posted 09-17-2003 04:00 PM            

I saw the two handled cup and wished I had found such a treasure. I cannot comment on the appraisal. I thought is that it was low.

I could not tell if the marks were in fact Dixwell's.

Boos missed a wonderful opportunity to talk about the heritage of such a find and glosses over the particulars that you need to look at to help identify authenticity.

I wish I could have looked at it more carefully.

I did record this episode for my wife.

posted 09-17-2003 10:21 PM            

Boos says the cup was made between 1680 & 1710. Dixwell was born in 1680 and did not begin working until 1702. Most of the work I have seen by him was marked on the side of the cups and not on the bottom. The mark on the caudle cup does not appear to be any of the marks recognized as belonging to Dixwell. All the Dixwell marks are in ovals. The marks on the Roadshow cup were in rectangles with a pellet between the I and the D. The solder job on the bottom does not bother me and is fairly typical of 17th century American work.

I have not gone searching for a possible maker. The style of handle appears to be typical of 17th century silver. Any guesses? I am more likely to believe it is by Dummer than Dixwell.

Here in the Southwest I do not have access to a fine silver collection, unless I travel to The Huntington Library, and so, have not had the chance to view works by these craftsmen up close. The spoons I have in my collection were only a small portion of the silversmiths skill level and tell nothing about raising or soldering techniques.

posted 09-18-2003 01:39 PM            

I also agree with Fred in regards to the mark number and placement; the usual situation shown for most published examples from this period is that there is one mark on the side, near the top of one handle (and sometimes another by the other handle on a two-handled cup), often this is a small mark on the smaller pieces. I know of a smaller, one handled cup (by another silversmith)in a private collection that has one mark by the handle, and one on the bottom, but I believe bottom marks are not the rule in this period. The random, scattered placement of the several strikes of what look to be large marks on the bottom of the Roadshow piece strike me as, at the least, very odd.

Fred may have allayed my suspicions about the solder on the bottom (which I had not noticed myself, as I was concentrating on the marks, but was mentioned to me by my wife, and relayed by email to Fred who kindly reviewed his tape), but I still have other questions.

posted 09-18-2003 11:24 PM            

The shape is not like most caudle cups even of the 18th century. The sides of the cup are fairly straight and do not curve into the body before flaring out on the edge.

The proportions are not bad. I can not find a match to the handles on any early American silver of any period.

The most suspicious is the method that the foot is applied to the body. It looks as if the foot is flared into the body. I have not examined any period cups to tell if this is common.

I looked for the kernel on the bottom of the body of the cup and did notice a small notch off the center most maker's mark.

We have no images of the inside of the cup so we are not able to tell if the bottom was married to the base at a later date.

The marks appear to be the same except for the fifth mark along the edge. I could swear it looks substantially smaller than the other four.

Fred

posted 09-20-2003 04:49 PM            

There are four large marks on the bottom, and one small one. The reserves are rectangular, rather than oval, and therefore are not Dixwell's. The letters in the small mark are closer together than those in Dummer's one recognised initial mark; he has no published recognised large one. So far, none of us who has been corresponding by email about this interesting object has yet come up with an image of a caudle cup by Dummer, Dixwell, or another contemporary that closely resmbles this piece. If anyone finds one, please email or post it here.

posted 09-21-2003 12:09 PM            

And a splice to compare the handles:

posted 09-21-2003 04:11 PM            

And here are cups and beakers by John Dixwell:

posted 09-21-2003 06:47 PM            

Interestingly, if I am correct Mr. Boos' monetary appraisal is probably about right for the item in question. If it really were by Dixwell or Dummer, he would be off by at least an order of magnitude. A poor appraisal, regardless.

Brent

posted 09-21-2003 08:21 PM            

Not long ago I had seen on ebay a later 18th Century (2nd half) marked English piece of similar style, except that it had plain strap handles. I was thinking of a replaced bottom on a similar object, but overstamping seems more logical.

posted 10-20-2003 05:47 PM            

While looking for something else, I have come across some identical pieces illustrated in Channel Islands Silver by Richard Mayne, in which are pictured some 13 examples by 5 silversmiths of what are apparently characteristic Guernsey Island christening cups. Those which bear dates were marked or engraved between 1776 and 1785. One is attributed to a smith who was working earlier in the Century, while the periods of the other four encompass these dates. According to Mayne, some 20 examples exist of these cups which bear either London hallmarks, or maker's marks of another Guernsey silversmith, that have been overstamped with an I•D mark identical to that on the Roadshow cup. It is thought that those cups with overstamped hallmarks had been locally made, sent to London for assay, and for some reason returned to Guernsey only to be overstamped by a local silversmith, Jean Pierre du Port, who worked from 1779 to 1788, and who apprently is known to have made such cups.

Below is a copy of a plate from Channel Islands Silver (copyright 1985 by Richard Mayne) showing three christening cups by Jean Pierre du Port, and the bottom of one bearing overstamped London hallmarks (note the incuse duty mark used only in 1784 and 1785):

quote:

---

Two questions now remain - who did the overstamping, and why?

---

So we can confirm that the cup is a legitimate Georgian piece, and we now know who did the overstamping, but not why the the cup was sent to England and returned, only to have its hallmarks overstamped.

posted 10-23-2003 04:22 PM            

"christening cups with London hallmarks overstruck, some being dated 1782, 1785 and 1788.
These appear to have been made locally and sent to London for hallmarking. In 1784-1785 an additional mark was in use at the London Assay Office ....This duty-drawback mark has...been found on wares later overstruck by du Port."