Talk:Gray's Pottery

Factory dates
In Conway (1987, p35) it clearly states the factory was founded in 1907 and closed in 1961. I am therefore reverting to the version with this information. C 679 20:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea who Conway is/was but, after more than 35 years research of Gray's Pottery, I do know the following: AE Gray & Co was 'founded' as a wholesale business in the town of Stoke-upon-Trent (one of the six towns of the City of Stoke-on-Trent) in 1907. It was not a factory in the accepted sense of the word. The Stoke Rate books for 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910 show the presence of AE Gray in Stoke-upon-Trent, the next reference to the company is in the 1915-16 Hanley Rate book. The Pottery Gazette, 1 Nov 1912 p.1217 reports the creation of AE Gray & Co Ltd at Glebe Works, Mayer Street, Hanley. The company, AE Gray & Co Ltd, later commonly known as Gray's Pottery, was registered on 18 October 1912 at Glebe Works, Mayer Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent. This was, in the true sense of the word, a factory, where full decorating facilities were established and persons employed.

As far as I am aware, there are no other primary sources for the operational details of AE Gray & Co Ltd in these first few years of the company's life. I have anecdotal evidence, largely provided by AE Gray's son Robin (1901-1987), regarding the early years and it is from this that I have 'predicted' what happened ie that an 'in-house' manufacturing operation began at Hanley. Stoke was a warehouse, probably with an office, that received products decorated by other firms to Gray's specification - the early heraldic china (Sports China) is a good example - almost certainly produced by Birks, Rawlings' Vine Pottery.

On the point about tea sets, I imagine this is a personal view of 'Beach, Ryan' - I have hundreds of trade references to Gray's output but the only specific reference to tea services that I can find are: a simple listing of items on display at the 1937 Paris exhibition; an entry in the 1943/8 Decorative Arts Year Book; a reference to a purchase by Queen Mary in 1950. I don't think that this constitutes being 'noted for its tea service design'.

Unless you have primary information that contradicts what I have proposed and tried to publish, then I suggest you allow my amendment to be reinstated. Paul Niblett www.grayspottery.co.uk Grayspottery (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:PRIMARY. I do not doubt you are adding anything factually incorrect to the article, but material should generally be provided in secondary sources. I know there is not much information available about this company from last century to be found, but the Wikipedia article should reflect the information that is available and I do not believe cited information should be removed, simply because your research tells you otherwise. To quote: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." C 679 11:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I find this whole saga frustrating in the extreme. I have given you Primary source information (above) which categorically refutes the assertion in your published page, viz: Gray's factory at Mayer Street was founded in 1907.Italic text Gray's factory at Mayer Street didn't come into existence until at least 1911 and is more likely to have been 1912. The BUSINESS was created in 1907 in Back Glebe Street, Stoke-upon-Trent but this was not Mayer Street, Hanley. This is irrefutable!

And as to 'Beach, Ryan's' comments, has he studiously gone through all the trade journals and references from 1907-1961 in order to say the company was 'noted for its tea service design'? I doubt it! And such research would not lead you to that conclusion anyway.

I read and hear that Wikipedia is an important source of knowledge but this saga regarding Gray's Pottery leads me to suspect anything published in its pages. How can one individual with, I suspect, very little research, make a claim (in this case regarding tea service design) that bears no relation to the facts. Read any book on Susie Cooper (eg 'Susie Cooper, A pioneer of modern design', by Casey & Eatwell or 'Susie Cooper, An elegant affair', by Bryn Youds) and you will find no suggestion that Gray's Pottery was 'noted for its tea service design'. Ask any 20th century decorative arts specialist with an interest in ceramics - such as Paul Atterbury or Eric Knowles - they would never suggest that Gray's Pottery was 'noted for its tea service design'. It's a silly claim and one which has no basis in Primary or knowledgable Secondary sources.Grayspottery (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear of your frustration but would you be reassured to read the Gray's Pottery page as put together by the user Grayspottery? The point of Wikipedia is to provide unbiased information based on reliable secondary sources and you seem to be confusing that with providing truthful information – see Verifiability, not truth. I will try to invite interested editors to contribute to this discussion because I can see it would be of benefit for us both, as well as for the article. Which is, by the way, why I created the page... to allow others (including yourself) to cooperatively make a great informative page for this topic. It deserves to have one. I am just concerned that the content stays within policy. Thanks, C 679 19:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm popping in here from WikiProject Business where I saw a request for comment. While I won't go into the details of the discussion here, I would like to point the editors involved to two resources which may be helpful. I suggest that you read Identifying reliable sources to see if it helps, and I suggest that you post a request for comment at Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get the opinion of some people with expertise on sourcing for Wikipedia articles. --Pine✉ 19:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)