Anyone knows more about this Paris maker?

[zilverik]

Hi,

I am proud to be the owner of this beautifull spicebox with nutmeggrater. Marks: A italics withcrown fermier Jean Jacques Prevost active since 1/10/1762, crown with A capital of Paris from 18/7/1764 to 11/7/1765. Makersmark: Left: V; Right: C Under: P with; Above: Fleur de lys Crowned = Vincent Pierre Cherrier. The only information that I was able to find is in Henry Nocq. Master in 1758 in Paris. Listed in 1759, 1774, 1781. I cannot believe that Vincent Cherrier only made this object. Anyone who knows more?

http://i51.tinypic.com/2rgj6m8.jpg
http://i53.tinypic.com/6ibkua.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/24xqm2p.jpg

(admin photo edit - images too large - link only - see Posting Requirements )

Regards,

Zilverik

[zilverik]

Hi,

Here is a better photo of the marks. And the other photo of the mark I added as well. With a little bit of luck there is the makersmark V (left) C (right) P (under) to see. With a crowned fleur de Lys. Altought, the marks are very worn, I sure hope someone recognizes this mastermark.

Regards,

Zilverik

[zilverik]

Hi,

I have a better photo now and more information. My interpretation before was a mistake. Maybe this helps to find the name of the maker (or the name of the "veuve").
Marks: A italics with crown = assaymaster; crown with A capital of Paris. Makersmark: Left: V; Right: C; Under: P. Above: Fleur de lys Crowned (with a heart?).

Regards,

Zilverik

[JayT]

This is what I see: The poinçon du fermier général also called the poinçon de marque, or tax assessor’s mark in use 1 October 1738 - 1 October 1744. The name of the fermier général during that time was Louis Robin. He did not assay objects. The tax assessor’s marks for Paris were an A with a closed crown. The appearance of the crowned A changed every time a new tax assessor was named. Next I see the poinçon de jurande also called the poinçon de la maison commune, or assayer’s mark, which also served as a date letter mark. This mark changed annually and consisted of a letter of the alphabet topped by an open crown. The poinçon de jurande here dates it to 1740, more in keeping with the rococo style of your object than the later date you suggest. Unfortunately I don’t know the name of the maker, but Nocq should have it. I don’t see the discharge mark or poinçon de décharge. Hope this helps to clarify the marks on your spice box.

[zilverik]

Hi JayT,

Thank you very much for your effort. Unfortunately, I don’t see the discharge mark or poinçon de décharge. Probably worn, as is a lot with this spicebox. I couldn't find this mark VCP in Nocq. Maybe it is the widow of this master, because the mark starts with V (could mean "Veuve" = widow)In that case it could be master CP (with heart?) or master PC (with heart?). No such master in Nocq the way I looked for it.

Regards,

Zilverik

[JayT]

You are welcome. Have you searched the whole box for the discharge mark? Often these marks are not punched in the same place as the others, and as they are very small can be easy to overlook. Good luck in your search for the maker.

[zilverik]

Hi JayT,

Could it be the widdow (V) of Charles Proselle? According to Solange Brault and Yves Bottineau (l'orfevrerie Francaise du XVIIIe siecle) he became a Paris master in 1714.

Regards,

Zilverik

[jgl]

Charles Proselle, reçu le 4 Juin 1729-1748, rue de l'Arbre-Sec, fils de maitre, cautionné par Jean-Baptiste YON.
Sa Veuve (VCP ?) lui succède rue de la Vannerie 1748-1759.

[zilverik]

Hi JGL,

Thank you very much! So it is the Veuve (or the son?) of Charles Proselle? Where did you found this information. Do you have the name of a book or an archive?

Regards,

Zilverik

[jgl]

I do not remember where i found these informations about Charles Proselle, 1729-1748, CP, une étoile and about His widow. May be VCP is she !
Beuque gives other dates for Charles Proselle : "Charles Proselle, reçu maître à Paris, le 21 août 1714; cet orfèvre travaillait encore en 1736" (selon Beuque).
But Beuque is not very liable with dates ...

[JayT]

Hmm.. I have some questions about this attribution. How do you think Charles Proselle’s widow, said to have been active 1748-1759, could have made an object with a date stamp for 1740? Is there any evidence that this widow ever registered a mark? So far I don’t think you have a good attribution for the maker of this object.

[zilverik]

What if the A ("Paris charge") is to read as the A of 1762-1768 and the dateletter as the A of 1764? In that case it is maybe more explainable that the box was made under the mark of (the successor of) the widow (Veuve) of Charles Proselle. It is not a clear case. For instance, how hard is the information that the widow of Charles Proselle was active between 1748 and 1759? And I don't know what the regulation was about using a mastermark for a widow or the son of the master in those days. Maybe the box was made but not completely finished before 1759 an then it was finished in 1764. Just a theory.

[JayT]

Judging from the picture alone, the charge mark appears to be that of Louis Robin 1738-1744, and not that of Jean-Jacques Prévost 1762-1768. Specifically, the crowned A mark used by Robin has two “feathered” legs with scroll feet, while the Prévost mark has a fruiting olive branch on the left leg of the A, with no “feathers”. Furthermore, the style of your spice box is rococo and not the later neoclassical style that you’d expect to see from the 1760’s. As for the date letter mark, it is difficult to distinguish the A of 1740 from the A of 1764, but taken together with the charge mark, I have no hesitation to attribute this item to the earlier date. However, you have the object in hand, so are best placed to see the marks properly.

The hypothesis that the object was marked by the maker after assay and after tax was assessed is not logical. The marking system in pre-Revolutionary France was very tightly controlled by both the guild and the state. Objects did not lay about the workshop until the maker was ready to mark them. Rather, the maker made his mark first and then took the object to be assayed and assessed for tax. The assay master could not by law assay an object that was not attributed to a master maker, and the tax assessor could not collect tax from an object that was unattributed.

The maker of your spice box might always remain a mystery.

[zilverik]

Hi Jat, jgl and others,

Thank you for your comments and ideas. My last mail was a sort of desperate search for a solution. For me it stays incredible that there is an undoubtfully good piece of silverware with an unknown Paris maker VCP. Difficult to accept that the maker of this spice box will maybe always remain a mystery. At the moment I have to accept that.

Regards,

zilverik