posted 09-09-2014 07:04 PM            

I don’t know the answer. The caddy spoon theory is partly based on the fact that proper caddy spoons started to be made towards the end of the 18th century at the same time as mote spoons were going out of production. However, I have seen references that suggest tea strainers also appeared towards the end of the 18th century. If true, this would offer similar support to the tea leaf fishing theory. However, I’m not certain about when tea strainers first appeared. How would one know today whether one was looking at an early tea strainer or at a small lemon strainer for punch? Of course, I suppose our ancestors were perfectly capable of using an object for more than one purpose.

One thing that may attract me to the more traditional fishing theory is that one or two of my classier mote spoons have rather fine (in the sense of thin) piercing that I am not sure would really work for sieving tea dust.

Be all that as it may, let me share a few examples of the mote spoon.

The lower of the two shown above is an example of the earliest type from c.1690, made with a long wire stem soldered to the simple pierced bowl by a rattail.They are often not marked but when there is a mark it is found on the bowl - in this case IL for an unattributed maker.

The top spoon is a bit later, c.1720. By now the spoon is made in one piece and the bowl has scroll rather than simple piercing. There is a vestigial “spearhead” forming the point at the top of the stem. It remained the case that mote spoons were often unmarked or had only a maker’s mark. This one has actually been assayed and carries both the lion passant and a slightly odd maker’s mark. It seems to be Andrew Archer’s AR Britannia standard mark while the lion passant indicates sterling standard. From time to time cases of this sort of marking confusion occur. There are various possible explanations but the simplest is that somebody just picked up the wrong punch.

Now may I jump to the tail end of the mote spoon’s life in England?


This was made by Samuel Key (maker’s mark only), c.1770. The spearhead finial is now larger. The bowl shape reveals that it was made to go with newly fashionable Old English style teaspoons. Its piercing is further decorated with engraving. I could be tempted to date this spoon a bit later than the early 1770s except that I am not sure how long Samuel Key remained in business beyond 1773 when he was last recorded.

Between these examples from the earlier and later 18th century you will find mote spoons with variations in the piercing and in the bowl heels - to match teaspoons (single drop, double drop, shell back etc) - but all with the long pointed stem, usually ending with a spearhead. It is perhaps more interesting to look at those which were made to go with some of the rarer spoon patterns.


The naturalistic mote spoon above is by Francis Harache (maker’s mark only), c.1740. I think you will see why, by comparison, I was a bit dismissive of the naturalistic tongs I showed in the thread on Sugar Tongs.

The lower silver gilt mote spoon is unmarked but I would guess accompanied some rococo teaspoons of c.1740. These two spoons are examples of the sort of piercing that I doubt would work for sifting out tea dust.

Finally I’d like to share a pierced teaspoon. These are very occasionally found in sets of teaspoons and would also have been tea strainer spoons so should possibly now come under the more modern term of mote spoon, though the pointed stem is what the term would immediately bring to mind for most people.


When one like this turns up on its own, divorced from its original set, one has to wonder whether the piercing is a later “enhancement”. At first sight you might think so in this case because the piercing runs through the basket of flowers stamped on the back of the bowl. On a closer look it can be seen that the piercing carefully leaves individual flower heads untouched on their stems and has been designed to enhance rather than damage the decoration. I am satisfied that this is an original that would have accompanied a full set of picture front teaspoons with Apollo gracing the front of the stem and a flower basket the back of the bowl.

And I think that is more than enough to satisfy my need to play with my spoons, at least for the time being.

[This message has been edited by agphile (edited 09-09-2014).]

posted 09-10-2014 05:18 PM            

AHWT is right about the purpose of the pointed stem though I don’t think there is any hard evidence for it. The use of the mote spoon was probably considered so self-evident and routine back then that nobody bothered to record it or offer guidance to a novice user. However, all authorities agree that this must have been the use and it certainly makes sense. I assume that the curve of a spout was gentle enough to allow sufficient space for the mote spoon's stem to pass through. I'm afraid I don't have a teapot of the right period with which I can experiment but it works on a more modern teapot with a curved spout.

Incidentally, the Apollo front pierced teaspoon at the end of my previous post is by Jeremiah King (maker’s mark only, struck twice), c.1745. Sorry I forgot to include this information when writing the post.

I don’t think there is much more I can usefully say about mote spoons but I might mention that you very occasionally come across something being described as a blind mote spoon (i.e. a spoon with a pointy stem and a bowl that is not pierced). Such spoons are clearly not mote spoons but the description makes it easy to visualise what they look like. I have no idea what they might have been used for except in cases where the stem is exceptionally long which would suggest a Scottish masking or mashing spoon, used for stirring the tea in the pot, presumably on the assumption that this would help the brew along. Here is an example., 7 inches long.


Maker’s mark only, IB in a shaped cartouche, probably for James Brown, Perth, c.1725. Masking spoons do not have to have pointed stems like this. By the later 18th or early 19th century they are also found with handles in the same patterns as the teaspoons of the time.

posted 12-20-2015 01:21 PM            

The pictures show a tea caddy of 1725 alongside a mote spoon of much the same date. I think it is pretty obvious that the mote spoon would not really have worked to dig tea leaves neatly out of the caddy, whereas it would have been simple to dispense tea leaves into the cap and from the cap into the teapot. I am sure, therefore, that the original purpose of the mote spoon must have been to fish tea leaves out of the tea bowls or cups.

posted 12-21-2015 05:16 AM            

Yes. The irritating things when trying to research something like this are both the lack of recorded contemporary references and the tendency of some modern writers about silver to state something as a fact without mentioning their evidence and often, as it turns out, without any evidence...Having said that I now have an uneasy feeling that I may sometimes have been guilty myself!

ahwt