www.925-1000.com

Hi Forum,

I have been on the hunt for a mug/tankard for awhile now and have come across many tankards and mugs with pushed in handles and ultimately ended up in possession of one.

I had first purchased a George II mug but had to return it immediately as the wall was quite thin and there was a crack at the lower handle joint which leaked.

I have now ended up with a George III Newcastle tankard, and while the lower handle has been pushed-in, it has a much greater wall thickness and the crease does not appear to be sharp such that it would develop into a crack. This piece will be used semi-regularly, so it will not just be resting in a display cabinet.

I would be interested in suggestions/techniques/tools for lessening the extent of the pushed-in depression and would also like to know any possible risks involved, and alternatively if it would be better left unmanipulated.

Thanks!

George III Tankard









George II Mug with Crack

Hi Argent,

Firstly congratulations on the super shots of the tankard and crushed area. Late Newcastle tankards are very often made from a thin gage so this is a not uncommon sight. There is alot to be said for leaving well alone if there are no leaks hower the desire to have it in good order has kept many a smith busy.
This does look a bit beyond jumping up from the inside and often the only good remedy is to unsolder the handle , lay down the area and resolder and refinish.
Hope this helps.

Heamatite

Hi,
It is possible to use hammer stake dent repair tool.
Hard soldering repair is something I would never suggest because the whole item should be heated to very high temperature and parts could fall appart. Partial heating is not very efficient because the solder will not flow evenly.
All said,leave it like this.
Regards

Some wise words from AG2021. Handles have been known to have problems during removal but then again snarling and pushing has been known to stretch and split the clearly thin metal !

Heamatite

Thank you both for the excellent analysis, the different technique suggestions and for discussing the risks as I certainly wasn't aware of some of the points mentioned.

Based on your comments, I did lightly work it by inserting one hand into the interior with the other hand on the exterior and applied outward/inward pressure simultaneously to the high points. I was able to lightly work the effected area and although it is still visible, it appears to have reduced the depth of the depression to some extent.

Considering the risks involved in a more extensive intervention and the minor annoyance that the remaining depression represents, I am opting to leave it as is for the time being and enjoy it.

Thanks again!

To anyone who may be looking for a new mug or tankard, I would recommend scrutinizing the handle joins carefully and leak testing them as I am becoming aware this is a relatively common point of failure.

I recently received another mug with a hairline crack at the lower handle joint that leaked slowly when tested. It did take several minutes for the water to find its way through, so be sure to leave a vessel full of water for awhile if you suspect it may leak.

Inside the mug, there are several small dents which could have been the result of striking with a snarling iron. I would theorize that there was an attempt to push-out the handle that had been pushed-in, and the stress of the procedure caused the wall of the mug to crack through.

Interestingly the seller had not noticed that an entire section of the front of the tankard had been cut away and replaced (evident from the traces of solder encircling the repair).

Adjacent to the repair there was a very thin area of silver that would push in and spring back during the application and removal of pressure which leads me to believe the repair was due to a botched monogram erasure.

:::::: Thank you for this information. :::::

::::: When you say "Interestingly the seller had not noticed that an entire section of the front of the tankard had been cut away and replaced (evident from the traces of solder encircling the repair)" do you mean the circular part where the bottom of the handle meets the exterior of the body of the tankard? ::::::

:::::::: I did not realize that a circular part where the bottom of the handle meets the exterior of the body always indicated a repair. I believe I have seen mugs/tankards with a circular "thingy" where the bottom of the handle meets the exterior of the body and I did not realize it was a repair. I hope I am not confusing anyone. I do have a mug from 1704 and there is a circular part where the bottom of the handle meets the exterior of the body, and there is also a little bit of soldering next to this part, and over the years 2 antiques dealers have debated whether or not there is a repair to this mug, one said yes and another said no, both with decades of experience with English silver, so I'm not sure what to think, but the mug does indeed hold water without leaking through the heavy-gauge Britannia silver. ::::::

::::::: If I looked on the inside of your tankard, I would absolutely say there has been some damage to that part, if I were selling this tankard to you I would absolutely point out that part, but as far as the exterior of your tankard where the bottom of the handle meets the exterior of the body, I really wouldn't be able to say if that part was repaired or not, I really don't know if the "circular thingy" where the bottom of the handle meets the exterior of the body is an indication of a repair or not, even though it kind of does seem like a "plug" of some sort, it could be that this was part of the original design, my mug has this part as well. ::::::

::::: Oh wait, I see what you're talking about now, there's a very faint outline of a part that has been completely removed, yes the seller should have pointed that out, it must have been obvious with the object in hand that there was a repair there, I totally understand now. :::::

::::: I would still like to know how to evaluate the "circular thingy" where the bottom of the handle meets the exterior of the body.....::::::
::::: Is the general rule that if you see a little bit of solder on that "circular thingy" then it has definitely been repaired? :::::
::::: Of course, definitely look for any pushed-in evidence inside the mug/tankard, that will be inspected thoroughly from now on. :::::

I believe the two antique dealers had conflicting opinions because some reinforcement patches or "circular thingies" are original, while others have been applied later.

It seems natural that as silversmiths became more aware of handle failures, some would have begun to pre-emptively apply a reinforcement patch as part of the original design (especially for larger mugs and tankards).

For some makers, you will find it difficult to locate an example of a mug without a patch (an easy example is Langlands I and Langlands II), indicating such a maker nearly always included reinforcement patches in their designs.

If you wanted to post an image of your mug, or at least the handle joint, some of the members could offer their opinion?

In the following images, the first mug I've posted is an example that I would suspect the reinforcement patch had been added at a later date, while the second image shows a mug with a reinforcement patch that I would judge as original.

:::::: When I was buying this 1704 mug by John Rand, I found a well-known antiques dealer who had a pair and both of those examples also had "circular thingys" where the bottom part of the handle meets the exterior of the mug. :::::: I am not sure if the handle has had an older repair. ::::::

Thanks for sharing! I don't have a strong opinion on whether this is original or repaired, and would say the quality of work around the handle joint seems to be good enough that it could be both original or professionally applied later.

I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt that it is original work, and in either case I would be ecstatic to own a Queen Anne mug (especially if pint sized). Maybe another member has more in-depth insight.

::::: I am leaning towards original, so imagine it's 1703-1704 and all the work had been completed on this mug, there is just one more task to complete and that is the reinforcement of the handle, and one drop of solder is accidentally spilled on the "circular thingy" part but it is hidden by the handle so well, would a customer really complain about that tiny defect? It is a tiny cosmetic defect that is really hard to see unless you are looking for it. I guess the mug was just sold anyway rather than melting it down and starting all over again. This mug has a few slight upgrades from the John Rand "base model" because it has a thumb-rest, some nice circular lines at the top and bottom, and it's heavy for the type. Blank body with no family crest so maybe this was sold to a middle-class customer at a slight discount because of the solder blob. :::::