18th C. TH mark Hammersley?

[Francais]

Hi
This is another mark I would like to hear more about. It was in Martha Gandy Fales' book as an English mark, I think she was wrong. The piece she mentions is at Winterthur. Other pieces are supposedly in other museums. I will go out on a limb, this isn't fake, nor British.
Have you seen a piece with this mark?

[Francais]

I posted this almost a year ago, and nary a comment did I receive, and that was only two days after I joined so I couldn't have had a reputation as a curmudgeon yet.
In any case I decided to try to do a complete study of it, and take those who wish to join along for the ride.
First I will fill in some information missing. It is 8.2 cm. in diameter and 3.9 cm tall. It weighs 2 oz 7.7 dwt,
or a little less than 2.4 troy oz.
On the bottom are some scratch engravings 2 . 13 . This no doubt stands for 2 oz troy and 13 dwt. The item in fact weighs 2. 7.7 dwt. which is probably OK as there would be loss due to wear.
Then in what looks like a different hand is 720 44. Don’t ask me, I don’t know.
Then there is a different hand m pellet y pellet x or m.y.x
I started a discussion on this here:
http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... 38&t=36751
If anyone has any explanation for the second or third set, I would like to hear it.
Here are some additional pictures.



So first of all this is the inkstand that Martha Gandy Fales said was a fake. You will have to get her book to follow her reasoning. It is worth the read anyway, and was the first book I read on American silver. I only talked to her once and by then she was past her prime.
http://museumcollection.winterthur.org/ ... 1ma0OZdVDI
The marks are the picture on the lower left. They are evidently the same as the mark on my piece.
The mark on mine is very small for an American maker's mark, less than .5 cm long. You might think the ones on the inkstand are larger, but the stand is very small, and by my calculations, a bit contrived, the marks are the same size. So if the inkstand if fake, mine is fake, and the reverse also.
I bought mine at an auction some decades ago, and when I bought it, I knew it wasn't a fake. It is absolutely right, patina, engraving, mark, etc. Even if you think someone could make such a convincing fake, it would not likely to be sold and then turn up at a local, unreserved auction.
When I talked to a former curator of Winterthur, I was surprised to find out they didn't agree with Fales' assessment. I never really had the time to pursue the matter. There was also a dealer, now dead, who said there were other pieces with the same mark, that were in question. I am waiting for a curator to fill me in on two possible examples. I always hoped to pick up a spoon somewhere with a Hammersley mark so I could compare it to mine.
More to come

[Francais]

So now to compare some marks. This spoon, also at Winterthur, is accepted by most authorities to have the mark of Hammersley.
http://museumcollection.winterthur.org/ ... 1rFIq1dVDI
This is the mark on mine again:

This is the mark on the spoon on the spoon:


The similarities are obvious, the most glaring is the serifs that go all the way to the edge.

Joerg introduced me to a overlay program, which I really couldn't get to work, but I used it to put a line down the middle of the parts of my mark.

Then I overlaid the two marks:


So from conversations with J.L.Doggett, but not on these pieces, there are sometimes an explanation for marks that are different but very similar. The mark, when it starts to deteriorate, is filed down and re-cut. In the process the cartouche, with cracks can be cut down, and the letters can acquire different characteristics. I presume they can be filed down to the faintest remnant, and then either re-engraved or even just dug out with a stone. I think the overlay shows that while the H is almost exactly the same, the T just barely fits. But it does seem to fit enough. The dot is placed in a completely different spot.
So my proposition is that the mark on mine is the original mark, the indent is a crack. It is otherwise a beautifully, finely cut mark. The mark on the spoon is rougher, but does fit except for the pellet. Of course the pellet on mine is just barely visible so it would easily be filed off an repositioned. As far as those lines going from the serifs to the edges, they could be laminations in the stamp, which did not change position.
Of course this proposition depends my calculations being correct, and on the two marks being the same length.
Do the dates of the objects fit this theory. Accepting the range given for the spoon, and ink stand. The stand could be 1760 and the spoon 1770.
I would say that my taper stick is before 1765, the style of the stick part changes and I would say the latest it could be was 1765.
So where we sit now, I am waiting for information from 2-3 museums. Unfortunately the published pictures of sauce boats don't show the top of the handle, as I have, nor do most mention or show scratch engravings.
Why spend so much time on a small piece. Well first a taper stick, even English ones are quite valuable, but this is probably unique or practically unique. Chamber stick style taper sticks are really only found later on inkstands. This one shows no evidence to having been used with one, quite the contrary. Any type of taperstick is quite rare in America. By the way I have found no TH mark similar anywhere except on these pieces. It seems quite odd that this form is so rare, as it seems far more useful than the candlestick type, as this has a saucer to catch the sealing wax drips.
To be continued

[oel]

Hi Maurice,

Could you also call this chamber- stick? First seen around the end of the 17th century, the vast majority were made in the later 18th century and 19th century. They were still made up to the 1940s but in much smaller numbers. The early styles were characterized by very plain decoration and the absence of anything to extinguish the flame. After about 1740 they were made with an opening in the base of the sconce for a scissor-type snuffer, and/or a bracket or slot for holding a conical extinguisher. However I believe earlier styles are still copied when a modern style is dominating.
The location of the maker’s mark at such a prominent place instead of underneath like on the inkstand. I thought it to be 19th century practice to mark on the top of the base.


Oel.

[Francais]

Well, it is not a chamber stick. The reason is simple, a chamber stick is something that holds a candle. Whereas this would hold a taper. It sounds a bit odd, but it is a matter of size. But it really determines what it is used for. A chamber stick was basically a candle stick with a handle and a saucer underneath. Again I think the form was really French. It had a long handle, and you could use it to make the rounds of the house, I believe they were called something like "take it to bed" sticks. Eventually they curved the handle and as you say added a place for a snuffer.
A taper stick, mostly an English form but I would imagine there must be European examples, was a very small candle stick. It held as narrow but longer candle. Even thinner candles were thin enough so they could be curled into a coil, and these were put into wax jacks, bougie boxes, or wachsschnur halters. But the last two tapers or curled candles were not really meant to be used for light, but as desk accessories. They may have added light while you were writing, and perhaps to light a cigar, but the basic use was to light wax sticks used for sealing wax. These taper sticks, I think were a real luxury item. I remember the first time I sold a Queen Anne one for a lot of money, but not what some others had brought and it was explained to me, that the facets were not really crisp.
This is all off the top of my head, I haven't looked any of this up recently to see if I am giving the current thought.
I should have measured the size of the taper it would hold, I will tomorrow, but I would say it is about the size of a moderate fountain pen.
I hope this makes sense, if not I will try again after some sleep.
As to the placement of the mark, I know I have seen similar 18th c. items with the same placement. If necessary I will look up some examples, but not tonight. I think in this case it was at least partially as advertisement.
But at least for now, take my word for it, as I am willing to bet the farm.
Maurice

[oel]

You can keep the farm, it is hard for me to say but you are right!

Taper; a long, thin type of candle
Taper, to make or become narrower or slimmer at one end: “The leaves taper (off) to a point.”
Taper-definition of taper by the Free Online Dictionary;
1. A small or very slender candle.
2. A long wax-coated wick used to light candles or gas lamps.
3. A source of feeble light.

Taper stick is a type of utensil similar to and usually in the style of various types of candlestick but smaller being about 10 cm high and is used to hold a taper (a thin candle). They usually exist singly and not as one of a pair since one is usually sufficient for the intended use. The socket is sometimes lined with paper in order to hold securely the tall thin taper. The taper, (made of wax and non odorous) was used mainly for melting sealing wax and for lighting candles, tobacco pipes etc., and not as a source of illumination; hence the piece was sometimes called a ‘tobacco candlestick’.

Chamber stick is a holder for one (or more) candles, used for illumination, rituals, or decorative purposes. The name 'chamber stick' derives from the fact that it is usually tall and stick-shaped. Chamber sticks are also called candle holders. However, not all candle holders are chamber stick unless they are tall and stick like. Before the proliferation of electricity services, candles were brought into the bedroom using chamber sticks, which were shorter than ordinary candleholders and furnished with a wide pan to catch the wax drippings.


Oel.

[Francais]

"You can keep the farm, it is hard for me to say but you are right!" Actually I couldn't bet the farm, as they put a factory on it. I find it odd that it is "hard" for you, as I have no trouble saying I was right.
But actually I thought that someone would object to my definition, which is one I learned a long time ago. To me the idea of using a wax taper to light tobacco is odd, as it would be distasteful. In the 19th c. it was certainly the job of a spirit lamp, sometimes now called a cigar lamp. Also in inns in the 18th century they used embers from the fire to light their clay pipes. The pipe end would be broken off with each new user. My understanding is they know this from excavations.
Maurice

[JLDoggett]

You have done well grasshopper, your analysis of the mark is well done, and well thought out. Of course it may change it you get measurements of the marks and they vary too much. I agree with your comment about the dot, they do seem to move one impressions, based on any slight angle off perfectly perpendicular that the punch was held, or any possible material that was in the recess of the punch.

[Francais]

Thanks, I was a little nervous, that I hadn't understood the concept well. I think this is one of the most interesting theories, of which, until recently, I had never heard. I hope this pans out, not just because it helps the piece, but because with some luck we can find someone to publish. Hopefully it will eventually become a more common proof of a mark's authenticity.
Maurice

[JLDoggett]

Maybe I should put some idea on paper. I have taught this method to quite a few over the years.

[Francais]

I would think that is a good idea, but also it wouldn't hurt if we could get a curator interested, someone who could dig up other possible examples. So far I have only two possibles.
Maurice

[JLDoggett]

Therein lies the rub. Most curators fear any possible questioning of attribution... It would need to have private input.