posted 03-31-2006 06:02 PM            

First of all, what is it; 5 3/8 inches, 12 ounces, right size for a sugar bowl, wrong shape, and why would you gild the inside of a sugar bowl (I don't think the outside was ever gilt)?

Probably mass produced silver plate, but why the asymmetry on the handles? Was this part of the design philosophy?

It's definitely not EPNS so is it plated brass or a white metal? There is a very distinct lean to one side with no signs of stress so the primary metal seems to be quite soft. Could it be gilt (once upon a time) on a base of silver? There are no sterling or other marks save for those illustrated.

It appears from other posts that the pattern number is only of any use to the factory but I'm hoping it can be identified by the frieze. I doubt that it is a one-off and my guess, based solely on the designs of the frieze and the handles, is that it dates from the twenties / thirties.

Anyway, I should appreciate any information or speculation that may be offered.

I hope that I've followed the rules in this post; if not then I apologize. You guys are way more civilized than the raving lunatics who habituate the book forums.

posted 03-31-2006 06:31 PM            

Am I reading the mark correctly:

MF’D & PLATED BY
REED & BARTON.
310
Gilt

posted 04-01-2006 12:04 AM            

As has been said, gilding is often only decorative, but also protects the inside of drinking vessels from mildly corrosive liquids like citrus juices, etc, as gold is an inert metal and does not react with those substances.

posted 04-02-2006 07:13 PM            

Although I suspected that it was part of a tea service I rejected the idea of a sugar bowl because of the waisted design, and couldn't think what else it might be. (Further research on the net discloses that such a profile is not uncommon, although I still believe somewhat pronounced and elongated in this case.)
Furthermore, I questioned the use of gilt on the interior of a sugar basin because of the damage that must inevitably occur from normal use, that of a hard spoon scaping relatively soft gold.
These two elements puzzled me; other than that it was just another piece of twentieth century mass production, of dubious intrinsic or aesthetic value.

However, the surprisingly early date that you attributed to this piece has made me see it in a quite different light. Yes it's still mass-produced, but it was made at a significant cusp in manufacturing history. The civil war is over, Samuel Colt is in Hartford defining the future and R&B are out of military production and eager to cater to the
emergent affluent.
Silver (or brass) is not hammer raised anymore but wheel turned, and the decoration is die imprinted rather than carved, yet the soldering and sweating techniques and tools probably go back to the seventeenth century.
But, best of all, the date resolves the vexing problem of the gilt. Previously I had understood the appelation of Grant's presidency in only the narrowest of intellectual terms but this piece brings with it an emotional understanding; sugar, slops or spoons, hand made or machine spawned, it doesn't matter - gild everything.

I'm afraid that I cannot agree with Swarter; while repair and replating might well turn it into a more decorative object it would erase the touch of all of those hands, hundreds surely, through which it has passed.

And finally, in response to Venus' very gracious post, I am afraid that I have reached an age where any bugbites I receive are likely to prove fatal. After a lifetime of being chained to *things* I have at last reached the point where I own nothing that I cannot cheerfully walk away from; a statement that should be construed as appropriate only to me and not as a refection of anyone elses passions or desires.

posted 04-03-2006 02:12 AM            

Old things always tell a story, whether we hear it or not.