Old teapot missing lid

I saw this, saw it had age, thought it would be a good study piece for cheap. Its missing its lid so clearly has no value, but it looks old - I'm guessing somewhere in the 19th century though I don't know where from early to late. No marking, but the transfer print with hand painted accents and snake(?) spout might help date it. Fairly large but holds only about 4 cups. I have to admit I was inspired by the thread on here about the $2 pot that sold at auction for a gazillion - I KNOW this is completely different, but I want to learn old pottery better - is this soft-paste, hard-paste, or true porcelain and how can I tell the difference?

 

English transferware and I'd think early 19th C. Not porcelain, but some kind of hard paste china.

 

So why hard paste and not soft paste or porcelain?

 

Not see through enough for porcelain. And it's that kind of solidity that hard paste has. Which is not a very good explanation, it's based on having seen a fair bit.

 

I would avoid the term "hard paste". I've never seen it used except in reference to porcelain. There are, of course, many different ceramic formulas of varying hardness and firing requirements.

It looks to me like your teapot is covered in an opaque white glaze. That supports the idea of a softer ceramic. One point of porcelain, especially early porcelain, is its whiteness. Not a lot of point in glazing it with more white. There also seem to be fleabites on the rim - little nibbles. That's not typical for porcelain. Porcelain chips tend to be smooth and shell-like (conchoidal).

 

It's great to see this kind of detailed, educational, explanation.

 

Usually these types are a form of earthenware rather than porcelain.

 

I can see through this when held up to the light; in fact I can see the floral pattern rather well. Unlike the Wedgwood pieces I showed that pass no light. I'll try to take a picture of it. For that reason I think it is porcelain, though I don't pretend to know what I'm talking about.