On the other hand, that standard authority, Mr. Chaffers, author of “Marks and Monograms,” says that “the question about hard-paste porcelain having been made at Lowestoft is placed beyond dispute upon the best authority. It was introduced about 1773,” and he offers a mass of testimony to prove his statements. Mr. Owens fancies that sailing-masters took out English Delft bowls to be reproduced in China; Mr. Marryatt and Mr. Franks, that Chinese porcelain was imported to Holland and painted in Delft; another collector believes that Chinese kaolin and clay were brought to Lowestoft, and there mixed, shaped, fired and painted; and still another, that Lowestoft porcelain was taken out to China to be decorated. The Catalogue of the Museum of Practical Geology in London very shrewdly and non-responsibly says of its Lowestoft specimens: “It should be understood that several of the following pieces are exhibited as ‘Lowestoft china’ simply in deference to the opinions of certain collectors and not as authenticated specimens.” To show the doubtful eyes with which the Lowestoft aspirants are regarded by authorities in England, I will state that in this last-mentioned catalogue but twelve lots of Lowestoft porcelain and pottery are named—a small proportion—and a sharp lesson to American collectors with their reckless and sweeping Lowestoft classifications. None of the twelve bear any distinguishing Lowestoft marks or names. The descriptions of some of these are not at all like our American Lowestoft wares. One reads: “Two plates ornamented with borders in brown and gold, and with views of a Suffolk village and river painted in sepia in a circular panel in centre of each plate.” From these few extracts which I have taken from various authorities, it is plainly seen that no decision, no judgment can be given in this Lowestoft case, that each seeker after china and truth must judge for himself.