. 9. 
401 One do. do. do. II . 
403 Four Strainers. 
404 Three Pans. 
Made by Thomas Haig of Philadelphia, from clay taken 
in the city.?These articles are considered of very superior 
quality, and are in the opinion of the judges better than 
goods of the same kind, brought from England. The body 
of the ware is perfectly burned and deprived of all absorbent 
qualities. The glaze is good and free from cracks, and the 
workmanship is neat. Had the maker sent the articles by 
the time specified, he might have been a competitor for the 
Silver Medal offered on this branch of manufacture?In 
consideration of the excellent quality of his ware, an honor?
ary mention was awarded to him. 
435 Fifteen clay Furnaces, or Earthen-ware chaffing vessels of 
different sizes, manufactured by Abraham Miller of Philadel?
phia, one of the Managers of the Institute. (FIP 2, pages 
21-22.) 
[Honorary Mention] To Thomas Haig, of Philadelphia, for 
his very excellent specimens of red and black earthen-ware, 
which, if they had been sent in time, might have entitled 
him to the silver medal, proposed in premium No. 12 (FIP 
2, page 12.) 
The Committee on Earthen Ware 
Report that they have examined a number of Earthen 
ware chaffing vessels, now known in this place by the name 
of Clay furnaces?their goodness and usefulness is now so 
generally known that your Committee has only to observe 
that this specimen of an economical mode of having a small 
fire owes much credit to Mr. A. Miller the maker. (FIM 2.) 
T H I R D EXHIBITION (1826) 
The Committee on Pottery are requested to examine the 
Articles enumerated . . . 
174 
No. 
TT 
12 
13 
14 
15 
304 
305 
471 
472 
Quantity. Description. 
2 Coffee Pots 
4 Tea Pots 
2 Sugar Bowls 
2 Cream Jugs 
5 Cake Moulds 
61/2 
3 
2 
20 
Fire Bricks 
Small Jugs 
fire Bricks 
} 
Northern 
Liberty Pottery 
Thos. Haig 
Tucker 
8c Bird 
0 
8 
5 
2 
4 
1 
Lustre Tea Pots 
2 Mugs 6 Pitchers 
Red Tea Pots 
" Pitchers 
" Mugs 
demi PP 
Andrew George 
'8c Co. 
(FIM; 
fire Bricks ^^  . 
pieces Earthenware J ' ? 
Abstract of the report of the Committee on Premiums and 
Exhibitions 
To the makers of the best red earthenware: awarded to 
Thomas Haig, Northern Liberty Pottery, Philadelphia. The 
specimens exhibited much improvement in the art:?^The 
bronzed medal. (FIP 3, page 264.) 
Report of Committee on Pottery . . 
Your committee have also examined some fire bricks pre?
sented by Mr. T. Haig. They look well Sc your committee 
are informed that they have been tried in coal grates 8c 
found to be very good. Also part of a fire brick made by 
Messrs Tucker Se Bird. It appears to have been made on 
the most approved plan but your committee have no infor?
mation as to the quality of the materials but believe them 
to be of a good quality. 
The committee have likewise examined specimens of Red 
Ware competing for the premium. They consist of Coffee 
pots Teapots Pitchers Mugs Cake moulds 8cc. 
They are of very superior quallity [sic] of their kinds. 
One parcel is made by Andw George 8c Co. in Zane Street 
the other by Thos. Haig in the Northern Liberties. They 
shew a material improvement since the last exhibition and 
are very creditable to the manufacturers?indeed your judges 
have seen nothing equal to them?Your comte are of opinion 
that those made by Haig are rather the best. 
The Black Wares from these factories are also excellent 
and certainly the best of the kind which the Judges have 
seen. . . . 
Also a few small specimens of white earthen ware from 
the manufactory of Messrs Tucker 8c Bird of Philada which 
do not exhibit any improvement of a decisive character 
over the small specimens exhibited by others at the exhibi?
tion of 1824. (FIM 3.) 
Exhibition 1826 
Tucker Sc Bird 
Bricks 
American Fire Brick 
Manufactured by Tucker and Bird of Philada?an arch, 
built of Fire bricks, valued at Sixty Dollars per Thousand, 
was completely fused in three firings; after which the speci?
mens that are here exhibited, were substituted in their stead; 
and have been exposed in s<i arch to about fifteen firings 
both with wood Se coal. The consumption of stone coal was 
one Ton in forty eight hours?Upon examination it will be 
found, that these bricks are not in the least injured?they 
were taken from s<i arch immediately over the fire, which is 
the hottest part of the oven?Besides the above described 
bricks, we have sent some of our new Fire Brick, which may 
be distinguished from the former, by their having no fire 
mortar on them. 
NUMBER 43 101 
Exhibition 1826 
Tucker &: Bird 
China Ware 
A first Specimen of American Ware, manufactured by 
Tucker and Bird, of Philada. Made under the disadvantages 
of having their Factory incomplete, as respects the finishing 
of their kilns, the employment of neat workmen 8cc. But 
warranted to be a material equal to any Liverpool or 
Queensware. The body of which by an exact chemical 
combination of the component principles, will be found to 
be of the firmest texture. 
A few pieces of a jug are sent, to be broken by the hand, 
to shew the strength and texture of the article. Time would 
not permit their presenting specimens of their China or 
Porcelain ware; but at .a future exhibition they hope to 
gratify the Public with a full and splendid assortment of 
the different manufactured articles of their Factory. [Com?
ments on fire brick and china apparently were submitted by 
Tucker Se Bird and were not part of the judges' report.] 
(FIM 3.) 
FOURTH EXHIBITION (1827) 
Report of the Committee on Porcelain and Earthen Ware 
The Committee on Porcelain have examined the articles 
submitted by the Franklin Institute to their inspection and 
respectfully Report 
That a quantity of Porcelain goods manufactured in this 
city by William E. Tucker consisting of Cups 8c Saucers, 
Pitchers, Fruit Baskets, 8cc have had the attentive considera?
tion of the committee who have great pleasure in this proof 
of the progress which this valuable and important manu?
facture is making towards perfection?the body of the ware 
is strong and sufficiently vitrified?the glaze is generally very 
good, and the gilding is done in a neat and tradesman like 
manner. The committee have however to remark that 
greater attention to dressing [?] the bottoms 8cc after the 
last fireing [sic] would render them more agreeable to handle 
and less injurious to tables 8cc on which they are placed,? 
The Cups bear a fair comparison with much of the im?
ported?the Pitchers are very good specimens of what can 
be done, the fruit baskets display much dexterity in their 
construction. These goods made here establish the fact that 
the country possesses the materials for a valuable and 
interesting manufacture, it opens a market for raw materials 
without which they are of no value and would give em?
ployment to many of our citizens and increase the wealth 
of the Nation. Your committee cannot but hope that the 
view of the Institution may be realized in the prosperity of 
this branch of manufacture and the remuneration of the 
person engaged in it for his labour and sacrifices. Your 
committee have also seen a quantity of Black and Brown 
Earthen Ware made from the clay of this City by Thomas 
Haig in the Northern Liberties, and are gratified in having 
to report that it is of excellent quality both in Glaze and 
body, the shapes are handsome, this kind of ware is now 
made in such perfection that the importation of it has 
ceased, and the manufacturers of such deserve well of the 
Country. (FIM 4.) 
No. 57.?"For the best specimen of porcelain, to be made 
in Pennsylvania, either plain white, or gilt." 
This is a manufacture of great importance to the country, 
as most of the capital expended is for labour; the materials 
being taken from our soil, in great abundance and purity. 
The highest credit is due to Mr. Wm. E. Tucker, for the 
degree of perfection to which he has brought this valuable 
and difficult art. The samples (No. 174) of this ware, were 
made by him. The body of the ware appeared to be strong, 
and sufficiently well fired, the glaze generally very good, the 
gilding executed in a neat and workmanlike manner. Some 
of the cups and other articles bear a fair comparison with 
those imported?A silver medal. (FIP 4, page 404.) 
F I F T H EXHIBITION (1828) 
Report to the Board of Managers . . . 
Premium No. 20.?For the best Porcelain made in the 
United States, gilt, painted, and plain?"one hundred pieces 
must be exhibited;" is awarded to William E. Tucker, of 
Philadelphia, for specimen No. 253, being an assortment of 
porcelain, of first and second choice. 
In awarding this premium, the committee feel pleasure in 
noticing the great improvement which has taken place in 
the manufacture of this beautiful and interesting product. 
The judges report that they have compared the sample, 
called technically "first choice," with the best specimens of 
French China, and found it superior in whiteness, and the 
gilding well done. The same remark applies to the painting, 
with some exceptions; this part of the process being still 
susceptible of some improvement. The committee recom?
mend this "first choice" to the public as of a quality not 
easily to be surpassed; and award to the maker the silver 
medal. (FIP 5, page 408.) 
SIXTH EXHIBITION (1830) 
To the Board of Managers the Committee on Premiums 
and Exhibitions respectfully report: . . . 
A good display of porcelain, consisting of upwards of one 
hundred and fifty pieces, manufactured by Mr. William E. 
Tucker, exhibited considerable variety of forms, designs, and 
styles, and elicited much admiration. It was gratifying to 
observe, that the premiums awarded to this enterprising 
manufacturer, on former occasions, have stimulated him to 
further exertions. Much improvement was apparent, espe?
cially in the painting and other ornamental parts, and the 
committee remark that the forms are generally chaste, and 
copied from the best models. They cannot omit also paying 
a merited compliment to Messrs. Smith, Fife Sc Co. of this 
city, for two beautiful porcelain pitchers, exhibited by them, 
and the committee had only to regret that their display 
was not more extensive. (FIP 6, page 6.) 
SEVENTH EXHIBITION (1831) 
Catalogue of the Articles Deposited at the Exhibition . . . 
107 Two invoices of China Ware, made by William E. 
Tucker. (FIP 7, page 16.) 
102 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
To the Board of Managers . . the Committee of Premiums 
and Exhibitions respectfully Report . . 
In like manner the magnificent assortment of glassware . . . 
as well as the beautiful display of porcelain ware by Messrs. 
Tucker Sc Hemphill, of Philadelphia, show that all these 
establishments maintain the high reputation which they 
have already acquired, and fully justify the encomiums and 
medals awarded to them at our former exhibitions. (FIP 8, 
page 327.) 
EIGHTH EXHIBI'HON (1833) 
Report of the Committee on Premiums and Exhibitions of 
the Franklin Institute 
Honorary mention is due to Joseph Hemphill, of Phila?
delphia, for No. 76, various samples of American porcelain, 
in the moulding and glazing of which great improvement has 
been made since the last exhibition; the body of the article 
is considered equal, if not superior, to that of the imported. 
(FIP 9, page 391.) 
N I N T H EXHIBITION (1835) 
China and Glass. 
Premium No. 23, to the manufacturer of the best speci?
mens of porcelain, is awarded to Judge Hemphill, of 
Philadelphia, for the assortment of this beautiful ware from 
his manufactory, most of which exhibited a decided im?
provement since the last exhibition, and will compare ad?
vantageously with the French china. . . . 
A novel and interesting exhibition was furnished from the 
pottery of Mr. Abraham Miller, of Philadelphia, consisting 
of a variety of specimens of black and red earthenware, in 
the various stages of its manufacture, from the crude material 
to the finished ware. (FIP 10, page 323.) 
Mr. Abm Miller. Exhibited a quantity of Black Teapots 8cc 
of an excellent quality. Also Fire bricks. Slabs 8cc from his 
manufactory Zane Street. Also wares in the various stages 
of the process of manufacturing from the Crude material to 
the completion of the ware. An exhibition both novel 8c 
interesting. (FIM 5.) 
T E N T H EXHIBITION (1838) 
Report on China and Glassware . . . 
The samples of China very neat, but similar to that 
previously exhibited. The Committee regret to say that the 
manufacture of this article is discontinued. (FIP 11, page 18.) 
of Managers of the Institute, this cannot be awarded. . . . 
To C. M. Greiner, of Philadelphia, for No. 9, specimens 
of painting upon porcelain. A Certificate of Honorable 
Mention. 
It is to be regretted that the artist has expended so much 
labor and time in decorating an inferior porcelain article of 
foreign manufacture. (FIP 12, page 344.) 
THIRTEENTH EXHIBITION (1843) 
Report on China and Glass Ware . . 
No. 646, earthenware made and deposited by Abraham 
Miller; the success that has attended the efforts of Mr. 
Miller in the manufacture of common earthenware, should 
prompt him to attempt a competition with the foreign 
article in the finer kinds. In glass ware a minimum duty 
almost excludes the foreign article from our markets, and 
we trust the day is not far distant, when a like result will 
be attained in the earthenware manufacture. The display 
this year manifests an improvement that fully deserves a 
premium, but Mr. Miller being a member of the Board of 
Managers of the Institute, the regulations of the Committee 
on Exhibitions prevent the judges from awarding it. 
No. 724, two porcelain baskets, made by Bagaly 8c Ford, 
deposited by H. Tyndale, a well finished article for American 
manufacture. (FIP 13, pages 29-30.) 
FOURTEENTH EXHIBITION (1844) 
XIV.?Glass and China. 
No. 2101, two painted porcelain cups, by M. Strasser, of 
Philadelphia; these paintings are creditable specimens of 
art, the colors being good, and the execution superior. 
We award to M. Strasser, for No. 2101, a Certificate of 
Honorable Mention, and we cannot but express a regret 
that the manufacture of porcelain, and its accompanying 
art, painting by fire colors, have not hitherto proved suc?
cessful in this country. (FIP 14, pages 395-396.) 
FIFTEENTH EXHIBITION (1845) 
XIV.?GZa55, China, ire. 
No. 1546, earthenware, made and deposited by Abraham 
Miller, Philadelphia. This ware from Mr. Miller is better 
than any he has before exhibited, and it is particularly 
gratifying to observe the great improvement in the white 
ware. This alone merits the First Premium; but Mr. Miller 
being a member of the Board of Managers of the Institute, 
the regulations forbid any award. (FIP 15, page 390.) 
T W E L F T H EXHIBITION (1842) 
XIV.?Glass, China and Earthenware. 
One of the most interesting and generally noticed portions 
of the display at this exhibition consisted of the articles of 
earthenware. 
The articles. No. 106, made by Abraham Miller, consisting 
of the finer kinds of earthenware, as plates, vases, and orna?
mental flower pots, were recommended for a premium, but 
in consequence of Mr. Miller being a member of the Board 
SIXTEENTH EXHIBITION (1846) 
XIV.?Glass and Earthenware. 
No. 692, a small lot of earthenware, by R. B. Beach, 
Philadelphia, deposited by E. B. Jackson. A good article,? 
well finished,?and worthy of a Third Premium. 
No. 915, tobacco pipes, by Morgan 8c Richards, Kensing?
ton, a good and well made article, to which we award a 
Third Premium. 
(FIP 16, page 411.) 
NUMBER 43 103 
T W E N T I E T H EXHIBITION (1850) 
The Committee on Glass Se China . . . 
2610 1 Invoice Coarse Earthenware. [Alfred H. Cooper, 
Phila.] . . . 
Dep. No. 2610 is the commonest kind of red earthenware 
of very inferior quality in the body, in the soft lead glaze 
Sc of tasteless forms. (FIM 6.) 
TWENTY-FIRST EXHIBITION (1851) 
Catalogue . . . Porcelain. 
2607 I Lot Porcelain Flower and Scent Vases, R. B. 
Beech, Kensington, Philada. (FIP 17, page 16.) 
XVIL?Glass and China. 
No. 2607. Japanning on Earthenware, by R. B. Beech, 
Kensington. The japanning is well done, and some of the 
decorations beautifully executed. A Third Premium. 
Japanning on an earthenware body is to the judges a 
new feature in the arts, and admits of a wide application. 
(FIP 18, page 19.) 
TWENTY-THIRD EXHIBITION (1853) 
Report of the Twenty-Third Exhibition of American Manu?
factures . 
No. 307. Fire Brick, by Charles J. Boulter, Philada. Not 
so handsome in appearance as others, but may be as good 
in quality. (FIP 19, page 9.) 
XVIL?Glass and China . . 
No. 903. Porcelain Ware, by Kurlbaum Sc Schwartze, 
Kensington, Pa.; is the best American porcelain we have 
ever seen. The body is perfectly vitreous, and in this respect 
equal to the best French. The style of shapes is good, but 
not original; the edges, 8cc., are well finished, and, in fact, 
the deposit is nearly equal to the best French or English 
porcelain ware. A First Premium. 
No. 904. Japanned Earthen Ware, deposited by John 
Thornley, Philadelphia; a large and beautiful variety of 
useful and ornamental articles; the japanning is well done, 
and the decorating generally of very superior order; in 
this deposit there is an increased variety of useful articles 
over those in former Exhibitions, and considerable improve?
ment in decorations. We award to the manufacturer 
A First Premium. 
No. 911. Decorative China, by C. Friese, Philada.; a 
creditable deposit of this branch of American industry. 
A Third Premium. 
(FIP 19, page 22.) 
TWENTY-FOURTH EXHIBITION (1854) 
XVIII.?Porcelain. 
The Judges say that they record with satisfaction, the 
evidence of an increasing Porcelain manufacture . . . . The 
specimens are highly creditable, and clearly prove that this 
important manufacture has at length taken root among us, 
but as it is still in its infancy, we will particularize the 
several deposits. 
No. 783. Plain and Decorate [sic] Porcelain, by Kurlbaum 
8c Schwartze, Philadelphia. Presents a pure white body, 
nearly as compact and fine grained as the finer European 
ware, and with a rich transparent glaze free from flaws. 
The manufacturers fully sustain the opinions expressed of 
their goods last year. A Recall First Class Premium. 
No. 663. Three Cases White and Decorated Porcelain, by 
the American Porcelain Manufacturing Company, Phila?
delphia, deposited by G. B. Keller, Philadelphia. Has equally 
good characteristics with the preceding, or with trifling 
differences in body and glaze. The manufacturers having 
entered a new field by making a variety of useful ware for 
druggists and others, the Committee, in view of this, in 
connexion with the quality of the ware, award 
A First Class Premium. 
No. 723. Decorations on China, by C. Friese, Philadel?
phia. The best decorations on porcelain in the Exhibition, 
although the body is chiefly or altogether foreign. The 
Committee consider it superior to the last year's deposit, 
when a Third Class Premium was given. 
A Second Class Premium. 
No. 755. A stand of Decorated Porcelain Door Knobs, 
Plates, 8cc., by Wm. M. McClure 8: Bros., Philadelphia. An 
excellent variety of useful articles, partly of American and 
partly foreign manufacture. The decorations are, however, 
American. Much taste has been displayed by the Messrs. 
McClure in this production. 
The Judges conclude by saying, that in the gilding de?
partment there is much that is creditable. The perfection 
shown in this Exhibition, leads us to conclude that a large 
amount of money sent abroad for gilding and decorations 
can and will be earned by our own citizens. (FIP 20, pages 
59-60.) 
TWENTY-FIFTH EXHIBITION (1856) 
XI.?Glass and China. 
No. 158. China, plain and decorated, by C. Friese, Phil?
adelphia. Some of this deposit are excellent specimens of 
china; plain and decorated Parian very good; all of which 
is the work of the depositor. A First Class Premium. 
No. 675. Enamelled Stone Ware, by H. Remmey, Phila?
delphia.?Well formed goods, and an improvement in this 
useful manufacture. A Third Class Premium. 
Omissions 
I.?Models and Machinery . . . 
No. 1678. Lot of Fire Brick and Tile, by Mueller Sc 
Neukamet, Philadelphia. A good article; highly recom?
mended by those who have used them. (FIP 21, pages 60-61, 
84.) 
TWENTY-SIXTH EXHIBITION (1858) 
XIV.?Glass and China 
No. 73. Stone Ware. West Philadelphia Manufacturing 
Co.; deposited by Moro Phillips, Phila. This is the best 
ware now on general sale, and as good as any heretofore 
exhibited. 
No. 1268. Decorated Dining Set of French China; de-
104 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
posited by Wm. J. Kerr, Phila. The coloring is uniform ing Co. A fine assortment of useful and apparently well 
and in good taste, equal to any heretofore exhibited in the made articles, deserving much credit. 
same class of decorations. We award for the decorations, NO. 1112. Chemical Stone Ware. N. Spencer Thomas, 
A First Class Premium. pj^jj^ ^ ^^^^ variety of superior apparatus adapted to 
. nemicals . . chemical and pharmaceutical purposes, and entitled to much 
No. 73. Chemical Stone Ware. West Phila. Manufactur- merit. (FIP 22, pages 68-69. 75.) 
Notes 
Text 
1. Valuable information about preindustrial American 
ceramic technology has in recent years appeared in publi?
cations concerning kiln site excavations in Virginia at 
Yorktown (Barka, "The Kiln and Ceramics of the 'Poor 
Potter' of Yorktown") and Glebe Harbor, Westmoreland 
County (Kelso and Chappell, "Excavation of a Seventeenth 
Century Pottery Kiln"), and in western New York (Clay in 
the Hands of the Potter). See also Greer, "Groundhog 
Kilns." 
2. U.S. Department of Interior, "Franklin Court Report," 
volume 6, page 48. See also Bower, "The Pottery-Making 
Trade in Colonial Philadelphia" for an analysis of the 
eighteenth-century industry. 
3. "JOHN CAMPBELL, POTTER . . continues making 
what is called Philadelphia earthen ware of the best 
quality . . . ." (Rivington's New-York Gazetteer, 19 May 
1774). "PHILADELPHIA EARTHEN-WARE, Now manu?
facturing by the manufacturer [Jonathan Durell] late 
from Philadelphia" (The New-York Gazette and the Weekly 
Mercury, 15 March 1773). Thomas Baker, a potter in St. 
Mary's County, Maryland, advertised in the Maryland 
Gazette (2 September 1756) that he had for sale "EARTHEN?
WARE, of the same Kind as imported from Liverpool, or 
made in Philadelphia, such as Milk-Pans, Butter-Pots, Jugs, 
Pitchers, Quart-Mugs, Pint-Mugs, Porringers, Churning-Pots, 
painted Dishes, Plates, etc. with sundry other Sorts of small 
Ware too tedious to mention. He is provided with good 
Workmen from Liverpool and Philadelphia, and proper 
Utensils, for carrying on the Business. . " 
4. Unless otherwise noted, data in this section concerning 
eighteenth-century Philadelphia ceramics are taken from 
U.S. Department of Interior, "Franklin Court Report," 
volume 6. The materials excavated at Franklin Court in?
clude objects ranging in date from the late-seventeenth to 
the midnineteenth century. The archaeologist, Betty Cosans, 
has concentrated her analysis on the 1740-1765 period, for 
which the greatest amount of material was found. No kiln 
sites were excavated at Franklin Court but materials asso?
ciated with pottery production?wasters, saggar fragments, 
and kiln furniture?were found there in some quantity, 
apparently deposited from elsewhere. Using these materials, 
the archaeologist has identified about forty percent of the 
excavated ceramics as locally made earthenware. Her con?
clusions concerning the industry are based primarily on the 
materials so identified. For a detailed study of an eighteenth-
century attempt at fine ceramics production in Philadelphia, 
see Hood, Bonnin and Morris of Philadelphia. 
5. U.S. Department of Interior, "FrankHn Court Report," 
volume 6, page 49. 
6. For convenience of definition, ceramic bodies generally 
are divided into three major types?earthenware, stoneware. 
and porcelain?essentially determined by the composition of 
the clay, the porosity and density of the finished product, 
and the temperature to which each must be fired relative to 
the type of clay used and the end result desired. The first, 
earthenware, is fired to the lowest temperature, generally is 
porous, and consequently requires a glaze if it is to be water?
tight. It ranges in color between buff and red and can be 
made very light in color by the addition of a light-burning 
clay. Stoneware has a higher firing point than earthen?
ware, is buff, grey, or brown in color, and requires no glaze 
to be watertight, though it usually is glazed for general 
utility and appearance. Stoneware is highly vitrified but not 
translucent as is porcelain. Porcelain has a vitrified and 
translucent body and usually is white in color. Authorities 
differ on the precise distinction in firing range between 
the three types but there is general agreement on the 
approximate figures of below 1200?C for earthenware, be?
tween 1200?C and 1400?C for stoneware, and roughly 1300?C 
and above for porcelain. 
7. A Series of Tables of the Several Branches of American 
Manufactures, 1810, page 65. PD 24. MC 2, 3. 
8. Savannah Public Intelligencer, 8 September 1807. 
9. B, page 111. 
10. ACCP 3, 18 May 1812. PD 23, 26. 
11. B, page 111. The Virginia Argus, 25 November 1808. 
The term "queensware" was used as early as the 1760s to 
refer to a cream-colored earthenware developed by English 
potters for the manufacture of fine tableware. It continued 
to be used well into the nineteenth century, apparently to 
refer to any light-bodied earthenware for the table. 
12. Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, II October 
1810. Relfs Philadelphia Gazette and Daily Advertiser, 27 
April 1813. 
13. Alexandria Gazette, 25 May and 3 December 1810. 
14. ACCP 3, 18 May 1812. PD 26. Riddle, The Pitts?
burgh Directory for 1815, page 142. 
15. Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, 19 May 1810. 
John Mullawny [sic] to James Madison, 26 October 1810, 
James Madison Papers. ["Mullowny" is transcribed as 
"Mullawny" in the index to James Madison Papers.] 
16. John Mullawny [sic] to James Madison, 26 October 
1810, James Madison Papers. Philadelphia Poulson's Ameri?
can Daily Advertiser, 21 March 1815. 
17. Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, 10 February 
1812. 
18. Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, 27 October 
1812. 
19. Philadelphia Poulson's American Daily Advertiser, 
21 March 1815. 
20. PD 31. 
21. Philadelphia Poulson's American Daily Advertiser, 
21 March 1815. Niles' Weekly Register, 1 November 1817. 
PD 31. John Mullawny [sic] to James Madison, 26 October 
105 
106 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
1810, James Madison Papers. PD 26. 
22. The Newark Museum, Classical America. Philadelphia 
Aurora General Advertiser, 3 January 1812. PD 26. I am 
indebted to Lelyn Branin, who is working on a book on 
New Jersey pottery, for checking his Trenton references, in 
which was found no mention of David Seixas. 
23. The Occident and American Jewish Advocate, volume 
22 (June 1864), page 96. 
24. Wolf and Whiteman, The History of the Jews of 
Philadelphia, pages 334-337. PD 38. 
25. PD 36. 
26. PD 24. 
27. Savannah Public Intelligencer, 8 September 1807. 
Relfs Philadelphia Gazette and Daily Advertiser, 27 April 
1813. 
28. Mease, The Picture of Philadelphia, page 75. John 
Mullawny [sic] to James Madison, 26 October 1810, James 
Madison Papers. Niles' Weekly Register, 1 November 1817. 
29. North, Growth and Welfare in the American Past, 
page 75. 
30. ACCP 2, book G.W.R. 17, page 466 (1827). PD 10, 11, 
22. CP 1, book M, page 284, number 210 (1821); CP 2, book 
40, page 196, number 234 (1858). 
31. In the 1820 Census of Manufactures, it is noted by 
A 8c A Miller that they had been making "black and brown 
china . for 10 or 12 years" (MC 1, roll 14). The term 
"china" came into use in the eighteenth century to refer 
to porcelains imported from China but quickly was extended 
to include other types of ware (Noel Hume, "Creamware To 
Pearlware," pages 230-232.) As Miller's 1820 use of the term 
indicates, "china," by that date might include brown- and 
black-glazed tableware. John Mullowny advertised red and 
black tableware in 1810 (Philadelphia Aurora General Ad?
vertiser, 19 May 1810). 
32. MC l,roll 14. 
33. Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, 10 February 
1812. Niles' Weekly Register, 1 November 1817. 
34. CP 1, book M, page 284, number 210 (1821). 
35. MC 1, roll 14. CP 1, book M, page 284, number 210 
(1821). 
36. B, page 116. PD 23 (in 1810 he is actually listed as 
"Hague, Thomas, porter Cedar above Twelfth," the spelling 
of both his name and his occupation apparently a misprint); 
32. 
37. PD 22. Stoneware is superior to earthenware for most 
purposes because its vitrified body has a very hard sur?
face and resists attack by most substances, including many 
acids. Stoneware was not produced in America as early as 
earthenware primarily because the clay most suitable for its 
manufacture is less commonly found than the ubiquitous red 
clay. Although stoneware was made in the colonies as early 
as the 1720s, widespread production did not appear until 
nineteenth-century improvements in transportation made it 
economical for potters to transport the clay over long dis?
tances. 
38. DMMC 6. Trenton True American, 22 July 1805 
quoted in Clement, Our Pioneer Potters, page 19. 
39. Evidence of the marketing of New Jersey stoneware 
in Philadelphia appears in Philadelphia Aurora for the 
Country, 29 August 1810. 
STONE WARE, 
OF AN EXCELLERT [sic] QUALITY, CONSISTING OF 
POTS, JUGS, JARS, PITCHERS, etc. etc. 
MANUFACTUYED [sic] 
BY CHARLES C. LAURENCE 
Burlington, New Jersey 
SHARON CARTER, No. 92, north Front above Arch 
street, being his agent for the sale of said articles [sic] 
in Philadelphia, has a quantity now on hand, where 
country storekeepers and others may be supplied with 
Stone Ware, of all descriptions, on the same terms as at 
the factory. 
CC. Laurence, flatters himself that his Ware, is 
superior to any yet offered to the public of American 
manufacture. 
40. Address of the Philadelphia Society for the Promo?
tion of National Industry, page 261. 
41. Taussig, The Tariff History of the United States, 
pages 8-24. U.S. Congress, House, Tariff Acts . . 1789 to 
1909, pages 16-17, 41, 58. In the 1816 tariff act "china ware" 
refers to fine earthenware and stoneware. It also would 
include black-glazed tableware of the type being manu?
factured by the Millers. 
42. FIM l,page 3. 
43. Branch Green to Eliza Henry, Bill of Sale, 19 May 
1819, Henry Manuscripts, volume 2, page 91. 
44. MC l,roll 14. 
45. MC l,roll 14. 
46. Addresses of the Philadelphia Society for the Promo?
tion of National Industry, page iv. U.S. Congress, House, 
Tariff Acts . . 1789 to 1909, pages 79-95. 
47. FIP 1, page 7. 
48. FIM 1, pages 1-3. 
49. FIM 1, page 3. FIP 15, page 390. 
50. FIM 1, page 2; FIM 3. FIP 4, page 404; FIP 5, page 
408; FIP 6, page 6; FIP 8, page 327; FIP 9, page 391; FIP 10, 
page 323; FIP 11, page 18. 
51. FIM 1, page 3. 
52. FIP 2, page 22. 
53. FIM 3. 
54. FIM 3. FIP 3, page 264. 
55. FIM 4. 
56. PD 85. 
57. FIP 1, pages 100, 106. 
58. Relfs Philadelphia Gazette and Daily Advertiser, 27 
April 1813. CP 1, book M, page 284, number 210 (1821). 
Freedley, Philadelphia and its Manufactures, page 200. 
59. FIM 3. See Appendix IV. 
60. Niles' Weekly Register, 20 September 1823, page 48, 
has a reference to "Earthen ware. There is a very extensive 
manufactory of black and red tea and coffee pots, 8cc. at 
Philadelphia?very cheap, and suitable for common use. 
Many other articles are to be made at this establishment, and 
especially portable earthenware furnaces, for cooking, said 
to be very useful, convenient and economical in the saving 
of fuel." Niles would have been referring to Abraham 
Miller's manufactory, which was one of, if not the largest 
pottery in Philadelphia, and almost certainly was the only 
one making earthenware furnaces at this early date. FIM 1, 
page 3. 
NUMBER 43 107 
61. Alexandria Gazette & Advertiser, 14 August 1824. 
62. Alexandria Gazette ir Advertiser, 14 August 1824, 
FIM 1, page 3. 
63. FIM 1, page 3, FIM 2. Baltimore American and Com?
mercial Daily Advertiser, 14 May 1825. 
64. Alexandria Gazette & Advertiser, 14 August 1824. 
65. Alexandria Gazette ir Advertiser, 14 August 1824. 
DMMC 1. Baltimore American and Commercial Daily Ad?
vertiser, 14 May 1825. 
66. F IP7 , page l . 
67. ACCP 2, book G.W.R. 17, page 250 (1827); book A.M. 
16, page 486 (1831). 
68. The Philadelphian, 23 May 1828, quoted in Raymond, 
"Remmey Family," page 133. 
69. Ketchum, Early Potters and Potteries of New York 
State, pages 30-31. The Baltimore Directory for 1817-18. 
Alexandria Gazette, 4 May 1820. Matchett's Baltimore Di?
rectory for 1824. Matchett's Baltimore Director [sic] 1829. 
PD51,52. 
70. Pearce, "The Early Baltimore Potters," page 94. PD 
41. ACCP 2, book G.W.R. 17, page 250 (1827); book A.M. 
16, page 486 (1831). PD 45. 
71. ACCP 2, book A.M. 16, page 486 (1831); book A.M. 54, 
page 758 (1834); book A.M. 59, page 103 (1835); book A.M. 
59, page 106 (1835); book S.H.F. 8, page 79 (1836); book 
S.H.F. 6, page 526 (1836), Philadelphia Poulson's American 
Daily Advertiser, 20 May 1833-31 December 1835 (discon?
tinuously). 
72. Curtis, "Tucker Porcelain," page 41. FIM 3. Phila?
delphia Poulson's American Daily Advertiser, 19 February 
1827. FIP 4, page 404. 
73. FIP 5, page 408; FIP 6, page 6, FIP 7, page 327; FIP 9, 
page 391; FIP 10, page 323. Philadelphia Poulson's American 
Daily Advertiser, 24 January 1831. 
74. William Tucker to Andrew Jackson, 3 March 1830, 
Letter Book of Benjamin Tucker, 1830-1831, page 7, quoted 
in Curtis, "Tucker Porcelain," page 23. 
75. Letter Book of Benjamin Tucker, 1830-1831, n.p., 
quoted in Curtis, "Tucker Porcelain," pages 23-24. 
76. Unless otherwise noted, data on the Tucker and 
Hemphill porcelain factory are taken from Curtis, "Tucker 
Porcelain," pages 9-29, 41-50 and from Philadelphia: Three 
Centuries of American Art, pages 293-296. 
77. Letter 6, Letter Book of Benjamin Tucker, 1823-1829, 
page 8, quoted in Curtis, "Tucker Porcelain," page 14. 
78. Letter 11, Letter Book of Benjamin Tucker, 1823-1829, 
page 12, quoted in Curtis, "Tucker Porcelain," page 15. 
79. FIP 4, page 404. 
80. PD 44, 45. 
81. PD 1, 44. CP 1, book N, page 426, number 294 (1831). 
PD92. 
82. PD 44, 45. 
83. PD 44, 45. The Pennsylvanian, 1 January 1833. 
84. For the purpose of this analysis, the two Tucker and 
Hemphill sites (38, 43) are treated as one since they were 
only a few blocks apart and represented no significant change' 
in geographical location. 
85. CP 1, book N, page 426, number 294 (1831); book N, 
page 432, number 322 (1831). 
86. Bruchey, The Roots of American Economic Growth, 
pages 74-91. North, Growth and Welfare in the American 
Past, pages 74-86. 
87. Warner, The Private City, page 51. 
88. Jacobsen, "Demand, Markets and Eastern Economic 
Development," pages 41-79. 
89. MC 2, 3. See Appendix II for an evaluation of the 
data included in these census-es. 
90. Clement, Our Pioneer Potters, page 30. 
91. Hood, Bonnin and Morris of Philadelphia, pages 25-45. 
92. Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, 10 February 
1812. 
93. CP 1, book M, page 284, number 210 (1821). 
94. FIP 2, page 22. DMMC 1. 
95. PD 69. 
96. FIP 10, page 323; FIP 12, page 344. 
97. FIP 13, pages 29-30. 
98. FIP 15, page 390. 
99. FIP 16, page 411. 
100. FIP 18, page 19. 
101. B, page 554. U.S. Patent Office, Report of the Com?
missioner . . . 1851, page 180. 
102. B, page 554. 
103. B, page 553. 
104. MC 3. B, pages 176-177. 
105. FIP 17, page 16. PD 76, 78, 80, 81, 84. B, page 554. 
106. FIP 19, page 22; FIP 20, pages 59-60. PD 89. 
107. FIP 19, page 22. 
108. PD 53. Announcement card quoted in B, page 108. 
109. PD61. 
110. PD69, 85. 
111. PD 58. 
112. PD61. 
113. PD 58, 63, 72, 79. MC 3, pages 517, 413, 334. 
114. B, page 178. Charles City County, Deed Book 10, 
pages 158-159. PD 68, 81. 
115. MC4. 
116. MC 3,4. 
117. B, page 179. 
118. MC2, 3. 
119. B, page 108. Wealth and Biography, page 15. Memoirs 
and Auto-Biography, page 42. 
120. PD 57, 58. 
121. Data from which conclusions concerning labor have 
been drawn will be found in Appendix I: "Checklist of 
Potters." 
122. CP 2, book 40, page 196, number 234 (1858). 
123. Only three workers, Jacob Browers, Henry Linker, 
and Joseph Wallace, are known to have returned to Phila?
delphia potteries at any time. Interestingly, two of the 
three had the advantage either of a family connection in 
the potteries or of having operated a works previously. 
124. James, The Potters and Potteries, page 113. Boyd's 
Business Directory, 1860. PD 44, 46, 76. 
125. See "Appendix I: Check List of Philadelphia Potters." 
Sources dating back to 1785 were searched for pottery work?
men who were in Philadelphia between 1800 and 1835. 
Only one is listed in the city directory at that early date 
At the other end of the scale, potters who came to Philadel?
phia between 1835 and 1850 were traced as late as 1870. 
Seven were still potting in Philadelphia in that year. Neither 
108 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
apprentices nor workers who operated their own shops for 
more than one year were considered in this analysis. (An 
exception is Charles Boulter, a very important worker, who 
is considered only for the years 1829-1850. In the latter 
year he established his own manufactory.) The analysis 
does not include Tucker's workers about whom very little 
is known. 
126. See Appendix I. 
127. MC 3, 4. 
128. MC 3, 4. 
129. MC 3, 4. 
130. In many rural areas, small family potteries con?
tinued to operate until much later in the century, being 
far less affected by industrialization than their urban counter?
parts. 
131. Pennsylvania Herald and Eastern Intelligencer, 22 
February 1809, quoted in B, page 437. 
132. Clement, Our Pioneer Potters, pages 65-66. 
133. Alexandria Gazette, 4 November 1824. 
134. DMMC 2. The Elizabethtown Journal, 20 January 
1818. Elizabethtown, Tax Ratables, 1811-1822. 
135. New Jersey, Will and Inventory, 11568G, 1824. 
136. MC 1, roll 16, quoted in Pearce, "The Early Balti?
more Potters," page 55. Boston Columbian Centinel, 5 
February 1812. Watkins, Early New England Potters, page 
102. 
137. FIP 1, page 80. FIM 4. New Jersey, Will and Inven?
tory, 11568G, 1824. 
138. MC 1, rolls 15,25. 
139. Pearce, "The Early Baltimore Potters," pages 52, 59. 
Clement, Our Pioneer Potters, pages 67-70. 
140. Alexandria Phoenix Gazette, 31 July 1826. 
141. Pearce, "The Early Baltimore Potters," pages 52, 59. 
142. Clement, Our Pioneer Potters, pages 30-46. 
143. Ketchum, Early Potters and Potteries of New York 
State, pages 4, 37-39. Alexandria Phoenix Gazette, 15 
October 1829. Child, Child's Albany Directory and City 
Register for 1833-4. 
144. Pearce, "The Early Baltimore Potters," pages 72-73. 
FIP 23, page 51. Watkins, Early New England Potters, page 
197. 
Appendix I 
1. Curtis, "Tucker Porcelain," pages 26-27. 
2. ACCP 4, Fifth Ward, Northern Liberties, 1841, page 
65. 
3. U.S. Patent Office, Report of the Commissioner . . . 
1851, page 180. 
4. ACCP 1, Third Ward, Spring Garden District, 1841, 
page 125. CP 2, book 40, page 196, number 234 (1858). 
5. Philadelphia: Three Centuries of American Art, pages 
237-239. 
6. Savannah Public Intelligencer, 8 September 1807. The 
Virginia Argus, 25 November 1808. 
7. ACCP 3, page 523, 18 May 1812. 
8. Clement, Our Pioneer Potters, page 67. 
9. CP 2, book 40. page 196, number 234 (1858). 
10. ACCP 1, Fifth Ward, Northern Liberties District, 1826, 
page 74. ACCP 3, book F, 15 May 1826. 
11. The Philadelphian, 23 May 1828, quoted in Raymond, 
"Remmey Family," page 133. 
12. ACCP 2, book G.W.R. 17, page 250 (1827); book A.M. 
16, page 486 (1831). 
13. Pearce, "The Early Baltimore Potters," page 94. 
14. ACCP 2, book G.W.R. 17, page 250 (1827); book 
A.M. 16, page 486, (1831). The Philadelphian, 23 May 1828, 
quoted in Raymond, "Remmey Family," page 133. 
15. John Mullawny [sic] to James Madison, 26 October 
1810, James Madison Papers. 
16. CP 1, book M, page 195, number 288 (1819). 
17. ACCP 3, page 203 (10 August 1818). 
18. Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, 11 October 
1810. Relfs Philadelphia Gazette and Daily Advertiser, 27 
April 1813. 
19. Barber, Marks of American Potters, pages 56, 67. 
20. ACCP 4, Sixth Ward, Northern Liber des District, 1841, 
page 145. 
21. Gillingham, "Pottery, China, and Glass Making in 
Philadelphia," page 118. 
22. The Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser, 8 
July 1790. 
23. ACCP 3, page 278 (4 November 1805); page 454 (5 
September 1810). 
24. CP 2, book 76, page 28, number 672 (1872). 
25. ACCP 1, Third Ward, Spring Garden District, I84I, 
page 125. 
26. Campbell, Old Towns and Districts of Philadelphia. 
27. CP 1, book 16, page 157, number 9 (1843). 
28. ACCP 1, Fifth Ward, Northern Liberties District, 
1826, page 38. 
29. Curtis, "Tucker Porcelain," page 47. 
30. ACCP 3, page 278 (4 November 1805); page 454 (5 
September 1810). 
31. Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 30 August 1797, quoted 
in Prime, The Arts and Crafts . . . 1786-1800, page 150. 
32. ACCP 3, page 231 (11 June 1804); page 278 (4 No?
vember 1805); page 454 (5 September 1810). 
33. DMMC 5. 
34. ACCP 2, book R.L.L. 11, page 506 (1843). 
35. ACCP 2, book I.H. 1, page 679 (1822). CP 2, book W, 
page 549, number 325 (1793). 
36. CP 2, book W, page 549, number 325 (1793). 
37. Gillingham, "Pottery, China, and Glass Making in 
Philadelphia," page 113. 
38. CP 1, book N, page 426, number 294 (1831). See 
Appendix III. 
39. ACCP 2, book I.H. 1, page 679 (1822). 
40. ACCP 3, page 203 (10 August 1818). 
41. ACCP 1, Sixth Ward, Northern Liberties District, 
1819; 1820; 1821, page 17; 1822, page 21; 1823, page 13; 1824, 
page 17; 1825, page 21; 1826, page 22. ACCP 4, Sixth Ward, 
Northern Liberties District, 1841, pages 99, 167. 
42. DMMC 6. 
43. DMMC 3. 
44. DMMC 4. 
45. Trenton True American, 22 July 1805, quoted in 
Clement, Our Pioneer Potters, page 19. 
46. ACCP 2, book G.W.R. 17, page 250 (1827). 
47. CP 1, book P, page 424, number 384 (1847). 
NUMBER 43 109 
48. DMMC 1. 
49. CP 2, book 39, page 263, number 58 (1858). 
50. CP 2, book 92, page 277, number 355 (1878). 
51. ACCP 2, book R.L.L. 14, page 94 (1842); book R.L.L. 
30, page 328 (1845); book A.W.M. 7, page 57 (1846). 
52. ACCP 2, book R.L.L. 46, page 133 (1845). 
53. ACCP 1, Sixth Ward, Northern Liberties District, 
1826, page 10. 
54. CP 2, book 23, page 226, number 306 (1849). 
55. ACCP 2, book M.R. 17, page 338 (1817). 
56. DMMC 1. 
57. ACCP 1, Third Ward, Spring Garden District, 1842, 
pages 41-42; 1846, pages 66-67. 
58. Curtis, "Tucker Porcelain," page 47. 
59. ACCP 3, page 306 (23 June 1806). 
60. The Pennsylvanian, 1 January 1833. 
61. Barber, Tulip Ware, pages 153-155. 
62. CP 2, book 46, page 493, number 393 (1861). 
63. CP 2, book 11, page 236, number 98 (1834). 
64. Curtis, "Tucker Porcelain," pages 9-29, 41-50. Phila?
delphia: Three Centuries of American Art, pages 293-296. 
The reader is directed to these references for a more detailed 
account of the porcelain factory. 
65. CP 2, book 40, page 196, number 234 (1858). 
66. ACCP 1, Third Ward, Spring Garden District, 1841, 
page 125; 1842, page 142. 
67. The Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser, 27 
July 1785. Dunlap's American Daily Advertiser, 26 April 
1792. Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser, 15 December 
1798. 
68. The Philadelphia Gazette and Universal Daily Adver?
tiser, 12 April 1799. See Appendix III for the 1799 inventory 
of the Justice pottery. 
69. The Pennsylvanian, 1 January 1833. 
70. Pearce, "The Early Baltimore Potters," page 103. 
71. CP 2, book W, page 549, number 325 (1793). 
72. James, The Potters and Potteries, pages 66-69. Phila?
delphia Poulson's American Daily Advertiser, 19 January 
1825. 
73. ACCP 1, Third Ward, Spring Garden District, 1842, 
pages 41-42; 1846, pages 66-67. 
74. CP 2, book 40, page 196, number 234 (1858). 
75. Philadelphia Aurora for the Country, 29 August 
1810. The Trenton Federalist, 29 April 1814. James, The 
Potters and Potteries, page 113. 
76. ACCP 1, Sixth Ward, Northern Liberties District, 
1823, page 20; ACCP 4, Fifth Ward, Northern Liberties 
District, 1841, page 174. 
77. Boyd's Business Directory, 1860. 
78. James, The Potters and Potteries, page 113. 
79. CP 2, book 5, page 347, number 1103 (1814). 
80. CP 1, book M, page 284, number 210 (1821). 
81. CP 1, book N, page 118, number 279 (1826). ACCP 2, 
book G.W.R. 17, page 466 (1827). 
82. Niles' Weekly Register, 20 September 1823, page 48. 
83. Alexandria Gazette ir Advertiser, 14 August 1824. It 
is curious to find this advertisement in the name of Andrew 
rather than Abraham Miller. The 1824 Franklin Institute 
report makes it clear that Abrahani was the exhibitor of 
these furnaces and Abraham had certainly taken over the 
operation of the pottery by 1824. Andrew did still own the 
pottery, however, and it is possible that the older man's name 
was more well known and served better to advertise a new 
product. The large number of employees in the factory is 
puzzling since as recently as 1820 only six workers were 
recorded there in the census of manufactures. It is likely 
that many of the 38 workers were only hired for the summer 
months when the demand for the furnaces would have been 
at its height. 
84. Baltimore American ir Commercial Daily Advertiser, 
14 May 1825. 
85. DMMC I. 
86. DMMC 7. 
87. ACCP 2, book G.S. 21, page 36 (1840); book G.S. 17, 
page 714 (1840); book A.W.M. 6, page 101 (1845); book 
R.L.L. 37, page 424 (1845); book A.W.M. 7, page 348 (1846); 
book G.W.C. 92, page 276 (1851). CP 2, book 40, page 196, 
number 234 (1858). 
88. Wealth and Biography, page 15. Memoirs and Auto-
Biography, page 42. 
89. CP 2, book 40, page 196, number 234 (1858). See 
Appendix III. 
90. Philadelphia North American, 21 August 1858. 
91. CP 2, book 40, page 196, number 234 (1858). Boston 
Daily Journal, 27 August 1858. New York Tribune, 26 
August 1858. 
92. CP 2, book 40, page 196, number 234 (1858). 
93. CP 2, book 40, page 196, number 234 (1858). Keystone 
Fire Brick and Crucible Works, Bill of Sale, 29 June 1867, 
Smithsonian Institution Collection of Business Americana. 
94. CP 1, book M, page 284, number 210 (1821). ACCP 3, 
(17 February 1816). 
95. CP 2, Will No. 243 (1756). Linn, Record of Pennsyl?
vania Marriages, page 698. 
96. Pennsylvania Gazette, 10 September 17^ , quoted in 
Prime, The Arts and Crafts . . 1721-1785, pages 124-125. 
97. ACCP 2, book G.W.R. 17, page 466 (1827). Heads of 
Families at the First Census. U.S. Department of the Treas?
ury, United States Direct Tax of 1798. 
98. ACCP ], North Ward, City, page 36 (1811). CP 1, 
book N, page 118, number 279 (1826). 
99. CP 1, book M, page 284, number 210 (1821). 
100. CP 2, book 62, page 154, number 139 (1868). 
101. CP 2, book 62, page 154, number 139 (1868). 
102. ACCP 2, book D. 38, page 219 (1767); book D. 36, 
page 472 (1769); book D. 38, page 217 (1773); book D. 36, 
page 475 (1774). 
103. The Philadelphia Gazette and Universal Daily Ad?
vertiser, 12 April 1799. 
104. ACCP 3, page 523 (18 May 1812). 
105. James Mullawny [sic] to James Madison, 26 October 
1810, James Madison Papers. 
106. Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, 19 May 1810. 
107. Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, 22 June 1810. 
108. Philadelphia Aurora for the Country, 17 November 
1810. 
109. Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, 10 February 
1812. 
110. Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, 9 December 
1812. 
110 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
111. Philadelphia Poulson's American Daily Advertiser, 
21 March 1815. 
112. Jackson, America's Most Historic Highway, page 313. 
113. Dunlap and Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser, 
19 March 1794. Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser, 30 
May 1799. 
114. Charles City County, Deed Book 10, pages 158-159. 
115. Moro Phillips to E.I. Dupont de Nemours Sc Co., 
6 April 1871, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library Manuscript 
Collections. 
116. James, The Potters and Potteries, page 42. 
117. Pearce, "The Early Baltimore Potters," pages 115-116. 
118. Raymond, "Remmey Family," page 132. 
119. Ketchum, Early Potters and Potteries of New York 
State, pages 30-31. Longworth's American Almanac, 1815. 
The Baltimore Directory for 1817-18. Alexandria Gazette, 
4 May 1820. Matchett's Baltimore Directory for 1824. 
120. The Philadelphian, 23 May 1828, quoted in Raymond, 
"Remmey Family," page 133. 
121. ACCP 2, book G.W.R. 17, page 250 (1827); book 
A.M. 16, page 486 (1831); book A.M. 54, page 758 (1834); 
book A.M. 59, page 103 (1835); book A.M. 70, page 390 
(1835); book S.H.F. 8, page 79 (1836); book S.H.F. 6, page 
526 (1836). 
122. Philadelphia Poulson's American Daily Advertiser, 
20 May 1833-15 September 1835 (discontinuously). 
123. Philadelphia Poulson's American Daily Advertiser, 
16 September 1835?31 December 1835 (discontinuously). 
124. Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, 17 October 
1800. 
125. The Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser, 8 
July 1790. 
126. Niles' Weekly Register, 1 November 1817. 
127. Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, 3 January 
1812. PD 26. The Occident and American Jewish Advo?
cate, volume 22 (June, 1864), page 96. Wolf and Whiteman, 
The History of the Jews of Philadelphia, pages 334-337. 
PD 38. 
128. ACCP 1, Third Ward, Spring Garden District, 1846, 
page 68. 
129. Clement, Our Pioneer Potters, page 83. 
130. Clement, Our Pioneer Potters, page 84. 
131. ACCP 3, 17 February 1816. 
132. ACCP 4, Sixth Ward, Northern Liberties, 1841, page 
52. ACCP 1, Third Ward, Spring Garden District, 1842, 
pages 25-26; 1846. 
133. CP 2, book 40, page 196, number 234 (1858). 
134. Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser, 21 July 1800. 
135. ACCP 2, book R.L.L. 11, page 506 (1843). 
136. CP 2, book 23, page 226, number 306 (1849). 
137. CP 2, book 76, page 28, number 672 (1872). 
138. Savannah Public Intelligencer, 8 September 1807. 
139. ACCP 3, page 523 (18 May 1812). 
140. Alexandria Gazette, 25 May 1810. 
141. Alexandria Gazette, 3 December 1810. 
142. ACCP 3. page 523 (18 May 1812). 
143. Riddle, The Pittsburgh Directory for 1815, page 142. 
144. Jackson, The Baltimore Directory, 1819. Keenan, The 
Baltimore Directory, 1822 and 1823. Matchett's Baltimore 
Directory for 1824. 
145. Curtis, "Tucker Porcelain," pages 9-29, 41-50. Phila?
delphia: Three Centuries of American Art, pages 293-296. 
See these references for a more detailed account of the por?
celain factory. 
146. See note 145. 
147. See note 145. 
148. See note 145. 
149. Philadelphia Poulson's American Daily Advertiser, 
19 February 1827. 
150. Data not otherwise noted are drawn from Curtis, 
"Tucker Porcelain," pages 9-29, 41-50, and Philadelphia: 
Three Centuries of American Art, pages 293-296. 
151. Curtis, "Tucker Porcelain," pages 47-48. 
152. Curtis, "Tucker Percelain," pages 47-48. 
153. ACCP 4, Fifth Ward, Northern Liberties, 1841, page 
28. 
Appendix II 
1. Fishbein, "The Censuses of Manufactures, 1810-1890, 
pages 5-11; Fishbein, "Early Business Statistical Operations, 
page 17. 
2. Fishbein, "The Censuses of Manufactures, 1810-1890, 
pages 5-11. 
Appendix III 
1. CP 1, book M, page 1068, number 52 (1798). 
2. CP 1, book M, page 284, number 210 (1821). 
3. CP 1, book N, page 426, number 294 (1831). 
4. CP 1, book N, page 432, number 322 (1831). 
References 
Adams, Donald R., Jr. "Wage Rates in the Early National 
Period: Philadelphia, 1785-1830." The Journal of Eco?
nomic History, volume 28 (September 1968), pages 404-426. 
Addresses of The Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of 
National Industry. Philadelphia: M. Carey and Son, 1819. 
Alexandria (Virginia) Gazette, 25 May, 3 December 1810; 
4 May 1820; 4 November 1824. 
Alexandria (Virginia) Gazette if Advertiser, 14 August 1824. 
Alexandria (Virginia) Phoenix Gazette, 31 July 1826; 15 
October 1829. 
Baltimore American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, 14 May 
1825. 
The Baltimore Directory for 1817-18. Baltimore: Printed by 
James Kennedy, 1817. 
Barber, Edwin AtLee. Catalogue of American Potteries and 
Porcelains. Philadelphia: The Pennsylvania Museum and 
School of Industrial Art, 1893. 
. Marks of American Potters. Philadelphia: 
Patterson 8c White Company, 1904. 
. The Pottery and Porcelain of the United States. 
Third edition, revised and enlarged. New York: G. P. 
Putnam's Sons, 1909. 
. Tulip Ware of the Pennsylvania-German Pot?
ters. Second edition. Philadelphia: The Pennsylvania 
Museum and School of Industrial Art, 1926. 
Barka, Norman F. "The Kiln and Ceramics of the Toor 
Potter' of Yorktown: A Preliminary Report." In Ian 
M. G. Quimby, editor. Ceramics in America (Winterthur 
Conference Report 1972), pages 291-318. Charlottesville: 
The University Press of Virginia, 1973. 
Bemrose, Geoffrey. Nineteenth Century English Pottery and 
Porcelain. New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 
1952. 
Boston Columbian Centinel, 5 February 1812. 
Boston Daily Journal, 27 August 1858. 
Bower, Beth Anne. "The Pottery-Making Trade in Colonial 
Philadelphia: The Growth of an Early Urban Industry." 
M.A. thesis. Brown University, 1975. 
Boyd's Business Directory of the Counties of Adams, Bucks, 
Chester, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Franklin, Lan?
caster, Montgomery, and York, Pa., Together with u Gen?
eral Directory of all the Inhabitants of Harrisburg, 1860. 
Philadelphia: William H. Boyd, 1860. 
Bruchey, Stuart. The Roots of American Economic Growth 
1607-1861. New York: Harper 8c Row, 1965. 
Campbell, William Bucke. Old Towns and Districts of Phila?
delphia. Philadelphia: City History Society of Philadel?
phia, 1942. 
Charles City County, Virginia. Deed Book 10, 1846-1856. 
Virginia State Library, Richmond. 
Child, Edmund B., compiler. Child's Albany Directory and 
City Register for 1833^. Albany: Printed by E. B. Child, 
1833. 
Clay in the Hands of the Potter: An Exhibition of Pottery 
Manufactured in the Rochester and Genesee Valley Region 
c. 1793-1900. Rochester: The Rochester Museum Se Science 
Center, 1974. 
Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), 15 
December 1798; 30 May 1799; 21 July 1800. 
Clement, Arthur W. Our Pioneer Potters. York, Pa.: The 
Maple Press Company, 1947. 
Curtis, Phillip H. "Tucker Porcelain 1826-1838: A Re-
Appraisal." M.A. thesis. University of Delaware, 1972. 
Daly, John and Allen Weinberg. Descriptive Inventory of 
the Archives of the City and County of Philadelphia. 
Philadelphia: Department of Records, 1970. 
David, Paul A. "The Growth of Real Product in the United 
States Before 1840: New Evidence, Controlled Conjectures." 
The Journal of Economic History, volume 27 (June 1967), 
pages 151-184. 
DeVoe, Shirley Spaulding. English Papier Mache of the 
Georgian and Victorian Periods. Middletown, Conn.: 
Wesleyan University Press, 1971. 
Dunlap and Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser (Phila?
delphia), 19 March 1794. 
Dunlap's American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), 26 April 
1792. 
Eleutherian Mills Historical Library Manuscript Collections. 
Eleutherian Mills Historical Library. Greenville, Delaware. 
Elizabethtown, Essex County, New Jersey. Tax Ratables, 
1811-1822. Public Records Office, Bureau of Archives and 
History, New Jersey State Library, Trenton. 
The Elizabethtown (New Jersey) Journal, 20 January 1818. 
Elliot's Improved New-York Double Directory. New York: 
William Elliot, 1812. 
Fishbein, Meyer H. "The Censuses of Manufactures 1810-
1890." National Archives Accessions, number 57 (June 
1963), pages 1-20. 
. "Early Business Statistical Operations of the 
Federal Government." National Archives Accessions, vol?
ume 54 (June 1958), pages 1-29. 
Fournier, Robert. Illustrated Dictionary of Practical Pottery. 
London: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1973. 
Freedley, Edwin T. Philadelphia and Its Manufactures: A 
Handbook Exhibiting the Development, Variety, and Sta?
tistics of the Manufacturing Industry of Philadelphia in 
1857. Philadelphia: Edward Young, 1858. 
Gillingham, Harrold E. "Pottery, China, and Glass Making 
in Philadelphia." The Pennsylvania Magazine of History 
and Biography, volume 57 (1930), pages 97-129. 
Godden, Geoffrey, A. Victorian Porcelain. London: Herbert 
Jenkins, 1961. 
Gottesman, Rita Susswein, compiler. The Arts and Crafts 
in New York, 1726-1776, Advertisements and News Items 
from New York City Newspapers. New York: Printed for 
the New York Historical Society, 1938. 
Greer, Georgeanna H. "Groundhog Kilns?Rectangular 
American Kilns of the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth 
111 
M>. 
112 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
Centuries." Northeast Historical Archaeology, volume 6 
(spring 1977), pages 42-54. 
Guilland, Harold F. Early American Folk Pottery. Phila?
delphia: Chilton Book Company, 1971. 
Hammond, Bray. Banks and Politics in America from the 
Revolution to the Civil War. Princeton: Princeton Uni?
versity Press, 1957. 
Hazen, Edward. Panorama of Professions ir Trades, or 
Everyman's Book. Philadelphia: Uriah Hunt, 1839. 
Heads of Families at The First Census of the United States 
Taken in the Year 1790, Pennsylvania. Washington, D.C: 
Government Printing Office, 1908; reprint edition, Balti?
more: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1966. 
Henry Manuscripts. Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 
Philadelphia. 
Hood, Graham. Bonnin and Morris of Philadelphia, The 
First American Porcelain Factory, 1770-1772. Chapel Hill: 
The University of North Carolina Press, 1972. 
Hughes, G. Bernard. Victorian Pottery and Porcelain. Lon?
don: Country Life Limited, 1959. 
Huth, Hans. Lacquer of the West: The History of a Craft 
and an Industry, 1550-1950. Chicago: The University of 
Chicago Press, 1971. 
Illustrated Catalogue of China, Pottery, Porcelains and 
Glass [collected by] the Late Edwin AtLee Barber. 
[Auction catalogue.] Philadelphia: Samuel T. Freeman Sc 
Co., 1917. 
Index of American Design. National Gallery of Art. Wash?
ington, D.C. 
Jackson, Joseph. America's Most Historic Highway: Market 
Street, Philadelphia. Philadelphia and New York: John 
Wanamaker, 1926. 
Jackson, Samuel, compiler. The Baltimore Directory, Cor?
rected up to June 1819. Baltimore: Printed by Richard 
J. Matchett, 1819. 
Jacobsen, Diane Lindstrom. "Demand, Markets and Eastern 
Economic Development: Philadelphia, 1815-1840." Ph.D. 
dissertation. University of Delaware, 1974. 
James, Arthur E. The Potters and Potteries of Chester 
County, Pennsylvania. West Chester, Pa.: Chester County 
Historical Society, 1945. 
James Madison Papers. Library of Congress. Washington, 
DC. 
Journal of the American Institute, volume 2 (September 1837). 
Kelso, William M., and Edward A. Chappell. "Excavation of 
a Seventeenth Century Pottery Kiln at Glebe Harbor, 
Westmoreland County, Virginia." Historical Archaeology, 
volume 8 (1974), pages 53-63. 
Keenan, C The Baltimore Directory for 1822 ir '23. Balti?
more: Printed by Richard J. Matchett, 1822. 
Ketchum, William C, Jr. Early Potters and Potteries of 
New York State. New York: Funk 8c Wagnalls, 1970. 
Lardner, Dionysius. The Cabinet Cyclopaedia: A Treatise 
on the Origin, Progressive Improvement, and Present State 
of the Manufacture of Porcelain and Glass. London: 
Printed for Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, 8c Green, 1832. 
Liggett, Barbara. Archaeology At Franklin's Court. Harris?
burg, Pa.: The MacFarland Co., 1973. 
Linn, John Blair, editor. Record of Pennsylvania Marriages 
Prior to 1810. Harrisburg: L. S. Hart, state printer, 1880-
90. 
Livingood, James Weston. The Philadelphia-Baltimore Trade 
Rivalry 1780-1860. Harrisburg, Pa.: The Pennsylvania 
Historical and Museum Commission, 1947. 
Longworth's 4merican Almanac, New-York Register, and City 
Directory. New York: David Longworth, 1812. 
? . 1815. 
Maryland Gazette (Annapolis), 2 September 1756. 
Matchett's Baltimore Director [sic]. Baltimore, 1829. 
Matchett's Baltimore Directory for 1824. Baltimore: Printed 
and Published by R[ichard] J. Matchett, 1824. 
Mease, James. The Picture of Philadelphia. Philadelphia: 
B 8c T Kite, 1811; reprint edition. New York: Arno Press, 
1970. 
Memoirs and Auto-Biography of Some of the Wealthy Citi?
zens of Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Published by the 
Booksellers, 1846. 
Miller, J. Jefferson. "The Porcelain Trade of America." 
Discovering Antiques, volume 43 (1971), pages 1019-1023. 
New Jersey. Wills and Inventories. Number 11568G (1824). 
Bureau of Archives and History, New Jersey State Library, 
Trenton. 
The Newark Museum. Classical America 1815-1845. Newark: 
The Newark Museum Association, 1963. 
New York Tribune, 26 August 1858. 
Niles' Weekly Register (Baltimore), 1 November 1817; 20 
September 1823. 
Noel Hume, Ivor. "Creamware To Pearlware: A Williams?
burg Perspective." In Ian M. G. Quimby, editor. Ceramics 
in America (Winterthur Conference Report 1972), pages 
217-254. Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 
1973. 
North, Douglass C. Growth and Welfare in the American 
Past. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966. 
Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson. Philadelphia, a History of the 
City and Its People. Volumes 1 and 2. Philadelphia: 
S. J. Clarke Publishing Company, n.d. 
Occident and American Jewish Advocate, volume 22 (June 
1864), pages 95-96. 
Pearce, John N. "The Early Baltimore Potters and Their 
Wares 1763-1850." M.A. thesis. University of Delaware, 
1959. 
The Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), 
27 July 1785; 8 July 1790. 
The Pennsylvanian (Philadelphia), 1 January 1833. 
Peterson, Harold. Americans At Home. New York: Charles 
Scribner's Sons, 1971. 
Philadelphia: Three Centuries of American Art. [Bicentennial 
Exhibition, 11 April-10 October 1976.] Philadelphia: 
Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1976. 
Philadelphia Aurora For the Country, 29 August, 17 No?
vember 1810. 
Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, 17 October 1800; 
19 May, 22 June, 11 October 1810; 3 January, 10 Feb?
ruary, 27 October, 9 December 1812. 
The Philadelphia Gazette if Universal Daily Advertiser, 
12 April 1799. 
Philadelphia North American, 21 August 1858. 
Philadelphia Poulson's American Daily Advertiser, 21 March 
1815; 3 January 1825; 19 February 1827; 24 January 1831; 
20 May 1833-31 December 1835. 
Prime, Alfred Coxe. The Arts and Crafts in Philadelphia, 
NUMBER 43 113 
Maryland and South Carolina, 1721-1785: Gleanings from 
Newspapers. Philadelphia: The Walpole Society, 1929. 
. The Arts and Crafts in Philadelphia, Maryland, 
and South Carolina, 1786-1800: Gleanings from News?
papers. Series 2. Philadelphia: The Walpole Society, 1932. 
Ramsay, John. American Potters and Pottery. Clinton, Mass.: 
The Colonial Press Inc., 1939. 
Raymond, W. Oakley. "Remmey Family: American Potters, 
Part II." The Magazine Antiques, volume 32 (September 
1937), pages 132-134. 
Reingold, Nathan. "U.S. Patent Office Records as Sources 
for the History of Invention and Technological Property." 
Technology and Culture, volume 1 (spring 1960), pages 
156-167. 
Relfs Philadelphia Gazette and Daily Advertiser, 27 April 
1813. 
Rhodes, Daniel. Clay and Glazes for the Potter. Philadelphia 
and New York: Chilton Books, 1957. 
Riddle James M., compiler. The Pittsburgh Directory for 
1815. Pittsburgh: Printed for James M. Riddle, Publisher, 
1815. 
Ries, Heinrich, and Henry Leighton. History of the Clay-
Working Industry in the United States. New York: John 
Wiley Se Sons, 1909. 
Savage, George, and Harold Newman. An Illustrated Dic?
tionary of Ceramics. London: Thames and Hudson, 1974. 
Savannah Public Intelligencer, 8 September 1807. 
Scharf, John Thomas, and Thompson Westcott. History of 
Philadelphia 1609-1884. 3 volumes. Philadelphia: L. H. 
Everts Se Co., 1884. 
Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr. The Age of Jackson. Boston: 
Little, Brown and Company, 1945. 
A Series of Tables of the Several Branches of American 
Manufactures, 1810. Philadelphia: 1813. 
Smithsonian Institution Collection of Business Americana. 
Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. 
Spargo, John. Early American Pottery and China. New 
York: The Century Co., 1926. 
. The Potters and Potteries of Bennington. 
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company and Antiques Incor?
porated, 1926. 
Sushka, Marie Elizabeth. "The Antebellum Money Market 
and the Economic Impact of the Bank War." The Journal 
of Economic History, volume 36 (December 1976), pages 
809-835. 
Taussig, Frank William. The Tariff History of the United 
States. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892, reprint 
edition. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1967. 
Thernstrom, Stephan, and Peter R. Knights. "Men in 
Motion: Some Data and Speculations about Urban Popu?
lation Mobility in Nineteenth-Century America." The 
Journal of Interdisciplinary History, volume 1 (autumn 
1970), pages 7-35. 
Thistlethwaite, F. "The Atlantic Migration of the Pottery 
Industry." The Economic History Review, volume 11, 
pages 264-278. 
The Trenton Federalist, 29 April 1814. 
Troy (New York) Gazette, 30 November 1802. 
Tucker China, 1825-1838. [Exhibition catalogue.] Philadel?
phia: The Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1957. 
U.S. Congress, House. Documents Relative to the Manu?
factures in the United States. 22d Cong., 1st sess., 1833, 
H. Doc. 308. 
. Tariff Acts Passed by the Congress of the 
United States 1789-1909. 61st Cong., 2nd sess., 1909, H. 
Doc. 671. 
U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. "Frank?
lin Court Report." Volume 6 (1974): Catalogue and Re?
marks by Elizabeth Cosans. [Typescript.] 
U.S. Department of the Treasury. United States Direct Tax 
of 1798: Tax Lists for the State of Pennsylvania. Record 
Group 58, Records of the Internal Revenue Service, Na?
tional Archives, Washington, D. C. National Archives 
Microfilm Publications, microcopy number 372. 
U.S. Patent Office. Report of the Commissioner of Patents 
for the Year 1851, Part 1: Arts and Manufactures. Wash?
ington, D. C : Robert Armstrong, Printer, 1852. 
The Virginia Argus (Richmond), 25 November 1808. 
Wakefield, Hugh. Victorian Pottery. New York: Thomas 
Nelson Sc Sons, 1962. 
Warner, Sam Bass, Jr. The Private City: Philadelphia in 
Three Periods of Its Growth. Philadelphia: University of 
Pennsylvania Press, 1968. 
Watkins, Lura Woodside. Early New England Potters and 
Their Wares. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950. 
. "Some Unrecorded Pottery: American Molded 
Pitchers." The Magazine Antiques, volume 74 (August 
1958), pages 135-137. 
Watson, John F., and Willis P. Hazard. Annals of Philadel?
phia and Pennsylvania in the Olden Time. 3 volumes. 
Philadelphia: Edwin S. Stuart, 1898. 
Wealth and Biography of the Wealthy Citizens of Philadel?
phia. Philadelphia: G. B. Zieber 8c Co., 1845. 
Wolf, Edwin, and Maxwell Whiteman. The History of the 
Jews of Philadelphia from Colonial Times to the Age of 
Jackson. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of 
America, 1957. 
Frequently Consulted Sources 
FRANKLIN INSTITUTE 
Manuscripts in the Archives (FIM) 
1. "Report of the Committee on Earthenware," 1824. 
2. "Report on Earthenware," 1825. 
3. "Report of Committee on Pottery," 1826. 
4. "Report of the Committee on Porcelain and Earthen 
Ware," 1827. 
5. [Report of the Committee on China, Glass, and Queens?
ware], 1835. 
6. "[Report of] The Committee on Glass Se China," 1850. 
114 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
Publications (FIP) 
1. First Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Franklin 
Institute of the State of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: 
Published by Order of the Institute, J. Harding, Printer, 
1825. 
2. Report of the Second Annual Exhibition [1825] of the 
Franklin Institute of the State of Pennsylvania. Phila?
delphia: Printed for the Institute, 1825. 
3. "Abstract of the Report of the Committee on Premiums 
and Exhibition on the Subject of the Third Annual 
Exhibition [1826]." The Franklin Journal, and American 
Mechanics' Magazine, November 1826. 
4. "Report of the Committee of Premiums and Exhibi?
tions, on the Fourth Annual Exhibition [1827]." The 
Franklin Journal, December 1827. 
5. "Report to the Board of Managers on the Fifth Annual 
Exhibition [1828]." The Franklin Journal, and American 
Mechanics' Magazine. New Series, volume 2 (December 
1828). 
6. Address of the Committee on Premiums and Exhibitions 
of the Franklin Institute of the State of Pennsylvania. 
Philadelphia: J. Harding, Printer, 1830. 
7. Address of the Committee on Premiums and Exhibitions 
of the Franklin Institute of the State of Pennsylvania. 
Philadelphia: J. Harding, Printer, 1831. 
8. "Report on Premiums and Exhibitions." Journal of the 
Franklin Institute, new series, volume 8 (November 1831). 
9. "Report of the Committee on Premiums and Exhibi?
tions." Journal of the Franklin Institute, new series, vol?
ume 12 (December 1833). 
10. "Report of the Committee of Premiums and Exhibi?
tions." Journal of the Franklin Institute, new series, 
volume 17 (May 1836). 
11. Address of the Committee on Premiums and Exhibitions 
of the Franklin Institute of the State of Pennsylvania. 
Philadelphia: 1838. 
12. "Report of the Committee on Premiums and Exhibi?
tions." Journal of the Franklin Institute, series 3, vol?
ume 4 (November 1842). 
13. "Reports of the Judges on the Thirteenth Exhibition 
[1843], Supplementary Report." Journal of the Franklin 
Institute, series 3, volume 7 (January 1844). 
14. "Report of the Committee on Exhibitions." Journal of 
the Franklin Institute, series 3, volume 8 (December 
1844). 
15. "Report of the Committee on Exhibitions, Fifteenth 
Exhibition of American Manufactures [1845]." Journal 
of the Franklin Institute, December 1845. 
16. "Report of the Committee on Exhibitions, Sixteenth 
Exhibition of American Manufactures [1846]." Journal 
of the Franklin Institute, series 3, volume 12 (December 
1846). 
17. Catalogue of the Twenty-first Exhibition of American 
Manufactures [1851], Held in Philadelphia [by The 
Franklin Institute of the State of Pennsylvania.] Phila?
delphia: Wm. S. Young, Printer, 1851. 
18. Report of the Twenty-first [1851] Exhibition of American 
Manufactures, Held in the City of Philadelphia, by the 
Franklin Institute. Philadelphia: Wm. S. Young, Printer, 
1851. 
19. Report of the Twenty-third Exhibition of American 
Manufactures [1853], Held by the Franklin Institute, of 
the State of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: William S. 
Young, Printer, 1853. 
20. Report on the Twenty-fourth Exhibition of American 
Manufactures [1854], Held by the Franklin Institute of 
the State of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: Barnard 8c 
Jones, Piinters, 1855. 
21. Catalogue of the Twenty-fifth Exhibition of American 
Manufactures [1856, by] the Franklin Institute of the 
State of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1856. 
22. Report on the Twenty-sixth Exhibition of American 
Manufactures [1858], Held by the Franklin Institute, of 
the State of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: William S. 
Young, Printer, 1858. 
23. "Specifications of American Patents," Journal of the 
Franklin Institute, volume 22 (1838). 
JOSEPH DOWNS IVTANUSCRIPT AND MICROFILM 
COLLECTION (DMMC) 
(The Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Winter?
thur, Delaware; each entry is preceded by the Winterthur 
Museum catalog number; entries 2-6 are quoted in "Manu?
script Notes: Helen McKearin (1940-1965).") 
1. 64x18. Account book of Philadelphia merchant [George 
M. Coates], 1824-1833. 
2. 69x208.3. Hartford (Connecticut) Courant, 3 September 
1816. 
3. 69x208.9. Troy (New York) Northern Budget, 11 Feb?
ruary 1801. 
4. 69x208.14. Troy (New York) Gazette, 30 November 1802. 
5. 69x208.38. American Centinel if Mercantile Advertiser, 
25 October 1817. 
6. 69x208.81. Troy (New York) Northern Budget, 7 May 1799. 
7. 71x103.1125. Bill of sale, Abraham Miller to Charles 
Wistar, 24 September 1831. 
8. 75x47. Book of drawings, original views of Philadelphia 
by [Frank] Taylor, 1861. 
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 
Archives of the City and County of Philadelphia (AACP) 
1. County Tax Assessment Ledgers, 1779-1854. Inventory 
number 1.9. 
2. Deed Books, 1684-1863 [individual books identified by 
initials of Recorder of Deeds]. Inventory number 5.1. 
3. Guardians of the Poor, Indentures Made, 1788-1874. 
Inventory number 35.133. 
4. State Tax Assessment Ledgers, 1832-1854. Inventory 
number 1.8. 
City of Philadelphia (CP) 
1. Records of the Register of Wills, Administration Books, 
1765-1878 [individual books identified by letters in alpha?
betical order]. 
2. Records of the Register of Wills. Will Books, 1765-1878 
[individual books identified by numbers]. 
NUMBER 43 115 
P H I L A D E L P H I A C I T Y D I R E C T O R I E S ( P D ) 
Asterisks denote directories that were searched in their 
entirety for all potters and potteries operating in the desig?
nated years. All directories through 1860 were consulted in 
microfiche form in the series City Directories of the United 
States Through 1860 filmed by Research Publications, Inc., 
New Haven, Connecticut. Directories postdating 1860 are 
part of the microfilm series City Directories of the United 
States, 1861-1881 by the same publishers. See Appendix I 
for general remarks about the directories. 
*1 . White, Francis. The Philadelphia Directory. Philadel?
phia: Printed by Young, Stewart, and M'Culloch, 1785. 
2. Biddle, Clement, editor. The Philadelphia Directory. 
Philadelphia: Printed by James Sc Johnson, for the 
editor, 1791. 
3. Hardie, James. The Philadelphia Directory and Reg?
ister. Philadelphia: Printed for the author, by T . 
Dobson, 1793. 
*4. Hardie, James. The Philadelphia Directory and Reg?
ister. Philadelphia: Printed for the author, by Jacob 
Johnson 8c Co., 1794. 
5. Hogan, Edmund. The Prospect of Philadelphia and 
Check on the Next Directory. Part I. Philadelphia: 
Printed by Francis Se Robert Bailey, 1795. 
6. The Prospect of Philadelphia and Check on the Next 
Directory, Part I. Philadelphia: Printed by John 
Turner for Edmund Hogan, 1796. 
7. Stephens's Philadelphia Directory for 1796. Philadel?
phia: Printed for Thomas Stephens by W. Woodward, 
n.d. 
*8. Stafford, Cornelius William, editor. The Philadelphia 
Directory for 1797. Philadelphia: Printed for the 
editor, by William W. Woodward, 1797. 
9. Stafford, Cornelius William, editor. The Philadelphia 
Directory for 1798. Philadelphia: Printed for the 
editor, by William W. Woodward, 1798. 
10. Stafford, Cornelius William, editor. The Philadelphia 
Directory for 1799. Philadelphia: Printed for the 
editor, by William W. Woodward, 1799. 
11. Robinson's Philadelphia Register and City Directory 
for 1799. Philadelphia: Printed by John Bioren, 1799. 
*12. The New Trade Directory for Philadelphia, anno 1800. 
Philadelphia: Printed for the author by Way Se Groff, 
1799. 
13. Stafford, Cornelius William, editor. The Philadelphia 
Directory for 1800. Philadelphia: Printed for the editor, 
by William W. Woodward, 1800. 
14. Stafford, Cornelius William. The Philadelphia Direc?
tory for 1801. Philadelphia: Printed for the editor, by 
WiUiam W. Woodward, 1801. 
15. Robinson, James, compiler. The Philadelphia Direc?
tory, City and County Register for 1802. Philadelphia: 
Printed for the publisher by William W. Woodward, 
n.d. 
16. Robinson, James. The Philadelphia Directory, City and 
County Register for 1803. Philadelphia: Printed for the 
publisher, by William Woodward, n.d. 
17. Robinson, James. The Philadelphia Directory for 1804. 
Philadelphia: Printed for the publisher, by John H. 
Oswald, n.d. 
??18. Robinson, James. The Philadelphia Directory for 1805. 
Philadelphia: Printed for the publisher, n.d. 
19. Robinson, James. The Philadelphia Directory for 1806. 
Philadelphia: Printed for the publisher, n.d. 
20. Robinson, James. The Philadelphia Directory for 1807. 
Philadelphia: Printed for the publisher, n.d. 
21. Robinson, James. The Philadelphia Directory for 1808. 
Philadelphia: Printed for the publisher, n.d. 
22. Robinson, James. The Philadelphia Directory for 1809. 
Philadelphia: Printed for the publisher, n.d. 
*23. Robinson, James. The Philadelphia Directory for 1810. 
Philadelphia: Printed for the publisher, n.d. 
24. Census Directory for 1811. Philadelphia: Printed by 
Jane Aitken, 1811. 
25. Robinson, James. The Philadelphia Directory for 1811. 
Philadelphia: Printed for the publisher, n.d. 
26. Paxton, John A. The Philadelphia Directory and Reg?
ister for 1813. Philadelphia: B. Se T. Kite, n.d. 
*27. Kite's Philadelphia Directory for 1814. Philadelphia: 
B[enjamin] Se T[homas] Kite, n.d. 
*28. Robinson, James. Philadelphia Directory for 1816. 
Philadelphia: Printed for the publisher, n.d. 
29. Dawes, Edward. The Philadelphia Directory for 1817. 
Philadelphia: Printed for the proprietor, n.d. 
30. Robinson's Original Annual Directory for 1817. Phila?
delphia: Printed at Whitehall, n.d. 
*31. Paxton, John Adems, editor. The Philadelphia Direc?
tory and Register for 1818. Philadelphia: Published, 
for the editor, by E[dward] and R[ichard] Parker, n.d. 
32. Paxton, John Adems, editor. The Philadelphia Direc?
tory and Register for 1819. Philadelphia: Published by 
the editor, n.d. 
*33. Whitely, Edward. The Philadelphia Directory and 
Register for 1820. Philadelphia: M'Carty Se Davis, 
Printers, n.d. 
34. The Supplementary Directory for 1820. Philadelphia: 
Robert Desilver, n.d. 
35. The Philadelphia Directory and 
Philadelphia: M'Carty Sc Davis, 1821. 
36. The Philadelphia Directory and 
Philadelphia: M'Carty Sc Davis, 1822. 
*37. Desilver, Robert, editor. The Philadelphia Index, or 
Directory, for 1823. Philadelphia: Published by the 
editor, n.d. 
38. Desilver, Robert, editor. The Philadelphia Directory 
for 1824. Philadelphia: Published by the editor, n.d. 
*39. Wilson, Thomas, editor. The Philadelphia Directory 
and Stranger's Guide for 1825. Philadelphia: Printed 
by John Bioren, 1825. 
*40. Desilver's Philadelphia Directory and Stranger's Guide 
for 1828. Philadelphia: Robert Desilver, 1828. 
*41. Desilver's Philadelphia Directory and Stranger's Guide, 
1829. Philadelphia: Robert Desilver, 1829. 
42. Desilver's Philadelphia Directory and Stranger's Guide, 
1830. Philadelphia: Robert Desilver, 1830. 
*43. Desilver's Philadelphia Directory, and Stranger's Guide, 
1831. Philadelphia: Robert Desilver, 1831. 
*44. Desilver's Philadelphia Directory and Stranger's Guide 
for 1833. Philadelphia: Robert Desilver, 1833. 
Register for 1821. 
Register for 1822. 
116 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
*45. Desilver's Philadelphia Directory and Stranger's Guide 
for 1835 and 1836. Philadelphia: Robert Desilver, n.d. 
46. Desilver's Philadelphia Directory and Stranger's Guide 
for 1837. Philadelphia: Robert Desilver, 1837. 
47. A. M'Elroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1837. Phila?
delphia: A[rchibald] M'Elroy, 1837. 
*48. Harris's Commercial Directory and Merchants' Guide 
for Philadelphia, 1838. Philadelphia: S. Harris, 1838. 
49. Plan for Market Street, Philadelphia. Philadelphia: 
S. Harris, 1838. 
*50. O'Brien, John G., compiler. O'Brien's Wholesale Busi?
ness Intelligencer and Southern and Western Merchants' 
Pocket Directory. Philadelphia: John G. O'Brien, 1839. 
51. A. M'Elroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1839. Phila?
delphia: A[rchibald] M'Elroy; printed by Isaac Ash-
mead 8c Co., 1839. 
*52. A. M'Elroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1840. Phila?
delphia: A[rchibald] M'Elroy; printed by Isaac Ash-
mead Se Co., 1840. 
*53. O'Brien, John G., compiler. O'Brien's Commercial 
Intelligencer, City and County Merchants Wholesale 
Business Directory for 1840. Philadelphia: John G. 
O'Brien, 1840. 
54. A. M'Elroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1841. Philadel?
phia: Orrin Rogers; printed by Isaac Ashmead, n.d. 
*55. O'Brien, John G., compiler. O'Brien's City and Coun?
try Merchants' Pocket Directory, Philadelphia, for the 
Year 1841. Philadelphia: John G. O'Brien; King and 
Baird, Printers, 1841. 
56. M'Elroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1842. Philadel?
phia: Orrin Rogers; printed by Isaac Ashmead and 
Co., 1842. 
57. McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1843. Philadel?
phia: Edward C. Biddle; printed by Isaac Ashmead and 
Co., 1843. 
*58. O'Brien's United States Advertising Circular and . . 
Merchants' Directory to . . Philadelphia, for 1843. 
Philadelphia: King and Baird, Printers, 1843. 
*59. McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1844. Philadel?
phia: Edward C Biddle; printed by Isaac Ashmead 
and Co., 1844. 
*60. O'Brien, John G., compiler. O'Brien's Philadelphia 
Wholesale Business Directory . . . for 1844. Phila?
delphia: John G. O'Brien; King and Baird, Printers, 
1844. 
*61. O'Brien, John G., compiler. O'Brien's Philadelphia 
Wholesale Business Directory . . . for the Year 1845. 
Philadelphia: John G. O'Brien; King 8c Baird, Printers, 
1845. 
*62. McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1845. Philadel?
phia: Edward C Sc John Biddle; printed by Isaac Ash?
mead, 1845. 
63. McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1846. Philadel?
phia: Edward C. and John Biddle; printed by Isaac 
Ashmead, 1846. 
*64. McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1847. Philadel?
phia: Edward C and John Biddle; printed by Isaac 
Ashmead, 1847. 
65. McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1848. Philadel?
phia: Edward C and John Biddle; printed by Isaac 
Ashmead, 1848. 
66. Downes, John, compiler. The Philadelphia Almanac 
and General Business Directory for 1848. Philadel?
phia: Published by Charles J. Gillis, n.d. 
67. Downes, John, compiler. Bywater's Philadelphia Busi?
ness Directory . for 1849. Philadelphia: Maurice 
By water, n.d. 
68. McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1849. Philadel?
phia: Edward C. and John Biddle; printed by Isaac 
Ashmead, 1849. 
*69. O'Brien, John G., compiler. O'Brien's Philadelphia 
Wholesale Business Directory for the Year 1849. 
Philadelphia: John G. O'Brien; King and Baird, 
Printers, n.d. 
*70. Downes, John. Bywater's Philadelphia Business Direc?
tory and City Guide for the Year 1850. Philadelphia: 
Maurice Bywater, n.d. 
*71. McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1850. Philadel?
phia: Edward C and John Biddle; printed by Isaac 
Ashmead, 1850. 
*72. O'Brien's Philadelphia Wholesale Business Directory 
and Circular for the Year 1850. Philadelphia: John 
G. O'Brien; King and Baird, Printers, n.d. 
*73. Bywater's Philadelphia Business Directory and City 
Guide for the Year 1851. Philadelphia: Maurice By-
water, n.d. 
74. McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1851. Philadelphia: 
Edward C. and John Biddle; printed by Isaac Ashmead, 
1851. 
75. Rae's Philadelphia Pictorial Directory ir Panoramic 
Advertiser. Philadelphia: Julio H. Rae, 1851. 
76. McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1852. Philadel?
phia: Edward C and John Biddle; printed by Isaac 
Ashmead, 1852. 
*77. O'Brien's Philadelphia Wholesale Business Merchants 
and Manufacturers' Directory and Eastern, Western if 
Southern Circular for 1852. Philadelphia: John G. 
O'Brien, n.d. 
78. McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1853. Philadel?
phia: Edward C. and John Biddle; printed by Isaac 
Ashmead, 1853. 
*79. O'Brien, John G. O'Brien's Philadelphia Wholesale 
Business Merchants and Manufacturers' Directory for 
1853. Philadelphia: John G. O'Brien, n.d. 
80. McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1854. Philadel?
phia: Edward C. and Jqhn Biddle; printed by Isaac 
Ashmead, 1854. 
81. McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1855. Philadel?
phia: Edward C Se John Biddle; printed by Isaac 
Ashmead, 1855. 
82. McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1856. Phila?
delphia: Edward C. and John Biddle; printed by Henry 
B. Ashmead, 1856. 
83. The Philadelphia Merchants' and Manufacturers' Busi?
ness Directory for 1856-7. Philadelphia: Prepared by 
Griswold 8c Co., n.d. 
84. McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1857. Philadel?
phia: Edward C 8c John Biddle; printed by Henry B. 
Ashmead, 1857. 
NUMBER 43 117 
*85. McElroy's Wholesale Business Directory, 1857. Phila?
delphia: Henry B. Ashmead, Book and Job Printer, 
1857. 
86. Twitt's Directory of Prominent Business Men . 
Published Semi-Annually . . . 1857. Philadelphia, n.d. 
?87. Boyd, Wm. H., compiler. Boyd's Philadelphia City 
Directory, . . . 1858. Philadelphia: T . K. Collins, Jr., 
n.d. 
88. McElroy's Philadelphia City Directory for 1858. Phila?
delphia: Edward C. Se John Biddle; printed by Henry 
B. Ashmead, 1858. 
89. McElroy's Philadelphia City Directory for 1859. Phila?
delphia: Edward C. and John Biddle; printed by Henry 
B. Ashmead, 1859. 
90. The Philadelphia Shopping Guide and Housekeeper's 
Companion for 1859. Philadelphia: S. E. Cohen, 1859. 
?91. Boyd, Wm., H., compiler. Boyd's Philadelphia City 
Business Directory, to Which Is Added a Co-Partner-
ship Directory, 1859-60. Philadelphia: Wm. H. Boyd, 
n.d. 
92. Cohen, S. E., compiler. Cohen's Philadelphia City 
Directory, City Guide, and Business Register for 1860. 
Philadelphia: [John L.] Hamelin 8c Co., n.d. 
93. Cowell's Philadelphia Business Directory. Philadel?
phia: E. J. Cowell, 1860. 
94. McElroy's Philadelphia City Directory for 1860. Phila?
delphia: E[dward] C and J[ohn] Biddle 8c Co.; printed 
by Henry B. Ashmead, 1860. 
?95. Boyd, William H., compiler. Boyd's Philadelphia City 
Business Directory, to Which Is Added a Co-partner?
ship Directory, 1860-61. Philadelphia: William H. 
Boyd, n.d. 
96. McElroy's Philadelphia City Directory for 1861. Phila?
delphia: E. C. Sc J. Biddle Sc Co., 1861. 
97. McElroy's Philadelphia City Directory for 1862. Phila?
delphia: E. C. Se J. Biddle 8c Co., 1862. 
98. McElroy's Philadelphia City Directory for 1863. Phila?
delphia: E. C Se J. Biddle 8c Co., 1863. 
Phila-
103. 
99. McElroy's Philadelphia City Directory for 1864. 
delphia: E. C. 8c J. Biddle 8c Co., 1864. 
100. McElroy's Philadelphia City Directory for 1865. Phila?
delphia: A. McElroy, 1865. 
101. McElroy's Philadelphia City Directory for 1866. Phila?
delphia: A. McEIroy, 1866. 
102. McElroy's Philadelphia City Directory for 1867. Phila?
delphia: A. McElroy Sc Co., 1867. 
Gopsill's Philadelphia City and Business Directory for 
1868-9. Philadelphia: James Gopsill, 1868. 
104. Gopsill's Philadelphia City Directory for 1869. Phila?
delphia: James Gopsill, 1869. 
105. Gopsill's Philadelphia City Directory for 1870. Phila?
delphia: James Gopsill, 1870. 
106. Gopsill's Philadelphia City Directory for 1873. Phila?
delphia: James Gopsill, 1873. 
107. Gopsill's Philadelphia City Directory for 1874. Phila?
delphia: James Gopsill, 1874. 
108. Gopsill's Philadelphia City Directory for 1875. Phila?
delphia: James Gopsill, 1875. 
U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS (MC) 
1. "Record of the 1820 Census of Manufactures [schedules 
for Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania]." Record Group 
29, National Archives, Washington, D.C. National Ar?
chives Microfilm Publications, microcopy number 279, 
rolls 14-15 (Pennsylvania), 16 (Maryland), and 25 (Ohio). 
2. "Schedule of Mines, Agriculture, Commerce, Manufac?
tures, etc. 1840, Eastern District of Pennsylvania." 
Record Group 29, National Archives, Washington, D.C. 
3. "Federal Decennial Census of 1850, Schedule 5: Products 
of Industry, Pennsylvania." Record Group 29, National 
Archives, Washington, D.C. 
4. "Eighth U.S. Census, 1860, Schedule 5: Products of In?
dustry, Pennsylvania." Record Group 29, National Ar?
chives, Washington, D.C. Bell Sc Howell Company, Micro 
Photo Division, microcopy number T-956-4. 
i^ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 0?296?672