posted 09-12-2003 01:28 AM            

I am most interested in hand made silver, generally English early/mid-Georgian period (earlier if I could afford it), and American Colonial and early Federal period (with a professed weakness for soup ladles that extends to the mid-19th century, otherwise fiddle pattern be damned! - except for shoulder less FP - oh, well, let's not go on!).

I am confounded by the apparent general interest in pieces that date to the late 19th century that were in most part punched out on steam presses. I feel that such pieces are barely worth scrap value, yet the overall market seems to value these items often in excess of earlier, truly hand made items. Ooh, ooooh, ooooooooh, Tiffany!!! (as opposed to Tiffany, Ellis and Young). What am I missing here? I mean, wrt the overly involved late 19th c. patterns, if you've seen a hundred of them, you've seen them all!

I don't want or need to feel intellectually superior (thin ice, there!), but I have grave reservations about people with pockets deeper than mine throwing their bucks at this steam press punched stuff. Am I missing something???

Rick

posted 09-12-2003 06:44 AM            

Earlier things are more removed in time, can be seen as esoteric, and can be seen as too expensive for an average collector.

If it was made in 1900 (say), then it falls into the nostalgic category of "My grandma had one of those" or "My parents inherited some of that". Or it does if you're my age.
Most of us don't know who in our family was even around c1800.

If you are trading in the stuff, it's much harder to promote collecting something that doesn't have a fairly ready supply. Just look at the massive production of silverware c1900
(coinciding with the low price of the metal). It gives a great reserviour to draw on.

I'd guess that most people wanting to collect would be much more likely to buy into an area where there was plenty of choice, and the chance to buy reasonable often, say weekly or monthly. If you're collecting material from c1750, it's not going to be easy to do that outside a few major centres (if you don't count the web or mail order).

To go onto the thin ice now... Early material
does, I think, demand more knowledge of history, and more connoisseurship. Perhaps not as common attributes as once they were.
Then there's the fear of making expensive mistakes (which we almost inevitably do at some stage).

And to finish on a positive note- there was some fine and interesting stuff being made just 100 years ago - even if it may have been the exception to the rule. And if it wasn't for this odd effect you've noticed, it would be a lot damn harder for some of us to chase our little dreams...

posted 09-12-2003 01:39 PM            

1) Most people are trying to assemble or expand their silver flatware/serving sets rather than collect things to put in a museum or a display case.

2) Abject fear of fakes and the inability of average people as well as 90% of dealers to be able to tell what is real and what isn't. The market is full of forgeries and altered pieces meant to deceive and it is much easier to forge or alter simpler handmade pieces than steam pressed ones that have enormous detail and where average people have access to many authentic examples to compare.

3) Cost.

posted 09-12-2003 02:11 PM            

quote:

---

I mean, wrt the overly involved late 19th c. patterns, if you've seen a hundred of them, you've seen them all! I don't want or need to feel intellectually superior (thin ice, there!), but I have grave reservations about people with pockets deeper than mine throwing their bucks at this steam press punched stuff.

---

I don't know if I agree here. Many of the stamped patterns were exceptionally well designed and unusual. Additionally, some are quite scarce. Lots of stamped patterns also had hand-finishing (undercutting, for example). So I think on the flip side of your coin, one could say, "If you've seen a few coin silver patterns, you've seen them all."

I would personally much rather spend money on a piece of Durgin's "Bug" pattern (a stamped pattern) than on anything coin silver.

posted 09-12-2003 04:21 PM            

You all have also explained by most collectors of art don't collect early Masters (price, scarcity, etc.), why more of them MIGHT collect Impressionists, who are now getting to be quite expensive and rare, and why even more, if they want to collect original pieces, they buy modern day artists whose work they can get at an affordable price, in the hopes that some day it will have a value.

Taste has an immense amount to do with it; investing in an asset that will retain its value ALSO has a lot of do with it. When the stock market plunges, precious metals go down but they hold their overall value better and will never be totally worthless.

The few pieces I collect (in silver, in art, or any other category) are pieces that I love for themselves, regardless of intrinsic value. THAT'S why you should collect, not because of age necessarily.

OTOH, those who want to collect ONLY the very old are certainly welcome to do so. The rest of us, collecting what we love, won't be in competition with them. They should appreciate that fact!

------------------
Anuh

posted 09-12-2003 05:01 PM            

Now, were you to purchase one of these Kinkaid or Ramos offset machine prints, would you feel that you own a piece of "art"? Or just a photograph of a piece of art?

Now I happen to admire the late Japanese ukiyoe prints, particularly those of Hokusai and Hiroshige. No way I could afford a first print original from either (often many tens of thousands of dollars). However, there have been numerous competent re-cuts of these prints over the years, printed in the traditional manner, some of which I pick up from time to time in the tens of dollars realm. I don't feel that I have a collectible original piece of art, but that I still have a nice, traditionally made replica that I can enjoy much better than a picture in a book and that is worthy of preservation. Many of these prints are also offset print and sold by a number of sources. I don't consider these worth while - too far removed from the spirit of the original.

Likewise, no matter how good the design in a Victorian flatware piece, I feel a punch press item is not a piece of art. The art is in the handwork going into the die, not the resulting flatware. Maybe it's just me, perhaps others can make the link that I can't.

posted 09-12-2003 06:14 PM            

There is a real difference between an original print and a mass produced item, print or otherwise. BUT, rarity does come into play. After WWI, a great amount of silver and silverplate was turned in in this country to support WWII. People who had more money than sense had sets melted down to support the war effort. Consequently, many of the earlier patterns in silverplate and sterling were lost.

You may not appreciate them. Some of us do. So we will leave you to your 17th century pieces if you will not criticize our taste, either! ;-D

posted 09-14-2003 12:51 PM            

Exactly my point. I feel the art, whatever its value, IS in the die, not in the machine stamped product.

Yes, Japanese prints are in the gray middle, which is why I brought them up. The originating artists were indeed painters, not woodblock cutters. However, the artists did paint with the intent of producing prints, they did work closely with the cutters, approved the work, and were in no way detached onlookers in the printmaking process. But the crux of the contention is, what is an "art piece" worthy of conservation? An original ukiyoe woodblock print? A competent recut? An offset machine print copy of a print? (My answers are "yes, qualified yes, and no.") Where do you draw the line? There seems to be no definitive line of demarcation. Personally, I just can't see machine pressed silver flatware pieces as "art", no matter how nice the design, whereas I can easily see very simple handmade pieces as such. Oh, well, is this horse dead, yet?

posted 09-15-2003 01:27 AM            

Rick

posted 09-15-2003 08:47 PM            

Rick's appreciation of the "human touch" is certainly shared by many, including me. My collection, on a piece by piece basis, is predominantly early coin and hand-crafted modern. On the other hand, I also have a number of fine Victorian pieces, largely "machine made" but assembled, finished, engraved and/or enameled by hand. I also have some modern pieces, completely machine made but of impeccable design. Why? Because I like all of them, and I can appreciate the human creativity that went into their creation, directly or indirectly.

The flip side of the coin is that there are a lot of hand made things that are ungainly, poorly designed, badly constructed and ugly. Many craft workers, both known and unknown, ancient and modern, really had no talent. There is a lot of arts & crafts metalwork that is crude and uninspired, and even some Georgian silver can leave a lot to be desired. Personally, I would rather have well-designed machine-made flatware than the work of a third-rate artisan. Sometimes the "human touch" reveals ten thunbs.

I may not understand why other people collect what they do, but I recognize a fellow nut when I meet them. We are all birds of a feather, no matter what we line our nests with. I'm afraid I can't fault a fellow collector for seeing something that appeals to them and not me. To each his own!

posted 09-15-2003 10:12 PM            

NC: Was that intentional?

posted 09-16-2003 12:14 AM            

Not intentional, but it certainly proves my point!

posted 09-18-2003 09:39 PM            

I always try to speak of that which I know, rather than that of which I suppose. It helps keep the error rate down. ;-D

posted 09-18-2003 10:55 PM            

Case in point: awhile ago we had a lengthy discussion about Arts and Crafts period silver that bears the mark (925) (1000). (Click here to read it and to see several pictured examples). We all agreed that the maker(s) (I don't think we solved the mystery of who made it) of this silver produced silver that was subpar in both design and construction.

Now compare that work to some of the pieces produced by the Arthur Stone workshop, or by artisans such as Margaret Rogers, Edward Everett Oakes, or F. G. Hale.

There is a reason why the (925) (1000) silver is a tough sell and why work by the smiths I listed above commands a premium. The reason is that the latter variety is characterized by exceptional design and craftsmanship and the former isn't. (Incidentally, I think the fact that the 925 1000 pieces are not artist-signed speaks volumes).

The 925 1000 pieces appear to have been aimed at less discerning buyers. They were certainly cheaper, and probably as mass-produced as was possible (they are even advertised in a 1907 Daniel Low catalog). On the other hand, the true craftsman of that era sold to people who had taste and could afford to buy the best quality available.

Similarly, I think some of the Native American spoons and such were aimed at a tourist market. My mother has just such a spoon that I gave her because she likes Native American stuff. It is a somewhat crudely fashioned tea spoon with stamped "Fred Harvey" style motifs. No real effort seems to have gone into the production of it, although it is still handmade. Suspect it was a tourist piece.

On the other hand, I have a couple flatware pieces in my collection by Navajo smith Kenneth Begay. They are very well crafted, with sleek, modernist patterns that still incorporate elements of traditional Navajo designs. On one of the pieces, a ladle, Begay even hand-scratched into the back: "Handmade Original Design 1947". Unlike my mother's spoon, the Begay pieces clearly demonstrate the smith's pride in his work.

So I guess the point of this lengthy post is just to express my opinion about handmade silver.

posted 09-21-2003 12:40 AM            

As usual, as the thread lengthens, some people start replying to their own personal constructs instead of what was indeed originally considered. I am not in favor of a pressed sterling flatware pogrom. I did say that I have a personal reservation in seeing much of the Victorian and Edwardian era pressed flatware valued equivalent to simpler, but hand made, earlier pieces. And indeed, I still feel that a majority of pressed flatware pieces rates not much more than scrap value. Not all, but a firm majority. Fun pieces for a dinner party, maybe, but not art. Of course, these pieces will be sold to others not of my persuasion. That's great. Heaven forbid that everyone should want the same things I do, as I would be priced out of the market. I do not "write off" pressed pieces as being very useful, and often amusing, functional eating utensils, just as I don't write off 2003 automobiles as being useful and functional, and perhaps visually appealing transportation devices. But are they collectible art, say in the flowing, natural and uncontrived nature of a typically unsigned Sung teabowl? Not hardly. As art, they are "write offs". The comparison is good, though - just as 98+% of 2003 automobile designs will have no lasting appeal within a generation of their birth, so will the appeal of pressed flatware wane, albeit with a longer half-life. The simpler forms of eighteenth and early nineteenth century handmade flatware are a "small canvas", to be sure, as compared to their machine age descendents. [snip.... Rick please refrain from being rude or don't post. SM ]

Rick

posted 09-21-2003 12:08 PM            

When this all gets thrown into one discussion then the task of qualifying a statement made in one respect so that it doesn't get misinterpreted in another context raised within the same thread, becomes too arduous.

posted 09-22-2003 12:47 PM            

The 1876 Centennial Exhibition, which I've studied, was a particular flashpoint for these issues (and of course this was just as machine-stamped flatware was coming into widespread use). Here are the differing reactions of two contemporary visitors to the Exhibition:

"The introduction of automatic machinery has starved out the chisel. Mouldings are run out for us by the mile, like iron from the rolling mill or tunes from a music-box, as cheap and as soulless."
(Edward Bruce, "The Century: Its Fruits and its Festival," 1876)

"Industrial Art! The union of the two great elements of civilization--Industry, the mere mechanical, manual labor, and Art ... the mere conception of which raises man above the level of savagery."
(Walter Smith, "The Industrial Art of the Exhibition," 1876)

(Both these writers were talking about the Exhibition's displays of household goods generally, not just the silver. I'd be interested if anyone has seen any silver-specific quotes of this kind.)

Personally, I'm more in sympathy with Edward Bruce (and with Rick in this forum) -- I like when silver shows the human touch. But clearly each side has its passionate defenders.

posted 09-22-2003 02:37 PM            

Perhaps this debate first started with the 1851 Great Exhibition in London in which standards of design and good taste were severely criticised. Interestingly enough, the profits of this exhibition went in part into founding the Victoria & Albert Museum which was intended to provide inspiration for designers. With hindsight, the eclectic mix of sources - oriental, gothic, islamic etc - which so characterises Victorian design, and which it seems people either love or hate - perhaps stems from the philosophy of this museum.

For me, one of the most fascinating historical phenomena of this period is the emergence of silverplate. I certainly don't want to argue the relative merits of collecting in this area - each to their own in matters of taste. But certainly silverplate provides an even more extreme contrast. How did silverplate become so widespread and popular in such a relatively short time? Why and how did it give birth to such an incredible variety of products etc?

Traditionally silverplate has been considered the poor relation of silver. In the eyes of people who used it in the 19th century, was that necessarily the case? Or was it largely accepted as a new media capable of giving expression to new forms which silver alone would have been unlikely to generate?