Help with Daznig Mark

[jackk]

I need help in attributing this Danzig mark.

Thanks!
Jack

[Hose_dk]

it is a butifull item - you bought it?
It is not for caviar it is a sugar bowl.
mest regards from denmark.

[jackk]

Thanks, yes, the item is in my possession. My sources list this as confiture dish.

[jackk]

The closest marks that I was able to find for Danzig are these assayer marks from Grodecki book. "R" is not the same, but this is all I can find. Anyone has better German hallmarks references?

[Qrt.S]

The assayer's mark seems to have been in use around 1670-1700 but the R letter in a square (or very similar) is most likely an year letter indicating 1829-1833 ??? How does Hose know what it is ??? Kindly show the whole object, its style might help.

Rgds

Qrt.S

[Hose_dk]

it is beginning 1800 so your year indication is correct. I wanted to buy the item. but not as much as someone else :-)

[jackk]

From what I understand (i.e., remember reading), Danzig started requiring assayers' marks to be put on silver items around 1730.
I believe this object to be very late XVIII c. to early XIX. Assuming that the "R" in a square is an assayer's mark, the closest match is in Rosenberg (1829-33, 36). Most likely, this is it, but it is still NOT the same mark. Clearly, Rosenberg's "R" is in Italic, this one is not.

In my previous post I misspelled a name of a reference I was using. It should be Gradowski's and not Grodecki. The book is "Zlotnicy na ziemiach polnocnej Polski" by Michal Gradowski and Agnieszka Kasprzak-Miler. (translation "Goldsmiths of Northern Poland").

Anyhow, here is a picture of the object. Filigree confiturier with 12 filigree spoons.

[Qrt.S]

Well well, an interesting discussion. However, I'm afraid that I cannot fully agree with you jackk. What I mean is that the "R" is undoubtedly the year mark and not the assayer's mark. This dates the object to 1829-33(36). The assayers' mark is the mark to the left being as well the town symbol for Danzig. There is hardly no doubts about that. If you have access to Rosenberg, kindly also read the text e.g. "Beschauzeichen" means Control/Assaying mark. You said that the Rs aren't exactly the same. No, they aren't that is a fact but they are close enough and leaves to me no possibilities to misunderstand or believe the R to be an assayer's mark. The W. is the maker's mark. Unfortunately I don't know who it is. The other problem is that I don't either know for sure what the Danzig's assayer's mark looked like around the turn of the century 1799-1800. It probably looked like this mark on the basket. Hopefully somebody can verify this.

About punching the city mark and master's mark on a silver object in Danzig/Gdansk. That was decided already on 17 of May in 1395 and this is one of the oldest regulations in Germany. Was the regulation always obeyed or not is another question (it wasn't). But as from 1418 it was again stipulated that the master must punch his mark below the city mark, but...? Anyway, the city mark became the assaying mark on 20th of April 1621 for the purity of 13 loth.

What we now seem to know is that the object in silver 13 loth is made in Danzig between 1829-36 by W.

By the way, is it really a sugar basket? I have my doubts, never seen one with spoons and so many. Wasn't sugar picked with tongs at that era?

Oh yes, congratulations for a good bargain. It is a lovely piece, it really is (whatever it is).

[jackk]

Qrt.S. thanks for your input.
Again, in my understanding, what you refer to as a "year mark" is an assayer's mark. Danzig town mark was a requirement on all silver items (at least 13 loth). Assayer mark was another mark that Danzig ordinance started to require in 1730. I need to dig out the book where I found this info, but this is how I remember it.

I don't think this is a sugar bowl. As previously said, this is a confiture (jam) dish.

Jack

[dragonflywink]

Having had a Frenchman assure me that this form was/is used as a jam-pot in France, will suggest that there may be regional differences, though I've never clearly understood why individual spoons for jam would be needed. It does seem practical to have a matching set of spoons for stirring sugar into your beverage; plates 291 and 292 in Bojesen & Bøje's Old Danish Silver show similar vase-form sugar bowls with glass liners, dated 1812 and 1810: a side-handled filigree-work piece without spoon holders, and a top-handled pierced-work piece with spoon holders and 12 teaspoons. Might add that similar combination sugar bowl/spoon holders, usually silverplate, were produced in the U.S. in the latter part of the 19th century and identified in catalogs as such (they did not have the elegance of the piece shown here).

~Cheryl

[Qrt.S]

Well as I said, interesting discussion. It's interesting that I have no notes of this 1730 regulation. However, that doesn't proof anything. You don't need to dig out the book. There is a regulation or actually a decision from 11th of September 1739 which states (abbreviated) that when the alderman has tested and found the silver fineness to be not less than 13 loth the mark "S" shall be punched beside the city and alderman's mark.
Moreover, we both are actually right in a way I have to admit. The thing is that what I call "year letter" is a year letter but it is as well the "symbol" for the assayer/alderman (I've just found out it) of the respective era. In this case the already mentioned 1829-36 years. Unfortunately I don't know who this R is.

OK, now it is verified, it's not a sugar basket, excellent Cheryl.

[jackk]

Typical silver sugar dish from this region and time is a box of a rectangular body and it will have lock. Explanation for the lock (or at least what I was told): sugar was not a cheap commodity at a time, and whoever could afford it, most likely also had a maid. Locking the box would prevent the maid stealing the sugar. ...or prevent kids from stuffing their faces with sugar... :)

Jam (preserved fruits) were served as a form of dessert in XVI-XIX centuries. I assume they could be served in this dish and each person at the table would use his/her own spoon to feast on it...

[Hose_dk]

last time I was in Pragh I looked at two similar in the nabourhood of the Jewish quarter. In a fine antiqueshop - both for sugar.
This page in danish also say sugar. http://www.antikbrevkassen.dk/stort.asp?selbinr=11149

[blakstone]

The assayer’s marks used in Danzig are definitely not “year letters” per se, as they were not in alphabetical sequence. Rather, these letters were the initials of the incumbent alderman. Both of the the marks here were used as assayer’s marks: the “R” by Johan Jacob Raths (Master 1811, alderman 1829-1833 and 1836) and the “W.” by Carl August Winckelmann (Master 1834, alderman 1841-1844 and 1846-1849).

I’ve run across this situation before; apparently some aldermen used their assayer’s mark as a maker’s mark and vice-versa. Here, as both men were also known to have used a traditional maker’s mark (i.e. “JR” or “I. RATHS” and “Winckelmann”), determining which was the maker and which the assayer is problematic.

If Winckelmann is the maker, it can only have been made in 1836 when Raths was assayer, as Winckelmann was not a master until 1834. Frankly, as it is unlikely that Winckelmann would have cut an assayer’s-style punch before he held the office, it seems more plausible to me that the piece was made after both men had had an assayer’s punch cut, which would suggest that the piece dates from 1841-1844, with Winckelmann as assayer and Raths the maker.

I can add that this is not an uncommon form in Italy, where it is invariably called a sugar bowl.

Ref: Michal Gradowski, Znaki na Srebrze (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2001), p. 71 & 78-79, marks XXXIXB [Raths] & XLIIA [Winckelmann].

[Theoderich]

hallo blakstone
I have a W and R -mark, and my marks looks a little different
(ca.1860)
(engraving 1859)

[oel]

Hi Blackstone,

Perhaps a bit confusing, but as I understand you, an alderman in Danzig could use his assayer mark as a maker’s mark on his own items made, but he could not assay his own work. He also was allowed to continue to use his assay mark as a maker’s mark, although he was no more an alderman/assayer.
I always thought the assay punch had to be destroyed after the assayer officially stopped working. This practice using assayer mark as a maker’s mark was only done in Danzig or in other German cities as well?

Regards,

Oel

[Hose_dk]

Dont know regarding Danzig, but in Norway the situation with master was guardein. He set marks accordingly. In denmark often no guardein - therefore marset set several marks. 2 - 3 or even 4 of his masters mark.

I think that the word we as in search for is - honest. The proffessionel pride performed by these men. To hold a public office was only rewarded by the status it held. They where not paid.
They performed a job - test - and was paid for that operation. But most of all I think that the status was the most important.

[blakstone]

Well, what they were legally permitted to do I cannot say; I merely report that there are Danzig pieces which appear to have two assayer’s marks and no maker’s mark. It is only my supposition that one must actually be a maker’s mark. You mention the problem of an alderman marking his own work. It occurs to me that perhaps there was a deputy alderman who had his own mark to use on wares presented for assay by the alderman. (Munich, for instance, had a special deputy’s mark for such a case.) That would explain why there appear to be two assayer’s marks - one for the alderman presenting his own work and one for his deputy verifying its quality - and it would certainly make more sense for a deputy to use the same mark when he became alderman than it would for an alderman to use his mark after his tenure. Unfortunately, the Danzig deputy assayers are not recorded in Gradowski, nor even if such an office existed.

The “W” mark Theodorich posts does look a little different than the initial one posted, but clearly they are the same in the sense that they are the same assayer’s mark. I doubt an assayer would have used one solitary punch of one size on every single item presented to him over the course of three years, so I suspect these are merely minor variances in the individual punches used. But at least there is no ambiguity in Theodorich’s photo about which is the assayer's mark and which the maker's: Winckelmann is the assayer and the maker is Gottlieb Ephraim Wulsten (mentioned 1820-1870). (Though Wulsten himself did as alderman 1834-1835 and 1837-1839.)

The “R” in Theodorich’s second photo, though is not J. J. Rath’s but that of his son Ferdinand Robert Raths (Master 1850); it is one of three he is known to have used during his tenure as alderman, 1856-1861. (See Gradowski, marks XLVA-C) The maker is Carl Sohr (mentioned 1857-1880).

[jackk]

In a recent exhibition in Gdansk, "Srebra z Gdanskiego Kredensu", a similar object was presented without the spoons, which were lost. It was described as a sugar basket. I guess each region had a different purpose for the same object. French will always call this a confiture dish.

Picture of the object from the exhibition is below. It was made by Johann Gottlieb Ulrich and assayed by Carl Moritz Stumpf.

A requirement to hallmark Danzig silver with a city mark was enacted in 1631. In 1730, assayers who punched the city marks on completed objects, were also required to punch their assayer marks. In most of the cases, they were using a separate mark from their "maker's mark", but as Blackstone already noted, there were instances where they used the same mark for maker's and assayer's work. Also, there was a practice to punch assayer mark directly above the maker's mark. Many times they were so close to each other that they looked like one single hallmark.

[jackk]