Museum curators are, like private collectors, affected by many of the same constraints but there is an additional one it is not solely their collection. They are usually adding to an existing collection that someone else began and that will continue to grow after their care of it has ended. As such there is often a sense that curators have to be able to justify their purchases, perhaps rather more than a private collector does. A museum collection is not a vehicle solely for personal preferences and prejudices.

As a result most museums have a collecting policy, usually reviewed every five years, which outlines what they will, and as importantly what they will not, collect. In the case of the Potteries Museum & Art Gallery, our historical collecting concentrates on marked, attributable or documentary pieces, primarily from Staffordshire, then comparative pieces from other British ceramics centres and, lastly, foreign ceramics. This is, however, a very broad remit and the personal judgment of curators, with their knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses in the existing collections, is important.

Like most museums we have, traditionally, collected fine and exceptional pieces pieces which are, as it were, museum quality but, while this creates a beautiful collection, it distorts the historical picture the majority of the wares made throughout history were commonplace wares for the mass market and for use, not fine wares for preservation. Although we continue to collect the exceptional wares we have in recent years made a conscious effort to collect pieces to which we can add some historical or social context.

There are a number of ways in which we are doing this. By studying the surviving contemporary records relating to the history of the Staffordshire pottery industry industry journals, newspapers and trade directories - we are gaining a better insight into what was made rather than what has been collected.

Through archaeology we are able to find unequivocal evidence both of what was made by individual makers and what was used by consumers. This is important, yet such evidence cannot be gained by a study solely of existing collections.

Factory records, where they survive, are also important. Most commonly these are pattern books containing annotated drawings of designs for production, but they can also include sales ledgers, employment records and accounts.

Additionally a significant part of our collection has been acquired not simply because it is attributable to a known factory, but because of its association a tea service bought to mark a particular family event or a piece known to have been decorated by a named worker. This information, often in the form of letters, receipts, photographs, apprenticeship indentures, etc., needs to be documented as carefully as the ceramics and cross-referenced with the object to which it relates.

A number of our recent acquisitions are directly attributable to these criteria.

In the 19^th century Staffordshire potters exported millions of pieces of undecorated ironstone china to the United States. It was made almost entirely for export and can still be found, reasonably, in large quantities in the USA. Since, however, it was not made for the domestic market it was not acquired by British collectors, and as late as 1995 there was not a single piece among the 40,000 items in the Potteries Museum & Art Gallerys collection. Contemporary accounts of the popularity of white ironstone in the USA show how important it was to the prosperity of the 19^th-century Staffordshire potteries, and a conscious decision was made to rectify the Museums deficiency in 1996 when four items were purchased, in the USA for the collection. Our criteria were that the pieces should be marked with a makers name, a pattern or shape name and should be dateable to a narrow period of production. Other items have since been added to this group, particularly of types made especially for the American market and while it is still a small part of our collection its formation is entirely due to the historical documentation of the importance of this type of ware. [fig.1]

Work by museum archaeologists has helped to classify wares previously unattributable to a manufacturer and consequently to identify potential future purchases. Between 1978 and 1981 they excavated the pottery dump site for the William Greatbatch factory, Fenton, Stoke-on-Trent , which operated between 1762 and 1782. Using the information from this excavation, supplemented by contemporary documentation, the Museum has bought several unmarked items which can be positively identified as Greatbatchs products, adding to its 18^th-century pottery holdings and complementing the excavated wares with extant pieces. [fig.2] The research into this factory has also been published, enabling other collectors to make similar decisions.

Occasionally the Museum has a chance to acquire pieces and historic documentation relating to them at the same time. In 1997 Charles Green offered his collection of Crown Staffordshire bone china to the Potteries Museum. His family had founded and run the factory for over 140 years and many of the pieces had been in the family since they were made . Uniquely, in addition to the china, he was also able to offer a number of the factory pattern books, covering the years 1875-1902. These books gave many details about the individual patterns who had designed them, when they had been introduced, variations on the main design, even which firms supplied the enamel colours to be used in painting them. [fig. 3] As a result we now not only know much more about the pieces, but also about the factory that produced them.

In 2001 the Museum was offered an early 19^th-century tea service, made by the New Hall factory.[fig.4] It is unusual, not only in being virtually complete, but because it had remained in the same family throughout its history. A series of letters from the late 19^th and 20^th centuries accompanied the service, tracing its descent and transition from its original status (as a wedding present) into a family heirloom.

In each of the above cases the objects that we acquired fitted our acquisition policy criteria, even without the additional documentation, but that documentation has meant that we have a greater understanding of their original context and can better interpret the objects to wider and future audiences. With increasing constraints on museums collecting, primarily finance and space, such additional benefits can be a deciding factor in whether or not to acquire.