Possible New York Brandywine Bowl

[neurorocker]

Buckle up. This is a complicated one. I recently bought a small (2.5" tall x 8.25" wide, 320 grams) two handled hammered silver bowl.This bowl is causing some conversation. The bowl is crudely made, and almost appears similar in style (at first blush) to a Spanish Colonial piece. It has a maker mark partially struck in sans serif capital letters in a rectangular cartouche. There are lathe marks on the inside and outside of the bowl.

The letters are 'IV-' with the third letter being open topped such as an L, J, I, U, or V.

At this point, a colleague pointed out that this piece looks like a Brandywine bowl which is a rare traditional Dutch form. I disregarded this comment at the time.

I had nearly given up on this piece and then something happened. Taking images of the bowl, I saw something I had missed at first inspection. I identified on the bottom what I now know is a "scratch mark". While the usage of these absolutely tiny marks is not well characterized, they are used frequently by craftsmen to attach a piece to its owner in repair. For example, you'll see tiny numbers scrawled into pocket watches to attach them through the records of the watchmaker to the people requesting service. Rarely, these scratch marks come in the form of a name. In this case, the mark was the following name:

'Isaac Van Loon'.

The Van Loon family is a well known family of Dutch colonists who populated an area of New York near what is now known as Athens Village, at the time, Loonenberg. The original Van Loon was a man named Jan Van Loon who was a businessman and a blacksmith operating ca. 1680.

And so, perhaps this is a brandywine bowl. Perhaps the mark is IVL for Jan Van Loon.

As is the case with many blacksmiths, Jan apparently was also a silversmith. He's listed in Darling's "New York State Silversmiths", unfortunately with no marks illustrated. When Jan died, his significant lands were probably parceled out, but I have not yet found the will from around 1720. Jan had several children. One of these was called Nicholas, and in 1748, his will was executed and his belongings (including his blacksmith's tools) were given to his son, Isaac Van Loon. For that reason, there's a possibility that the bowl was conveyed and at some point Isaac took it in for repairs likely during the 19th century where it picked up the scratch marks.

I would really appreciate any input, suggestions, or references that may help me prove the origins. I feel so close to something exciting-- yet still have to close the gaps. If I can sort it all out, this could be among the earliest pieces of silver made in the Colony of New York.

[neurorocker]

I misstated the conveyance to Isaac. It was the real estate and not the tools. But the will suggests that the tools may have conveyed from Jan to Nicholas and then to his other son.

[Aguest]

I'm struck at how "modern-looking" is the cursive font of the scratch mark which reads "Issac Van Loon" ___ Could it be that a family member in the 19th century scratched that mark, kind of as a mark of permanent remembrance for future generations?

Even though there is no recorded mark for "Jan Van Loon," and the scratch mark just strikes me as being possibly a few generations later, I am still quite impressed with all of this! Let's see what others think, especially the experts here on Colonial American Silver ___

[neurorocker]

I think the mark is so small that a typical person would not have the technical ability to inscribe such small letters. You cannot see it without magnification. So, I think more likely a jeweler or a silversmith marked it. Isaac b. 1766 and d. 1846, so it's possible that this inscription was ca. 1820-1840 toward the end of his life? In that time frame, the writing style doesn't seem inconsistent, especially when I think about other scratch marks I've seen in watches etc. I'll be very interested if anyone has additional resources. What I really want to find is the will of Jan Van Loon to see if the bowl is mentioned. So far, no luck.

[Aguest]

Yes I was thinking 19th century, so 1820-1840 would make sense, hope you find some clues in the will, all the pieces are fitting together IMHO ___

[Traintime]

I'm not so sure that getting Jan's will is the most important thing here. While Issac controlled the hard estate by this document, Rachel seems to be the key. Did she survive the other executors (her brothers)? Who dispersed the soft estate upon her death? If you can show the item was in her possession before conveyance to son Issac, it would seem most likely that it had come down through the family from Jan to his son. You're almost there...good luck.

[Traintime]

BTW..Isaac is mis-spelled above on purpose. Because of the nature of scanners and search engines, I find it amazing how much information turns up by using a "wrong" spelling.

[Aguest]

I was impressed by the sentence in the will which states "...my wife Rachael is to give him a set of tools..." and it just kind of made an impression on me, and so now that I think about it, I agree with the above post indeed Rachael may well be the key to solving this puzzle ___ Rachael's Will ___

[Traintime]

Wait a minute...if Isaac was born 1766, then he is not the Isaac in the will from 1748! Is he a son of one of the brothers and which one?

[neurorocker]

I'm not certain. It's a good catch. My best guess is that the date that the will was witnessed (1748) is far earlier than the death date of the "sick" Nicholas, but that date has been mistaken for a death date by later parties. This is what I've pieced together about the family, but I'm not positive.

[Traintime]

The main problem in the line of succession would be Jacob (b.1740), but he can't be older than his own father Isaac. If this Jacob is out of the picture, then everything seems logical for a family heirloom going right through Isaac's line (he was the one trusted with the central property) and on to Isaac N. through his father.

[Aguest]

Have you contacted anyone associated with an Albany historical organization or society of some sort? Keep us posted on the research.

[neurorocker]

I have a recommendation and a contact. I'll update it if it's positive or negative.

[Traintime]

Real "Sleepy Hollow" stuff. And just for search link purposes, even though not technically accurate, "late New Amsterdam". A link to some family lineage (c/o Schenectady hist. soc.): http://www.schenectadyhistory.org/famil ... nloon.html

[Aguest]

I was kind of thinking that "Nicholas Issac Van Loon" who was the son of "Issac Van Loon" was responsible for the tiny scratch marks made by a jeweler who also performed repairs on pocket watches, I wonder if "Nicholas Issac Van Loon" also called himself "Issac"....?

Things get confusing because "Issac Van Loon" named his son "Nicholas Issac Van Loon," but I suppose either one could have directed the Jeweler to scratch the name into the cup. After all this is over, you will be an expert on the Van Loon family, of that I am certain!

The broader question here is this: when someone finds an American Colonial Spoon with an unrecorded mark (as happened to me when I found a collection of Colonial American Spoons), how exactly does this new discovery become officially accepted as belonging to a certain American Colonial Silversmith?

In this case, since there is a hallmark (last letter seems to be "L"), and also a tiny scratch inscription from the same family, there seems to be overwhelming evidence that an unrecorded hallmark has been discovered. But since no hallmark by this silversmith has ever been found, are we forced to use the phrase "attributed to Jan Van Loon?" Not to put too fine a point on it. Maybe someday there will be an "updated list" of Colonial American Silversmiths which collects these unrecorded hallmarks, many of which can be firmly attributed to a certain silversmith (especially in this particular case IMHO) ___