posted 12-20-2008 12:17 PM            

This is a 4 arm candelabra that measures 16" tall. I am sure it is silverplate; it is in good condition with hardly any plate loss. In addition to the mark pictured here, the base of the candelabra is nicely engraved with the year "1884" and the initials "EMB". They appear to be original to the piece. Another site:

shows the mark as unidentified English, but I'm not sure. Any information on the maker would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

posted 12-22-2008 07:57 AM            

Thanks again,

posted 03-11-2009 06:41 PM            

In regards to this "match" I have learned from posts by Dale that it is the silverplate dies which are valuable rather than an intrinsic value to the item as in a piece of sterling and that these dies were bought and sold. Also, here I would cite his ideas of a unified style. In addition, I have learned that unplated wares were often sold in large numbers by big firms and then plated (with or without quality) by the purchaser from reading Rainwater's book on silverplate. Anyway, it is interesting to me that there is a connection between an English piece of silverplate by Horace Woodward and the American company, Meriden Britania. I do know that Meriden had a showroom in London.

I came across another example as well. A creamer I have marked Rogers and Bros. is listed in the Meriden catalog.

So, perhaps not an earth shattering post, but interesting to me as a new collector, nonetheless.

posted 03-11-2009 07:01 PM            

My grandmother uses a set of junky old Rogers silver plate flatware, but the design is nearly identical to Gorham's popular Lancaster Rose pattern. I don't like the original pattern in the first place, but it is even worse using a crummy silver plate knockoff.

Given that and different companies/retailers marking the same items as their own, it is not surprising to find the same piece signed differently.

As for your candelabrum, it seems like a fairly traditional design, so it is not surprising to see multiple makers producing it. It would be interesting to compare your piece with the Meriden example in terms of quality.

Also interesting that the trademark used on your candelabrum resembles the shape of the British Registry mark. Maybe this was a tactic to imply the design was patented or to add some kind of cachet to the piece.

posted 03-11-2009 07:17 PM            

A comparision of quality if possible would be interesting. Rainwater talks about how a lack of government standards in terms of the amount of silver plated on a piece led to a wide range of quality of the unplated pieces sold to a variety of purchasers.

I also didn't mention in my last post that the Meriden piece had a price of $73 or $75
depending on finish. Does this seem incredibly high? On the same page the next most expensive candelabra is only $25 and of a similar size.

I like your reference to the British registry mark and the notion that it imbues the piece with a certain cachet. I too noticed the similarity as I also collect 19th English transferware, many with registry marks.

posted 03-11-2009 08:13 PM            

The jewelry trade today has people who work this way. They have a few items of their own creation they make as needed by others. And the high end lamp trade does the same thing. Somewhere there are finial makers turning out distinctive and interesting work. But we don't know who they are.

posted 03-11-2009 08:30 PM            

The kicker is that the number for 2003 is 552. Multiplying the 300 by 5.5 we get 1,750.00 as the current price for it in 1886 dollars. You can buy one much more cheaply than that now.

For fullness:
1800=51

1825=34

1850=25

1865=46

1875=33

1900=25

1925=52.5

1950=72.1

posted 03-11-2009 10:00 PM            

(This piece has subsequently been replated.)

Rainwater also informs us that Meriden Britania bought the holloware division of Rogers, Smith & Co. in 1863, but obviously the old trademark continued to be used. In the Meriden catalog reprint of 1886-87 there is a tete-a-tete set with the same motif of the dragonfly and the crab.

posted 03-11-2009 11:51 PM            

What is needed is to examine the receiving dock and accounts payable records of these firms. Which do not exist for Oneida or any of the IS companies.

So, what we can do is look at silverplate. And apply some general business practices to the subject. The principal expense for each individual unit was making the die or mold. The buildings, equipment and cyanide could be spread over a large production and would represent very little of the cost component of a finished item.

Die making is both an art and a science. There are firms that specialize in die making which makes it safe to posit that there always have been such firms. Considering that casting a brittania ware item in the die is a fairly simple process that can be done on a cook stove. So, it is real easy to see that there were die makers who also made and sold pieces. We just don't know much about it.

In its heyday, MB was a hi tech firm. And they had cost accountants. Who were able to come up with all the calculations that pointed to the most economical number to produce for any given item.

So, while sales might estimate a total demand of 150, cost was saying that 250 was the most economical. Being scientific, the company produces 250, uses 150 and sells 100 to another maker. Maybe they trade. This is a method of handling risk.

It is also rather clear that frequently pieces were assembled and not plated. Some were sold as pewter, some just waited for orders.

posted 09-10-2015 03:44 PM            

• Birmingham Makers mark ID
  
• Birmingham makers mark 1919
  
• London 1888 Salt Cellars Maker ID?