posted 01-30-2005 11:23 PM            

In the thread on a tankard it was suggested that it was an electrotype copy, I thought it might be useful to see a certain electrotype piece. This is a copy of the masterpiece of L�onard Morel-Ladeuil who worked for Elkington from 1859 to 1888. The original in silver and damascened iron, Milton's "Paradise Lost", won a gold medal at the Paris Exhibition in 1867.

The shield is maybe 33 in. long, the angel's arm in the close up is about 2 in. The images on the left are the front or "positive" images. Those on the right are the back of the shield and are therefore reversed. You might also notice the rather granular surface mention earlier on the reverse side. Elkington made these electrotype copies in considerable numbers. I am not expert in the process, nor particularly knowledgeable about this period. Everything I know however suggests that the process is rather complicated, difficult and expensive. For most reproductions, a good casting (and they can be very good, when done by a skilled craftsman) are more than acceptable and far more economic. The electrotype process however could do exact reproductions, without hurting the original. Hence it has been used to make fine, exact copies of important pieces. Elkington copied pieces of Renaissance silver with this process, and I believe Museums occasionally do the same sort of thing today. The process can make copies of a leaf that shows the veins, etc in the finest detail. The process is especially useful in reproducing items which have 3 dimensional details as the undercutting present on the arm. I have heard it is also a cheap way of producing certain jewelry pieces.

All this does not mean that many very complicated and ornate pieces cannot be more easily, and economically be reproduced by modern methods of casting. Although the Forums usually shy away from economics, I should give as an example one piece I thought of having electrotyped. I have a very rare and expensive goblet, which I felt guilty about using. I inquired as to the price of having it copied by electrotyping. The cost was about $450, and required shipping the original. Somewhat later I bought a pair, cast copies of a very similar goblet, far a more reasonable price.

posted 01-31-2005 02:11 AM            

I picture something like this: (am I anywhere near close?)

1. create guttapercha mold of the outside of original
2. deposit copper on inside of mold
3. if an object has deep decoration such as the tankard that was pictured, would removing the mold require cutting it?
4. plating copper copy.

In the discussion of that tankard there was mention of a vertical seam that was burnished with no indication of solder. Could that have been a 'scar' reflecting the repaired tear or cut caused by removing the mold (at least as I picture the process - though I really have no clue)?

posted 01-31-2005 10:33 AM            

As far as the tankard goes, I think the side decoration was molded flat and soldered together into a cylinder. Solder wouldn’t be particularly noticeable on the tarnished interior surface. By solder of course I don’t mean lead solder, just slightly lower grade silver solder. A solder line is often difficult to find especially on a smooth beaker. Of course today solder isn’t even necessary. With a laser machine a weld can be made, after finishing it would be very hard to find. In the case of the tankard the give away, as akgdc pointed out, is the finished bottom. That presumes of course that you accept the style, which I couldn’t. The beakers I have, in my opinion, were simply made by soldering together two molded sides. A very simple process, if the solder line bothered the copier so much I would guess electroplating the piece would be easy enough.

Finally I think it was inferred that an electrotype copy would have to be plated silver. My understanding is a copy can be made in solid silver, and in fact electrotyping is a method of faking ancient coins.

I will leave it to someone else to explain the electrotyping process.

posted 01-31-2005 12:05 PM            

One of their web sites has a good intro about Electroforming:

• Electroforming overview [Gone from the Internet]
  
• Electroforming for Engineers [Gone from the Internet]

posted 01-31-2005 07:57 PM            

First, let me admit my ignorance by asking what you mean by 'undercutting'. Would that have to do with removing material so as to reduce the degree to which the interior mirrors the exterior, which I suspect would be one giveaway of the galvanic process?

With respect to the Hanau production, my very limited understanding is that these shops were very competent in their craft. Can we, therefore, view the implausibility of the marks that they applied as a deliberate attempt to 'evoke but not defraud'?

When, as in this tankard, care was taken to make the marks appear genuine, is Hanau, or its established shops, a likely source of the item? Or are we talking about a rogue artisan who could have been anywhere?

Lastly, you mention the ease with which solderlines can be hidden. Would either UV or polarized light help detecting them? (I'll need to fool around with that myself but would appreciate your comments just the same).

posted 01-31-2005 08:45 PM            

An electroformed piece is molded (and yes there is a "seam where the mold is cut open on 3 dimensional objects) and the mold is coated with a very thin electrcal conducting film and then sumerged into a tank with electrodes to attract the silver into the mold.

the copy is as good as the mold which today is the easy part (marks can come out beautifully!) and the skill of the craftsperson in controling the solution and rate of deposit. Done well the mold side is perfect and the tank side is smooth and very hard to detect as an electroform.

Fortunately a bubbly suface like the Elkington shield is the norm and even a good job looked at closely can look pear skined where it is not possible to buff it.

The main diffrence is that forming can not have thick edges, i.e. it deposits silver in one dimension and any edge that needs thickness must have an added wire ( the tankard, if a casting will vary in thickness of its walls).

Also it is pure silver and will wear faster than sterling. The trade often uses forming to give great detail to trophies using spun shapes alternating with formed sections, its a lot cheaper than having those bits chased up on repeat patterns.

Because it is pure silver (999.) it is not ideal for functional silverware, but is fine with static objects for looking at.

posted 01-31-2005 10:03 PM            

I really don’t know if the Hanau craftsmen meant to defraud or not. I can tell you I know of at least one collector who spent a sizeable amount of money buying pieces he thought were 18th century French, none were. Also Helft thought this was quite common in the U.S.A. I think they made very bad “fakes” which they knew some people would buy as real.

I don’t think the tankard is old enough to be “Hanau”, although later German copies were sometimes similar. The latest line of fakes, I think, is coming out of Italy, but that is just a guess.

The light question is very interesting, but I am not competent in the field, I just breath on things.

The goblets are modern English, 1967, I am not so sure labor is so expensive there even today.

Agleopar obviously knows more about both methods than I do. His explanation was clear, after the three readings necessary to get it through my thick skull. I guess the obvious question is: does he think the tankard is electrotyped? Why, yes or no?

posted 02-01-2005 12:05 AM            

My guess is cast, because the marks could be copies of originals if it was electroformed and these are obviously not.

Also the back side looks to be filled in, i.e. chasing that might of had wax smoothed into it to make it thick enough to mold and cast. Again measure the thickness of the walls and that should give it away?

'67 in London you could still buy trade work by the OZ, fashioning was still cheap!

posted 02-01-2005 03:08 AM            

I always have great difficulty relating to the photographs on this forum because no one seems to be concerned about weight - yet the heft is one of the things that speak to me (though maybe still not very clearly ).

Sometimes people go on and on about a spoon, its age, details of its shape, etc. and all I can wonder about is whether, if you stuck it into a bowl of beans and tried to bring it up heaping full, it would bend at the neck or not!

Now I know we don't worry about your tankard holding its pint, but knowing how it feels in the hand after the pint is gone and you wait for a refill, that would give me a little insight. TIA!

posted 07-01-2006 12:10 PM            

I completely forgot how valuable a resource my brother could be who works as a plater in industrial applications. He did a spectrograph of the tankard and reported to me that it weighs 941 grams and has a .002 thickness of silver over brass (he reported high zinc and copper under the silver).

My apologies for taking so long to respond.