Acquired these sugar tongs and would love some help. I believe they are Chester and I am hoping they are as old as I think. Would love some other opinions. They are marked inside the handle on both sides in an area that gets no wear or rubbing so marks are quite good.
Thanks and look forward to any info
http://i44.tinypic.com/fxffib.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://i39.tinypic.com/t8wz6r.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
.
Early Silver Sugar Tongs - Chester - Need Help
-
pauline5555
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:24 pm
- Location: New York
-
Tongtwister
- contributor
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:29 pm
- Location: England
- Contact:
-
pauline5555
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:24 pm
- Location: New York
Hi-
Thanks for the info. I was really hoping it was 1731. The piece did come from the same estate where I got the small pitcher I have listed also.
I would like to understand a little more about the Chester mark and wheat sheafs as above mentioned. The cartouche around the F is definitely flat along the bottom, not the scalloped edge like 1906. Is there anything else I might look for in the way of construction or any little tell tale signs to prove age.
Thanks a lot.
.
Thanks for the info. I was really hoping it was 1731. The piece did come from the same estate where I got the small pitcher I have listed also.
I would like to understand a little more about the Chester mark and wheat sheafs as above mentioned. The cartouche around the F is definitely flat along the bottom, not the scalloped edge like 1906. Is there anything else I might look for in the way of construction or any little tell tale signs to prove age.
Thanks a lot.
.
Hello,
To understand more of the Chester Assay Office marking systems I suggest you look out a copy of The Compendium of Chester Gold & Silver Marks 1570-1962 by Ridgway & Priestley published in the UK by The Antique Collectors Club Ltd.
The base of the date letter punch on the sugar nips certainly looks straight but you will see from the publication that in 1731:
1. The lion passant mark doesn't look the same as the one here.
2. A leopard's head mark would be expected to follow the lion mark.
3. The town mark isn't the same at all.
You'll also see from the publication there's a problem with the attribution of the maker's mark. M Friedlander & Co's registered mark of 1896, the one to be expected on a 1906 piece, has a pellet (dot) between the initials. The company didn't register a mark without a pellet until 1915. They were also described as wholesale tobacconists and silver mounters. They could have used an unregistered mark but it would seem unusual for them to have produced sugar nips.
The only other MF mark recorded in the publication without a pellet is for a silversmith named M France of Manchester but unfortunately no dates are given to tell whether he was active in 1906.
Mike
.
To understand more of the Chester Assay Office marking systems I suggest you look out a copy of The Compendium of Chester Gold & Silver Marks 1570-1962 by Ridgway & Priestley published in the UK by The Antique Collectors Club Ltd.
The base of the date letter punch on the sugar nips certainly looks straight but you will see from the publication that in 1731:
1. The lion passant mark doesn't look the same as the one here.
2. A leopard's head mark would be expected to follow the lion mark.
3. The town mark isn't the same at all.
You'll also see from the publication there's a problem with the attribution of the maker's mark. M Friedlander & Co's registered mark of 1896, the one to be expected on a 1906 piece, has a pellet (dot) between the initials. The company didn't register a mark without a pellet until 1915. They were also described as wholesale tobacconists and silver mounters. They could have used an unregistered mark but it would seem unusual for them to have produced sugar nips.
The only other MF mark recorded in the publication without a pellet is for a silversmith named M France of Manchester but unfortunately no dates are given to tell whether he was active in 1906.
Mike
.