18th century french chamberstick

[ktiggeloven]

Hi fellow forum members,

I added a wonderful 18th century French chamberstick to my collection. I was wondering if somebody could help me out finding out which city, maker and date it is. It is marked with a fleur de lis, a Maltese cross, a makers mark and a Letter A.
Thanks in advance for any help. Kind regards,

Kasper

[ktiggeloven]

Hi everybody,

So far I have not been able to decypher these marks. As there are no responses on the forum, could it be it's something else then French? Maybe Maltese? If anybody has any suggestions on whether this is non French and should maybe be moved to a different category (like other European countries), please let me know.
Thanks so far for anybody who's had a look into it.
kind regards,

Kasper

[Zilver2]

Hello Kasper,

I think you have to look for the marks of the Netherlands because a similar 'Maltese' mark was used during the 18th century (Tardy page 309).
In 1795 French troops concurred the country and from 1806 untill 1810 Napoleon's brother was king of the Netherlands. In 1810 the country was officially annexed to France to become free again in 1813 after Napoleon's defeat and exile to Elba. It seems to me that the dates match quite good.

Kind Regards

[dognose]

Hi Kasper,

We'll give Zilver2's suggestion a try and I'll move it to the Dutch forum.

Trev.

[oel]

Hi All,

We are looking at;


The Maltese cross; the cross is eight-pointed and has the form of four "V"-shaped elements (arrow points) joined together at their tips.


The Dutch city of Zutphen used a Pattée Cross common; cross medieval style with splayed arm ends.

As you can see there is a distinct difference between both crosses.
The maker’s mark is in a French style lozenge.
The fleur the lys could be French but the city of Roermond also used the fleur the lys in the 18th century but I have no further information.


The letter A perhaps a ‘date letter’ this type of date letter not used during the time of the Kingdom of Holland
To come to the point I do not think the silver marks to be of the former Kingdom of Holland.

Oel.

[ktiggeloven]

I didn't think the piece is Dutch either. The marks don't exactly match the Dutch marks. Are you guys sure it can't be Maltese. I believe a similar mark to the Maltese cross mark was used in Malta (at least I saw a similar mark on another forum). Maybe it's worth trying it in the other European countries heading.
Thanks for your input so far.
Kind regards,

Kasper

[oel]

Hi Kasper,

Fasten your seat-belts here you go to other countries.The Maltese cross could be a fraternity mark
Good luck,

Oel.

[Jag]

Is it possible this is Hanau? There were a couple of Hanau makers who used the fleur-de-lis (Neumann, Reusswig), and Wolf and Knell used a similar "maltese" mark. There also seem to be a lot of Hanau makers with unknown marks.

[ktiggeloven]

Thanks for the input>
I personally don't think it's Hanau. If it is Hanau, it is one of the most sophisticated pieces of Hanau I have ever seen. The quality of the work on the leaves is of such a high standard I haven't seen from Hanau makers (Hard to see on the pictures, but when you handle the piece, it is very well made). Also I would presume a Hanau silversmith would not mark the piece on a little extra lip at the end of the handle, but would use a more normal prominent spot to put their marks. The weight of the piece is also what you would expect from an older piece (at ca 235gr or 7oz) and not from a later copy. To me it doesn't feel like Hanau (but ofcourse i can always err)

[AG2012]

Are all marks on a little extra lip at the end of the handle? It looks soldered to the handle; why?
Two „Tremolierstiche“; why? What does „Tremolierstich`` look under higher magnification? Was silver sample really taken doing it?
Where was it done beside Germany?
In a word, it doesn’t look right to me.

[Jag]

Here is a typical known Maltese mark to compare to your mark. It is taken from an earlier thread here (http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... ese#p60982):


If we assume that the Maltese mark shown is typical for the 18th century (which may not be accurate), then I would argue based on the previous discussion:

Your mark is not Maltese:
. Your Maltese cross mark does not match proper Maltese cross mark (too fat in the center).
. Your mark does not include a purity (e.g. 917)
. Letter A is not one of F, R or M (the Maltese marks described by Denaro)
. BUT: this is based on incomplete web search - maybe your marks actually do make sense for Malta - you need to get the book by Denaro "The Goldsmiths of Malta and Their Marks" by Victor Denaro, 1972 (it is available at Amazon but expensive; maybe try to get at your library?).

From the pictures you provided (not necessarily reliable, I know), your piece does not really look 18th century to me:
. Bead pattern around rim of base appears very regular - too perfect both in size of beads and spacing between them.
. Base and candle cup appear to be perfect circles and no signs of being hand-made - too perfect for 18th century.
. Candle cup does not look 18th century to me - size, flare, shape and bead around edge of candle cup all look later.

Why Hanau:
. Your mark combination doesn't make sense for known countries (unless Denaro proves this wrong)
. All the marks used on your piece (fat Maltese cross, fleur-de-lis, letter A, and letter combinations) were used by known Hanau silversmiths.
. Tremolierstich is typically (exclusively?) German.
. Some Hanau silver is very well made (based on samples I've seen online and in person - I don't agree that it is always crude).
. If not 18th century but 19th century (as argued above), then your piece would almost certainly be Hanau.

Of course this is all based on my complete lack of knowledge of Maltese siilver, and from pictures which can be very unreliable. But if it was my piece, I would start from the assumption that it is Hanau, and try to prove otherwise. I suspect you'll need to get the Denaro book to try to do that.

[AG2012]

Jag: your piece does not really look 18th century to me

I fully agree; it may be heavy and appealing but it really looks like the combination of styles.
I still insist on the following facts:
1. The marks are placed in very unusual place, soldered to the handle (taken from another object?)
2. Tremolierstiche (at least two seen).Silver samples really taken if deep enough, or just a decor;too regular and let`s have in mind Tremolierstich was done by hand.

We often rely on marks only and overlook ``how it’s made``.Bead pattern, e.g.,as mentioned by Jag, is not hand embossed but stamped.
Btw. not only Hanau made ``antique silver``.