Tea Tongs Maker? - 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

Tea Tongs Maker?

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

SSFFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Tea Tongs Maker?
salmoned Posts: 336 Registered: Jan 2005	posted 01-26-2005 06:04 PM Hello, I've recently acquired a plain tea tongs with a George IV duty mark in a standing oval frame, lion passant and "L" date mark, each in rectangular frames with the top corners cut and a bottom center dip - leading me to believe the sterling tongs were made in London in 1806/7. The opposite arm has a maker's mark of "I.F" in script identical to the "L" date mark in a plain rectangular frame, with the dot at waist height. I saw a similar mark for John Fountain, but sans the dot. Is this indeed a mark used by John Fountain? Anyone have information on this maker? Thanks, Ed [This message has been edited by salmoned (edited 01-26-2005).] IP: Logged
salmoned Posts: 336 Registered: Jan 2005	posted 01-28-2005 02:07 PM I found a reference book at the library, "The Book of Old Silver", by Wyler(1937), which refers to "English Goldsmiths and Their Marks", by Jackson(1921). The nearest match therein, by date, is John Fountain (mark "IF" entered 1792), sans the 'pellet.' The nearest perfect match is John Fayle, entered 1772, followed by John Fray, 1748. Both of those marks seem too early to be carried to 1806, however. In 1793, John Fountain entered a dual mark with John Beadnall of "I.F/I.B" and another mark was entered that year by William & John Fisher of "W.F/I.F", each with waist high dots or pellets. Without further reference material, I'm stymied. IP: Logged
Clive E Taylor Posts: 450 Registered: Jul 2000	posted 01-28-2005 02:51 PM From your description of the marks it seems very likely that you have the date correct as London 1806/07. I am not convinced about John Fountain , although he did have a 1797 mark with a pellet. (Grimwade remark to No 1300). But so did John Fisher (Grimwade 1301)and John Fuller (Grimwade 1302), marks of 1799 and 1804 respectively. Fisher's 1799 mark was as a spoonmaker which is a very likely category to make plain tongs. There is another possibility of great interest however (although probably only to an anorak like me) Could you please check the pellet itself - if it a standard round pellet then the above makers are likely. If however it is a diamond shaped lozenge than the maker is virtually certain to be John Farr, small worker, of Bristol, who was registered in London 1784 and marked there. He did not die until 1830 and this could be his work. Whether he actually made tongs or bought them in from other London makers is always subject to debate, although his known buckles are so unusual that I feel he was a true maker. IP: Logged
salmoned Posts: 336 Registered: Jan 2005	posted 01-28-2005 03:03 PM Thanks, Mr. Taylor, for expanding the list of possible makers. The pellet is definitely round. Is it possible to distinguish the marks you've mentioned from one another? The only point of interest on my mark seems to be that the bottom of the 'F' merges flush to the very tight rectangular framing or field, while the 'I' is distinctly seperate. Actually, it appears as if the fine line of metal on the punch that defines the frame below the 'F' must have broken off. [This message has been edited by salmoned (edited 10-05-2005).] IP: Logged
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 Registered: May 2003	posted 01-28-2005 06:37 PM It is necessary to have an illustration in order to accurately interpret marks. A photograph is preferable, but a drawing may suffice. See How to Post Photos IP: Logged
salmoned Posts: 336 Registered: Jan 2005	posted 01-28-2005 07:24 PM Granted, photos are easier to evaluate than pure description, but no photo alone can match the information in a technical narrative, especially when dialogue is added. I do intend to borrow a camera and a computer to upload meaningful images, if possible, but until I can avail myself of such resources I must do as best I can. My 1995 computer system is greatly appreciated for its longevity, if not for its limited capabilities. I ask only that my lack of means not be regarded as a lack of interest in this forum. IP: Logged
Clive E Taylor Posts: 450 Registered: Jul 2000	posted 01-29-2005 01:59 PM Regret impossibble to differentiate , even with a photo of the actual marks. The images in Grimwade are not very clear and only an examination of the photocopy registers at Goldsmiths Hall in London gives any chance at all. It should always be remembered that the original enties were hade, rather crudely by an inked impression from the makers stamp, and we now have access only to a set of copies made for Grimwade in nearly thirty years age. Quite correctly Goldsmiths Hall generally prohibit access to the original entries due to their fragility. There is a very good case for the Goldsmiths Company to reproduce the whole series of registers as a collection of JEPGs available on CD, and ulimately I am sure this will happen. But probably not in our lifetimes ! IP: Logged
salmoned Posts: 336 Registered: Jan 2005	posted 01-30-2005 12:13 AM It seems odd that marks so similar would be allowed in the first place, since the entire purpose was to distinguish the maker of each piece after the fact. Was there a process whereby marks were officially retired, so that the most recently registered mark [of identical appearance] would indicate the maker? Was there a limit as to how many different marks could be used simultaneously by a maker, or when a new mark was registered did it supercede all previous marks by the same craftsman? It just doesn't seem reasonable to establish such a well ordered system, then compromise it by allowing virtually identical marks by different makers to temporally overlap. [This message has been edited by salmoned (edited 01-30-2005).] IP: Logged
Clive E Taylor Posts: 450 Registered: Jul 2000	posted 01-30-2005 01:52 PM Wholeheartedly agree that the system failed to differentiate between makers - a horrendous problem now for the smaller makers. However as usual the reason is probably that Goldsmiths Hall had a different agenda to what our modern mindset thinks. They were primarily concerned that all items were assayed, and that no non guild or citizen could practise silversmithing. If they needed to check the status of a goldsmith ,and his right of assay. they could do so from their register as he submited goods . The Parliamentary Report of 1773 stated very clearly that this was done (although given human nature I have some doubts ). Once an assay mark was then applied, then the status of the goods was approved, it would be a reflection of their own procedure if subsequently the goods were substandard.This was not a factor in their thought . IP: Logged
salmoned Posts: 336 Registered: Jan 2005	posted 01-31-2005 03:56 PM Thanks for all your help, Mr. Taylor. The maker of this piece will be recorded as uncertain, with the addition of those 3 names/dates as possibilities. I will try to post a photo as soon as I can - perhaps someone else might be able to distinguish this mark using the mark from another (known) piece. IP: Logged
salmoned Posts: 336 Registered: Jan 2005	posted 03-07-2005 03:43 PM Here are the photos I promised. I hope someone may be able to pinpoint this maker, but in any case I appreciate the help so far. IP: Logged
Argent47 Posts: 67 Registered: Nov 2004	posted 03-07-2005 03:44 PM I wonder whether it could be John Figg, a 19th century silversmith. But I am not sure. IP: Logged
salmoned Posts: 336 Registered: Jan 2005	posted 03-18-2005 06:09 PM I have another question concerning this piece - what might be the origin of the diagonal scratch marks apparent on the hallmark photo? Could that be the result of someone cleaning this piece with pumice? IP: Logged
agleopar Posts: 850 Registered: Jun 2004	posted 03-18-2005 09:12 PM Salmoned, if I understand your question you are asking about the very subtle marks that cross over the marks in both pictures. The most likely cause is file marks that were not removed to the same finish as the outside of the tongs. Pumice would not leave such agresive marks and would have been used to take out the file marks. These are just the last remnants of the filing and we see them because of the high magnification of the images. IP: Logged
salmoned Posts: 336 Registered: Jan 2005	posted 03-20-2005 03:51 PM Unfortunately, those marks extend around the inside and outside of this piece, excepting only the bowls and the bridge (monogrammed), and they are quite visible to the naked eye - at least my myopic eyes - which is probably why I purchased the item so cheaply. I don't believe they are file marks because there is some trace of them in the hallmarks (see the background of the L mark), which are below the level of the surface. The regularity of the angle suggests machine marks - a poor buffing job by a rotary device, perhaps. Question - should I attempt to remove those marks, and if so, how? Finally, has anyone previously seen a 'rattail' style tongs with 'wings'(what is the proper term?) by the bowls, as in this example? [This message has been edited by salmoned (edited 03-20-2005).] IP: Logged
wev Moderator Posts: 4132 Registered: Apr 99	posted 03-20-2005 04:31 PM I believe that was known as a 'butler's polish' and was intended, it the Victorian era to make settings appear less glaring and also hide tarnishing. I have seen silver polish tins of the time that contained fine pumice just for the purpose. Makes me shiver. IP: Logged
salmoned Posts: 336 Registered: Jan 2005	posted 03-20-2005 05:22 PM I suppose I should leave the piece as it is - I'm not particularly bothered by the marks and they do indicate a certain history (even if of abuse). Butler's polish, Eh? IP: Logged
agleopar Posts: 850 Registered: Jun 2004	posted 03-20-2005 10:47 PM Salmoned we now have to get to the nitty gritty of finishing silver (sorry couldn't resist). It has to be said first that unless one can hold the tongs and "see" the finish in real size and feel, as in how it compares by experience then it is a bit of a guess. So my guess is although a pumiced "Butler's" finish is likely it would not have an organized machine look, i.e. if it was done by hand the minute scratches (I think smaller than yours) would be arbitrary in direction. On the other hand if it was done by machine (as you said) then it would look like your tongs. But the way pumice was applied by machine is called Sand Bobbing and is a mixture of fine pumice and oil (to stop the powdered pumice from flying around) used with a walrus hide buff with the pumice brought up to the wheel by hand , and it does not leave large scratches either. There is another possibility, more contemporary, which is cloth wheels that are rolled in glue and while it is wet then rolled in course grit (Carborundum etc.), then allowed to dry before using to sand very aggressively. Why someone did this to these is a mystery, unless they were trying to hide the fact that a bad repair was done. If they were badly bent and had to be heavily hammered... and then not properly finished. Any way Wev I think is on the right track and my initial thought (filing) is not because of the marks on the outside. I'm not sure the above is right either, but maybe other makers like Fredz will have an opinion? If I have the scale of the scratches right then polishing with pumice would help ameliorate the current scratches. The trick is to progressively take out gross marks with finer and finer ones. After pumice then whiting and you will have a nice finish. If pumice and whiting are not available then there are substitutes available in the hardware store. I'd rather not say what because used improperly on other silver objects without this problem could lead to a lot of ruined pieces. In the old days a polisher (full apprenticeship and great status in the workshop because a good one could make any silversmith look good) would give a choice of finishes, Butler, Antique, or Bright. I hope this has helped and not put you to sleep? IP: Logged
wev Moderator Posts: 4132 Registered: Apr 99	posted 03-20-2005 11:49 PM Silversmiths in America and England are known to have offered application of a butler's polish to both new and old silver. One assumes that they used a wheel of some kind, hence the consistancy of the pattern. IP: Logged
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 Registered: May 2003	posted 03-21-2005 12:17 AM Unless some unthinking fool were to use a wire brush or sanding drum on a Dremel tool (perish the thought) wouldn't a regular buffing wheel be too large to use on the inside of the tongs? I have seen spoons that someone, also unthinkingly, had probably used a scouring pad or steel wool to clean (and ruin) very dirty or heavily tarnished surfaces, but these marks seem far too regular for any sort of abrasive hand cleaning. A mystery. IP: Logged
agleopar Posts: 850 Registered: Jun 2004	posted 03-21-2005 07:08 AM Polishers/silversmiths use a tapered mandrill and use small(or cut down) buffs to the size and shape needed. Also large buffs slowly wear and can become small. These tongs were definitely machine polished and Salmoned you can make it better or even cure it by hand, it just takes time. Try a heavy duty polish like Simechrome (sp?), if you rubbed hard for 15 minutes you would see a difference. Do it in a small area first to see if you like the results. IP: Logged
FredZ Posts: 1070 Registered: Jun 99	posted 03-21-2005 02:00 PM I am back and I agree with agleopar. The diagonal marks appear to be scratches made by mechanical means. An abbrasive belt could have easily been used to create the butler finish on the inside and outside of the tongs. I might suggest using making a simple device for removing the scratches. Take a paint stiring stick and glue on a piece of stiff felt or other soft cloth and smear a small amount of the Semichrome polish on the cloth. Use this stick to help remove the scratches. The use of the stick will help avoid rounding any crisp edges or details. A similar stick can be purchased from a jewelry supply retailer. I would leave the scratches as an example of changing tastes in silver. Fred IP: Logged
salmoned Posts: 336 Registered: Jan 2005	posted 03-21-2005 04:05 PM I think it would take a good amount of work and some skill to do a decent job of removing the marks, and I am not inclined to alter the condition of any piece in good repair beyond a thorough cleaning and light polishing. The consistency of the marks does suggest they were intentional and I wouldn't want to alter history for my own whimsy or taste. FYI - the tongs are 5 3/4" and weigh 34 grams with no evidence of repair (to novice eyes). [This message has been edited by salmoned (edited 03-21-2005).] 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