posted 06-19-2006 03:00 PM            

I’m found conflicts with the marker’s mark on a 4-piece 1896-presentation sterling silver coffee/tea service with silverplate tray handed down to me from my mother a few years ago. The pieces were made in 1839 and tray in 1890. Mother bought the set with tray in the 1970s in the south. The set comprising of a coffee pot, teapot, creamer and what we had always thought was a sugar but appraiser of mother's estate said it was a waste dish rather than a sugar, and silverplate tray. I’m not all that happy with that appraiser for she made several serious dating mistakes. This query really isn’t on sugar vs. waste but on the maker’s identity because of recent found conflicts.

A description of the set: Elaborate acanthus leaf border; C scroll frames on sides and crest: elk/deer head circled with "Coelitius Datum" on both sides of pieces; 3 flower finial. Presentation on the bottom of the 4 pieces and top of tray: "From Mary C. Crompton to Alice Hastings April 11, 1896". All pieces except tray monogrammed: "AH" on both sides. Hallmarks on pieces - not on the tray: rampant lion, small leopard face, Victoria head facing left, script "D", and in a 4 leaf clover shape the marker’s mark of "{CR GS}". Stamped with possible pattern number: "542". These marks read to me as: Sterling, City of London, Victoria 1838-1890, actual date 1839-40, and markers Reily & Storer. Not going into the tray’s marks.

The conflict I’m having is between Jackson’s Hallmarks, Wyler’s Old Silver and an online site. I researched this set 2-3 years ago and at that time only had Wyler’s Old Silver, 1937. On p. 169 he has the mark of [CR GS] as Rawlins & Sumner. Recently bought Jackson’s Hallmarks and started checking marks, etc… with him. On p. 50, is the mark, {CR GS} saying it is that of Charles Reily and George Storer who operated in the 2nd 1/4 of the 19th century. On the same page he has the mark, [GR WS] crediting it to George Rawlings & William Summer. Back to Wyler I went. On p. 170 he lists the mark [GR WS] as that of Rawlins & Sumner! Sooo I suspect, do you agree, the listing in Wyler’s p. 169 of [CR GS] as Rawlins and Sumner is in error and that Jackson is correct? Then topping this all off, I surfed the internet looking for examples of these marks and found an antique site selling nearly the exact same teapot with same marker’s mark crediting them to Rawlins & Sumner!! I suspect they may have gotten their info from Wyler or another source passing on this erroneous info. Following are pics of everything.

My tea service:

Bottom of teapot showing presentation inscription and hallmarks:

Enlargements of maker’s mark and hallmarks:

The online teapot advertised as by Rawlins & Sumner with a date of 1838 and has the same marker’s mark as mine. I believe they have miss dated it as well. It has a larger leopard’s head that started in 1840-41 and the date letter looks like a scripted E for 1840-41 rather than the C for 1838. Here is a little they say about it:

“A Very Early Victorian Sterling Silver Teapot by Rawlins & Sumner, London 1838. Somewhat Rococo in Design it is a heavy 29.3 Troy ounces in weight…”

It’s marks:

If Wyler’s p. 169 is in error then this is probably another example of the errors of this source. The “Marks of Other European Countries” section of this source is a mess in my opinion. The reference numbers of the marks in this section do not agree with the index of this section.

TIA.

--- Susan

posted 06-19-2006 05:09 PM            

Thank you, thank you!!!! Also a big thank you for the additional info on Reily & Storer!

posted 06-19-2006 07:26 PM            

And to this we might add an obvious corollary: "Never rely on anyone else who relies on Wyler."

posted 06-19-2006 10:09 PM            

Thank you, Clive, for the verification and the additional info on Rawlins and Sumner!!!

What source do you use for non-American - English, Irish, Scottish, etc... marks?

Swarter and wev,

Thank you both for voicing your opinions of Wyler, etc... I have had bad feelings about Wyler for years now. Also wasn't all that sure of Kovel. The scarcity of actual pics of marks/trademarks in Kovel makes it nearly useless at times. However, a few times it has proven more helpful than Rainwater.

>And to this we might add an obvious corollary: "Never rely on anyone else who relies on Wyler."<

This is a lot like genealogy research and its sources. For example a well-known notable in the genealogy world from the 1860s to the early 1900s was Savage:

Savage, James, A Genealogical Dictionary of The First Settlers of New England showing Three Generations..., Vols. I, II, III, IV (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1860).

In the last 50 years many very serious errors have been found in his work; however, many genealogy enthusiasts continue to quote, swear by, Savage. They do not bother to research more up-to-date sources. Many many many published genealogies have used Savage as there source which has resulted in the perpetuation of erroneous data. When I see a genealogy resource using Savage as their source I rank all info from that source as iffy at best - which is lower then a tertiary source. Nowww for his time, Savage work was a wonder, but definitely not in this day and age.

--- Susan

posted 06-19-2006 10:42 PM            

Oddly enoough, despite all the bashing, both Kovels and Wyler do have some value; the conundrum is that they are directed at and used by neophytes, for whom they do more harm than good, while only those advanced enough to know which information is still useful and which is not can make effective use of them -- and many of those do not need them anymore! They are kept in print because they are cheap and people who do not know any better keep buying them, and, unfortunately there is nothing in the way of an up-to-date inexpensive one-volume comprehensive source to replace either. The reprinted paperback of the previous Ensko 3rd edition is better than Kovel, but it is not the latest edition, either.

posted 06-19-2006 11:46 PM            

Oh, and SusanT, that sure is a beautiful set!

posted 06-22-2006 02:26 PM            

>They are kept in print because they are cheap and people who do not know any better keep buying them<

You have hit the proverbial nail on the head. I have the ***21st** printing (1967) of Wyler's Old Silver, 1937. Given as a gift from a 2nd cousin, who didn't know better to us, who didn't know better at the time. Probably another 20 printings have occurred since then. It boggles the mine to think of the multitudes of this publication out there with flawed info. You'd think an update would have been done years ago. I also have his Book of Sheffield Plate, 1959, given to us in the early 1970s.

Taloncrest, thank you for your Wyler story.

>...beautiful set!<

Thank you. My mother did show excellent taste buying this set. I erroneously said she bought it in the 1970s. She bought it in 1962. She used it quite often in the 1960s and 70s when teas were common here in the south. The creamer was poorly repaired on one side before she got it. I have thought seriously of having it redone by a qualified restorer/silversmith but know the price would be exorbitant.

--- Susan