The factory that was to dominate the high end of porcelain production in Britain for much of the eighteenth century was established in the London suburb of Chelsea around 1744.[1] This location proved to be well suited for an enterprise that aimed to make luxury goods, since Chelsea was a fashionable residential area, and the factory site was close to the Ranelagh Gardens, which quickly became popular with the affluent classes after its founding in 1746. Unlike the majority of porcelain factories established on the Continent by royal or noble patrons, the Chelsea factory was founded by a silver-smith, designer,[2] and entrepreneur, Nicholas Sprimont (Walloon, 1716–1771[3]), who emigrated from Liège to London around 1742. While some of the silver made by Sprimont, or on which he collaborated, are among the most important works produced in England in the mid-eighteenth century,[4] surviving works by him are rare, although he continued to work as a silversmith while directing the Chelsea factory. It is clear that Sprimont was an astute businessman, however, and his involvement in the London silver trade equipped him well to serve the luxury market in the new medium of porcelain.

It appears that Sprimont was assisted by Charles Gouyn (French, d. 1785), a Huguenot from Dieppe, in establishing the factory, but Gouyn left by 1749 to found his own factory (entry 85).[5] Nonetheless, it was Sprimont who set the artistic direction at Chelsea, and his work as a silversmith and designer determined the character of the forms and sculptural motifs that distinguish Chelsea porcelain from its earliest days.[6] In addition, Sprimont’s keen entrepreneurial sense kept the factory attuned to changes in taste, which allowed Chelsea to remain at the forefront of the porcelain market in England for the first twenty years or so after its founding. He also must have fully understood the need for technical innovation, because the compositions of the soft- paste body and the glaze used at Chelsea were repeatedly altered in the quest for a better and more durable porcelain. The factory changed the mark it employed on three occasions, but the timing of the introduction of new marks does not seem to correspond to changes in the porcelain and glaze recipes.[7]

This figure of a finch on a tree stump dates from the earliest years at Chelsea, which are known as the Triangle period due to the incised triangle mark that was in use from 1745 to 1749. This finch is not marked, but it corresponds in several important aspects to other works from this period that do bear this mark.[8] The soft-paste porcelain made at Chelsea during the Triangle period is characterized by its whiteness, an effect that was sometimes enhanced by the addition of tin to the glaze, which was practiced at some of the French soft-paste porcelain factories at this same time (entries 47–52). Chelsea’s ability to produce a soft-paste body of this quality so soon after it was established was a remarkable achievement, and while the factory would continue to experiment with ingredients, the first soft paste made at Chelsea allowed it to produce both wares with ambitious low-relief decoration and porcelain sculptures with the degree of detail seen in this figure of a finch. The modeling of the finch is notable for the precise rendering of the bird’s head, which conveys a sense of alertness and intelligence, and for the subtle forms of the bird’s body in which both the structure and feathers are skillfully suggested. The finch sits on a tree stump that, too, has been modeled with an unusual degree of realism, making the stump an important part of the composition rather than simply a support for the bird. The extreme naturalism with which the finch is depicted relates closely to the naturalism found in many of the factory’s works from these years when the applied flowers, leaves, and various creatures play an innovative and outsized role in the decoration. The finch was left “in the white,” as were many of the wares produced during the Triangle period, which suggests the factory recognized the quality of the porcelain it was able to produce.

Despite the technical and artistic success embodied by the finch, the factory appears to have produced only a small number of examples of this figure,[9] and the sculptural production in general was quite limited during the Triangle period, with tablewares and tea wares seemingly dominating production. Although the quantity of the factory’s output was modest during its first few years, it had already attracted sufficient attention for the newspaper the Daily Advertiser to state in March 1745, “We hear that China made at Chelsea is arriv’d to such Perfection, as to equal if not surpass the finest old Japan, allow’d so by the most approved Judges here; and that the same is in so high Esteem of the Nobility, and the Demand so great, that a sufficient Quantity can hardly be made to answer the Call for it.”[10] Four years after this assessment appeared in the press, the factory moved to larger quarters nearby, a reflection of its initial success. Reopening in May 1750, Chelsea had already advertised a range of new models and designs, indicating that it would display “a Taste entirely new.”[11] The ceramic body and glaze were modified as well, and a new mark was introduced consisting of an anchor in relief raised on a small circle. An anchor in various forms would serve as the mark for the remainder of the factory’s history, and its adoption coincided with the factory’s shift into a more mature phase.

Footnotes
(For key to shortened references see bibliography in Munger, European Porcelain in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. NY: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2018)
1 For a general history of the factory, see Spero 1995, pp. 3–11; Adams 2001; Adams 2010. This author is
much indebted to the research of these two scholars.
2 According to testimony from Sprimont’s wife, he was actively involved in training workers at the factory in modeling and decorating; Mallet 1996.
3 Sprimont was from Liège in what is now eastern Belgium, and as the region is known as Wallonia, its
residents are called Walloons.
4 For example, see the Ashburnham centerpiece, Victoria and Albert Museum, London (M.46:1, 2- 1971); the kettle on stand with a burner in the State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg (Lopato 2015, pp. 137–43, no. 45/1); and the Neptune centerpiece in the British Royal Collection (RCIN 50282). Sprimont’s exact role in the creation of these objects remains a topic of debate.
5 Gouyn’s role may have been more extensive than previously realized; see Dragesco 1993, pp. 14–19.
6 While the products reflected Sprimont’s vision, the degree to which he modeled the figures and wares in the period before the arrival of the modeler Joseph Willems (Flemish, 1715/16–1766) in 1748 is not yet known. It has been suggested that Sprimont may have been responsible for everything during these years; Mallet 1984, p. 237; H. Young 1999, p. 36.
7 Spero 1995, p. 4.
8 Tilley 1950.
9 Other known examples are in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (1988.781), and Colonial Williamsburg, Williamsburg, Va. (1963- 64). There were two figures of a finch in the Rous Lench Collection, of which one is MMA 2014.565 (both are illustrated in Tilley 1950, fig. 3).
10 Spero 1995, p. 4. Simon Spero notes that Sprimont may have influenced the wording of the announcement. 11 Adams 2001, p. 40.