HELP! Why me?

[larrywseale]

I fell in love with this & had to have it even though I had questions. I guess it's meant to be a shaker & it tested as sterling.




Great hallmarks on the top



But the bottom has marks also (not so great - sigh)



Suggestions as to how this came about. The top & bottom fit as if made for each other even though the chased floral design is somewhat different.

Finally, I know this isn't the right place but is this a family crest? The latin is AUDAX ET RECTIUS - Straight & Bold?



Thanks

[dognose]

Hi Larry,

There could be many reasons for this marriage. Possibly a replacement for a damaged top? Or maybe mischievous swopping of the tops when two similar pieces come up for auction at the same sale and the switcher is attempting to purchase both lots and reunite them later, but fails with their second bid.

But....the answer is far more likely to be much less sinister...the cleaning process. Large residences often had a lot of silver, and the periodic cleaning was often carried out by a group of servants sitting around a table, polishing, and chatting away. When the cleaning was done, lids, tops, etc. would be reunited and as long as the lid fitted a similar teapot, it was job done, they would not check hallmarks or other small differences, and it often at this time such errors occured.

The maker of the base was the partnership of William Burwash and Richard Sibley I, the top was made by William Henry Jackson.

It would be great if one day someone read your post, and said "Hold on a minute, I've got one just like that!"

Regards Trev.

[larrywseale]

Hi Trev:

Thank you. My first thought was a replacement for a damaged piece. Having never had the opportunity to experience Victorian manor life in any capacity, the switch during cleaning didn't occur to me but makes a lot of sense. I can picture hundred of pieces set out on a great table & the staff busy working.

Thank you for the maker names, I couldn't find either marks. I'm trying to learn a little about English silver & just don't see very much in the range I can afford. My major concern was the lack of a full set of hallmarks on the bottom. The top was easy with it's clear purity, city, date & duty mark but the bottom looks have only a sterling & duty mark. I thought the English were pretty strict in their marking requirements & wondered if it the requirements were strictly adhered to if a piece were commissioned? Is there any way to get a general idea of when the bottom was made, perhaps by years of partnership between Mr's Burwash & Sibley?

So much to learn.

[dognose]

Hi Larry,

William Burwash and Richard Sibley entered their mark together on the 7th October 1805. William Burwash entered his next mark (alone) on the 6th July 1812, and Richard Sibley entered his next mark (alone) on the 13th July 1812, so it appears that the partnership broke up in July 1812.

As for the missing London and date marks, perhaps they have just been worn away?

For more detail on William Burwash see: viewtopic.php?f=74&t=25272&p=61071

Regards Trev.

[larrywseale]

The surface is smooth & uniform - I can't see any evidence that a mark was worn away or otherwise removed. For some reason, I seem to find a lot of pieces that are the exception rather than the rule. I'm not sure if that's a curse, blessing or just my haphazard way of "collecting".

[larrywseale]

The top clearly has a date mark of 1884 so if all is as it seems, the bottom predates the top by 80 years?

Perhaps not very long in a country with your history but almost forever in American time.