posted 11-23-2004 02:41 PM            

The sides are brought in at the neck of the spoon by supporting the spoon blank on edge and then striking a blow with a hammer over the anvil. This compresses the metal. The compression is uneven and the metal will thicken more on the edge than in the middle. The smith then needs to even the metal out by rotating the blank 90 degrees and reducing the thickness of the edges. If he does not, the edges of the metal can roll over and form the seam you speak of.

Creating this seam is considered a flaw by the craftsman. If it does occur during forging it can be filed off thinning the metal.

Fred

posted 11-26-2004 10:39 AM            

I clearly recall the day I made a batch of a dozen teaspoons (the size I had the most crack trouble with) and I realized that they had all gone to completion without my needing to remove any cracks. I had kept them out during the hammering. As Fred said, the trick is to close in the silver for thickness without allowing the side compression to go too far before the front/back faces are smoothed out.

posted 11-27-2004 07:18 AM            

I collect handmade sterling flatware, whether it be 200 year old Georgian, early 20th century Arts & Crafts, And even seek the "new" stuff, like ONC. If a piece were to be made with one of these folds, Is it always visible? Is there some way to know for sure whether or not they are present? Is this something collectors should be on the lookout for?

Thanks again,
asheland

posted 11-27-2004 10:25 PM            

One question I have always wondered is the English vs. US method of making spoons. Namely that the English start with a thicker billet and work it hot to start. Since the English influenced early US smithing why don't contempoary US smiths hot forge. The only reason I can guess at is that Scandinavian smiths forge cold and were the contemporary (1930's-60's influence here?

Does anyone have an opinion on hot vs. cold forging?

posted 11-28-2004 08:01 AM            

As for hot vs. cold forging, maybe they use cold because it is easier to deal with (they can grab the item, etc.) To be honest, I did not know they hammered the items while hot. What I know about the subject I read in the book "The Colonial Silversmith: His Techniques & His Products" By Henry Kauffman. Very good book, I might add. I have found the process absolutely fascinating. As far as I knew, the English made their flatware the same way. It is only recently that I learned of the "folds" in the flatware. I now can remember seeing lines in pieces that I have seen in the past, and wondering what it was. Now it makes sense. Luckily, none of my pieces show this. And I'll be sure to look for this, now.

asheland

posted 11-30-2004 06:19 PM            

Where was it that you had such access to two flatware makers. You were very lucky. I was not aware that the English used a different method from the one used here. Reynolds Senior, son of the founder of ONC, told me that when he went to work with his uncle, Porter Blancherd, in the thirties, Porter was doing all his hammering hot. His theory was that he would be able to speed up his production. Reynolds said that he could see no advantage to that method and the fact of having to hold the piece with tongs made hammering less precise. I agreed with Reynolds that cold is better, for the sake of greater precision. We hammer the first couple steps of soup and punch ladles hot for the speed of initial stock moving. From there on they are done cold.

What is your source for the information that the English hammer hot?

posted 11-30-2004 10:47 PM            

The pic there shows a possible stem forming fold on the underside of what appears to be a mid-18th century American spoon (though there were also many other, smaller folds present, possibly from an improperly formed sheet from which the spoon was begun). (Note: replies to original post are many and lengthy, and got off into peripheral considerations- main value here is in the photo.)

posted 12-01-2004 01:14 PM            

And nihontochicken the Hanovarian spoons show a true "fold crack", which gives me a little wiggle room to say my worst spoons only have a "shadow" (my word) crack, that is the physical crack has been hammered or filedout but a delicate line of fire scale or oxide is still visible (something I see on some old spoons).

Middletom, yes I was very lucky, and James Potter & Son were around the coner from Clerkenwell Rd. on St. james St.(Clerkenwell, London). They have since moved, I will get an address. At the time they made a dozen patterns, rat tail threaded, beaded etc. They were hot forging 2/3rds of the spoon and cold forging the rest. they could do 8 table spoons finished in a day...

I think that C.J.Vander (who may have supplied Robinsons, if my memory is right) also foged hot.

The main diffrence I see in US vs. GB spoon making is that Yanks start with a thinner, wider, longer blank , Brits use thicker, narrower, shorter (please no jokes) and therefor the English method spends more time spreading the bowl but less necking in the handle and since it is done hot it all goes fairly fast.

The tongs are shorter than a blacksmiths and yes once used to manipulating them it becomes second nature.

A pity two full time spoon makers from across the pond can't have a race?

I do have a question, how do US smiths control the dogbone effect eficiently on such a wide, thin blank.

Also any ideas on the Scaninavian angle, could Porter Blanchards roots have been an English training?

Many thanks FredZ and all.

posted 12-02-2004 10:23 AM            

William Frederick is a great resource for silversmithing. I believe he acquired some of the tools used a Kalo in Chicago. I just saw a fish slice he forged at the Society of American Silversmiths website. He was one of the yearly winners of The Hans Christensen Award. There is a nice biography of Frederick at the site.

Fred

posted 12-03-2004 05:48 PM            

Your mention of C.J.Vander as the maker of James Robinson silver is true from the information that I have. At ONC we did some business with the Barrowcliff firm from England (back in the eighties) and two brothers of that family visited us. They were familiar with the methods of Vander and they told us that the method of forging was with heavier stock and the pieces were forged part of the way, then placed into dies that were compressed in a large screw press that was hand operated. The Barrowcliffs told us that we do much more hand work than goes into the Robinson silver.

An across the pond competition would be interesting, but one or the other of us would have to travel.

Keeping the fold out of the silver has to do mostly with experience of how to strike the silver and when. Our silver is in strips of different widths, shear cut, and I find that the cutting imparts a slight curve to the cross section of the strip. When the silver is forged on the edge, it tends to fold toward that underside of the curve. Therefore, we know where to keep an eye out for folding.

I don't know why Americans use wider, flatter stock than English. Visitors afew years ago from an art school were surprised to see we used flat stock as their teacher had them make flatware from round bar. They quickly realized that the flat stock solved a lot of problems.

I made some place spoons the other day from 7/8 inch wide stock and the handle shanks were hammered down to about 1/4 inch. By not allowing any fold to really get started, and annealing well, the silver goes to shape without any problem.

posted 12-07-2004 08:26 PM            

asheland

posted 12-09-2004 09:16 PM            

Most examples I have are not so drastic.

posted 12-11-2004 04:05 PM            

The judgement of work was probably only to a standard of expertise that was not to critical beyond how the piece looked on the table. The Goldsmiths company stopped being an arbiter of beauty long before this century, which meant anybody, regardless of skill could register a mark. Ironically English work today is, generally, to a pretty high standard of finish, the Georgians would have killed for our machines.

The crack is interrupted because the marks set it down lower than the surrounding handle and when it came back from the Hall (or if the assay master marked it in the shop) it was then given a final hammering to "set" the marks and then filed up, some of the raised parts got filed or sanded off.

asheland, I can not call myself a collector... a draw full of coin spoons bought cheap because they are dented and torn does not qualify me (I am not sure the Chawner above is right)... I do love the things and if time and budget allowed I'd buy handsome spoons like yours.

By the way I stumbled on a good description of making coin spoons in 1848. Rainwater, 4th+5th, O.D.Seymour entry.