BEAKER

[Francais]

What test was used and where exactly did they test it, and if xray florescence was it hand held or a machine?
Maurice

[liviu1]

Hi Maurice. The test was done in a laboratory with a laser spectrometer. They also found traces of gold. Not hand held. Regards, Liv.

[liviu1]

Machine. They tested the body, foot and bottom.

[Francais]

I don't know that much about testing, but until someone else explains it, I will presume that means the piece is made of old metal.
I am curious, what state is the beaker in, and how did you get it tested so quickly?

I remember one time looking at a pair of 17th century candlesticks, as I remember German or Dutch. Anyway the maker's marks were so different I thought they were a made up pair. Finally I realized it was the same mark, just struck poorly with distortion. I looked again at your mark and the marks in the NY museum, and I don't see how they could be the same mark. But there are so many similar points, I don't see how it could be accidental. I also don't see how the bottom of the V could change position even if the stamp aged.

I am not sure what this means. The easiest answer is that I am wrong about the marks being different, and perhaps that is the course I would take if I were you. The other possibilities are more difficult to accept. Still possible though. I recently found a piece that was attributed to an American maker primarily because of three pieces in three different museums. I finally figured out all three museums were wrong about their attributions, or at least wrong about their pieces being American.
So I would say Yale has the best pieces for comparison, as the NY museum has a British caudle cup stamped over, a tankard with the different mark, and a spoon, that looks good, but could be more easily faked.

So if you can get Yale to agree, I would compare the marks, size etc, and go from there. l could speculate on why the marks are similar but not the same, but except as a mental exercise, why bother, your next stop should be Yale.
Maurice

[liviu1]

Hi Maurice. The beaker is in Europe. I had it tested so quickly because I work with precious metals and I have to send silver for analysis on a regular basis. They do not normally test silver with this laser spectrometer, this is a very expensive, complicated piece of machinery and it is used only when everything else fails. It took them about one and a half hours to check it because it was checked all over, initially they said it would take 15 minutes. Thank you again for your help with the beaker.

[Francais]

But was it purchased in the USA or Europe?
Maurice

[liviu1]

It was purchased in New York. The weight of the beaker is about 210 grams, I think. Will get back to you with exact weight.

[AGHEAD]

Firstly, I will admit I know little about the mark in question. But I can find three marks in the different references I have. Pic below showing your mark compared to two other known marks. The middle mark is from Ensko.

[liviu1]

Hi Maurice. 208 grams, 6 inches tall, 4.25 at the top, 2.75 the foot. Also, after closely looking at the beaker, no scratch weight but I did find that above the bird and below the monogram it has, it did have a much larger monogram that can barely be seen but it is there. It does not seem that it was removed but just worn. It was quite big. Regards, Liv.

[Francais]

It is sometimes very frustrating not to be able to handle something. Of course it might not help anyway. There are some things I would look at more closely. One that patch over the centering punch. It seems to be polished, and brighter than the bottom, also the solder seems very dark as if it was added with soft solder much later. I don't think I have ever seen something like this before. It would not be a normal place for damage. I wonder if the mark shows up as a dent on the inside bottom, if so can you see a dent from another mark in the place the plug is? Of course you also describe another repair, too difficult, I presume, to photograph. It doesn't sound very professional, for a silversmith, but I have seen worse original mistakes on antique silver before, but very rarely.
Also I would try to tell whether the bigger monogram, was earlier or later than the little one. Are any of the initials the same? If so then it could have passed in the same family.
The real question is if the mark compares to those at Yale. While it is educational to discuss style, monogram, damage, etc. really the mark is the important thing. Everything else can be explained as something on an old piece of silver, but if there isn't an explanation for the differences ( and similarities) in the marks then the question is mute.
Maurice

[liviu1]

Hello again. I did have the solder and patch tested as well and it came out as follows the center shinny one( the actual patch ), 93.56 % silver and 5.944 copper but no lead. The soft solder that surrounds the shinny patch came out as lead 50.63 % sb 2.262 %, su 39.71% silver 5.716 % copper 1.113 %. The actual patch is situated in the middle and from the inside of the cup you can quite clearly see that there is quite a large crack but no dent. I did post a photo of the crack. I will enlarge it a lot more and I will post it tomorrow. There might be a center punch under the solder from when it was made.
I suppose the patch could be taken off.
The larger monogram is illegible but it is in script, not capital letters like the one above it.
OK, will call tomorrow.
Regards, Liv.

[Francais]

Hopefully someone more acquainted with solder will weigh in, but that seem like very soft solder. Certainly too soft for the original silversmith to be covering up a mistake. It sounds soft enough to be called a sloppy job, as I would think a good silversmith would use a harder solder.
Maurice

[oel]

Hi,
In my opinion we are looking at a dubious beaker with a spurious makers' mark.

Regards,

Oel.

[liviu1]

[Francais]

Liv, I actually meant the other damage you mentioned near the lip.

[liviu1]

OK. Doing it now. Regards, Liv.

[liviu1]

[Francais]

I didn't think the marks would enlarge well, but they aren't too bad.

I knew a very obnoxious and ignorant collector 40 years ago. In her hometown was a 19th c. silversmith named E. Jaccard. She found a spoon with a mark B. Jaccard. It was just an E that degraded to look like a B. She gave a lecture, and said that was silly, and that a silversmith as important as E Jaccard would not let his mark degrade. Well anyway I finally got some spoons of his, he made tons of them, and showed the mark slowly degrade. So things do happen to marks over years.

Having said that I don't see how the V could move to a different position in this mark. But there are obvious similarities: the position of the C and B in relationship to each other, etc. There is one I don't think is visible but the top edge of the B drops a little in all three marks.
Another thing you might notice, the distance between the B and the right edge of the cartouche appears different on the two museum marks, even though they are on the same piece.

So presuming this analysis is correct, the three marks are similar, maybe very similar, but not the same stamp.
I can only come up with two explanations, one is the middle mark is a deliberate forgery. The second is they were cut by the same person.
The first is self explanatory, and the crack was left out deliberately. The second would mean the silversmith decided to replace the cracked mark, and he just cut the mark in a similar fashion.

For the second to be accepted, everything, style, engraving, etc would all have to be very close to known examples of CVB's work, something that can't be done on line.

I will say that in my opinion there is nothing about the beaker that I see that says it is fake, or a converted old piece.
Maurice

[oel]

Hello Maurice,


Today I checked Beeling’ books about Dutch silver, part II shows a wedding beaker made in Dordrecht in 1634 which comes close, height of this beaker 17 cm. The birds and decoration could have been inspired by Adriaen Muntick decorative designer early 17th century.
https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/search?p= ... tinck&ii=4

Liv’s beaker, if we look at the chemical composition provided by Liv ; body 925.4 % silver, 70.81% copper, 2.48% lead. Bottom, 926.7% silver, 69.66% copper, 2.44 % lead, foot 914.5%, 80.94% copper, 3.24 % lead. We could say the beaker is sterling and my question; what silver standards were used in New York in 17th century? To my knowledge coin silver 930/1000 until the end of 17th century and later lowered to 916/1000 but I am not sure.
If made in Holland during 17th century, the beaker should be 934-944/1000 or 833/1000.

Oel.

[Francais]

The problem in discussing pre-sterling American silver is that there were no wide spread standards, and very few controls. Some communities did have assayers and standards for a period of time but generally there was no set standard. So whenever you read about American silver such terms as "coin" or “colonial" Silver are used. Of course small groups of silversmiths could get together and agree on keeping up a certain standard. Most of the silver available in colonial America was in the form of the Spanish silver dollar. or scrap. So to have a sterling standard extra pure silver would have to be added. Of course English sterling Silver would be available from time to time in the form of damaged, smelted silver. At least one silversmith in the 18th-century used the term "sterling" is his mark. And an even higher standard was occasionally used, as French silver pieces we're just back stamped and resold. On the other end of the scale I remember seeing a tea set years ago that belong to one of George Washington's generals that was obviously considerably lower in quality than even 800 fine silver. My presumption at the time was not that the silversmith cheated but that the client brought to little silver in to make a coin silver tea set the size he wanted. I'm not well-versed in 17th century New York silver standards, but I imagine that Dutch silversmiths in New York would probably try to stay close to Dutch standards. My guess is that silver was more often made on demand in America whereas in Holland it it could be more often sold off-the-shelf. There were occasionally trials of silversmiths for using lower grade silver, but I think it was more often lower than the weight or grade agreed upon than lower than a set standard.
Obviously the above comments are couched in generalizations but I am trying not to attract objections. It is very difficult to speak about the quality of American silver without being very general. By early to mid 19th century the coin standard was more or less adopted and eventually "coin" was stamped on American silverware but by that time most was not made from melted coins but from rolled sheets. And here's a question for you: did the Dutch silversmiths stay close to their standards? My theory has always been that the standards were minimums and that a piece of Dutch silver might easily assay out at let us say .900 fine. And what would stop a client from asking for A goblet to be made in the French standard?
Maurice