I don't think I am violating any rules, as I am not discussing value, just quoting an online paper.
In any case so I don't violate any rules rather than post a picture I suggest any interested party Goggle this title. You should get plenty of information, and a picture of what someone is calling a Colonial marrow spoon.
Needless to say, I haven't seen it in hand. But I presume someone, possibly a reporter, got something wrong.
It doesn't look like a marrow spoon to me. I also am curious about why it is "attributed" to Nathanial Hurd and Daniel Henchman as the former's mark is "N. Hurd". I am not sure where one would mark a piece like that. There is a monteith bowl given by the governor to the president of Dartmouth College, made and marked by Henchman, and engraved by Hurd. But I don't think it would take two silversmiths to make a spoon.
I could go on, but I guess I will leave the subject for now.
Maurice
£160,000 colonial spoon
Re: £160,000 colonial spoon
Of course, if it is a marrow spoon, it's suitable for removing marrow from a very, very big bone.
Re: £160,000 colonial spoon
Hi,
I have today spoken with the owner of the spoon. The reason it is described as a marrow spoon is due to the form it has as a widening channel to the reverse of the spoon, but whilst it can correctly be described as a marrow spoon it is moreover a presentation piece, not intended for use.
It is engraved by the same hand as that on the Dartmouth Monteith (Nathaniel Hurd) with the governors name "John Wentworth", a comparison between that and the engraved name on the Dartmouth Monteith are identical. Hurd has engraved the spoon but, as with the only other piece known made for Wentworth, it was produced by a partnership, Henchman/Hurd so that has been the attribution.
The piece is not marked as the design of the spoon would prohibit any mark being struck on it given full name punches were used at the time.
Hopefully that clears things up, it's a wonderful item and truly a piece of American history.
Trev.
I have today spoken with the owner of the spoon. The reason it is described as a marrow spoon is due to the form it has as a widening channel to the reverse of the spoon, but whilst it can correctly be described as a marrow spoon it is moreover a presentation piece, not intended for use.
It is engraved by the same hand as that on the Dartmouth Monteith (Nathaniel Hurd) with the governors name "John Wentworth", a comparison between that and the engraved name on the Dartmouth Monteith are identical. Hurd has engraved the spoon but, as with the only other piece known made for Wentworth, it was produced by a partnership, Henchman/Hurd so that has been the attribution.
The piece is not marked as the design of the spoon would prohibit any mark being struck on it given full name punches were used at the time.
Hopefully that clears things up, it's a wonderful item and truly a piece of American history.
Trev.
-
Francais
Re: £160,000 colonial spoon
I wrote and tried to post this before Trev posted anything. But I am adding a few sentences here: I invite people to compare the engraving, on the monteith bowl avaiable on line. As for the mark, Daniel Henchman had a two letter mark whose use predates the dates given for this spoon.
A Google search now turns up the back of the Dolphin end of the spoon. It has what appears to be a shallow indention. Thus explaining why someone might think it is a marrow spoon.
I guess it won’t hurt to explain that marrow spoons are basically a marrow scoop with one end being a spoon. In other words it is a normal spoon with a long narrow channel or grove going the length of the handle. The British ones I have had were mostly Queen Anne period or somewhat later. They were more of less replaced by scoops in the mid-18th c. As usual there are always exceptions.
Both forms are exceedingly rare in American silver (Hurd made one). I was lucky enough to have one of each style, and have only seen a few others.
Why is it fluted? Fluting is an odd thing to find on spoons.
Generally fluting is a method of increasing the strength of sheet metal, etc. Think of corrugated roofing, cardboard etc.
On spoons it makes less sense. Mostly in the 19th century it is seen on fruit spoons. Where strength is needed and the eaten object is in a chunk form. It is hard to eat something like porridge from a fluted spoon, you can’t lick them clean. Also fluting makes it difficult to scrape the bottom of the bowl, probably why the French didn’t use it much. So in the 18th c. what kind of things had fluted bowls. Salt spoons, caddy spoons, and ladles. I always presumed it was because a fluted bowl, might make pouring easier or prettier, or was just a replica of a shell bowl, which was a naturalistic sort of embellishment. Certainly it made no difference that you could not scrape a salt dish or tea caddy bottom. I am not so sure why they were so popular on large ladles, unless it was just that they are so pretty. In any case fluting tends to be used mostly on serving pieces.
As far as 18th century American spoons with fluted bowls, I couldn’t think examples by even a handful of makers. And they are all tea spoons. If a teaspoon is only used for tea then fluting causes no inconvenience and is very pretty; Paul Revere made a few.
I don’t know what this spoon is, but at 20 cm. it is no tea spoon.
It turns out the spoon is not marked, so the “attribution” I presume must primarily be dependent on the engraving, and the known Monteith bowl. It also depends on there being only one “John Wentworth, Esq.” having a friend named “Thomas Smith”. In my opinion extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs.
A Google search now turns up the back of the Dolphin end of the spoon. It has what appears to be a shallow indention. Thus explaining why someone might think it is a marrow spoon.
I guess it won’t hurt to explain that marrow spoons are basically a marrow scoop with one end being a spoon. In other words it is a normal spoon with a long narrow channel or grove going the length of the handle. The British ones I have had were mostly Queen Anne period or somewhat later. They were more of less replaced by scoops in the mid-18th c. As usual there are always exceptions.
Both forms are exceedingly rare in American silver (Hurd made one). I was lucky enough to have one of each style, and have only seen a few others.
Why is it fluted? Fluting is an odd thing to find on spoons.
Generally fluting is a method of increasing the strength of sheet metal, etc. Think of corrugated roofing, cardboard etc.
On spoons it makes less sense. Mostly in the 19th century it is seen on fruit spoons. Where strength is needed and the eaten object is in a chunk form. It is hard to eat something like porridge from a fluted spoon, you can’t lick them clean. Also fluting makes it difficult to scrape the bottom of the bowl, probably why the French didn’t use it much. So in the 18th c. what kind of things had fluted bowls. Salt spoons, caddy spoons, and ladles. I always presumed it was because a fluted bowl, might make pouring easier or prettier, or was just a replica of a shell bowl, which was a naturalistic sort of embellishment. Certainly it made no difference that you could not scrape a salt dish or tea caddy bottom. I am not so sure why they were so popular on large ladles, unless it was just that they are so pretty. In any case fluting tends to be used mostly on serving pieces.
As far as 18th century American spoons with fluted bowls, I couldn’t think examples by even a handful of makers. And they are all tea spoons. If a teaspoon is only used for tea then fluting causes no inconvenience and is very pretty; Paul Revere made a few.
I don’t know what this spoon is, but at 20 cm. it is no tea spoon.
It turns out the spoon is not marked, so the “attribution” I presume must primarily be dependent on the engraving, and the known Monteith bowl. It also depends on there being only one “John Wentworth, Esq.” having a friend named “Thomas Smith”. In my opinion extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs.
-
dragonflywink
- co-admin
- Posts: 2428
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:42 am
- Location: Orlando, Florida
- Contact:
Re: £160,000 colonial spoon
Eh, for what it's worth, Maurice has pretty much addressed all my initial thoughts (and more) regarding this spoon...
~Cheryl
~Cheryl
Re: £160,000 colonial spoon
Is its provenance listed anywhere? Also are there any other pictures available, I am sorry but this is not adding up for me.
-
Francais
Re: £160,000 colonial spoon
I wasn't going to comment further on this piece, but I may reconsider.
At least her are the links:
The spoon:
http://www.lapada-object-of-the-year.co ... oon/124055
The punch bowl:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/Libra ... ption.html
I would pay attention to the W the J the Q and the S.
Maurice
At least her are the links:
The spoon:
http://www.lapada-object-of-the-year.co ... oon/124055
The punch bowl:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/Libra ... ption.html
I would pay attention to the W the J the Q and the S.
Maurice
-
Francais
Re: £160,000 colonial spoon
On advice of attorney I will not be posting any opinions on this item.
Maurice
Maurice
Re: £160,000 colonial spoon
Hi All,
The NEC Birmingham event between April 10 and 13, could not make it :
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/mi ... on-6894913
But I have a burning question; has this beauty of a spoon been sold and if so for how (admin edit read the forum rules!)
Regards,
Oel.
The NEC Birmingham event between April 10 and 13, could not make it :
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/mi ... on-6894913
But I have a burning question; has this beauty of a spoon been sold and if so for how (admin edit read the forum rules!)
Regards,
Oel.
Re: £160,000 colonial spoon
Hello
I realize this is a very old post, My comment is ,some people must have too much money,to place this value on this spoon does not make any sense to me .Why ? Rarity I understand ,quality is not necessary fantastic ,value of silver content not much,Why not make the price 500.000 pounds (how was the 160.000 pounds worked out ?(lets pull a figure out of the air.)
I always thought engraving on items devalued them (oh sorry If it is some famous ,American this is different)
Paying a lot for fresh air is not my thing,this is what I call buying the sizzle and not the sausage.
Regards Guido
I realize this is a very old post, My comment is ,some people must have too much money,to place this value on this spoon does not make any sense to me .Why ? Rarity I understand ,quality is not necessary fantastic ,value of silver content not much,Why not make the price 500.000 pounds (how was the 160.000 pounds worked out ?(lets pull a figure out of the air.)
I always thought engraving on items devalued them (oh sorry If it is some famous ,American this is different)
Paying a lot for fresh air is not my thing,this is what I call buying the sizzle and not the sausage.
Regards Guido
Re: £160,000 colonial spoon
Hi,
That marrow spoon was meant to be used in Texas where thighbones are huge.
The price would be adequate for the spoon used by the Prophet eating camel.
Regards
That marrow spoon was meant to be used in Texas where thighbones are huge.
The price would be adequate for the spoon used by the Prophet eating camel.
Regards
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests