For years the antiques community has been confused about labeling and defining pottery, especially when it comes to the commonly mislabeled term mochaware.
I may be the first to say, though others would agree, there’s no such thing as “mochaware.” (By others, I mean those who understand how to label pottery.)
There are other incorrect terms thrown around in the antiques world. These would include such terms as spongeware, spatterware, rockinghamware, rabbitware, and lusterware, as well as others. All these terms address the decorations, not the clay, which should be the primary factor in naming pottery.
Under the broad category of earthenwares, there are five types of wares: creamware, redware, stoneware, yellow ware, and whitewares. The problem in identifying and defining mochaware is simple—mocha is a motif or design, not a ware.
Using “ware” with mocha and other terms has developed as a sort of slang accepted by many in the antiques world and some museums. The terminology is incorrect, and I’ll go into greater detail as to why I think this is so. I will also explain why I think the term mocha should apply to those decorations with dendritic patterns—not cat’s eye, earthworm, or other slip decorations.
In the October 1989 Antiques Journal article “What is Mochaware? Or What it is Not!” by Rufus Foshee, Foshee stated that it would be easier if those of us concerned with accurately defining pottery would agree that examples of decorated yellow ware that have seaweed and marbleized decoration are just decorated yellow ware, and they do not belong properly to a category known as “mochaware.” I would argue that there is no category at all that should be identified as “mochaware,” and that those of us concerned with accurately defining pottery would agree that misnomers like this lead to more confusion rather than clarification.
Let’s begin with defining a ware. A ware should be determined by its clay. Each of the wares I mentioned earlier have a different color clay. For example, redware is so named because the clay is red. Sometimes you get pieces of pottery with a mixture of clays, but rarely an even mixture, so determining if it is cream, red, yellow, stone, or white is not a problem. I have often been asked “what if the piece is covered entirely with a glaze. How does anyone tell if it is stoneware or yellow ware?” (I used these because they seem to be confused the most. There are some similar forms, and occasionally you will find yellow ware with some stoneware properties.) My answer is if you can’t see any clay and you’re not sure, then you should ask someone who knows forms and glazes and has the knowledge to help you.
Once you determine the kind of ware one has, you can add the decoration to describe it. There are many decorations for pottery, but this discussion will focus on mocha and slip designs.
If we can agree that mocha is not a ware, then we can also agree with Noel Teulon-Porter (1884-1962), an English collector and writer. What Teulon-Porter identified as mocha designs (those diffused patterns of tree, feather, moss, fern, and seaweed) were created by a very specific process. This process is the saturated infusion of tobacco, turpentine, and acid ramifying into resemblances of seaweed, tree-like, and other similar designs. These were formed by holding a wet pot and dropping the tobacco infusion directly onto the piece or onto a slip band causing dendritic patterns to form, such as tree-like motifs.
The term mocha originally derives its name from the chocolate brown color of quartz stones found in Arabia. When the stones were fractured, dendritic or tree-like designs appeared. Teulon-Porter was not obsessed with seaweed examples; he was merely trying to separate those examples with dendritic patterns from those with slip decorations.
Slip-decorated pottery shouldn’t be confused with mocha designs. Slip designs come from clay derivatives, not tea or tobacco infusions. I often see slip banded, cat’s eye, earthworm, marbleized, and other variegated designs in books, at shows, and shops that are labeled mocha or mochaware. This happens whether a piece is actually yellow ware or creamware. Logically, pottery would be labeled as creamware or yellow ware with a mocha or slip design. For example, you could name a piece a mocha-decorated yellow ware bowl and some pattern if you like (tree, feather, fern, seaweed etc. Another example would be a slip-decorated creamware mug and some pattern (cat’s eye, earthworm, checkered, marbleized, etc.)
If the labeling gets too lengthy then shorten it, but label the ware by its clay body not its decoration. The naming of decorations is open to interpretation. For example, cat’s eye has no real named technique, though it was probably produced very early in the 19th century along earthworm designs. A patent was given to Richard Waters of Lambeth, London, in 1811. He developed a technique for decoration by using a three-chambered bottle called a worming pot, allowing for tri-colored decorations.
Everyone seems to be content with using names that have been tossed around in the past. I think it’s time for some new direction from people who are at the forefront of archaeological evidence, lectures, and museum displays. Education is a revolving change of ideas where schools are responsible for teaching students. Are we not to be responsible for educating the antiques public? I realize that this is not an overnight process, but I cannot accept that it’s too late to change the terminology whether popular or not.
John Gallo is the author of Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Yellow Ware (1985).
Originally published in the November 2026 issue of Maine Antique Digest. © 2026 Maine Antique Digest
