www.925-1000.com

Hi Forum,

I have come across a few auction listings at prestigious auction houses for English plates with gadrooned borders dating from c1700-c1720.

Occasionally, these auction listings will mention that the plates have been "reshaped" at the end of the 18th century or beginning of the 19th century (see below).

• Is the reshaping assessment based on the style and gadrooned border, or some evidence of alteration not shown in the picture?
  • Are any plates from c1710 with this gadrooned form original to the period or have they all been reshaped?
  • If so, why is reshaping only mentioned in the occasionally auction listing instead of the majority?
  • What did the original plates look like?
• If the object's use remained the same (i.e. the plate was reshaped, but it is still a plate), is it considered an illegal alteration?
  • Berry spoons/fruit spoons are altered but are not considered illegal because their use is the same

A set of twelve George I silver dinner plates mark of John White, London, 1719, reshaped circa 1770
Each shaped circular, with gadrooned border, the border engraved with three crests, the reverse engraved with scratch weight

Here is an example that corroborates the previous assertion:

Three Britannia silver dinner plates marked for London, 1707 (Thomas Burridge?).

The marks are located underneath the rim, where the transition in the shape occurs. It would not be possible for the marks to have been punched in this location in the plate's current form.

One can conclude that this area of the plate was flat when assayed and that the plate was reshaped at a later date after assay.

This would be no different than what occurred with flatware as documented in another forum topic:

agphile wrote:In the 1760s/early 1770s it was not unusual to get a silversmith to "turn" your flatware, i.e. reshape the ends of old Hanoverian spoons to the newly fashionable Old English shape. I think it probable that this is what happened to your spoon.

Further verification is needed, but initial evidence indicates this form of shaped/gadrooned plate did not exist prior to the 2nd half of the 18th century (c1770s), at which point older plates were "reshaped" to keep up with the fashion of the day.

MGArgent wrote:

• Is the reshaping assessment based on the style and gadrooned border, or some evidence of alteration not shown in the picture?
  • Are any plates from c1710 with this gadrooned form original to the period or have they all been reshaped?
  • If so, why is reshaping only mentioned in the occasionally auction listing instead of the majority?
  • What did the original plates look like?
• If the object's use remained the same (i.e. the plate was reshaped, but it is still a plate), is it considered an illegal alteration?
  • Berry spoons/fruit spoons are altered but are not considered illegal because their use is the same

From the evidence I have reviewed, these are the tentative answers to the questions in the original post:

• The reshaped assessment was likely based on evidence of alteration, i.e. the marks are present in an impossible location
  • All plates appearing with this shaped/gadrooned form that were made prior to c1760-c1770 were likely reshaped to keep up with the fashion of the day
  • The original form of the plates prior to reshaping was likely plain (see below)
• The object's use remained the same (i.e. the plate was reshaped, but it is still a plate), so it is likely a legal alteration (reference needed)
  • I could not find any dinner plates with marks erased by LAO

George I dinner plate from a set of 22 by Robert Cooper/John White, London, 1719

I just noticed that John white is coincidentally the maker of the reshaped gadrooned plate from the original post and also the maker of the plain plate from the most recent post.

Here is an example of a set of plates with gadrooned borders that were submitted to the LAO and came back with 2020 LAO additions marks for improper alterations. The old marks were not defaced (see below).

Before drawing any conclusions: These plates may not be a typical case of reshaping. Shown in the close-up view of the marks, there is the appearance of what may be a solder line around the entire outer border. If the entire outside border was added at a later date, the LAO may have treated this case differently than a less invasive reshaping.

From the Antique Plate Committee on improper alterations:

NOTICE OF PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH GOLD OR SILVER ARTICLES SUBMITTED TO THE GOLDSMITHS’ COMPANY, ASSAY OFFICE LONDON,
FOR EXAMINATION BY THE ANTIQUE PLATE COMMITTEE

B. Improper alterations

1. Sometimes in the case of an improper alteration (see Note III) an article can be regularised
without defacing the old marks e.g.

(a) if the article can be restored to its original state by removal of unauthorised additions, or
(b) if the character of the article is essentially unchanged by the alteration and any unauthorised additions can be approved and (if found on assay to be up to standard) hallmarked with the “additions hallmark”.

III. Improper alterations
An “improper alteration” is defined in the Act as meaning an addition, repair or alteration to a hallmarked article without the consent of an assay office. (Section 2 (5) refers). However, some small additions are expressly authorised by Section 5 (4).

The following indentured dinner plates bare the Royal Arms, and so it seems that the Jewel House was responsible for the alteration of these plates. It is interesting to note that not even Jewel House alterations are considered to be authorized additions in the eyes of the LAO:

A set of ten George III silver dinner plates, by Daniel Smith and Robert Sharp, London, 1782 (x8) and 1784 (x2)
The borders with modern London Assay Office addition marks, each shaped circular and with gadrooned rim, engraved with the Royal arms flanked by initials 'WR' and with a further crest below an earl's coronet. The crest is that of Hamilton for Thomas Hamilton, 9th Earl of Haddington (1780-1858). He served as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1834 is it is possible that the present plates were part of a service issued to him by the Jewel house for his use during his time in Dublin...

...The border further marked underneath with modern London Assay Office marks. The borders probably date to 1834 when the plates were issued by the Jewel House.

Set of ten George III silver dinner plates by Daniel Smith and Robert Sharp, London, 1782 (x8) and 1784 (x2).
The borders with 2020 LAO additions marks:

Hi,
Royal Cipher of Queen Anne within the Order of the Garter in this Hanoverian spoon (1713) was engraved on the underside of the spoon.
I am not familiar with the fashion or habit in regard of the position of arms on silverware, but boasting with heraldic attributes was probably not what royalty did; in contrast with lower nobility, particularly in 19th century when new money families emerged during industrial revolution.

Secondly, Queen Anne arms in your plate really look uninterrupted (contours without a break in continuity), as shown with my red arrows.
Gadrooned border could have been added (soldered) at the top, but I think the rest of the plate is genuine.
Transforming a plane circular plate into gadrooned complicated border plate would be a remarkable task and substantial alteration, practically new item from scrap silver requiring new hallmarking.
Regards

Hi AG2012,

Thank you for the counter viewpoint, you have presented some problems for my thesis.

I must first admit that my knowledge of silversmithing techniques is limited.

My assumption was that the process for reshaping the plate from a plain border to a complicated border was accomplished strictly by deformation processes using one or more presses. The idea is similar as to how berry spoons were later embossed with presses. In this theory, the gadrooned border would have been added as the last step after the deformation process.

If the reshaping was accomplished using a press, it would still allow for the Royal Arms to remain uninterrupted as you point out.

Consider this image of another plate with the punch marks located in the crevice along the border. You will note that the marks are uninterrupted over the transitioning surface.

1. The first question to ask is why the maker and assayer would choose to mark such an awkward location when a flat surface is immediately adjacent?
2. The second question is illustrated by the image. If the punches were applied over a crevice, You would expect different depths of penetration, and poor contact in the crevice. The red arrows show the opposite, that there is very deep penetration at the crevice.

Does this not indicate that this area of the plate was flat when assayed and that the plate was reshaped (deformed) at a later date after assay?

Queen Anne Dinner Plate


Another example of marks found in an awkward location on a George I dinner plate.

George I Dinner Plate Marks

George I plate by David Tanqueray, London, 1724

Note the awkward mark location in the crevice of the border.

William III plate by Samuel Hood, London, c1697

Note the awkward maker's mark located in the crevice of the border, and also what appears to be tool marks around the lobed shapes.

Hi MGArgent,

Perhaps not so much re-shaping, as just shaping. It is to be remembered that the raw silver material at this time would have come from various sources, including old silver weighed in to off-set the cost of new items. Silversmiths were always in fear of their work being broken by the assay office if it failed the assay, thus items submitted would have the minimum amount of work applied and sent in to the office in the 'rough'. No doubt in this case, plates would likely be no more than flat discs when sent in, and if passed, only then would the major work take place.

Having said that, I'm surprised that there would not have been more distortion to marks when the product was worked, but this is perhaps part of the skill of the silversmith.

Trev.

Regarding the location of the engraving, it appears that the custom at the time was to lay these Hanoverian spoons face down on the table. The Royal Cipher is engraved so that it will be facing upwards when placed at a table setting.

AG2012 wrote:Royal Cipher of Queen Anne within the Order of the Garter in this Hanoverian spoon (1713) was engraved on the underside of the spoon.

These phrases are quoted from two commercial websites so I cannot provide the reference. If you copy the phrase into a search you should be able to find the source.

This spoon shows the Hanoverian pattern, which was popular between 1710 and 1760. Until 1760, the end of the stem would curve upwards, in the same direction as the bowl, and spoons were usually laid on the table face down.

...spoon is turned upward slightly so it can be placed nicely faced down. This is why you will also find crests and initials on the reverse.

Hi,
Very convincing; marks in unusual, unnatural position.
I think they reshaped plates hammering them on wooden stakes (rather than using huge press which was probably not available to every silversmith). Hammer raising on stake was basic method used by old silversmiths and they were masters; the whole body of e.g. a teapot was raised on the stake, contrary to later 19th century common method : sheet of silver rolled into a cylinder with another circular sheet soldered to its bottom.

Thank you for starting an interesting topic; I was familiar with many lucrative alterations of silver items (e.g. table bells made from goblets), but never thought of reshaped plates.
Regards

spoons were usually laid on the table face down

This is correct, the simple reason was one of hygiene, tables at the time were often places of somewhat dis-order, with much breaking of food by hand taking place etc. and thus the table could be a messy place with food fragments often ending up in spoon bowls. By placing the spoon bowl downwards the likelihood of someone else's food being deposited on your spoon was somewhat diminished.

Trev.

Thank you both for your excellent contributions to this discussion. With these comments, it can be established that the plates were certainly shaped after assay.

The question now becomes whether the plates were shaped this way when originally completed, or if they were re-shaped at a later date.

Based on Trev's comment, it is certainly possible that this shape is original to the completed plates:

dognose wrote:Hi MGArgent,

Perhaps not so much re-shaping, as just shaping. It is to be remembered that the raw silver material at this time would have come from various sources, including old silver weighed in to off-set the cost of new items. Silversmiths were always in fear of their work being broken by the assay office if it failed the assay, thus items submitted would have the minimum amount of work applied and sent in to the office in the 'rough'. No doubt in this case, plates would likely be no more than flat discs when sent in, and if passed, only then would the major work take place.

Having said that, I'm surprised that there would not have been more distortion to marks when the product was worked, but this is perhaps part of the skill of the silversmith.

Trev.

However, I offer one more observation going back to the engraved Royal Arms on the underside of the plate:

On the plate (bottom left), note the location of the 'fleur de lis' on the crown that is circled in green. Compare this to the location of the 'fleur de lis' from the crowns in other Queen Anne Royal Arms.

What you will observe is that there is not enough room for the entire crown to fit underneath the plate.

The explanation is that the Royal Arms were engraved on the plate before it was shaped when the border was slightly larger and this area was still flat.

When the shaping process was completed, the silversmith needed to trim the uneven edges of the border, at which point the top of the crown was cut off.

This still doesn't provide a definitive answer, as the Royal Arms could have been engraved while the plate was in a semi-finished state, before the final shaping process.

I present some new information that aligns with Trev's assertion:

dognose wrote:...items submitted would have the minimum amount of work applied and sent in to the office in the 'rough'. No doubt in this case, plates would likely be no more than flat discs when sent in, and if passed, only then would the major work take place.

The additional information comes from a LAPADA registered dealer with a "dozen set of first course plates, previously unrecorded" from the famous Mildmay service made by Paul De Lamerie.

This dealer might have been suspicious of these plates due to a) the famous provenance, b) the famous maker, c) the location of the hallmarks within the crease, or d) all of the preceding.

For whatever reason, the plates were submitted to the Antique Plate Committee (APC) in 2017 for assessment:

Each plate is stamped with a full and matching set of English silver hallmarks (on the reverse side traversing the crease of the rim to main body). The plates* were examined by the Antique Plate Committee in September 2017 and a letter, confirming the plates to be in accordance with the Hallmarking Act 1973, has been provided by Goldsmith Hall.

Therefore in the eyes of the APC, the shaping of the plate and the gadroon border must be original to the plate.

This finding can be applied generally to all similar plates of this age, such as the plates previously discussed in this thread (with the notable exception of the plate with solder lines around the border and 2020 LAO alterations marks).

George II Plate by Paul De Lamerie, London, 1737 (from the Mildmay service)

Hi Trev,

Something that is still troubling me is that I haven't been able to find a single example of another British coat of arms engraved underneath any object (dinner plates, meat dishes, candlesticks, tankards, mugs, covered serving dishes, etc.), let alone the Royal Arms.

It is also unusual that there is not enough room for the entire crown to fit underneath the plate's border and the top portion of the crown would have been cut off if it was still visible.

As AG2012 pointed out, there are also unnatural grooves and wear marks over the Royal Arms indicating that there was an attempt to remove it entirely.

Do you have any thoughts or explanations for how/why this occurred?

MGArgent wrote:On the plate (bottom left), note the location of the 'fleur de lis' on the crown that is circled in green. Compare this to the location of the 'fleur de lis' from the crowns in other Queen Anne Royal Arms.

What you will observe is that there is not enough room for the entire crown to fit underneath the plate.

Hi MGArgent,

I'm stumped as to why this engraving is in the position that it is. My first thoughts were that perhaps the plate was made from another, maybe damaged, item, but that does not account for the apparent lack of distortion to the engraving itself.

The engraving is likely the last of the work to be carried out, with the exception of a final buff and polish, so something does not seem to me to be right here. Unless I'm missing the obvious!

Trev.

Thanks Trev,

Yes something is definitely not right here.

There is very slight but noticeable distortion to the Royal Arms, indicating this surface was flat when engraved, and then formed at a later date. The distortion is less than expected, but hallmarks located in the creases of other dinner plate rims provide hard evidence that silversmiths were able to achieve similar shaping with little distortion.

The border of the plate is continuous, and shows no signs of solder lines (it is a continuous piece). Considering the size/location/orientation of the maker's marks with respect to the size/location/orientation of the Royal Arms, I would propose that the only object the rim could have come from is another dinner plate. I cannot think of any other object would result in the same location of marks with respect to the arms.

It is possible that only the rim of the plate was salvaged from the original object, and the center is a new addition, but I have found it very difficult to find any traces of solder between the center and rim of the plate.

I wanted to float a theory as to what happened and created a quick model to illustrate the steps of the proposed transformation:

1. The original plate was of plain form with Royal Arms and maker's marks on the top surface. Plenty of examples exist showing this was a common configuration at the time.
   
2. At some point the plate transitioned into private hands and a transformation took place. A silversmith started by inverting the center of the plate (shown with red arrow).
   
3. Next the plate was flipped over and the border was reshaped to a cinque-foil form. The evidence shows that silversmiths were capable of transforming a flat disc into this complex form, so it would not be an exaggeration to think the plain border could be transformed to a cinque-foil border (there are examples of plates were sent to assay as flat discs and later shaped into cinque-foil form).
   
   Note that the Royal Arms and maker's marks are now on the bottom surface.
   
   Top View
   
   Bottom View
   
4. A gadroon border was applied to the top surface of the plate
   
5. Excess border around the rim of the plate was trimmed off (shown with blue arrow)
   
6. The final form of the plate. Note how the trimming of the border resulted in the top of the crown being cut-off (shown with green arrow).
   
   Top View
   
   
   Bottom View
   

One variation of the theory above is that only the outer rim was salvaged from the original dinner plate, and the center of the plate is a new addition. In this variation, the reshaping of the rim and the addition of the gadroon border occur as above, but instead of inverting the center of the plate, the center was a later addition that was soldered to the rim.

From the top surface of the plate, there is absolutely no trace of a join between the center and the rim, however areas of minute imperfections around the bottom that may indicate a solder join.

This may indicate that the whole center piece was soldered on, or that small tears/cracks happened during the procedure above and needed repair.

Note that the creases of the joint are heavily tarnished which increases the difficulty in discerning what happened.

I am hoping for feedback regarding whether the center is a later addition and was soldered to the rim:

Top Surface:






Bottom Surface

Hi MGArgent,

If anyone deserves an answer to their question, then it's you, after the effort you have put in to this most interesting topic.

Trev.