A heavy fiddle, thread and shell fork. Exaggerated shell!! Hallmarked with lion passant and maker's mark script PC?. Unusually hallmarked on the heel. Not English but I guess colonial. Any ideas?
.
Identify Country and maker?
-
johnhoumoller
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:07 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
Identify Country and maker?
A heavy fiddle, thread and shell fork. Exaggerated shell!! Hallmarked with lion passant and maker's mark script PC?. Unusually hallmarked on the heel. Not English but I guess colonial. Any ideas?
.
Hi,
It looks like the mark of Paul Crespin, entered in 1749 (he had a first mark entered in 1739 also with PC in script, but with one dot above and one dot below the letters).
I have examples of tea spoons with this shell pattern made in France at the same period, but the pattern is a bit less prominent.
Dinio
.
It looks like the mark of Paul Crespin, entered in 1749 (he had a first mark entered in 1739 also with PC in script, but with one dot above and one dot below the letters).
I have examples of tea spoons with this shell pattern made in France at the same period, but the pattern is a bit less prominent.
Dinio
.
Hi,
I'm going to stick my neck out on this one, and I expect to get plenty of flak, so here goes.
I think this is a very avant-garde fork, it is English, made by the workshops of Paul Crespin c.1770.
Before you laugh, let me explain the reasoning behind my thoughts. Firstly the maker's mark, to me it looks a good match for Grimwade 2149. Paul Crespin himself died in 1770, but probably had not wielded a hammer for some time before that, but that's not to say that his workshop closed immediatley upon his retirement, he was thought to have had a son in the trade.
What Crespin certainly would have had, is strong connections in France, where this pattern may well have had its origins, and may well have been in use there years before finding popularity here.
That leaves us with the unusual positioning of the marks. Between about 1770 and 1780 Goldsmiths Hall performed many experiments on hallmark positioning. An article was published in 'The Finial' (Vol.14/06) by Anthony Dove, in it he illustrates a four tined fork by Thomas Heming c.1770 struck with only a Lion Passant along side the maker's mark placed at the base of the tines at the rear, and another example of similar marking on a George Smith fork c. 1775. These experiments were probably to prevent damage to the decoration that was becoming more and more popular on flatware.
OK, starting shooting!
Trev.
.
I'm going to stick my neck out on this one, and I expect to get plenty of flak, so here goes.
I think this is a very avant-garde fork, it is English, made by the workshops of Paul Crespin c.1770.
Before you laugh, let me explain the reasoning behind my thoughts. Firstly the maker's mark, to me it looks a good match for Grimwade 2149. Paul Crespin himself died in 1770, but probably had not wielded a hammer for some time before that, but that's not to say that his workshop closed immediatley upon his retirement, he was thought to have had a son in the trade.
What Crespin certainly would have had, is strong connections in France, where this pattern may well have had its origins, and may well have been in use there years before finding popularity here.
That leaves us with the unusual positioning of the marks. Between about 1770 and 1780 Goldsmiths Hall performed many experiments on hallmark positioning. An article was published in 'The Finial' (Vol.14/06) by Anthony Dove, in it he illustrates a four tined fork by Thomas Heming c.1770 struck with only a Lion Passant along side the maker's mark placed at the base of the tines at the rear, and another example of similar marking on a George Smith fork c. 1775. These experiments were probably to prevent damage to the decoration that was becoming more and more popular on flatware.
OK, starting shooting!
Trev.
.
-
johnhoumoller
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:07 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
Post subject: Identify Country and maker
Thanks Dinio and Trev - interesting comments.
2 - 0 to Paul Crespin so far.
John H
.
2 - 0 to Paul Crespin so far.
John H
.
Hi John,
One thing I forgot to mention was, that regarding my theory of French origin, is the soft shoulders on your fork, this is a very French design feature, as against the English version that has hard, sharp shoulders.
I'm delighted that Dinio thinks along similar lines, I don't feel so mad now!
Regards Trev.
.
One thing I forgot to mention was, that regarding my theory of French origin, is the soft shoulders on your fork, this is a very French design feature, as against the English version that has hard, sharp shoulders.
I'm delighted that Dinio thinks along similar lines, I don't feel so mad now!
Regards Trev.
.
Hi Trev,
Your guess of a French influence sounds good for me. Perhaps these spoons could have been made for the French market? Your argument for asserting the date based on the punch location is certainly OK, and very interesting.
I will try to retrieve these French tea spoons that I mentioned in my previous post and I will post their picture in some days. If I remember well they were made around 1750-1760 but not in Paris.
Dinio
.
Your guess of a French influence sounds good for me. Perhaps these spoons could have been made for the French market? Your argument for asserting the date based on the punch location is certainly OK, and very interesting.
I will try to retrieve these French tea spoons that I mentioned in my previous post and I will post their picture in some days. If I remember well they were made around 1750-1760 but not in Paris.
Dinio
.
Hi
This fork is turning out to be a real mystery. It is actually one of a set of 6 that I have. They are unusually heavy and have a rigid feel to them which makes me think that they are cast. I know very little about the manufacturing process, but had always presumed that cast examples with sought after makers marks were deliberate forgeries. With this set of 6 however, the marks and their positioning are not all identical as you would expect if they were cast from a single original. In fact one lion passant has been stamped upside down compared to the others and another is in a shaped stamp (1740 to 1756) while the rest have the straight outline (after 1756). The final mystery is that on all the forks there are very faint solder lines in the area between the end of the drop and where the tines begin. This indicates that the tine section has been joined to the stem and that the forks have not been cast in one piece.
I am stumped!!!! Has anyone any suggestions??
Below is apic of the solder join.
John
.
This fork is turning out to be a real mystery. It is actually one of a set of 6 that I have. They are unusually heavy and have a rigid feel to them which makes me think that they are cast. I know very little about the manufacturing process, but had always presumed that cast examples with sought after makers marks were deliberate forgeries. With this set of 6 however, the marks and their positioning are not all identical as you would expect if they were cast from a single original. In fact one lion passant has been stamped upside down compared to the others and another is in a shaped stamp (1740 to 1756) while the rest have the straight outline (after 1756). The final mystery is that on all the forks there are very faint solder lines in the area between the end of the drop and where the tines begin. This indicates that the tine section has been joined to the stem and that the forks have not been cast in one piece.
I am stumped!!!! Has anyone any suggestions??
Below is apic of the solder join.
John
.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest