|
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
 Porringer
|
 SSFFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Porringer |
|
bascall Posts: 1629 |
posted 09-19-2009 12:28 AM
  
My latest find which was labeled silverplate, so it doesn't matter what the details about it turn out to be too much. The weight is approximately six troy ounces. The cast handle has one small crack that does not go completely through the segment that is affected. It is solid silver but unmarked. The long handle was the first thing that attracted me to this porringer, and when I bought it I wasn't fully convinced that it was solid silver. After giving it a good cleanup and a long hard look over, there is no question that it is silver. Also the handle is angled up a little instead of coming straight away from the bowl as seems to be usual. Best of all, it displays beautifully. IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 09-19-2009 04:25 PM
Nice find - a fairly typical Federal period keyhole porringer. The handle is a bit narrow, as you say. Since these handles are cast, it might be possible to trace it at least to an area, if not a maker Start looking at pictures - there are quite a few, so it will keep you out of trouble for a while!  [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 09-19-2009).] IP: Logged |
|
bascall Posts: 1629 |
posted 09-20-2009 12:29 AM
Swarter, thank you for the information. Looking through the online images of porringers, the closest one was by Edward S Moulton which was made in Saco, Maine in 1834. The handle had one slight difference and the bowl shape looked the same. That doesn't mean much other than a possible New England attribution, but it's something. The angle of the handle on my porringer is something that I'd like to see on another one of these for whatever light it might shed on the matter. IP: Logged |
|
FredZ Posts: 1070 |
posted 09-20-2009 08:26 AM
I am curious why you say that the handle is cast. Are there pits in the casting? I would have thought the handles to most porringers would be pierced out with a saw from heavy sheet. Sand casting an intricate handle could prove problematic and I suspect there would be failure in the castings as well. Fred IP: Logged |
|
Ulysses Dietz Moderator Posts: 1265 |
posted 09-20-2009 09:28 AM
I'm interested in the whole idea of how late silver porringers are made. My training has lead me to believe that amongst elite urban clients, silver porringers were really passe by the end of the 18th century--although I know pewter porringers (whose handles are cast, by the way) survive well into the 1830s. Can folks come up with examples of silver porringers, like the Saco, Maine example cited above, that are as late as that? IP: Logged |
|
bascall Posts: 1629 |
posted 09-20-2009 12:57 PM
Fred, even before receiving swarter's reply, I had shown this piece to a master silversmith who said that the handle was cast. Otherwise, the thought would not have crossed my mind. There is just the slightest bit of pitting that is noticeable on the back of the handle, but not enough to initially lead me to suspect that it was cast. The silversmith I mention made the comment that making porringers never stopped. He also said tentitavely that the piece was nineteenth century and done with a lathe and not raised. However, the ping on the bottom maybe from polishing on a lathe and not manufacturing. Hopefully, the subject of making porringers in the nineteenth century will be explored further on the forum. Thank you all for your comments. [This message has been edited by bascall (edited 09-20-2009).] IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 09-20-2009 01:09 PM
There have been a number of Federal period porringers offered on ebay over the years. Porringers of course are still being made, but not by the old methods. I have seen examples into the 1840's- If I can remember any of the makers, I'll add them - I don't think I made any sort of record of them. A&G Wells I think was one, and at least one by one of the Moultons (bearing an 1800's date, another. Known provenance and/or original script rather than block initials would be an indication for makers whose dates overlap the Revolutionary period (as a Colonial/Federal boundary). At first I was surprised to see them, as my impression was that they were strictly colonial, but I think it is just that builders/donors of most older published museum collections may have spurned them as "out of period." A similar lack of demand may also explain their appearance on ebay. I said that they were cast because I thought I had read that they were, so I could be wrong, Pewter ones certainly were, but that is an entirely different matter - I suppose my aging memory could have conflated the two (It is possible, as has been done, to attribute unmarked pewter porringers by their characteristic handles). Even if cut by hand, certain makers could have identifiable variations - keyhole handles tend to be rather similar, so when one is recognizably different it may be significant. [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 09-20-2009).] IP: Logged |
|
FredZ Posts: 1070 |
posted 09-20-2009 02:36 PM
A number of porringers were handmade during the Arts & Crafts movement and most of the handles were saw pierced during that time. I have seen examples by Katherine Pratt, George Gebelein, Arthur Stone, and the Kalo shop made a wonderful series of them with repoussed and chased handles. Fred IP: Logged |
|
Ulysses Dietz Moderator Posts: 1265 |
posted 09-20-2009 03:13 PM
Oh yes, porringers are among the most popular of colonial revival forms, long after people knew what a porringer was, they called it by its name and used it for nuts or candy. Babies, too, got porringers, which came the closest to serving their original function... IP: Logged |
|
bascall Posts: 1629 |
posted 09-28-2009 12:35 AM
Fredz, after looking this porringer over for some time, I have question it being cast too. And it does look like porringers pretty much died out after the Federal Period or there abouts. Some notes on porringers: Porringers were universal in colonial wills. Porringers served as cup, spoon, ladle and bowl for sailors. Porringers were also called pipkins in reference to Norman pottery. Porringers hung by their handles. Porringers were in common use for drinking porridge until tea and coffee banished 'Prentice porringers were an inch and a Small porringers were also known as posnets which may have orignially referred to a posset cup. There are variations of the term posnet. IP: Logged |
|
bascall Posts: 1629 |
posted 02-09-2018 08:02 PM
Just came across an identical porringer to this one on the big online auction site. Unfortunately, it does not have a maker's mark, and I don't think it has an accurate attribution. IP: Logged |
|
agleopar Posts: 850 |
posted 02-10-2018 10:13 PM
It might be possible to match the handle to a marked one...? A long shot I know but the handles were, I think, sort of repeated and this shop did it differently from that shop. IP: Logged |
|
vathek Posts: 966 |
posted 02-11-2018 07:51 AM
I posted this in 2012, an unmarked porringer with an inscription dated 1856 and a similar handle. It has not been determined if it was newly made at that time or an old one: Unsigned American Coin Porringer IP: Logged |
|
bascall Posts: 1629 |
posted 02-11-2018 12:41 PM
Thank you for the replies. Now that I have come across one identical handle to mine, it does give me hope that others will surface with some accompanying information. IP: Logged |
|
ahwt Posts: 2334 |
posted 02-15-2018 10:58 AM
This is a little off the subject, but I saw bowls of the type referred to as bleeding bowls on an English website. I have never heard that before an wonder if this is true. IP: Logged |
|
Scott Martin Forum Master Posts: 11520 |
posted 02-15-2018 01:54 PM
There are several posts that mention bleeding bowls. For example, D.C. Denham, New York maker? IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 03-02-2018 11:52 PM
If my recollection [from reading, not from the period  ], bleeding bowls were marked with lines for volume to avoid drawing too much (or not enough ? ) blood, whereas how much porridge was contained might not have been much of an issue. Remember that in the past, the use of bloodletting was a common practice when "bad blood" was thought to be a cause of disease, so in an ill informed attempt to remove the cause of the infirmity either leeches or a fleam (a form of lancet) with a bleeding bowl were used. I have often wondered if an already weakened patient could be further weakened or how often blood-borne diseases might have been transferred from one patient to another in this manner![This message has been edited by swarter (edited 03-03-2018).] IP: Logged |
|
Polly Posts: 1970 |
posted 03-03-2018 12:01 PM
I've read that some historians think George Washington died at least partly because of excessive bloodletting by his doctors. On the other hand, there's a disease that's pretty common among people of Northern European ancestry, hemochromatosis, where patients have too much iron in their blood, which can cause various organs to fail; the treatment is bloodletting. I had a boss who had it. If I were a vampire in the 19th c, I would become a doctor so I'd have an unremarkable method of getting hold of fresh blood. IP: Logged |
|
vathek Posts: 966 |
posted 03-06-2018 07:56 AM
Bascall: I believe I may have found probable attributions to both our porringers. I believe yours is by William Simkins as it has that extra notch in the cutouts nearest the handle. Mine seems to be an exact match for an Edward S. Moulton one. Simkins:  Moulton: IP: Logged |
|
bascall Posts: 1629 |
posted 07-17-2018 01:47 AM
I've overlooked this post. Sadly the handle is not an identical match. I think that the handle on mine is different in that there is only one set of notches. Other porringers that I have looked at have multiple sets of notches. Vathek, Thanks for posting the example with an attribution. [This message has been edited by bascall (edited 07-17-2018).] IP: Logged |
|
bascall Posts: 1629 |
posted 07-17-2018 02:15 AM
I had just decided that a regular routine of looking for an example of my porringer with a mark was going to be necessary in order to ever find it, so I began to look (again) and there it was. No attribution, but the mark was SW with serifs separated by a bullet in a rectangular cartouche. The mark was prominently located on the top of the handle. Now to identify this mark. Any advice is most welcome. IP: Logged |
|
bascall Posts: 1629 |
posted 08-29-2018 06:31 PM
Another identical porringer spotted. The most recent one has the year 1811 engraved on the top of handle along with a script monogram, no maker's mark. Maybe again someday and with a convincing attribution. [This message has been edited by bascall (edited 08-29-2018).] 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 |
