Which SH should get the credit for this spoon?

Kit · Post by **Kit** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:02 pm

Speaking of conjecture, how would I know -- or maybe I couldn't -- whether SH Solomon Hougham or SH Simon Harris made this spoon? (I read the spoon as London, 1811.) And another question: Is this an example of a bowl that was embellished later? Thanks, Kit

.

Post by **dognose** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:21 pm

Hi Kit,
I'm sure its Solomon Hougham, Simon Harris's mark is smaller and with a pellet, as for the possibility of later work, my first instinct was yes, for I have never seen one like it, but the more I look at the shape where the bowl meets the handle, the more I think it may be original, you are correct London 1811, how big is it?
regards Trev.
.

Post by **Granmaa** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:27 pm

I've never seen anyone attribute the SH mark on spoons to Simon Harris. Grimwade has Simon Harris' mark with a pellet, Hougham's is not.

Yes, it does look like this has been altered later; though I've not seen that design before.

Miles
.

Post by **Granmaa** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:29 pm

Sorry Trev: didn't see your post in time.
.

Kit · Post by **Kit** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:44 pm

Thanks, Trev and Miles. The spoon measures about 6 inches, or 15.5 cm. I was curious about Simon Harris because Jackson (231) says he entered his mark in 1791 for an OE pattern gravy spoon; hence "aha, spoonmaker" :)

This was also made by a Harris, albeit a few years later. Because of the similarity, I wondered whether there was any connection between the two items. Please excuse the fancy. http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6253

Thanks, Kit.
.

Post by **dognose** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:50 pm

Kit,
I think you have posted the wrong photo
Trev.
.

Kit · Post by **Kit** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:57 pm

Trev, meant to post a photo of a "porringer" with the same fluting pattern as the spoon - made by Charles Stuart Harris in 1894. Did that not come up? Sorry for the confusion. Kit
.

Post by **dognose** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:07 pm

Sorry Kit, I see what you mean, that style is called gadrooning, can you tell me, where the bowl meets the handle, the semi-circular part is that an extra thickness or just an impression,
Trev.
.

Kit · Post by **Kit** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:12 pm

The semicircular portion is of extra thickness, not just an impression. Kit
.

Post by **dognose** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:20 pm

Unless its a very well executed repair, I would be of the opinion that is original, its certainly an unusual spoon.
Trev.
.

Kit · Post by **Kit** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:23 pm

Thanks for all your efforts, Trev. And I'll pass your compliments on to the spoon. Kit
.

Post by **admin** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:03 pm

I'm leaning towards reworked. I think Kit is referring to the drop as the thickened part, whereas Trev is referring to the the crescent border at the bottom of the gadrooning. Obviously our long neglected Silver Glossary needs expansion - terms and definitions for inclusion are formally requested.

Regards, Tom
.

georgiansilver · Post by **georgiansilver** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:21 pm

I cannot remember seeing any spoon from that era with such a pattern and this one certainly looks as though it has been clobbered in Victorian times as there is a definite seperation between the pattern and the joint. It appears to me as though the makers mark is rubbed and there may be another initial before the SH...or is it just me seeing things?
Best wishes, Mike.
.

Post by **dognose** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:09 pm

Hi Mike, I see what you mean about the mark, but I think its a tally mark by the look of it,
regards Trev.
.

Kit · Post by **Kit** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:20 pm

Hello Mike. I believe what you're seeing is a small incised mark, similar to a fancy-topped T which I had shrugged off as a tally mark. I thought the maker's mark should have been better preserved because of its position. And while I'm complaining, I've never been quite satisfied about the shape of the Q. If anyone thinks this spoon is spurious, I would prefer to know rather than pass it along. Thanks, Kit
.

Kit · Post by **Kit** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:22 pm

Sorry to interrupt you, Trev. Thanks for the opinion on the tally mark. Kit
.

Post by **Granmaa** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:50 pm

The Q is fine. I wouldn't call the spoon spurious; it's just been decorated to comply with later tastes. It's not pretending to be anything it's not.

Miles
.

georgiansilver · Post by **georgiansilver** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:17 am

I suppose it just appears to me that the mark has been rubbed and seperated but can see the possibility of it being a tally mark.....always better to see the item first hand rather than in photos.......
.