Georgian Bowl ID - 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

Georgian Bowl ID

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

SSFFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Georgian Bowl ID
Silver567 Posts: 17 Registered: May 2006	posted 06-01-2006 11:32 AM [26-1074] Can anyone help with this double handled bowl? 20cm across, 11cm high, 11cm wide - gilded inner is partly worn, simple form with four bun feet - 9oz (regular) weight. In excellent condition. Would this have had a lid? I seem to be seeing a rubbed "O" date letter for London either 1789, 1810, or 1830 as it has King Georges head Makers mark has been badly stamped but is last letter is "H" that could be anyone, although one of the Hennell"s comes to mind, Perhaps Robert? Thanks ever so much Adam P IP: Logged
tmockait Posts: 963 Registered: Jul 2004	posted 06-01-2006 12:45 PM Well, it can't be the 1830 date because the leopard's head lost its crown in 1821, and your mark seems to have a crown. I am also puzzled by the shape of the punch in which George's head is set, which corresponds to 1784-5. Subsequent punches were oval. Intriguing set of marks. Tom IP: Logged
Silver567 Posts: 17 Registered: May 2006	posted 06-01-2006 01:15 PM Thanks Tom The leopard's has a crown, so correct - rule out 1830 Also the head punch is rubbed, making George seem as if he is looking left, looked at another angle he can easily be taken for looking right, I think........ Thanks Adam P IP: Logged
tmockait Posts: 963 Registered: Jul 2004	posted 06-01-2006 01:25 PM If George appear to be looking left, that is further evidence that the piece may be older than you think. The problem is the date letter, which should be "i" or "k". I am wondering if it is possible that the 1784-5 duty mark continued in use even though the new one was created. Tom IP: Logged
Silver567 Posts: 17 Registered: May 2006	posted 06-01-2006 01:39 PM Thanks Tom To be honset I can't really read the date letter, it looks like an O but could be another letter, there is something going on at the top - could the mark be on its side? IP: Logged
tmockait Posts: 963 Registered: Jul 2004	posted 06-01-2006 01:42 PM I don't think so. The dimple is clearly at the bottom as was typical for this date range of marks. If some one else can id the maker, you might resovle the date issue. Very nice piece. IP: Logged
Clive E Taylor Posts: 450 Registered: Jul 2000	posted 06-01-2006 02:22 PM Another reason for ruling out 1830 is that the Lion Passant is Guardant. This was replaced with the standard Lion Passant in 1822. (i.e the Lion in this mark faces to the beholder, not to the scenery to the left.) My suspicion is the the maker may well be Charles Hougham who certainly made items of this type. As he died in 1793, if the piece is by him, then 1810 is also ruled out. The piece is probably a sucrier (sugar bowl) from a tea service. IP: Logged
Silver567 Posts: 17 Registered: May 2006	posted 06-01-2006 03:37 PM Thanks Clive I agree it is a sucrier, my Georgian tongs feel just right dipping in and out for sugar cubes/balls. I never looked at my book properly, for two reasons now it can't be 1830 - the crowned leopard and the lion passant guardant. Pre 1810 is looking likely now - I don't think it is an O date letter anyway now (an e or g?) Charles Hougham (1760 - 1790s) is a blast from the past for me, his pieces are very simple. Does the makers stamp match up; I have no picture of one For a laugh - some person years ago has etched 1639 on the base - I have looked at those marks and the date letter is getting there but the rest seems wrong for such and early period Thanks Adam P IP: Logged
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 Registered: May 2003	posted 06-01-2006 03:46 PM I agree with Clive that this piece is a sugar bowl - and it almost certainly lacks a lid. If this were American, the style -- squat proportions and ball feet -- would be too late for the 1789 date and too early for the 1829 date, and would be just about right for 1809. Since American styles followed closely the English, I would suspect this would be on the early side for 1789 there as well. Anyone know of any clearly dated examples that early? If that is an e, as you suggest (and so looks)it is lower case, and would have to be 1780 or 1820. With the soverign's head, it would have to be 1820! And one more thing - if it is by Charles Hougham, Grimwade gives his date of death as 1793 and the soverign's head in cameo was added in 1786, so there are only the seven lower case letters l through s that the mark could be. Can anyone make any of those out in the enlarged photo? I can't make anything out of it for certain, since even the lower case e would be tilted in the reserve! [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 06-01-2006).] IP: Logged
tmockait Posts: 963 Registered: Jul 2004	posted 06-01-2006 04:33 PM So why does the punch for the soverign's head look like that for 1784-5? Just wondering. IP: Logged
salmoned Posts: 336 Registered: Jan 2005	posted 06-01-2006 04:59 PM Why wouldn't this be taken at face value as for 1 Sept 1815 to 28 May 1816? Certainly the letter 'seems' foreshortened, but my eyes find this the best fit. The "O" is thicker on the right, thinner on the left, opposite the features of this mark. Jackson's shows the "c" and "e" (1818, 1820) as being of even width throughout the bottom curve. The "U" of 1815 is thicker on the left as in this mark. May as well mention the concave bottom of the duty mark as well. [This message has been edited by salmoned (edited 06-01-2006).] IP: Logged
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 Registered: May 2003	posted 06-01-2006 05:25 PM quote: So why does the punch for the soverign's head look like that for 1784-5? Just wondering. Tom. the mark for 1784-5 is incuse i.e. "negative." The worn condition of the marks makes interpretation difficult, but the lighting on the duty mark is no different from the others, and so is in cameo like the others. The sloping outline on the left side is the outline of the wig, and the more vertical line on the right is the outline of the face - this is more clearly seen in the photo which is not enlarged. IP: Logged
tmockait Posts: 963 Registered: Jul 2004	posted 06-01-2006 06:41 PM Thanks for the explanation. I was puzzeled by the square shape of the punch at the bottom, but that could be a distortion casued by effacement as well. IP: Logged
SusanT Posts: 104 Registered: Nov 2005	posted 06-01-2006 09:35 PM Adam, Just spotted Charles Hougham maker’s mark on silver tongs on a silver sugar tongs site. Here is a bit from the description: “These tongs have the incuse duty mark which is unusual for cast tongs. This means that they are dated between 1st December 1784 and 29th May 1786.” Hope the following coding works. The thumbnails should be linked to the enlarged view of the marks. The first thumbnail is the silver and monarch head which is facing our left. 2nd thumbnail is Hougham maker’s mark. If it doesn't work will edit with the full pics. Well that didn't work. Here's the pics: --- Susan IP: Logged
tmockait Posts: 963 Registered: Jul 2004	posted 06-01-2006 10:10 PM So it is the 1784-85 mark! IP: Logged
adelapt Posts: 418 Registered: May 2003	posted 06-02-2006 12:01 AM No. IP: Logged
Silver567 Posts: 17 Registered: May 2006	posted 06-02-2006 02:06 AM It looks more and more like a U as suggested - I also think the sovereign's head is right facing. Here is a scan - what looks like a nose is in fact his hair and shoulders this allows for a smaller head (correct) and chest opposite. So this would rule Charles Hougham out but there are plenty of others - I go back to Robert and David Hennel, the style of H seems correct? My very first reaction on seeing this was 1815 (LOL) Adam P IP: Logged
tmockait Posts: 963 Registered: Jul 2004	posted 06-02-2006 10:48 AM I see the tongs are 1784-5 and the bowl 1815? IP: Logged
Silver567 Posts: 17 Registered: May 2006	posted 06-02-2006 03:57 PM It would appear so. They are separate items in my mind, bought years apart. I collect sugar tongs, although the posted tongs along with another similar pair I have fit the bowl very nicely in terms of length. Thanks everyone for all the help. Adam P 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