Variance in Shape of Cartouche for London 1833?

[mrsrockefeller]

I have a very large ladle with fiddle-shaped handle that has been in my family for many generations. It is an old piece of sterling made in London.

It is 13" long, and monogrammed "EM" for my great grandfather, Edward Mendenhall. There is an inscription on the back of the handle, "7th November, 1843."

However, I am thinking that the date letter and duty mark indicate that the ladle was made earlier than 1843. The marks are as follows, and in this order from left to right (pictures at the bottom, but bear with me for a moment):

[Maker's Mark: HILL & ROSS]
This is completely spelled out in capital letters. (By the way, does anyone know who they were?)

[lion passant]
I have looked at this carefully with a loupe. The lion's head is shown in profile, and not looking forward, as is the pre-1821 lion. However, there is no line separating his front paw from his body, as in the post-1856 lions. Therefore, this lion seems to indicate a time period of somewhere between 1821 and 1856.

[city mark: uncrowned leopard, London]
The uncrowned leopard mark was used 1821 forward.

[Duty Mark: King's head]
This one is important in narrowing it down. It is definitely not a queen's head. Of that I am certain. The head is looking right, not left. I have looked at the pictures on this site, as well as in the Tardy book. There is a clear difference between the two duty marks in both places. However, when you are looking at the actual mark, and not a drawing of it, the difference is far less clear. Perhaps the punch became worn after much use, with the result that it is stamped imperfectly. Or perhaps the duty mark on the piece becomes worn after over 150 years of polishing. At any rate, it looks more like a blob.

[Date Mark: A serif "s". Because the uppercase and lowercase look the same in the serif font, it's impossible to say which one it is. The cartouche it is in has angled top corners (is there a name for this?). The closest match for this letter before the inscription 1843 that I can find is 1833.

But here's the problem: The cartouche that the letter is in also has angled bottom corners, rather than coming to a downward-facing point in the center. It seems to look more like the date mark for Chester 1836 or Sheffield 1838.

I was going to ask whether the shape of the cartouche ever strayed from the shape shown in Tardy (and on this site, under London date latters), which has a downward-facing little point on the bottom. However, I think the answer is YES, because there is an example of this right on this website. The image above the article titled "Trial of William Weston Hallmark Forgery 1821", which is supposedly for London around 1819 or so, has the same shape of cartouche:



Shown below, the photos of my ladle. (Sorry I couldn't get a better photo of the marks, but I don't have a light tent for photographing silver.) Do you agree that this ladle was made c. 1833?




.

[admin]

The ladle appears to be from Ohio. Found a notation re: Hill & Ross on wev's indispensable website, look under the entry for Cleveland (Francis) & Bliss (John)
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... Makers.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Does the time and place fit in with your family history?

Regards, Tom
.

[mrsrockefeller]

Absolutely that fits, as I live in Ohio, and this is where some of my ancestors ended up. (The ones who missed the big sign that said, "Lose all hope, ye who enter here...)

But why would they be using the English marking system? Were they fairly newly arrived Brits, and keeping to the hallmarking system they were familiar with (and perhaps even brought the set of punches with them)? If so, is it likely that they kept true to the marking system, using the correct date letter, etc.? (The page you pointed me to said that Hill & Ross were working circa 1833, which is the date I had arrived at from the ladle's markings.)

When did the custom of monogramming begin? Is it possible that someone in my family bought the ladle from Hill & Ross in 1833, and then took it back to the maker ten years later, after it became the fashion, to have the monogram and inscription put on? Or, alternatively, was it sometimes common for a piece to sit around in a silversmith's shop for many years before it was sold? (I would think the former would be more probable, as I can't imagine a nice piece like this not selling...)

In a way, this information makes the ladle even more important, historically.

Just curious, what made you think to look there, in silversmiths from Ohio? Did it show up on a search? The English marking system seemed so sure that I was totally thrown in the wrong direction!

***

BTW, if Hill & Ross did use the duty mark, does that mean that they voluntarily remitted the tax to the crown? :)
.

[2209patrick]

Be sure to scroll down on Wev's page and read the entry for A C Ross (Alexander Coffin Ross).

Pat.
.

[dognose]

Hi,

The question to me is, are they pseudo Hallmarks applied by Hill & Ross or official Hallmarks struck in London then exported to the States, as a lot of silver was at that time.
A better photo' of the marks would be a great help, if not, look closely at the Hill & Ross mark, is there any evidence of this mark overstamping that of another?

Regards Trev.
.

[wev]

Darling's New York shows the same sequence of pseudo-hallmarks on pieces associated with a variety of retailers. I would not go so far as to say that such marks were firstly intended to deceive, but if customers jumped to the conclusion that the goods were sterling, so much the better. Business has not changed much in the last few hundred years. . .
.

[admin]

Trev,
I went looking for an American maker because the piece screamed "I'm American". I can't articulate the reasons well, but American pieces of this period are, even when meant to be identical, very different from their British counterparts. Hate to say it, and there are exceptions, but most run-of-the-mill American coin flatware of the mid-nineteenth century is pretty flimsy stuff. This ladle seems to be a somewhat heavier than the norm, but there are more subtle differences in design. A certain lack of dimensionality, the shape of the shoulders, the arc of the stem - I'm aware that this sounds all vague and fuzzy, but if you ever get the opportunity to paw through just one shoe box full of American fiddle pattern flatware, its differences from British will become obvious - if not easy to describe.

Regards, Tom
.

[dognose]

Hi Tom and Wev,

Yes, I know exactly what you're saying, it was just that from the not too clear photo' of the Hallmark it was difficult to discern the origin of that mark.
As far as the flimsiness of mid 19th Century Coin silver flatware is concerned, that has always surprised me, I am aware there was a shortage of the refined material, of course this was why coin was used but this does not seem to be the case on earlier American flatware, pre 1800, that I've handled which is substantially heavier in my experience and have often wondered if it was just the shortage of refined silver or the influence of migrant silversmiths from continental Europe who were used to working in a lighter fashion.

Regards Trev.
.