posted 05-12-1999 01:35 AM            

Special Features
Frontenac is a floral pattern with timeless beauty. It has been in continuous production since 1903. It therefore offers special challenges to the collector from dating to forgery.

Dating
Having a large number of pieces from the pattern helps, and certainly there are possible clues from the marks quoting Hester: "MARKS:
I have never found a reliable method of telling which were pieces were made with the original dies & which were made later (excluding recasts and the pieces made today which are so blatantly bad that they wouldn't fool a blind person). If anybody else has, I'd be interested in knowing how. I've always preferred pieces where the word 'STERLING' is enclosed in a fancy box because I thought they might be older (I have a teaspoon monogrammed '1909' which has the box), but I have no proof and the detail is just as good on the unenclosed pieces as the enclosed.

I examined 40 place & serving pieces and compared whether 'sterling' was boxed or not, if a patent stamp was used and if so was it 'PAT. or PAT'D ', whether the shield under the knight's head was an outlined area with a raised 'S' or a solid area with the 'S' impressed, the clarity of the plant stamens, anthers & stigma, and whether or not there were raised spots on the lilies. No definitive pattern emerged. All but 2 pieces (knives excluded) had patent marks of some sort. Surprisingly, one that didn't was a pierced jelly cake server which is so finely pierced that I can't imagine it being a newer piece; the manufacturing/finishing cost would be enormous plus I don't think it was a utensil that was in heavy demand. The other was the above pie fork. In most cases, 'PAT'D' was used in conjunction with a raised 'S' in the outlined shield mark and a boxed 'STERLING', and 'PAT.' was used with an impressed 'S' in a solid shield and usually no box, but enough exceptions occurred to prevent this from being conclusive. Details on the lilies' anthers & stigmas had some minute variations under a loupe, but not enough to criticize - probably just different finishers - and the spots were heavy on some pieces, moderate on others, and almost non-existent on a few, following no apparent pattern.
Crisp detail and a fancy monogram are still my favorite criteria. "

Does anyone have any verified method of dating?

Pieces Available
The sizes of the pieces pictured are:
oyster/cocktail fk 5 1/2
pie? fork 6 1/4
salad fork 6 7/16
dessert/luncheon fk 7 1/8
dinner fork 7 1/2
dinner kn 9 3/4 stainless steel blade, probably re-bladed
luncheon kn 9 s/p blade, probably original blade
dessert/oval soup 7
gumbo 7
teaspoon 5 7/8
5 o'clock 5 9/16
chocolate spoon 3 3/4
salt spoon 2 1/2
butter spreader 5 3/4
The pie? fork may be something else, or maybe it's a newer version of a salad fork. I bought it because it was different and the details are crisp and far superior to any recast that I've seen; it's too long and too heavy to have been cut from a spoon. On the other hand, the knight's head trademark is a blob. Input would be appreciated.

Photo Place pieces:

Serving Pieces

Key Pieces
An original knife.

comments
Forgeries- Where someone has taken an original piece, made a mold & recast a new piece from it, usually obliterating the maker's mark (for obvious reasons). The details are soft & sloppy or non-existent, usually like a piece that's been over polished with a machine. Most of the time, they're heavier than they should be because they're cast. Someone told me a lot of these were made in the 1970's. Whiting's Lily, Bridal Rose, Virginiana & Tiffany's Strawberry are the ones that come to mind, but I have seen others. Berry spoons and salad serving forks are the most popular forms. The most recent piece of suspect Frontenac that I've seen was a tea strainer where a Frontenac handle had been soldered onto a universal style strainer; unfortunately, I didn't bother to look at the markings. This may be the way that International is making them now because I've seen several on ebay & at shows, all advertised as new, in the original wrapper. I've also seen other patterns attached to the same strainer. Technically, I suppose this is a marriage and not a recast, but bastardized just the same. Several months ago, a large heart shaped server (7 5/8") in 'Frontenac' appeared on ebay. The piercing was nothing like Frontenac & I asked the seller if the piece was new, how was it marked, etc. He said that it was marked sterling with no trademark and that it was probably a recast (he never added that to his ad and it sold for $135.00!).

Other Questions
I've never seen a piece of Frontenac stamped with a jeweler's name. Did Int'l. market directly or through jewelers, or is there not enough space for a stamp? I don't recall seeing a jeweler's name on any other SH&M patterns either.
Do ramekin forks, fish forks and flat, all silver knives exist?
Is the pie? fork above a new piece? It's strange that it doesn't have flowers carried down onto the shoulders. Why aren't the tines centered above the handle?

From teaspoon to tablespoons, all that I've seen have been thin and inadequate to use without fear of bending. The weight of the smaller spoons (5 o'clock & smaller) are relative to their size and use, but the teas, soups and tablespoons are pathetic. Do heavy spoons exist? Why would a company that manufactured such an ornate, complex pattern with heavy forks and serving pieces manufacture spoons that are a joke?
Hester

posted 05-13-1999 12:32 AM            

I have been making the assumption that if Turner does not show it as obsolete and it is still being made that they never stopped. It is interesting that Hagan does not list it as "Currently in Production" so possibly it did restart recently.

I am a relative neophyte at silver collecting and it may have been that a number of old patterns were revived in the 1970's or 1980's. Does anyone know?