Mind The Gap: Conservation of a Deftware Bowl - Victoria and Albert Museum Página 1 de 2

APRIL 1993: NUMBER 7

Mind The Gap: Conservation of a Deftware Bowl

Lorna BarnesCeramic Student on the RCA/V&A Conservation Course

In 1965 several pieces of early English delftware were donated to the Victoria & Albert
Museum by a Professor F.H. Garner. Professor Garner had collected the objects during the
Second World War, when he lived for a time in London. According to legend he had rushed to
the old kiln sites around Lambeth as the bombs were dropping and collected any shards
revealed by the disturbed earth! Using extremely rudimentary conservation skills he
attempted to assemble the fragments with a paste of animal glue and sawdust and it was in
this form that they came to the V&A.

The problems connected with the conservation and restoration of these delftware fragments
then fell to the members of the Ceramics Conservation Studio. They were asked by Michael
Archer, of the V&A Research Department, to conserve the pieces in preparation for (http://www.vam.ac.uk/imag
photography for a catalogue on English delftware. By examining the shapes and designs of -popup.html)
some of the pieces, Michael Archer had ascertained that they were important early pieces Fig. 1. The bowl fragments as
and, as such, merited the extensive conservation that they required. This article outlines the received (click image for larger
conservation treatment of one of these delftware pieces. Michael Archer believes the bowl to version)
be a sugar bowl, which would possibly have had a cover, based on comparisons with objects
in paintings of the same date.

The bowl fragment (Fig. 1), was originally found in 21 pieces. Nineteen of the fragments fit
together and two are 'floating' pieces, that is they do not connect to any of the other
fragments. About two thirds of the bowl is missing. The previous restoration by Professor
Garner was quite crude and this restoration has been reversed. The fragments were cleaned
and the 19 fragments that fitted together were bonded (FIg. 2)

The next stage of the treatment was to find some way of making up the missing area, in order
that the bowl could be viewed as whole object, rather than fragments. This was concidered
necessary not only for the obvious aesthetic reasons, but also because some method of
combining the fragments into one object would make them more stable from a conservation
point of view, less prone to further damage and easier to handle. In addition, combining the (http://www.vam.ac.uk/imag
fragments now avoids the possibility of them inadvertently becoming separated later. Several -popup.html)
approaches to the reconstruction were concidered. Fig. 2. After reversing previous
restoration, the pieces are
cleaned and rebonded (click
One method would have been to use dental wax to take image for larger version)
impressions of the existing interior and exterior surface. These
impressions could then have been used as moulds to build up
the missing area. However this would have been very time-
consuming and would probably have resulted in an imperfect
fill demanding much finishing. In view of extent of the missing
area this method was not really appropriate.

In the past, notably in archeaological conservation, a method of

reconstruction using a core upon which the fragments are
placed and the gaps are filled with plaster has been successfully (http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/45872
employed. This involves making a profile of the object, both -popup.html)
inside and out. A core is then foprmed to match the inside Fig. 3. Marking up the zinc profile
profile of the object. This core is usually made of a soft (click image for larger version)
substance which can be easilily removed later and in the past
plasticine or clay wrapped around cardboard has been used.

Once the core has been formed as accurately as possible, the fragments of the original object
are placed on it and the gaps are filled with plaster. Using the exterior template, the plaster,
while still wet, is pared down until it is flush with the fragments. When the plaster is dry the
core can be removed. The problem with this method is the way the fragments are used in the
construction of the plaster fills, which may put them at risk. A variation on this method is to
construct a core and cover it in plaster, then while the plaster is still wet, turn the plaster shell
against an exterior profile template until a plaster replica of the object is created. The plaster
shell can then be cut to 'let in' the fragments of the original object This method can
sometimes result in an imperfect replica which requires much sanding down.

The final process which was considered was one suggested by a ceramics tutor at the Royal (http://www.vam.ac.uk/imag
College of Art, Mr Tony Sims. This method had been used for a long time in the ceramics -popup.html)
industry as a method of making presentation and production models and the advantages Fig. 4. The plaster is turned using
were speed, quality of finish and the fact that most of the work could be achieved without the zinc profile (click image for
involving the precious fragments. It was this technique that was adopted for the larger version)
reconstruction of the delftware bowl, as outlined in the next column:

http://www.vam.ac.uk/res_cons/conservation/journal/cj7/delftware/index.html 31/01/2011
Mind The Gap: Conservation of a Deftware Bowl - Victoria and Albert Museum Página 2 de 2

• Measurements were taken of the reconstructed fragment to determine the exact diameter, height and
thickness of the beaker
• A zinc template was marked up with all the profile information, inside and outside and then cut to
the inside profile (Fig. 3)
• Plaster was poured into a cup head, or chuck, which was cottled around with plastic. When the
plaster was on the point of setting, the cup head was fixed onto a lathe and the plastic was removed,
leaving a cylinder of almost set plaster attached to the lathe
• The plaster was turned, using the zinc profile, until it resembled the inside profile of the beaker(Fig.
4)
• The zinc template was then recut to match the outside profile of the beaker
• The cup head, with the now solid core, was removed from the lathe and the core was sized with soft
soap, -which would act as a release agent
• The core was then cottled around with plastic again and plaster was poured over the core to cover it
completely
• When the plaster had almost set the cup head was again placed on the lathe and the plastic was
removed
• This time, using the recut zinc template, the plaster was turned to the outside profile.
• When the plaster had thoroughly set the outside shell was removed from the core. This was easy as
the core had been well sized with soap (Fig. 5)
• Finally the foot ring and the rim of the beaker were trimmed after centring the shell onto a whirler
and securing it down with clay (Fig. 6)
The whole process was carried out by Tony Sims at the Royal College of Art and took about five hours. During this time it
was possible to produce two plaster shells. The next part of the process was to cut the part of the beaker that existed away
from the- plaster replica and fit the original fragments in place. A sheet of dental wax was heated and applied to the inside
and outside of the fragment piece. The wax was then carefully trimmed to the edge of the ceramic, removed, then placed on
the plaster shell. An outline of the fragment shapes could be drawn on to the plaster shell in this way. It was then possible to
cut away these pieces with a dental drill. This was quite a tricky process and it was nice to know that there was a spare
plaster shell should the first one break! It was also possible to fit in the two 'floating' fragments by looking at the pattern on
the fragments of the original bowl and calculating where the two pieces would have fitted in (Fig. 7).

Once the plaster shell had been cut, a base colour was applied to it using an air brush. The
shell was sprayed a base colour of bluey - grey with dry artists pigments and an urea
formaldehyde retouching medium - Rustins Plastic Coating. The large fragment piece and
two small floating ones were attached to the tinted plaster shell with Paraloid B72. Any gaps
were then filled with tinted Polyfilla, which was also retouched with dry artists pigments and
Rustins Plastic coating (Fig. 8).

Using the expertise of a skilled potter at the RCA meant that the production of the
plaster shell was relatively quick and precise. Following on from this initial trial Tony Sims
has now made plaster replicas of two more delftware pieces.
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/imag
There are some drawbacks with this method, notably a -popup.html)
problem with using the perfectly circular shells produced on Fig. 7. Cutting the plaster shell to
allow for the 'floating' fragments
the lathe with the fragment pieces from objects which are not to be fitted (click image for larger
perfectly centred. For that reason this process is best suited to version)
fragments which come from perfectly centred objects or where
the majority of the object is missing and only a few fragments
need to be fitted in. In addition, no way of dealing with objects
with undercuts has yet been developed. Nonetheless, this
alliance of modern production methods and old ceramic
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/45877
fragments has proved successful and rewarding and it is hoped
that the process will be developed further. -popup.html)
Fig. 8. The finished bowl (click
image for larger version)

http://www.vam.ac.uk/res_cons/conservation/journal/cj7/delftware/index.html 31/01/2011