www.925-1000.com

Another mystery, -- Does anyone know who, or when, this was made? I cannot find any maker's mark or trademark.
Thanks, Brett

[img][img]http://m1.freeshare.us/152fs408278_th.jpg[/img][/img]

[img][img]http://m1.freeshare.us/152fs40838_th.jpg[/img][/img]

I also have been looking for that answer. I have and have seen the mark, "REPRODUCTION, Circa 17--, sterling", with retailer marks of 'Ensko', 'J.E. Caldwell' and 'Cartier'. I suspect Currier & Roby as the manufacturer, but can't pin it down yet.

Hi,
Last week I spoke with a gentleman who's been in the New York retail silver business, both antique and new production, for the last 50 or so years. His knowledge of - who did what and when and for whom - is pretty far reaching. Not wanting to tip the hand or influence his response, I asked in a vague way "Ya know those older repro pieces marked 'Reproduction -... and Year - ...?" Before the question was even fully out, he'd responded "you mean the Currier & Roby's?".
He went on to tell me the these items were really their stock in trade, sometimes under their own mark, and also selling a lot of them unmarked to retailers for their own branding. Names mention were Ensko, Cartier and he thought also Wyler. I asked if they always added the "Reproduction..." mark and he said sometimes they were just marked "sterling" and with a retailer's stamp.
By no means documentation, but as far as anecdotal sources go, I'd consider this reliable. It all makes sense, considering Nathaniel Currier's dedication to collecting and documenting early American silver and makers' marks.

Tom

I wonder if catalogs with production/model numbers were ever produced for these wholesaler activities.

I have a 5" bowl marked 'J.E. Caldwell, Reproduction, Simeon Soumain, Circa 1720, sterling, 509'. I've seen another nearly identical bowl with the same markings, except the retailer mark was 'Cartier'. I also have a 6" bowl, same markings, with 'Ensko, New York' as the retailer and model number 510.

I'd love to positively identify the producer, as well as where the 'original' is currently located.

Hi salmoned,
According to Rainwater, Currier had the largest collection of drawings & photographs of antique silver known outside of a large museum. Being a silver historian, Currier would likely have had relationships with a number of institutions.
I've tracked down your "brandywine bowl", it was in private hands until 1969 when it was gifted to the collection of the Museum of the City of New York. Prior to that, it was exhibited in shows at the Metropolitan Museum in 1911 & 1931. Currier could have photographed and handled it at either.


Regards, Tom

from- "Elegant Plate: Three Centuries of Precious Metals in New York City"
{Museum of the City of New York)

and your reproduction -

It certainly is similar, but the date, circa 1730, doesn't match. Sounds like a trifling difference, but I've seen a similar four lobed Simeon Soumain reproduction bowl labeled as circa 1723 (pattern #889). Unless the date for this bowl has been revised, I don't think Currier would have marked it 1720 when it is believed to be from 1730. Also, the handles don't quite match up. Am I quibbling?

Thank you for the added information, at least I can reference the piece as 'similar to...'. In any case, I enjoy these reproductions.

Hi Salmoned,
I think you may be interpreting the applied circa dates more literally than they were meant. We're all accustomed to the speed of the age we live in and it makes it harder to relate to the pace of the past. Our simple exchange of two messages was near instantaneous. In 1720, the same two messages from NY to HI, would have taken four years or so to have been sent and responded to. In the early 18th century (and then some), changing styles and forms in the decorative arts moved at a comparably snail paced speed. To illustrate, here is a link to a similar bowl (by B. Le Roux) catalogued as circa 1690—1700.
http://m1.freeshare.us/163fs836625.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and another (by C. Kierstede) catalogued as circa 1700—1710.
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/09/na/hob_38.63.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Kierstede bowl, though a good circa 20 years the junior of the Soumaine bowl is, aside from extraneous repousse decoration, virtually identical.
The point I am laboring to make is that for American silver of this period, labeling pieces as ca. 1720, ca. 1723, or ca. 1730 is basically giving them all the same date.


Regards, Tom

Yes, you may be right. I'm attuned to the British marking system, where the date can be ascertained more closely. However, for the circa 1723 date, I imagine the original was dated (engraving). That is one reason why I seek the 'original', to determine the rationale for the given date.

Also, the handles may have succumbed to artistic license in the reproduction ;) [I'm pleased to see that my choice of camera angle was so near that of a professional's].

I just purchased the same (similar at least) bowl as salmoned's. It is marked with the Currier & Roby cipher, ENSKO, REPRODUCTION, Sterling 889.

Hi Raibos,

Welcome to the Forum.

I'm afraid your images are not viewable.

Trev.

Thanks, Trev. Hopefully these will work. Measurements of bowl are 6 1/4" diameter (not including handles) x 2 3/8" tall.

Hi Raibos,

Many thanks for posting these images.

Trev.