posted 07-25-2003 08:46 PM            

This is an auction item. The seller indicates a London date of 1770. I may not agree with the date exactly, but notice the maker's mark matches that of an un-traced silversmith entered 1750-60 (p. 159, Wyler). Even if it were actually made a few decades earlier, the spoon style is more like a hundred plus years earlier, yet the plain "WF" maker's mark is certainly not of the 16th or even 17th century. This isn't likely a single re-make to replace a lost or damaged spoon, since no one would actually be using this style spoon when this example was likely made. So what I find surprising is that silversmiths were perhaps remaking old style spoons for grins and giggles in the eighteenth century. I had thought this came into vogue only beginning in the late nineteenth century, more than a hundred years after this spoon was likely made. Can anyone provide enlightenment re the beginning of the re-make interest?

Rick

P.S. - Is there an etiquette established here regarding reference to auctions (e.g., don't do it, or do it only after the auction has closed, or all's fair)?

Thanks!

posted 07-25-2003 10:57 PM            

If you read their regulations, you would see that Ebay does not like their pictures pirated. It is probably best not to post someone else's pictures without their permission - you should at least get the seller's permission to use their pictures. If you are an Ebay member, right or wrong, you could get kicked off if there were anything critical of the seller or the post that would interfere with the sale.

[This message has been edited by swarter (edited 07-25-2003).]

Comments on mark placement reworded for clarification 7/26/03

posted 07-26-2003 12:18 AM            

quote:

---

Is there an etiquette established here regarding reference to auctions (e.g., don't do it, or do it only after the auction has closed, or all's fair)?

---

Thanks for asking.

posted 07-27-2003 03:53 AM            

NC: Read my original post. Agreed. A quibble, quite tangential to what I was asking.

>The mark is likely that of William Fearn, entered 1769.

NC: Have to punt on this one. All I have is Wyler. Was the Wm. Fearn 1769 mark (not shown in Wyler) really with a pellet as this mark obviously is, as is the unattributed 1750 mark in Wyler that I referenced? I note that later Fearn marks lack the pellet. In any event, again a quibble. The spoon is an 18th century re-make, never contested. The question is, were re-makes of very old styles common at that time?

>Original spoons made in the period in which these first appeared were usually marked in the bowl with the makers mark. Stem marks, if present at all, may be irregularly spaced; regular evenly spaced marks, even if unreadable, usually indicate a later spoon made in the earlier style.

NC: Agreed, as stated in the original post. Repeat, this spoon is a re-make. The question is, why?

>This one looks like a seal-top spoon, but sets of apostle spoons in the earlier style were frequently made in this period and later.

NC: Okay, we're now making some progress. Yes, apostle spoons have a long history of re-makes, but they were often christening gifts, and so this side-steps the more general question. The question regards re-makes of old style spoons ostensibly for everyday use, and when did such a practice commonly begin. When this spoon was made, the people who could afford silver service were generally interested in items "in the latest fashion". Moderately "old" things (100-200 years) do not seem to have been revered then as they are today. The modern ethic seems to have begun in the late nineteenth century. But could it have really started a hundred (or more?) years earlier?

Rick

posted 07-28-2003 10:32 AM            

quote:

---

The place to post items up for sale/auction is in the For Sale Forum. Items sought should be placed in the Wanted Forum. The rest of the Forums should be used for discussion and not for promotion. I feel it would generally be best to let an auction finish before posting a referral. There have been and will be obvious exceptions. Lets just use common sense so the forums don't become a vehicle for free advertising/promotion.

---

You make good points, but you also take away the possibility of potential purchasers (which is what I gathered this person was) being able to get assurance that they probably aren't getting ripped off by what an eBay seller says. Most auction sellers try to be as accurate as possible, but some of them are outright frauds!

------------------
Anuh

posted 07-28-2003 11:00 PM            

To carry on, regressions to older styles seem to come in four categories, as follow:

1. Outright Fakes: Type A: completely made at a later date, every detail is correct for the original make, to the time and ability of the counterfeiter, including faked hallmarks. Type B: Alterations: a period piece is altered to represent a more valuable piece. Typical is the use of an Old English Pattern spoon, where the end of the handle is removed and an Onslow type casting is added, resulting in a much more valuable piece, assuming the buyer does not detect the deception.

2. Re-makes: most details are correct, to the ability and cost considerations of the maker, but there is obvious indication that it is not an original piece, most often the hallmarks, which are are modern to the time of the re-make, and additionally sometimes placed in a more "modern" region of the piece, and not contemporary with when the style was originally made.

3. Updates: an older style spoon is made into one that is more "in the latest fashion". Kind of a "reverse fake" per our modern sentiments, this is limited to changes made long ago, when "newer" was better than "older". The intent is to deceive, but by making the item look newer as opposed to older. A leading example of this was when Hanoverian Pattern spoons were given a reverse curve to the handle, and the ridge line and/or tip removed from the top (and sometimes added to the underside). I have a 1734 Wm. Petley spoon that appears to be original Old English pattern, but am told is a Hanoverian Pattern re-hammer, including the underside tip. Impressive "reverse fake".

4. Violations: an older spoon is grossly violated per the "more modern" sentiments. The intent is not to deceive, but to make an older, outdated item "more useful". This, of course, primarily refers to the late Victorian debasement of older spoons, in which Old English and Hanoverian Pattern spoons, and, alas, even dognose and trefid spoons, were compromised into "berry spoons" per the Art Noveau and Aesthetic notions then rampant. Paradoxically, though most everyone now considers this akin to "rape", the Old English and Hanoverian examples still often sell for more than their unadulterated equivalents. Go figure.

Thank you, Anuh, for your concern, but let me warn again that the auction protects the sellers that pay it the money, not the buyers the pay the sellers. Yes, there are many outright fakes being advertised on the auction site, but don't try to warn people, if you want to maintain access to the site, and wish to avoid potential lawsuits. If you try to be a "good Samaritan", the big auction site will burn your butt. The big auction site only takes notice if a seller sends nothing at all to a buyer. If the seller sends anything even remotely resembling what was described, the the big auction site cops feel that justice has been served. I agree with your sentiments, and I feel very badly for newbies that get taken in by the obvious charlatans, but nothing can be done without exposing oneself to liability. It isn't fair, it just "is". Repeat, the big auction site protects sellers, not buyers. If a buyer gets anything remotely resembling what was described, the the big auction site officials are satisfied. The very definition of "caveat emptor".

Rick

posted 07-30-2003 12:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by nihontochicken:
Thank you, Anuh, for your concern, but let me warn again that the auction protects the sellers that pay it the money, not the buyers the pay the sellers. Yes, there are many outright fakes being advertised on the auction site, but don't try to warn people, if you want to maintain access to the site, and wish to avoid potential lawsuits. If you try to be a "good samaritan", the big auction site will burn your butt. The big auction site only takes notice if a seller sends nothing at all to a buyer. If the seller sends anything even remotely resembling what was described, the the big auction site cops feel that justice has been served. I agree with your sentiments, and I feel very badly for newbies that get taken in by the obvious charlatans, but nothing can be done without exposing oneself to liability. It isn't fair, it just "is". Repeat, the big auction site protects sellers, not buyers. If a buyer gets anything remotely resembling what was described, the the big auction site officials are satisfied. The very definition of "caveat emptor".

Rick

---

I'm an big auction site seller, Rick, but one of the honest ones! I TAKE returns if my customers are not satisfied, regardless of the reason. I run a BUSINESS, not a rip-off scam. And yes, I KNOW how big auction site is, which is why I made the comment.

If this forum won't allow people to question items that are for sale, we all lose. No one learns, the frauds make a fortune while the rest of us lose out.

This has become such a problem with big auction site that they have instituted a fraud section, where you can report outright frauds to them. Only time will tell how effective that is. I've been burned a few times myself over the years, since I also buy on big auction site! And I always advise potential buyers to

1. use a credit card for the purchase,
   
2. never buy anything that the seller will not accept a return on,
   
3. read the shipping information carefully and avoid sellers who charge more than actual shipping and
   
4. read the seller's feedbacks (and post your own at the end).

------------------
Anuh

posted 08-01-2003 03:08 AM            

OTOH, as a buyer, I must stand by my experience. I still believe that the big auction site will protect sellers to the detriment of buyers. Maybe this will change in the future. Not right now, I think. On the hopeful side, any obvious misrepresentation won't hurt the inoculated "wise men/women" such as you and me, but, on the downside, it may rip off the newbies. Damn, oh, well! Unfortunately, it appears that the pitfalls I avoid by being "old and wise" do not in general fully make up for those encountered by those who are "young and dumb" (and "something or other", I forget . I hope that boards such as this can help to enlighten the "good guys 'n' gals", to the debit of the bad actors.

NC