SMP Logo
SM Publications
Silver Salon Forums - The premier site for discussing Silver.
SMP | Silver Salon Forums | SSF - Guidelines | SSF - FAQ | Silver Sales

The Silver Salon Forums
Since 1993
Over 11,793 threads & 64,769 posts !!
American Silver before sterling Forum

A GLOSSARY of MILLED BANDS
Past American Coin Silver Forum topics/threads worth a look
WEV's American Silversmith's Family Tree Project Smith's Index

How to Post Photos REGISTER (click here)

customtitle open  SMP Silver Salon Forums
tlineopen  American Silver before sterling
tline3open  Sarah's spoon

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

ForumFriend SSFFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Sarah's spoon
swarter
Moderator

Posts: 2920
Registered: May 2003

iconnumber posted 07-22-2006 09:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for swarter     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Spoons and other silver items, which may have descended in families, often are purchased by dealers at estate sales, and lose their provenance. Seldom do they come with inseparable histories, such as is the case with this spoon. However, since family traditions can be inaccurate, caution still must be exercised, as things may not always turn out as they first appear.

This spoon carries in its bowl six generations of a family history, descending directly from the marriage of Sarah Hicks and Gideon Howland in 1753 to that of Gladys Almy Howland Pell and H. Pendleton Rogers in 1913.

The intermediate generations were John H. Howland and Sarah Rodman Hazzard m. 1803, Mary Rodman Howland and Morris S. Pell m. 1830, William Howland Pell and Adelaide Ferris in 1852, and Howland Pell and Almy Goelet Gallatin in 1887 (names to match initials provided by wev).

The engraving in the bowl, although in period script, appears to have been done after 1913, so it would appear that the attribution of the spoon's first ownership to Sarah Hicks would have been based on the initials S+H engraved on the back of the spoon.

However, the initials are in script, rather than in the block letters used the 1750's, so it is possible that the spoon actually was originally the property of Sarah Hazzard, who married into the family in 1803 at the age of 22. Being born in 1781, when a spoon of this style might still have been made, and when script initials had already been introduced, she might have been given the spoon as a birth gift.

Most early Hanoverian spoons have a full midrib, rather than the short midrib that is on the handle of this spoon; tapered bowls usually are later, too. That said, I have a spoon that similarly flies in the face of conventional wisdom with a short midrib and wider, but still tapering bowl, by Peter David, who died in 1755, but it at least has a block letter inscription . . .

The mark on the spoon would be either that of William Homes, Sr. (1716-1785), or that of William Homes, Jr. (1742-1825).

Kane attributes seven initial marks to Sr., and 12 to Jr., several of which may have been used by both. Had the spoon belonged to Sarah Hicks, it only could have been made by William, Sr., but if it belonged to Sarah Hazzard, it could have been made by either father or son, but most likely by the latter. The mark does not precisely match any of the photographs in Kane, but is almost certainly one of theirs (the family was resident in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts, during this period, and the Homes worked in Boston).

So, while most of the evidence could be considered by some to be inconclusive, I would think the script initials would swing the attribution of ownership towards the second Sarah.

IP: Logged

FWG

Posts: 845
Registered: Aug 2005

iconnumber posted 07-23-2006 07:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for FWG     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I would concur. The engraving of the chain of family not only is all consistent, suggesting post-1913, but details of that engraving's style look to me consistent with a late-19th to early-20th century date for its execution--late enough that the memory of which SH had originally brought the spoon into the family would likely be gone. And both the original engraving style and the spoon style, as you note, are more consistent with the late 18th century than the mid 18th century.

Of course I suppose it's also possible that a family member in the early 20th century bought an 18th-century spoon as an antique that happened to have an ancestor's initials, and added the sequence to bolster its pedigree. Such has been known to happen....

To my eye the mark could just possibly match Kane's mark J or L, which in turn (from the photographs) could possibly be the same punch in different states of wear--and those are both attributed by Kane to Homes the son. Certainly the similarities there are closer than to the first nine marks, which she lists for both father and son because they appear to have both used them.

(I find it interesting that there are six marks she can attribute specifically to the son, but none attributed solely to the father; I'd've expected there would be some found only on early pieces, but Kane is specific that they both seem to have used those first nine marks (although she does say that the son seems to have used marks B and I more than the father). Note that for some reason the number of marks illustrated in my copy of Kane (1998, Colonial Massachusetts Silversmiths and Jewelers) are different from what you cite: 9 for the father (pp559-60), the same 9, then 6 additional, for the son (pp553-555), for 15 total.)

[This message has been edited by FWG (edited 07-23-2006).]

IP: Logged

swarter
Moderator

Posts: 2920
Registered: May 2003

iconnumber posted 07-23-2006 11:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for swarter     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Note that for some reason the number of marks illustrated in my copy of Kane (1998, Colonial Massachusetts Silversmiths and Jewelers) are different from what you cite: 9 for the father (pp559-60), the same 9, then 6 additional, for the son (pp553-555), for 15 total.)

Thanks for your comments, FWG, but note I specified only initial marks; if you subtract the full name marks, our totals would be the same.

The punch on this spoon has been somewhat "dogboned," to use Fredz's terminology, which makes it difficult to match using only photographs.

Your added scenario is certainly a possibility to be considered, but there is of course no way to know. I should add for completeness that there is no evidence on any prior removal of initials, although you did not intimate that, so these initials are undoubtedly original.

[This message has been edited by swarter (edited 07-25-2006).]

IP: Logged

argentum1

Posts: 602
Registered: Apr 2004

iconnumber posted 07-23-2006 02:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for argentum1     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have always wondered if silversmiths with large shops/apprentices/journeymen had multiple punches made to avoid 'who has the punch, I need it to mark this piece'. I know punches wear out and new ones are made to replace the old one. How many strikes is a punch good for? Did they 'just got tired of the old punch' so had another one made. I guess we will really never know until someone comes up with a time travel contraption.

IP: Logged

FWG

Posts: 845
Registered: Aug 2005

iconnumber posted 07-23-2006 03:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for FWG     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oops! Quite right, and sorry for my not catching that. I was wondering what could have happened....

Is the fleur-de-lis mark known? I can't remember seeing it elsewhere, and didn't see it in McGrew.

IP: Logged

Brent

Posts: 1507
Registered: May 99

iconnumber posted 07-23-2006 05:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Brent     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Flynt & Fales shows a WH mark with this particular device on either side, and attributes it to William Hamlin of Providence, RI, though I think this is incorrect, as he was born in 1772. Belden attributes the same mark, albeit with some rubbing, to William Hookey of Newport, RI, who was working from about 1754 into the early 1800s, and is a better candidate. For what it's worth, I have a tablespoon with the WH mark with the device on either side, shaped very much like the one you show, but with typical block initials. I will try to take soem pictures to post shortly.

Anyway,aside from the family history, I'd go with Hookey as the likely maker.

Brent

IP: Logged

swarter
Moderator

Posts: 2920
Registered: May 2003

iconnumber posted 07-23-2006 07:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for swarter     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Many attributions are based on rather shaky criteria, so, in a roundabout way, Brent may be on to something - I look forward to his pictures. I say roundabout, because on examining the very small photograph of the Hamlin mark in Flynt & Fales under magnification, I can see that there is a pellet/period between the initials, and there is in the mark on Sarah's spoon what may be a distorted pellet in the same position (it does not show well in the photograph), and the marks are otherwise similar. The problem is, as Brent indicated, Hamlin likely would not have begun working before 1793 or so, too late for my (and Brent's?) spoon, and there is no information in Flynt & Fales as to what the mark is on, nor on what the attribution is based. While I do not think the initial mark shown for Hookey in Belden is the same, there is no reason to assume it was the only one he had. What is "incriminating" is that that mark is on (later) spoons belonging to a woman who married into a Hazard family! If there were a relationship between this Rhode Island Hazard family and Sarah Hazzard (who was born in Massachuusetts), it could have come to this Sarah as a gift, which could explain how a spoon by a Rhode Island maker got to a family in Massachusetts (the difference in spelling is probably inconsequential, so if one can Hazzard a guess. . .).

In the 19th Century it was not unusual for the same device, such as this stylized fleur-de-lys, to appear as one maker's trademark on articles marked by more than one retailer, but it was less so in the 18th C. Perhaps wev can tell us if his extensive chart shows any connections between the Hamlin/Hookey/Homes families that might indicate a commonality in the use of that mark.

Pictures, please, Brent!

cool N.B. After checking on a map, I find that Dartmouth is much closer to Newport, RI, where Hookey worked, than Boston, where the Homes were, so while the Hazard connection may still be possible, it is not needed to explain the presence of a Hoookey spoon in Dartmouth.

[This message has been edited by swarter (edited 07-24-2006).]

IP: Logged

swarter
Moderator

Posts: 2920
Registered: May 2003

iconnumber posted 07-23-2006 07:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for swarter     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by argentum1:
I know punches wear out and new ones are made to replace the old one. How many strikes is a punch good for?

Good question. Some makers had only a few used over a long time, and others had many. Part of the answer may depend on the material out of which the punch was made, as well as how much use it was subject to. In the colonies the British embargoed many materials so as to keep control of the market. One of these was steel, so that many makers used softer iron, which wore out more quickly. Some die makers, however, were able to make punches out of steel reclaimed from sword blades, which were one of the few steel items allowed to be imported, so those makers fortunate to obtain steel punches would have had longer use of fewer punches.

In other cases, the scenario you outline may have applied; later on, makers who retailed silver bought in from other makers often received their products premarked by the supplier(s). Either scenario could explain why some items in sets were marked by different punches.

IP: Logged

Brent

Posts: 1507
Registered: May 99

iconnumber posted 07-24-2006 01:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Brent     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote



Here are some pictures of my spoon. It is a tablespoon, 8 3/16" long, and appears to be very similar to yours in shape. The drop is long, with a strange v-shaped slash at the tip and tiny flares nearer the handle. It has what seems to be the same mark as yours, with the device repeated on the left, albeit only partially struck. The monogram is typical block initials with a rosette between.

How does this compare to Sarah's spoon?

Brent

IP: Logged

swarter
Moderator

Posts: 2920
Registered: May 2003

iconnumber posted 07-24-2006 06:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for swarter     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The spoons compare favorably. Sarah's spoon is 8 1/8" long. It has a similar v-shaped slash incised into the drop, plus another crescentic incision.

The decoration is an uncommon imitation of the stepped drop with raised triangular tip that is usually found on Hanoverian spoons at an earlier date (the "double, molded" drop in Belden's illustrated glossary).

Due to tarnish, wear and distortion it is difficult to tell from the photographs whether the marks on these spoons are identical to that in Belden's mark for Hookey. From the incomplete device on the left, it looks like the mark on Brent's spoon was added after the two devices were applied, their being too close together to accommodate the mark without overlapping. Both spoons do appear to share a common origin, although I am still not sure the marks were made by the same punch.

IP: Logged

wev
Moderator

Posts: 4121
Registered: Apr 99

iconnumber posted 07-24-2006 06:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for wev     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sorry; just back on line after our lightening storm fried my modem.

Sarah Rodman Hazard's father Thomas was born in Cranston RI (the family line was established in the Portsmouth and Kingston areas from c 1650 on). He came early on to New Bedford, where he made a sizable fortune in whaling. He was Postmaster of New Bedford and the first President of the Bedford Bank, which commenced business in 1803. He was active in politics and was elected State Senator.

IP: Logged

wev
Moderator

Posts: 4121
Registered: Apr 99

iconnumber posted 07-24-2006 07:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for wev     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
If there were a relationship between this Rhode Island Hazard family and Sarah Hazzard

The RI family refered to is Enoch and Mary (Easton) Hazard, married 7 February 1804. Enoch was Thomas Hazard's 2nd cousin.

IP: Logged

wev
Moderator

Posts: 4121
Registered: Apr 99

iconnumber posted 07-24-2006 09:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for wev     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And Mary Easton's 2nd cousin, Mary Wrightman, married William Hookey, 17 April 1760.

IP: Logged

swarter
Moderator

Posts: 2920
Registered: May 2003

iconnumber posted 07-24-2006 10:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for swarter     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Now, there are the connections needed to bolster the Hookey and Hazzard attributions. Thank you, wev - it's all in the family! biggrin

[This message has been edited by swarter (edited 07-24-2006).]

IP: Logged

ahwt

Posts: 2334
Registered: Mar 2003

iconnumber posted 07-25-2006 12:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ahwt     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Great story Swarter. One intesting thing is the variation in time of the various marriages. Sarah Rodman Hazzard's marriage was 50 years after her mother-in-law's marriage and the others were 27, 22, 35 and 26 years. Perhaps Ms. Hazzard was much younger than her husband.
Belden uses the term "device" in her book to refer to the extra marks placed on silver by the silversmith. Did she come up with the word "device" or was it a term of art used before her book.

IP: Logged

adelapt

Posts: 418
Registered: May 2003

iconnumber posted 07-25-2006 12:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for adelapt     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Device" as a term for an incomprehensible punchmark on silver seems to go well back beyond Belden. After all, it sounds so much more impressive and academic than saying "...maker's mark, a thing". Tells us no more of course...

IP: Logged

swarter
Moderator

Posts: 2920
Registered: May 2003

iconnumber posted 07-25-2006 10:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for swarter     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
John H. Howland was born in 1774, when his parents were about 40 years old, which was about 20 years after their marriage. He was about 30 yrs old when he married, seven years older than his bride.

The term device in this context derives from heraldry, where it refers to any emblematic design that might be used in a coat of arms, as in this case, a fleur-de-lis.

IP: Logged

wev
Moderator

Posts: 4121
Registered: Apr 99

iconnumber posted 07-25-2006 07:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for wev     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Poking around the records, I see that John H. Howland's neice Hetty Howland Robinson did rather well for herself. She inherited the bulk of the whaling fortunes created by her father, Edward Mott Robinson and her grandfather Gideon Howland. Astute in business, she left her two children $100,000,000 (about 17.5 billion today) in liquid assets at her death in 1916. She was known as the Witch of Wall Street and her parsimony is legendary.

IP: Logged

swarter
Moderator

Posts: 2920
Registered: May 2003

iconnumber posted 03-12-2007 08:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for swarter     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Here is a later style spoon with the same marks:

There is an odd device below the initials on the handle - any ideas about what it represents?

IP: Logged

vathek

Posts: 966
Registered: Jun 99

iconnumber posted 03-13-2007 06:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for vathek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Perhaps it's just a curlicue? What I find more interesting is the number six at the tip. Apparently this was part of a set, but I've never seen silver numbered for inventory like this.

IP: Logged

swarter
Moderator

Posts: 2920
Registered: May 2003

iconnumber posted 03-13-2007 01:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for swarter     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We see numbered spoons occasionally, both American and English. Supposedly it was to keep the servants honest (and maybe the guests, too).

IP: Logged

Scott Martin
Forum Master

Posts: 11520
Registered: Apr 93

iconnumber posted 03-13-2007 02:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Scott Martin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Numbered napkin rings were/are used to allow sightly used napkins to be stored between meals and then reset. Could the same idea hold for numbered flatware?

IP: Logged

bascall

Posts: 1629
Registered: Nov 99

iconnumber posted 04-27-2008 07:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for bascall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Numbered plates were used too. The Chrysler Museum in Norfolk, VA has two English Georgian sterling silver plates that are numbered. One is No. 42, and the other is No. 45. The description of the plates states that there were at least forty-five plates in the set because of the numbers they had.

IP: Logged

All times are ET

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a


1. Public Silver Forums (open Free membership) - anyone with a valid e-mail address may register. Once you have received your Silver Salon Forum password, and then if you abide by the Silver Salon Forum Guidelines, you may start a thread or post a reply in the New Members' Forum. New Members who show a continued willingness to participate, to completely read and abide by the Guidelines will be allowed to post to the Member Public Forums.
Click here to Register for a Free password

2. Private Silver Salon Forums (invitational or $ donation membership) - The Private Silver Salon Forums require registration and special authorization to view, search, start a thread or to post a reply. Special authorization can be obtained in one of several ways: by Invitation; Annual $ Donation; or via Special Limited Membership. For more details click here (under development).

3. Administrative/Special Private Forums (special membership required) - These forums are reserved for special subjects or administrative discussion. These forums are not open to the public and require special authorization to view or post.


| Home | Order | The Guide to Evaluating Gold & Silver Objects | The Book of Silver
| Update BOS Registration | Silver Library | For Sale | Our Wants List | Silver Dealers | Speakers Bureau |
| Silversmiths | How to set a table | Shows | SMP | Silver News |
copyright © 1993 - 2022 SM Publications
All Rights Reserved.
Legal & Privacy Notices