posted 10-29-2008 04:29 PM            

These are so rare that I think I've only ever seen one other in the last ten years.

As normal having said how rare it is - another has now come up !
But I think this may be American. With a frigate (?) on it !

The ship is nicely engraved, if rather naïve and by someone who was probably not a sailor.
It seems to be a frigate with a single gun deck, but the artist has put another tier of guns on the poop deck (very unlikely!) and has attached the stern lantern to the bottom of the ensign as well as to the stern galleries (equally unseamanlike).

The flag has totally baffled me and I am trying, unsuccessfully, to convince myself that it’s a British Navy ensign (which would not have the St George cross at this period).

The reason I think it may be American is the makers mark – the A has a down bent cross piece which from WEV’s superb website seems to be an American form. See Index of American Marks – Abraham Schuyler and Abraham Cuyler which clearly show this feature. I have never noticed it on English silver, although I must admit to not seeing much of this periods marks.
Other than WEV's site I have no references on American silversmiths - we rarely see their work in England so I cannot identify..

Mark is probably either AB or less likely AR, and owners initials are EL.

The piece has had a hard life, the original hook having been broken off and replaced by a “blacksmith repair” crudely soldered and crimped replacement ! Hence the damage to the top of the ship picture.

Age. My guess, based on English, London style would be around 1720, but if American date might be a little later if not from a major centre.

Size - each of the two pieces are 41mm at the widest point

Provenance – the vendor tells me it come from an old family estate (the usual story) in Pennsylvania .

I know very little of ships of this period and even less on American Silversmiths.

posted 10-30-2008 02:56 AM            

I know the feeling ! But you are an optimist - I think in terms of years rather than days !

Seriously though can you recall if the possible AB suspect you saw was on an American item ?

posted 10-30-2008 08:00 AM            

I have a large number of monographs, xeroxed workshop notes, articles and books to go through so it may take some time.

posted 10-30-2008 04:33 PM            

That is one of the advantage of this forum - everyone has expertise in fields uncharted by the rest of us.

I think we should conclude this "A" was used in America and almost certainly Continental Europe, but was rare in England.

Unless someone else can add more info !

posted 10-30-2008 04:37 PM            

Any ship of the (battle) line (modern "Battleship" )would by definition have two or three gundecks, a frigate being the next step down. But not a small warship by any means.

The modern naval descendent and equivalent of a frigate is a cruiser.

The notes below indicate splendidly how words change their meaning and why we should be very careful in understanding 18th century documents.

The term frigate was virtually killed in the 1860's when HMS Warrior was introduced. Made of iron, she was the biggest and most powerful warship of her day. But she only had one gundeck, and too small a number of guns to be classed a ship of the line. So she was officially a frigate! Which caused problems in that her manning, rations etc were all on a scale not allowed for a frigate and had to be fudged !

The term cruiser (or ship capable of independent cruising ) replaced the word frigate in the late 19th century.

"Frigate" was very confusingly re-introduced in WWII by the RN for a slower ship below the size of the destroyer but above corvette and largely it replaced the older, more accurate term sloop.

After WWII it got even more confused, the USN using frigate for many years for a fast ship larger than destroyer, smaller than cruiser, the rest of NATO a ship less than destroyer, and slower . The US re-classed it's frigates to the destroyer classification in the 1970's, ending great confusion to all. Me included.

In the UK the circle turned again. A Destroyer ,originally a "Torpedo Boat Destroyer", which was a fleet escort and attack craft until the 1950's, became a fleet defense ship with a predominant Anti Aircraft role, while ships with a predominant Anti-Submarine role were called frigates. In the late 1980's some frigates were now bigger than the destroyers.

posted 10-30-2008 09:15 PM            

Please reference the booklet 'Albany Silver 1652-1825' p. 36. There is a mark which is listed as 'probably' Abraham Schuyler. Also on that page is an illustration of a stock buckle similar to the one in question and it is assigned to John Cuyler. Both of these references are of Albany, NY origin.

posted 10-30-2008 10:01 PM            

The only other "American" mark to use it that I can think of is one attributed to John Avery. It is not at all common.

I don't know what the name might be. WEV is the typographer - if there is one he should know.

posted 10-31-2008 06:03 PM            

Could be that Argentum1 may even come across his reference. I have a similar mind - I can often remember a piece of information - but sometimes forget the source.

Now I have most of my data on the computer - and the computer has taken over the job of losing it for me .

posted 11-02-2008 11:31 AM            

quote:

---

Please reference the booklet 'Albany Silver 1652-1825' p. 36. ....on that page is an illustration of a stock buckle similar to the one in question and it is assigned to John Cuyler.

---

posted 11-02-2008 12:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clive E Taylor:
argentum1

Please reference the booklet 'Albany Silver 1652-1825' p. 36. ....on that page is an illustration of a stock buckle similar to the one in question and it is assigned to John Cuyler.

Subject to copyright - and I am not sure if the rules which in UK permit would permit such usage - would do so in the US, could you post an image of the Cuyler buckle for us please ?

---

The buckle, which is "probably" attributable to Cuyler, is a stock buckle, of the type used on the leg, and not a clasp like the one here, which is worn at the neck, and to which it bears no resemblance whatsoever.. It has a block IC in a rectangle. There are no three letter marks of the configuration in question shown in the catalog for any Albany smiths.

posted 11-02-2008 02:01 PM            

You are right - this type is not a stock clasp pair but a stock buckle.

Stock buckles are comparatively common - the English ones having three or four studs to go into the button holes on the stock, and Continental European ones used miniature anchor fastenings. American ones use either!

Both types were for attaching a man's stock - a tall cravat that fits round his neck. As i understand it the stock originally was fastened at the front of the neck by a pair of clasps - like the AB pair above. Later it was fastened as the back of the neck by a stock buckle like the one you show. These are not found in pairs - only one neck per man!

In the 1760's in England both types were in use at the same time (not on the same stock of course !) as I have seen a document specifying a soldier can use either on his stock and several documents itemized stock buckles and clasps as separate items. I have no pre 1730 references to either.

The left hand one is an Irish example from c1740, the other is English c 1780.

The item that fastened at the knee was a Breeches or Knee Buckle - first English reference seen is 1711. These are normally seen in pairs and were like a small shoe buckle, but usually with an anchor chape that fits into a button hole, rather than by a roll which fits a shoe latchet. There is a series of tiny clasp pairs dating to the late 18th century which I suspect were also used as knee fixings. As these items are easily broken I think there may have been earlier ones but few survived. The antique trade call them garter buckles, but although there are 18th century references to garter buckles I have found none for garter clasps. These evolved, confusingly into shoe clasps , mainly for clogs in the 19th century.

posted 11-02-2008 02:20 PM            

AC is page 33 and identified as Unknown

AS is page 36 and identified as Abraham Schuyler

posted 11-08-2008 08:41 AM            

I've recently acquired a shoe buckle which from the style is typically Scottish Provincial - dating to around 1780 although the style is very much 1750 - 1760.

Yes - it has the dropped cross-bar "A" !

So this "A" was also in use in Scotland.

I thought it was going to be Alexander Rollo of Dundee - but the mark does not match an existing pair I have attributed to this maker.

The AR on this shoe buckle , is certainly not the same mark as the AB on the clasp in question - but I suspect my AB could be AR and perhaps same maker.