Ok, I collect things. Bottles, canning jars, telegraph insulators, and such, and I've noticed that in the late 19th Century, one often sees stoneware bottles and jars and insulators in Great Britian, while glass bottles, jars and insulators are far more commonplace in the United States. In my study of such things, it seems that the production and use of glass was far more common in the United States, while pottery and stoneware, and later proper vitrified porcelain was more common in England. Is there any particular reason for this? Did England lack the raw materials for an extensive glass industry? Am I missing something entirely? It seems to me that the United States more readily turned to glass for utilitarian objects, where England favored ceramics.
This question has been up for ten hours now, and with no answers, I'll suggest a possible avenue of investigation.
I did not know this was the case, and it's a fascinating difference you've identified here. The only thing I can think of that might help explain this is that Britain had a well-developed ceramics industry from the late eighteenth century, often credited to Josiah Wedgewood. It's a partial explanation at best--it doesn't address your questions about raw materials, which it seems unlikely that Britain lacked--but it might have been the case that with a more mature ceramics industry, Britain simply had a greater body of technical knowledge of ceramics. It's a place to start, anyway.