posted 12-26-2005 09:05 PM            

I have had this in my small collection for about 10 years. Bought it at a flea market, ]it was very dirty. I love it and just always thought it was Sterling. This has that nice light weight feel - I am 99.9% positive it is sterling, I don't understand why there is no makers mark or any stamps anywhere. I have gone over it with a jewelers loupe and a magnifier glass and looked over every spot possible. I think it is French? I also think it is very old possible late 18th century, due to the style, quality of workmanship and the beautiful color of the silver. Please forgive me if I have too many pictures - but I hope someone can shed some light on my mystery piece. This is a small treasure which I adore - I have been very lucky in my Sterling finds. I keep them all and will continue to collect antique sterling (or near sterling!) pieces.

Thank you,

posted 12-26-2005 11:46 PM            

I wonder what the experts here will say?

posted 12-27-2005 01:13 PM            

Although museum collections abound with decorated examples, many, if not most, small American Neoclassical table pieces of this period were done in the English Adam style of unadorned elegance, with decoration usually confined to borders and to heraldic crests or more elaborately festooned arms of ownership, so the Neoclassical swags on the body of your creamer are a nice added touch.

posted 12-27-2005 01:34 PM            

Did the French always mark their pieces?

posted 12-27-2005 10:03 PM            

I have received an email from an astute correspondant expressing the opinion that the decoration (as better seen in the newly posted pictures) might be of later origin, and I agree that it is not typical of the period; I also note that the swollen shape of the belly of the pot is unusual as well, but it should be noted that American silversmiths were sometimes prone to experimentation in design. The appearance of the underside of the base was also questioned, presumably as that surface usually shows hammer marks, but a few smiths did finish out that surface, and I have seen a couple of signed ones with that same frosted appearance, so at this point I would not discount the authenticity of the piece, only that it may be somewhat later, but still could be early 19th Century, as the older ones would be expected to show a greater uniformity of style.

Still a nice find - it pays to be alert.

posted 12-27-2005 10:38 PM            

American coin silver would certainly explain the lack of marks. I have a good bit of coin and only some of it is marked. The rest has the retailers or makers mark only, but not "coin". I do not have any holloware older then 1820. The silver flatware I have that is older (just two pieces) is from the 1790's and has the makers stamp only. Americans were not finicky about marks.

I like coin silver a lot and am always on the look out for it. People frequently mistake it for plate. As the poster said, you can usually tell by close examination, the sound it makes, the feel of it (somehow light and flexible) and I SWEAR the smell , but that is just me saying that.

hello said:
"Plate and sterling tend to tarnish at least somewhat differently".

By this time wouldn't the plate be showing through SOMEwhere on it? Americans didn't make much plate in the early 1800's, if it is indeed American.

Some people say plate tarnishes with a brown tint and tarnishes rather splotchily and sterling/coin tarnish with a black tint.
Have you found that to be true?

I don't mean to change the subject as I think there is more that can be yacked about with the posters nice creamer. I don't want to stop that discussion,but having the creamer tested brings up a question I've had. When I had my pitcher repaired it came back beautiful and with a small scratchy area inconspicuously underneath the base. I assumed that was the silversmiths way of marking it. I think you have to mark things that are repaired (it's a legal thing, isn't it?). Is that true?

posted 12-28-2005 12:18 AM            

I don't know about how coin silver sounds,but the surface color of oxidized silver is not really a reliable method of determining weather an item is silver or plated. It can be a starting point, but only that.

Unmarked silver is special. For a real nodestructive determination, density can be measured by water displacement, vs weight (mass) of the object. There is a string concerning this somewhere in the past 3 or 4 months in the forum, but I am at a loss as to where.

Later.

posted 12-28-2005 11:56 PM            

It looks like any orange color is a reflection of the orange colored piece of cloth seen in one of the photographs.

posted 12-29-2005 05:46 PM            

Acid testing? I guess I'll need to do a search. The pitcher has never been to an antiques dealer as far as I know; it's always been in the family. But, the silversmith did say it looked like it had been worked on once before in a small area.
Hmm.

As to the creamer:
Even though I am not an expert, the creamer looked a little curious to me somehow, too. Has anyone thought of maybe Mexican Silver? Mexico City could account for the style of it, couldn't it? There were lots of wealthy people there. And Taxco produced silver that was very high grade and well done. The engraving looks Mexican to me somehow.

Could Mexico, as well as India, possibly account for the shape, unamerican look of the engraving and the lack of a mark?

posted 01-04-2006 10:47 PM            

In the close up of the inside of the base the file marks, solder seam and corner wear all look right.

The close up of the engraving also looks good to me, in that the cutting of the bright cut, wiggle work and the horizontal shading all look right for the late 18th century or for a later job done by a provincial (or Anglo-Indian) engraver/smith.

It would help if the very good images were on a neutral color as Cutcher pointed out the orange reflects.

posted 01-23-2006 11:46 PM            

quote:

---

This is a helmut creamer similar to yours but not as decorative.

---

posted 01-24-2006 02:05 PM            

Tahnks,

posted 01-28-2006 01:10 AM            

Thank you!!
Debbie