Redart has been so reliable over the years that many have just trusted it. But it is a high-iron terracotta clay. This is ceramics; we've just been lucky. Such materials are variable by nature.

While many clay body makers put Redart into their products as soon as it arrives, Freddie doesn't do that. He notes the batch code(s), takes multiple samples, and makes SHAB test bars. He even mixes up a test body and makes ware and test bars from it too. He has a well-developed testing program and knows Redart well. Freddie also understands the recipes it is used in. The low-temperature bodies depend on its iron content for their red color (he is ready to adjust the iron oxide percentage in recipes). But Freddie has to be really diligent with stoneware bodies that also depend on Redart for fired maturity, being ready to adjust their recipes (to increase or reduce the degree of vitrification).

The "Q" in the code number signifies that it was preceded by tests A, B, C, ... P; thus, it is the product of a lot of work to develop a flexible recipe that anyone can make and adjust. This could be your path into low-fire pottery.

The photo shows G1916Q on L215, L212, L210, L213, Buffstone at cone 03. It uses common Ferro frits and can be made to fit any low-fire clay body (it is thermal expansion COE adjustable). It melts well down to cone 05. And we have a strategy to reduce clouding and micro-bubbling. These five test tiles were fired using the 04DSDH (drop-and-hold) firing schedule. All exited the kiln without crazing. The L215, L213, L210 and L212 samples subsequently survived a 300F/Icewater test without crazing, but the Buffstone did not (reduce its COE by increasing Frit 3249 and reducing Frit 3110, e.g. 15:5 instead of 10:10). The L213 could shiver (increase COE by increasing Frit 3110 at the expense of Frit 3249).

These two GBMF test balls were melted on refractory tiles to compare their melting behaviour. Their calculated oxide chemistries are almost identical, but their recipes are very different. G2931F (left) contains 29% Ulexite, driving its calculated LOI to 14.3%. G2931K (right) sources its boron from frits, reducing the LOI to just 3.1%. The difference is striking! The high-LOI glaze is full of large bubbles that were unable to escape or clear before the melt stiffened during cooling. Although ulexite releases most of its chemically bound water before significant glaze melting, that early gas evolution can contribute to foaming and trapped bubbles as melting progresses. The fritted glaze is much clearer, although it still contains fine bubbles. These may be associated with the kaolin or other sources of entrained gas.

The GBMF test exaggerates gas-retention behaviour, which is precisely why it is useful for comparing recipes, but it does not necessarily predict the appearance of a thin glaze layer on ware.

This is G1916Q3, a version of G1916Q with added 45-micron-grade silica, fired at cone 04. Despite the extra silica and low firing temperature, the glaze remains glossy, transparent and well melted. The finer powder promotes dissolution into the melt, where the added silica can improve chemical durability. Notice the shivering at the right-hand rim of this Plainsman L215 mug. The encouraging part is that the recipe provides a straightforward way to raise its thermal expansion: replace some low-expansion Frit 3249 with high-expansion Frit 3110, then retest.

For stoneware potters exploring low fire, a recipe like this offers a practical starting point and a clear way to make adjustments. It can be opacified with zircon, colored with compatible stains, and prepared for dipping or brushing. This surface shows how much brilliance and clarity are possible at cone 04.

Frit manufacturers face a daunting challenge: Converting carbonates, hydrates, borates, and nitrate materials, which off-gas during firing, into a homogeneous melt, quenching to a glass of zero LOI and then grinding that back into a consistent powder. You face a challenge also.

Shown here is a GLFL test that reveals a combination of improper mixing and inadequate smelting. This melt fluidity test compares the previous good shipment, L, with the latest faulty one, S. S appears to have not been fully reacted during manufacture (as exhibited by the foam blanket). But there’s more: a glaze containing 50% of this had inadequate melting. That could be chemical drift or inadequate batch mixing. The latter seems most likely because S was from a full two-pallet batch (the likely capacity of their smelter), from which a dozen bags were tested. These showed the most typical results at the top of the first pallet and the worst at the bottom of the second.

A bad batch of frit can ruin a lot of ware. Buy the largest amount you can afford and do the GBMF test is almost as good as these. Character changes in the melted balls put up the red flags you need to see.

This cone 6 vase was made from a coarse-grained stoneware body typical of those long produced by Plainsman Clays. These materials performed well at cone 10 reduction, but when similar bodies began being fired at cone 6 oxidation, pinholing often became a challenge. Why? The coarser particle structure creates fewer but larger pathways for escaping decomposition gases, concentrating gas flow through localized vents and leaving behind pits like those visible here. The gas is generated from fewer larger particles, concentrating it.

Yet today many potters fire these same clays with little or no pinholing. Electronic kiln controllers deserve much of the credit, making drop-and-hold and slow-cool schedules practical. Equally important are glazes with enough melt fluidity to heal LOI gas-release craters during the hold, while maintaining sufficiently low surface tension to avoid trapping gases in bubbles that later become blisters. Commercial glaze manufacturers have quietly optimized for these same properties.

You don’t have to invent a glaze from scratch to start making glazes your own. Begin with a documented recipe, make one controlled change and compare the results. This is G3933, made by adding iron oxide, rutile and tin oxide to a 75:25 blend of G2934 matte and G2926B glossy base glazes. I like it—but this mug gives me plenty of reasons to keep testing:

A small test kiln makes these questions practical to investigate. I can fire a few samples when I need to, compare each change with the original and use what I learn to decide the next step.

The kaolin is implicated in this glaze crawling problem. 30% EPK is a lot - a tipping point for issues with shrinkage and cracking on drying. Although #6 Tile kaolin in its place (center) doesn't disrupt the overall chemistry, it does disrupt the drying shrinkage: it is just too plastic for that high a percentage in a recipe. The fix is to substitute part of it for calcined kaolin.

Calcined kaolin has no LOI (vs 12% for raw kaolins). Without overthinking it, LOI-adjust by considering that 10% less is needed. So 20% #6 Tile and 9% calcined kaolin will equal 30% EPK. The right panel shows the calculated chemistry of the recipe with this change; notice it is very close to the same.

There are other fix options also. NZ and Grolleg kaolins are less plastic choices than #6 Tile; using either might mean that no calcined material is needed. Also, the failure happened on multi-layering of dipping glazes; crawling is common with that. The base glaze could have been mixed as a base-coat dipping glaze.

It only takes her two seconds. But those two seconds are packed with details. To a typical potter, it might seem that this factory worker is doing the impossible. Although she is just dipping plates, there is so much going on here we need to stop and itemize it. There is more than one thing a potter can learn from this. Click/tap the URL below to see the video and learn more.

When we finally hit an iceberg, perhaps the big question should be: "How did we get away with doing that for so long?"

Tipping point glaze recipes and practices are like this. I want to use those reactive glazes, so I need them to work. A quick test or two confirms what I want to see. That's the visible part of the recipe iceberg. But below the waterline is all that pesky recipe logic, material sense and glaze chemistry that bring up questions about the recipe before I even try it. And the trigger-happy glaze nerds who raise alarm bells about safety about glazes even though they have never actually mixed them up. I don't really want to hear about those things; I just want to double or triple layer those colorful runny glazes that look so nice on that social media post.