Silver (or alloy) child's spoon

[Iron Buzz]

Found in a Civil War era home (1850 Large Cent and 1864 IH came from there, owner died in 1890)

Wondering if anyone recognizes the maker's mark.



A couple of other pics showing what appears to be some sort of monogram on the front of the handle:




Also curious about the metal. It was badly bent. I annealed it, assuming it was silver, and that worked pretty well, but the heat turned the surface a weird pinkish gray and the flame coming off of it when I was heating it was either nickel green or copper blue-green. Is that typical of sterling? (the discoloring polished off easily)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Red-Coat]

No, that flame colouration wouldn't be usual for sterling. I think the 'S' is part of an 'EPNS' stamp for Electro-Plated Nickel Silver, which would put it after 1840. If so, it would have had a thin silver plate, but the base metal was an alloy of Nickel, Zinc & Copper with no silver content. That could certainly give you a pinkish colouration from annealing and give you green/blue flame colouration in areas where the silver has worn away... it certainly looks like it has seen some heavy polish-wear.

I have a feeling I know who the manufacturer might be, but could you confirm whether the very first mark in the series below looks like it's actually a deliberate mark rather than pitting in the silver? Could you see it as a rodent-like animal kinda tiptoeing on all fours with its back arched and its nose facing left?



PS: I don't know whether it's a child's spoon. It might be a teaspoon (coffee, if you like).

 

[Iron Buzz]

No, that flame colouration wouldn't be usual for sterling. I think the 'S' is part of an 'EPNS' stamp for Electro-Plated Nickel Silver, which would put it after 1840. If so, it would have had a thin silver plate, but the base metal was an alloy of Nickel, Zinc & Copper with no silver content. That could certainly give you a pinkish colouration from annealing and give you green/blue flame colouration in areas where the silver has worn away... it certainly looks like it has seen some heavy polish-wear.

I have a feeling I know who the manufacturer might be, but could you confirm whether the very first mark in the series below looks like it's actually a deliberate mark rather than pitting in the silver? Could you see it as a rodent-like animal kinda tiptoeing on all fours with its back arched and its nose facing left?

View attachment 1812532

PS: I don't know whether it's a child's spoon. It might be a teaspoon (coffee, if you like).

You know, I was thinking as I came upstairs to see if there were any responses to my post that it might possibly be nickel-silver. The green color of the flame would certainly indicate that. And it really doesn't look quite like sterling silver.

I can't be 100% certain about that first character, but the spacing is the same as the character that follows the "E" (which looks like a "C" to me) and it does seem deliberate. Even the depth of the mark seems the same. Why... what are you thinking?

 

[XtreasureX]

I think the upper case E is a London date mark from 1800. If that is the case it wouldn't be sterling. It would be a higher quality silver.
Being that it was dug if it was plated it would be corroded much more, especially if you annealed it. The animal could be an import mark. If it was American it would be marked COIN or STANDARD.

 

[Iron Buzz]

Oh... I forgot to mention that I tried a drop of chlorine bleach on it and it began to darken within seconds. I understand that is one way to test for silver, but I don't know if it will also darken nickel-silver.

Also, the spoon is 5 inches long.

 

[Iron Buzz]

I think the upper case E is a London date mark from 1800. If that is the case it wouldn't be sterling. It would be a higher quality silver.
Being that it was dug if it was plated it would be corroded much more, especially if you annealed it. The animal could be an import mark. If it was American it would be marked COIN or STANDARD.

Its getting a bit late tonight but I will try to get some better photographs, if possible. I appreciate your help and knowledge with this.

 

[Iron Buzz]

Best I was able to do:



Also:

 

[XtreasureX]

The photos are super nice. I think the mark to the left of the E is the lion. This is the mark of England. The E I still believe is the date mark of 1800. It is sterling silver. The pics as well make me think it is silver. Excellent find! Check the monogram for the family.

 

[Iron Buzz]

The photos are super nice. I think the mark to the left of the E is the lion. This is the mark of England. The E I still believe is the date mark of 1800. It is sterling silver. The pics as well make me think it is silver. Excellent find! Check the monogram for the family.

The monogram doesn't fit the only families that I am aware of living there. Philip Brady was one (shows on 1879 plat) and I believe that a Charles Vesconte may have lived on that plot prior, and then sold and built next door. Monogram seems to be "H" and "T*E". Ah, maybe I should see if I can find Brady's wife's name...

 

[Iron Buzz]

The photos are super nice. I think the mark to the left of the E is the lion. This is the mark of England. The E I still believe is the date mark of 1800. It is sterling silver. The pics as well make me think it is silver. Excellent find! Check the monogram for the family.

Yes, I can see how that could be this lion, anyway. The part of the mark that is the clearest would be the leg.

 

[Red-Coat]

You’re being given some misinformation about English hallmarks.

The ‘E’ is probably a date letter but, just because it’s there, doesn’t mean it’s silver (of any standard). Silver plate manufacturers often used date letters too. Some manufacturers used the same letter sequences as were used by our assay offices and some used their own sequences. However, this is not a official date letter from the London assay office for 1800. If it were, the shield on which the letter is placed would have a distinct ‘tail’ protruding from the bottom, as shown below:



Note also that, for 1800, by law the hallmark grouping was required to include the head of George III in an oval as a ‘compulsory mark’ to prove that duty had been paid on the piece. I don’t see it. All British silver between 1st December 1784 and 30th April 1890 was subject to duty and if the duty mark is not present (using the appropriate monarch’s head) then it’s not silver… or it’s outside those dates.

I’m pretty sure that the ‘S’ is the last letter of an ‘EPNS’ stamp and the patent for EPNS was filed in Britain in 1840. That involves a thin coating of silver on base metal and so any remaining plate would of course give positive indications for silver at a superficial level.

Regarding the ‘animal’, this is the possible mark I was referring to:



I can’t be sure if I am imagining this, but I thought it might be a ‘beaver’ mark, which could be for John Sherwood & Sons of Birmingham, England. Some of the many possible variations used by Sherwood are shown below, and Sherwood used his marks on both silver and silver plate:

 

[Iron Buzz]

You’re being given some misinformation about English hallmarks.

The ‘E’ is probably a date letter but, just because it’s there, doesn’t mean it’s silver (of any standard). Silver plate manufacturers often used date letters too. Some manufacturers used the same letter sequences as were used by our assay offices and some used their own sequences. However, this is not a official date letter from the London assay office for 1800. If it were, the shield on which the letter is placed would have a distinct ‘tail’ protruding from the bottom, as shown below:

View attachment 1812589

Note also that, for 1800, by law the hallmark grouping was required to include the head of George III in an oval as a ‘compulsory mark’ to prove that duty had been paid on the piece. I don’t see it. All British silver between 1st December 1784 and 30th April 1890 was subject to duty and if the duty mark is not present (using the appropriate monarch’s head) then it’s not silver… or it’s outside those dates.

I’m pretty sure that the ‘S’ is the last letter of an ‘EPNS’ stamp and the patent for EPNS was filed in Britain in 1840. That involves a thin coating of silver on base metal and so any remaining plate would of course give positive indications for silver at a superficial level.

Regarding the ‘animal’, this is the possible mark I was referring to:

View attachment 1812590

I can’t be sure if I am imagining this, but I thought it might be a ‘beaver’ mark, which could be for John Sherwood & Sons of Birmingham, England. Some of the many possible variations used by Sherwood are shown below, and Sherwood used his marks on both silver and silver plate:

View attachment 1812591

Thanks for the additional info.

As far as I know, I have never dug any EPNS, so I don't know how that would hold up, and I do see some evidence of the metal nickle from the color of the flame when I was heating it. But I have dug plenty of normal silver plate here and can safely say that it NEVER holds up like this. Typically, all you get is copper, or copper plated steel. This was found in a farm field where fertilizer and manure get dumped annually and that wreaks havoc on silver plate (although silver coins come through just fine, oddly enough!). Here are some typical silver plate spoons I have dug:



As for the mark that precedes the E, I have a hard time imagining either the King George stamp or the beaver (unfortunately... I was hoping for an actual maker's mark). I have marked out what I see as the clear points in this photo. The most obvious is the loop on the right that could be the lion's leg. It also looks like it could be the lower loop on a capital "B" or the lower part of an "S"



Incidentally, the orange or reddish line at the bottom is simply an artifact of the lighting and does not appear on the spoon, which is a solid silver with some black tarnish (incidentally, does nickle-silver tarnish?)

 

[Red-Coat]

We may never decipher this, but I think we are talking at cross purposes here. You're talking about the mark that precedes the 'E'. I'm talking about the possible mark that comes before either of those marks. Refer back to the picture where I put a red circle around it. My question was can you see that as an intentional mark and does it resemble a beaver with an arched back facing left, as per the various possible forms used by Sherwood?

 

[XtreasureX]

Red. The first mark, the animal, is the standard mark. Sterling silver.
The second mark, the E, is the date mark.
The third mark, which is quite worn, is the sovereign, or duty mark.
The fourth mark, it's two letters, is the makers mark.
However, aside from all this, looking at the design of the piece and the monogram, the metal itself tells me it's silver. If it was plated it would be so obvious. I've seen enough sterling and plate to know the difference.

 

[Iron Buzz]

We may never decipher this, but I think we are talking at cross purposes here. You're talking about the mark that precedes the 'E'. I'm talking about the possible mark that comes before either of those marks. Refer back to the picture where I put a red circle around it. My question was can you see that as an intentional mark and does it resemble a beaver with an arched back facing left, as per the various possible forms used by Sherwood?

It looks to me as though that is all one mark, not two separate ones. I'm afraid I really can't make out any better detail in person than you can see in those photos, no matter how I try to light it.

 

[Red-Coat]

Red. The first mark, the animal, is the standard mark. Sterling silver.
The second mark, the E, is the date mark.
The third mark, which is quite worn, is the sovereign, or duty mark.
The fourth mark, it's two letters, is the makers mark.
However, aside from all this, looking at the design of the piece and the monogram, the metal itself tells me it's silver. If it was plated it would be so obvious. I've seen enough sterling and plate to know the difference.

How much do you really know about British hallmarks though?

I already said that the E may be a date letter, but that doesn’t mean the piece is silver. It could be the manufacturer’s own date letter sequence, would then be an unofficial silver plate mark and you would need to know who the manufacturer was to be able to interpret it.

The E letter is serifed, upper case, in a square shield with clipped corners and it has a flat base. This cannot be a London silver mark because there is no London date letter which has that format. The closest would be 1800 but the shield would have an indent at the bottom and a protruding point. Furthermore, the item would have to carry the city mark for London which was a front facing leopard’s head with a crown in a shield with a rounded bottom. The full set of marks (excluding the maker mark) would be like this:



That rules out London. There are then only a limited number of British assay offices who have ever used a serifed upper case E in a square shield with clipped corners and a flat base. These are:

Birmingham (1853), but if it were a Birmingham piece it would have to carry the city mark, which was an anchor in a shield with clipped corners. Like this:


Chester (1705, 1801, 1823 or 1888), but again it would have to carry the city mark for Chester, which changed from time to time but is shown in each of the examples below:


Dublin (1801), but Dublin never used an animal mark of any kind. Again the piece would have to have their city mark, which was Hibernia seated and a crowned harp in a lozenge with clipped corners for the fineness mark. Like this:


The same applies to all of the other possibilities….

Edinburgh (1784/5):


Newcastle (1795, 1819 or 1843):


Sheffield (1799 or 1848):


York (1780):


What many Americans seem not to understand is that (unlike in America) our hallmark system has been specified in detail and heavily regulated for centuries. Each piece is individually assayed for its silver content and the city which does this must apply its identifying mark in addition to the silver mark. There is no laxity in the style for the marks used and everything I have shown above represents the set of “compulsory marks”. They all have to be present on a piece of silver and will always follow a standard format and rigid style in each individual assay office. Any deviation from this tells you that you don’t have a hallmark and the piece is not silver. Any marks a piece like that has will have been applied by the manufacturer in an unregulated manner and, over here, are known as “pseudo hallmarks” which have no official credence.

 

[Iron Buzz]

Red. The first mark, the animal, is the standard mark. Sterling silver.
The second mark, the E, is the date mark.
The third mark, which is quite worn, is the sovereign, or duty mark.
The fourth mark, it's two letters, is the makers mark.
However, aside from all this, looking at the design of the piece and the monogram, the metal itself tells me it's silver. If it was plated it would be so obvious. I've seen enough sterling and plate to know the difference.

The monogram raises another point... silver plate would not have been engraved. That is clearly hand engraving done after manufacture.

Is there a maker's mark that would be something like "TS" or "JS"? The letter just before the "S" in the forth mark seems to have that sort of form.

 

[Iron Buzz]

If it means anything, the land owner was born in Ireland in 1820

 

[Red-Coat]

Well, if the spoon was from an Irish maker, was silver and hallmarked in Ireland, there was only one assay office... in Dublin. The date letter would then have to be 1861 and the hallmark would have three compulsory symbols: Hibernia seated as the city mark, a crowned harp as the fineness mark and the date letter... plus whatever the maker had paid for as his registered sponsor mark(s). I showed what the compulsory marks for Dublin would be above.

Leaving aside the question of whether it is or is not plated, I would also point out however, that the benefit (to the manufacturer) of the EPNS process versus earlier plating methods was that it enabled a very much thinner coating of silver to be applied more evenly. You could still order custom hand engraving, but it would be done before the item was plated. The coating was so thin that you'd be hard-pressed to tell, except under a magnifying glass on an item fresh from the workshop.

 

[XtreasureX]

Red. You certainly shot my theory full of holes.
Could it be pewter?