www.925-1000.com

Hi everyone,

Cornelius van Der Burgh or just a 17th Century Dutch beaker?
Thank you.

Hi welcome to the forum,

I believe you have checked the book; 'Citroen Dutch Goldsmiths’ and silversmiths’ marks and names prior to 1812', if not according to Citroen; Cornelius van der Burgh used two known marks; CVB arranged in a monogram and CVB, the shapes of shields surrounding the marks are not indicated. Cornelius van der Burgh, registered for New York during 1675-1699.
If the beaker was made in the Netherlands during the time of the Dutch Guilds you could expect to find a city mark and date letter however the beaker clearly only shows a makers ‘mark. I agree it is still possible the beaker has been made in the Netherlands but Citroen only mentions one more CVB for Christiaan van Basten, registered in Utrecht from 1791-1811.
The appearance of the beaker, engraved decorations could be late 17th century but I do not understand the circular mark, just under the maker’s mark, could this be a repair mark, I do not think it to be a center point? Unfortunately today we also have to ask ourselves could the beaker and/or makers'mark be a fake.

cVB arranged in a monogram and CVB:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.anc ... /68542.htm

Oel.

Hi Oel. As far as I can tell, the beaker is 17th century. Not a fake. On the bottom, it has a repair, in my opinion, the centering punch cracked through, I posted a photo of the interior and the crack is quite clear and old. Thanks, Liv.

Hi Liv,

Another thing I noticed the makers' mark of your beaker CVB, the V appears like a capital letter and could the makers' mark have been tampered with or altered? Please compare with the CVB shown :

Cornelius van der Burgh.

Looking at your beaker and marks; could the 'strange' repair mark have been used to hide other marks, and what is known about the provenance of the beaker? The mark of van den Burgh has been known to be counterfeited.


Oel.

This is going to take a lot of work, and I am not sure I am prepared to dedicate the time necessary.
There are three pieces by CVB in the Museum of the City of New York. I have their two vol "Elegant Plate", which I have used so rarely it started an avalanche in my library while I tried to get it down.
They show his marks, unfortunately the pictures are so small, there would be little sense in reproducing them.
I will give a few suggestions, but this is off the top of my head, not thought out yet.
First send Wev a private message directing him to this posting, he probably has a copy too, and there will have to be a comparison debate, as your mark is close.
There is a crack in the published mark, missing on yours, but yours could be a pre-crack version.
He was known to stamp over existing marks.
You say it is 17th c. as far as you can tell. I can assure you that there are plenty of fakes out there. Without insult meant, Dutch silver is one of the most faked in the world. I could tell a few stories, but you have to have quite a reputation to even get anyone to listen on authenticity. Of course a NY beaker would be far rarer, more valuable, so more likely to be faked.
I believe I have seen almost exactly the same decoration, from memory, has this piece ever been published?
Have you compiled existing piece of CVB's work?
Maurice

Memory is a funny thing. I checked another reference, Yale's 2 Vol American silver. They have two NY beakers, both with the same decoration at the top, and the floral decoration, but what I thought was "almost exactly" was the bird at the bottom, both beakers shown have birds, nothing like yours.
I emailed Wev, so don't worry about a message.
Oel are you home yet? If so you might compare decoration with any Dutch examples you can find, bird and all. Also the foot is plain, both Yale's have very fancy feet, could you check Dutch examples. Molding was often traded among silversmiths. The Dutch pieces like this I have handled were before photography was so easy, and obviously my memory is so so.

Maurice

This is the Sanderson Beaker at Yale

Looking at the Sanderson beaker you could say the engraved decorations look much stronger and deeper!

Oel.

There was a dealer in upstate NY decades ago, whose sideline was creating early fantasy pieces using unmarked or reworked American and Dutch silver. Half a dozen of his fake punches were offered on eBay back in the late 1990s, including one for Van Der Burgh. This is not to say that is what we have here, just to point out that a very careful inspection would be needed. At a glance, the engraving, though not unpleasant, is not as assured as his proven pieces and follows a fairly basic format of the period. The placement of the B over H * E is inelegant, but may have been a later addition. Is there any provenance at all?

I believe the photo you found has been enhanced by increasing the contrast.
The pictures in Yale's book, are very similar to this beaker.
I checked Wev's site, I presume he has all the examples known listed.
It might help to have measurements, height, weight, etc.
Also the provenance Oel asked for.
Maurice

Sorry didn't see that entry, I don't suppose we have any pictures of that fake stamp?
While it is not pertinent, his script engraving is quite recognizable, to bad the mono is block letters.
I forgot to ask if there is any scratch engraving on the bottom. These are very hard to read, but might include original weight etc.
Please use a loupe and look all over the bottom.
Maurice

The mark of van den Burgh has been known to be counterfeited. Some extra information, found at another well-known silver forum, about the van der Burgh marks.


http://www.smpub.com/ubb/Forum19/HTML/001326.html
http://www.smpub.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000022.html


Oel.

The size of the beaker is 6 inches tall so smaller than the Yale beaker. Also, there are 3 different birds on this beaker. Sorry, I was just saying about it's age that it is old from what I can tell. I collect 17th and 18th European silver and seen quite a lot of it, including fakes. I have also showed it to friends that collect silver and not one has said that it is earlier than 1700. Another 2 odd things about this beaker are : the soldering on the bottom, around the foot is sloppy, not clean, which I do not normally see on the Dutch ones and at the top, there is a repair that in my opinion occured while it was engraved, it must have cut through to the other side then it was repaired but not reengraved. I also think that the repair on the bottom is old. I could have the metal tested in comparisson to the rest the beaker to see it s composition. Thank you, Liv.

Thanks for the feedback, although it does not really sounds very reassuring, could you please tell us about the provenance of the beaker.


Oel.

I do not know a lot about provenance, I just bought it as an old beaker and not as a CVB one at auction. Regards, Liv.

8 inches of snow later, I compared your mark with those on the Pieces in NY. The mark is different, in my opinion. I have to admit it wasn't obvious, and would have been easier if the museum had supplied photos as good as yours. The crack is missing, no big deal, the tail of the C is too high, but most important is the bottom of the V is way too high and placed wrong. Obviously anyone who doesn't have the photos, will have to do me the honor of believing me.
I am surprised when you say you have a lot of experience with beakers from this period, and yet are bothered by the solder around the foot. But if you really think the engraving and wear pattern and patina are all correct then the next thing I would do is have the metal tested. Yale could certainly do it for you, although they may charge, and the curator there, Pat Kane, may be interested in seeing the piece. Personally I have almost never seen a fake I thought was convincing. Most I have seen were pathetically incompetent. I remember seeing one in a Chicago auction, that I called out from 5 feet away, another was accepted by a major auction house and I called it a fake from a small photo in a trade paper, it was also withdrawn. I remember Booze (sp?) appraised a piece that several experts called him on from a television show. I also think that Winterthur had an exhibit of fakes, I asked the curator if it was worth a visit, and he said none would come close to fooling me. So if the piece tests new metal, you have your answer, if it tests old, you may have the real thing. You might also compare the size of the marks. There is nothing that says that CVB couldn't have had three marks, although why two would look so close is odd.
If you do have it tested, please post the results.
Maurice

Hi Maurice. Thank you very much for your help. I was just comparing the soldering on this one with other Dutch and German beakers that I have of the period and this one is not clean soldered, to say the least, it s messy. I will have the metal tested and will let you know the results. Regards, Liv.

I should have pointed out, that foot solder is often were a piece is re-soldered, I have seen neat feet and nasty.
You might read some of the posts about testing, it seems to be a tricky business.

Hi Maurice. The chemical composition came out as : body 925.4 % silver, 70.81% copper, 2.48% lead. Bottom, 926.7% silver, 69.66% copper, 2.44 % lead, foot 914.5%, 80.94% copper, 3.24 % lead. Regards. Liv.

Sorry, not percent but per thousand.