www.925-1000.com

Hi Forum,

I purchased this Britannia standard Queen Anne dinner plate made by John Bache (currently still in transit). It was described as being assayed 1705, London, with a coat of arms added in the second half of 18th century but I'm not sure this is entirely correct.

1. The date letter is quite rubbed, but I am looking for confirmation that it is actually 1704
2. Looking for confirmation that the coat of arms is that of the Barony of Abinger
   
   • Arms created 12 June 1835?, if correct the engraving would have been added from 1835 onward
   • Description: "Chequy Or and Gules, a Lion rampant Ermine, on a Canton Azure, a Castle triple-towered Argent"
     
     • a Canton Azure is visible on the engraving, but a Castle triple-towered Argent is absent

Coat of arms image source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arms_of_Baron_Abinger.svg

Tincture reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tincture_(heraldry)

Hi MGArgent,

Regarding question 1, All looks good to me, and yes, 1704 would appear correct.

Great find! Nice to see the weight marked on the back.

Trev.

Hi Trev,

Great to hear, thanks for the confirmation!

For anyone who might be unfamiliar with the additional markings I will add that it is marked No. 6 which denotes that it was plate number 6 from a larger set of dinner plates, and that it is also marked with a scratch weight of 17"0 (17 troy ounces, 0 dwt was the original weight when created).

The current weight was given as 16.30 troy ounces (reduced over time due to wear and rubbing).

A bit further research and I think the engraving is actually of the Scarlett family's coat of arms which appears to be without a castle.

Addressing the similarity between Scarlett family and the Baron of Abinger coats of arms: Since James Scarlett was the 1st Baron of Abinger, I am assuming that he simply modified his family's coat of arms by adding the triple-towered castle to differentiate it.

If correct, the engraving could have been added much earlier than 1835.

Supporting the assumption above, it turns out there is precedence for baronets to augment their coats of arms with special cantons to differentiate themselves from family members.

This is from an excerpt from Wikipedia - Canton (heraldry) which provides references in the article:

Special cantons may be added to the coat of arms of baronets to indicate their rank and difference their arms from other members of the family.

This plate arrived and upon inspection there is a faint outline of the royal arms on the underside of the plate and the initials 'AR', for 'Anna Regina', or Queen Anne.

I think it is then likely this dinner plate originates from a set of perquisite plate:

The great bulk of pieces of silver bearing royal arms were perquisites (from which derives the more common-ly used, and colloquial, ‘perk’), officially loaned out to those with prominent royal appointments, who there-by represented the monarch, and by custom from the late seventeenth century subsequently discharged to the borrower to become his or her personal property (SOURCE).

This was not mentioned in the item's description, and in my opinion not evident in the listing's photos.

My question to the forum is:

• Is this a material misrepresentation of the item?
• If you had purchased this, would you opt to keep or return the plate?

Your advice is appreciated!

Hi,
The plate belonged to The Jewel House, issued as indenture plate and remained in private hands, for whatever reason.
It looks like royal arms were deliberately erased (scratches and lost contours in places not consistent with where natural wear would occur).
Although later Victorian engravings are not welcome in Queen Ann silver, I think this is valuable piece of history.
In short, I would keep it, why not ?
Regards

Thank you AG2012!

My immediate concern was if the royal arms were originally on an upward/outward facing surface and somehow ended up on the bottom of this plate due to "transposed marks" or "change of use", both of which would be illegal in the eyes of the Goldsmith Company's LAO.

If this is not an "illegal" item, I would certainly be happy to keep it (regardless of the unwelcome Victorian engraving ;)

Separately, I was reviewing engravings on other William III, Queen Anne and George I pieces. Similar looking engravings were described as "contemporary with the piece", while others as from the "2nd half of 18th century" (rarely described as Victorian).

To me the styles seemed so similar that I couldn't visually differentiate between the early 1700s engravings and the later c1780s engravings. I would be interested to know what clues hint at the engraving being from Victorian period?

Thank you and regards,

I was initially concerned that the Royal Coat of arms was face down and should have been on the visible face of the plate however the discussion on the legality or otherwise of the plate reminded me of an unwise and badly considered purchase I made some years ago. This was a pair of silver bowls with the mark of Paul Storr and assayed in 1817. The external face of the bowls have both the hallmark and a coat of arms where you would generally expect them to be for a pair of bowls. Sadly these bowls were originally a pair of dinner plates which have been converted into bowls and are therefore illegal if I come to sell them. As a pair of plates both the hallmarks and the coat of arms would have been on the underside of the plates and so not dissimilar to these as generally the hall marks are not on the visible face of a plate and so I have no concerns about the Arms being where they are. You have a nice pair of plates.....I have an expensive pair of nut bowls!

Thanks Trevorg,

I appreciate your input and your images provide good evidence, although I still seem to have more questions than answers at this point:

1. I have found examples of tazzas and the occasional dinner plate with maker’s marks and engraved arms facing upwards (see image below)
   
   1. Are there any images of counter-examples of dinner plates with maker’s marks and engraved arms facing downwards (still in the original form of a plate)?
2. Does the engraving of the royal arms fit within the border? Does the top of the crown or bottom of the garter appear to be cut off?
   
   1. Is it likely that an engraver would omit a portion of the royal arms if they ran out of space?
3. Why would the engraver choose such a difficult spot where the lobes of the dish meet?
   
   1. The arms are centered quite well between the lobes, indicating they were aligned with care and intention
4. On ambassadorial plate, royal arms were intended to project the power and wealth of English monarchs abroad, and were displayed prominently for foreign diplomats to behold
   
   1. Is it unlikely the arms would face down on ambassadorial plate for use abroad? – see quotes below
   2. If the arms are original and have always faced downwards, would this plate have been for domestic use within England?
5. In terms of craftsmanship, is there any evidence present or absent that would indicate this plate is original or otherwise? (i.e. presence or absence of solder lines in dubious locations, etc.)
   
   1. The outer rim of the plate certainly appears to be one continuous piece with no evidence of a joint or solder line
   2. Could the rim of the plate have been joined with the ‘well’ of the plate during a conversion?
   3. Is there a solder line where the rim and ‘well’ join on this plate? Is there usually a solder line at this location?
   4. If the plate was originally a different item/form with the royal arms facing upward, would it have been possible to add the lobes and gadrooning while keeping the royal arms intact?
   5. If the plate was originally a different item/form with the royal arms facing upward, what could this have been originally that would allow for it to be converted to a dinner plate in one piece?
   6. Are any other clues (for or against) provided by the fabrication process?

William III dinner plates by George Garthorne, London, 1696 (marks and arms facing upward)


Excerpts from "Ambassadorial plate of the later Stuart periodand the collection of the Earl of Strafford" by Helen Jacobsen

Ambassadors were furnished with expensive silver to use to impress and even awe the foreign ministers and political elite who were invited into their homes, a dazzling display of both the economic strength and artistic capabilities of England that reinforced the status of the diplomat as the king’s representative and which, on an everyday level, no doubt also helped to impress the foreign servants.

Tellingly, Wicquefort specifically mentions the arms of the monarch which were engraved on ambassadorial plate and which made it clear that it was through the bounty (and wealth) of the king that the minister was able to entertain in such lavish style and were a visible sign of the subject’s fealty, his political loyalty and his livelihood.

There is a well documented history of English silverware being reworked at a later date (See topic - 17th century English spoons reworked in the 19th century). After a comprehensive search, I am convinced with near certainty that all Queen Anne plates of this form were originally plain and were later reshaped between the late 18th century and early 19th century to bring them up to date with the fashions of the time (this can also be observed with the vast majority of William III, George I, and George II dinner plates).

In 1704, as AG2012 mentioned, this plate belonged to the Royal Jewel House and was issued as indentured plate. It was originally of plain form similar to the example below.

Between the late 18th century and early 19th century, a Scarlett came into possession of this plate and they approached a silversmith to bring the plate up to current fashion, and also to conceal the Royal Arms.

The silversmith set about the process of reshaping the plate and applying the gadroon decoration. Regarding the mystery of why the Royal Arms are engraved on the bottom surface, it seems there are two possibilities:

1. The Royal Arms were always engraved on the bottom surface, and the reshaping process occurred just like it did on all other Queen Anne plates of this form
   
   • This seems unlikely as the Royal Arms were engraved to project the power and wealth of the Crown and were meant to be seen. It would have been unusual for the arms to be concealed
   OR
   
   
2. The engraved Royal Arms were facing upwards, and like the plate in the previous post, the maker's marks appeared on the top surface (this is less common, but not unheard of)
   
   • In order to conceal the Royal Arms, the silversmith first inverted the entire plate by forcing the well inside out
   • The silversmith then proceeded to reshape the plate just like any other Queen Anne plate of this form

After the reshaping process had been completed, the Scarlett coat of arms were engraved and the scratch weight and inventory numbers were added. As AG2012 pointed out, the Royal Arms were further defaced in an effort to erase them completely.

Plain Queen Anne dinner plate by David Willaume, London, 1707

After a lengthy discussion with other members of the forum, I need to retract the assertion that I laid out in the previous post regarding all plates being reshaped in the 18th and 19th centuries to keep up with the fashion of the day.

See topic - Reshaping of English Dinner Plates and Serving Plates

I had encountered several plates with hallmarks located in the crease of the rim, an area that would have been impossible to punch properly. I realized that the plates needed to be flat in this area when hallmarked, and then subsequently shaped after hallmarking (see image below).

I had assumed that silversmiths sent their works to be assayed after they were completely finished, and drew the conclusion that the plates must have been reshaped at some much later point in time. After coming across legitimate examples of plates that had been reshaped in the 18th and 19th centuries, (including one with additions marks applied by the Antique Plate Committee), I came to the conclusion that many more plates were reshaped around the same time.

What I failed to realize is that silversmiths sent articles of silver to be hallmarked very early into the working process, not after completion:

dognose wrote:It is to be remembered that the raw silver material at this time would have come from various sources, including old silver weighed in to off-set the cost of new items. Silversmiths were always in fear of their work being broken by the assay office if it failed the assay, thus items submitted would have the minimum amount of work applied and sent in to the office in the 'rough'. No doubt in this case, plates would likely be no more than flat discs when sent in, and if passed, only then would the major work take place.

So indeed this area was flat when the plates were hallmarked, but the shaping occurred immediately after returning from assay and is original to the completed form of the plate.

Hallmarks Located in the Creases of early 18th Century Dinner Plate Rims:

It now looks like I may need to partially retract the retraction. In addition, I can finally confirm that my Queen Anne dinner plate has been re-shaped.

Instead of a broad generalized statement regarding all dinner plates, the most likely answer is more nuanced. Some dinner plates may have been shaped before assay, others were shaped immediately after returning from assay, and some plates were re-shaped at a much later date.

I sent an inquiry on this subject to the London Assay Office who kindly referred me to "The Price Guide to Antique Silver" by Peter Waldron and recommended that it had "several good tips on how to identify fakes including altered plates".

Indeed this reference has a ton of great information including sections on how to identify altered and fake items ranging from mugs, tankards, table silver, porringers, coffee/tea ware and more. A lot of the identification effort focuses on how items were made and warns of marks and seems in locations they ought not be.

An excerpt from Waldron regarding altered dinner plates, and the re-shaping of plain circular dinner plates with Queen Anne/George I marks on pg. 124:

rather than deliberate fakes, there are many plates which have been altered to accommodate the latest fashion, and in these cases one can usually tell by the hallmarks, as they are either stretched, in an unusual place, or partially worn away. For example, the early 18th century plates which were of plain circular design bearing Queen Anne or George I marks, were often re-shaped in the 1750's or later, and applied with gadroon borders. Silver soup plates have never been particularly fashionable, and as dinner plates are more popular, being more useful, occasionally one will find that a soup plate has been converted into a dinner plate by hammering out or cutting out the depth of the bowl. This should however be readily discernible as there will be either crease marks or an unnatural seam at the booge. [the booge being the transition between the central well and the rim of a plate]

Waldron states on pg. 126 that the 5-lobed or cinque-foil shaped dinner plates were first introduced c1740. From this alone, it can be concluded that my plate dating to 1704/1705 has been re-shaped:

I previously stated several questions regarding the anomalies found on this plate.

I have proposed a re-shaping process that aims to answer many of these questions and created a quick model to illustrate the steps of the proposed transformation:

(Hopefully this will be helpful to someone with similar questions)

1. The original plate was of plain form with Royal Arms and hallmarks on the top surface.
   From pg. 124 of "The Price Guide to Antique Silver" by Peter Waldron:
   

   ...early 18th century plates which were of plain circular design bearing Queen Anne or George I marks...
   

   
   From pg. 125 of "The Price Guide to Antique Silver" by Peter Waldron:
   

   ...hallmarks on the front of the plate, which is common until the turn of the 17th century.
   

   
   
   
   
2. The plate was originally the property of the Jewel House as denoted by the Royal arms. The plate later transitioned into private hands and c1750 onwards, a transformation took place. Many of the plates that were re-shaped seem to be found in assembled sets. This plate may have been re-shaped to match and extend an existing set comprised of later made 5-lobed gadrooned plates.
   
   To match the later style, the silversmith needed to move the hallmarks from the top surface to underneath the rim.
   
   From pg. 124 of "The Price Guide to Antique Silver" by Peter Waldron:
   

   ...occasionally one will find a soup plate has been converted to a dinner plate by hammering out or cutting out the depth of the bowl. This should be readily discernible as there will be either crease marks or an unnatural seam at the booge.
   

   
   According to Waldron, plates are sometimes cut and re-soldered at the booge during alterations. On my plate, there appears to be an extremely fine and nearly undetectable solder line around the booge. I propose that the plate was cut at the booge to flip the rim of plate upside down, transferring the hallmarks underneath the rim and concealing the Royal arms.
   
   The silversmith started by cutting around the booge and removing the central well (shown with pink arrows)
   
   
   
3. Next the central well was flipped over (shown with brown arrow)
   
   
   
4. The central well was re-attached to the rim upside-down (shown with red arrows)
   
   
   
5. Next the plate was flipped over and the border was reshaped to a 5-lobed/cinque-foil form. Waldron states that a silversmith was capable of transforming a flat silver sheet into this complex form through hammering.
   
   Note that the Royal arms and hallmarks are now on the bottom surface.
   
   Top View
   
   Bottom View
   
   
   
6. A gadroon border was applied to the top surface of the plate
   
   
   
7. Excess border around the rim of the plate was trimmed off (shown with blue arrow)
   
   
   
8. The final form of the plate. Note how the trimming of the border resulted in the top of the crown being cut-off (shown with green arrow).
   
   Top View
   
   Bottom View