posted 04-03-2004 09:01 AM            

Hello all,

Here is what appears to be rather early Colonial Williamsburg reproduction spoon. I know that Stieff became the official supplier of silver to Colonial Williamsmsburg at some point, but this piece has no maker's mark and may predate the association with Stieff. What I find interesting is that the rattail on this piece is actually soldered on, not swaged as an authentic spoon would be. This may reflect the poor understanding of period spoon making that was prevalent in the early 20th C, or it might just be a way to "dress up" a machine made spoon. If I had to guess, I would say that this is a machine made spoon.

Does anyone have any insight into the Colonial Williamsburg silver production? I believe that some pieces were actually made there as part of the craft demonstrations; if so, how were they marked?

posted 04-03-2004 07:06 PM            

The spoons made there have a swaged ratail. I was fascinated at the mote spoons they were making. The woman smith was a master piercer and her craftsmanship was supperb.

They had just finished a copy of the Garlic Family Montieth and I received a copy of the video they had produced documenting the making of the Montieth.

They mark their work with the mastersmith's mark IG for Curtis and the mark of James Craig, who's shop (The Golden Ball) they work in.

It surprizes me that the Stieff spoons are not machine pressed. Soldering involves an extra process and anneals the bowl. What makes you think that it is soldered on?

posted 04-11-2004 10:59 PM            

Thank you very much for the information; I appreciate it. The Williamsburg reproduction flatware made and marked by Stieff is definitely machine pressed. However, I am not sure if this piece was made by Stieff, or whether it predates the association, whenever that began.

The pictures can not show it, unfortunately, but there is a clear joint line across the base of the rattail. I will see if I can't get a good closeup of the area in question. There may be some technique here that I am unaware of.

posted 04-26-2004 06:38 PM            

If the line is crisp. It is probable that Stieff chose to cast these reproductions instead of going to the expence of having a die cut. The casting would show all the imperfections and even the crispmess of the juncture between the applied rat-tail to the bowl. The model could have been made in this fashion and not from a hand wrought model.

posted 05-29-2004 09:44 PM            

Welcome to the forum. It is great to have another smith join. It was interesting to hear of the research done for the design. I have recently seen a Willamsburg Reproduction catalogue and I am certain that Stieff is using dies to manufacture the flatware. I would love to see examples of your flatware and exchange information on smithing with you. The thought that drops and rattails were soldered on is more common than many think. When I visited the Heritage Collection at Old Dearfield, Mass, I saw a few of the spoons described at bowl with attached handle. I made a valiant effort to explain the process of using a swage to form the drop but I am not certain it was believed. The silversmith shop is filled with 18th century tools and was told that a smith used to do demonstrations there years ago.

posted 05-30-2004 09:28 AM            

Thanks for the welcome. We have spoken, this is Geoff Blake from ONC. One of the others at ONC has a book about silversmithing which also says that the colonial spoons were made in two pieces. If they would give the matter thought, they would realize that in order to hammer the bowl out, the smith would need something to hold onto, so why not the handle of the piece? I didn't know Deerfield had an equipped silver shop. Too bad they no longer have a craftsman to demonstrate. We do a couple demonstrations a year at the Paul Revere house in Boston. Always a big hit with the crowd.

I don't know how frequently I can participate here, but it is good to occasionally drop in.

posted 06-01-2004 07:51 PM            

So pleased to see you here! I recently acquired a teaspoon made by you for Cartier. I use it often when eating yogurt and ice-cream. I look forward to your imput here on the forum and feel free to email me directly. I have advance in my search for the skill to make flatware.

posted 06-05-2004 08:46 AM            

I don't know if this is the proper place to ask what your email address is. I have some updates on something you had asked me for and I would very much like to see your latest flatware work.

posted 06-16-2004 10:32 AM            

I believe I had a thread about the myth of two-part spoon construction a couple of years ago. It is clear that the idea was prevalent among Arts & Crafts silversmiths of the early 20th C, since many A&C spoons do have bowls soldered to the handle. I find it ironic that the drop, which was originally intended to strengthen the bowl juncture, could be misinterpreted so badly as to lead silversmiths to use weak solder joints.

Henry Kaufmann's book THE COLONIAL SILVERSMITH, published in 1972(?), seems to have been the first major publication to debunk the two-part spoon construction myth. It is surprising how long it has persisted since then!

posted 06-16-2004 11:58 AM            

quote:

---

Henry Kaufmann's book THE COLONIAL SILVERSMITH, published in 1972(?), seems to have been the first major publication to debunk the two-part spoon construction myth. It is surprising how long it has persisted since then!

---