posted 03-17-2006 10:41 PM            

We can't positively say anything about your piece without a photograph. However, there seems to have been an R.E. Smith working in Louisville, KY, in the mid-19th century. An R.E. Smith is also listed in Philadelphia.

If the only identifiable mark is the maker's name, then that's consistent with much of coin silver produced during the mid-19th century. Dale's comments about ice tongs still need to be kept in mind, however, and without viewing the item together with its dimensions, we can't tell what sort of tongs they are. Also, without viewing the maker's mark, there's no way to positively identify the maker as either the Smith from Louisville or Philadelphia, or someone else altogether.

You mention that you looked in the Rainwater text. It's a invaluable reference, but for many of the earlier (and lesser known) silversmiths, a book like Kovel's American Silver Marks 1650 to Present can often fill in the gaps that reveal themselves in Rainwater.

Look out for an annotated SSF library coming (hopefully) soon, which will point out the relative merits of various books.

posted 03-18-2006 09:59 PM            

Of course I was so excited to post my question to you all after having picked up the piece that day, that I could not wait for my camera's batteries to charge before making my post.

The pics aren't terrific, but here they are. Their are actually two sigs, both the same, on either side of the inside of the tongs. The piece measures 6" with a 1 1/4 separation between the tongs. It was noticeably smaller then other ice tongs that I looked at at the show that were sterling and newer pieces. The fellow I got it from hadn't been able to identify the maker. He is from North Carolina, one of his interests was coin silver and purchased it at an auction there. He did test the content. He guessed from the design that it was made somewhere between 1820 and 1860. My big interest is American Brilliant Cut Glass, but I do have an appreciation for silver. I have acquired a few interesting silver serving pieces and come to you with a small bit of knowledge and loads of questions. This is actually my first piece of coin silver and appreciate your assistance greatly.

posted 03-18-2006 10:57 PM            

Dale, I know what you mean about sugar tongs as ice tongs, already did that. Well, I ended up with an interesting silver plated pair with a nice design and shape marked Happin & Webb. Also marked Ritz Carleton B (great hotel!).

I have been into antiques since I could follow my parents to antique shows. My interests, as far as silver goes, has been largely American silver plate. It started with enjoying using serving dishes we had picked up in Northen California when we lived there, to some great earlier pieces I have found here in the South East. I picked up an intersting piece of what I believe to be old sheffield plate. My oldest find is a cut glass scent bottle with a beautifully crafted silver top that has a makers mark dating back to 1802, Birmingham.

Fred, although they don't have some of the elaborate designs I have seen on coin silver, they are a nice weight with a solid thickness. I like the size because they hang beautifully on the stunning cut glass ice holder with a silver rim and a silver drain disc which is marked sterling. I can identify the cut glass maker as Pairpoint/Mt. Washington, but do not know who did the silverwork, although I do know that Pairpoint had a silver making arm.

Swarter, Do tell..

IJP, Thanks for the book tip. Kovel's Porcelain and ceramic book has come in handy to help identify many "finds," I will have to pick up the Silver book of theirs that you refer to.

I look forward to learning of what you all think after reviewing the pics posted here.

thanks again,

Suz

posted 03-19-2006 12:40 AM            

This also gives me the opportunity again to point out the dangers inherent in using the Kovels' book for identification. It is merely a compilation of references, apparently unvetted by the authors. It is useful ONLY to point to references which must be consulted for verification, because it could appear to inexperienced readers that all references are given equal weight when many are actually obsolete. In this instance, following the history through the given references, the assignment of this mark to the Philadelphia Smith is apparently no longer recognized. It is traceable to a reference in Brix's Philadelphia Silversmiths to listings of a person by this name; the mark was given to this man in early editions of Ensko's American Silversmiths and Their Marks (and copied by Okie), but dropped and reassigned to the Louisville Smith in the later editions. Even though it is the most complete listing of silversmiths, I never recommend it to neophyte silverphiles, as it leads to too many misidentifications by the inexperienced who cannot spot the inconsistencies.

The books by Wyler and Okie (and Robert Allen Green) that some have been recommending lately are similarly unreliable, as they also are compilations of obsolete references, only they lack even the references that Kovels' has that might enable a reader to unravel ssome of the inconsistencies. Thankfully, Okie is out of print, and well nigh unavailable, but Wyler, which was obsolete nearly 70 years ago when it was first printed, unfortunately has never been revised and is still in print!
People say "well, it is the only thing there is, so it is better than nothing," but wrong information is never better than no information! It sometines seems we spend way too much time correcting wrong information taken from these books, and urging people to ignore them as they cannot use them properly until they gain more experience -- which is why some of us feel as strongly about them as we do. So where do they start without them? Therein lies the rub!

posted 03-19-2006 01:33 AM            

As far as your tongs:
They look like sugar nips, don't they?

posted 03-19-2006 10:07 AM            

On closer inspection, the period after the "h" is ever so slightly above in relation to the other periods which appear to be on the same plane as the letters which preceed them.

I am wondering if there is anymore information regarding this maker. How was his work catagorized in terms of quality and craftmanship? Can you provide a snapshot into the silversmiths of KY and the south? I do know that the North East, particularly MA had a host of silversmiths in the 19th century.

I do know that their are books, and then their are books, when it comes to identifying antiques. I do have a book which focuses on British silver in a rather general way- Millers "collecting silver." I know I need to pick up a few more and always keep my eye out for them in anique book venues. I do appreciate your direction in this regard. I have printed your recommendations for my reference.

Outwest,

I wish their was a site as good as this one is for American Brilliant Cut Glass. Lord know that identification is so very tricky without the marks. So many duplications of the more popular patterns of the age by various makers. As with all my acquisitions, I use the internet,largely google and top internet vendors, as an ID tool. Have you discovered "the house of brilliant glass?" Great for ID for top quality pieces.

Regarding the ice tongs, they are a bit larger, both in width and length, then the sugar tongs I have. The fellow I bought them from did have a large selection of coin silver pieces. He himself is a silversmith. He told me that the earlier tongs tended to be smaller then the ones of the late 19th and 20th century. Most importantly they do effectively pick up ice as the sugar tongs do not. I actually tested them out on the ice in the cup I had when looking at them as I really didn't need another pair of sugar tongs.

Suz

posted 03-19-2006 12:21 PM            

Thanks so much for the run down on Mr. Smith. I really appreciate the detail.

Now I need to try getting some decent mark pics of some other pieces for sage opinions.

posted 03-19-2006 12:46 PM            

Prior to that time, the ice that was available had been hacked out of rivers and ponds. It contained leaves and dead bugs, among other things. In short it was septic and could not be put into contact with food. The cut glass piece you have was probably meant to have ice on the bottom, the circular drain and then food.

Large tongs are usually called sugar tongs but they probably were used to pull preserved food out of tall jars. These were called castors or casters and survive in large quantities.

posted 03-19-2006 01:25 PM            

There are two books which I consider esential for an understanding of American silver:

Early American Silver (1970) by Martha Gandy Fales, and

American Silver, a History of Style 1650-1900 (1971) by Graham Hood.

The first is a broad treatment of all aspects of the subject by a knowledgeable and experienced professional, and is a revision of an earlier work of hers -- I believe it was entitled something like Early American Silver for the Cautious Collector. The revised and enlarged edition should be in the library of every collector of Early American silver.

The second, also by a respected authority, emphasizes the evolution of silver styles over time and enables one to learn to avoid misidentificatons of makers by knowing which styles were made at the time they were working.

Even though these are now over 30 years old, the silver they are dealing with is far older, and, except for a few relatively minor points, scholarship by the time they were written was sufficiently mature that it is still valid today. They do not include compendia of marks, which are the aspects of the field most subject to revision, and the cause of obsolescence of so many older silver books.

Both should be available on the used market, and can be found in many public libraries. Try AddAll.com to find copies.

posted 03-19-2006 07:29 PM            

I like the interpretation you suggest, in terms of the use of the tongs in question. The ones that I have seen with pickle casters have been a bit more delicate then the one I have. In any case, they work perfectly for the use I had in mind and I now have a beautiful pair of tongs with a great story the WILL be used as I always use the bucket for filling water glasses and when we have company over. I am attaching a pic of the bucket fyi. I need to get a book that specializes in Mt Washington to determine possible silversmiths. I do have a find that I suspect is an early Gorham. I will have to journey over to the sterling forum and inquire. Thanks so much!

swarter, Thanks so much for the confirmation and book recommendations. I do enjoy picking up the early books. I have done this with the ABG glass as well as Victorian Furniture, another interest. None of the newer books had the extensive examples of early hepplewhite mirrors and the 1950 one had something very similar to a find dating it to late 1700's early 1800's. I do appreciate the direction. I would also like some advice as to a more substantial reference book for British silver. Not sure if this is up your alley as well. I was not familiar with addall.com, thanks for this too!!

Suz

posted 03-20-2006 01:40 AM            

Starting to Collect Silver by John Luddington] (1984) and

Silver Flatware: English, Irish, and Scottish 1660-1980 by Ian Pickford (1983)

See this thresd for recommendations on other books, including books on marks.

posted 03-20-2006 10:16 AM            

I did get curious on the date of the introduction of ice boxes in homes and it seems to cooincide with the Victorian Period. I found an Ice Museaum and "all things ice" site (iceboxmemories.com) that suggests that ice was first introduced to the home in 1840 and shortly after that was being delivered to homes in New York city. One has to conclude that the Victorians had an implement to handle ice with.

posted 03-20-2006 12:26 PM            

quote:

---

In 1840, the icebox was invented for use inside the home. Shortly after that, New York City saw the establishment of regular delivery routes for natural ice.

In the 1870's the USA saw the first ice plants begin producing artificial ice.

---

posted 03-20-2006 05:36 PM            

The shell pattern of Suzy's tongs is similar to the shell bowled spoons I have that are certainly sugar spoons for granular sugar.

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong)that sugar was initially in chunks in most places and they used tongs. Sugar spoons are for granular, flowing sugar. I think there was both kinds available in the mid 1800's.

I know my coin tongs are from 1857 because they are the exact same pattern and retailer as another utensil that has JP pat 1857 stamped. Suzy's tongs look even earlier then that. And the sugar spoons I have are also from that period (I have no idea how old the Gorham tongs are).

Even if the were initially made for sugar chunks you can surely still use them for ice.

posted 03-20-2006 11:53 PM            

It turns out that the kind of finely ground sugar we have is a fairly recent innovation. And that this came into being in the 20th century. Previously, like when these tongs were new, people had to hack sugar off a loaf. Which meant that people were using irregular lumps of sugar in their sugar bowls. Which in turn meant they needed tongs to handle it, and to break off the amount desired. Here are some quotes.

quote:

---

"Large and prosperous households bought their white sugar in tall, conical loaves, from which pieces were broken off with special iron sugar-cutters. Shaped something like very large heavy pliers with sharp blades attached to the cutting sides, these cutters had to be strong and tough, because the loaves were large, about 14 inches in diameter at the base, and 3 feet high [15th century]...In those days, sugar was used with great care, and one loaf lasted a long time. The weight would probably have been about 30 lb. Later, the weight of a loaf varied from 5 lb to 35 lb, according to the moulds used by any one refinery. A common size was 14 lb, but the finest sugar from Madeira came in small loaves of only 3 or 4 lb in weight...Up till late Victorian times household sugar remained very little changed and sugar loaves were still common and continued so until well into the twentieth century..."
---English Bread and Yeast Cookery, Elizabeth David [Penguin:Middlesex] 1977 (p. 139)
[NOTE: Mrs. David has much more to say on the subject of sugar than can be paraphrased here. Ask your librarian to help you find a copy of this book.]

"Conical molded cakes of granualted sugar, wrapped in blue paper & tied, as customary for maybe centuries in Europe, & in US in 18th - early 19th C. This one is from Belgium, but form is the same. About 10"H x 4 3/4"diam...The blue paper wrapped around sugar loafs was re-used to dye small linens a medium indigo blue...Sugar nippers were necessary because sugar came in hard molded cones, with a heavy string or cord up through the long axis like a wick, but there so that the sugar should be conveniently hung up, always wrapped in blue paper...Conical sugar molds of pottery or wood were used by pouring hot sugar syrup into them and cooling them until solid. They range from about 8' high to 16" high. These molds are very rare, especially those with some intaglio decoration inside to make a pattern on the cone...Loaf or broken sugar-A bill of sale form Daniel E. Baily, a grocer of Lynchberg, VA, dated 1839, lists two types of sugar sold to John G. Merme (?). "Loaf sugar" and "Broken sugar," the latter cost half as much...Loaf was 20 cents a pound, and broken it was only eleven cents a pound. For cooking, the broken would have been more convenient by far...Perhaps the fear of adulturation...made people want the Loaf."
---300 Years of Kitchen Collectibles, Linda Campbell Franklin, 5th edition [Krause Publications:Wisconsin] 2003 (p. 100-101)
[NOTE: other sources say blue paper was employed because it made the sugar appear whitest/most pure.]

"Various kinds of sugar were available in the 18th century, with names indicating either the extent of the processing which they had undergone or the manner of presentation for sale. It normally came in a loaf', of a conical shape...Some of these terms are self-expalnatory, while others are readily understood in the light of early methods of refining sugar. There were succinctly described by the great Swedish naturalist Linnaeus [1741]...Here the coarse and unrefined raw sugar was pulverized and boiled in water, diluted with lime-water, mixed with ox blood or egg white, skimmed and poured into inverted cone-shaped moulds, perforated at the tip; from these a syrup trickled down into a bottle; this was repeated, and then the mould was covered with a white, dough-like French clay in Sweden, but it has to be imported.' What Linnaeus witnessed was sugar refining...Lump sugar was just lumps broken off the loaf, whereas powdered sugar had been grated from the loaf'"
---The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy, Hannah Glasse, facsimile first edition, Introductory Essays by Jennifer Stead and Priscilla Bain, glossary by Alan Davidson [Prospect Books : Devon] 1995 (p. 200)

---

posted 12-20-2008 07:51 PM            

There is an Abijah Bayless in the 1832 Business Directory for Louisville, Kentucky who was a Dry Goods merchant and whose shop was located very near to Richard E Smith's if not in the same building.