Shouldered OEP (again!) - SMP Silver Salon Forums

SM Publications

Silver Salon Forums - The premier site for discussing Silver.

SMP | Silver Salon Forums | SSF - Guidelines | SSF - FAQ | Silver Sales

In this Forum we discuss the silver of the United Kingdom, as well as British Colonial silver and Old Sheffield Plate.

Past British - Irish Sterling topics/threads worth a look.

How to Post Photos

Want to be a Moderator?

SMP Silver Salon Forums
tline

British / Irish Sterling
tline3

Shouldered OEP (again!)

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

SSFFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Shouldered OEP (again!)
nihontochicken Posts: 289 Registered: May 2003	posted 06-10-2003 10:36 PM [01-1119] Okay, here's a recent pickup of mine, nothing to blow trumpets for, but still an interesting specimen: Okay, just another shouldered Old English Pattern (OEP) teaspoon, only 12.6 cm (just shy of 5 inches). Top marked RF, lion passant, and King George, which pretty well means Richard Ferris of Exeter, just prior to 1800. Bright cut on the top side, but no never mind. This underside shot better shows the rather large shoulders. The question is, why? That is, why did some very few British silversmiths add shoulders to their OEP spoons, starting twenty to thirty years ahead of this example, and why didn't it catch on in the mainstream until the fiddle pattern caught on c.1800, when EVERYONE used shoulders with their fiddle pattern? Note: if I don't get any good responses to this question, I will burden you with the flip side question (again) as to why the Brits, as opposed to the Americans, didn't employ shoulders with their early fiddle patterns, except the Scots, and then bore you with the shoulderless FP Scottish example I also just picked up. This is indeed gruesome to contemplate, so be warned!!! Rick P.S. - The French, of course, invented the fiddle pattern long before it was adopted by the Brits and Americans, likely in the former case by means of the persecuted Huguenot diaspora. Does this consideration also apply to the shoulders? IP: Logged
nihontochicken Posts: 289 Registered: May 2003	posted 06-13-2003 01:04 AM Uh-oh, no responses yet, looks like I may have to make good on my threat. Okay, let's warm up the scanner and the shoulderless fiddle pattern Scottish spoon! I hate to do things like this, but I am being forced!!! Rick IP: Logged
nihontochicken Posts: 289 Registered: May 2003	posted 06-24-2003 08:49 PM Okay, looks like there will be no takers. But anyway, as threatened, here's the flip side of the odd shouldered OEP Brit spoon, namely the odd shoulderless FP Brit spoon. Many of the latter seem to be Scottish, as is this example. I'll be quiet now. Rick IP: Logged
Kimo Posts: 1652 Registered: Mar 2003	posted 06-25-2003 10:53 AM I have absolutely no factual answer but since no one else is responding I'll toss out a couple of wild guesses to try to stimulate a bit of thinking: Based on the photos, the shoulderless spoon seems to have been made in two parts, the bowl and the handle, then attached. The shouldered spoon could have been made in two parts as well, with the bowl and shoulder being one part and the handle being the second part. The advantage of the shoulder is that when hammering out the bowl, it would provide a tab to hold the blank. Perhaps it is an manufacturing improvement that gave rise to a design change? Or, here is another wild guess - the weakest part of a spoon is the thin part of the end of the handle where is joins the bowl. That is where a spoon would typically fail and bend either through wear and tear or through use on some tough food. Thickening that spot would make a spoon last longer and make it able to stand up to a heavy handed use. As I said, these are just guesses to get the brain juices flowing. IP: Logged
wev Moderator Posts: 4132 Registered: Apr 99	posted 06-25-2003 11:44 AM Spoons were made with shoulders and without, with whatever handle type for exactly the same reason I have a closet full of ties -- an inch wide to 5, pointed and squared, patterned and plain. Fasions change, tastes change, led by those whose livelihood depends on such change. Silver is a durable metal; a good set of spoons, well cared for, could last generations. This is good for the owner, but bad for the maker. Think of all the varient designs the big makers like Gorham invented -- absolutely nessesary for the well-set table! -- to keep people buying. IP: Logged
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 Registered: May 2003	posted 06-25-2003 01:00 PM The last spoons commonly to be made in two pieces were the trefids of the 1690's, and a few of the early dognose or wavy end spoons around 1700. The rattail. which was necessary for support and attachment of the separate bowl at the junction with stem, disappeared not long after the adoption of one-piece construction, in favor of the decorative drops (the "applied bowls" commonly ascribed to later spoons by sellers on ebay simply do not exist). Wev's comment is right on the mark. Contemporary silversmiths commonly advertised for old silver and used the phrase in their ads for their new products "made in the latest fashion," which is proof-positive that styles were fashion driven. An important factor in early America was a shortage of coins and raw silver from which to make new objects. Enormous numbers of old silver objects were melted down to be made into new ones as demanded by the age-old desire to "keep up with the Joneses," which explains the extreme rarity of very early pieces. Silver in particular served as a status symbol, and no self-respecting social climber would be caught with out of style services when entertaining. Even as today's auto and clothing designers regularly redesign their lines to enhance demand, so too did the silversmiths of old take advantage of changing styles to stimulate business. [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 06-25-2003).] [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 06-28-2003).] IP: Logged
adelapt Posts: 418 Registered: May 2003	posted 06-25-2003 11:59 PM I think you will find that the last common spoons with two piece construction were the seal tops, apostles and such like, which faded with the end of the 17th century. They were one-piece spoons with an added finial. The rattailed spoons gained that feature, as I understand it, from the die block in which the bowl was formed (the so-called 'lace backs' gained their decoration the same way, as did your later bird decorated spoon bowls). For spoon construction of those early types, see "European Spoons Before 1700" by Emery. For the bird/shell scroll whatever backs from around the mid 18thC, see either that little book from Winterthur, or Kauffman's one on colonial silversmithery. IP: Logged
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 Registered: May 2003	posted 06-26-2003 01:04 PM Thanks, adelapt, for raising the point - perhaps my use of "commonly made" left the wrong impression, but it will make for an interesting discussion. Too many people labor under the misconception that all 18th and early 19th Century spoons with rattails or drops had "appllied bowls." Emery deals primarily with much earlier spoon designs, most of which were made in one-piece. In a quick review of of that useful book I found nothing specifically applicable to construction of this "late" (for his treatment) design, although there is a brief discussion of the form and a couple of pictures. Kauffman, however (The Colonial Silversmith), gives a thorough illustrated description on the method of making the one-piece rattail. Our information is only as good as our sources, but somewhere I have seen the other method described for silver spoons, as well as for those with silver handles and bowls of other materials, like shell and horn; It was long ago, and I cannot locate a reference at the moment. However, I do believe both methods may have been used, at least with the spoons that have flat stems and plain rattails. Obviously, I do not have an extensive series of rattailed spoons at hand to survey, but I have seen those with clear delineation of bowls and soldering evident on close inspection in appropriate places. I do have examples of each kind, and if I can get decent photos that will make the point, I will post them soon. Those with low relief channelled rattails and lacey backs obviously were swaged - at least I have not seen one with a central rattail assymmetrical with the rest of the design on the bowl back. I would say up front that the one I have with the most obvious two-part construction has in all probablity a replacement bowl, but it illustrates how it can be done, and I think I have at least one other example as well. The two-piece types may have been more common among provincial British and rural continental makers who lacked either the tools, training, or skills to make them in one piece (some even resorted to casting from existing examples). Any other observations would be welcome. [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 06-26-2003).] [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 06-28-2003).] IP: Logged
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 Registered: May 2003	posted 06-26-2003 02:25 PM I had forgotten about this one. It is by Joh. Jacob Fern, Nuremburg, w.1694-1737. It is all original and of two-piece construction. Note the separation along one side of the rattail, where the solder is incomplete, and the air bubbles along the solder joint on the other. IP: Logged
Anuh Posts: 190 Registered: Jan 2003	posted 07-10-2003 12:02 PM quote: Originally posted by swarter: An important factor in early America was a shortage of coins and raw silver from which to make new objects. Enormous numbers of old silver objects were melted down to be made into new ones as demanded by the age-old desire to "keep up with the Joneses," which explains the extreme rarity of very early pieces... Silver in particular served as a status symbol, and no self-respecting social climber would be caught with out of style services when entertaining. We also tend to forget, in these modern times of low silver prices, that at the time, silver was nearly as precious and costly as gold. After the discovery of the extensive silver mines in the Americas, silver value dropped because of the amount of it on the market. Since then, silver is still considered "precious" but it is the poor country cousin to gold. IP: Logged
nihontochicken Posts: 289 Registered: May 2003	posted 07-10-2003 12:37 PM As a follow up re the historical price of silver, see the link below: click to enlarge The chart shows the 650 year historical price of silver in constant 1998 dollars (last year in the chart). Of course, this immediately brings up the question of how the author equated modern prices to those of hundreds of years ago, since much of what people buy today didn't even exist way back when. How does a new car today compare to a horse and buggy back then? But, assuming his equivalents are in the ballpark, the declining intrinsic value of silver is clearly shown. The price today ($4.84/troy oz.), given inflation since the chart low ($4.73 in 1992) shows that silver is at a historical low now (though my references show the all-time low of $3.92 on 9/14/1993, not shown on the chart as I imagine the author used year-end closing prices). The price of gold also declined after the New World discoveries, but has been essentially flat since 1650, albeit with a number of up and down spikes, particularly recently. Here's the gold chart: click to enlarge Thus the ratio of the value of gold to silver by weight has increased from about 15 as in the US Constitution, to about 70 today. There is a debate today as to whether silver is really a precious metal like gold, or is just an industrial commodity like copper. It is certainly relatively cheaper today than it's ever been before. Rick IP: Logged
middletom Posts: 467 Registered: May 2004	posted 06-17-2004 04:01 PM Swarter, That German spoon is very interesting. The complexity and precision of the handle design seems to suggest die striking, though the date predates by nearly a century what I have understood to be the beginnings of die striking flatware. Could the handle be cast? It then was soldered to a bowl that had been shaped from sheet, most likely. So, I stand corrected on my past statements that no flatware at that time was made in two parts. Geoff IP: Logged
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 Registered: May 2003	posted 06-26-2004 01:09 AM Your question is a good one, Geoff, and I am not sure of the answer, but I believe it has been swaged - the handle rings like forged silver when struck with the edge of a fingernail, and the upper surface is absolutely flat, so there was a good surface for hammering. It also seems to have a bit of spring to it, which I would not expect from a casting. After 300 years the surface has accumulated its share of little dings and scratches, but I can see no telltale signs of casting flaws. There are signs of finishing toolwork on the back, along the ridges on the stem and around the shell, which in itself shows no obvious signs of having been applied, as a cast ornament would have been to a forged handle. It is a possible that the deep central groove on the back of the stem stem could have been "carved" or gouged out by hand, and only the shell swaged. You would have to examine it yourself to make a definite determination. [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 06-26-2004).] IP: Logged

All times are ET	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

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.
Click here to Register for a Free password

^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.

| Home | Order | The Guide to Evaluating Gold & Silver Objects | The Book of Silver