posted 09-28-2003 10:06 PM            

There was at least one earlier discuaaion on this forum) with some information about inccomplete marking on small items:

Confusing partial English hallmarks
Regarding Englands hallmarking

[This message has been edited by swarter (edited 09-28-2003).]

posted 09-29-2003 12:48 AM            

These are London tongs. John Ludington, an experienced and knowledgable dealer states "Up to 1784,[tongs] were stamped with a town and maker's mark only but subsequently were more fully marked, although in London, where the majority were made, the date letter and/or town mark were frequently absent."

I agree with the Adams II attribution.

posted 10-10-2003 02:31 PM              

Very few items of small silver were marked fully in London until after 1800 , almost certainly as suggested to avoid the transposing of marks.

For buckles the date letter appears around 1789/90 and the town mark around 1822 with the uncrowned leopards head

One can normally identify the London assayed pieces according the the following guidelines.

The London Lion Passant (actually Lion Passant Guardant) usually has cut corners at the top and a dimple at the bottom edge. Just to confuse matters one very small punch has an oval top and I think there was another ovoid punch !. The cut top corners get more cut until around 1800 when the corner and top sides are almost identical in length

Exeter will usually have a square/ oblong (often quite long - the letterbox punch ) Lion Passant Punch - sometimes oval

Birmingham and Sheffield will be almost invariably fully marked from the start in 1773

York and Exeter are very rarely seen, but Newcastle can be tricky, especially as they used the Leopards head !

I would be very happy to help with an opinion on an English pre 1830 mark

posted 10-14-2003 03:11 PM              

The prior mark to that for London was a square rounded topped mark with a very scraggy lion with odd ears. There are various versions of this punch which have driven me mad over the years trying to sort out. I think in fact several different punches were used simultaneously just to confuse collectors !

Anyone who has any firm chronology of the 1716- 1740 London punch would do everyone a favor by sharing his thoughts. One problem is that Goldsmith Hall and the Antique Plate Committee keep this information very much to themselves to avoid forgers getting too crafty. !

posted 10-14-2003 03:34 PM            

The Adams' may have prefered casting tongs but these are most certainly handwrought tongs forged in much the same manner as a pair of spoons end to end.

Casting would have only been used to make the ingot used in the forging.

posted 10-15-2003 09:07 PM            

I find the association of buckle makers and their choice to make tongs as well very interesting and I see your point. I have always been interested to understand the practical use of early shoe buckles and how they were attached to the shoe. I believe I understand that they were perhaps used to tighten the shoe on the foot. Perhaps you could post some information on their use and some of your collection.

posted 10-16-2003 12:00 PM            

I'm only being partly facetious, since this is what I always assumed they were for, and if they accomodated a piece of leather to do so, they would be eminently adjustable.

As you can tell, I don't know a thing about antique shoe buckles. I am well aware of those made after 1950 or so which were designed for nothing more than to add a bit of glitz and glitter to a shoe! ;-D

posted 10-17-2003 03:08 PM            

It was during this time that there was an appreciation and a love for the Colonial Period of our nations history and folks revived the use of the shoe buckles to use in costumes. I have a few examples in both sterling and copper. The buckles made during this time period were decorative and were stiched to the shoe for effect and not utility.

I also have examples of shoe buckles made in Japan for export. These are made using damascening on iron and mounted in gold plated brass. These probably date to the late 19th century.

I would be curious if Buckleman has information on when the lace outmoded the buckle. It would be nice to see examples of his collection. Is there a website?

posted 10-18-2003 07:49 AM              

Attachment of the shoe buckle in the eighteenth century was very practical. We, in modern times, regard buckles as being permanently attached to the article they secure, effectively being one article. The Georgians had a more modular approach. The buckle was designed to be entirely separate so that one could mix and match shoes and buckles. A paste buckle could be used indoors for a ball, then replaced for outdoor wear by a copper or silver one. Silver buckles in particular, were, like most silver items regarded as savings.Banking was rudimentary, and coinage was real value, (a silver shilling was worth a shilling because it was made of one shillings worth of silver, not because the Government made it have an arbitrary value) Silver articles at 925/1000 was the same purity as coinage (hence Coin Silver)

Your surplus money was held in Government stock (- always risky), in coin (gold or silver) or in silver or gold articles. You bought your article by weight, and a bit extra for making it (for the "fashion" (ing)). When times got hard you sold it. When you exchanged your old buckles for the newest style you did not regard the old ones as being scrapped, just re worked.

Sorry to explain in such detail but we modern silver collectors often forget that we have a totally different environment and hence mindset to our ancestors.

Returning to facts.

From each side of the shoe quarters a short , narrow strap of leather protruded (called a Latchet). Originally , in the 17th century, pieced with holes to take a ribbon tie, these had evolved by 1720 into almost a standard width, which slowly increased in width as the century progressed. The buckle had a loop with an internal spike (or after around 1730 ,two spikes) and an opposing spike or more usually two spikes in a pitchfork shape. The loop fitted one strap, and the buckle was drawn up so that the pitchfork engaged the other strap, causing a tight fit. Did not always work, plenty of contemporary accounts of buckles getting entangled at dances and coming off, much to the delight of servants who, one suspects , pinched them. There were many variants of the scheme, some practical like the well known Eley patent design, some very impractical and short lived. As you say, the later buckles were technically shoe "trims" with only a decorative function.

posted 10-18-2003 08:08 AM              

In general one can say that by 1790 the general use had declined to virtually nothing, but Court (i.e., formal) use was still strong, mainly due to the influence of the Prince Regent (late George IV) in support of the Birmingham buckle trade.

The reason for the decline has been put to several factors - the French Revolution being the main one. Personally I think that the buckle had by then been through all possible shapes , sizes etc, and it was time for a change. Fashion is fickle and the Napoleonic wars also meant that the military had to have something more practical, and that influenced fashion greatly. Also the British establishment wanted to play down ostentatious display of wealth to avoid the fate of the French aristocracy.