posted 01-25-2016 01:34 PM            

However, there is a problem with the Davenport spoon. It is a fake, one of many castings made from a genuine original spoon. A group of six are illustrated in Ian Pickford’s “Silver Flatware”. It is the identical placing of the marks and inscription on each spoon that gives them away. From time to time I notice others being offered for sale, often by dealers who should know better. I keep this one partly so that I can show it as a dreadful warning and partly because I don’t have an original example with this bowl shape.

Incidentally, these spoons are similar in length to the smaller type of early teaspoon – see the picture below of the fake alongside three teaspoons by William Swadling, London 1688, John King c.1675 (maker’s mark only) and NC conjoined c.1680 (maker’s mark only, struck three times).

I don’t know how clear it is in my photo, but the two teaspoons on the right have wider bowls than you might expect to see on a teaspoon. I sometimes see such wider bowled spoons listed as condiment spoons. I suppose the thought is that they might have been used to shovel out the contents of a spice box. I am content to think of them as teaspoons that might also have had secondary uses.

I’ll stop here for the moment but I have a few more spoons that I like to come back with when I next have a moment.

[This message has been edited by agphile (edited 01-25-2016).]

posted 01-26-2016 01:29 PM            

Next to the trefid is a Hanoverian spoon of the same size but differently proportioned. Maker’s mark only for George Ellis (the mark entered in 1721 and the spoon not too far removed from this date.). It was sold to me as a medicine spoon which may be a fair description. I think of it as a measuring spoon for very small doses or applications of whatever, but it is a delightful little item.

posted 01-27-2016 02:13 PM            

It strikes me that, having included a couple of Hanoverian style items in the last post, I ought for completion to show a few Hanoverian pieces that are unmistakeably salt spoons. I have just now taken a couple of hasty photos. They are awful but my camera battery has run out on me so I shall use them now while the mood is on me rather than wait to try again.


From left to right the items are:
1. Salt shovel, c.1740, marks too worn to read.
2. Salt shovel by Ebenezer Coker, c.1750.
3. Shell-bowled salt shovel by Ebenezer Coker, c.1740.
4. Picture front salt spoon, c.1740, marks too worn to read. Bowl has been repaired/replaced and may originally have been something like on no. 3 above.
5 & 6. Whiplash salt spoons, c.1740-50. No marks.

Numbers 1 and 2 are the most common form at this period with the more crinkly edged bowl of no. 1 pointing to its being the earlier.

posted 01-27-2016 06:10 PM            

When I said I wouldn’t move on to later 18th century salt spoons, I didn’t mean I would ignore the later years completely. Having shown a tiny Hanoverian medicine or measuring spoon, I thought it might be interesting to show a couple of later and more normal sized Old English medicine spoons.

On the left by George Smith 3, London c.1775 (maker’s mark and lion passant only, both very worn), 3¾ inches long.

On the right, with a “celtic” point to its stem end, by William Robertson, Edinburgh c,1795 (maker’s mark, thistle and duty head only), just under 4 inches long. This one has some scars (teeth marks?) on the bowl.

And finally, a nice oddity marked for William Sumner and Richard Crossley, London, 1775:

It is 6¾ inches long with one bowl roughly dessert spoon size and the other like a rather large teaspoon. However, double ended measuring spoons really only appeared later in the 19th century as far as I know. This one is an alteration. The stem of a normal spoon has been reshaped to make the smaller of the two bowls. I think it must have been done by a proper spoonmaker who would have had the right tools such as the stake to shape the bowl. The spoon has had some use and there is no way of knowing when it was altered. I like to think it was in the 19th century with the practical aim of making a measuring spoon rather than more recently with the aim of faking one, but who knows?

And there I should perhaps stop before I drift too far from discussing genuine spoons of the 17th and 18th centuries.

[This message has been edited by agphile (edited 01-27-2016).]

posted 01-28-2016 10:18 AM            

I actually have one of those medicine spoons like yours, but mine is Victorian. 1870-something..

posted 01-30-2016 01:23 PM            

From the top we have:

1. Old English salt shovel marked for George Gray, London 1793.
2. OE shell-bowled salt spoon, Stephen Adam, London 1764.
3. OE shell-bowled with bright cut zig-zag decoration to stem edge, c.1780 (bottom mark completely worn).
4 & 5. Pair OE salt shovels. George Smith, London1798. Inscribed JMC over 1791 (7 years before they were assayed!).

Nothing too exciting in any of this. The first two really only differ from examples shown earlier in having their stem ends turn down rather than up. Number 3 is an early-ish and modest example of bright cutting. And the final pair shows a different bowl shape that was popular around this time. This last two are also a bit larger and chunkier than the others. As we move towards and into the 19th century, salt spoons generally tend to be bigger and heavier. I think it was probably the inscription that prompted me to go for this particular pair. I can now demonstrate that inscriptions do indeed sometimes commemorate an occasion that predates the item itself quite significantly.

Next just a couple of 19th century examples alongside an earlier pair.

The top pair probably date from somewhere around 1760 and are marked with the lion passant and WC. There are so many makers with the right initials around this date that I give up on trying to attribute the mark to a particular maker. There is a comment in my catalogue that I have noted a matching salt spoon marked AF for Andrew Fogelburg. It doesn’t say where or when I noted this and I cannot now remember. However, it reinforces my feeling that the spoonmaker WC worked for the upper end of the market.

posted 02-01-2016 07:04 PM            

Two Onslow pattern salt spoons, both with bottom marks that are too worn to read and dating from c.1770. The one on the left a little tired, with its stem rather out of true as a result of wear over the years. The one on the right with an unusual and neat version of the Onslow finial.

I have sometimes wondered whether one use of the miniature versions of standard spoon patterns might have been as condiment spoons. These two examples are roughly 3¼ inches long and their bowl size is smaller than on any of the 18th century salt spoons shown above. I think I have to conclude that they were not intended for salt. These two are Old English pattern by George Smith, London 1798, and Smith and Fearn, London 1791, respectively. However, my conclusion applies equally to earlier Hanoverian miniatures.

This takes us on to the Fiddle pattern and the 19th century. There is nothing special about these two examples apart from the fact that they make an interesting comparison. The small salt shovel is by Jos Wilmore, Birmingham 1821. It is very lightweight indeed, made in two pieces that I imagine were simply stamped out. They are soldered together with a “v” heel to the bowl. This is Birmingham catering for those who want silver but cannot afford to spend too much on it.

The larger salt spoon is by John Harris IV, London 1830. Of heavy gauge, this is a plain but substantial spoon: London catering for a more affluent clientele. I like to be able to show the contrast between the two spoons

And I think that really brings to an end what I have to say or show on this topic. My thoughts are drifting back to my earlier spoons which paradoxically have been my more recent loves.

posted 02-02-2016 11:05 AM            

Wonderful spoons.
I vote thread of the year!