“We do not think that any porcelain productions would equal those of the Coalport works. The show-case that the owners exhibit independently, and their manufactures, displayed by various firms, have, in all instances, the highest merit. We are well aware we shall be informed that our praise is but a stale echo, as this firm is renowned of old for producing the finest china, having some process of blending or applying chemical agencies known only to themselves, and being celebrated over Europe for the beautiful colour of the gold—a matter of course of very considerable consequence, as it is used so bounteously in the ornamentation of china.” In an article on the “world’s great show,” as the Viennese were pleased to call it, the same Journal remarked— “We have latterly challenged the continental world to compete with us and to contend for equality in many branches of manufacture into which art excellence and refinement of taste enter, and we have carried off the palm. Neither Sèvres nor Dresden has of late years compared with the best English productions. There is no doubt of this; and most especially we might instance as successful rivalry the progress that the Coalport Works have made. The marked patronage of Royal circles on the Continent and at home for their productions is, perhaps, the best proof of the truth of our statement. . . . They have been especially practical in their catering for the Vienna Exhibition, and met the foreigner at his weak point rather than courted rivalry at his strongest. No nation on the Continent can compete with the French as regards the painting, though Coalport could and will challenge with every hope of success for the first place when it comes to the question of rivalry in design, exquisite form, graceful ornamentation, brilliancy of colour, bright burnish of gold, and tenderness of glaze in merely decorative porcelain works. The specimens of this character which are sent will, we are sure, worthily maintain the reputation of Coalport.” * * * * * The _Standard_ also, May 23, 1873, in an article on the “Ceramic Art,” had the following:—