Electroplate Teapot with numbers, but no marks

[Silversmith's daughter]

Can anyone help identify this teapot designed by committee? All the styles and forms this teapot presents are very confusing: drum-shaped body that tapers like a tankard, (actually I have seen ONE very beautiful one with a slightly tapered body by Jos. and Nathaniel Richardson), four applied bands of Empire beading, four engraving patterns that are trying to be Neo-Classical and poorly executed at that, cast handle and spout in a Baroque style, a clunky exposed hinge, and a stepped, domed lid topped with a seed pod of the poppy. Finial is bolted on with a wingnit inside the lid. There is no manufacturer's mark, only the following numbers: "1082"[/b][/b] above a "4". My guess is those are a style number and a size number, unless the 4 means quadruple plate, which I doubt. Size is: 10 3/4" wide x 6 1/2" high x 5 3/4" diam. THANK YOU!

[Silversmith's daughter]

I forgot to add, I believe that the "teapot by committee" is 19th century, probably American, not British since there are no manufacturers' marks.

[Ahriman]

I forgot to add, I believe that the "teapot by committee" is 19th century, probably American, not British since there are no manufacturers' marks.

I, too, think this stylistically confused little fella is probably American. The main number will be the catalogue number or style/pattern number, while the "4" will likely be the volume index of what it can hold, usually expressed in units of ½ pint, a common British practice that unsurprisingly was readily adopted in the US with the steady influx of British born silversmiths and platers throughout the 18th & 19th centuries. Judging by the ratio of your hand to the pot it's holding, 2 pints or a generous litre seems reasonable..? Hope this helps.

Best regards,

[larkfield]

From the size of it, it would appear to be more than 2 pints, I would have thought closer to the stamped mark of 4 if a unit of measure which I have some doubts on. Whether U.S (if a U S pot and marked in U.S measures) or Imperial may be determined by filling which would provide some idea but would not know what freeboard maker allowed. I have never seen anything stamped in number of 1/2 pints.

[Ahriman]

Though the assumed unit of volume that unqualified punched numbers in British pieces represented was most certainly the ½ pint throughout the 19thC, and in earlier pieces (1750s-1840s) it was frequently the Gill (¼ pint), it's easier to do the maths here on the measurements provided which produces a theoretical max possible volume of 2.76 litres, in which case the "4"'s multiplier will assume a notional pint value, 4 pints (imp/common) being 2.27 litres, which is well within range to allow for internal/external measurement discrepancies and practical filling levels etc. Because of the default assumed ½ pint value in the industry, British makers usually would punch 'pt' or the full word itself behind the numerical value, or 'qt' or the full word 'quart' if those larger measures were being used.

(To heighten the fun, in sets, if the teapot was punched, let's say, '6' for 3 pints, many manufacturers would punch the large companion pieces (coffee and/or hot water), *regardless of their actual capacity*, with a '6' as well, in strict analogy with the teapot. This can cause present day bafflement until the McGuffin at work there is spotted. <gg>)

Thanks for the amiable kicking of my shins! :-)) Had I taken more conscious note of the actual measurements first time round, it should have been clear to me that the older ½pt default value could not be apposite here: isn't it amazing what a second look can do..?! :-))

Thanks again, and all the best

[dognose]

Hi,

I must admit, I've never noticed before, but Ahriman's correct, at least as far James Dixon's are concerned. This is a page from one of their earlier catalogues.



It clearly shows everything listed in 4/5/6 half pint measures, presumably this was reflected by the same numbering system that was stamped onto their products.

Trev.