Unusual Tongs With Unknown WW Mark - SMP Silver Salon Forums

SM Publications

Silver Salon Forums - The premier site for discussing Silver.

SMP | Silver Salon Forums | SSF - Guidelines | SSF - FAQ | Silver Sales

The Silver Salon Forums
Since 1993
Over 11,793 threads & 64,769 posts !!
American Silver before sterling Forum

A GLOSSARY of MILLED BANDS
Past American Coin Silver Forum topics/threads worth a look
WEV's American Silversmith's Family Tree Project Smith's Index

Silver Salon internal search
or

How to Post Photos

REGISTER (click here)

SMP Silver Salon Forums
tline

American Silver before sterling
tline3

Unusual Tongs With Unknown WW Mark

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

SSFFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Unusual Tongs With Unknown WW Mark
labarbedor Posts: 353 Registered: Jun 2002	posted 05-09-2004 04:49 PM This is an unusual pair of tongs made in three pieces. The spring is soldered on to the two arms. Earlier tongs were made this way, but the arms are almost always pierced and to my mind rather ugly. This pair seems to be a transitional type, made before one piece tongs became the norm, my guess c. 1780. I have had no luck finding the WW mark, any opinion or comments? IP: Logged
t-man-nc Posts: 327 Registered: Mar 2000	posted 05-10-2004 09:55 AM Is that an underscore at the top right of the last "W", which might mean an "MM" rather than a "WW"...? "Smaug" IP: Logged
labarbedor Posts: 353 Registered: Jun 2002	posted 05-10-2004 12:22 PM I am not sure what an underscore is? Could you email me as I don't seem to be able to get through your server. IP: Logged
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 Registered: May 2003	posted 05-10-2004 02:32 PM This mark, which I do not recognize, is surprisingly crude given the high quality of the engraving, but I read this as WW, as a W usually has serifs positioned as these are, has canted sides, and has a middle "prong" that reaches the top. An M usually has vertical sides, a short center point that does not reach the bottom, and serifs on the top two points, opposite the ones on these. In my experience, as in yours, 18th C three-part tongs usually consist of a sprung center section, and cast arms. All three parts (excepting the cast grips) on this one look forged - is the solder joint on the near arm as obvious as the one on the far side? I wonder if a solder joints with such an unusual overlying band could not be a reinforced repair? If the band is so used over a break on one side only as a reinforcement, could it be used on the other merely for balance? If there are two symmetrical joints, this may not be the case. The configuration of the arms (which in 19th C tongs generally follow flatware patterns) on this example resembles the coffin-end handle, and so probably date to or shortly after 1800. The earliest date that I know of that is substantiated for a coffin-end by the death or retirement of it's maker is that of Walter Cornell, generally assumed to be 1800, when he drops out of sight. IP: Logged
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 Registered: Apr 99	posted 05-10-2004 03:12 PM Coffin end in general or the version seen on tongs? If the former, I have a teaspoon, unaltered and clearly marked by Amos Munson who died in 1785. As for the tongs in question, I would also like to see a tigher shot of the right and left joints, interior and exterior. IP: Logged
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 Registered: May 2003	posted 05-10-2004 06:00 PM Interesting. I would like to see a photo of the Munson spoon. Might he have had a successor who could have used the punch (it wouldn't be the first time)? -------------------------- On a quick survey, I find no published mark for him other than the initial marks in Belden. While I have seen a statement or two to the effect that they were made as early as 1785, and I remain open on the question, I still feel that I need more evidence, like full name mark. I would tend to question the assignment of a seemingly anachronistic initial mark without knowing on what it is based, such as convincing provenance or stamping alongside a full name mark. I would welcome evidence to the contrary, as it would put an end to the myth to which I have never subscribed, that the form was intented to mourn the death of Washington, who died in December, 1799 (some British attribute thier examples to the death of Horatio Nelson in 1805). [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 05-10-2004).] IP: Logged
labarbedor Posts: 353 Registered: Jun 2002	posted 05-10-2004 06:55 PM Swarter, as usual, clearly states why it is probably WW. I came to the same conclusion but could not voice as well the reasons why. As for the solder joints, etc, I think it must be the angle of the first photo. I don't see any resemblance to coffin end style. Of course they have shoulders behind the bowls, but thanks to an earlier posting by Swarter, we now recognize that as an 18th c. form. The arms are thicker than they appear in the first photo and I presumed they were cast, or at least cast then forged. They are already in the bank box, but I think from this photo it seems obvious that the bowls and arms are all one piece. The odd thing is the crudity of the solder joints compared with the rest of the piece. I will get them out and photograph them again, on Thur, if anyone thinks it necessary. I presume that outside ledge at the joint, was a form of reinforcement. IP: Logged
labarbedor Posts: 353 Registered: Jun 2002	posted 05-15-2004 01:48 PM Here are some more photos. The arms were cast in one piece, although the neared the bow may have been forged and engraved after they were taken from the mold. The solder joint is very poorly done. The end of the bow and the end of the arms were overlapped then soldered in place. You can see the solder shows closer to the bow on the outside and closer to the grips on the inside. There are two bubbles on the inside of one arm and one large one on the outside of the other. Obviously his forte was engraving, and he does a very good job, and he obviously was trying to cover up the poor soldering job. Or perhaps he trusted the apprentice to do the join. In any case the end result is rather elegant. IP: Logged

All times are ET	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a

^1. Public Silver Forums (open Free membership) - anyone with a valid e-mail address may register. Once you have received your Silver Salon Forum password, and then if you abide by the Silver Salon Forum Guidelines, you may start a thread or post a reply in the New Members' Forum. New Members who show a continued willingness to participate, to completely read and abide by the Guidelines will be allowed to post to the Member Public Forums.
Click here to Register for a Free password

^2. Private Silver Salon Forums (invitational or $ donation membership) - The Private Silver Salon Forums require registration and special authorization to view, search, start a thread or to post a reply. Special authorization can be obtained in one of several ways: by Invitation; Annual $ Donation; or via Special Limited Membership. For more details click here (under development).

^3. Administrative/Special Private Forums (special membership required) - These forums are reserved for special subjects or administrative discussion. These forums are not open to the public and require special authorization to view or post.

| Home | Order | The Guide to Evaluating Gold & Silver Objects | The Book of Silver