|
|
The Following material for this post was supplied
by members Jim &
Hester.
Special Features
Frontenac is a floral pattern with timeless
beauty. It has been in continuous production
since 1905. It therefore offers special
challenges to the collector from dating to even
forgery.
click on image to enlarge
Dating
Having a large number of
pieces from the pattern helps, and certainly
there are possible clues from the marks quoting
Hester: "MARKS: I have never found a reliable
method of telling which were pieces were made
with the original dies & which were made
later (excluding recasts and the pieces made
today which are so blatantly bad that they
wouldn't fool a blind person). If anybody else
has, I'd be interested in knowing how. I've
always preferred pieces where the word 'STERLING'
is enclosed in a fancy box because I thought they
might be older (I have a teaspoon monogrammed
'1909' which has the box), but I have no proof
and the detail is just as good on the unenclosed
pieces as the enclosed. I examined 40 place &
serving pieces and compared whether 'sterling'
was boxed or not, if a patent stamp was used and
if so was it 'PAT. or PAT'D ', whether the shield
under the knight's head was an outlined area with
a raised 'S' or a solid area with the 'S'
impressed, the clarity of the plant stamens,
anthers & stigma, and whether or not there
were raised spots on the lilies. No definitive
pattern emerged. All but 2 pieces (knives
excluded) had patent marks of some sort.
Surprisingly, one that didn't was a pierced jelly
cake server which is so finely pierced that I
can't imagine it being a newer piece; the
manufacturing/finishing cost would be enormous
plus I don't think it was a utensil that was in
heavy demand. The other was the above pie fork.
In most cases, 'PAT'D' was used in conjunction
with a raised 'S' in the outlined shield mark and
a boxed 'STERLING', and 'PAT.' was used with an
impressed 'S' in a solid shield and usually no
box, but enough exceptions occurred to prevent
this from being conclusive. Details on the
lilies' anthers & stigmas had some minute
variations under a loupe, but not enough to
criticize - probably just different finishers -
and the spots were heavy on some pieces, moderate
on others, and almost non-existent on a few,
following no apparent pattern. Crisp detail and a
fancy monogram are still my favorite
criteria.
Does anyone have any real method of
dating?
Pieces Available
|
|
| |
Size
|
My Cost
|
Notes
|
click on image to enlarge
click on image to enlarge
|
| Oyster/Cocktail Fork |
5 1/2" |
|
|
| pie? fork |
6 1/4" |
|
|
| Salad Fork |
6 7/16" |
|
|
| Dessert/Luncheon Fk |
7 1/8" |
|
|
| Dinner Fk |
7 1/2" |
|
|
| Dinner Knife |
9 3/4" |
|
stainless steel
blade, probably rebladed |
| Luncheon Knife |
9" |
|
s/p blade,
probably
original blade |
| Dessert/Oval Soup |
7" |
|
|
| Gumbo |
7" |
|
|
| Teaspoon |
5 7/8" |
|
|
| 5 O'clock |
5 9/16" |
|
|
| Chocolate Spoon |
3 3/4" |
|
|
| Salt Spoon |
2 1/2" |
|
|
| Butter Spreader |
5 3/4" |
|
|
|
|
Note: |
The pie? fork may be something
else, or maybe it's a newer version of a salad
fork. I bought it because it was different and
the details are crisp and far superior to any
recast that I've seen; it's too long and too
heavy to have been cut from a spoon. On the other
hand, the knight's head trademark is a blob.
Input would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Key Pieces
An original knife.
Comments
Forgeries- Where someone
has taken an original piece, made a mold & recast a
new piece from it, usually obliterating the maker's
mark (for obvious reasons). The details are soft &
sloppy or non-existent, usually like a piece that's
been over polished with a machine. Most of the time,
they're heavier than they should be because they're
cast. Someone told me a lot of these were made in the
1970's. Whiting's Lily, Bridal Rose, Virginiana &
Tiffany's Strawberry are the ones that come to mind,
but I have seen others. Berry spoons and salad serving
forks are the most popular forms. The most recent piece
of suspect Frontenac that I've seen was a tea strainer
where a Frontenac handle had been soldered onto a
universal style strainer; unfortunately, I didn't
bother to look at the markings. This may be the way
that International is making them now because I've seen
several on ebay & at shows, all advertised as new,
in the original wrapper. I've also seen other patterns
attached to the same strainer. Technically, I suppose
this is a marriage and not a recast, but bastardized
just the same. Several months ago, a large heart shaped
server (7 5/8") in 'Frontenac' appeared on ebay. The
piercing was nothing like Frontenac & I asked the
seller if the piece was new, how was it marked, etc. He
said that it was marked sterling with no trademark and
that it was probably a recast (he never added that to
his ad and it sold for $135.00!).
Other Questions
I've never seen a piece of Frontenac
stamped with a jeweler's name. Did Int'l. market
directly or through jewelers, or is there not enough
space for a stamp? I don't recall seeing a jeweler's
name on any other SH&M patterns either. Do ramekin
forks, fish forks and flat, all silver knives
exist?
Is the pie? fork above a new piece? It's strange that
it doesn't have flowers carried down onto the
shoulders. Why aren't the tines centered above the
handle?
From teaspoon to tablespoons, all that I've seen have
been thin and inadequate to use without fear of
bending. The weight of the smaller spoons (5 o'clock
& smaller) are relative to their size and use, but
the teas, soups and tablespoons are pathetic. Do heavy
spoons exist? Why would a company that manufactured
such an ornate, complex pattern with heavy forks and
serving pieces manufacture spoons that are a joke?
Hester
|
|
