posted 02-13-2007 11:08 AM            

I am hoping that someone will be able to enlighten me on why or how a pattern is attributed to Durgin in 1955 when the company was purchased almost 50 years prior to that?

Both Teri Hagen and the Jewelers Index define the dates of Durgin's English Rose to be 1955-1991 but the manufacturer was bought out by Gorham in the early 1900's. I could understand if the pattern was first introduced when Durgin was actually in business (as with Fairfax) but why would Gorham introduce a new pattern under a defunct manufacturer some 50 years after purchasing the company?

Could someone perhaps clarify these dates in question?

posted 02-13-2007 09:15 PM            

Why continue to use the mark of a defunct firm? Because it is a brand name, which means it has some value. As far as I can tell, this is a common method of selling silver: use the mark to reach new customers and penetrate into fresh outlets.

The way the jewelry trade ran prior to 1963 was that local jewelers had an exclusive arrangement with a major silver maker. A small city or suburb would have stores that carried one of the major makers: Gorham, International, Wallace, Reed & Barton, maybe Lunt or Stieff. Each store carried this major brand exclusively, with usually a minor company or two for expanded choice. Nothing by Gorham could be sold by those committed to other retailers. However, they could sell something marked Durgin or Watrous or Watson or Alvin without any trouble. And without violating their arrangement with the major silver company.

For silver collectors, it is an habituation of the mind to see marks as an extension of the old handicraft system where a maker takes pride in his product. However, I have come to see them as brand names. And look at them in those terms. Gorham sold under a variety of names for the same reason Maytag and GM do: to increase market penetration and hences profitability.

Do you know how this particular pattern was sold? That would be a big help. Perhaps a catalog retailer sold it using the venerable name Durgin. Or a party plan. This would let us get a better grasp of the situation regarding Durgin English Rose.

posted 02-15-2007 10:04 PM            

You see a number of holloware items marked with Durgin trademarks and "Gorham Co.". It could be that this was leftover stock. Or, perhaps, when they made items using the old Durgin dies, they though it fitting to use the old trademark. I doubt we'll ever know for certain, as all of the smoking guns seem to have been trashed.