This tomater slice from Gorham seems a good sample to raise the ugly question of tell-tales. Kings (Three) III and King Charles appear extremely similar. A catalog for 1909 shows added acanthus-like work around some of the Chuck wares including the slice. That's all missing on this one. Also notable here is the lack of patent dating marks that have been noted on that later pretender to the throne. Any Gor-monkees that can throw additional peels on this banana pile?
Trip Konig oder Chuck Koenig?
-
- co-admin
- Posts: 2493
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:42 am
- Location: Orlando, Florida
- Contact:
Re: Trip Konig oder Chuck Koenig?
Not sure I understand your question, the item you show appears to be a tomato or cucumber server in Gorham's 'King George' pattern, introduced in 1894 - I'm not familiar with a 'King Charles' pattern, and 'Kings III', introduced circa 1885, while somewhat similar, is not at all the same as 'King George'...
~Cheryl
~Cheryl
-
- co-admin
- Posts: 2493
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:42 am
- Location: Orlando, Florida
- Contact:
Re: Trip Konig oder Chuck Koenig?
Oops, did I promote another Charles...that's what happens when you lose your mind. Should have been George. Thanks Cheryl for the detail photos which are an improvement over this: https://www.sterlingflatwarefashions.co ... ham11.html
So, why is the additional detail, beyond the handle and around the edges, shown for the King George tomato server in the 1909 catalog page not on this sample piece? Were there two versions?
So, why is the additional detail, beyond the handle and around the edges, shown for the King George tomato server in the 1909 catalog page not on this sample piece? Were there two versions?
Re: Trip Konig oder Chuck Koenig?
Ah! The piercing details are different. Maybe this isn't the tomato server?
-
- co-admin
- Posts: 2493
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:42 am
- Location: Orlando, Florida
- Contact:
Re: Trip Konig oder Chuck Koenig?
The image in the link for 'Kings III' is actually "King George' - and pieces can change over the years, since you mention the patent date isn't present on yours, it's most likely later production...
~Cheryl
~Cheryl