Va in VA Posted October 10, 2021 Report Share Posted October 10, 2021 Do you have experience using these two clays? I have used the 181 for years, am intrigued by the lower shrinkage of the 182. How do they compare? Does .5 difference in absorption make a difference? 181, absorption 2.5 and 13% shrinkage. 182, absorption 3% 11% shrinkage, both fired to cone 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldlady Posted October 10, 2021 Report Share Posted October 10, 2021 you might find more info from Standard's technical staff. i looked into using either of them a couple of years ago and would not try them because of the wide range of cone numbers on the box. if you fire either of them currently, how likely are they to leak water after firing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilestrick Posted October 12, 2021 Report Share Posted October 12, 2021 On 10/10/2021 at 9:43 AM, Va in VA said: Do you have experience using these two clays? I have used the 181 for years, am intrigued by the lower shrinkage of the 182. How do they compare? Does .5 difference in absorption make a difference? 181, absorption 2.5 and 13% shrinkage. 182, absorption 3% 11% shrinkage, both fired to cone 6. You should not be using either of those bodies for cone 6 work. They are both under-fired at cone 6, and only mature at cone 10. The cone 6 versions of of 181 is 240, the cone 6 version of 182 is 630. 240 is very smooth, prone to S-cracks, fires to a yellow-white. 630 is fairly smooth but has some fireclay in it that will leave a rough surface if sponged too much. It is very forgiving, and fires to a gray-white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.