I'd like to see an article - or a discussion - about silver that has been altered to make it more fashionable etc. For example, plain items that have later engraving or are recut (flatware).
It is very easy to say the item has been ruined. However, in a historical perspective such an item is documentary proof of changing aesthetics.
And how should one approach a piece made by an indifferent silversmith, but with later decoration by a top-notch engraver?
.
Altered Silver
-
kerangoumar
- contributor
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:37 pm
- Location: Canada
http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5773" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
.
.
-
kerangoumar
- contributor
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:37 pm
- Location: Canada
Altered Silver
Thanks for the link.
With some silver the alteration is so obvious, and so out of proportion, that it actually does not look good. To my taste, the berry spoon cited in that thread looks awkward because the size of the berries is out of proportion to the bowl. Its back, likewise, just looks bizarre due to the size of the hollows.
What of silver - a cann, for example, or a pitcher - in which the later decoration is integrated into the overall proportions, or spoons in which the engraving actually suits them?
.
With some silver the alteration is so obvious, and so out of proportion, that it actually does not look good. To my taste, the berry spoon cited in that thread looks awkward because the size of the berries is out of proportion to the bowl. Its back, likewise, just looks bizarre due to the size of the hollows.
What of silver - a cann, for example, or a pitcher - in which the later decoration is integrated into the overall proportions, or spoons in which the engraving actually suits them?
.
Here's a link to modified 18th century table spoon.
http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... =feathered
The bowl decoration is more recent and the feathering has either been redone or is an uncontemporary addition. I think it has been improved, and so I kept it and use it to serve puddings.
Miles
.
http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... =feathered
The bowl decoration is more recent and the feathering has either been redone or is an uncontemporary addition. I think it has been improved, and so I kept it and use it to serve puddings.
Miles
.
-
kerangoumar
- contributor
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:37 pm
- Location: Canada
Altered Silver
The alteration really does improve your spoon.
Here's the thing: there are people who think any alteration is sacrilege. They are the same people who rip everything out of a 200-year-old house and return it to its original state.
To me, silver, as does a house, lives and shows its experience in its patina. So I wouldn't repolish old silver any more than I'd remove the skin from old brick.
But if someone before me had decided to alter their silver - or put an addition onto the back of the house - and I like it enough to acquire it, why would I restore it to its original condition, if such were even possible?
And why would I say "well, you added 42 lines of engraving and so the value goes down by 4.2%" any more than "you reframed the windows - which I like a lot more now, by the way - but you altered its original appearance, so I'll knock 7% off my offer".
Though I am always open to hearing other people's thoughts on the subject. Perhaps they have a twist that I hadn't thought of. I have a cup by Henry Brind that was later decorated by embossing. Before that it was terribly plain. I think it is an improvement and most certainly that improvement did nothing to lower its value.
.
Here's the thing: there are people who think any alteration is sacrilege. They are the same people who rip everything out of a 200-year-old house and return it to its original state.
To me, silver, as does a house, lives and shows its experience in its patina. So I wouldn't repolish old silver any more than I'd remove the skin from old brick.
But if someone before me had decided to alter their silver - or put an addition onto the back of the house - and I like it enough to acquire it, why would I restore it to its original condition, if such were even possible?
And why would I say "well, you added 42 lines of engraving and so the value goes down by 4.2%" any more than "you reframed the windows - which I like a lot more now, by the way - but you altered its original appearance, so I'll knock 7% off my offer".
Though I am always open to hearing other people's thoughts on the subject. Perhaps they have a twist that I hadn't thought of. I have a cup by Henry Brind that was later decorated by embossing. Before that it was terribly plain. I think it is an improvement and most certainly that improvement did nothing to lower its value.
.
-
nigel le sueur
- contributor
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:38 am
- Location: Dorset
- Contact:
Kerangoumar
An intresting point, l have just brought a cottage which is 250 years old and we are in the process of ripping out all the 70s "modernisation" and reverting it back to its original state.
As for your comments on altered silver well every body has different ideas, and l respect yours, to me l dislike berry spoons and Victorian embossing, when the piece was made by a Silversmith, it was finished to what he thought was "right" and at the time the style of the piece was for that period. To alter it later to me was wrong as it was not as intended, like a lot of others on here l attend Silver and Antique funiture auctions regulary, and to see a Georgian Tray (for example) which has been (to me) vandalised is a pity, or an Regency chest were the handles have been changed for "fashion", and you can still see were the original handles were is a big pity.
l do not expect items to be in mint condition, as to me Amorials, wedding bethrothals and the owners intials on a piece are part of its history, after all l believe this started as a custom so you would know what pieces of flatware were yours, when you took them to someones house for dinner.
l own a George 1st britannia rat tail table spoon, and in its history the "spine" at the top of the terminal has been flattened (on the front) to enable someone to put their intails on it, to me that is just vandalisim.
Regards
Nigel
.
An intresting point, l have just brought a cottage which is 250 years old and we are in the process of ripping out all the 70s "modernisation" and reverting it back to its original state.
As for your comments on altered silver well every body has different ideas, and l respect yours, to me l dislike berry spoons and Victorian embossing, when the piece was made by a Silversmith, it was finished to what he thought was "right" and at the time the style of the piece was for that period. To alter it later to me was wrong as it was not as intended, like a lot of others on here l attend Silver and Antique funiture auctions regulary, and to see a Georgian Tray (for example) which has been (to me) vandalised is a pity, or an Regency chest were the handles have been changed for "fashion", and you can still see were the original handles were is a big pity.
l do not expect items to be in mint condition, as to me Amorials, wedding bethrothals and the owners intials on a piece are part of its history, after all l believe this started as a custom so you would know what pieces of flatware were yours, when you took them to someones house for dinner.
l own a George 1st britannia rat tail table spoon, and in its history the "spine" at the top of the terminal has been flattened (on the front) to enable someone to put their intails on it, to me that is just vandalisim.
Regards
Nigel
.
-
kerangoumar
- contributor
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:37 pm
- Location: Canada
Altered Silver
Hi Nigel
Indeed, 1970s 'modernization' falls into the category of vandalism. I can just visualize the horrid wallpaper and 'cool' shag carpet.
But is there not some part of your cottage that was changed 100 or more years ago, which feels and looks right? If one takes the purist approach, is one not also saying that the original builder/maker was absolutely right and what s/he made is beyond improvement?
It probably depends on each situation. My cup would have been a typical example of mid-18thC pyriform - very well made but nonetheless like so many others. The embossing that now decorates the cup was done by someone who thought about the shape, size and disposition of the decoration. Nothing about it is offensive - it blends in nicely. If it had the equivalent of 1970s mod. one would look at it and consider it an eyesore.
I have seen a great many cups, plates, pots etc. that have been absolutely ruined by later decoration that is out of proportion or otherwise doesn't suit. What irks me most about it is that a dealer will label it as "George Unite" and give no indication that - for example - Edwardian decoration has been added. The customer, as is too often the case, then does not have all the information at hand to make a properly informed decision.
Of course, that leads right into the "I like it and I don't care" alley. Some people collect whatever they find just because it is silver. One of many assumptions that are made is that a collector of silver - anything else, for that matter - has good taste.
Ah, it ain't necessarily so.
.
Indeed, 1970s 'modernization' falls into the category of vandalism. I can just visualize the horrid wallpaper and 'cool' shag carpet.
But is there not some part of your cottage that was changed 100 or more years ago, which feels and looks right? If one takes the purist approach, is one not also saying that the original builder/maker was absolutely right and what s/he made is beyond improvement?
It probably depends on each situation. My cup would have been a typical example of mid-18thC pyriform - very well made but nonetheless like so many others. The embossing that now decorates the cup was done by someone who thought about the shape, size and disposition of the decoration. Nothing about it is offensive - it blends in nicely. If it had the equivalent of 1970s mod. one would look at it and consider it an eyesore.
I have seen a great many cups, plates, pots etc. that have been absolutely ruined by later decoration that is out of proportion or otherwise doesn't suit. What irks me most about it is that a dealer will label it as "George Unite" and give no indication that - for example - Edwardian decoration has been added. The customer, as is too often the case, then does not have all the information at hand to make a properly informed decision.
Of course, that leads right into the "I like it and I don't care" alley. Some people collect whatever they find just because it is silver. One of many assumptions that are made is that a collector of silver - anything else, for that matter - has good taste.
Ah, it ain't necessarily so.
.
This might be in another (similar) field. This danish coin from 1897 had a catalog value of 1.000 danish KR corresponding to 180 USD.
Then it was made into a charm thereby destroying the coin and it value for a numismatist.
In this case a bowl from 1911.
When I first saw this it had an engravement from the 1930s - someone had had this as a gift. I did not buy it - the price was too high. But later they had a sale and the price was reduced by 30% so I bought it. Their idea was that owners initias etc was spoiling the sale of such a piece - I do not agree. I know that I am not the original owner and i think that we should respect that others have had things before us.
In case that owners initials are from 1700 - we all agree that they should remain. But is that also the case when you have a piece from 1900 and a 1900 owners initials? I am sure that people in 150 years from now will regret that this 1930s engravement has been removed.
We also see coins used as decoration on silver pieces. Around 1900 a lot fake antique silver was produced pretending to be 1600 and 1700. To make these pieces look real, they used original 1700 danish coins. Thereby destroying them as a coin and making them worthless. Today some of these coins represent (as a coin) a higher value compared to the whole item as a silver piece - but destroyed as they are - no value at all.
I have presented this piece before
It is the bottom of a danish (i think the english word is) beaker. It contains 4 hallmarks. 3 of these Guardein, City and Monthmark are reused from a piece from late 1700 when he made the beaker i 1849 he reused parts of an old piece - added his mark - and saved taxes because he reused the hallmarks. At that time it was a criminal thing to do. Today it brings life to my beaker - gives it a unique history, and is funny.
So we find it good. They considered it bad.
Lots of table silver spoons, forks etc. contains original owners initials. These are easy to remove and put in your own - should we do so?
well for practical reasons it good - you get you own silver. You also destroy the history, but we do not live in a museum. however do people in next century have the same opinion?
I have lots of silver with original owners initials, later owners have added their initials. In that case you can follow table silver from generation to generation. From owner to owner. I find that positive.
In same aspect am I "alowed" to put my initials on a 1700 piece? I think yes - but I should do it in respect of the old thing and the old initials. I should not destroy it with my engraving. But as the present owner I have the same right as the original.
We find it not OK to change things - 100 yeas after it was made. We like to have things as original as possible. We should bear in mind that it is not museums pieces we change. its things that we use on daily basis. It things that we have bought for a small sum - others similar exists. So perhaps its OK to make it look the way we want. But please do not destry it.
This became very long and it does not follow the original question, but I found that it was an aspect of the same question - another angle. Worthy to comment upon.
.
Then it was made into a charm thereby destroying the coin and it value for a numismatist.
In this case a bowl from 1911.
When I first saw this it had an engravement from the 1930s - someone had had this as a gift. I did not buy it - the price was too high. But later they had a sale and the price was reduced by 30% so I bought it. Their idea was that owners initias etc was spoiling the sale of such a piece - I do not agree. I know that I am not the original owner and i think that we should respect that others have had things before us.
In case that owners initials are from 1700 - we all agree that they should remain. But is that also the case when you have a piece from 1900 and a 1900 owners initials? I am sure that people in 150 years from now will regret that this 1930s engravement has been removed.
We also see coins used as decoration on silver pieces. Around 1900 a lot fake antique silver was produced pretending to be 1600 and 1700. To make these pieces look real, they used original 1700 danish coins. Thereby destroying them as a coin and making them worthless. Today some of these coins represent (as a coin) a higher value compared to the whole item as a silver piece - but destroyed as they are - no value at all.
I have presented this piece before
It is the bottom of a danish (i think the english word is) beaker. It contains 4 hallmarks. 3 of these Guardein, City and Monthmark are reused from a piece from late 1700 when he made the beaker i 1849 he reused parts of an old piece - added his mark - and saved taxes because he reused the hallmarks. At that time it was a criminal thing to do. Today it brings life to my beaker - gives it a unique history, and is funny.
So we find it good. They considered it bad.
Lots of table silver spoons, forks etc. contains original owners initials. These are easy to remove and put in your own - should we do so?
well for practical reasons it good - you get you own silver. You also destroy the history, but we do not live in a museum. however do people in next century have the same opinion?
I have lots of silver with original owners initials, later owners have added their initials. In that case you can follow table silver from generation to generation. From owner to owner. I find that positive.
In same aspect am I "alowed" to put my initials on a 1700 piece? I think yes - but I should do it in respect of the old thing and the old initials. I should not destroy it with my engraving. But as the present owner I have the same right as the original.
We find it not OK to change things - 100 yeas after it was made. We like to have things as original as possible. We should bear in mind that it is not museums pieces we change. its things that we use on daily basis. It things that we have bought for a small sum - others similar exists. So perhaps its OK to make it look the way we want. But please do not destry it.
This became very long and it does not follow the original question, but I found that it was an aspect of the same question - another angle. Worthy to comment upon.
.
I certainly agree that it is sometimes adds to the interest of a piece that it was made for a specific event - such as a marriage. Naturally, pieces which relate to one's own ancestors have tremendous sentimental value. However, I would never add my own initals to silver.
I do have many pieces which bear the initials of other families though. Sometimes, these have been engraved very beautifully, but more often they are not interesting at all. In that case, I think my appreciation of these pieces is reduced, and that leads me to wonder if I should have them removed.
My worry is that removing the initials may not be done very well, and that I should wait until such a time in the future when the technique of removing initials has been much improved. What does the forum think about the technicalities of that process?
Best wishes
Mikael
.
I do have many pieces which bear the initials of other families though. Sometimes, these have been engraved very beautifully, but more often they are not interesting at all. In that case, I think my appreciation of these pieces is reduced, and that leads me to wonder if I should have them removed.
My worry is that removing the initials may not be done very well, and that I should wait until such a time in the future when the technique of removing initials has been much improved. What does the forum think about the technicalities of that process?
Best wishes
Mikael
.