Sterling sugar nips, perhaps American, need info
Sterling sugar nips, perhaps American, need info
Hi, I have some sugar nips and I would love to get more info on them. I cannot find the maker initials on your site, and have trouble decyphering the mark to the right of the lion. Any hekp would be appreciated. I am not sure they are American, sorry if this is in the wrong section. THANKS! Kajsa
Re: Sterling sugar nips, perhaps American, need info
One of the marks looks very much like the London Lion Passant Guardant 0f 1739- 1756, although I would not discount the possibility of a slightly later Newcastle Lion
As for maker ....... ?
As for maker ....... ?
Re: Sterling sugar nips, perhaps American, need info
Thanks for the help! Do you suppose that the mark to the right of the London Lion Passant Guardant a letter denoting the year? And if I may ask one more question, is there a "registry" of London silversmiths from this time period? Thanks again!
Re: Sterling sugar nips, perhaps American, need info
Hi,
Very prominent dot in the mark you are referring to, suggests maker`s mark, rather than date letter. Unfortunately, initial letters are obscured.
The first letter could be ``I`` but just guessing.Not even sure whether it`s British.
London makers are here.
http://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk/Makers/London.html
Best wishes
Very prominent dot in the mark you are referring to, suggests maker`s mark, rather than date letter. Unfortunately, initial letters are obscured.
The first letter could be ``I`` but just guessing.Not even sure whether it`s British.
London makers are here.
http://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk/Makers/London.html
Best wishes
Re: Sterling sugar nips, perhaps American, need info
Properly known as tea tongs, Dr David Schlosberg points out in his excellent book some specialist tea tong makers. Perhaps it could be one of these.
http://www.silverteatongs.com/4764/index.html
A fascinating read about the history of these utensils.
Regards
John
http://www.silverteatongs.com/4764/index.html
A fascinating read about the history of these utensils.
Regards
John
Re: Sterling sugar nips, perhaps American, need info
Thank you all for your insight and suggestions. I will let you know if I eventually positively identify them!
Best, Kajsa
Best, Kajsa
Re: Sterling sugar nips, perhaps American, need info
The M O is the mark of a former owner , not of the silversmith. As AG2012 has commented the the only thing remaining of the maker's mark is the pellet in between two , now vanished initials . Unlikely to be ever identified.
Grimwade "London Goldsmiths 1697 - 1837" is the standard work on the marks of the period. The word "Goldsmiths " includes Silversmiths .
But without initials it would be a waste of time !
Grimwade "London Goldsmiths 1697 - 1837" is the standard work on the marks of the period. The word "Goldsmiths " includes Silversmiths .
But without initials it would be a waste of time !
Re: Sterling sugar nips, perhaps American, need info
Understood. :( They are lovely nonetheless! Thanks again for all your help!
Re: Sterling sugar nips, perhaps American, need info
To answer the question, yes, I believe there is a missing small-workers registry from the mid-1700s ::: Many of the makers of small sterling silver objects from this time period are not known, although there is ongoing research to fill in the gaps ::: I believe this is correct, although an expert could chime in with the exact details of this missing registry, it is not my intention to deceive or mislead :::
Re: Sterling sugar nips, perhaps American, need info
And thank you too! Everyone's help is much appreciated.
Re: Sterling sugar nips, perhaps American, need info
To summarise the situation on the missing registers Grimwade states (page 4) :-
"following the Plate Act of 1738, all makers had to register fresh marks differing from their previous ones.
Two new books were then commenced and used until 1758 of which unfortunately that for the smallworkers has been lost.
The next book for smallworkers in use till 1773 has survived, but that for large workers has been missing since at least 1863 ...."
Hence the oft seen references to "the Lost Registers" which are :-
Smallworkers 1738 - 1758
Largeworkers 1758 - 1773
We are lucky in that a list published in the Parliamentary Report of 1773 gives a list of the names virtually all makers at that date so many/most of the missing Largeworkers Regisisters silversmiths are known. Not so the missing Smallworkers Register.
To further complicate matters the human factor comes into play.
Not all makers changed their marks in 1738 as directed by the Act. And several failed to observe its guidelines.
Many items of silver bear marks which are not to be found in the registers relevant to their period. Either they are lost register marks entered long ago and still in use many years later , or the makers did not bother to register their new punches. The latter are far more common than realised. In theory all silver submitted to assay had the sponsors mark checked against the register. But the Assay Office was a busy place . If the apprentices of a maker turned up regularly, the staff knew them and almost certainly would not spend time checking . The master silversmiths were legally obliged to come to the Assay Office in person and sign the register for any newly made punch . If he worked close to Goldsmiths' Hall and was not a busy man he would probably comply . If he lived many miles away, he probably put the entering off until convenient , or ignored it . Life went on !
The master silversmiths also were technically obliged to sign when advising change of address. A comparison of the register changes with insurance policy and voting details often shows several years delay to the updating at Goldsmiths' Hall. A man had to keep his insurance address correct, but Goldsmiths' Hall was not urgent !
"following the Plate Act of 1738, all makers had to register fresh marks differing from their previous ones.
Two new books were then commenced and used until 1758 of which unfortunately that for the smallworkers has been lost.
The next book for smallworkers in use till 1773 has survived, but that for large workers has been missing since at least 1863 ...."
Hence the oft seen references to "the Lost Registers" which are :-
Smallworkers 1738 - 1758
Largeworkers 1758 - 1773
We are lucky in that a list published in the Parliamentary Report of 1773 gives a list of the names virtually all makers at that date so many/most of the missing Largeworkers Regisisters silversmiths are known. Not so the missing Smallworkers Register.
To further complicate matters the human factor comes into play.
Not all makers changed their marks in 1738 as directed by the Act. And several failed to observe its guidelines.
Many items of silver bear marks which are not to be found in the registers relevant to their period. Either they are lost register marks entered long ago and still in use many years later , or the makers did not bother to register their new punches. The latter are far more common than realised. In theory all silver submitted to assay had the sponsors mark checked against the register. But the Assay Office was a busy place . If the apprentices of a maker turned up regularly, the staff knew them and almost certainly would not spend time checking . The master silversmiths were legally obliged to come to the Assay Office in person and sign the register for any newly made punch . If he worked close to Goldsmiths' Hall and was not a busy man he would probably comply . If he lived many miles away, he probably put the entering off until convenient , or ignored it . Life went on !
The master silversmiths also were technically obliged to sign when advising change of address. A comparison of the register changes with insurance policy and voting details often shows several years delay to the updating at Goldsmiths' Hall. A man had to keep his insurance address correct, but Goldsmiths' Hall was not urgent !