Models and Molds

Today, the variety of forms in ceramics seems virtually limitless, especially with the aid of modern technologies like 3D printing. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, however, crafting ceramic objects that could not be thrown on a potter’s wheel demanded the expertise of a specialist known as the vormer (molder). This craftsman was responsible for designing and producing the molds that enabled the creation of an extraordinary range of Delftware—from utilitarian vessels to exotic figures inspired by Chinese porcelain

Although not the first to write on the subject, Gerrit Paape (1752–1803) published what is now perhaps the most renowned treatise on Delftware production in 1794: De Plateelbakker of Delftsch Aardewerkmaaker, in which he documented the manufacturing process in remarkable detail. In his chapter on shaping, the vormer is presented not merely as a technician, but as an artist in his own right.(1) Although most of them remain anonymous, their work provides valuable insight into the creative force behind Delftware’s three-dimensional forms.

The Mold-Making Process
Paape describes how the increasing complexity of shapes quickly surpassed the capabilities of the potter’s wheel, necessitating the use of molds. The vormer would begin by sculpting a prototype from clay, refining its features using sticks, pins, brushes, and sponges. Once dry, this model was surrounded by a dam of clay to create the mold’s outer form. A liquid plaster mixture was then poured into the cavity; once hardened, the original figure was removed and the mold was ready for use. Clay, rolled to the required thickness, was pressed into the mold with a damp sponge. In multipart forms, the various segments were carefully joined before drying.

Finishing touches included smoothing seams (schrooien) with metal tools and affixing additional elements—such as handles, feet, or ornaments—using smaller molds or hand tools. These methods allowed for the production of detailed and complex objects.

Although Paape describes the situation in the eighteenth century based on the accounts of Lambertus Sanderus—owner of De Paauw (The Peacock) factory from 1763 to 1806—using molds was already known to the Romans.(2) The technique of shaping figures and reliefs using plaster molds taken from wax originals was also employed in early seventeenth-century France.

In the Netherlands, from the third quarter of the century onward, modeled ornamentation began to evolve more distinctly, reflecting a shift in artistic ambition and technique. Human, animal, and mythical figures became integral parts of ceramic design, serving as handles, bases, finials, and spouts, or as independant figurines.

Guillaume Nieullet: Master Molder of Delft

In addition to the well-known blue and white Chinese porcelain, Chinese red stoneware teapots began inspiring Dutch potters during the third quarter of the seventeenth century. According to Lambertus Cleffius—potter and, from 1670 until 1691, owner of De Metaale Pot (The Metal Pot) factory—he had succeeded in replicating these teapots with notable accuracy by 1678.(4) Samuel van Eenhoorn, owner of De Grieksche A (The Greek A) factory from 1678 to 1686, was also actively engaged in the emerging field of red stoneware teapots, working with Ary de Milde, who would later become the most prominent figure in this specialized branch of Delftware focused on unglazed, Yixing-inspired red stoneware teapots. Together, they applied for a patent in 1679 to produce this type of refined stoneware. This underscores the competitive dynamic between factories at the time.

Alongside the innovation of red stoneware material, the use of relief decoration marked a significant advancement within the Delft pottery industry. Creating the molds for such intricate ornamentation required a high level of skill. While there must have been a small number of craftsmen who possessed such expertise, the French-born Guillaume Nieullet—trained as a beeldsnijder (woodcarver)—is the only one whose name has been securely documented. His recognition is not solely due to his detailed contract with the De Metaale Pot factory in Delft, but equally to the refined quality of the objects associated with his tenure. Together, these suggest a role of considerable responsibility and extraordinary technical and artistic proficiency.

Nieullet settled in Delft in the mid-1680s, after a period in Rotterdam. In 1691, Lambertus van Eenhoorn, Cleffius’s successor, contracted him to produce finely detailed red stoneware teapots exclusively for the factory.(5) However, plaques featuring molded floral reliefs—some bearing Lambertus Cleffius’s mark—may indicate that the collaboration with De Metaale Pot began even earlier. A number of these plaques are decorated by Frederik van Frytom, widely regarded as the most accomplished faience painter of his time (Fig. 1). For an innovative enterprise such as De Metaale Pot, it would have been a logical choice to unite the talents of the most skilled artists available to create such plaques.

The decision to contract Nieullet for a longer period underscores De Metaale Pot’s clear ambition to elevate its products. The teapots produced during his time at the factory feature exquisitely crisp reliefs, a testament to his craftsmanship. His contract was extended in 1693 for another ten years, reflecting the success of their partnership.(6) It stipulated a full year’s employment, suggesting either substantial demand or high expectations.(7) Yet only a handful of red stoneware teapots marked for Van Eenhoorn are known today. Three reside in private collections, one of which was formerly part of the Aronson Antiquairs Collection (inv. no. D2209). Two additional examples are held by the Groninger Museum, including one featuring a seated Buddha amid blossoming plum branches (Fig. 2).

Beyond teapots, Guillaume Nieullet was also commissioned to produce objects described as rariteiten (rarities), a term likely referring to Delft figures—a genre that rose to prominence in the late seventeenth century.(8) This interpretation is supported by the existence of red stoneware figurines (Fig. 3a–b) that have direct counterparts in Delft faience, rendered in both blue-and-white and polychrome versions. One such figure, bearing the initials “G.N.,” likely refers to Nieullet himself (Fig. 4).(9) Another example—a richly decorated blue-and-white bowl on feet—also carries a “GN” mark, reinforcing the attribution through both stylistic features and signature.(10) In addition to these, Van Aken-Fehmers mentions a figure of a boy with a thorn in the Evenepoel Collection in Brussels, marked “G.N. IR.,” which closely resembles a figurine marked “LVE” in the Kunstmuseum The Hague.(11)

The existence of a particularly refined bust of Queen Mary marked for Samuel van Eenhoorn, owner of De Grieksche A (The Greek A) factory from 1671 to 1686, suggests that this factory was already collaborating with a vormer before De Metaale Pot did (Fig. 5). This rare piece could represent the earliest known bust produced in Delft, positioning De Grieksche A as a potential pioneer in the development of sculptural faience.

Although the bust of Queen Mary bears the mark of Samuel van Eenhoorn, it exhibits notable stylistic and compositional similarities to later works marked “LVE” for Lambertus van Eenhoorn at De Metaale Pot (Fig. 6).(12) This raises the possibility that Nieullet initially worked at De Grieksche A under Samuel van Eenhoorn—or his widow—for a short time. Although no direct evidence survives, it is not unlikely that Lambertus van Eenhoorn became aware of Nieullet’s artistic talents prior to their formal collaboration. Given that his sister-in-law briefly directed De Grieksche A following the death of her husband, Samuel van Eenhoorn, it is plausible that she may have played a role in introducing Nieullet’s work to the family circle. Nevertheless, such a connection remains speculative.

Later, when Adrianus Kocx, and subsequently his son Pieter, owned De Grieksche A, the production of figurines continued. Striking similarities can be observed between these works and those produced under Lambertus van Eenhoorn.(13) The earlier rivalry between the two factories had diminished, likely due to the familial ties between their owners.(14) It is conceivable that molds—or even molders—were shared between the workshops.

Sources and Cross-Material Influence

Vormers must have had access to Chinese figures or illustrations, which were used as sources for mold-making. Alongside these Eastern forms, European models gained traction, some based on the work of Giambologna (1529–1608). His sculptures were well known in the Netherlands, frequently appearing in Dutch interior paintings.(15) These models were recreated in both red stoneware and glazed Delft faience.

Some ceramic forms appear to have been modeled after metal prototypes. Although wax is mentioned in French ceramic production, it was likely used in Delft as well—particularly for capturing the details of silver or pewter objects.(16) Given the striking similarities between certain faience pieces and their metal counterparts, it is possible that Delft artisans used such materials to create precise impressions for mold-making.

Due to the limited availability of physical models, vormers likely drew inspiration from engravings or exercised considerable creative freedom. This artistic autonomy places their work on par with that of Delft’s renowned painters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eighteenth-Century Developments

Interest in figurines and complex forms continued into the eighteenth century, further spurred by the rise of porcelain and its expansive design potential. Consequently, the role of molders gained even more prominence. Despite their importance, individual Delft molders remain anonymous.

A seventeenth-century ordinance forbidding Delft-trained craftsmen from working outside the city—reissued in 1755—was likely designed to protect local expertise, underscoring the demand for the labor of skilled molders and the value placed on them.(17)

The Amsterdam-based “Delft” faience factory Blankenburg, operated by Ary Blankers, offers a compelling case. There, the foreigner Willem T(r)usnig was engaged specifically for making molds, probably due to the lack of local candidates. Described as a “very fine and skilled stukadoor,” he was responsible for creating new forms and models.(18) His artistry was acknowledged by contemporary writer P.J. Kasteleijn, who praised T(r)usnig in his detailed account of the factory.(19)

T(r)usnig was not alone. German-born Christian Gottlieb Berger, trained at Meissen, began as a molder at the Weesp porcelain factory. Dutch porcelain workshops typically could not support full-time employment for molders; it was common for them to create a set of reusable molds and then seek new engagements—mirroring practices in German porcelain production.(20) Some of these itinerant craftsmen may also have worked in Delft.

Evidence suggests they occasionally brought molds with them.(21) The recurrence of identical models across Delft factories supports this idea. For instance, a pair of butter tubs with recumbent goats marked “AP” for Anthony Pennis, owner of De Twee Scheepjes (The Two Little Ships) factory from 1764 to 1770 and later by his widow Pennis-Overgaauw until 1782 (Fig. 7), closely resembles goats on butter tubs from Albertus Kiell, owner of De Witte Ster (The White Star) factory from 1762 to 1774 (Fig. 8). Additionally, similar goats on butter tubs from De Drie Astonne, circa 1760–1785, are preserved in the Kunstmuseum Den Haag (inv. no. 400892).

A notable group comprises four figurines marked “DH.” Though seemingly painted by the same hand, the incised “DH” mark—applied before painting on three pieces—points to a now-unknown vormer.(22) One figure, a bagpipe player (Fig. 9), is marked “IP” for Jan Pennis (De Twee Scheepjes, 1723–1763). A matching but less detailed version from the Aronson Antiquairs Collection (inv. no. D2449), attributed to Johannes van Duijn, owner of De Porceleyne Schotel from 1764 to 1772, lacks the “DH” mark, suggesting that the mold may have been loaned or sold rather than transferred by the vormer himself (Fig. 10). The presence of an inscribed signature highlights the artist’s importance within the production process.

Conclusion

Despite the centrality and continuous use of molds in Delft ceramic production, not a single complete example—or even a fragment—has survived. Some were designed for one-time use; others, particularly those made from plaster, simply eroded over time.  Their absence is a significant loss, as they could have deepened our understanding of the technical and artistic processes involved.The image at the beginning of this article however, offers a glimpse of the vormer’s work and his moulds on the left side.

Nevertheless, through archival records, surviving objects, and stylistic analysis, we begin to glimpse the expertise and influence of these artisans. The story of molders like Guillaume Nieullet demonstrates that their work was not merely mechanical but deeply creative. As research continues, there is hope that new findings will further illuminate the indispensable, yet often overlooked, contributions of these master craftsmen to the enduring legacy of Delftware.

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

1. Paape, 1794, p. 15.
2. McNab, 1987, p. 7
3. Ibid
4. De Visser, 1957, p. 104.
5. De Visser, 1957, p. 105.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. De Visser, 1957, p. 106.
9. Aronson, 2025, p. 94.
10. Groen, 2018, p. 412.
11. Van Aken-Fehmers, Delfts Aardewerk, vol. 1, 1999, p. 192; Helbig (undated), p. 156.
     According to Henry Havard, Guillaume Nieullet occasionally used the mark “GN TR.” Havard interpreted the abbreviation “TR” as “Te Rotterdam” (meaning “in Rotterdam” in Dutch), suggesting that Nieullet may have been active in the faience industry in Rotterdam. In this context, a mark such as “GN IR” could similarly stand for “In Rotterdam.”
     An object in the collection of the Kunstmuseum in The Hague bears the mark “LVE NH,” which has been proposed as an alternative to the “GN” mark. The abbreviation “NH” is thought to refer to Nieulleth, a variant spelling of Nieullet’s name. Additional research into Guillaume Nieullet’s oeuvre and potential signatures is required to gain a clearer understanding.
     See, for example, two vases in the shape of a man with a turban, and a bust of a helmeted figure, all in the collection of Paleis Het Loo (inv. nos. RL 1042, RL 1161, and RL 5).
12. See, for example, two vases in the shape of a man with a turban, and a bust of a helmeted figure, all in the collection of Paleis Het Loo (inv. nos. RL 1042, RL 1161, and RL 5).
13. Lambooy, 2010, p. 10 and pp. 16–19.
14. Lambertus van Eenhoorn and Adrianus Kocx were brothers-in-law.
15. Radcliffe, 1978, p. 59.
16. McNab, 1987, p. 6.
17. Van Dam, 2001, p. 47.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Van Dam, 2001, p. 45.
21. Ibid.

22. Two additional examples are polychrome figures of a burgher, each incised with the initials DH on one side of the base. One of these is also marked IP for Johannes Pennis, owner of De Porceleyne Schotel (The Porcelain Dish) factory from 1723 to 1763, and is illustrated in Aronson 2005, pp. 50–51. A fourth example is a figure of the Virgin and Child, with painted initials D:H: and dated 1749, which is part of the collection of the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (inv. no. BK-1973-207).

Literature

Aronson, Robert D., Céline Ariaans, and Femke Haitsma Mulier, Delftware. Past Echoes, Present Treasures, Amsterdam, 2025.

Van Dam, Jan Daniël, “De productie van porselein en faience in Nederland (1755–1775),” in: Rococo in Nederland, Zwolle, 2001.

Groen, Leen, Natuurlijk Mooi: Een selectie uit de Terra Verde Collectie, part 2, 2018.

Lambooy, F. Suzanne, “Facing East: Oriental Sources for Dutch Delftware Chinoiserie Figures,” in: Dutch Delftware, Antwerp, 2010.

McNab, Jessie, Seventeenth-Century French Ceramic Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1987.

Paape, Gerrit, De Plateelbakker of Delftsch Aardewerkmaaker, Dordrecht, 1794; 1928 reproduction.

Radcliffe, A., Giambologna 1529–1608: Sculptor to the Medici, Edinburgh, London, Vienna, 1978.

De Visser, Minke A., “Roode Delftsche theepotten van Lambertus van Eenhoorn en De Rotte in het Groninger Museum,” in: Oud Holland, vol. 72, 1957.

Front image

Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond d’Alembert, Fayencerie, Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, vol. 4 (plates). Paris, 1765.