posted 06-07-2014 05:48 AM            

Above is a mid 17th century strainer, slip top and without marks. Quite a hefty spoon. It is just under 14 inches long.

This one is by Thos and Wm Chawner, London, 1762. Not as big: 10.75 inches. On these types the strainer bit down the centre of thw bowl is sometimes removable, but not on this example.

This last example is Thos Chawner, London, 1772. Feather edge pattern - the feather edging continues along the bowl cover. It is 11.5 inches long.

I guess they all had slightly differing uses but when I attempt to theorise about this I notice a pitying look in my wife's eye. She is rightly convinced that I have no grasp of cookery.

posted 06-07-2014 01:43 PM            

I'll have to ask her. So far it has just been amusement at whatever explanation I offer. I'll come back to you.

posted 06-08-2014 03:25 PM            

Sorry for the delay in coming back to you. My wife denies ever mocking my attempt to explain the use of straining spoons. Indeed, she denies ever having heard me attempt an explanation. I sometimes suspect that she just doesn’t pay attention because, for some reason, she does not fully understand the attraction of accumulating old spoons (even though she does profess to like some of them).

Be that as it may, we have now chatted about the use of straining spoons, recognising that neither of us knows enough about the food and serving practice of the time to be definitive. I think all the spoons were for dining room rather than kitchen use. I had originally assumed they were all versions of the so-called olive spoon, intended for straining meat or poultry “olives” from the liquid in which they had been cooked. However, in his book “The Albert Collection” Robin Butler only describes the bottom of the three spoons shown below as an olive spoon. The other two he calls straining spoons.

Nonetheless, we both think the top spoon shown here and the first spoon in my original post must have been used similarly for meat, dumplings or whatever, even if it was not for the fashionable “olives” of the 18th century.

However, the second spoon in my original post, with its central divider, was probably used differently. I have seen it said that its purpose was to skim the gravy and hold back the fat floating on top. That seems plausible to us.

The middle spoon here and the last one in my original post are intriguing. As it happens, they illustrate a point I was aware of: the half cover can occur on either side of the bowl. I have never done a count to try and establish whether one side was more popular. It seems to me unlikely that the 18th century was making special provision for left-handers. Perhaps there were different uses depending on whether it was the juice or the solid that was meant to be transferred to the plate. I actually find it hard to see a particular advantage to this design and would be happy to be educated if any forum member knows more..

posted 12-19-2015 12:49 PM            

12 inches long and by Abraham Barrier, London, 1775-80 (date letter worn, but Barrier entered this mark in 1775. The spoon is bottom marked and top marking was introduced in 1781).

posted 11-14-2017 01:46 PM            

[

I got this wooden handled straining spoon a couple of month ago. It is by Richard Crossley, London, 1801. I am sharing it now partly as a result of trying unsuccessfully to upload multiple photos in one go and not wanting to waste the photos.

But the interesting thing is its size, a massive 21¾ inches long. That is 6 inches longer than my biggest basting spoon

posted 01-30-2018 08:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by hff - Crossley strainer:
Although I chiefly collect early Virginia and SC coin silver, I have begun a collection of 18th century Georgian pierced work, esp.sifters. Hence, I was amazed to see the massive Crossley strainer spoon posted by Agphile on 11/15/17. What a fabulous object! It is seemingly a spoon for a special function---one of a kind? For what exact purpose it was used is a mystery to me and to my wife whom I consider to be a "specialist" in the kitchen. Due to its impressive size the spoon almost has an "industrial" feel, but why then the need for its fine decorative piercing, similar to that on sifter spoons. What could the Crossley spoon have strained? If the neatly turned wooden handle is original (which it looks to be), then the spoon appears to be little used. Agphile, do you have other info. on the spoon such as type of wood for the handle, provenance, or hint of its specific function? Have you tested its utility in your kitchen?

---