I hope I'm not subverting the intention of this forum, but instead of overtly contributing here, I'm asking a question that perhaps has resonance with others, though not maker ID oriented (that is, I'm hoping there is an allowance here for questions of generalized silverware appreciation not strictly limited to the ID of the maker). I have collected a number of ladles, from small to large, generally made well over a hundred years ago. The wear on those ladles has, of course, varied significantly, with the most abuse, as expected, applied to the exterior. However, a number of my ladles, from gravy to soup, have serious wear to the interior of the bowls. This is generally not smooth wear, but rather numerous dints and spikes, not sufficient to distort the bowl to the opposite side, but nonetheless cumulatively rather rough in nature, and in excess of the wear on the bowl bottom, where one would expect more abuse. So my question is, what was it what that put this spiky wear into the interior of these ladle bowls? I have a number of ladles that have smoother bowl bottoms than interiors. What were the original owners doing to produce such dinting to the bowl insides???
SS
.
Question - Bowl Dinks
-
SilverSurfer
- contributor
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:42 am
Below is a pic (scan, sorry for the poor quality) of part of the bowl interior of the soup ladle made or retailed by Welsh & Bro. of Baltimore, MD, around 1880 (Japanese aesthetic hand engraving, popular "Lily of the Valley" theme) to 1898 (Rainwater notation):
The wear on the bowl exterior is what one would expect, the scratches are light and relatively long, made from rubbing across abrasive surfaces. The marks on the bowl interior are generally much shorter and deeper, apparently not made so much by rubbing across something, but instead from a more direct impact by something rather sharp. As with the other ladles I possess that share this trait, these deep interior dints probably weren't made by ladling something hard (like nails!), since the deep marks are limited to the bowl middle area, and don't continue up to the rim, nor does the rim exhibit such serious dinting. It appears to me as Trev suggests, that the bowl was used as a pestle for breaking up something extremely hard (like glass!) or else as a container in which, for whatever reason, a knife point or similar pointed object was repeatedly thrust. The manufacture date of this ladle is long after sugar was available in more usable form, precluding the need for home grinding, I think. As I said, I have a number of other ladles that exhibit this mystery wear. Very strange.
.
The wear on the bowl exterior is what one would expect, the scratches are light and relatively long, made from rubbing across abrasive surfaces. The marks on the bowl interior are generally much shorter and deeper, apparently not made so much by rubbing across something, but instead from a more direct impact by something rather sharp. As with the other ladles I possess that share this trait, these deep interior dints probably weren't made by ladling something hard (like nails!), since the deep marks are limited to the bowl middle area, and don't continue up to the rim, nor does the rim exhibit such serious dinting. It appears to me as Trev suggests, that the bowl was used as a pestle for breaking up something extremely hard (like glass!) or else as a container in which, for whatever reason, a knife point or similar pointed object was repeatedly thrust. The manufacture date of this ladle is long after sugar was available in more usable form, precluding the need for home grinding, I think. As I said, I have a number of other ladles that exhibit this mystery wear. Very strange.
.
-
SilverSurfer
- contributor
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:42 am
I'm happy to see that this ladle bowl abuse malady, whatever it is, is confined to the Colonies, figures. ;o) Looking closely (a lifetime of significant myopia, nearly seven spheres worth, has one upside, I can focus clearly at about four inches) convinces me that these marks were mostly made by a knife point. Fork tines couldn't have left these deep, narrow dints. Notably, a number of the marks made well off the bowl center are longer, but less deep, than those nearer the middle, indicating that the point slid a bit downhill as pressure was applied. I suppose that now I'll have to go gather up the other ladles that exhibit this apparent silverware use by Philistines (not so simple a task, they are scattered all around the place, someday I will organize and catalog the mess, I swear I will, I will, I will, I will, well, maybe ...). I will report back when I round up the usual suspects, but don't wait up.
SS
.
SS
.
-
SilverSurfer
- contributor
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:42 am
"It's strange though that, in my time with UK silver, there's been no evidence for it happening over here."
Well, I haven't as yet ferreted out the ladles that have impressed me as the prime examples of bowl interior abuse, but I just idly started examining a gravy (toddy?) ladle that I received not long ago and which happens to be still loitering about on my desk top (as yet not squirreled away in a dark corner somewhere so that I can stumble upon it a few years hence and remark, "I don't remember buying this."). It is maker-marked three pots of flowers plus AC. So it is indeed Brit, through and through. It has two small dinks that barely show deformation on the other side of the bowl, one from the exterior, one from the interior. These two aside, there is the usual bowl exterior light scratching, but in the bowl interior, yup, there it is again, a number of rather shorter and deeper dints (as well as many longer and lighter scratches that rival those on the exterior). Not the carnage to the degree as indicated for the ladle above, but it's still readily apparent. Admittedly, I purchased this provincial ladle from a seller here in the US, and so it may well have been unjustly abused by its uncouth heathen recipients after its "transportation" to the Colonies, in harsh retribution for whatever unknown previous transgressions. I think I've become inured to this type of wear, having seen it so often, that I only notice the extreme cases. So, were perhaps the toddied up Scots also engaging in some sort of tipsy game of ladle mumblety peg?
SS
.
Well, I haven't as yet ferreted out the ladles that have impressed me as the prime examples of bowl interior abuse, but I just idly started examining a gravy (toddy?) ladle that I received not long ago and which happens to be still loitering about on my desk top (as yet not squirreled away in a dark corner somewhere so that I can stumble upon it a few years hence and remark, "I don't remember buying this."). It is maker-marked three pots of flowers plus AC. So it is indeed Brit, through and through. It has two small dinks that barely show deformation on the other side of the bowl, one from the exterior, one from the interior. These two aside, there is the usual bowl exterior light scratching, but in the bowl interior, yup, there it is again, a number of rather shorter and deeper dints (as well as many longer and lighter scratches that rival those on the exterior). Not the carnage to the degree as indicated for the ladle above, but it's still readily apparent. Admittedly, I purchased this provincial ladle from a seller here in the US, and so it may well have been unjustly abused by its uncouth heathen recipients after its "transportation" to the Colonies, in harsh retribution for whatever unknown previous transgressions. I think I've become inured to this type of wear, having seen it so often, that I only notice the extreme cases. So, were perhaps the toddied up Scots also engaging in some sort of tipsy game of ladle mumblety peg?
SS
.
It seems that the damage to the bowl interior is easy to explain. Over the life of the ladle, the silver was gathered up by the hand full and handled in the most careless manner during washing. Silver used comercially, like in a B&B, will be used daily to be neglected and abused by kitchen help who have only a vague idea of its value. During this kind of service, the bowl will have every thing in the drawer stuck down into its bowl.
.
.
-
SilverSurfer
- contributor
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:42 am
Thanks, buff, for your response. I think you may be correct to some extent, but not to the degree of the discrepancy of wear/abuse I see between the bowl interiors and the remainder of the ladles. Yes, in the mixed flatware drawer, there are likely collisions between knife points and ladle bowls. But such a rough intermixing should also result in a fair amount of collateral damage to the ladle upper ends, which is not apparent in these two cases (and the others in my motley collection which I tend to remember, still haven't dug them out of the primordial ooze to verify this as of yet). As for commercial abuse, as you describe, by the hired staff of perhaps a B&B or the like, you can rest well assured that the overwhelming majority of sterling silver ladles were never subjected to such a situation. ;o)
SS
.
SS
.
Depending on the age of the ladles it could have indeed been from fork tines. I still have older 3-tine forks with steel tines and silver handles. Moreover the fork and knife to a carving set could easily be the culprit during washing after a meal. Would that the kitchen staff paid a little more attention to the washing-up.
Or is could be misuse. I have seen good pieces of silver used to shovel dirt into plant pots (leaving some nasty scratches), knives used as letter openers (dulling the blades) and my favourite Hester Bateman master salt was confiscated (for a few dollars) from my college roommate who was using it as an ashtray when he smoked cigars.
.
Or is could be misuse. I have seen good pieces of silver used to shovel dirt into plant pots (leaving some nasty scratches), knives used as letter openers (dulling the blades) and my favourite Hester Bateman master salt was confiscated (for a few dollars) from my college roommate who was using it as an ashtray when he smoked cigars.
.