Nepalese silver teapot

[Swineherd]

http://s269.photobucket.com/user/swinio ... rt=3&o=341

Has anybody come across the similar object? I was told that the above teapot is of nepalese origin and it does show crude but beautiful artisanship. Originally there were no marks on it, whatsoever. Tested in the Sheffield Assay Office and granted Britannia Standard mark as found to be an almost pure silver.

[dognose]

Hi Swineherd,

You are far more likely to get a response if you embed your images, as few people will click on links.

Could you also post an image of the new Sheffield Britannia Hallmarks?

Trev.

[Swineherd]

Got it! Previous link can be removed now as collection of pictures frequently mixed and cut over there,unreliable in the longer term.

[Swineherd]

Sheffield Assay Office Britannia Hallmarks after extensive testing(chemical and spectrometry,cert.obtained)

[Swineherd]

To bump up the flagging interest,let me add the footnote: incriminated teapot did appear to the market after famous 2001 royal nepalese household massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_royal_massacre
My theory is that while Crown Prince Dipendra kept occupying himself with machine-gunning King Birendra and all other members of the Royal Family in sight,the servants did what they do always in situations of strife-pocketed royal property in lieu of wages.
One needs to differentiate between "tibetan silver", usually the chinese fake junk and "nepalese silver" where occasional jewels as above can be found.

Sheffield assayer has impressed me. He has phoned back, apologised for the delay due to the battery of tests conducted. Said, with surprise in his voice that conclusion was: a pure silver. And what I want to do about it. My answer was;written certificate and Britannia on the vessel,
which was done.

[davidross]

To me, this looks like a late 19th / early 20th century teapot of typical Nepalese (or possibly Tibetan) baluster form.

The theory of royal provenance is fantastic. If this were indeed a teapot used by the Nepalese royal family, I would expect it to be engraved with their royal coat of arms or some form of royal insignia or royal cypher. To be sure, this is a very nice teapot and probably belonged to a wealthy household, but were it indeed used by royalty, I would expect the finishing to be much finer and the relief much more intricate, and the overall effect not so rustic.

Fortunately, 2001 is well within the collective living memory and not yet entirely lost in the mists of time, so if this teapot does indeed have royal provenance, surely someone can be found to attest to the fact and provide hard evidence, say a photograph of a Nepalese king enjoying teatime with this very pot present. Should some such person come forward, the OP may have to consider returning the purloined pot to the heirs of its original owners.

This is only one opinion, of course. Someone else may eventually shed more light on the topic.

Regards
DR

[Swineherd]

Thanks for your valuable contribution.
I have based my theory upon the well known fact that royal paraphernalia often did not carry any special distinguishing marks,e.g. Faberge's Easter Imperial Egg, recently authenticated in the USA.
Or Victorian brooch discovered on the Antique Road Show in the UK, carried as a sign of distinction, kind of Legion d'Honnaire, by the Lady in Waiting to the Queen. After all, the Monarch handling those goods or dishing them around, could not be suspected of peddling some fakes?
As Crown Prince Dipendra did a thorough job of wiping out the royal line of succesion, there are no heirs to return my teapot to. However, I would welcome the opinion of the Curator of the Museum, the previous royal palace has been turned to. Has the lucky owner of aforementioned american Faberge's Easter Egg returned that objet d'art to Hermitage Museum in Petersburg yet?