posted 09-27-2009 11:23 PM            

I'm posting several photos of a very interesting Tiffany silver cigar lighter in the form of an Aladdin's lamp. The only other reference to it that I can find is in the Tiffany section of a web site where they call it a Pompeian Cigar Lamp

As I don't have a copy of Charles and Mary Carpenter's book "Tiffany Silver" a friend looked through it for me and couldn't find it mentioned in that book.

It has nice early pattern number, 989 and it is further engraved with the initials D.S.A. and the date 1867.

If any Tiffany silver experts have any information about this piece, I would surely appreciate your time in sharing it with me. My specific questions would be, what date range is appropriate for this piece - is this a rarity or a more common piece, where can I find documentation about it, do the engraved initials and date ring any bells, etc?

Many thanks in advance.

posted 09-28-2009 08:45 AM            

Nice piece. The 1867 date is probably close to, or when it was made. I can't make out what's under the 989 pattern number but the marks look to be from the 1865 - 1870 period. The pattern number indicates that this design was probably first done in the late 1850s.

A lot of these things were made, but today it's an uncommon though not rare piece.
Regarding the inscription, it's so general that I doubt that you will be able to pin it down.

posted 09-28-2009 09:18 AM            

I was thinking that to make it work as a lighter the pot would need to be filled with lamp oil and then the wick would be lit with a match. It would then stay lit for as long as desired. This suggests that it would not be for the purpose of lighting just one cigar, but rather for lighting several or many cigars so it would have been for either a gathering of cigar smokers at either a large social event at a private home or perhaps at a club of some kind?

I am not sure what the letters stand for - they could be either the initials of a person or of an organization.

The 1867 date is a bit of a puzzle. The American war between the states ended in 1865 but there were many gatherings and organizations that were formed in the following years by the veterans. Also, for many years after the war ended it was quite common for fancy gifts to be given to the commanders and generals from both sides of the conflict by their former regiments. Perhaps this cigar lighter could have been something like that? Or, there were quite a few newly wealthy businessmen in the northern states who made their fortunes by supplying the Union Army (the side that won the war) - perhaps it was something purchased by someone like this?

posted 09-28-2009 09:37 PM            

Mr. Kurtzman commented, "it's an uncommon though not rare piece", and Mr. Dietz later comments, "I know of one Pompeian style version by Dominick & Haff from the 1880s, but I can't say I've ever seen this model by Tiffany ever before."

These comments almost beg the question, what is rare versus uncommon in Tiffany silver? And, if I may, let me expand a little on what I mean by that question.

Mr. Dietz paints a fascinating picture (which I enjoyed immensely) of a Victorian smoking room or gentleman's parlor where in their time, such an item would likely have been commonplace, but by the 1920's or so, viewed as an oddity of sorts thus likely leading to many such items being scraped for their raw silver.

That logically assumes then that Tiffany produced more than just a few of these cigar lighters - thus, not rare by any means. However, if today they only survive in a few numbers (the melt down hypothesis), are they now to be considered rare?

In other words, is the distinction of uncommon versus rare more determined by the likely quantity originally produced by Tiffany, or should the distinction be determined more by known surviving examples? Aside from the example I linked to in my original post, (which is not this one I assure you), can anyone point to any other known examples? I'm not assuming that just because another example cannot be cited means that there are no others "out there" as surely there must, but given that no other can be found in the books, auction records, published collections, etc. wouldn't it be logical to consider this rare?

Once again, my profound thanks for all the discussion and time taken by the distinguished board members regarding this object. It is much appreciated!

posted 09-28-2009 11:46 PM            

It is a grand piece of silver, and you may call it rare, or uncommon, whichever makes you feel more comfortable.

There are so many folks out there who do not want other people to know what they have in silver, or they will sell quietly, one to another. I would think that there would be a hundred or so homes in New York, that have one of these, not because they are uncommon, but because they are fabulous and "TIFFANY".

posted 09-29-2009 06:15 AM            

That's an interesting hypothesis you propose. I would have thought that these wealthy families would be more inclined to use auction venues so sell their silver holdings rather than trying to sell amongst themselves in some "quiet" manner.

Then again, I know I would surely enjoy a silver party far more than a Tupperware party! LOL.

Many thanks for your comments Marc! As I guess you can tell, I enjoyed them.

posted 10-01-2009 04:39 AM            

That was very funny reading, and here I’m used to thinking that museum curators are so formal and stuffy. I’ll bet you’re a hoot to have at a party! Many thanks for the good chuckle!

And BTW, I haven't forgotten that I promised to post some very nice examples of Balinese silver. I will get to this soon, I promise!

posted 10-02-2009 01:45 AM            

So, I can imagine a man would use the same cigar lighter for a lifetime while his wife might go thru several tea sets. This might also explain why carving sets, a male item, tend to be much more used than the accompaning flatware. IMHE, it is not unusual to find a set of flatware with a carving set several decades older than the main set.