What is going on in my potter's eye hasn't quite been realized in these pots. I guess that is to be expected. But while the deficit of what this material can do and what I really want it to do will be resolved after many many firings, I'm fairly pleased with results, thus far.
The first pot has the Double D clear glaze inside and out, with a motif painted on top with the LUG1 underglaze. (oh, it's underglaze? breaking the rules, ooops) See the bubbling on surface? Maybe it could be thinner in the future. The movement of the design is mildly interesting, mildly.
Here are two pots that were treated as I would have treated my home clay for the wood kiln and the salt glaze, except in this case we have an electric kiln and no salt! I was curious, and just wanted to see what would happen with these variables. They both were painted with my black wax resist, then dipped in the RJB crackle slip. The black wax has, [in it's propriety recipe ;-) ], a small amount of flux in addition to its other secret ingredients. ;-) What I take from these pieces is that the oxide content is not rich enough on it's own. In the salt kiln the salt "smooths out" the oxide and helps "glaze" it in place. The first cup had problems from the beginning. It is very thin and was fired to ^04 bisque, making it a bit less porous than my home clay fired to ^07 bisque. After drying it near my wood stove I brushed on the Double D/copper glaze. While, almost a complete technical disaster, I still think there's hope that this may work with some adjustments to the sequence, the fit of the slip, the richness of the oxides, and % flux in the wax.
In conclusion, I apologize for all the coded and not quite clear "tech talk". These posts are sometimes a way for me to verbalize some of my thoughts and public air my theories. Let me know what you think. Although I can't get around to responding to all of your comments, I certainly consider and appreciate them. Thanks for reading.
