Dating a spoon with no date mark.

Post by **Granmaa** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:07 pm

Here is a an early shell backed teaspoon with a central ridge. It has a maker's mark, a lion passant but no date letter.
I date the spoon (by its design) at 1730's, but I'd like the opinion of someone else. I think the maker is Thomas Whipham, the end of the spoon turns up, it has a faint outline of a shell by the knop, a central ridge and a roman script H as the monogram. The bowl is also a strange shape.
Anything anyone can tell me about the spoon and the quality of the maker will be very much appreciated.
Miles

.

georgiansilver · Post by **georgiansilver** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:33 pm

Your spoon was made by Thomas Wallis who worked at the end of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Thomas Whiphams mark was on a slant. It will date at around 1780-90.
Best wishes, Mike
.

Post by **Granmaa** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:58 pm

Thanks for your help Mike; though I have to say it was rather disappointing. Are you sure? All the signs, to me, seem to point to an earlier date: shell back, turned up, old style monogram and (an often disregarded sign) considerable wearing on one side of the bowl (top pic) and pitting (bottom pic).

Do you have a copy of Judith Banister's "English Silver Hallmarks" 1972 edition? Her copy of Thomas Whiphams mark is so alike my one, I don't want to believe it isn't; perhaps I'm fooling myself!. Of course, I don't have a copy of Thomas Wallis' mark so I can't see which is closer. If you could please manage to send me a copy of it, I will, relunctantly, accept your date.

Regards,
Miles
.

Neruda · Post by **Neruda** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:56 pm

I'm probably paranoid, but is the handle upside down to the bowl? Generally I expect to see initials or monograms on the "bottom" from continental silver. And, in your photo, there does seem to be some evidence of repair/tampering in the centre of the stem????????

Perhaps I'm just paranoid....
.

Post by **Granmaa** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:01 am

Neruda,
I'm almost completely certain that there has been no repair to this spoon, it might be the grainy photograph that makes it look so.

The monogram is on the other side of the handle because it turns up at the end rather than down, such was the norm before the late 18th century. This meant that the spoon was laid with the bowl facing down, and so the monogram had to be on the underside of the spoon. Is this what you meant?

Miles
.

georgiansilver · Post by **georgiansilver** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:02 am

The spoon is correct to the period I mentioned and is as it should be. What may appear as tampering on the handle is the 'bottom marked' hallmark which is towards the bowl end of the spoon. Sorry but definitely Thomas Wallis mark. Although the two marks are similar (Wallis and Whipham) there are subtle differences. Also Thomas Wallis was a spoonmaker whereas Whipham made holloware...coffee pots, mugs, teapots and tankards.
Best wishes, Mike.
.

Post by **Granmaa** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:57 am

Thankyou for your help Mike. Bit of a shame though. Disregarding the maker's mark and date mark, what characteristics would you expect to see in an early 18th century spoon?
Miles
.

georgiansilver · Post by **georgiansilver** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:15 am

Many of the patterns and shapes evolved a long time ago and have been reproduced over the years. Experience gives one a knowledge that subsidises learning ,and combining marks with shapes and patterns often brings an accurate (or almost accurate) assessment of whatever appears. Please don't think I am blowing my own trumpet here as I do get things wrong. I do however abstain fron venturing outside my framework where possible, as that is where most mistakes are made.
Best wishes, Mike.
.

SilverSurfer · Post by **SilverSurfer** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:13 am

Wouldn't the fact that the spoon is bottom marked tend to imply it was made prior to 1781, when the marks were moved to the finial end of the stem? However, even 1780 would be a late date for a Hanoverian pattern spoon, unless it were a replacement piece. If it were indeed a replacement piece made post-1780 for an older, out of fashion set, would the silversmith go to the effort to replicate the bottom marking? Also, when did the exception expire that allowed only the sterling and maker's mark on "small" pieces? Seems that I have generally seen the truncated set of marks on bottom marked spoons, i.e., pre-1781.

SS
.

georgiansilver · Post by **georgiansilver** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:34 am

Many of those 'early' patterns of spoon are still made today, often in silver plate but still made nevertheless, even the bright cut type are made in solid silver by the enterprising artists, at a price. As I stated, patterns and shapes of early spoons have been reproduced often over many years.
The mark is definitely that of Thomas Wallis who worked at the end of the 18th, early 19th c's... and doesn't cause a problem with your thinking. Bottom marking actually continued with those who were slow in replacing their punches( which were designed for the purpose). I have owned spoons which were bottom marked up to as late as 1797.
Best wishes, Mike.
.

Post by **Granmaa** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:18 pm

Dear Mike,

Sorry to keep on at you like this, but I'm just not sure that this spoon is as late as you say it is. I found a couple of spoons from 1746 by a maker called James Wilks at: http://www.antiquesilverspoons.co.uk/1592194256.htm

I've included both the hallmark from my spoon and the one from theirs; what do you make of them? Take a look at the website, their spoons have the same peculiar shaped bowls that mine does.

Miles

My spoon

James Wilks

Whereas here is Thomas Wallis' mark from 1756 (his earliest year) which seems to lack the curve on the w.

.

georgiansilver · Post by **georgiansilver** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:48 pm

I am so sorry you are disappointed but the mark is almost certainly Thomas Wallis. Your spoon displays a definite TW not a JW. Best wishes, Mike.
.

Post by **Granmaa** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:17 pm

O.K one last try and I promise I will shut up. If you look at the lion passant (which we've previously ignored) in my picture, beneath the tail there is a little indent in the cartouche, I recently discovered that this only featured between 1740 and 1755; this is supported in Judith Banister's hallmark book. This means it can't be Thomas Wallis because he started in 1756. This is my last hope, what's your opinion Mike?

Why oh why didn't the maker put the date letter on!

Miles
.

Neruda · Post by **Neruda** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:40 am

I've made several mistakes in the last week or so, so perhaps I'm not on my best form! However......

There seem to be two important differences between your mark and the examples you show. First is the top of the first letter - I think yours extends both left and right. Secondly there are two dots between the two initials which are missing on your piece.

In addition, I suspect your examples are the same - i.e Wilks is Wallace or the other way round.

Thomas Wallace was a father and son operation which lasted many years - so changes to their punches are to be expected. I believe Wallis II registered his mark in 1778, and his initials were Roman. His script mark came latter in 1786?

Other makers you might consider are Thomas Whipham and even Fuller White.
.

georgiansilver · Post by **georgiansilver** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:27 am

I guess I will stick by my original statement or theory based on experience. As with all collecting there are anomalies but I thought this one was fairly straightforward. I think I have said all I can and people will have to make their own minds up. I am not always right! Best wishes, Mike.
.

Neruda · Post by **Neruda** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:47 pm

I have to admit a certain confusion here.

Are we talking about Thomas Wallis I or his apprentice Thomas Wallis II? (I thought they were father & son, but aparently no blood relationship has been established).

The following information comes from http://www.silversugartongs.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Thomas Wallis I registered his first mark on 8th March 1758 as a large-worker. He entered other marks in 1763 and was known to be working at least until 1771 when Thomas Wallis II was apprenticed to him. Curiously there is no evidence that the two were related. He was later registered as a Plate-worker. Thomas Wallis I died some time between 1818 and 1822."

"Thomas Wallis II registered his first mark on 7th November 1778 as a plate-worker. He had been apprenticed to Thomas Wallis I. ... Thomas Wallis II then entered four marks as a buckle-maker between 1780 and 1789 before entering another mark in 1791 as a plate-worker. He entered several more marks before going into partnership with Jonathan Hayne in 1810. Thomas Wallis IIÂ´s mark is a very distinctive script "TW" in a rectangular punch. Thomas Wallis II marks also very often have a journeyman's mark.

"Thomas Wallis II is often confused with John Wren II. Jackson's does not refer to Thomas Wallis II but shows a mark that looks very similar to Thomas Wallis's, attributing it to John Wren II with a question mark against it. Grimwade records John Wren II as a spoon-maker and his mark very clearly has a pellet between the I and the W and the I actually looks like an I. John Wren II was also earlier, his first mark was entered in 1777, and he was only known to be working until 1795."

In addition, this site has a page devoted to a year-by-year analysis of the script-style marks of Thomas Wallis II: http://www.silversugartongs.com/london/ ... lis_II.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Assuming this is complete and accurate, GranmaaÂ´s mark is not Wallis II. The far right stem of the W does not curl over.

So, is this spoon by Wallis I?

Here I must confess a lack of reference. By the late 1760s Wallis I seems to have used TW in Roman capitals as his mark, remaining with this style throughout the rest of his career. So do we definatively know what Wallis I's earlier mark looked like? As several different silversmiths possibly used very similar marks - compounded by the close similarity of the letters I, J and T when in script - can we be completely sure that errors have not crept into the litterature or been made by dealers in their attributions?
.

Post by **Granmaa** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:01 pm

Neruda,

I shall summarize this long thread between georgiansilver and me.

He says the spoon was made by Thomas Wallis (1 I imagine) in the 1780s.
I think it was made earlier by either Thomas Whipham or James Wilks in the 1740s.

Which do you think?

Miles
.

georgiansilver · Post by **georgiansilver** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:17 am

To be perfectly frank, when dealing with these spoons in the past, none of the people I have had dealings with have made any differentiation between TW1 or TW2...they have always been attributed to Thomas Wallis as a blanket term and bought/sold as a Thomas Wallis spoon. However if we get down to technicalities I have to admit I would not know the difference. Best wishes, Mike.
.

Post by **Granmaa** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:13 pm

I took this troublesome spoon to a silver expert, and he assures me that it was made c. 1740 by James Wilks who, apparently, was particularly fond of shell backs.

Miles

The end
(or is it?)
.

georgiansilver · Post by **georgiansilver** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:24 pm

There are experts and experts and all will believe they are right. Some may be! Best wishes, Mike.
.