posted 11-11-2007 04:16 AM            

And here is another piece I recently bought. Knowing nothing about old silver, am I doing well?

It was described as this:

quote:

---

IMPORTANT ENGLISH 1778 GEORGE III STERLING SILVER COFFEE POT; RAISED BALUSTER FORM; PERIOD "FULL BLOWN" ROCOCO SHELL AND SCROLLING FOLIATE DECORATION; ELEGANT ACORN FINIAL; DUAL ARMORIALS, "VIRTUTE ET FIDELITATE", VALOR AND FIDELITY; FAMILY MOTTO: LYONS, COSTIGAN, CROFTS AND OTHERS; ROBERT MAKEPEACE & RICHARD CARTER, LONDON 1778; 33 OUNCES

We are quite pleased to offer this fine, and exceptionally rare, English sterling silver George III coffee pot.

From the highly regarded, extremely short lived, London partnership of Robert Makepeace I & Richard Carter. The union lasting only one year.

Date marked 1778.

Makepeace was registered as a goldsmith, 1767-1775. He entered into partnership with Carter in 1777. Their partnership dissolved the following year, 1778. The year this elegant coffee pot was crafted.

Makepeace went on to Robert Makepeace & Sons, goldsmiths c1784. Carter later joined Smith & Sharp. Doing so, interestingly, as senior partner of an existing firm.

Examples of Georgian silver bearing the Makepeace & Carter hallmark, given their exceptional rarity, are highly coveted by collectors.

Masterfully crafted in raised baluster form. A design first seen c1755.

---

Elegant beaded trim to both upper rim, and stepped and ruffle chased circular base.

Lavish, period shell and scrolling leaf, floral and vine decoration. Referred to as "full blown" Rococo chasing.

A stunning array of diverse florals. Most all in regal full bloom. Ruffled leaves and thick, curling vine. Nestled against and upon the flowers and one another.

Leaf and vine framed wolf's head armorial, Latin "Deo Servante Rex Obedientia", roughly Obedience to the Prince. Other side with clenched knight's fist armorial, with "Virtute Et Fidelitate", By valor and fidelity. Motto of numerous families, including Lyons, Lanphier, Costigan and Crofts.

Elaborate, leaf cap, reeded and layered acanthus mount spout. Three oval "drop" to centre. Within beautifully chased ruffled shell "frame".

High domed circular, recessed cover. Topped with chased acorn finial, on banded pedestal base.

Artistically carved wavy vine handle, moulded thumb piece. Panelled inverted shell join above. Lower handle with reeded and rolled end sterling cap...gorgeous.

This extremely rare George III sterling silver coffee pot from the renowned Makepeace & Carter, listed for only a single year, is 12 inches tall and 8 1/2 handle to spout. Exceptionally thick, heavy guage sterling construction, weighs 33 ounces, less couple of ounces for wooden handle.

It is excellent condition. Rich, lustreous sterling patina. Cover fits perfectly. Handle secure. Single, shallow 1/8th inch indent, mid-neck. Visible in images. Several pin head size indents, bit uneven to area around knight's fist medallion, as shown. No thinning whatever. The extensive "full blown" Rococo shell and scrolling foliate decoration retains most all of its original sharp, vibrant hand chased detail.

Well struck hallmarks to underside, surrounding the base "centre" point. Equally crisp, partial marks "RM over RC", and lion passant (sterling guarantee) to cover, interior rim. Precisely the manner in which coffee pots of this period should be hallmarked. See Peter Waldron, Antique Silver. After 1784, the duty mark should be present.

posted 11-15-2007 08:08 PM            

This piece attracted me because of its overall form, the detailed chasing and what I would guess, because of the very limited time this partnership existed, some considerable rarity. As with my Gorham tea and coffee set posted here, the writing in my first post was a description by the dealer.

In forming a collection of western silver, I am thinking of concentrating on mid or earlier 19th century American pieces and 18th century English pieces. I only intend to collect hollowware and I also intend to stay with larger examples of hollowware. Aside from the obvious tips and advice a seasoned collector would give a brand new collector, what additional insights would one consider as essential in forming a good collection?

Another question I have is how best to preserve such pieces? It has been suggested to me to use cotton cloth and just a little Silvo which I can find here in Bali at the Ace Hardware store. Oddly enough, silver does not tarnish all that much here in our climate, and I've been told that is likely because there is very little, if any, sulphur in our atmosphere. That is because there is no heavy industry or coal burning here. Does that seem reasonable? Does too much cleaning of early silver have a risk of wearing out the details over time?

Yet another question I have is about early monograms or engraved coats of arms, etc. What do most of you think about leaving these as opposed to having them removed. Finally, regarding this particular coffee pot, any comments about it would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks in advance, and kind regards, Nyoman

posted 11-16-2007 09:16 AM            

There are a range of opinions on polish and storage and appropriate use on the forum, but I think there is no disagreement on early monograms and crests. They are part of the history of the piece and should not be removed.

I suppose that a more recently added monogram could be removed as a restoration,
Arguably justified on a case by case basis....
What do you think?

posted 11-16-2007 11:48 AM            

I think you are wise to want to focus your collecting since there are so many areas to collect. Before you buy very many things, I would recommend that you invest some time and money in developing a small library of reference books and in studying them. Here is an excellent bibliography of such books from which you might choose some that pertain to your interests. If you have any questions about any of them or would like to ask for people's opinions as to how useful certain ones are the nice people here can give your their thoughts. Not only will your appreciation of your silver be greatly increased by learning about it, but you will also become a more discerning buyer and be able to tell when a dealer is giving you a correct story and when they are either misinformed or just not telling the truth in order to entice you to buy their things. You will also become better able to see when an object is authentic and when it is a forgery. Unfortuantely, there are all too many forgeries on the market once you get into something costing more than a few dollars. This includes both newly produced silver made to look old and to deceive buyers, old silver with newly added markings to trick people into thinking a piece of ordinary silver was made by a famous maker, and reproduction silver that was made long ago not for the purpose of deceiving when it was made but to sell at low prices to people who could not afford early silver but who wanted something that looked just like it.

posted 11-16-2007 01:05 PM            

I really don't trust old pieces that don't have monograms. Old silver was monogrammed, and should reflect the conditions of its making. There are numerous pieces out there with a variety of monogram dates that show how a cup was handed down from generation to generation. I always find this charming.

posted 11-16-2007 06:05 PM            

I can see already that I have joined the right forum. As I look around and read various postings and replies, the knowledge here is considerable and the willingness to share is refreshing, and for me, very appreciated. Many thanks again and best wishes for a wonderful weekend to you all. Kind regards, Nyoman.

posted 11-17-2007 04:59 PM            

Thank you for your insights into a rich and subtle culture.

Western culture can also be deep and subtle, and when it comes to selling objects, it can exercise many obvious and not so obvious ways of describing things. They don't always reflect the truth.

Because a maker or partnership was short lived, that doesn't necessarily mean that its products are more sought after, or the better for that. True, some collectors want the rarity factor, but they have a particular interest.

Because an object displays "full blown rococo" decoration doesn't mean it started life that way. I suspect this coffee pot was a graceful and plainer object when originally sold, and was at some later stage 'improved' by the addition of that dense floriate and scroll work.

posted 11-17-2007 05:56 PM            

Many thanks for your post and insights. In researching this coffee pot I was told to be careful about what you point out, that being the later addition of chasing or embellishments. What signs does one look out for to detect if this has happened to a piece?

One thing I was told to look out for is signs of wear either from use and polishing. In other words, the chasing should have a compatible surface to the rest of the piece reflecting use and polishing. Also, the thickness of the silver at the points this chasing and design work is to be done should be thicker than the thickness of the undecorated wall of the silver. Does this make sense, or was it easy enough to simply later on, solder on more silver to those areas to be chased and decorated?

In addition, with this particular piece, we have the issue of the two armorials which are perfectly positioned within the cartouche on each side. This approach to the decorative cartouche surrounding the armorials is similar to what can also be found on Chinese export porcelain of the same period. Of course this assumes that the armorials were not also added at a later date, which in this case, does not appear to be the case to my eye.

In discussing this point with the prior owner of this piece, he assured me that the chasing and decoration is all original to the initial workmanship of this piece, but how can one be certain of that?

posted 11-17-2007 09:52 PM            

I note that the weight is given as about 33 ounces (presumably troy) all in, meaning including the handle. That means that the pot is likely to be of a good gauge - not thin metal to start with.

The only way I know to develop the ability to identify later decoration is by comparison - handling original objects and consulting reputable catalogues with good images. Well researched sale and collection catalogues will point out later decoration.

Also try to imagine how the pot, for example, would appear without the decoration, just with the beading and cast spout.

I am not an 'authority', but several members of these forums have wide and deep experience. It would be interesting to read their comments.

Earlier on you asked "how am I doing" with the things you have collected. You only have to please yourself - we all collect for our own reasons.

posted 11-18-2007 04:34 AM            

Before the mid 18th century silversmiths made most of their pieces from scratch. They took a billet of silver and hammered it, literally, to form a flat sheet and raised the hollowware from that. A real craftsman would know that a shape like a coffee pot of baluster form would be stretched more at the bottom when being raised and he would have hammered his sheet to be thicker to start with in that area.Silver in the hands of an expert is very malleable. By the time of assay of this piece things had moved on. Silver rolling mills had been perfected and the silversmith either bought in his sheet from a specialist, or if he was part of a big firm, it would have been rolled by an internal department. Forget the image of Hester Bateman doing handwork- she had a steam engine to drive a rolling press! Operated by one of her numerous employers being slave driven by her overseer Peter!

posted 11-18-2007 04:19 PM            

Although the partnership between Make peace and Carter is accepted as having been short lived, the time span did encompass three assay years. That means that the accepted mark could have one of three date letters.

Add to that, that as pointed out in some references, Ambrose Heal in his "London Goldsmiths" recorded the partnership as being at their address from 1772. One theory is that the "missing" mark entry for the earlier period was in the (now missing) book of largeworkers' marks.

posted 11-19-2007 03:42 AM            

Once again, many thanks for your continued responses about this coffee pot.

Yes, I can confirm that the total weight of this pot, including the handle, is 33 troy ounces. There are no thin areas, and as you note, the silver is a good heavy gauge. In your first reply you wrote, "I suspect this coffee pot was a graceful and plainer object when originally sold, and was at some later stage 'improved' by the addition of that dense floriate and scrollwork."

There seems to be a growing consensus that all, or some of the chasing on this coffee pot is possibly of a later date. I understand that those conclusions have been formulated from rather small photographs and that much greater details would be helpful to resolve this issue. Here is an enlarged detail photo of the chasing decoration at the belly of this pot:

I'm also providing a second photograph of both the inside of the lid as well as the inside of the body which clearly shows the repousse chasing resulting in the high relief of the "full blown" Rococo designs of this coffee pot. Once made, I cannot understand how such decoration could possibly be added later, especially in the belly of this pot, without entirely dismantling and opening it up. Can someone please explain how this repousse chasing could be added after the coffee pot was made? I can understand flat chasing as a later addition, but I can't understand how repousse chasing could be added later.

Kimo,

Many thanks for your as usual excellent advice. What you say is of course complete common sense. Unfortunately, I lack the discipline and will power to "learn first, buy later." Additionally, I don't really have any other option. I seriously doubt there are any other George III coffee pots anywhere on Bali, and for certain, no antiques dealer or museum here would have any early English silver for me to be able to study. I have found some early Dutch colonial silver from time to time, but even that is very rare here in spite of over 300 years of our being a Dutch colony.

My only realistic option, short of spending a few weeks in the London silver vaults, or the Grosvenor Antiques Fair is to ally myself to a dealer who I feel I can trust. Prior to making any purchases from this person from whom I bought this coffee pot, my husband engaged in his own background check on that person with his long standing contacts back in Boston. Understanding that no dealer or scholar is perfect, he was much more than satisfied with what he learned. It would be inappropriate to go into any details, and I don't intend to violate forum rules, so we should leave it at that. Ideally, what you offer as advice is excellent and not to be argued. It is sound and practical and by using your time tested approach, unhappy experiences can at least be limited, if not avoided all together.

Many thanks again for all the responses to my post on this coffee pot. I look forward to additional responses and a possible resolution as to the originality of the decoration on this piece.

Kind regards,
Nyoman.

posted 11-20-2007 10:24 AM            

After the first snarling (which is done by following the drawn on design) the whole of what is being chased is a mass of rough areas that are hard to tell what will be the end result. Now the pot is filled with pitch and from the out side on a sand bag the chaser starts to refine the design, pushing down the low background areas and adding detail with a chasing hammer and chasing tools - small iron punches of different shapes.

Both these methods are used to make the details on your pot. It could be chased first and after the pitch is removed then snarled and also snarled later on to add height if a part was over looked. Then refilled with pitch to add the final details and textures with matting punches (punches with textures like "pear skin" etc.). It all takes a lot of time and skill.

I am not an expert on antique styles, but the chasing on you pot could all have been done at the same time or at different times. There is no difference in the metal separated by 100 years in work hardening that annealing would ameliorate. So the best way to answer the question of whether the floral chasing is original is by one of the forums experts saying if they have ever seen this style of work on a pot this age.

posted 11-21-2007 04:54 AM            

As I consider this coffee pot, there are some irrefutable facts that transcend opinion or theory, and in my mind, they hold the greatest weight of evidence.

The first fact would be the weight of this pot...which is a very hefty 33 troy ounces. As I have researched many George II and III coffee pots, this sort of weight on a plain pot is close to unheard of. In fact, the average weight for those coffee pots seems to hover around 26 troy ounces.

If a plain pot was repoussed, or chased at a later date, its weight would be the same as when it was initially made, and that weight would seem to be most assuredly, and considerably less, than 33 troy ounces. Another seven troy ounces on a George III coffee pot, which would be required to bring a plain pot up to the weight of this pot, simply seems to me to involve a whole lot more effort than having an entirely new pot made in high Rococo taste.

As I understand the typical manufacturing methods of George II and III coffee pots, it was normal that the spout, mounts for the handle, and the base, were cast, and then finished by repousse or chasing before being soldered to the body. In my mind then, the central issue here is how the body of this pot, and its lid, were originally formed.

As I examine this pot very carefully on the inside, I see no reason to rule out that it was initially cast before the hand work chasing was undertaken. One silver "expert" has written to me to say that while that would be unusual for a 1778 date, it is not completely unlikely, and it would account for the rather substantial weight of this coffee pot.

Aside from the issues of taste, or style, I have yet to "hear" a definitive and documentable reason why the chasing and raised repousse chasing on this pot is not authentic to its age. Surely, if such decoration was not original then some forensic evidence would be present to prove that point. That's what I think, so what do you think?

Many thanks again for all the responses, and my kind regards, Nyoman

posted 11-21-2007 06:39 PM            

When I get back in the office after Thanksgiving, I will post an image of a ca. 1790 coffee pot by American silversmith George Aiken. It is a "full blown" rococo form, but it has neoclassical details much like those on this example...

posted 11-23-2007 08:42 AM            

33 troy vs. 26 troy is not important to the way this was made. I am sure it was raised and once a raised vessel is raised there is no changing it. The weight is a factor of the gage sheet the body was made from and the weight of the castings (spout, handle sockets, finial etc.) and comes down to how much the customer wanted to spend because at that time the silver was the majority of the expense.

As a silversmith not a dealer I have very little expertise about the timing of styles, so from my limited experience (unlike a good dealer I have only handled a few pots like this one) I am reacting to the floral thing being more of a Victorian motif.

Having said that four 1760 London candlesticks arrived in the workshop for repair and they look very much like this pot! Flowers and all and I believe the chasing is contemporary. So I will now leave this discussion to the likes of Mr. Dietz, who will, I'm sure make all clear.

And regardless of the answer this is a very handsome pot!

posted 11-23-2007 06:56 PM            

I can only hope that I am properly balancing my own personal desire for information and knowledge about my pot with those other members who may also find this topic to be of interest.

In discussing the weight of this pot, what I have noticed in my limited research is that the weight of the pots which were highly decorated tends to significantly exceed the weight of the plainer pots. I am assuming that this is because the gage of the sheet of the body, as you explain, would need to be thicker if the piece was to be repousse chased? Do you think that is a somewhat fair assumption, or does your expertise and experience tell you that this factor, the weight (thickness of the gauge) was solely a matter of economics at the time these Georgian pots were made? In other words, and as one previous poster has mentioned, wouldn't the additional working of the silver by repousse chasing, in particular, the repousse working itself, cause more stretching of the gauge (and thinness) of the silver at those high points of the repousse, and the only way to limit that would be to initially start off with a somewhat thicker than otherwise needed gauge of silver?

With all of that being said, I also understand that the actual weight of my pot has other factors involved which you point out. That would be the casting weight of those parts of the pot which were cast. So, with that in mind, my husband is going to see if he can find someone who has either dial calipers or a micrometer so we can accurately measure the thickness of the wall of the pot itself.

I wonder if this sort of study by a silver scholar would be a worthwhile endeavor and perhaps even show, assuming enough pots, plain and repoussed could be accurately measured, an emerging distinction between the average thickness of the walls in a plain pot versus that of a repousse decorated pot, this being particularly meaningful as measured in the plain and undecorated areas and at the same points.

Trust me in that I am keeping well enough in mind that I am brand new to this subject, but that has one advantage, that being that I come to this topic without any pre-conceived notions or opinions formed over past years by what could sometimes be called conventional wisdom. This is of course not a challenge, but rather only an observation. There is another factor as well of course, and that is that my rookie status allows me to pretty much say almost anything that is "off the wall" as I have an excuse!

Many thanks again to all of you who have contributed to this discussion.

Kind regards, Nyoman

posted 11-25-2007 08:04 PM            

Having said all this, in order to really have this discussion the piece needs to be handled so that all the tiny factors that make up the final surface, color, and texture can be “felt”. Not being able to hold it we will take second best and digital images are great (especially yours!)

So as to measuring the wall thickness, it will be interesting but I do not think prove much. On page 483 of “American Silver at Winterthur” by Ian M.G.Quimby is an appendix that does just that. I was fascinated by it when I found it because I had wondered about this question too.

The researchers were amazed that the overall fact of all the measured hollow ware was that it was so consistent in thickness top to bottom. These are American objects but a lot of the smiths had English training or their masters were trained in England. There is one 29oz. coffee pot by Jacob Hurd, a raised light house shape, its walls range from 0.016” to 0.023” – a range of 0.007” this is Thousandths of an inch!

Just another example is the list of tankards that range in thickness from the light ones to heavy, 0.013”-0.019” to 0.020”-0.038”. I will not use anything under 0.030” for a light object and usually never more than 0.045” for heavy ones. But silver is cheap today (it’s the labor I am charging for) and why make something that feels light when it only saves a few dollars.

My guess is that your pot will come in in the 0.020”-0.030” range. Make sure you measure it only where it has not been chased so as to get a fair reading of the raised walls.

For an experienced smith it is easy to thin, thicken, or keep it the same as you raise the metal. The same goes for a good chaser to a degree, with limitations, but I doubt that a good chaser would care if it was thin or thick (to the small amount we are talking about). I think the weight is more about the cost. By that I mean that the cost of a chased pot was higher and perhaps it was for a richer customer who would pay more for weight also... It is all about appearances, and how it feels!

I hope this helps, but I also hope that one of the English experts will weigh in because my knowledge stops at the technical side of this question. Unfortunately I cannot give an image of the sticks because they belong to others and really they would not help. It would be better to look at documented coffee pots in collections like the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, I recommend Ellenor M. Alcorn’s English silver in the MFA, Boston, volume II, silver from 1697.

posted 11-25-2007 09:02 PM            

Agleopar,
That is a massive understatement! I am thrilled to have read your most recent post and I can't thank you enough for your willingness to take your valuable time and share with me, and all the readers of this forum your knowledge as a silversmith. I only wish I could ship this pot off to you for exactly what you suggest, that being a hands on examination. Come to think of it, there is a small ding that could use a little help!

I had no idea that a study of wall thickness had ever been done before. That is most interesting and I am happy to learn about that. Also, many thanks for the book recommendation. I think I will go to either the MFA museum store or Abe books right now.
Very kind regards, Nyoman

posted 11-30-2007 12:40 AM            

This quote from Mr. Dietz's earlier post past me by - or rather I missed it! Also seeing the Aiken pot which I would guess is what spoon collectors call a transitional form makes me think that I was on the wrong track...

Also by coincidence I am staying with my engraver on Newbury St.while doing a show in Boston and she thought the chasing looked "right".

So I am now officially changing my mind and saying that I think I was wrong about the chasing, it does look original to the making of the pot.

I am sorry if I have helped to lead you on a wild goose chase, I did enjoy the technical discussion and hope that that makes up a bit for wasting everyones time. I will try to stick to my area of experience and let the pros like Mr. Dietz lead the way on these questions!

posted 11-30-2007 06:17 AM            

Agleopar,
There is no need at all to apologize. Please, I feel terrible that you regret your earlier observations, as there is no need.

As I have read various other topics, I am impressed with what I can't think otherwise than to call a metamorphosis that seems to regularly occur here. Within the various topics discussed on this forum, I normally have read a very impressive development of discussion brought on by various contributors...the end of which is a resolution, or at the very least, the best "kris stab" at resolution.

In my own mind, and I'm sorry to present my personal opinion, that aspect of this forum, meaning egos and argument are left aside, replaced by a sincere quest for truth and knowledge, hallmarks a truly fine forum.

That this is a truly fine forum is self-evident by the "offerings" of the major contributors to it, and the abject honesty of those who participate. Within that venue, truth and knowledge can indeed be found.

Kind regards,
Nyoman