|
A GLOSSARY of MILLED BANDS
|
|
| How to Post Photos |
REGISTER (click here)
|
|
A GLOSSARY of MILLED BANDS
|
|
| How to Post Photos |
REGISTER (click here)
|
|
 SMP Silver Salon Forums
 American Silver before sterling
 English hallmark & name
|
 SSFFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: English hallmark & name |
|
RP JAX Posts: 13 |
posted 02-09-2005 05:47 PM
  
[01-2198 19-0526] I have a soup ladle with English hallmarks for Sterling, London, 1833, and the monarch of the time, then it has C GENNET JR in block lettering. I have come to a strange point in this research; Charles Gennet Jr. is a Richmond Virginia Silversmith from 1837 to 1866.
IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 02-09-2005 06:17 PM
Either the piece was imported and resold here, or the marks are pseudohallmarks, and the piece is not English. We will need to see a photograph of the marks to determine which it is. See the Hallmark Faq for an explanation. IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 02-12-2005 04:22 PM
These are not true hallmarks; the marks are not English, but American. Charles Gennet, Jr (1807-1887) worked in Richmond, Virginia, beginning about 1845 to aometime after 1867, perhaps well into the '70's. This is certainly a retailed spoon; most pseudohallmarks of this nature are those of New York manufacturers. I am certain I have seen these marks before, but with other retailer's names. [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 02-12-2005).] IP: Logged |
|
mdhavey Posts: 164 |
posted 02-12-2005 04:49 PM
I too had doubts about the "English" hallmarks; the date punch is not right and the others awfully worn. But what's the point of pseudo English hallmarks without the retailer's name next to them? IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 02-12-2005 05:21 PM
Similar (if not identical) marks are found on pieces retailed by Ackerly & Company, Howe & guion, and Baldwin Gardner among other NYC merchants IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 02-12-2005 05:29 PM
quote: These marks are trademarks of the manufacturer, and are present on silver supplied to retailers by the manufacturer. If the marks appear alone, then the retailer has failed to add his mark, or possibly the silver may have been sold directly by the manufacturer to a private customer. The trade mark serves as a sort of guarantee that the objects bearing it can be traced back to the manufacturer if defective, and also to help a merchant or owner trace stolen items. Having his own trade mark also serves to protect the manufacturer against false claims made against him based on inferior objects actually made by someone else. [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 02-12-2005).] IP: Logged |
|
mdhavey Posts: 164 |
posted 02-12-2005 06:06 PM
Now I'm confused! I don't believe Gennet, the manufacturer, ever used pseudo hallmarks. Belden shows two different marks for him, but neither have pseudo hallmarks attached. IP: Logged |
|
RP JAX Posts: 13 |
posted 02-12-2005 06:08 PM
Thanks for the help. RP JAX IP: Logged |
|
RP JAX Posts: 13 |
posted 02-12-2005 06:11 PM
One more question, it has the sterling Hallmark, but I read that Charles Gennet worked mostly in Coin silver. It tests for silver, but would it be coin or sterling? IP: Logged |
|
RP JAX Posts: 13 |
posted 02-12-2005 06:16 PM
Furthermore, if I understand correctly - Gennet sold this spoon, manufactured by someone in possibly New York, but did not make it - but he still put his mark on it. -OR am I just really mixed up? IP: Logged |
|
mdhavey Posts: 164 |
posted 02-12-2005 06:19 PM
Remember, these are not valid English sterling marks. Back to my question, were they placed on the ladle by Gennet, the manufacturer, or someone else? I doubt it was Gennet because there is no record of him using psuedos. IP: Logged |
|
mdhavey Posts: 164 |
posted 02-12-2005 06:25 PM
To sort of clarify what we know.
IP: Logged |
|
RP JAX Posts: 13 |
posted 02-12-2005 06:42 PM
But if Gennet manufactured it , why would someone put pseudo marks on it to confuse a good named piece. Or if someone was trying to fake it as an English piece - why would they put Gennet, a manufacturer, name on it after they put the pseudo marks on it. IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 02-12-2005 06:51 PM
I see no reason to rule out Gennet as a retailer. Remember that the marks shown in Belden are only from pieces the Library owns and are not exhaustive by any means. In the same light, Cutten's illustrations are drawings and we have no way of knowing if that was all he saw or just didn't bother with the pseudos. For the last 20 years of his working career, Gennet was listed as a watchmaker and jeweler, not as a manufacturing silversmith. With the extensive wholesale trade routes established in Richmond and other large cities, there was little reason, outside a special order, for a shop not to buy stock goods from outside. IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 02-12-2005 06:54 PM
Let's try this again: The pseudo-hallmarks are trademarks of a manufacturer who provided it to Gennett to retail. Pseudo-hallmarks are not hallmarks and carry none of the information that hallmarks do. See the Hallmark Faq for further explanation. Silversmiths were merchants, too. If they were to make a living they had to sell more than they could make themselves, and often bought from other silversmiths. Gennett added his mark prior to selling the piece, as was common practice. If any pseudo-hallmarks were made to deceive, a trademark would not be useful in that regard, because everything made by that firm would be marked alike. Any contemporary person unsophisticated enough to be taken in by a trademark would not likely be sophisticated enough to be buying silver. While these may be imitative of English hallmarks, they are not copies, and they may be only intended to imply equivalent quality to objects bearing genuine hallmarks, or simply a lack of enough imagination to come up with something more original. IP: Logged |
|
RP JAX Posts: 13 |
posted 02-12-2005 07:06 PM
SO more than likely this was sold by Charles Gennet Jr with his mark added to the Pseudo marks - which denotes an American Manufacturer (possibly New York)which is unknown. Would Gennet put his mark on an item of sterling, coin or junk silver? Or all three? IP: Logged |
|
RP JAX Posts: 13 |
posted 02-12-2005 07:10 PM
Or would Gennet put his mark on an item which was not silver at all? IP: Logged |
|
mdhavey Posts: 164 |
posted 02-12-2005 07:42 PM
I have problems with the suggestion that these psuedo hallmarks are not meant to deceive. Of course the were. They are very close replicas of the real English sterling marks. If the point was simply to attach a personal trade mark to silver, well...that's exactly what many manufacturers did, attach their own personal trademark, not the British Crown's. And I think RP Jax is making an excellent point. Charles Gennet was a silversmith. He manufactured silver products. He took pride in his work enough to put his own name on articles. Why in the world would he put his name on an article that someone else made and with fake English marks to boot? It doesn't add up in my mind. A perhaps more plausible scenario is that the marks were added later by another retailer or dealer. IP: Logged |
|
mdhavey Posts: 164 |
posted 02-12-2005 07:54 PM
Another way of looking at these hallmarks is to imagine what you would think if the piece had just the psuedo marks without any other marks or signatures at all. Wouldn't most of us, like RP JAX, think immediately English Sterling? IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 02-12-2005 08:48 PM
Let's see: you're in the second half of your career, moving from your original trade of silversmith to a more genteel position of jeweler and watchmaker. As a businessman, do you invest considerable time, floor space, and material costs making up an order for six standard pattern spoons or do you lay in a modest supply (probably at less than your own making cost) of equally well-crafted articles on good terms? North, south, east and west, by the 1840s, this was becoming common practice and the age of the independent run-of-the-trade maker, at least in a large and well served city, was over. [This message has been edited by wev (edited 02-12-2005).] IP: Logged |
|
RP JAX Posts: 13 |
posted 02-12-2005 10:47 PM
I have seen the practice of jewelers buying high-end objects and putting their name on them to show that they sold them. Many of our local jewelers did that with watches, jewelry and sterling - however, it was known by advertisements of certain jewelry stores carrying Tiffany, & other high-end names in the 1880's & 1890's; but is there any kind of record of Charles Gennet doing this or is this an assumption based upon the practice of other trade professionals of that time and later. IP: Logged |
|
RP JAX Posts: 13 |
posted 02-12-2005 11:10 PM
To go further on my previous thought, I can believe Gennet stamped his name on article which he bought and re-sold - what I am having a problem with is that he would put his name on a piece that is -- let say not so legitimate. When this ladle was purchased it has Hallmarks (pseudo) which lead you to believe it is English sterling, when he knows it is not what the marks indicate. This would be un-ethical at best and fraudulent at worst. I'm trying to think the best, but if I were a talented craftsman as he was - I don't think I could prostitute my name in that manner - knowing what I was selling wasn't legitimate. I know times could have been tough, but I just don't know if I can see Gennet doing this for this piece. But then I look at the piecce, which is silver, well made & has the look of the time - and I am still not sure. IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 02-12-2005 11:24 PM
You are making an unwarranted assumption that there is anything illegitimate or unethical about selling a piece with these markings. People of the day were quite familiar with English silver, as there was a lot of it around, and would not be fooled by these. Only someone unfamiliar with English hallmarks would fail to recognize these for what they are. [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 02-12-2005).] IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 02-13-2005 12:22 AM
People, please! This was business, cold and hard. He bought a well-made product which he could, in turn, sell to his clients at a better profit than if he made the same in his back room. He obviously picked items that reflected his clientel's standard of quality and also made his profit point; to do otherwise would be fiscal suicide. None of this was invented in our time; it is as old as trade itself. I am quite willing to bet that 75% (or more!) of the "Southern" silver we see day to day is of the same stuff and substance. As for the question of imitating British sterling marks -- well of course they are. Do you think these manufacturers were stupid? Why do you think the Sheffield platemakers were doing exactly the same thing decades earlier, prompting the wrath of the authorities? This is called marketing and it, too, is ancient. IP: Logged |
|
mdhavey Posts: 164 |
posted 02-13-2005 01:00 AM
Remarkably, with all this sturm und drang, we still don't know who put the fake English hallmarks on the ladle. We never found out who put the overalls in Mrs. Murphy's chowder, either. Lost to the shifting sands of time... Unless someone can come up with other examples of these marks with a clue as to who, I guess we'll never know. IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 02-13-2005 06:11 PM
While earlier pseudohallmarks, like 18th C Sheffield marks, may well have been good enough to frighten contemporary silversmiths into believing they were reflective of ulterior motives onthe part of the platers, I have difficulty believing that, if these later American trademark pseudohallmarks were intended to fool, that a better job of copying would not have been done. In the 18th Century, imported silver was an upper class status symbol, and therefore something to be imitated. With the American Revolution, the class system had begun to crumble here. By the time manufacturing silversmithing firms were supplying volume wholesale to the trade, there was no longer any real need to imitate something they were not. While manufacturers may have hoped to instill an aura of quality by conveying an impression of English-like marks, people certainly knew what they were buying. If many merchants were to choose their suppliers solely on the basis of whose trademarks looked most British, why would there be so many so bad they would fool no one? And why would the practice not have been more widespread? It was simply an old system suitable to be adapted to new purposes, after having lost its original meaning. Otherwise why fake hallmarks and then stamp "COIN" right next, as was sometimes done? IP: Logged |
|
mdhavey Posts: 164 |
posted 02-13-2005 09:43 PM
A review of Belden has turned up one Robert Rait who worked in NYC from 1835 - 1855. His mark is so similar to the one on RP JAX's ladle that I would suggest we may have found our man: I'm not at all sure what happened to this ladle, just that Rait's pseudohallmarks are on it. It does not seem from the reference that Rait was a major manufacturer, who would put his hallmarks on silver without his own name, but perhaps that is what happened and the ladle found its way to Richmond, VA, antebellum. This makes sense--before the war Richmond was a prosperous city with a large middle class able to afford silver. After the war, Virginia was in dire straits with few able to afford silver ladles. If RP JAX is still on this thread, and who would not forgive him if he's long ago turned in out of frustration with our ramblings, could we ask that you post a photo of your ladle? It would be interesting to examine the style and shape. IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 02-13-2005 11:04 PM
Would someone with a copy of John McGrew's book on manufacturer's trademarks please look up these marks and see if he has identified the maker? IP: Logged |
|
mdhavey Posts: 164 |
posted 02-13-2005 11:50 PM
Swarter, do you not think the marks are Rait's, or do you think there is yet another manufacturer who used the same marks? IP: Logged |
|
Silver Lyon Posts: 363 |
posted 02-14-2005 06:45 AM
What a long discussion! I fear to try and add my pennyworth but will do so anyway (bright cold morning!) - It is not until the 1850's that ANYTHING is published that enables the PUBLIC to see what was intended by the British hallmarking system - it was exclusively developed in order to enable the authorities to control and keep a check upon the quality of metal used and thus protect and encourage the trade. The public expected to see marks, but had no idea what to expect or how to understand them. At the time that these (pseudo London 1833)marks were applied anyone seeing them would have thought that they looked 'ok' for Sterling and felt (more) comfortable purchasing them than a piece without them - that is why the manufacturer placed them on his wares - Imported Hallmarked sterling had always traditionally sold at a premium in the USA - To clarify: these marks were probably NOT intended to deceive, but to encourage the confidence of the retail customer. The question as to the exact silver content was not of importance to the buyer, but the STATUS of owning the silver was! Pseudo-Hallmarks are found throughout the English-speaking world from the mid c.18th and were clearly an accepted practice outwith the British Isles, where they were TERRIBLY illegal - their use does not seem to have been considered fraudulent anywhere as far as I can tell. They appear on pieces from as little as 75% pure through to 96% !! To answer another point raised above, EVEN manufacturers (and I agree that here we are dealing with a retailer at the time when he sold this piece) with quite large workshops would find it cheaper and easier to buy in stocks of spoons from a specialist factory - the economies of scale really worked for coin spoons which could be mass produced in a manner never before possible using the latest (steam driven) technologies. IP: Logged |
|
tmockait Posts: 963 |
posted 02-14-2005 11:25 AM
One more thing. The hallmarking was not just to control trade. From the middle ages through the early modern period (at least the 17th c.), people stored wealth as silver items, which could be melted down and converted to coin as needed. Of course the crown had to make certain the coinage was not debased. Tom IP: Logged |
|
doc Posts: 728 |
posted 02-14-2005 11:45 AM
Not to add to the confusion, but I was looking at my pile of "unidentified spoons" this weekend, and lo and behold I too have a teaspoon with these same pseudo-hallmarks, but with the maker's mark ED (contained in rectangle). IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 02-14-2005 12:27 PM
quote: All the above mentioned names/initials accompanying these phm's are undoubtedly retailers. There would have been only one manufacturer who used this trademark, and he was likely only a wholesaler whose name might never appear on a spoon. Until and unless some researcher is able to conclusively identify the manufacturer, we cannot choose among the many names appearing alongside the phm's. IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 02-14-2005 02:23 PM
Perhaps a bit more clarification is in order. We are considering here a class of pseudohallmarks peculiar to American manufactured spoons produced by the thousands in the Mid-century industrialized North, and not those proprietary marks used by individual smiths from the 1790's into the 1820's and 1830's, nor those marks also used by some hollowware manufacturers. When I first became interested in coin silver, I too was fascinated by these pseudohallmarks, and I began to accumulate a "list." By the time I had catalogued upwards of about 50 sets of these marks, it had become apparent that they were mostly confined to spoons of a weight and style that would not compare well with the English in the hand, and that, with the exception of a very few that would give pause, the marks were noticably cruder than those appearing on English pieces. We need to consider who was buying these spoons, too. People who bought imported English hollowware probably bought better quality flatware, too. Had they ever any occasion to examine these pseudohallmarked spoons, they would certainly have recognized the difference in quality of the marks, as well as the quality of the apoons, even if they couldn't read the marks themselves. On the other hand, many of those who bought American manufactured spoons probably wouldn't know a hallmark from a doorstop, and might never have handled English silver, so these marks cannot be considered fraudulent, however deceptive they might be to those with some casual exposure to English marks. We might also mention that English hallmarks were accompanied by maker's initials only, so that any retailer adding his full name to the pseudohallmarks would risk defeating his purpose, if it were his intention deliberately to try to pass off these spoons as English to anyone familiar with English silver. Another point to consider is that a good many of these spoons bearing English style marks were decidely French in style. Either the average buyer of these spoons was as dumb as a post, or, after two wars with the Mother Country, the slavish imitation of English products was fast becoming a thing of the past. I guess what I have been trying to say is that this group of marks is uniquely American, and deserves to be considered in its own right. [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 02-14-2005).] IP: Logged |
|
ahwt Posts: 2334 |
posted 02-14-2005 04:59 PM
McGrew shows three American dies with the lion/leopard head/S/bust. The one shown in this thread is McGrew's die number 1, but all are based on the London assay mark for 1833. As such, McGrew states that they deserve "the derogatory term of PSEUDOHALLMARK". In any event die number 1 is found on the following retailers: E.D. (attr Edmund Darros) Freeman and Wallin G&E (attr to Gale & Eoff) Howe & Union Geo.C. Howe & Co. O.S. Hennings J. Lowe R. Rait Salisbury M.& F. Sill Whitney & Hoyt McGrew's die number 2 is found on Gennet & James; A. Coles; N.A. Freeman; T.W. Freeman; Jennings & Lander; while die number 3 is found on P& F (attr to Pfeiffer & Frenche) From this thread it is also clear that die number 1 is also found on silver with the mark of Gennet. Die number 1 also appears on the silver of G & C (Gilbert and Cunningham), while die number 2 appears on silver from Gilbert (Philo B) and FWC/NY (F.W. Cooper). From this I assume that McGrew attributes Philo Gilbert/ Gilbert & Cunningham and F.W. Cooper complex as the manufacturers. IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 02-14-2005 05:40 PM
Unless, of course, Gilbert and Cooper were also buying out goods from a sub-contractor. Cooper's, Gilbert's, and Gilbert & Cunningham's name marks are found with a variety of additional PHMs -- eagle/bust/W, eagle/star/bust, anchor/bust/star, etc. One has to wonder why use so many variations, if it was of their own manufacture? Or why, for that matter, they would bother to add them at all? IP: Logged |
|
RP JAX Posts: 13 |
posted 02-14-2005 06:19 PM
Per mdhvey request tomorrow I will photogaph both back and front of the ladle and post. I haven't died out, and I find the conversation quite interesting - but I'm sorry to say work interrupts during the day. IP: Logged |
|
RP JAX Posts: 13 |
posted 02-15-2005 01:53 PM
Her are the pics of the front and back: IP: Logged |
|
mdhavey Posts: 164 |
posted 02-16-2005 04:53 PM
RP JAX, could we trouble you for a size of thie ladle? IP: Logged |
|
RP JAX Posts: 13 |
posted 02-16-2005 09:15 PM
It is 15" long, bowl is about 4" wide IP: Logged |
|
Marc Posts: 414 |
posted 02-20-2005 02:03 AM
Hi all Just a little spot to add to this miasma. IP: Logged |
|
nihontochicken Posts: 289 |
posted 05-05-2005 06:27 PM
Dare I give the pot one more stir? Here's another one, from a standard shape fiddle and thread sauce ladle: IP: Logged |
|
bascall Posts: 1629 |
posted 01-25-2009 12:48 AM
Charles Gennet was born 7 June 1807 in Poughkeepsie, New York and died in August 1887 in Richmond, Virginia. IP: Logged |
|
FWG Posts: 845 |
posted 01-25-2009 02:43 PM
And for what it's worth, when I was living in Richmond I saw Richmond-marked coin spoons with yankee 'pseudohallmarks' with some regularity, including Gennet. I remember seeing one or two that looked like actual English sterling retailed locally, with real hallmarks and a retailer's mark on a proper English form for the period, but the vast majority were retailed coin silver with pseuds. I'd bet that when the new Virginia book comes out we'll see a good number of examples.... IP: Logged |
|
ellabee Posts: 306 |
posted 01-25-2009 06:16 PM
when the new Virginia book comes out What book is that? IP: Logged |
|
FWG Posts: 845 |
posted 01-26-2009 10:18 AM
Catherine Hollan has been working on a new book on Virginia silver for some time now, and it is rumored to be near publication. She's been collecting examples from many people (not me; all of the ones I offered, she had better examples) and seems to be doing a really thorough job. Along with many others, I'm excitedly awaiting it! IP: Logged |
|
Trefid Posts: 96 |
posted 01-09-2011 10:49 AM
It was my understanding for years (but I don't know how I know!) that the manufacturing marks referred to in this thread belonged originally to Salisbury & Co., NYC (hence the "S"), and that Philo Gilbert, to whom Don Soeffing in his book on medallion flatware attributes the mark, took over Salisbury's business at some point. (Later Gilbert dropped the "S" and the male head punches and just used the leopard and the lion.) Of course, Don's book was published in 1988, and there may be more recent info, but if so, I haven't heard of it. My problem is that I cannot now find any documented reference to Salisbury's being the original owner of the mark. IP: Logged |
|
bascall Posts: 1629 |
posted 01-09-2011 05:54 PM
I cannot comment on these pseudo marks, but it may be worth mentioning in this thread that along with Henry Salisbury there was a Henry Salisbury Jr who was also a jeweler and worked at the H Salisbury & Co business address. The 1857 New York City Directory lists both Henry and Henry Jr at H Salisbury & Co. The 1857-58 New York City Directory lists Henry Jr at H Salisbury & Co. [This message has been edited by bascall (edited 01-09-2011).] IP: Logged |
All times are ET | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
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. 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. |
|
copyright © 1993 - 2022
SM Publications
All Rights Reserved. Legal & Privacy Notices |
