The first work made seems to have been in imitation of Chinese porcelain, and it is doubtful if much original designing was done at Chelsea. Chaffers says: "The fine vases in the French style, in imitation of Sèvres, with gros bleu, crimson, turquoise, and apple-green, were made from about 1760 to 1765." The illustration given (Fig. 147) is one of their most highly-decorated vases, and is unquestionably brilliant. But it has the vice, as it seems to me, of over-decoration; there is no restraint, none of the delicacy of true art. The form, too, lacks perfectness in many ways. The want of invention or original design in England would seem to indicate that porcelain was not a natural or spontaneous art there. In France and in Saxony, on the contrary, while much of the taste is questionable, and some of it bad, many original and peculiar works were designed and executed. This was not the case in England; and, indeed, excepting Wedgwood, we can hardly point to any conspicuous examples of creative power. Here the god of Trade comes in, for it _pays better_ to copy than to create. [Illustration: FIG. 147.--_Fine Chelsea Vase._] About 1769 the Chelsea works went into the hands of Duesbury, of Derby, who carried them on in connection with his Derby works until about 1784, when all were transferred to Derby. The paste or body used at Chelsea was so soft and tender that it was nearly valueless for works of use. It was therefore confined to articles of beauty and luxury, such as vases, bowls, dishes, cups, and tea-services; also to figures in great variety, like those made at Bow. These are much, sought for, and command high prices. They have been counterfeited to some extent. One very curious incident is quoted by Marryat, from Faulkner's "History of Chelsea:" "Mr. H. Stephens was told by the foreman of the china-factory (then in the workhouse of St. Luke's, Middlesex), that Dr. Johnson had conceived a notion that he was capable of improving on the manufacture of china." He visited the factory with his house-keeper, had access to the various mixing-rooms, made his own composition, had them baked, etc., but always "completely failed." The doctor retired in disgust. That the brain of the purblind, the prejudiced, the arrogant British philosopher should have thought of many things, and should have believed himself capable of any and all things, is not surprising; but the sight of him in a porcelain-factory might well enough have originated the stories in history of "the bull in a china-shop." One might be pardoned for paying a "good penny" for a teacup modeled by the dexterous hands of Dr. Johnson.