posted 08-13-2007 12:10 AM            

I purchased this ladle five or six years ago and have been trying to figure it out ever since.

The dealer had it marked as silverplate, but I'm not too sure about that.

What has me puzzled is that someone has taken the trouble to obliterate the marks on the back. The only readable mark is that of the retailer, C. L. Ruth. There are two other inset squares where markings used to be.

I had thought about using that liquid that was sold to make dates visible on coins, but I think I read on posts here along the way not to do that.

I may have had good luck with the retailer. According to a post on Rootsweb that cites "Notable Men of Alabama" (published in 1904), Charles Leonidas Ruth was born Jan. 17, 1841 in Shelbyville, Tenn. and learned the watchmaking trade from his father.

After the Civil War he moved to Montgomery Alabama, where he worked for other jewelers until 1873, when he established business for himself. He built up his business to become one of the largest in the South at that time.

I have easy access to "Notable Men of Alabama" at work; I mean to double check those facts.

Anyway, I was hoping someone could make out enough of the marks to help me.

I've really grown to love this ladle, and I use it as a punch ladle with a 14 inch Revere bowl. They look great together, and there is no fear of the ladle falling into the punch! It is 13 1/4 inches long, and the bowl is 4 1/4 inches long. It is monogrammed with an S.

posted 08-13-2007 10:56 AM            

My reading of those marks would be that you had a maker's (or retailer's) mark and a city mark obliterated. The Ruth mark (and chronology as you give it; I haven't checked it) and the style of the monogram all suggest a late-19th or even early-20th century date, and I'd guess that this might've a decades-old piece when it went through their hands. The obliteration might be related to that, although I can imagine several possible specific scenarios....

If the Ruth history is correct, it might be worthwhile taking as a starting assumption that the righthand mark was "MOBILE", and checking possible candidates for the other. It looks the right size for the (relatively common) Mobile mark, and that would at least narrow down the field of candidates.

posted 08-13-2007 06:30 PM            

I have Notable Men of Alabama in my lap right now, and it jives with the transcription I found on the Internet. I am wondering if the information it gives might have come from his son, William Hardwick Ruth, who was born in 1869, and in 1900 joined his father in partnership. The book gives a good bit of detail about W. Hardwick Ruth's education and life experiences, his name is the one in the index, and the section is headed by W. Hardwick's photograph.