While I learned a lot recently about Gorham date marks (including this forum, site, Silver Jim, examiner, etc), the real dates for the marks still partially mystery.
Specifically:
Distiguishing OM (old marks) with NM(new marks) pretty clear. Common agreement that Gorham changed around 195o from L/A/G style to "Gorham Sterling" (with variations)
But the biggest question for me still about OM, so called L/A/G (pictures of Lion, Anchor, "gothic" G), which I saw in there variations so far marked on flatware:
1) "Pat.1895 L/A/G Sterling"
2) "L/A/G Pat.95 Sterling"
3) "L/A/G Sterling"
So the questions to the forum:
1) Which are newer/older in sequence
2) Which year(s) the switch occurred between 3 variations and which period each covers
3) While assumed that eliminating patent mark identified end of patent, not clear when and why Gorham switched from "Pat.1895 L/A/G" (patent before marks and full year) to "L/A/G Pat.95 Sterling" (patent after marks and only two year's digits)
the only date hint I found so far is that in Gorham Chantilly Catalog of 1914, one of the pictures has "L/A/G Pat.95 Sterling" mark. Two other catalogs I have (1895 and 1904) don't have any pictures with the back of the flatware.
Thanks in advance on any help/hint/direction.
Gorham (Chantilly) marks date - still mystery
-
dragonflywink
- co-admin
- Posts: 2500
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:42 am
- Location: Orlando, Florida
- Contact:
Re: Gorham (Chantilly) marks date - still mystery
Hi ~ welcome to the forums. Doubtful it would be possible in most cases to date pieces by differences in the back-marks - the dies would have been used until they started showing damage, and while Chantilly was an extensive and extremely popular line, some of the dies might have been in use for several decades. Marks aren't always consistent either, the die-cutters could place the marks in different order, and pieces produced around the same time might also have other differences. Might mention that I've also seen the occasional Chantilly piece with the marks stamped incuse, can't recall the order, but there could be even more variants.
The design patent for Chantilly (#D24508) was only assigned for a 7-year term (14 years was the longest term), in theory there would have been no point in stamping the patent date after that, but a 1909 catalog notes the pattern as "Patented", 7 years after the patent expired, Gorham may have just been pointing out the exclusivity of the design, but there was also the issue of copyright infringement (Gorham was quick to litigate), and as said, the dies could be in use for many years, with a possibility that the patent date might not have been placed on every piece, even in early production...
~Cheryl
The design patent for Chantilly (#D24508) was only assigned for a 7-year term (14 years was the longest term), in theory there would have been no point in stamping the patent date after that, but a 1909 catalog notes the pattern as "Patented", 7 years after the patent expired, Gorham may have just been pointing out the exclusivity of the design, but there was also the issue of copyright infringement (Gorham was quick to litigate), and as said, the dies could be in use for many years, with a possibility that the patent date might not have been placed on every piece, even in early production...
~Cheryl
Re: Gorham (Chantilly) marks date - still mystery
Thank you, Cheryl!
I understand that dies may be used used than real patent date and also can understand the different order of dies (I also have seen marks with middle part (L/A/G) upside down.
I also understand that it's almost impossible to point to the specific date (or even year) when they eliminated "Pat." mark, but hoped that more or less period of 2-3 years when they stopped to use it would be possible to point out (and, as you pointed during such transition period, the pieces may have different marks, though produced during the same year or two)
For "Pat" part of the marks, however, it's not just simple re-ordering - it's clear that Pat.1895 and Pat.95 are completely different marks and and I would assume that somebody at Gorham at some point decided to change one to another. Another possibility would be that Gorham had two manufacturing facilities with different local management, using different set of dies for whatever reason of local management decision.
What is clear, that even from 1914 Chantilly catalog, both variation of "Pat." marks were in use (either at the same or different periods), as I have asparagus fork (which form is unique in 1914 catalog, from previous) with Pat.1895 mark and Tea Spoon in the catalog itself (the only item showing its back) has Pat.95 mark. So probably change, if occurred, was after. Or, as you said, it was totally unclear mix and all dies used to produce to some point, when they eliminated "Pat" mark altogether.
Interesting you mentioned 1909 catalog - I never ran into and never heard of its existence. I actually didn't see any other than 1895, 1904 and 1914 catalogs. Interesting how many existed (say 1950?)
Thanks again for your answer.
I understand that dies may be used used than real patent date and also can understand the different order of dies (I also have seen marks with middle part (L/A/G) upside down.
I also understand that it's almost impossible to point to the specific date (or even year) when they eliminated "Pat." mark, but hoped that more or less period of 2-3 years when they stopped to use it would be possible to point out (and, as you pointed during such transition period, the pieces may have different marks, though produced during the same year or two)
For "Pat" part of the marks, however, it's not just simple re-ordering - it's clear that Pat.1895 and Pat.95 are completely different marks and and I would assume that somebody at Gorham at some point decided to change one to another. Another possibility would be that Gorham had two manufacturing facilities with different local management, using different set of dies for whatever reason of local management decision.
What is clear, that even from 1914 Chantilly catalog, both variation of "Pat." marks were in use (either at the same or different periods), as I have asparagus fork (which form is unique in 1914 catalog, from previous) with Pat.1895 mark and Tea Spoon in the catalog itself (the only item showing its back) has Pat.95 mark. So probably change, if occurred, was after. Or, as you said, it was totally unclear mix and all dies used to produce to some point, when they eliminated "Pat" mark altogether.
Interesting you mentioned 1909 catalog - I never ran into and never heard of its existence. I actually didn't see any other than 1895, 1904 and 1914 catalogs. Interesting how many existed (say 1950?)
Thanks again for your answer.