posted 12-15-2000 10:08 PM            

The show was at the same time enjoyable and a bit disappointing. The main disappointment is the small size of the show. Given the advance notice this exhibit recived in Silver magazine and other sources, I expected to see a few more than 28 spoons and a handful of supporting pieces. Perhaps the show was restricted simply by the space available. The gallery housing the show is about the size of a large bedroom, and in the past has been used for exhibits put on by graduate students. Still, I would love to have seen more spoons. I could easily see 28 bird-backs at a few prominent dealers' shops and handle them as well.

These quibbles aside, the show has some great items. It opens with a display of three spoons; one plain fiddle broken at the bowl juncture, a great cast spoon by Henricus(?) Boelen showing a large decorative rattail, and a trefid spoon by Edward Webb with a slightly less prominient rattail. This display is supposed to demonstrate the practical necessity of the bowl reinforcement, and the decorative potential that silversmiths exploited. Curiously, this notion is not written anywhere; there is no sign for this display case, and most neophytes would probably miss the point.

On entering the room, you encounter a square display case in the center of the room. This case houses a spoon blank, an apparatus for sinking spoons, and three different iron dies for applying the bird designs. The case does a good job of explaining how a spoon was made, and how the designs were formed and protected during the sinking process. On display were the famous die of John Vogler, on loan from North Carolina, as well as swages from William Haverstick Sr. and James Parmelee. These rare pieces were great to see in person.

The left wall is used to explain the development of picture-back spoons, and how the images of doves appealed especially to the Quakers of Philadelphia. This background information is provided in a nice concise manner.

On the back wall are two display cases showing the meat of the exhibit. The cases are wall-mounted, with the spoons hanging vertically from wire supports at about eye-level. In a stroke of genius, Winterthur has provided magnifying glasses at each case for the viewers to use. This certainly makes the pieces easier to appreciate, as the birds are awfully small!

(I will finish this review tomorrow. Don't miss the next exciting episode of: Birds!)

[This message has been edited by Brent (edited 12-16-2000).]

posted 12-16-2000 11:11 AM            

That said, it's a shame Winterthur was not able to expand the selection of spoons for the show. Were all those on display from their collection alone? Bird backs, like other decorative forms before the machine age, tended to evolve in very subtle ways from maker to maker and region to region. Only when we can stand back and look at a wide range of these variations by known makers can we start to identify those that carry no mark or trace inter-relationships between shops.

posted 12-16-2000 12:31 PM            

The first case was the most interesting to me, as it displays a variety of different decorative motifs used in American spoons. Many of these I had never seen before, or had even seen pictured in books. These include

a.) A sheaf of wheat by William Haverstick of Lancaster, PA (This motif seems largely restricted to Lancaster silversmiths, the Haverstick family in particular.)

b.) A basket of flowers by John McMullin.

c.) A sailing ship by John Pearson of New York. I had seen this motif on some English spoons, but never on an American spoon. It was a coffin-end spoon, as well!

d.) A running hound in a landscape, by William Ghiselin. Again, I had never seen this motif before.

e.) A beautiful urn by John McFee and Abner Reeder of Philadelphia.

These were the best; there were also some spoons with more common motifs like shells and foliate scrolls.

Case two displayed 10 different bird-back spoons, by Christian Wiltberger, Moore & Ferguson, Joseph Shoemaker, John Myers, Edmund Milne, Godfrey Lenhart, Ezekiel Burr, George Dowig, Stephen Emery and John David Jr. All were well preserved examples, which are rare; in my experience, most birds are largely worn away from simple use. At any rate, it was great to see the variety of different birds up close, and such good examples. On looking at them, I do think they were selected based on the quality of the images. Winterthur probably has many more different bird-backs, but probably not in the same good condition as these.

One note: The spoon attributed to John David Jr. is in the Hanoverian style, which would make it more likely to be John Sr.'s work. The mark, an JD in a rounded rectangle, is thought to have been used by both father and son; I think the attribution in this case was incorrect.

Turning to the right-hand wall, we find the last case of the exhibit. This one shows some of the more unusual and later bird motifs, including the open bird cage and Liberty banner used by Christian Wiltberger, among others. There are also fine examples by Thomas Byrnes, Joseph Lownes, Emmor T. Weaver, Samuel Krause and Richard Humphreys. The examples by Weaver and Krause show the eagle motif preferred in the young republic. The Krause example is especially interesting, with an eagle, shield and arrows lifted directly from an early American coin. This iconography is also found on the Great Seal of the United States. Speaking of which, this case also displays some of the early coinage of the republic, with the same aggressive eagle motifs. Finally, we get to see a beautiful gold clasp of Joseph Richardson, Jr., with a fine engraved dove.

As I mull over this show, I think that perhaps the show as kept small to appeal to the average museum goer, and not the serious collector or scholar. If I knew nothing about American silver, this show would certainly have piqued my interest and I would have come away happy to have learned something. I would at least be more interested in spoons!

As a collector, though, I can't help but be a bit disappointed. The execution is great, but I wanted to see more, and I know Winterthur has more to show. Anyone making a long trip just to see this show, and I'm sure there are plenty who have, would probably feel the same.

There is an illustrated companion catalog to the show, which displays most of the different birds. Unfortunately, the other, rarer spoon motifs are not illustrated. They would have been nice to see. I also would like to have seen pictures of the spoons themselves, and maybe even the marks (heaven forbid). I don't know why museums are shying away from mark illustrations, and I am angry that they are, but that is another story. At any rate, if you want to see the birds and read a bit more than was provided in Silver magazine, you can order the catalog from Winterthur.

Finally, if you do make the trip, be certain to take a look at some of the new acquisitions on display in the rotunda of the Galleries. I was able to see a fine Revere porringer, a beautiful Empire-style bottle coaster by Samuel Kirk for Jerome Bonaparte, and a nice low teapot attributed to Obadiah Rich. This teapot has a beautiful finial of a whippet, related stylistically to the Rich inkstand with hound heads at Yale, and a dish ring already in the Winterthur collection. Finally, there is a great silver and brass-mounted percussion long rifle by Henry Burns of Ohio, ca. 1830-1860. If you like arms at all, it is truly a great piece of craftsmanship.

Well, that's it. I would love to hear opinions from others who have attended this show.

[This message has been edited by Brent (edited 12-16-2000).]

posted 05-13-2008 10:16 AM            

Your point about seeing more of what is in the closets at Winterthur reminds me that more museums ( the Met, and maybe Boston MFA) are showing what is in the back by just displaying it all in open glass cases - no labels, no effort, just let you see all the porringers, cups, tankards, etc. Why not do that with this sort of exhibition...?

posted 05-13-2008 10:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by agleopar:
Thank you for the very informative review, I almost feel I do not have to go!

---

You're right! This is an exemplary summary of that exposition. However, much to my chargrin again, this is an old thread. It is not my intention to mislead. Please accept my apology.