Removing/covering engravings on old silver

[MLF]

Following on from Kerangoumar's thread on silver alterations (Altered Silver), I wonder what you all think about current techniques of removing or covering engravings on silverware? Personally, I am hesitant to have such work done - not least because it's my impression that there's still a risk that the result will be uneven or outright ugly. Am I too cynical - or am I right to wait for such a time in the future, when this sort of work can be done without the risk of compromising the integrity of a piece?

Consider these four spoons, which I have described in another thread (London 1784 - unknown silversmith LG or GS):



The engraved 'J' on each handle (and I'm sorry I can't show a better picture today) is almost certainly younger than the spoons themselves. The spoons were made in different years but were also part of a collection that included mid- to late-Victorian pieces bearing identical 'J's. I suspect the pieces were engraved at the same time - in the latter half of the 19th century. At any rate, the initial is not particularly interesting - and in my mind does nothing but detract from the aesthetics of the spoons.

Contrast with the French salt cellar with its discreet but stylish monogram, which I would never seek to remove (taken from this thread: Salt cellar from 1809-1819. Who's maker 'CMG'?):



So, my question is this: are the techniques of removing or covering engravings still rather sketchy or have they improved to perfection? Does it just depend on who does the work? Is the main problem one of determining how much silver to apply? I'd be very interesting to hear the forum's experience with this.

Best wishes

Mikael
.

[Granmaa]

Besides the obvious method of removing layers of silver until the monogram is no longer visible, there is another method as described in Silver Flatware by Ian Pickford.

The other is to fill the engraving with solder and then smooth the surface down. This will leave a stain which can sometimes be seen. However, most such pieces are then electro-plated over to cover the stain.

I, like you, hate most monograms done after 1800. The only ones I like are the crude block capitals found on pre-1800 spoons either done by the owner himself or some local smith. Some people say it's destroying history to remove them, but I can't see that there's much history in the letter J as with your spoons.

Miles
.

[salmoned]

Altering a piece invariably detracts from historical appreciation. To value the maker's mark, a piece must be as close to 'as originally made' as possible. The marks (as an historic 'snapshot') lose value as the alterations increase because less of the work can be ascribed. Aesthetic appreciation may (or may not) be enhanced by decorative rework, but historical value is degraded.

So, are you collecting as a conservator or as an aesthete? [Note: one is not forced to exclusively occupy only one camp.]
.

[Granmaa]

I think Mikael was referring specifically to monograms rather than decorative engraving.
.

[Hose_dk]

I would still say that we do not run a museum. On the other hand the history of a thing is importent.
I know that commercial value is reduces when things are changed, but do you collect for commercial value or for making use of an item. We know that pieces with 100 og 200 (or longer) history have had a number of owners. I believ that every owner has the rigth to his or her item.

I do not consider myselv a keeper of the thing - jost for a loan. I know that things have to get into circulation again but a present i am the owner. But still I would never put anything at an item that would vandalize it. But done properly, and in respect for the item. I thing that it is OK.

I would never remove initials set by someone else - even though they were set 100 years after the thing was produced.

I have some 1700 spoons that have started to break. They cannot be used. I am thinking of having them made. I will contact a silver smith and do a test at a 1800 item first. When I see the result I will descide wether he should proceed with 1700 - am I making a mistake? Could anyone comment on that - before i make a try. I will post a picture so please comment.
.

[admin]

To the monogram removal question, I believe it is always best to leave a piece as is. I think most of us love silver for a combination of the aesthetics and the history of the pieces. I guess you could say that I feel we have a responsibility to maintain whatever history a piece has and not set about to take some of it away. If to my eye some of the aesthetic value of a piece is diminished by a monogram (original or later addition), I pass on the piece and let it find a home where it will be appreciated. If for some reason, I need to have it, I learn to live with its warts.
A far more practical reason not to have engraved work removed is that it is near impossible to have done well. I've seen hundreds of pieces literally ruined by removals. I'm not saying that the skills do not exist today, but to make it cost efficient, the "restorer" can not give a removal the time and attention it needs for the reworked area to blend with rest of the piece. The result is often a highly polished dip in the surface and to make this stand out less, the rest of the piece is often buffed to death and stripped of its antique surface. The end result, a loss of both aesthetic & historical value.
As to hosedk question on restoration/conservation, that is worth a thread of its own-> http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8859" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regards, Tom
.

[salmoned]

Hmmm, monograms ARE decorative engravings, nicht wahr?

Certainly an owner can alter or even melt down whatever they own, I wouldn't argue against it. However, they must decide WHY they own, whether for use, aesthetic purposes, conservation, monetary gain or some combination of reasons.

If you wish to use those 1700-era items, by all means have them repaired. They won't really be 1700-era items anymore, however, to the extent that they are repaired. Hammering out dings does less to detract than adding reinforcement or decoration, of course (there are degrees of alteration).
.

[Granmaa]

No, I think very few monograms can be classed as decorative engraving, certainly not the Js on Mikael's spoons. Decorative engraving, it seems to me, should be primarily (or even exclusively) for decoration; like that of a bright-cut spoon. Monograms were and still are used to identify the owner for protection against theft or often to personalize a gift for someone; there's also a show-offish element to it. Would anyone monogram something because they think it would make the item more attractive?

Tom, you said that you believe it is always best to leave a piece as it is; does that mean you disagree with those who monogram their silver or those who remove the monograms or both? Would you say it's more acceptable to monogram a contemporary item than an older one?

Miles
.

[admin]

Miles,
Yes, I prefer to see antique pieces left alone for the reasons stated above.

Regards, Tom
.

[admin]

So, my question is this: are the techniques of removing or covering engravings still rather sketchy or have they improved to perfection?

I thought I'd address Mikael's original question. As, Miles noted, there are two basic techniques, either filing to below the level of the engraving and repolishing or filling the engraving with a silver alloy of a lower melting point than the silver of the piece itself.
The negative aspects of technique 1 are obvious, loss of contour and loss of the antique surface, one of the great charms of antique silver.
Technique 2 sounds less intrusive, but in point of fact, once filled the surface has to be filed down to an even plane before repolishing. In practice, this means going just a tad deeper than the original surface. Once again loss of the antique surface. To make matters worse, the color difference between the fill and original silver is often hidden by silverplating the entire piece, killing all traces of the original patina.

So, although the latter engraved "J"s on your spoon are not what you'd like, I think what is likely to replace them, via removal, would please you less. Even when this work is insensitively done, it does not come cheap. Better to put the money towards another set of Old English, each with lovely, flourishy and period "M" on the handle.

Regards, Tom
.

[kerangoumar]

After having thought about the question (see also my response to Hose's question of repair) I would have to say that if you acquired these spoons because you intended all along to have the engraving removed, then your decision will involve only the determination of which type of removal is least objectionable. Perhaps you will come to the decision to sell them and replace them with spoons that are more nearly pristine. (Following on that thought, would one not also want to have all scratches and signs of prior use and life polished out?)

But if you acquired them because you liked them why would you now want to remove the monograms?

Some members of this forum see any additions as approaching vandalism. One can equally see them as history. Let me quote from a very pleasant little creamer:

"Presented to Mrs. Basil Haines by the working classes of Sparsholt & Westcott in remembrance and sincere appreciation of her never tiring interest on their behalf August 1892" My italics. Now does that not tell you a great deal? Would I prefer the creamer as it had been made? No.
.

[MLF]

Thanks for a very stimulating discussion. Rest assured that I love these spoons despite their flaws. I do consider the letters detracting and not integral to these pieces, but, as I said before, I would never consider having them removed if the process meant harming the integrity of each spoon. Nor do I think that all monograms are always detracting. And long inscriptions, well, of course not! And I like patina and signs of wear. I cannot agree, however, that all changes are important and must be preserved because of History. I have pieces on which a previous owner or seller has scratched a number very crudely. That's just vandalism pure and simple. Or a child bends a fork - shall it remain contorted for eternity? (The fork that is, not the child.)

My question was meant to investigate the current status of the techniques - using the spoons as an example (thanks for the answer). I would agree that filing off a monogram is a travesty. I suppose what really surprises me is that both existing techniques so radically change the silver.

Hmm, maybe I should just change my name to John!
.

[susane]

Superimpose an "M", if that's your last name, in an artistic way in a similar or compatible script. Think of them as an heirloom from your uncle John.
Susan
.

[susane]

Oops, I guess that should be an "F"
S.
.

[MLF]

Ha!

But I should perhaps say that this discussion has been a little artificial on my part and that I've played the devil's advocate - at least to some degree. It's the nature of this debate to be black or white with few shades of gray.

Despite of what I may feel about the quality, late date or poor aesthetics of individual engravings, I will not have them removed when the surgery so radically alters the integrity of the piece. Better then to try and appreciate their History - or eventually exchange them for pieces with no engravings.

Best wishes

Mikael
.

[dmay]

I think an exception to the rule of not monogramming older pieces can be in the case where the piece is passed down through the family and that passing is documented on the piece. I recently saw a photo of a wonderful early tankard that had been passed down through the generation of a family to women in the family, all of whom had the name Anna, either as a first or middle name-it was fascinating!
.