Small Cast Sugar Tongs

[buckler]

Some time ago there was a debate about a pair of very small cast sugar tongs (only 80mm long ) by Charles Hougham . The original post has now lost many of the photos and it rambled on a bit , but can be found at
viewtopic.php?t=10587&highlight=.

The question was whether the tongs had originally started life as a small version of the makers full size design using some of the same elements, or had been altered subsequently from a broken full size pair . The full size pair were probably made from seven separate castings !



An examination of the piece convinced my wife and I ( and Tongtwister) that the small pair had almost certainly been made in that size from the beginning. But we may be biased !
A curious feature was that the “bowls” were totally flat with no concavity whatsoever and no-one could explain their purpose..

Now read on !

Another short pair has now turned up, this time a longer 116mm length but still short as tongs go (most are around 140mm -150mm) . These also have flat bowls, but with a small concavity — an intermediate bowl between the fully dished and the totally flat type. The style is pure rococo, especially as the bowls are asymmetric .





This second pair are almost certainly by Thomas Wigan of Bristol — mark entered in London in 1763. His mark very similar to Thomas Wallis II with which it is often confused —but Wallis’s first script mark was 1780 . Thomas Wigan was the father of the Edward Wigan, one of Samuel Godbehere's numerous assorted partners. The top depression on this TW mark can often be seen on both tongs and buckles.



Curious that these are probably provincial as the only other really small cast pair known to me are by Thomas Eustace of Exeter — which are almost identical to the Hougham pair . He, like Hougham , also made a full size version of them

Can anyone now suggest a use for this bowl feature on smaller than normal tongs please ?
.

[Tongtwister]

Hi,

Lovely pair of tongs - you do come up with some interesting ones sometimes. I would make a couple of points:

1. I think you are right in that short cast tongs are rare - but they are not unknown. There is a pair floating around that are potentially by Hester. Also, see Lot 432 of the 28th January Woolley & Wallis sale. I examined them & they looked fine to me (but I wouldn't like to say what the maker's mark is for certain). Having said that I don't know of any provincial ones. Provincial cast tongs are rare anyway, so short ones well........

2. I don't think the bowls on your tongs are actually that unusual. You see varying sizes of "indentation" on cast bowls, neither do I think they are restricted to short tongs - they pop up fairly frequently. I suspect it is no more than a feature of the way the mold was made, so I don't think there was any specific "use" for this bowl shape.

Of course - as you often say - the more we find out, the more we realise that we know very little - so I could be completely wrong!!

By the way - keep an eye on my web-site - I have the most wonderful pair of provincial tongs about to appear!!
.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Hi, is this mark on the tongs, cast in place, or is it stamped into the article? Thanks in advance!
.

[buckler]

The marks look like a standard mark made with a punch. It would be quite difficult to cast a mark on the back of cast tongs as you would need a two part mould. I cannot see the advantage of usung a casting rather than a punch. Cast assay marks are a different story - they do exist on buckles I think and save the silversmith all the effort, expense and risk of sending to the assay office . And thats being generous to the silversmith's motives !!!!
.