|
|
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? |
|
|
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? |
 Topic Closed
|
 SMP Silver Salon Forums
 British / Irish Sterling
 English Silver tankard
|
 SSFFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: English Silver tankard |
|
Heather Posts: 46 |
posted 01-21-2005 09:56 AM
  
I have a 7.5 inch tall tankard. The sides are tapered. The decoration is ornate! There are cherubs playing among grape arbors. Some cherubs are harrassing a horned ram. The lid also depicts a cherub laying on a bear skin rug, leaning back on a sack, holding up a cluster of grapes. Even the handle is designed to look like a grape vine. All this suggests the style of the Victorian era although I saw in a book a similar grape vine theme in a Geo.111 tankard. There are four marks within the decoration of the sides. From left to right they are:
The only knowledge I have is what I learned on the internet yesterday (not much!). That is, that the walking lion indicates that the tankard is silver and the crowned leopard means that it was made in London before 1822. Can anyone tell me the year and makers. Could it be made by Augustine Courthauld? Based on the basic type face capital R and the squareness of the stamp around it, it could be from 1732, 1772, 1812 or 1892 (although I doubt 1892 because from what I learned, the stamp around the 1892 R is a crest, not a square). In summary, my three questions are:1. who is the likely maker;2. what year was it made?; 3. why no duty mark? I am sorry I have no picture to offer. Thank you for any help you can provide. IP: Logged |
|
tmockait Posts: 963 |
posted 01-21-2005 11:29 AM
Based on the conclusions you have already made, the date letter indicates 1812/13. The undefined bottom edge of the date stamp probably has a point in the center. Can't help you with the maker. TM IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 01-21-2005 11:49 AM
If the mark you describe has a fleur-de-lis within a diamond above the rectangle, then it could be that of Augustine Courtauld, which was registered in 1729, so the date of 1732 is most likely. The R should be a Roman capital - the 1772 letter is Black Letter (Gothic or Old English), and would be too late for this maker. The crowned lion was used until 1835; duty marks were not introduced until 1784, so without one it must be before that date. As verbal descriptions are often inaccurate, we really need a picture - either photographed or drawn to be certain. [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 01-21-2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Heather Posts: 46 |
posted 01-21-2005 12:03 PM
Thank you both for your replies. I did not know what you meant by fleur--de-lis, so I looked it up on the internet and, yes, what I was calling a crest or phinial is indeed a fleur-de-lis. The makers mark stamp outline is that of a diamond shape overlapping on top of a rectangle. Inside the diamond is the fluer-de-lis, in the rectangle are the initials AC. I ordered a book titled British Silver Hallmarks which should arrive in a couple of weeks. In the meantime, I will try to post a photo of this tankard. I hope that you will return to this posting to see it. Thank you very much for your help. IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 01-21-2005 01:42 PM
Please do follow up on the photographs - both of the tankard itself and of the marks. Augustine Courtauld was an accomplished silversmith, probably Huguenot, born in France in 1685 or 1686. He was apprenticed in England to Simon Pantin, another well-known silversmith. His son and grandson, born in England, also became silversmiths. If your tankard is actually by him and is completely original, not having been altered, it could be an important piece. It sounds quite elaborate from your description. You should realize, however, that while there certainlty are early decorated pieces, and this may well be one, many also have had the decoration added at a later date. We look forward to seeing the photogaphs. IP: Logged |
|
Heather Posts: 46 |
posted 01-21-2005 02:16 PM
Again, thank you. I am currently working on the picture. In the meantime, you raised another question. The tankards decoration is "chased work" (I am learning this on the internet, having started only yesterday). It must have been hammered out from the inside. Is it possible for this to kind of work to have been done at a later date? Silver must be very maluable, if so. This piece has been in my family for at least 75 years. My relatives are from England. I went to check on the home of my deceased grandmother and found it to be flooded due to frozen pipes. After shutting off the water and all utilities and calling the fire dept to pump 4 feet of water from the basement, I thought to remove what I believe are precious items, the tankard being among them. I thought it would be fun to look into it's origins. I will try to contain excitment until I post the photos. Please do check in again. Thank you. IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 01-21-2005 06:47 PM
quote: Yes, it is possible, and yes, silver is very malleable. Congratulations on recovering the tankard. Given the family history, it may well be authentic. We do not give valuations on these forums, but I can tell you that, regardless of the originality of the decoration. you have a wonderful family treasure. I would encourage you to find out more about the history of its ownership, and to keep it in the family. Store it carefully, and do not attempt to clean it until you know more about caring for old silver. IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4132 |
posted 01-21-2005 09:22 PM
Heather -- AOL does not play nice with third party sites; if you send along the image to me, I will put them on my server and post them here [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 01-22-2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Heather Posts: 46 |
posted 01-22-2005 10:52 AM
Thank you Scott. I used photobucket. Now, how do I reduce the size of a photo? Is this done in photobucket, or do I go back to where it is stored on my computer, or retake photo? IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4132 |
posted 01-22-2005 12:04 PM
On your computer and then resend to Photobucket. If you do not have a photo editing program, email the images to me and I will fiddle them for you. IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4132 |
posted 01-22-2005 12:49 PM
 IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 01-22-2005 02:39 PM
A drawing of the other marks will help, but please try to get a closer picture of the area with the marks. I have tried to enlarge and sharpen that part of your unedited image, and I can see that the Lion's head is crowned, and I can see the lion passant, but I cannot see the date letter, nor is it clear how the marks relate to the decoration (i.e., if there are any overlaps, and, if so, which are on top). This is the best I can do with the present image:
IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 01-23-2005 01:36 PM
Here is a better photograph - I have enlarged the marks, which seem correct (note that there are variations in shield shapes that occurred during the first half of this century). The marks clearly were applied over the decoration. This all seems perfectly authentic to me, but let's wait to hear what our expert British contributors have to say. This is an absolutely superb piece. I removed brown tones from the photograph, assuming they were the result of uncorrected tungsten lighting, but there is a similarly elaborate silver-gilt ewer by Paul Lamerie (1741) illustrated in Jackson's History of English Plate Vol.1, p.300 (fig 320). A similar ewer of 1729, not gilt, is on p.287 (fig. 309). This is an exciting find, and I have to say that this is the type of inquiry that we delight in responding to. -------------------------
IP: Logged |
|
akgdc Posts: 289 |
posted 01-25-2005 09:58 PM
Am I the only one to whom this tankard looks more 19th-century German than 18th-century English? IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 01-25-2005 11:09 PM
Probably not. I thought so too, which is why I have been so careful with it, but in fact a good bit of 17th and early 18th Century English silver has that European flavor. If you want to see cherubs and grapes on a piece of monumental English silver, look at the figure of the 1734 wine cistern by Charlse Kandler that is pictured on page 295 of Jacksons History. It looks like a greeco-Roman bacchanal! IP: Logged |
|
Heather Posts: 46 |
posted 01-26-2005 08:05 AM
I am still waiting for my copy of English Silver hallmarks and the Courtauld Family of Silversmiths by Helen Braham. akgdc's question brings me back to a question I've had about the hallmarks. Would it be wrong to conclude from the marks alone that this is Sterling, by A. Courtauld, London England, 1732? They appear well defined, not like photos of marks on forks and spoons I've seen in the forums where there is considerable wear from use or polishing. [This message has been edited by Heather (edited 01-26-2005).] IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 01-26-2005 01:17 PM
That is the way the marks read. If there is a question, it would be whether or not the marks are genuine. The shapes of the reserves do not all match those in the tables; those variations have been recorded for years both before and after 1732, but, according to the information in Jackson III, not for that year. That could simply mean nothing more than that, at the time that was written, none had yet been reported. Unless the entire tankard is of later manufacture, then the fact that the marks show little wear would be of significance only if the rest of the tankard surface showed significantly more wear, which is difficult to determine from the photographs. As deeply impressed as these marks are, one would expect some lesser degree of wear within them. I think we have gone as far as we can with this until someone more familiar with this period and with this maker contributes more information. Such a person who might be of help is presently unavailable, as he is away from home travelling. Be patient, it will resolve itself eventually. IP: Logged |
|
akgdc Posts: 289 |
posted 01-26-2005 08:25 PM
I wondered about the fishy hallmarks, too -- both the reserves and the marks themselves, as well as the lack of wear and evenness of the strike, as if machine-struck. Also, I'm familiar with the German style English pieces of the early 18th century that Swarter mentions, but this one just seems to say "19th century" to me -- not so much the decoration, even, as the high tapering form of the body and especially the foot, which looks like those on machine-spun 19th c German tankards. Heather, do you have any photos that show the tankard's underside, or an interior view? These would help determine how it was made. Though I'm no believer in guilt by association, I did notice that the other piece you rescued from the flooded basement turned out to be from Hanau. Silver Tumbler with Blue Liner Like Swarter, though, I look forward to the return of our resident expert on 18th c. English silver, and will defer to his opinion. IP: Logged |
|
Heather Posts: 46 |
posted 01-26-2005 09:01 PM
Here are photos of the inside of the body and lid. Another of the bottom. What a rollercoster ride! IP: Logged |
|
akgdc Posts: 289 |
posted 01-26-2005 09:06 PM
Heather, thanks for sharing these, and for listening to all of us with our contraditory opinions! The bottom does look machined to me - definitely not hand-raised. (Same with the lid.) The base of a genuine 18th century tankard would not be so flat and uniform, would probably have a centering mark or other evidence of hand-raising, and would definitely have a solder seam around the perimeter. The patina is also wrong. While you're at it, actually, a closeup of the handle/hinge might help too. Adam [This message has been edited by akgdc (edited 01-26-2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Heather Posts: 46 |
posted 01-26-2005 09:32 PM
Hinge and handle photo. About the photo of the bottom in my previous message: There are hammer marks that don't show in the photo. They are along the periphery of what would be the bottom of the tankard if there were no stand. IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4132 |
posted 01-26-2005 09:38 PM
As she says, there is evidence of hammer marks where one would expect to find them and, though it does not show well in this image, there is definately a centering punch. IP: Logged |
|
akgdc Posts: 289 |
posted 01-26-2005 09:41 PM
Hmmm, the hinge is harder to characterize. Are the bottom and interior really gilt, as they appear to be, or is this color just in the photos? IP: Logged |
|
Heather Posts: 46 |
posted 01-26-2005 09:47 PM
Yes, it is rather yellow but not on the outside where you view the decoration, only the underside of the base. Back to the base. On the first interior angle created by the stand, it is soldered and smoothed [This message has been edited by Heather (edited 01-26-2005).] IP: Logged |
|
tmockait Posts: 963 |
posted 01-26-2005 09:53 PM
A possible explanation for the similarity to German tankards: The Hannoverian dynasty came to the English thrown in 1714. George I was Elector of Hanover as well as King of England. He did not even speak English when he ascended the thrown. British monarchs held both titles until Victoria came to the throne in 1837. As a woman, she could not inherit the Hanoverian title. Given this link and the trade relationship between Hanover and England, I suspect lots of borrowing occurred. TM IP: Logged |
|
akgdc Posts: 289 |
posted 01-26-2005 10:23 PM
Such gilding (especially of the bottom) would not appear on a genuine 18th-c. piece, but is typical of a machine-made one. Wev, if you see hammer marks and a centering punch, we must be looking at different photos. I'd bet birdbacks to britannia ware that no Courtauld ever touched this tankard. IP: Logged |
|
labarbedor Posts: 353 |
posted 01-26-2005 10:53 PM
I don't usually follow this forum and I might swear off it in the future. Am I crazy or isn't it obvious, all the decoration is cast, the marks look cast in too. Look on the inside for a seam mark running vertically. Who ever heard of a tankard this size. The proportions are horrible. The whole thing looks wrong. IP: Logged |
|
Heather Posts: 46 |
posted 01-26-2005 10:59 PM
There are no seams on either the inside of the lid or the body. IP: Logged |
|
Heather Posts: 46 |
posted 01-26-2005 11:04 PM
If you look at the photo of the inside of the body, at the bottom you will see a seam where there is no oxidation (?). Maybe this is solder? It would make sense because on the opposite side, the underside of the base, is where the hammer marks are. What do I know? I will remain patient for the English expert as swarter suggests. [This message has been edited by Heather (edited 01-26-2005).] IP: Logged |
|
labarbedor Posts: 353 |
posted 01-26-2005 11:08 PM
Look on the inside, the center portion, usualy on the same line as the handle, the opposite of what you show. IP: Logged |
|
Heather Posts: 46 |
posted 01-26-2005 11:12 PM
No seams there. IP: Logged |
|
labarbedor Posts: 353 |
posted 01-26-2005 11:25 PM
I am not good looking at photographed pieces. I would have thought it was seemed. However looking at it again, it could be thick enough to be cast as a cylinder. I can tell you that I have had enough experience with this sort of thing to assure you it is cast, and "all wrong". Email me if you have any doubts. IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4132 |
posted 01-27-2005 01:17 AM
 Dead center in the bottom Consistantly placed hammer strikes all the way around the base IP: Logged |
|
Silver Lyon Posts: 363 |
posted 01-27-2005 05:58 AM
Poor Heather - this is long haul!  From my point of view the tankard is a forgery, created in order to deceive - the body and decoration created in order to simulate an old and valuable piece. Struck with a readily accessible famous maker's mark to divert attention. Luckily for us, most forgers simply don't have enough experience of the 'real thing' to get all aspects of their creation right - There are so many aspects that scream "BE CAREFUL" even in the first photograph - The proportion of the piece height to width; the size and style of the decoration; the style decoration being Baroque and therefore therefore not AT ALL likely to be found after 1680 before 1805-10 and then not until the 1880's or later. A high-style piece from 1732 could JUST have rococo decoration (which is TOTALLY different), but this is pushing it date-wise. Without the piece in hand it is difficult to speculate further... Heather, if you run your hand against the underside of the lid, what does it feel like? - a) sandy b)silky or c) flat ? - can you do the same with the INSIDE of the figures on the body please? I am so sorry not to be more encouraging - but it is always better to know the truth in the end!!
IP: Logged |
|
Heather Posts: 46 |
posted 01-27-2005 06:46 AM
The underside of the lid feels silky, less so in the deep area that creates the cherub on the outside. The inside of the tankard is the same though there are a couple of small spots that feel sandy. IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 01-27-2005 03:20 PM
This all points up the hazards of making decisions from photographs and incomplete descriptions. Following the development of this thread after the original optimism of a discovery, it is apparent that as more photographs appear, and more questions are asked, the less likely it seemed that this piece could be genuine. There is really no substitute for having a piece in hand to examine. Since there was at least a possibility of the shield shapes being correct, the fact that the bottom is set in, and the fact that the decoration is cast and not embossed are, to my mind, red flags that would make one less familiar with the intricacies of period styles look more closely at the style of the piece. On the other hand, one familiar with the style would then look more closely at the construction, as Adam has done. Although forgers usually trip themselves up, I have to wonder why someone would go to so much trouble to make so elaborate a fake from the ground up and be so wrong - I think it far more likely that this is a legimate later piece to which spurious marks have been added; possibly originally bottom marked in some way, so that the bottom was replaced with an unmarked, but hand made plate. Possibly an example of the "opportunistic forgery." As far as size is concerned, it might be of interest to point out that there is a history of legitimate miniature pieces having been mistakenly attributed to Augustine Cortauld, and so published, because someone had originally read the proper maker's Black Letter mark upside down! We have had a disturbing number of forgeries put up (and also withdrawn, so they may not have been seen by all) on these sites. I think the lesson of this one is the older a piece is, and the less familiar people For Heather's benefit, we might point out that this piece could still be old (although not as old as it was intended to appear), and it is an odd fact of the antiques world that even forgeries have become collectible! IP: Logged |
|
Heather Posts: 46 |
posted 01-27-2005 03:55 PM
Thank you all so much for sharing your expertise. It's amazing what you see and what you don't when it's convenient. Perhaps late last night when those with doubts gave their insight, I didn't want to see the seam that runs down the inside of the tankard a quarter turn from the handle. Here's my last photo of it. I will now clean it with Wrights Silver Cream and a man made sponge and put it on a shelf. If nothing else, it will always make me laugh when I think of the roller coaster ride of the last few weeks. Thank you to everyone who contributed! IP: Logged |
|
Heather Posts: 46 |
posted 01-27-2005 04:31 PM
 Thats me in the middle upon learning about the forgery. IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 01-27-2005 05:43 PM
Heather: You have a wonderful attitude about this. Enjoy it - and what is it they say? - Go For Baroque! IP: Logged |
|
akgdc Posts: 289 |
posted 01-27-2005 06:43 PM
Heather, I will second Swarter's tip of the hat to you. And I'd wager that nearly all of us on these forums have been deceived by a piece once in a while (and sometimes they were pieces we'd paid a pretty penny for, rather than rescued from a flooded basement). Would that we all could show the same grace in the aftermath. I hope this "roller-coaster" won't put you off collecting -- the surmises are part of the fun. Plus, the really shocking thing is that every so often, a treasure turns out to be for real. IP: Logged |
|
Silver Lyon Posts: 363 |
posted 01-28-2005 01:52 PM
I didn't want to spoil the 'last word' of the last posting - but wanted to suggest two extra pieces of information that may answer the queries raised earlier. I believe that it is likely that the body and lid of this piece were NOT fashioned by the maker (of this piece) but rather formed, using electricity, into molds that had been made of the decoration on a genuine fine and wonderful piece (This process is called electrotyping or electroforming) - Through this medium a near-perfect reproduction, or indeed many reproductions as the molds last some time, may be made for the least effort. The reason that I asked about the texture on the inside is that it is indicative of electroformed pieces that the inner surface is slightly granular and even more so in the less accessible spots. Developed in England c.1840, but used in France under license from c.1850 electroforming was a wonderful way for early museums and art schools all over the world to have 'perfect reproductions' of the greatest objects from antiquity without going broke!
IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 01-28-2005 02:31 PM
So are you saying now that the original WAS by Augustine Cortauld, that the electroformed piece was a marked forgery, or that the marks were added to an electroformed piece by some one else? The base plate does not look electroformed, so . . . ? IP: Logged |
|
Heather Posts: 46 |
posted 01-28-2005 02:37 PM
As long as we're asking further questions, what explains the yellow tone on the inside of the tankards lid and body and underside of the base? And I wonder why is there no thumb lever to open the lid while holding the handle? [This message has been edited by Heather (edited 01-28-2005).] IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 01-28-2005 07:33 PM
Heather, this is geting stranger all the time. The implication earlier was that the inside was gilded. It would be rather odd for something to be gilded on the outside bottom. Is the yellow color actually metallic? Gilding is a process of applying gold to a surface of an object, either to protect it, as gold is intert, or to enrich its appearance. Gilding is applied to the inside of vessels which can contain corrosive substances (egg cups, salts, mustards, etc.) to prevent staining or pitting of the underlying metal. When applied to the outside of an object, or to the inside of a goblet or other drinking vessel, it is usually for decoration, or possibly to keep the interior surface from tarnishing or staining, and thus looking dirty to the person drinking from it. Some other objects (small telescopes, etc.), which were handled extensively, were gilded to protect the surface from the corrosive effects of sweat and oils from the skin. In your last photo, above the figure with which you identify yourself, there is a discolored area - could this be a place where someone attempted to smooth out an irregular area over a seam? Or is it just an artifact of lighting? [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 01-28-2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Heather Posts: 46 |
posted 01-29-2005 10:16 AM
The bottom is warm metalic yellow color, as is the inside of the lid and body of the tankard. The outside decoration has no evidence of the same yellow, even in the deeper areas of decoration. Also in a previous entry I wrote that, looking at the bottom, the first interior right angle (working from the outside in) created by the stand has smoothed solder. The same yellow tone is over that as well. Could this indicate that it is guilded? In yet another entry I wrote that there might be solder in the interior of the tankard body along the bottom platform seam seen in a photo. I wrote that there seemed to be oxidation there. After cleaning the tankard inside and out (and learning it was not authentic), it turned out it was not solder and has the same yellow color with no indication of solder. As for the verticle seam, it is irregular and well burnished with no indication that it is soldered. The discoloration you asked about is the reflection of my camera although the inside was filthy before cleaning. It looks better now but still darkened over the overall yellow color. Here's something that might be of interest after having taken such a careful look at the interior. For each hallmark on the outside, it created a raised area inside. Not well defined but generalized. IP: Logged |
|
Silver Lyon Posts: 363 |
posted 01-29-2005 02:54 PM
I am sorry to have been so obtuse (my English teacher would have had a fit!)  No NOT made by Courtauld, struck with a spurious mark. The original piece (s) from which the molds MAY have been made is likely, in my humble opinion, to be a revival piece of c.1805 rather as piece made in the late c.17th. The marks have been added later (hence why they show inside. Incidentally NO silversmith worth his salt would EVER have put a piece for sale without first 'setting' the marks, by which I mean leveling out the impression that the marks make through a piece when they are struck. There is an exception to this rule, which is Georgian sugar casters (just to complicate matters) where the opposite rule applies and it is really important to see the inside impressions... (SW - this is a digression, perhaps for another thread another day?) (sorry Heather - just playing devil's advocate! but it is a serious question)
IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 01-29-2005 04:53 PM
I will admit to have been wondering the same thing. Electroforming is a process I knew nothing about. Apparently a good bit of jewelry is made in both nickle and in gold; there are also Technical White Paper; Electroformed Technologies; Optical Coatings for Ni Reflective Surfaces. So, yes, I suppose it could be something other than silver (as long as it is malleable enough to form and telegraph the punched marks); but at least the style might fit the original period, after all. "Round and round she goes, And where she stops, nobody knows."
IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 01-30-2005 12:12 PM
At the request of the original poster, this thread is being closed. She thanks everyone for their participation. 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 |
Does Heather's tankard have to be silver?