posted 05-11-2006 01:20 PM            

My interest was piqued last night after trying to track down the maker’s mark on a pair of sterling bud vases passed down from my mother. The vases have the marks for Birmingham, sterling, 1900. The maker’s mark is D & F. As this maker’s mark is not in Wyler, I did a search of the Internet in hopes of spotting info on this mark. I found several sites selling pieces with this mark but none of them ventured a guess to the maker(s) name.

The variety of items being credited to this mark was a surprised. I find it hard to believe one or even two men would be making, providing the silver parts for, such a diverse range of items. They were all in the same time frame: 1890 to 1920. They were being advertised on individual, antique, and auction catalog sites. They ranged from a silver & ivory paper knife (1890), a pair of tripod shell form salt cellers (1892), sterling mounted tortoise shell tea caddy (1894), an easel backed silver mounted dressing table mirror (1901), a visiting card case (1901), a silver-gilt & enamel button & buckle set (1909), cigarette case (1910) to a ladies mother-of-pearl with sterling folding blade fruit knife (1914), a coffee set (1920), pram bell (1920, and my pair of bud vases (1900).

One more question: how come these 1900 bud vases made in England do not have “England” stamped on them? I thought anything made after 1891 had to have the country of origin on it.

TIA

posted 05-11-2006 02:54 PM            

quote:

---

One more question: how come these 1900 bud vases made in England do not have “England” stamped on them? I thought anything made after 1891 had to have the country of origin on it.

---

Good question. The answer remains unclear. It depends on how they came into this country, sort of. If these were originally made with the idea of export, then they should have the Made in England. But if they were sold on the domestic English market and later exported they probably wouldn't. Part of me suspects that the law had an exemption for used items. Which encourages makers to have workers take things home for a week, bring them back, and label them 'used'. Or they could have been bought by a tourists. Or sent as a gift. Or, and this is the tricky option, if an American firm sent a design to the maker in England and had them shipped in an unfinished state, the finish work to be done in the US, it may have been exempt. Or, they could have come in as Antiques, an exempt class; based on the assumption that customs would not know how to read marks. Or they could simply have been logged as silver by weight, which could pass as a raw material. Or the transaction could have been a trade, not a money one. Or, and this is probably most likely, a soldier coming back in 1945 brought them. Or a war bride. There are all sorts of ways around this.

posted 05-11-2006 05:04 PM            

Prior to 1700 it is likely that the mark was that of one individual, working by himself with just one or two apprentices, maybe his wife and a couple of hired hands. The guy may well have had some considerable physical part in the manufacture. By 1780 this was seldom the case. The sponsor might employ dozens of hands and several apprentices. Hester Bateman for example had numerous people in her employment and probably never touched any of the articles bearing her "makers mark".

Also a good proportion of silver goods were contracted out to silversmiths ,who having done an apprenticeship did not register a mark. In the silver buckle trade such outsourcing from specialists was very common. If you look The Proceedings of the Old Bailey Ref: t17570420-27 on www.oldbaileyonline.org you can see a good example of this.

posted 05-13-2006 01:12 PM            

Thank you, one and all, for the information!!

posted 05-14-2006 07:31 PM            

Thank you for the responses.

The info on the shops of the times is very interesting as well as the ownership of the maker's marks. Like Clive said, I think I have recently seen "Sponsor' mark" used over on a website with contained info on the Assay Office of London.

The lack of "England" on the vases is probably as Dale suggests, where purchased. These vases were purchased in England by a great aunt in the 1920s. I have many pieces of English porcelain/china and have never found any manufactured after 1891 that didn't have "England" on it and after 1920 that didn't have "Made in England."

From the website of "Strokes-on-Trent, Pottery and Ceramic, Tunstall, Burslem, Henley, Stroke, Fenton, Longton" Trade Mark" on their "Ceramic Trade Marks - General Guide" webpage:

"It was William McKinley (the 25th president of the USA) who introduced the highly protectionist McKinley Tariff Act of 1890 - this imposed tariffs on many imports (including pottery) in order to make it easier for the American manufacturers to sell their products. It was a requirement of this Act that all such imports carried the name of the country of manufacture. ...

"In 1921 the Act was amended to require the phrase "Made in" preceding the country of origin. The labeling at individual British potteries varies somewhat from the 1891/1921 dating requirements described above (e.g., Wedgwood adopted the "Made in England" around 1908/10 and may have used it on some pieces as early as 1898)."

Waylander,

>My two cents ... D & F would be for Deakin & Francis Limited, prolific manufactuers of the 20th century.<

Thank you for your "two cents"! Googled on Deakin & Francis Limited and found their website. They claim they date from 1786 and are still owned and managed by the Deakin family. Up in the top left hand corner of their home page is their maker's mark - identical to what is on my vases!

Again, thanx, everyone!.

posted 05-18-2006 11:12 PM            

>Many items just had stickers with the country of origin.<

There's a thought. One of the bon bon dish we got for a wedding gift had the country name on a sticker which like you pointed out is now long gone. I forgot about that sticker. Thank you for the response.

--- Susan