My point was that Prosser beads have a big picture that makes them different from other conventional ceramics, and particularly conventional slip-molded ceramics (such as porcelain). The compound of clay and powdered glass, made into a paste (not a slip or slurry), being formed inside a mold, unmolded, and fired is a whole process that is unto itself in BEADMAKING. This is at least partially why Richard Prosser was able to patent it (albeit it essentially for button making). The resulting beads are neither purely glass nor ceramic, but (because of definitions for ceramics) are more conventionally "ceramic." But I don't see there is a problem with stating the specifics. And all of this remains apart from my original point within this thread.

It is not a matter of "silica source."

As far as faience goes, over the past thirty-something years I have promoted a view that remains unappreciated by many folks, but that I maintain is logical and has merit. Some people (I am sure) think it's pedantic..., but one man's pedantic is another's fine point. And, as I said, this is a point that has merit because of its perspective and usefulness.

Faience is NOT a "ceramic." Ceramics are derived from mineral clays, and are naturally-occurring compounds formed in the earth. In contrast, faience is mankind's first artificial material, being compounded more or less with a formula, from constituents and via preparations that have specific goals and/or purposes. Faience is an artificial silicate made from sand, a flux, and mineral colorants, that is formed (shaped) and fired, with the expectation that a superficial glassy glaze will form that is often brightly colored. (Glassy faience is glassy throughout its structure, and is harder and stronger at the time of its manufacture.)

Even if a very small amount of clay is added to a batch (as supposedly happens under some circumstances), this does not in itself, make the material a "ceramic." On the level of microscopic structure (and CERTAINLY in terms of manufacture and processes), faience and ceramics (clays) are quite distinguishable from one another.

What faience and clays have in common is that they are pliable fabrics that can be sculpted, modeled, or molded, are allowed to dry, are fired, form glaze (or may be separately glazed) and become relatively hard and unpliable.

There is a very good reason WHY faience is mistakenly regarded as a "ceramic"—and it has to do with classification schemata. When the scientific method began to be employed (facilitating classification), and when museums began to study, display, and store antiquities, they divided different things into different "departments." Often (more often than not) no one ever knew what to do with beads and other small articles. In the investigations of old cultures it was discerned that ceramics were important for distinguishing between one culture and another, and even the phases within cultures and regions. Consequently, museums developed "Ceramics Departments"—and these were considered "important."

Because of its similarity to ceramics (and totally avoiding its dissimilarity), faience was placed under the heading of being a "ceramic" and housed with those materials. As a matter of fact, because of the similarity with glass, glasses ALSO used to be housed with ceramics collections. (Glass is not a "ceramic" anymore than faience is a "ceramic.") Eventually, once glass became more appreciated, many institutions separated glass articles from ceramic articles, and gave them their own Departments. Now, whole museums are dedicated to glass (while often also having ceramics and faience in their collections as well). But faience is still relegated to the Ceramics Departments, and the uniqueness of this material goes somewhat unrecognized and unappreciated.

NONE of this pertains to the original point. The beads I showed in this thread, I believe (until it's demonstrated otherwise) are conventional ceramics. They are not glass, and certainly not Prosser beads. They are most likely slip-molded. If they are going to be compared to beads made by the Bapterosse Company, it is reasonable to inquire whether Bapterosse made any slip-molded ceramic beads (?). In the past John and Ruth have shown Bapterosse beads that do not look like Prosser beads (but rather look like glass). But since my beads are ceramic, I asked whether they made ceramic beads (?). I KNOW about Prosser beads already.

See?

Once again, I wish I had a nickel for every time I had to write-out my opinions on faience classification issues....

Jamey