posted 02-19-2009 07:48 AM            

I don't normally deal much with English silver, but the Newark Museum does have a smallish collection (100 pieces?) of mostly middling quality from NJ collectors of the 1910s and 20s. This piece would be the best of its period in our collection, and I couldn't refuse. On one side it shows farmyard birds fending off an attacking hawk:

While on the other side, it is a pond scene,full of waterfowl, that looks almost aesthetic movement.

I've tried to re-size the images so they're not quite so scarey. We have woods and cows and mountains.
The repousse chasing is high relief and splendid--as is all the modeling of the spout and lid--the ivory handle is very grand and quite unlike American silver--and yet this 1825 example foreshadows the whole repousse craze in American silver. Can anyone help me with identifying the maker?

posted 02-19-2009 09:19 AM            

Assuming London assay marks of 1825/26 the following silversmiths appear possible.

Henry Hall (Grimwade 1003) plateworkers mark of 1788 seems too early as he entered no further marks.

Hyam Hyams (Grimwade 1005) plateworkers marks of 1821 seems the most likely .

Two silversmiths with registered smallworkers marks of the period may also have marked it. Henry Household (G 1004) of 1799 and Henry Hull (g 1006)of 1822.

posted 02-20-2009 07:28 AM            

It was the sheer unrestrained exuberance of the neo-rococo decoration that made me a little wary.

posted 02-24-2009 08:07 AM            

The earliest rococo revival pieces I can trace quickly are two pairs of sauceboats of 1813 in the Gilbert collection that are exact reproductions of earlier 1742 sauceboats by Frederick Kandler. The decoration is reminiscent of the teapot but is cast and applied rather than repousse work. Other rococo revival pieces in the collection include, for example, a set of candlesticks with dates from 1820 to 1824.

Obviously one would need to see and handle the piece to be certain, but on the face of it this seems a rather splendid addition to the Newark collection.

posted 03-06-2009 07:39 AM            

Here is the mark on the lid.

And here is a drawing from a book of what the mark looks like, noted as for large imported objects.

I think Hyam Hyams is right--and in searching for Hyam Hyams, I noted that it seems to be a Jewish name.

I love the idea of having a Jewish silversmith, but does anyone know about the existence of Jewish smiths in London in the 19th century.

posted 03-06-2009 07:43 AM            

Here we have the bucolic ducks with cows and woods.

It's good, but it's a little haute bourgeois aesthetically. Like the rich farmers in Dickens...

However, I'd also add that, good as the work is, it isn't perhaps in the "best taste," and I know that's an iffy proposition. Taste is not always easy to understand from a temporal distance, but to my eye, Paul Storr, even at his most over the top, wouldn't have produced this kind of design. It's too florid--and I suspect there's a narrative there somewhere--not Aesop's fables, but something. Here we have the mountains. Perhaps it is just Farm and Field, Domestic and Wild...

posted 03-06-2009 01:23 PM            

As regards Jewish silversmiths, there were certainly some in London in the 19th century and before. I guess one would need to plough through Grimwade to pick out likely names. A couple that occur to me are:

Naphtali Hart, first mark entered 1791 in partnership with Duncan Urquhart, died 1858. He was for a time Treasurer of the Bevis Marks synagogue.

posted 03-06-2009 05:11 PM            

Ulysses is , as I commented in a prior posting, probably correct in assummimg it would be very difficult, if not impossible for technical reasons , for this piece to be after embellished. There is a limit to which a piece of silver can be stretched if provision has not been made for it. Also silver gets less malleable with time - as anyone who has tried to straighten a bent pair of tongs - and wrecked them - can testify ! Not personally guilty but I've been close !

posted 03-07-2009 11:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by agphile:
On a different tack, the heading to this thread describes the piece as a coffee pot. Looking at its proportions I wonder whether it is not actually a teapot

---

Or a hot water pot? Does it have strainer holes at the base of the spout? We had a discussion about these three types of pots in this thread ( one pot, two Lowneses) some time ago.

posted 03-08-2009 10:09 AM            

Having looked up a few tea and coffee pots of the 1820s I have to say I think Ulysses got the description right and this does indeed look like a coffee pot.

posted 03-08-2009 01:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by agphile:
Moral: Don't try to second guess a curator.

---

Those that always assume they know everything about all the numerous subjects they deal with,and a very specialist enquirer knows very little.

And those that know that some enquirers may be able to add to their expertise. Most curators are happily in the latter category, but expect you to prove your views.

That's how we all learn, often the hard way.

posted 03-08-2009 06:26 PM            

I believe I saw that there were no strainer holes on this piece, hence my thought that it was a coffee pot. But, in all honesty, I am confused in my own memory, and didn't look again when I took the new pictures. Also, I just got in a tea and coffee service (American) on which BOTH the tea and coffee pots had strainers--and I know the coffee pot was meant to be one. In that case, I think the coffee pot is a modification of the same combined elements used to make the teapot (this is an 1885 service), and thus the makers just left the tea strainer holes in both forms for ease of production.

So, you never know. I'll check to make sure next time I see it...if anyone still cares.

posted 03-10-2009 08:08 PM            

I take the points that an item may have been made with one purpose in mind but put to a slightly different use and that the presence or lack of strainer holes is not necessarily definitive.

English pots of this shape at this date seem generally to be classed as coffee pots but, my earlier intervention notwithstanding, the interest of the piece is in its decoration rather than its name!

posted 03-11-2009 05:51 AM            

I do not think that even in the early 19th century that the person owning this pot, who would probably be of high status anyhow, would have been concerned what purpose he or she used it for, or called it - as long as it worked. As late as the Regency I have seen wills and inventory referring to "A Tea or Coffee Pot". Not being ambiguous for ignorance but from indifference .

Ulysses - See much interest your pot has caused even before it's on display !

posted 03-11-2009 05:49 PM            

I think Ulysses has already told us that the hinged lid only has a French import mark.

I am not sure that I go along completely with your comments on the mindset of the 19th century upper class. I think the picture is more complex.

At the time this coffee pot was made the aristocracy still had considerable power both locally and nationally (the Great Reform Act had yet to happen). The tradition of an ostentatious display of plate to impress and to underline this status continued. Those who had made their wealth rather than inherit it tended to have aspirations to join the landed class, acquire titles and take their place in these upper echelons. At the same time many felt it important to demonstrate not just their wealth but also their good taste: to be fashionable.

Fashion would not simply have dictated how your plate was decorated but also what were the “correct” pieces to be used for particular purposes in fashionable entertaining. The first purchaser of this pot may have been rich middle or upper class. Either way, he was prepared to pay a significant premium for the “working” and had aspirations to be in the height of fashion so I think would also have been clear about its intended use.

Of course, there is evidence of other families who were less concerned with display, simply had the silver they needed and used it as was most convenient, replacing pieces only when necessary. It is not a matter of a single attitude towards this sort of thing across a class of society.

And then with the late Victorians I think there is a deal of evidence for an emphasis on etiquette among the elite as well as the middle classes though, again, not all the elite would be tarred with the same brush. If you were rich enough or secure enough you had greater freedom to decide how far you wanted to conform.

David

posted 03-11-2009 10:57 PM            

Were ground roasted beans boiled in a kettle and then removed by adding eggshells with whites still clinging to them--a recipe I think I read in Mrs. Beeton's? Or had some form of drip coffee maker been invented?

posted 03-12-2009 02:51 PM            

Tea pots tend to be “short and stout”, probably to make it easier to top them up with boiling water from a tea urn or kettle, and coffee pots to be taller (I have always assumed to keep a greater volume of coffee clear of the dregs).

It was the big belly on this pot that made me think of tea but coffee pots at this date were also big bellied, the difference being in the height above the belly.

That said, I still think it is the decoration rather than the original use that is the real interest here.

posted 03-12-2009 03:14 PM            

The absence of assay marks on this piece does worry me a little as I had reservations on the stylistic suitability for the lid to the pot, which have been reinforced. In response to Polly's comment on the putto on top, I have a feeling he/she is saying

"I don't think we're in Kansas anymore".

posted 03-12-2009 10:19 PM            

It would tell something to see if the chasing (looking at the inside of the pot) stops at the line where the spout, handle ferrules, and maybe the base are soldered to the body. If it does are there any lines that cross the outline of those parts, even just one or two and tiny? This would show that the chasing was done before the parts were soldered on.

If the chasing stops abruptly at the soldered on parts then it was done after.

My guess is it was chased before things were soldered together for the reason that it would be difficult to get to the areas behind the handle ferrules and the spout.

"This ain't no reworked berry spoon." (sorry I had to put that in )
I doubt this was chased after being made although it could be done except for the handle ferrules/spout thing if the angle would not allow chasing punches access.

A comment on the chasing, I think I will quote the master again because he says it so much better "It's good, but it's a little haute bourgeois aesthetically". Technically the subject matter is better than the chasing. I do not think I have said that well but what I mean is the chasing is confident and very competent but not the best, i.e. Storrs chasers would have done small details in the graphics better, water, feathers and perspective. It is good chasing but not exceptional (I think I like it so much for the subject matter which to my eye is a great attempt at a very natural portrait of a country scene), the depth is striking but again for an experienced chaser not to hard to do and the gage of the silver does not have to be extra thick it is more about the knowledge of the chaser in moving the metal so as not to thin it.

Lastly if I could add a little about silvers hardness... When a coffee/tea pot is made as it is raised it goes back and forth from hard to soft. When the body shape is finished it is hard, the minute the spout, ferrules, base, etc. are soldered on it is now soft. If it is given a final hammer (planish) around those parts it is semi hard again, also if it was chased. Silver does not get hard as it ages, at least not in 200-300 years. I love reworking or repairing old silver because once annealed it is like it was the day it was made. Greek/Roman antiquities are a different mater and I would be very wary of moving them!

Sugar tongs and cutlery in general are made extra hard in the making process. Basically they are not annealed after the 3/4 point in making them so that they get a functional hardness from the forging to be springy and stiff. After 200 or so years, especially tongs get bent and straightened so many times that they tend to go beyond their safe range of hardness and start to get over stressed. That is why it feels like the silver is getting hard from age. The solution would be to anneal them but then they would feel like a wet noodle in terms of the spring.

I have gone on way to long and I sincerely hope that the great skill and character of this grand pot is appreciated more by what I have added.

P.S. Could there be a hall mark on the lid buried by the chasing - it seems odd not to have one?

posted 03-13-2009 06:07 AM            

quote:

---

"I have gone on way to long and I sincerely hope that the great skill and character of this grand pot is appreciated more by what I have added."

---

Thanks

posted 03-13-2009 02:03 PM            

With regard to the lid, I don’t think we need to assume it is somehow “wrong”. As Agleopar says, marks can easily be lost or obliterated in any decorating work carried out when the piece is being finished after assay. If traces of marks remain, they should normally be on the inside of the lid.

posted 03-16-2009 07:09 PM            

It does not look to me as if the little hinged lid has been monkeyed with. The design and quality of the chasing is all harmonious (if one dare use that word for a piece like this). Also, the odd putto finial is a choice--Hey lady, you wanna finial, we got a load of finial designs, take your pick--Finally, The French import mark is alongside a little coronet which doesn't look like an English crest, and opposite a monogram...So MADE for export?

posted 03-26-2009 03:39 PM            

To my mind Ulysses's piece is similar but far superior in the main body decoration - but both are equally over the top in the spout and lid areas

posted 03-26-2009 06:19 PM            

Ulysses is the Putto on a threaded post and if so is that marked if you unscrew it (both the post, nut and Putto)?

And a belated thank you to Clive and Agphile.