Teapot marked JR GR with axe, 1937 7
-
Christopher Dresser
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:01 pm
- Location: Germany
Teapot marked JR GR with axe, 1937 7
This is a reproduction of Christopher Dresser's famous proto-modernist teapot from 1879. Like the original, it is silverplate with an ebonized handle. I would love to know who made it (and specially why), but have no clue as to the provenance or age - though it does not seem terrible recent, at least to this amateur's eyes. The previous owner had no idea either. Any help is greatly appreciated - thanks!
-
2209patrick
- co-admin
- Posts: 3549
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:53 pm
- Location: Land of Lincoln, USA
Hello. Interesting teapot.
My references show that Joseph Rodgers & Sons of Shield England used that mark.
Problem is, the mark is identified as an Old Sheffield Plate (fused plate) mark.
Electroplated wares were popular by the 1860's.
I'm not sure how long Joseph Rodgers used this set of marks.
Dresser began producing designs around 1878.
Pat.
My references show that Joseph Rodgers & Sons of Shield England used that mark.
Problem is, the mark is identified as an Old Sheffield Plate (fused plate) mark.
Electroplated wares were popular by the 1860's.
I'm not sure how long Joseph Rodgers used this set of marks.
Dresser began producing designs around 1878.
Pat.
-
Christopher Dresser
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:01 pm
- Location: Germany
Thank you so very much, that is fascinating as well as puzzling - but now I have something to work with at least. Right now I can think of two possibilities:
1. The hallmark on the pot is a forgery - though I would not know why they would then have not counterfeited the historically correct hallmark (the teapot being by James Dixon & Sons, 1879). Except if it's some kind of inside silversmith joke?!
2. The hallmark is genuine and was used (still or again?) in the late 19th or more likely 20th century.
I will try to learn more. Again, thanks a million!
1. The hallmark on the pot is a forgery - though I would not know why they would then have not counterfeited the historically correct hallmark (the teapot being by James Dixon & Sons, 1879). Except if it's some kind of inside silversmith joke?!
2. The hallmark is genuine and was used (still or again?) in the late 19th or more likely 20th century.
I will try to learn more. Again, thanks a million!
-
Christopher Dresser
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:01 pm
- Location: Germany
Would you let me know the source? I'm asking because this here site gives a different mark for Old Sheffield plate by Rodgers:
http://www.925-1000.com/silverplate__OSP4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
None of the other Rodgers hallmarks I found online from the official assay records match the one in your source and on my teapot. Possibility 3 thus mays be that the attribution to Rodgers may be incorrect, perhaps based on the presence of the initials JR and the axe. This is most exciting.
http://www.925-1000.com/silverplate__OSP4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
None of the other Rodgers hallmarks I found online from the official assay records match the one in your source and on my teapot. Possibility 3 thus mays be that the attribution to Rodgers may be incorrect, perhaps based on the presence of the initials JR and the axe. This is most exciting.
-
2209patrick
- co-admin
- Posts: 3549
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:53 pm
- Location: Land of Lincoln, USA
-
Christopher Dresser
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:01 pm
- Location: Germany
Thanks again. In that case the marking on my teapot would seem like it is either a cruel joke or a minor sensation. I suspect the former, though it doesn't make sense to me. But I know to little of the subject matter - perhaps there is a reasonable explanation.
To provide some background: This design by Dresser, part of a set of radical teapots inspired by his study of Japanese metalwork on an extended trip there, never went into production. As far as I know, only two historical pieces made for Dixon and signed by Dresser, are known to exist, one of them is at the V&A. Brian Asquith produced some replicas in silver in the 1990s for Alessi. I have never yet read of another firm producing prototypes or series of these and Dresser, of course, was forgotten until 1937, the real Renaissance and in depth exploration of his work only beginning in the 1970s. I have often wondered whether modernists at the bauhaus etc. were aware of his radical designs. I bought this piece assuming it was a comparatively recent, i.e. post 1970s replica made on order by a Dresser connoisseur, or perhaps a journeyman's piece or exercise. I'm stumped as to how an early mark of a firm known best for it's knives could get on here.
To provide some background: This design by Dresser, part of a set of radical teapots inspired by his study of Japanese metalwork on an extended trip there, never went into production. As far as I know, only two historical pieces made for Dixon and signed by Dresser, are known to exist, one of them is at the V&A. Brian Asquith produced some replicas in silver in the 1990s for Alessi. I have never yet read of another firm producing prototypes or series of these and Dresser, of course, was forgotten until 1937, the real Renaissance and in depth exploration of his work only beginning in the 1970s. I have often wondered whether modernists at the bauhaus etc. were aware of his radical designs. I bought this piece assuming it was a comparatively recent, i.e. post 1970s replica made on order by a Dresser connoisseur, or perhaps a journeyman's piece or exercise. I'm stumped as to how an early mark of a firm known best for it's knives could get on here.
I have no solid answers and must admit to be very confused regarding the origins of this most curious piece. What I do have thoughts on, is the attribution of this mark to Joseph Rodgers & Sons.
Whilst a vast majority of sources do attribute this mark to Joseph Rodgers & Sons, it must be remembered that this company were extremely protective of their name, and are known to have absorbed other cutlers etc purely because they had the name of Rodgers or Rogers.
Joseph Rodgers & Sons, known in the early 18th century as Maurice & Joseph Rodgers, registered their famous 'Star and Cross' Trade Mark in 1682. This well known device, a very important one in times when many of the population could not read, stood for a very high standard of quality and was very well known. Why, in the eary 19th century, would they use another device, in this case, the axe, a mark that was used by other cutlers, in favour of their famous Trade Mark?
I cannot, as yet, find a 'GR' to link with J R & S, but would not be all surprised if JR-GR were another Rodgers/Rogers firm operating out of Sheffield in the early 19th century and absorbed by J R & S at a later date.
Bernard Mason, the Sheffield Assay Master, in his 1908 publication shows the 'Axe' mark as that of J R & S and that it was registered with the SAO in 1822, but it was not until the late 19th century that there was any interest the silver trade, perhaps, in Sheffield, it was well known that this firm were taken over by J R & S.
Of course, like I said at the start, the above has no solid facts to back it up, they are just thoughts, and also just thoughts are as to why a piece of probably late 19th century manufacture bears the mark of an early 19th century piece.
The rise of the Arts and Crafts Movement saw a huge rise in people attending night schools to learn such skills as silversmithing and metalwork. Dresser's design must have caused quite a stir, and what a fine project a reproduction of such a piece would have been. Could your teapot have been made in such a place, useing metal from an older unwanted item made fifty years before in Sheffield? Then silver plated on completion.
Well maybe.
Trev.
Whilst a vast majority of sources do attribute this mark to Joseph Rodgers & Sons, it must be remembered that this company were extremely protective of their name, and are known to have absorbed other cutlers etc purely because they had the name of Rodgers or Rogers.
Joseph Rodgers & Sons, known in the early 18th century as Maurice & Joseph Rodgers, registered their famous 'Star and Cross' Trade Mark in 1682. This well known device, a very important one in times when many of the population could not read, stood for a very high standard of quality and was very well known. Why, in the eary 19th century, would they use another device, in this case, the axe, a mark that was used by other cutlers, in favour of their famous Trade Mark?
I cannot, as yet, find a 'GR' to link with J R & S, but would not be all surprised if JR-GR were another Rodgers/Rogers firm operating out of Sheffield in the early 19th century and absorbed by J R & S at a later date.
Bernard Mason, the Sheffield Assay Master, in his 1908 publication shows the 'Axe' mark as that of J R & S and that it was registered with the SAO in 1822, but it was not until the late 19th century that there was any interest the silver trade, perhaps, in Sheffield, it was well known that this firm were taken over by J R & S.
Of course, like I said at the start, the above has no solid facts to back it up, they are just thoughts, and also just thoughts are as to why a piece of probably late 19th century manufacture bears the mark of an early 19th century piece.
The rise of the Arts and Crafts Movement saw a huge rise in people attending night schools to learn such skills as silversmithing and metalwork. Dresser's design must have caused quite a stir, and what a fine project a reproduction of such a piece would have been. Could your teapot have been made in such a place, useing metal from an older unwanted item made fifty years before in Sheffield? Then silver plated on completion.
Well maybe.
Trev.
-
Christopher Dresser
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:01 pm
- Location: Germany
Thanks for those insights, Trev. The "palimpsest" hypothesis would explain the seeming chronological paradox - I do not know how likely it is, from a technical perspective, considering that the entire body of the pot is worked from one piece of metal and the mark is placed in the logical spot. I'm not certain just how popular these radical designs were at Dresser's time - very few were ever made, perhaps because they were too alienating to mainstream tastes, but also because they were much too labor intensive and costly to produce industrially, as was shown by Dixon's cost books discovered in 1994. I've taken the liberty of pestering the V&A with this item, perhaps they have an idea...
Coincidence?
In the 1840's, Joseph Rodgers & Sons took out an injunction against another Sheffield manufacturer, John and William Nowill. In short, the accusation was that it would appear that the Nowills' discovered that one of their employees, a knife grinder called William Rodgers, had a father called John who was fomerly a blade forger on his own account. Realising the value of the name 'J Rodgers & Sons' they were accused of inducing William to revive his father's firm in name only and the Nowills would pay William a premium on the goods that they made and then sold under that name on top of his wages. The partners were John Rodgers and his three sons, George, Samuel and William.
John Rodgers of course had a different opinion, he stated in court that he set up his business in 1821 and then took his son George into partnership, with the other sons following as partners at a later date.
It would appear that Joseph Rodgers & Sons won the case, they claimed that John Rodgers was now running a Beerhouse and was made bankrupt in 1839 and that George had suceeded his two hearths. However the business was continue under the name of William Rodgers & Sons.
If John Rodgers was correct on the date that he started his business, together with the initials JR-GR and the name Rodgers, to me, make them a more likely candidate as the owner of the mark. Or is it just coincidence?
Trev.
In the 1840's, Joseph Rodgers & Sons took out an injunction against another Sheffield manufacturer, John and William Nowill. In short, the accusation was that it would appear that the Nowills' discovered that one of their employees, a knife grinder called William Rodgers, had a father called John who was fomerly a blade forger on his own account. Realising the value of the name 'J Rodgers & Sons' they were accused of inducing William to revive his father's firm in name only and the Nowills would pay William a premium on the goods that they made and then sold under that name on top of his wages. The partners were John Rodgers and his three sons, George, Samuel and William.
John Rodgers of course had a different opinion, he stated in court that he set up his business in 1821 and then took his son George into partnership, with the other sons following as partners at a later date.
It would appear that Joseph Rodgers & Sons won the case, they claimed that John Rodgers was now running a Beerhouse and was made bankrupt in 1839 and that George had suceeded his two hearths. However the business was continue under the name of William Rodgers & Sons.
If John Rodgers was correct on the date that he started his business, together with the initials JR-GR and the name Rodgers, to me, make them a more likely candidate as the owner of the mark. Or is it just coincidence?
Trev.
Since this thread began I read that Joseph Rodgers & Son bought out all of the Rodgers in their line of business in the United Kingdom in the nineteenth century. Hopefully, I didn't read it in this thread itself. They of all people could well afford to do so. If this is true that mark may be theirs anyway.
Yes, I believe that was the case, but if so with this firm, it did not happen quickly, for in 1852 J R & S took William Rodgers to court again for still using their name.
Interestingly the partner that appeared in court for J R & S was Henry Atkin, presumably the same Henry Atkin whose sons, when they inherited his own company, renamed it Atkin Brothers.
Henry Atkin died in 1853.
Trev.
Interestingly the partner that appeared in court for J R & S was Henry Atkin, presumably the same Henry Atkin whose sons, when they inherited his own company, renamed it Atkin Brothers.
Henry Atkin died in 1853.
Trev.
-
Christopher Dresser
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:01 pm
- Location: Germany
Interesting story. Perhaps Joseph Rodgers did manage to acquire this hallmark, and perhaps it was later used on "experimental" products to purposely differentiate them from the established products they were known for. This may be more likely even in the 1930s - at that time I believe the firm was already in trouble (I do not know when they were actually bought up). Whoever held the rights then might have thought the Dresser design could sell well in an Art Deco/bauhaus context, and for some reason selected that particular hallmark.dognose wrote:Coincidence?
In the 1840's, Joseph Rodgers & Sons took out an injunction against another Sheffield manufacturer, John and William Nowill. In short, the accusation was that it would appear that the Nowills' discovered that one of their employees, a knife grinder called William Rodgers, had a father called John who was fomerly a blade forger on his own account. Realising the value of the name 'J Rodgers & Sons' they were accused of inducing William to revive his father's firm in name only and the Nowills would pay William a premium on the goods that they made and then sold under that name on top of his wages. The partners were John Rodgers and his three sons, George, Samuel and William.
John Rodgers of course had a different opinion, he stated in court that he set up his business in 1821 and then took his son George into partnership, with the other sons following as partners at a later date.
It would appear that Joseph Rodgers & Sons won the case, they claimed that John Rodgers was now running a Beerhouse and was made bankrupt in 1839 and that George had suceeded his two hearths. However the business was continue under the name of William Rodgers & Sons.
If John Rodgers was correct on the date that he started his business, together with the initials JR-GR and the name Rodgers, to me, make them a more likely candidate as the owner of the mark. Or is it just coincidence?
Trev.
-
Christopher Dresser
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:01 pm
- Location: Germany
Prompted by the William Rodgers and sons story I searched the net for John and George Rodgers and, lo and behold, the THE MONTHLY MAGAZINE, BRITISH REGISTER OF LITERATURE, SCIENCES, AND THE BELLES-LETTRES of 1831, vol xi, Jan-Jun, lists, under patents granted:
"To John and George Rodgers, Shef-
field, York, cutlers, and Thomas Fel-
lows, junior, New Cross, Deptford, Kent,
gentleman, for an improved skate.
January 18th ; 2 months."
http://www.archive.org/stream/monthlyma ... d_djvu.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is confirmed by a second source:
http://books.google.de/books?id=7tQ3AAA ... 22&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The National Archives list a mansucript of John and George Rodgers as having taken out fire insurance:
John and George Rodgers, Sheffield, Yorkshire, cutlers and hardwaremen
Other property or occupiers: 73 Hatton Garden
So, that even provides an address.
If I get access to the online database of Sheffield cutlers I may learn more, but this seems to me to strongly indicate the mark to have been owned by John and George Rodgers and then taken over by Joseph Rodgers, as you assumed. Of course it still does not explain its appearance on a post-1879 electroplate teapot.
"To John and George Rodgers, Shef-
field, York, cutlers, and Thomas Fel-
lows, junior, New Cross, Deptford, Kent,
gentleman, for an improved skate.
January 18th ; 2 months."
http://www.archive.org/stream/monthlyma ... d_djvu.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is confirmed by a second source:
http://books.google.de/books?id=7tQ3AAA ... 22&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The National Archives list a mansucript of John and George Rodgers as having taken out fire insurance:
John and George Rodgers, Sheffield, Yorkshire, cutlers and hardwaremen
Other property or occupiers: 73 Hatton Garden
So, that even provides an address.
If I get access to the online database of Sheffield cutlers I may learn more, but this seems to me to strongly indicate the mark to have been owned by John and George Rodgers and then taken over by Joseph Rodgers, as you assumed. Of course it still does not explain its appearance on a post-1879 electroplate teapot.
Re: Teapot marked JR GR with axe, 1937 7
Could this be the likely culprit mark of the Nowill case?: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=12274&hilit=j.+rodgers
(J)(R)(&)(S)(*) [leaving out the cross]
(J)(R)(&)(S)(*) [leaving out the cross]