Talk:Kenton Hills Porcelains

Porcelain or pottery?

No matter how I type this, I'm going to sound like I'm being pompous, but that is the furthest thing I want to convey. Okay, here it goes: I'm an expert on Kenton Hills Porcelains and they produced white ware ceramics (porcelains).

Now I realize that without knowing me, you can't verify this statement. But give me a few chances to prove my case. First, please read the book written by the Nicholsons or the chapter about KHP in Clear as Mud. Second, pottery is not what KHP produced; they produced porcelain, which is a category of white ware ceramics. Other categories include earthenware, stoneware, and bone china. All of KHP's pieces were molded, they were not thrown on a wheel (yeah, their drawing on the promotional brochure is misleading; David Seyler drew that). Third, I personally met and interviewed David Seyler and Rosemary Seyler, as well as one of Rosemary's siblings who helped at the company. Fourth, I have been a collector of KHP for over 30 years and personally worked with the KHP collection at the Behringer-Crawford Museum.

So, can we please agree that the statement "Kenton Hills Porcelains are white ware ceramic (porcelain) products manufactured by Kenton Hills Porcelains, Inc. from 1940 to 1943 in Erlanger, Kentucky." is both an accurate and concise lead for this article? If not, let's please keep the discussion going.

Given the scarcity of surviving KHP pieces as well as the small amount of literature (both primary and secondary sources), it's easy to dismiss the company's work. But they do have a place in Kentucky's art history and in regional American ceramics, including the decline of Rookwood Pottery in the late 1930s.

Finally, over the next few weeks, I'm going to upload photos of KHP pieces from my personal collection to enhance this article, so perhaps it will be a little more clear (at least visually) to see that what KHP produced was not thrown, nor was it earthenware, stoneware, or bone china. Spacini (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Spacini, I agree, you are correct, Kenton Hills Porcelains are whiteware ceramic porcelain. The lead is both accurate and concise. One note: white ware is actually one word - whiteware. For further information about whiteware see here. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Gmcbjames, thanks so much for your response. I originally had "whiteware" in the article, but then noticed that in the article about ceramics that it's "white ware". I don't want to wade into that issue, but I concur that it's one word, not two. I wonder, is the difference American v. British English, and thus two words because an American wrote the ceramic article first? Spacini (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Spacini, whiteware in the article Ceramic is misspelled. I looked at the article, and in an edit March 3, 2014, an editor trying to prevent the word whiteware being wikilinked incorrectly to Whiteware, the British term for a major appliance, made the word white ware. Interesting. I will correct whiteware in the article Ceramic; wikilink to Porcelain and add a hidden note not to wikilink the term to "Whiteware." Also spell check just doesn't like the word whiteware - so editors unfamiliar with the term may defer to spell check. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you blame all ambiguous or unknown terms on British English, Gmcbjames, which is usually wrong! Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod, sorry if you have misunderstood my wording. I don't think there is a difference in spelling the word whiteware - either in British or American English - in regards to pottery/ceramics. The cite I used above is from the Encyclopedia Britannica (which I also used to cite the change in spelling white ware to whiteware in the article Ceramics). Maybe Whiteware should be a disamb. page with pointers to both Porcelain and Major appliance? Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear why "whiteware ceramic (porcelain) products" is considered superior over either simply "pottery" or "porcelain", with either of those linked to the appropriate Wikipedia article. It is noted porcelain is a sub-group of whitewares which itself is a sub-group of ceramics. Listing all three together in the first sentence is not needed due to internal links, that not every division of ceramics needs to be noted, and is clumsy. It is also noted that no other article about porcelain has a similarly messy description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.189.241 (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

See the discussion in the above section "Pottery or Porcelain" and please stop making disruptive edits against consensus which may result in being blocked from editing. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a rather odd phrasing though. All porcelain is white-bodied, no?, and it is certainly all ceramic. I did initially revert back to "whiteware ceramic (porcelain) products", but that was because I was somewhat unsatisfied from this & surrounding articles that the products were true porcelain, but the discussions above have satisfied me on that point. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking at a broken piece of Kenton Hills, Kenton Hills is actually soft-paste porcelain - the ceramic body was probably appropriated from Rookwood by Harold Bopp, a ceramic engineer - founder of Kenton Hills and formerly employed by Rookwood. Rookwood's "Soft Porcelain" made its first appearance in 1915. Soft-paste porcelain bodies can be white, green, ginger, olive, red, sage, and yellow as in Rookwood soft porcelain. Kenton Hills has a white body. However that said, since I cannot find a direct source to cite, the more general term porcelain will have to do, though I believe Kenton Hills Porcelains are soft-paste porcelain.

Whiteware is one of four types of products made with ceramic materials. Whiteware includes tableware, cookware, wall tiles, pottery products and sanitary ware. Whiteware products can be made of porcelain, earthenware, stoneware, and bone china. So Kenton Hills Porcelains are whiteware ceramic (porcelain) products.

As editors we strive to be as clear as possible - and by changing this to Kenton Hills Porcelains are pottery products, clarity is lost. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I must say this term was unfamiliar to me - no doubt it is an industry term, but I don't think we should use it without further explanation. Nor is it all that precise. "Domestic porcelain" maybe. Once you've said it is porcelain, "ceramic" is wholly redundant. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

From: Dictionary of Ceramics, A.E. Dodd

Whiteware. A general term for all those varieties of pottery that usually have a white body. e.g. tableware, sanitary ware and wall tiles. See also Ceramic Whiteware, which has an ASTM definition.

Ceramic Whiteware. This term is defined in the USA (ASTM-C242) as: A fired ware consisting of a glazed or unglazed ceramic body which is commonly white and of fine texture; the term includes china, porcelain, semi-vitreous ware and earthenware.

Do note from Dodd regarding the term Ceramic: "In USA a radical extension of meaning was authorized by the American Ceramic Society in 1920; chemically clay is silicate and it was proposed that the term 'ceramic' should be applied to all the silicate industries; this brought in glass, vitreous enamel, and hydraulic cement. In Europe, this wider meaning of the word has not yet been fully accepted.

"Whiteware ceramic (porcelain) products" or "ceramic whiteware porcelain products" is acceptable for this article. Gmcbjames (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Kenton Hills Porcelains are "a high-fired soft paste porcelain." - Kovel, Ralph & Terry. The Kovels' Collector's Guide to American Art Pottery (New York, NY, Crown Publishers, Inc.) p.68. Gmcbjames (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, say so then. I completely fail to see the relevance of the Dodd quote, though it clearly reinforces my point about the redundancy of "ceramic", and note that the ASTM-C242 definition is very different from that at the WP whiteware definition. But in any case it is completely unnecessary to use this rather obscure industry term, which may only be known in the US. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable statements for the lede include "Kenton Hills Porcelains are ceramic soft paste porcelain products," "Kenton Hills Porcelains are soft paste porcelain ceramic products," or including whiteware - i.e. "Kenton Hills Porcelains are ceramic whiteware soft paste porcelain products." All three statements are supported by third-party sources Dictionary of Ceramics by A.E. Dodd. and The Kovels' Collector's Guide to American Art Pottery by the Ralph & Terry Kovel and thus may be cited. Each article on WP is independent of each other. If there is a conflict between articles - then the conflict needs to be discussed on each articles talk page to reach consensus. No consensus has been made thus far in this discussion, so I will leave the decision to Spacini as to the wording of the lede and whether to include or not include the words "ceramic," "whiteware," or "ceramic whiteware." Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Do note: not all soft-paste porcelains and hard-paste porcelains are white. As stated in my comments above - soft-paste porcelain has a variety of body colors. Rosenthal GmbH(Germany) produced a hard-paste porcelain in black (Porcelain Noire). It is appropriate if not using the term "whiteware" to use "white body" in the description of Kenton Hills Porcelains. However, I will leave that up to Spacini. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)