Silvermith in Paris, 1798-1809
Re: Silvermith in Paris, 1798-1809
Embedded images get a far greater response than thumbnails.
Trev.
Re: Silvermith in Paris, 1798-1809
This is the maker's mark of Charles Eloi Haeghen who had his activity at 29 cour Saint-Martin, Paris during the period 1807-1813.
N° de garantie : 1018
N° de préfecture : 1092
Symbol : a drill (un foret monté et sa poulie placée en long)
Successor : Denoyelle
N° de garantie : 1018
N° de préfecture : 1092
Symbol : a drill (un foret monté et sa poulie placée en long)
Successor : Denoyelle
Re: Silvermith in Paris, 1798-1809
Thanks Trev for embedding the marks; I'm one of those who never clicks on links.
Anikopol, you certainly don't make this easy; your pictures are blurred and the marks are not clean. That said, here is my feedback on your object (a piece of flatware?), to add to the excellent remarks by Zilver2:
-Silver standard mark for 950 silver in use from 1809-1819: a cock facing right in an octagonal reserve with border.
-Guarantee mark for medium sized objects in use from 1809-1819: a Minerva head facing right in a circular reserve.
-An unofficial guarantee mark of the Association des Orfèvres in use from 1793 for a period of up to 50 years: woman's head facing front in an oval reserve. Use the forum's search function for more interesting information about this mark.
-Maker's mark in a lozenge-shaped reserve: CH separated by a drill on a pulley (un foret monté et sa poulie placée en long) for Charles-Eloi Haeghen working in Paris at 29 cour St-Martin. He registered his mark on 16 July 1807, erased in 1813. He was a manufacturing silversmith of smalls and small tableware (la petite orfèvrerie). The business was taken over by his widow and then his son in 1814. Successor was L.D. Denoyelle working at the same address, using the same symbol, but turned upside down.
See Arminjon, V. I, no. 00694, p. 103, and no. 02299, p. 237.
In the future it would be courteous and useful to tell us what the object is, and to show a picture of the entire piece. Style and type of object are as important as marks to determine maker and age. That way the whole community can learn, rather than having one person performing research for a single individual.
Anikopol, you certainly don't make this easy; your pictures are blurred and the marks are not clean. That said, here is my feedback on your object (a piece of flatware?), to add to the excellent remarks by Zilver2:
-Silver standard mark for 950 silver in use from 1809-1819: a cock facing right in an octagonal reserve with border.
-Guarantee mark for medium sized objects in use from 1809-1819: a Minerva head facing right in a circular reserve.
-An unofficial guarantee mark of the Association des Orfèvres in use from 1793 for a period of up to 50 years: woman's head facing front in an oval reserve. Use the forum's search function for more interesting information about this mark.
-Maker's mark in a lozenge-shaped reserve: CH separated by a drill on a pulley (un foret monté et sa poulie placée en long) for Charles-Eloi Haeghen working in Paris at 29 cour St-Martin. He registered his mark on 16 July 1807, erased in 1813. He was a manufacturing silversmith of smalls and small tableware (la petite orfèvrerie). The business was taken over by his widow and then his son in 1814. Successor was L.D. Denoyelle working at the same address, using the same symbol, but turned upside down.
See Arminjon, V. I, no. 00694, p. 103, and no. 02299, p. 237.
In the future it would be courteous and useful to tell us what the object is, and to show a picture of the entire piece. Style and type of object are as important as marks to determine maker and age. That way the whole community can learn, rather than having one person performing research for a single individual.
Re: Silvermith in Paris, 1798-1809
Hi all,
Thanks for your explanations, even if some comments could appears quite incisive.
The flatware, which is a very classical Empire sugar spoon, is indeed marked with the 1809-19 hallmark, and not with the 1798-1809 as I wronkly stated.
If my understanding is correct, the complete silversmith mark would include an “H”, which could not be seen here.
Best.
Thanks for your explanations, even if some comments could appears quite incisive.
The flatware, which is a very classical Empire sugar spoon, is indeed marked with the 1809-19 hallmark, and not with the 1798-1809 as I wronkly stated.
If my understanding is correct, the complete silversmith mark would include an “H”, which could not be seen here.
Best.
Re: Silvermith in Paris, 1798-1809
Thanks for letting us know what type of object we were researching. The H in the maker's mark is visible: you have confused it with an R or B.
Incisively yours,
JayT
Incisively yours,
JayT
Re: Silvermith in Paris, 1798-1809
Specially for our friend JayT ;-)
Unfortunately, as you can see, the wood stick is broken.
"Without rancorly yours",
a.
http://hpics.li/373f589
Unfortunately, as you can see, the wood stick is broken.
"Without rancorly yours",
a.
http://hpics.li/373f589
Re: Silvermith in Paris, 1798-1809
Hi,
Pay attention to this unusual and suspicious joint, two completely different parts assembled and poorely soldered. The quality of pierced bowl is not consistent with the end of the handle : heavy gauge bowl and proximal part of the handle and then the hollow distal part made of two thin sheets of silver (the seam).
A benevolent remark: always look first ``how it`s made`` before concentrating on marks.
Regards
Pay attention to this unusual and suspicious joint, two completely different parts assembled and poorely soldered. The quality of pierced bowl is not consistent with the end of the handle : heavy gauge bowl and proximal part of the handle and then the hollow distal part made of two thin sheets of silver (the seam).
A benevolent remark: always look first ``how it`s made`` before concentrating on marks.
Regards
Re: Silvermith in Paris, 1798-1809
Good call AG2012. A made-up piece, as you note. A sugar sifting spoon would not have had a wood handle.
Re: Silvermith in Paris, 1798-1809
Hi,
very pertinent remark. I do not have the object with me right now, but will have a closer look.
I bought it in a lot, and this was not the main one and I did not look close enough. Shame on me.
You are perfectly right : first, a general look on the piece, and then, the magnifying glass to study marks.
Thanks.
very pertinent remark. I do not have the object with me right now, but will have a closer look.
I bought it in a lot, and this was not the main one and I did not look close enough. Shame on me.
You are perfectly right : first, a general look on the piece, and then, the magnifying glass to study marks.
Thanks.
Re: Silvermith in Paris, 1798-1809
Hi,
It`s easy to repair, just find a matching ordinary spoon of the same fineness and use its handle. I did repairs like this, not difficult to heat and join two parts with hard solder, pickle it while still hot and polish. Almost invisible seam. Hopefully all marks are on proximal end, i.e. close to bowl. If you decide to ask a jeweler to do the job he should know that hard soldering requires heating of the entire object with the torch and then apply additional heat to the area to be soldered. Silver should turn red and solder should flow like water.
Regards
It`s easy to repair, just find a matching ordinary spoon of the same fineness and use its handle. I did repairs like this, not difficult to heat and join two parts with hard solder, pickle it while still hot and polish. Almost invisible seam. Hopefully all marks are on proximal end, i.e. close to bowl. If you decide to ask a jeweler to do the job he should know that hard soldering requires heating of the entire object with the torch and then apply additional heat to the area to be soldered. Silver should turn red and solder should flow like water.
Regards