posted 06-26-2010 12:58 PM            

This is something I have been wanting to do for a long time -- see if I can learn something about this unusual piece of Tiffany flatware.

About 35 years ago I started collecting sterling flatware in singles, no multiples -- the more unusual the pattern and the bigger the piece the better. One day at Jean's Silversmiths on W. 45th in NYC I wandered to the back of the store and found drawers of flatware and immediately went to the drawer marked "Tiffany". In it I found this small fork and two large dinner forks I later learned were Lap Over Edge and bought them all.

I almost did not buy this one because I found the pattern almost weird, but then did buy it just because of that. Since then I have been on the lookout for something else with this pattern, but to no avail. And over time much information about Tiffany has become known, especially in the books by Mr's Carpenter and Hood. But, still this pattern has never been seen by me again.

I have found two pieces of holloware with design similar motif, on two different websites, and both call the pattern Wave. But, I have never been able to find any flatware with that name.

I use this as a dessert fork, but think it may be a fish fork. If anyone can say for sure, it would be nice to know. (It is 6 1/4" long)

Here it is:

Here is the mark, which dates it to the Charles L. Tiffany period of 1891-1902. It also has what I believe to be a pattern number -- 391.

One more piece of information: the fork has a full name on the back which I find unusual. It was given to a gentleman who was "the 3rd" in his family. He was someone of note from an important MA family and he was a young married gentleman in his 30's working in NYC as an attorney at the time this was given to him. (This has all been discovered via internet research I have done recently.)

So, I am also curious not only about this pattern, and what the significance of the pattern number may be, but also curious about why a married man would have been given a fork with his name on it as it seems to be something "they" or "she" would have been given?

And, of course I am wondering if there is an entire set of this someplace, possibly still with the family?

So, I am eager to hear from anyone with knowledge or a good guess. And, thanks, in advance.

Elizabeth

posted 06-26-2010 09:27 PM            

I do understand that there is fake Tiffany, but it seems to mostly be fake new silver jewelry on ebay that is at issue -- per what I found online and which I have known about for a while now (in addition to sterling flatware I also collect vintage costume jewelry and belong to several discussion groups in which the issue of fake Tiffany jewelry on ebay has come up.) I was not able to find anything about fake antique sterling flatware when I did an online search -- but found many articles about the fake silver jewelry and some websites happily offering it for sale, as fake Tiffany jewelry.

Here is what an article about the 2004 suit said, "This year, Tiffany randomly bought silver "Tiffany" jewelry on eBay and found that 73% of it was counterfeit, 5% of it was genuine and the rest was promoted as "Tiffany-like" but not promoted as genuine." This same issue and information is referenced in a 2010 legal proceding as well.

The company is concerned because someone else is selling new merchandise as being made by them when it wasn't and are thereby reaping profits that would be Tiffany's if the customer bought real Tiffany silver jewelry from Tiffany stores or catalogs or websites -- the only places that they sell their new jewelry. Tiffany makes no money on sales of antique items so would not sue. So, I believe there is confusion about what the real problem is with Tiffany and ebay and it is not antique flatware.

Beyond that, I have some other questions/comments based on what you posted.

If I am wrong and there is (also) a problem with fake Tiffany antique flatware, when did it start to appear on the market? This fork was purchased by me about 35 years ago. Would there have been fake Tiffany flatware at that time?

Since this is an unknown pattern, would anyone have faked it? Isn't the point of faking to make up known items and sell them as real because they attract buyers based on the item/pattern as well as the mark -- as is evidently happening with some Shiebler pieces? Would someone have put a fake Tiffany mark on their own pattern?

This little fork could not command any real money under any circumstances, so why would anyone hoping to cash in on the Tiffany name bother with making it?

I found this quote from William Hood in an article on the Worthpoint website (but could not find anything in his book about fake Tiffany, at least not by using the index): "CAUTION: Hood warns that fake Tiffany flatware is extremely rare but does occur. “The few pieces I have seen have been recognized by the crudeness of their execution and non-standard markings.”

Perhaps this fork appears to be crude in execution in my photo, but in person I see nothing crude about it. The design may not appeal to all, but the execution is just fine. And, the markings don't seem to be non-standard. To my eye they look like the marks on other pieces of Tiffany I have. I will try to get some more pictures up tomorrow after I get the daylight needed for picture taking in my house.

This fork is very heavy and to me, high quality -- not like new Tiffany. It is the same thickness of silver as my other Tiffany forks of same era. Other than Shiebler, to my mind, no other company compares to Tiffany in the "hand" of the flatware -- at least no company whose products I have experience with. This fork has that "hand". Not even my Gorham Heller pieces have that quality feel.

Also, the tines look like tines on other of my small Tiffany forks. The "bowl" of the fork is also "very Tiffany" -- in that the fork actually has a small bowl, as do other Tiffany forks that I own. There is something different about Tiffany forks -- they are comfortable to use eating. Again, I will try and put up pictures of my other small Tiffany forks for comparison tomorrow.

If the Tiffany mark looks different from the other marks on the fork, that does not seem strange or alarming to me if indeed this might be a one-of piece. Rather than having the marks be part of a die, they could have been applied individually by hand. And, that could also explain any "tilting" seen.

Also, the name engraved on the back of the handle (the person it was given to) is a person of high achievement from such a fine and noted family, that I can't come up with a scenario that would makes sense for this to be fake. Who would have had old fashioned engraving of the name of someone who lived from 1861 - 1957 put on a new fake unknown piece? And for what purpose?

Then there is the pattern number, 391. In the Hood book, on page 311 he talks about pattern numbers. He says, "Some pattern numbers (a minority) were entered into a section of the Spoonwork Book along with a brief description or name. (Why not all pattern numbers were entered is not known.)" Then, Table 12 on the next page "gives a sampling of the 1372 numbered entries and description." So we know that almost 1400 pattern numbers were entered in the book, yet they represent only a minority of the flatware patterns designed. So, it seems reasonable that the 391 on this fork could be a pattern number.

Finally, in the Carpenter book I found two pieces of holloware decorated with a similar motif -- plates 40 and 41. The claret jug in plate 40 was made in 1890 and has the mark for Edward C. Moore, and the chafing dish in plate 41 was made one year later and has the Charles L. Tiffany mark with the same "T" as is on my fork. So, that motif was being used at the time this fork was made and the idea that some flatware was made using the motif during that time also seems reasonable.

Before asking about this on this forum I called Tiffany to see if the archives could help me learn something. They can, but at a cost of $1,000 and a 2 - 3 month time frame. The timing is not a problem, but cost is totally out of the realm of reality for me.

Maybe no one here will have any answers, but I just can't believe this is not an authentic Tiffany piece.

Even so, thanks for looking and responding.
Elizabeth

posted 06-26-2010 11:09 PM            

Relax, there is nothing fake about your fork.

When seen, which is not often, this design is on hollowware. The design dates to the 1880's and was almost certainly conceived by Charles Osborne.

It's highly unusual to find this design on a piece of flatware. Actually, your piece is the first one that I have seen.

Your fork was made after Osborne left Tiffany to go back to Whiting.

I'm posting a photo of the claret jug you mentioned. It is not from 1890 but rather the 1880s like all the other hollowware pieces seen in this design.

The chafing dish design is something else - much more formal, not free form at all, and more like wave edge.

Very interesting piece, your fork. Is the design raised above the surface?

posted 06-27-2010 11:39 AM            

Thanks so much for the response and the picture and additional information re: Osborne. Sorry if I went overboard in my response to the question of authenticity. For many years I was a marketing researcher so it is in now inbred to give evidence and cover all bases whenever trying to prove something.

And, I did think that this jug was more like my fork than the chafing dish -- or the other two pieces I have found on some websites.

The design is not really raised, but what I think would be called "incised". I am adding two new pictures that hopefully will show the design better. First, a picture taken to show how this piece has the same "bowl" as other of my Tiffany small forks (those I use for dessert regardless of their original intent). This one is in the foreground and a bit hazy, but I think you can see that the design is not raised.

This one shows three of the forks nestled together. This one is in the middle this time. I did this picture to show how compatible it is to other forks of the era (the other two are Chrysanthemum and Lap Over Edge, on the bottom.) It also shows that all three are of comparable thickness.

I hope these help illustrate what I mean when I say "incised" -- in case my word is not the correct one.

posted 06-27-2010 11:02 PM            

I should add that the above post was made when I was still learning how to post pictures and before I brought a digital camera.

posted 06-28-2010 10:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ahwt:
Lovely design on your fork and is reminiscent of a design on a Norwegian spoon showing the sea lapping at the shore.

---

ahwt, Yes, I see the similarity. Thanks for sending that link.

Elizabeth

posted 06-28-2010 11:08 AM            

I believe it was stamped. While the design is incised/cut into the fork handle, the silver inside each "wave"/"curve" is sort of rounded on top. I don't think that could occur if it were added to a blank fork.

I am aware of later decorations being added. Two of the first pieces of silver I purchased (in London) were bright cut spoons. They were so pretty and glittery that I couldn't resist, only to learn later that the bright cut, which was added during Victorian times, actually ruined the older plain pieces because it altered them. So, I never bought another and soon shifted my attention to American Victorian sterling.

The surface of this fork is not at all like the surface of the bright cut spoons, so I am pretty sure it was stamped. And, the work is very precise and consistant, something I doubt would have occurred if it were done by hand.

posted 06-28-2010 04:55 PM            

My point about forged markings on things like flatware and holloware is there is almost an inexhaustible quantity of old silver that has value in its own right but with the additional of a well known maker's mark can have its value increased enormously which creates an incentive for bad people to do just that. The problem has been with us for a great many decades. And it can be difficult to spot since the raw stock that the bad people use is normally silver flatware and holloware made in the era and which has the real age to it.

I am not saying this is the case with this particular fork, but it is always a question that needs to be asked and examined dispassionately on any object that has a mark by a very famous and value enhancing maker is involved and especially so when there are other things that do not fit the usual.

posted 06-28-2010 06:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Kurtzman:
The design dates to the 1880's and was almost certainly conceived by Charles Osborne.

---

Mr. Kurtzman,
In re-reading your message I was struck by the mention of Charles Osborne as the designer. This is of interest to me because of the engraving on the back of the fork. In addition to having the name of the person it was given to, it says, "from A.D.O."

Do you think it is possible that the fork could have been given by someone in the Osborne family? I was thinking that might explain the rarity of this pattern on flatware -- that perhaps some was made for Mr. Osborne or someone in his family and that this piece was given away.

Elizabeth

posted 06-28-2010 07:23 PM            

I don't know if this will shed any additional light but I'll
throw it out there for you to decide.

Papers re Osborne's work I believe are held at Winterthur. Perhaps they would be able to assist you.

BTW could the pattern be a variant of Lap Over Edge?

Good Luck in your quest!

Jersey

posted 06-29-2010 08:39 PM            

Comments are duly noted, and thanks!

Jersey,

Thanks for the suggestion about Winterthur for the Osborne papers and info. I will see what I can do about that.

Also, re: this one being maybe a variation of Lap Over Edge -- I also wondered that because of the handle stem, but there are too many differences in the form, let alone the decoration. LOE handle turns under at the bottom. So, when placed on the table the fork sort of arches up. On the mystery fork the handle turns up slightly and that makes it sit more flush on the table. And, this one's handle is concave on the underside -- something not seen on the LOE.

Here is a picture that shows the two forks and how different the bottoms of the handles are:

posted 06-29-2010 10:47 PM            

I'm not sure of the significance of the initials.

Would you please post a photo of everything that is engraved on the back?

Would you also share where you found the other pieces of hollowware?

Below is another piece with this type of design.

posted 06-29-2010 11:55 PM            

Thanks for one more example of this work.

The other two pieces of hollowware I found are more like the chafing dish and both dealers called them Wave pattern.

Here are two pictures showing the engraving on the back of the fork. It takes the entire handle so 2 images were necessary for it to be readable.

posted 07-01-2010 10:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Kurtzman:
denimrs, I'm not sure of the significance of the initials.
Would you please post a photo of everything that is engraved on the back?....

---

Mr. Kurtzman -- Pictures of the engraving have been added to earlier response above.

Jersey -- Also added a picture of the handles of this fork and Lap Over Edge to that earlier response.

Thanks, both of you,
Elizabeth

posted 07-04-2010 03:26 PM            

That was my assumption for the past 35 years - that it was part of a child's set. But, recently I learned that Henry Dwight Sedgwick was "noted." So, I decided to search online for information. In the process, many entries came up for Henry Dwight Sedgwick III. Unless there is a distinction between using "III" or "3rd", this would seem to be the person this fork was given to. So, I have gone under the assumption that my spoon was given to the Henry Dwight Sedgwick III I found in my research.

In reading about him, I learned that he was born in 1861 and died in 1957. He was an attorney and author. A Harvard graduate, he was admitted to the bar in 1884 and practiced in NYC from 1885 to 1898. He married in 1895 for the first time. They had 4 children, the oldest being Henry Dwight Sedgwick IV, born in 1896, making him an infant/toddler when this fork was made.

Based on the above information it seemed impossible that this fork (with the T signifying it was made between 1891 and 1902) could have been given to him as a part of a youth set. So, at that point I began to think it must be a salad or dessert fork.

One other possibility, I suppose, is that there is an error in the engraving. Perhaps this was given to his son, the 4th, and an error was made when A.D.O. is had it engraved.

In the last few weeks I have spend a lot of time with Mr. Hood's book about Tiffany Flatware. In the process I have seen that this fork is the typical length of children's forks (6 1/4"). But the tines on it seems to more closely resemble those on individual fish eating forks or pastry forks than those on children's forks. That is, all the examples in that book of children's forks show them with long straight tines which this one does not have. (page 55 and a few elsewhere). Fish eating forks are throughout the book, but on page 80 are a number of examples, with tines more like those on this fork. Finally, there is the Chrysanthemum pastry fork on page 83 which is also similar to this one.

Here is one more picture - this fork side-by-side with my 3 other Tiffany "dessert/salad forks". However, after seeing Mr. Hood's book I now know they were designed for different uses.

From left to right: From my mother's sterling a Hampton salad fork (6 7/8"); Lap Over Edge individual eating fish fork ((6 3/8"), Chrysanthemum 4-tined pastry fork (6") and this Sedgwick fork (6 1/4").

posted 07-05-2010 12:44 AM            

In the 1900 Manhattan, New York Census, the Henry D Sedgwick who was born in 1861 is listed as jr and his son by the same name who was born in 1896 in Canada is listed as the 3rd.

Henry D Sedgwick died at age 18 on May 2, 1914 at Groton School.

Now to possibly complicate the issue, the young gentleman who died in 1914 was the fourth Henry Dwight Sedgwick. The family must have chosen to use the terms junior and third as they saw fit and not as might be expected.

posted 07-05-2010 08:31 AM            

THANK YOU SO MUCH! You have solved the mystery. The information I got came from a website about the Sedgwick family. They must have "straightened" it all out at some later date and applied the II, III, IV and V in order then. But, you found how it was used at the time they were alive. I am so pleased to know this and it all makes much better sense.

posted 07-05-2010 10:32 AM            

And isn’t it nice that no one decided to remove this old engraving.

posted 07-05-2010 05:28 PM            

Over the years I have probably purchased 50-75 flatware "singles." This is one of only two among them with a full name.

posted 07-07-2010 07:57 PM            

Mark:

posted 07-07-2010 11:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
Is this Tiffany napkin ring relevant?

---

Hi Polly,
Yes and No. Yes, because it is like some of the pieces I had found in my little research which I thought were like the fork. No, because as Richard Kurtzman pointed out early in the thread -- they were more formal, like Wave Edge. Also, they and your napkin ring have the wave design applied onto the piece where as the Osborne pieces and the fork have it worked into the piece.

But, I am interested that you bought the napkin ring because it went with some Shiebler coffee spoons. Could your spoons have one of these patterns? Maybe the one on the left? These are 2 of four demitasse spoons I bought many years ago. They had been put together as a set by the dealer because they went together so well.

Elizabeth

posted 07-08-2010 11:23 AM            

Here are all 4 that I bought together. The one on the left looks as though it might be one of the 12, but I wonder about the next one, the fish scale motif. Is that also?

Sorry I put the wrong picture here before. It was a tea caddy spoon, I believe.

posted 07-08-2010 11:58 AM            

You've posted what looks to me like some sort of serving spoon in the pattern; I don't see the other two demitasse spoons. But the motifs include some fish-scaled patterns and some octopus-tentacled ones as well as the ones with the fingerlike curls that look like your Tiffany fork. I have a set of oyster forks in (part of) the multi-motif pattern, which seems appropriate given the fish scales and tentacles.

[Edited to add: Correction! I have citrus or ice-cream spoons, not oyster forks, though I do have one oyster fork in a related-looking pattern.]

I'm sorry to drag this thread off topic. Maybe we should start a new thread on the Shiebler spoons.

To me, the Tiffany pieces in this thread, the Shiebler examples, and some similar-looking patterns I've seen that I think were by Gorham make me think that these fingerlike squiggles were a design motif of the period. I wonder whether everyone was copying one of the patterns we've been discussing or whether there was some historical or exotic inspiration that they were all drawing on--something Moorish, perhaps, or Japanese?