The Continental Silver Co. and The Continental Silver Co. and the......

[dognose]

Curiouser and curiouser!

Note of perhaps yet another Continental Silver Co., recorded at Room 1610, Flatiron Building, Manhattan, New York. The manager noted as George W. Keebler, two other employees noted as August C. Keebler and a Miss McKenzie.

Source: Regulating Collection of Money - United States Congress. Senate. Committee on Military Affairs - 1919

Source: Certified List of Illinois Corporations - 1913

Trev.

[dognose]

American Sheffield Plate for Gift Shops

In bringing back the glories of Continental times, when family plate was the expression of distinctive elegance, it is gratifying that in the American reproductions of Sheffield plate by the Continental Silver Company, 187 Broadway, Brooklyn, N. Y., there is truth, dignity and exactness in the revival of Sheffield plate. The illustration is a fine example of the above concern’s reproduction in graceful lines and unusuaI design. The dainty handle and exquisite modeled body are charming features of this beautiful basket. Cake baskets, burnished, gold lined, with fine pierced design; flower vases, wreath pattern; comports, plates an d trays are only a few in the vast collection of these noteworthy reproductions.



American Sheffield plate is becoming one of the most popular gifts for the Spring trade. When many functions are planned and weddings are listed on the big social bulletin, nothing is more appropriate than a selection of American Sheffield plate, which expresses fine and discriminating taste. In the collection at the Continental Silver Company there is an honesty of purpose and a realization of art in every object. A visit to the attractive show rooms at 341-347 Fifth Avenue is gratifying, interesting and compensating.

Source: Crockery and Glass Journal - 2nd February 1922

Trev.

[dognose]

This is the mark that has been attributed to the Continental Silver Co., but that I now have doubts about:





Below is a series of marks that link to one another:

These first two were stuck on the same piece:




These next two were also stuck on one piece:



More examples that link:











All the above examples link, in one part or another, to the same firm, but is it the Continental Silver Co.?

Below is the mark that several sources attribute to the Crown Silver Co.:



Crown or Continental? Well it's looking more like Crown, but more research is needed.

Trev.

[dognose]

The Continental Sheffield Silver Co. becomes The Continental Silver Co.

Why the name change? This was probably due to the attitude of the trade at time over the use of the word 'Sheffield', when it had little or no connection with product being offered.

Further evidence of the possible reason for the change of the company's name:

Complaint No. 1131.-—Federal Trade Commission v. Cosmopolitan Silver Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture of silver-plated ware in the city of New York and in the sale thereof, stamps its silverware with the words “ Sheffield,” “ Sheffield plate,” or other similar designations containing the word “Sheffield," thereby tending to create the false impression that its silver-plated ware was manufactured in Sheffield, England, and is of the high quality associated with the terms “Sheffield silver” and “Sheffield plate,” in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1155.—Federal Trade Commission v. Western Silver Works (Inc.). Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent’s practice of using the word “ Sheffield” or “ Sheffield plate " in designating its silver-plated ware. which is not manufactured in Sheffield, England, nor of the quality of genuine Sheffield silver and Sheffield plate, tends to mislead and deceive the purchasing public as to the value and quality of said product, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1156.—Federal Trade Commission v. Hemill Silverware Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent’s practice of using the word “ Sheffield” or “ Sheffield plate” in designating its silver-plated ware which is not manufactured in Sheffield, England, nor of the quality of genuine Sheffield silver and Sheffield plate, tends to mislead and deceive the purchasing public as to the value and quality of said product, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1158.-—Federal Trade Commission v. W. A. L. Silver Manufacturing Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture of silver-plated ware in the City of New York, stamps its silverware with the words “ Sheffield,” “ Sheffield plate,” or other similar designations containing the word “ Sheffield,” thereby tending to create the false impression that its silver-plated ware was manufactured in Sheffield, England, and is of the high quality associated with genuine Sheffield silver and Sheffield plate, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1159.—Federal Trade Commission v. I. Weisenfreind and B. Lieberman, partners, doing business under the trade name and style Century Silver Manufacturing Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents, engaged in the manufacture of silver-plated ware in the city of New York, confuse and mislead the purchasing public by stamping their wares with such designations as “ Sheffield,” “ Sheffield plate,” “ Quadruple plate,” “ Guaranteed Dutch silver,” any and all of which are misrepresentative of the manufacture, quality. and value of the respondent’s products in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1160.—Federal Trade Commission v. A. L. Wagner Manufacturing Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture of silver-plated ware in the city of New York, stamps its silverware with the words “ Sheffield,” or other similar designations containing the word “Sheffield,” thereby tending to create the false impression that its silver-plated ware was manufactured in Sheffield, England, and is of the high quality associated with genuine Sheffield silver and Sheffield plate, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1161.—Federal Trade Commission v. Abraham Ash, doing business under the trade name and style Abraham Ash Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent by designating his silverplated ware as “ Sheffield plate made in U. S. A.” falsely indicates that said product is of the quality associated with Sheffield silver and Sheffield plate made by the silversmiths of Sheffield, England, thereby tending to mislead and confuse the purchasing public, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1162.—Federal Trade Commission v. The Rialto Silver Plated Ware Co. (Inc.). Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture of silver-plated ware in the city of New York, stamps its silverware with the words “Sheffield,” “Sheffield plate,” or other similar designations containing the word “ Sheffield,” thereby tending to create the false impression that its silver-plated ware‘ was manufactured in Sheffield, England, and is of the high quality associated with genuine Sheffield silver and Sheffield plate, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1163.—Federal Trade Commission 1:. Keystone Metal Spinning & Stamping Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture of silver-plated ware in the city of New York, confuses and misleads the purchasing public by stamping its wares with such designations as “ Sheffield,” “ Sheffield plate,” and “ Quadruple plate,” any and all of which are misrepresentative of the manufacture, quality, and value of the respondent’s products, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Source: Annual Report of the Federal Trade Commission - 30th June 1924

Trev.

[dognose]

Continental Sheffield Silver Company - Brooklyn - 1921

Trev.

[Traintime]

A follow-up to FTC actions regarding use of Sheffield...Sheffield Silver Company of Brooklyn apparently stopped one such action in a case reversal in 1938: https://www.leagle.com/decision/193877498f2d6761593.xml

[Traintime]

Additional names: In 1908, two incorporations of Sheffield companies include one in Boston and the American Sheffield Silver Co. of New York (not sure if this is related to the Brooklyn firm or not): https://books.google.com/books?id=6mNCA ... &q&f=false

Another Sheffield-name company has a 1909 legal action in New York.

[OldSchool]

I have encountered another example of these marks, on a plated tray.



One trio of marks features a bird, perhaps a Phoenix, and a Lion Rampant, positioned either side of a five-pointed star inside a square.



The second set features a Crowned Leopard to the left, with a Lion Head Erased to the far right, this time facing left with tongue out, and a strange symbol in the middle that appears to be a letter "M" with a fish leaping out of the top. That Leopard's head is very similar to the C18th assay mark for the city of London, while the Lion Head Erased is equally similar to the London assay mark for Britannia Silver of the same period.



I have assumed these are marks for The Continental Silver Company, but has that ever been established beyond doubt?

[dognose]

Thanks to member 'silverly' we now have conclusive proof that these marks identify the Crown Silver Company, Inc. of Brookline, Massachusetts:



Source: U S Patent Office 2 February 1937 Official Gazette

Trev.

[OldSchool]

Following up on this I came across an old auction listing for a brochure, published on behalf of H. Sacks & Sons of Brookline in 1941, which clearly states "Crown Silver Division". I wasn't convinced at first, but on further investigation, it seems plausible that "The Crown Silver Company" was actually part of H. Sacks & Sons.



The company started out in the 1920s as an antiques and furniture store at 62 Harvard Street in Brookline. I'm not sure what happened to "H Sacks", but the driving force behind the business was clearly one of the sons named Abraham. He was born Abrakim Herman Sacks in Odessa, Ukraine, in 1898, and emigrated to the US with his parents sometime before WW1. They settled in Brookline, where Abrakim "anglicised" his name to Abraham and married a local girl, Helen, in 1920. They had three sons, Herbert, Stanley and Howard, and a daughter, Sylvia.

The reference to the catalogue is incomplete, but the description suggests that the brochure shows a selection of Sheffield Plate patterns which were manufactured by the company as direct reproductions of original pieces. Each item "carries in detail the lines and beauty of the early craftsmanship" and were produced as silver plate on copper. The range featured in the catalogue included trays of various kinds, inkstands, salvers, dishes, condiment sets and meat. Apparently, Sacks claimed to have showrooms not only in Brookline, but also in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles ... although I suspect these "showrooms" were more probably outlets through established retailers.

This would appear to fit in quite well with the company's entrepreneurial attitude to business. Although starting out as antiques sellers, by the mid-1920s the company had already expanded into the manufacture of top-quality reproduction furniture - a trade which they continued to expand and develop, commissioning contemporary furniture designers to create new designs, especially during the 1960s. There was a time when they were also an approved supplier of replacement wooden rifle stocks in walnut and birch to the Springfield Armory. A side-step into making silverwares would certainly seem possible. Did the Crown Silver Company already exist, and they bought it, or did Sacks establish it from scratch?

The company of H Sacks & Sons was incorporated in 1959, and only dissolved in December 2021, with two members of the Sacks family still listed as company directors.

There remains the question of why pieces are marked with two sets of "hallmarks". Could it be that the "older" set of marks were used between 1933 and 1936, and pieces made after 1937 were re-struck with the new trademark following its registration at the end of 1936? The reference in the Patent record that "the applicant claimed use of the mark since Oct. 1, 1933" would seem to support this. The fact that the first set of marks look similar to British silver hallmarks - in style at least - is sympathetic to the fact that H Sacks & Sons was reproducing old Sheffield Plate patterns, and would have wanted their own marks to appear in-keeping.

Does this all sound feasible?

[dognose]

Hi OldSchool,

Does this all sound feasible?

Indeed it does. Many thanks for sharing your research on this company, it's very much appreciated.

Trev.

[OldSchool]

One additional item ... I have now found a commercial postcard publicising H. Sacks & Sons "Crown Silver Division" which includes images of a tray and other wares typical of the kind bearing these marks.





What is relevant is the lettering, particularly on the front of this card. The Gothic font used for "H. Sacks & Sons" includes the upper-case "S" ... which is very similar to the "S" included in the US Patent Office record for 1937, although a little bolder. (The font used for the back is subtly different).

[Traintime]

All of which raises the question…Does any of this relate to the so named “Crown Silver Company” of New York (circa 1955-1960) which took control of the manufacture of four existing firms and put out Sterling wares as noted here: https://sterlingflatwarefashions.com/si ... to-cutler/

Everyone else seems to think CSC (in plated wares) disappeared around 1950. Could this be incorrect?