Posted 12 years ago
filmnet
(476 items)
This one as stamp's with Pat. 71 and Stering? anyone now about this? This are from my wife's family, Are these for baby's?
Another spoon in a nice old box | ||
| Silver Spoons321 of 389 |  |  |
Another spoon in a nice old box | ||
| Silver Spoons321 of 389 | | |
Posted 12 years ago
filmnet
(476 items)
This one as stamp's with Pat. 71 and Stering? anyone now about this? This are from my wife's family, Are these for baby's?
Help us close this case. Add your knowledge below.
Create an account or login in order to post a comment.
Hi, filmnet! Beautiful spoon, and all the more beautiful for having both a case with pure silk lining in excellent vintage condition, and one with AN EXCELLENT CONDITION VENDOR'S NAME LABEL ON THE INTERIOR OF THE LID. Please, we need to know exactly what the vendor label says to work on this. A photo would be better than typewritten text. We also need to know whether there are any marks on the exterior of the box, or any other marks on the spoon. As with the ladle you posted, photos of hardware would perhaps be helpful in dating this. I read "77" not "71" on the spoon, by the way. Possibly, I am wrong. No, I think that this is rather too large to be used as a baby spoon. I'll look into the type of spoon as soon as we know the vendor name. Really wonderful cased spoon!
Benjamin Chamberlain working in Salem MA c 1845-1867
B.M. Chamberlain & Son Salem
Hi, filmnet! Thanks very much for the info! Could you please tell me the source of your information? I prepared a piece on BMC last night, but didn't post it because I wanted to conduct some more research first. Nevertheless, I'm just going to paste it into this thread now to save you some work. You will note that my dates are a bit different. This spoon is clearly Aesthetic Movement, and I think that it bears the mark PAT 77 or PAT 71 on reverse. So, if the spoon is original to the box - and it might not be, then we need someone who operated under this name later than than 1867. My info comes from the Ancestry.com pages on Jewelers. Here's what I typed last night:
************************
It's hard to read the firm name on the interior of the box lid, but I think that it is rendered "B.M. CHAMBERLAIN & SON", with "SALEM" (MA) appearing below the firm name, I think. Principal would be Benjamin Mooers Chamberlain. He was born in 1818 and records show him still active in 1880; I have no death date.
It is interesting to note that he is listed and indexed as a "Jeweler"; however, there is a blank placeholder box designed to hold a "maker's mark", so perhaps he did produce items and not just sell them, or perhaps he had a personal hallmark that he put on items he purchased from other firms. I don't know. Here's what I know of B.M.C. Principal:
From 1840 to 1880, he operated as a jeweler in Salem (MA). First from a shop at 190 Essex Street, and after 1870 from a shop at 209 Essex.
From circa 1845 to 1870, he was a partner of John Ford Smith of Salem (MA).
They operated as SMITH & CHAMBERLAIN, and were located at 291 Essex Street, per the 1846 city directory. I note that I have seen no indication that Smith produced goods; however, I undertook only a cursory search here.
BMC was listed as a "jeweler" in the 1850 census (Salem MA).
The 1870 census (Salem MA) records his profession as a jeweler.
The 1880 census (Salem MA) records him as a jeweler.
BMC had three sons, and I have no record of their being active after the 1880.
Benjamin Hazen Chamberlain worked both as a jeweler and as a watch maker. Son Wilson Chamberlain worked as a jeweler. Son John A. Chamberlain worked as a jeweler. The last record for the sons is the 1880 Census (Salem). BHC is listed as a "watchmaker". The same census lists both WC and JAC as jewelers.
My information on BCM and his sons comes from the Ancestry.com American silversmith database launched 16 Sept 2012.
BCM:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~silversmiths/makers/silversmiths/38762.htm
Sons:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~silversmiths/makers/silversmiths/10695.htm
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~silversmiths/makers/silversmiths/71159.htm
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~silversmiths/makers/silversmiths/165875.htm
Oh, filmnet, the author of this marvelous database collects images of hallmarks and trade images, so if you have time when you are taking your photos, I'm sure he'd be thrilled if you took a photo of the firm's name on the box interior and sent it to him. Here's his name and email address. I will be emailing him some questions later this afternoon myself.
William Erik Voss at bellafortuni@earthlink.net
Update: I think that this is very probably Gorham's "New Tipt" pattern, but I have to verify this. I saw an almost identical spoon in my first edition copy of Ned Turner's work, p. 95. The images in edition one of this great book are fine illustrations taken from the firm's own brochures and from jewelry trade publications; they aren't photographs.
Ah! Just confirmed this hypothesis at that splendid site http://www.sterlingflatwarefashions.com:
Gorham
1871
"New Tipt"
Designer: George Wilkinson
Found two more items of interest on Sterling Flatware Fashion's site, i.e., extended practice dates for the firm, and also a photograph of the firm's own hallmark.
"B.M. Chamberlain & Son / Chamberlain & Son
Salem, MA 1871-1890 Benjamin Moore Chamberlain, jeweler."
The hallmark reads "B. M. CHAMBERLAIN & SON".
Here's a link to the page:
http://sterlingflatwarefashions.com/Ret/RetC1.html
For those of you with eagle eyes, not to worry. This is definitely the "New Tipt" or "New Tip't" pattern. Photo 4 above shows the design on the reverse of the spoon. Photo 2 is the only one that shows the design on the face of the spoon, and it is not too clear. This accounts for my failure to call "match" after three read-throughs of Turner's book. I had assumed that the same design would appear on the face as appeared on the reverse. Instead, the shape of the floral element on the stem is slightly different on face and reverse of New Tipt. And of course, Turner was recording the pattern on the face. I have an outstanding query on expected hallmarks and production dates on this pattern. I have read both that this pattern was introduced in 1870 and that it was discontinued in 1871. I'll update you when I get results. Thanks! miKKo
I knew from its size that this was a serving spoon, but I just found an affirmation of my judgment by way of an eBay encounter. This exact spoon form in the New Tipt pattern is at auction now. The Seller's title reads "Gorham NEW TIPT lotus style aesthetic sterling spoon 18g" and the body description identifies it as a serving spoon. Note that it has the exact same lobed bowl. Don't know yet what it was designed to serve. But at least a partial confirmation of use. And, you have an 'exact' weight for the sterling spoon. (Not so very exact because this eBay example is much worn - there has been some metal loss through wear.) If your spoon isn't marked sterling, I would weigh it if I were you. FYI, there is a mark of some sort on the back of the spoon - on the stem, near the bowl. I cannot read it at all. This spoon has been much polished/worn, and the mark is not clear even though the photo is excellent.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gorham-NEW-TIPT-lotus-style-aesthetic-sterling-spoon-18g-/180800821607?pt=Antiques_Silver&hash=item2a18919967
I think some of my stuff would be great on Antique Road Show!
Hi, filmnet. I think so, too!
Mikko the 3 marks are so hard to read they are cut too deep, I which I could get a better shot. I do think the spoon at gold color. It is 20g, or 0.7oz
You are an excellent detective, filmnet! I look forward to seeing your new photo of the hallmarks. Sorry, I don't understand your "gold" remark. : )
Gold wash on the face of spoon, you can see it on the file above.
Hi, filmnet! Three things. 1.) Just corrected my text on yesterday's Show and Tell entry on this same item. (I.e., “My Comment No. 7 above is incorrect. I meant to say "vertically bisected", not "laterally bisected".) 2.) RE gold cast to metal. Yes, I noticed this yesterday and feared that this spoon might be silver-plated. This was before you posted the new photos on a new Show and Tell entry for this item. I don't know if your spoon would have been gold-washed in the bowl. Observe photo No. 2 above - see the 'gold' tone on the STEM and the bowl? I thought that this spoon probably didn't come with a gold washed stem, and I had lots of ground to cover, and knew that you were going to post new photos, so I didn't mention it yesterday. Since your item is sterling, there's no silver-plate to be worn through. The gold 'tone' on the stem was most probably tarnish. Whether there was a gold wash to the bowl, you have the item in hand and will judge better than I whether or not it is gold-washed. If it is gold-washed, don't polish the gold area with silver polish! You can polish away the gold VERY easily! If it is gold, and it looks tarnished, follow the same procedures you'd use to clean the tarnish off of a vermeil piece. 3.) By the way, the fabric on the interior of this box, and its jeweler's label, are in the best condition of any antique silver box of this kind that I've ever seen. I've no 'expert opinion'! - I am just an amateur who loves to look at silver, but I am confident that the interior of the box is in remarkably fine condition.... Who knows what you'll post next! Can't wait. : D
Well here goes mt next post , You have said this cloth look like Silk? I had silk shirts, pants and other Silk with my 3 other sisters,brothers 1963. We live in Thailand and my Dad and Mother loved Silk. This looks like Silk put old , maybe they made it different years ago, not like silk i had in 1963.
Hi, filmnet! Ah, I imagine that you had glorious silks, of many varieties, back in Thailand 1963. I can't quite place the species of silk in the red box, but the silk in the ladle's box looks like charmeuse. These are truly very fine boxes! It is thrilling to encounter them.