posted 01-11-2008 09:24 PM            

I recently bought what was listed as a piece of silverplate at an online charity auction. It turns out to be a pretty piece of coin silver from Wood & Hughes.

I think it's a master salt--is that correct? ("Don't be silly, that's not for serving salt, it's for eating pudding. Won't you make me some pudding soon?" said my husband, who likes pudding.)

Does the pattern have a name? Any idea when it's from? I'm guessing the 1870s, is that plausible? Any idea who the lady is, if anyone?

It weighs between 205 and 210 grams on my kitchen scale. From lady's head to lady's head it measures a little over 5"; it's 4" in diameter at the base. It's 4 1/4" tall from the bottom to the top of the lady's head, or just 3" tall from rim to bottom.

It's marked W&H 900/1000 VI. The inside is gilded.

posted 01-12-2008 10:03 AM            

According to Rainwater, W&H went under in 1899 after years of trying to recover from a fire in 1891. I'd think 1870s-80s would be about right, considering the combination of style and being coin rather than sterling. The lady I think is an anonymous art nouveau sort rather than someone specific, but the modeling looks rather familiar - can't place it, but perhaps inspired by a print or painting?

Uses are almost always speculative on such things, but a master salt is as reasonable as many. The gilded interior is perfect for that, but also would be perfect for something like berries to be spooned over one's ice cream or pancakes, with the lipped base a perfect rest for the spoon.

I could be wrong, but it looks to me possible that the nouveau elements - the two arms with ladies - may be added to a main body in a plainer, perhaps earlier style. This might have been done either at a customer's request with a piece they already had, or by a maker to update an older model already in production. Interesting either way, if my guess is right, but equally interesting if not of course.

posted 01-12-2008 11:05 AM            

That theory about the ladies being an addition to an earlier pattern is really interesting and makes a lot of sense. If you look at the bowl from the side, you see one lady's face--the distant lady--but the other lady, the near one, all you see is the blank back of her head. (Take a look at my second picture and you'll see what I mean.) It's also hard to get behind the handle supports to polish the side of the bowl. I wondered why anyone would design it that way. If the ladies are an afterthought, that makes sense.

The point about resting your spoon in the base of the bowl makes a lot of sense too. That might explain the dozen extremely stubborn spots in the base--corrosive berry juice, maybe. (Advice about getting them out would be much welcome.) And the bowl is full of scratches, which suggests someone used a spoon against it. I imagine if it were used for salt, the level of the salt wouldn't get low enough for anyone to scrape around with a spoon. Yes?

My husband things it's supposed to have a lid, but I don't think so.

At some point in its life, someone used a machine to polish it. Not the bottom or the inside--because of the gilding--but I can see slight telltale drag marks around bits of the engraving. It's not horrible--I've seen much worse--but I wish they hadn't. Maybe it happened when they added the lady handles?

Thanks for pointing out that they're art nouveau. I had thought gothic, but of course you're right.

posted 01-12-2008 06:13 PM            

Thanks for sharing; makes for a good discussion!

posted 01-12-2008 09:07 PM            

I still don't understand why they have their backs turned to the diners. It's true that if you're looking down at the bowl you see their faces, but if you're looking at it from the side you see the shiny blank back of one lady's head. And the designer must have expected people to look at the bowl from the side, because that's where the cartouches and monogram are.

Looking in my copy of Rainwater, I see that W&H with an ampersand was used from 1833-1871 and WwH, where the middle "w" is a sideways 3, was used after 1871. Rainwater doesn't say anything about W3H, which is the mark on this mystery dish. When was that mark used?

posted 01-13-2008 05:23 PM            

He says he's confident it's from the mid 1850s-60s, not altered, and not a salt dish, or any other serving dish. He thinks it might have been meant for pudding or creme brulee. (My husband was delighted to hear that.)

posted 01-18-2008 04:14 PM            

In any event, the base is right out of the 1850’ or 60s, but the arms seem to reflect a sensual design or feeling that started with medallion flatware and came into fashion in the 1870s. Most of the medallion flatware that I have seen has the design on one side – the other side being unadorned.

Chocolate pudding or any form of chocolate would be wonderful in your bowl.

McGrew notes that the W & H mark was also used by Watson & Hildeburn and Watts & Harper. The Watson mark and very similar to the Wood and Hughes while the Watts mark would not be mistaken as they used Gothic letters.

posted 01-19-2008 12:52 AM            

But the 3 is no mistake--or if it is, the stamper made it twice. The bowl is stamped twice, once inside the heart of the base (if you know what I mean), as I showed above, and once on the bottom, where the bowl touches the table. Here's the second W&H mark:

posted 01-19-2008 03:10 PM            

Happy husband:

posted 01-20-2008 03:19 PM            

Whatever they may have meant it to be back in 1859 or whenever, it's now a pudding dish. That's what Mr. Husband wants it to be, and who am I to object to anything that will make him more patient with the silver obsession?