The PEWTER COLLECTORS CLUB of AMERICA

BULLETIN NO. 78 MARCH, 1979 VOL. 7, NO.9

A FINE SET OF BOARDMAN MEASURES

A fine set of Boardman measures 14 pint to 1 gallon. See articles, page 364. Collection of Dr. and Mrs. Melvyn D. Wolf.

Vol. 7, 3179, p. 343 BULLETIN 78 CORRESPONDENCE VOLUME 7 PUBLI CATIONS NUMBER 9 Webster Goodwin 730 Commonwealth Avenue Warwick, R.t 02886 CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND DUES H. Hill Sandidge, Jr. 6329 Ridgeway Road Richmond, Virginia 23226 MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION Dr. R. F. Schauer R. D. 4 Wood Street Mahopac, N. Y. 10541 BACK ISSUES OF BULLETIN (obtainable at $4.00 each) William F. Kayhoe 7206 Impala Drive Richmond, Virginia 23228 OFFICERS COMMITTEE ON AUTHENTICITY President ...... Dr. Melvyn D. Wolf Bernard R. Carde First Vice-President ...... Bernard R. Carde Old Bull House Second Vice-President . .. Dr. Donald M. Herr Main Street Treasurer ...... H. Hill Sandidge, Jr. Centerbrook, Connecticut 06409 Secretary ...... Edward M. Hageman CATALOGING COLLECTIONS Dr. Melvyn D. Wolf GOVERNING BOARD 1196 Shady Hill Court Flint, Michigan 48504 GOVERNORS-AT-LARGE Merrill G. Beede, Term expo Spring 1979 Robert Viewegh, Term expo Spring 1979 Paul Glazier, Term expo Spring 1980

ST ANDING-COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN Program ...... Dr. Donald M. Herr SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS Membership ...... Dr. Ralph Schauer 1979 SPRING MEETINGS Nominations ...... Robert E. Touzalin Publications ...... Webster Goodwin National Meeting June 8-9 REGIONAL GROUP PRESIDENTS The Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum New York ...... Burton L. Zempsky Winterthur, Delaware. New England ...... George T. Heussner Mid-West Meeting Pennsylvania ...... John D. Barr No Meeting Scheduled Mid-West ...... John E. Burns, Jr. New England Meeting ADVISOR Y COMMITTEE May 26th OF PAST PRESIDENTS The Currier Gallery of Art Mrs. Henry W. Borntraeger ..... 1949-1951 Manchester, New Hampshire. Mrs. Charles A. Holbrook ...... 1951-1953 Eric de Jonge ...... 1953-1955 New York Meeting Dr. Robert Mallory HI ...... 1955-1957 May 19th John P. Remensnyder ...... 1959-1961 Home of Mr. and Mrs. Burton L. Zempsky John Carl Thomas ...... 1963-1965 Indian Trail, Woodbridge, Conn. Thomas D. Williams ...... 1965-1967 Pennsylvania Meeting Wiiliam O. Blaney ...... 1967-1969 No Scheduled Meeting William F. Kayhoe ...... 1971-1973 National Meeting being held at Winterthur Rev. Clare M. Ingham ...... 1973-1975 D. Lola S. Reed ...... 1975-1977 1979 FALL MEETINGS PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE Webster Goodwin, Chairman National Meeting William O. Blaney October 19-20 Prof. Reginald F. French The Chester County Historical Society Celia Jacobs Stevenson West Chester, Pennsylvania John Carl Thomas To be hosted by the Pennsylvania Group

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 344 gracious guest and an informed source on Eng­ The President's Letter lish and Continental pewter, and John Carl Thomas who covered the American pewter. October 27th and 28th were the dates for the Between the two of them, a great deal of infor­ Fall National Meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio, mation was gleaned. Origin and the age of hosted by the Mid-Western Regional Group. pewter pieces were determined. At this time it The meeting, in my opinion, exemplified the was nigh onto midnight and our 80 to 90 mem­ ultimate of what a Pewter Club meeting should bers in attendance departed, having enjoyed be about. There was a continuous flow of pew­ thoroughly the meeting put on by the Cincinnati ter knowledge disseminated from the beginning group. throughout the entire meeting. It would be difficult to single out anyone On Friday afternoon, beginning at 2:00 a se­ member of the organizing group for developing ries of mini-papers was presented, lasting ap­ this meeting. Our thanks to all the members of proximately 10-20 minutes each. The many the Cincinnati area for the exceptionally well topics stimulated great interest and subsequent organized and extremely informative meeting. discussion by the membership. These reports Special plaudits to John & Lois Brown, Ed & are published in this Bulletin. Bernard R. Carde Martha Bums, Alex & Georgianna Cook, Mary spoke on ''The Second Oldest Profession; or Lou, Ed Hageman, Andy Hauck, David & Lois The Gentle Art of Fakery"; Dr. Gail Englender McConnell, Jim & Soap Parker, Jim & Betty discussed pewter infant feeding devices; Web­ Sutherland, Jim & Sheri Swinehart, and the ster Goodwin told the story and showed his hard-working Tom and Ellen 0 'Flaherty. Nicholas Dolbeare charger; Dr. Ellen 0 'Flah­ The quality and educational experience of erty delved into the study of pewter and lead this meeting will be something for future chair­ poisoning; Tom 0 'Flaherty discussed com­ people to try to emulate. It is what our Pewter munion tokens; Mr. & Mrs. Robert Viewegh Club is all about! recounted with examples the history of early Yours very sincerely, lighting; and Dr. Melvyn Wolf gave the results Melvyn D. Wo(f: M.D. of his investigation into the date and initial President marks on Boardman measures. A standing exhibition of Cincinnati pewter which included almost every type and shape was available to members' scrutiny for the en­ tire meeting. Following dinner, a delightful presentation on the Sellew family was given by John Brown, who was very entertaining and described in de­ tail the difficulties in doing basic research on early pewterers. Saturday morning we reconvened at the Cincinnati Art Institute, our home base for the m~eting. A series of workshops which were conducted by some of our most eminent mem­ bers. Each workshop was repeated three times so small groups could be in attendance each time which was more informative. Bill Kayhoe discussed the fabrication of pewter items while Bob Touzalin discussed repair of pewter and Editorial Note John Carl Thomas talked about the regional After the publication of the September, 1978 characteristics of American pewter. issue of the Bulletin, the cupboard was bare of Following lunch, the pewter auction, a material for the March publication and we ap­ Mid-Western Regional Group innovation, was pealed for articles. These sixty-odd pages are conducted and capably handled by Mr. Lou the result and our thanks go with them for the Aronoff, an exceptionally humorous Cincinnati response. auctioneer. A short business meeting was then The cupboard is bare again and we have a conducted. The remaining afternoon was spent September issue coming up with a deadline of viewing a movie on pewter fabrication and at­ August 1st. Again we need articles. Please tending a fine Cincinnati antique show. get them in so that we may have another good Saturday evening we reconvened at John Bulletin! Brown's house for an Italian dinner and an op­ Webster Goodwin - Editor portunity to see his antiques collection and ex­ ceptionally fine pewter. The Show-And-Tell portion of the meeting was conducted with ap­ proximately 35 to 40 pieces of pewter being brought in by the membership. This was capa­ bly handled by Peter Hornsby who again was a

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 345 PHOTOS OF THE NATIONAL MEETING AT CINCINNATI

Photos by Dr. James Swinehart and William F. Kayhoe

SOME OF THE CINCINNATI PEWTER ON DISPLAY

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 346 New Members Resignations September 1, 1978 September 1, 1978 to March 1, 1979 to March 1, 1979

Mr. Arnold Alperstein Mr. Robert W. Brooksbank 1070 Race St. Unit "H" 1 Elm Rd. Denver, Colo. 80206 Princeton, N.J. 08540

Mr. Jack E. Bertsch Mr. Lester Burdick Jr. 4 Winkler Rd. Farmers Row Buffalo, N.Y. 14225 Groton, Mass. 01450

Mr. Stephen L. Buchman Mr. & Mrs. E. W. Dennis 12 East 86th St. Apt 636 74 Willett St. New York, N. Y. 10028 Albany, N.Y. 12210

Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence Erickson Mr. Fred S. Downs 304 North St. 129 Scudder Ave. Georgetown, Mass. 01833 Northport, N. Y. 11768 Ms. Susan P. Hauser Mr. & Mrs. Richard Freemen 352 Runnymede Rd. 819 Shackamaxon Dr. Essex Falls, N.J. 07021 Westfield, N. Y. 07090 Mr. Louis Krasner Mr. E. Alvin Gerhardt Jr. 1501 Beacon St. "Rocky Mount" Rt #2 Box 70 Brookline, Mass. 02146 Piney Flats, Tenn. 37686 Mr. Benjamin Olsen Ms. Marilyn J. Hart 308 Queen St. 3689 Johnsville Rd. Alexandria, Va. 22314 Brookville, Ohio 45309 Mr. Marvin D. Schwartz Mr. Bryce Kinsey 9 Bonnet Ave. 1405 Windsor Chase Drive, S. W. Larchmont, N.Y. 10538 Rochester, Minn. 55901 Mrs. Carl P. Sherwin Jr. Hyland Ave. Mr. Glen McLaughlin Woodbury, Conn. 06798 20264 Ljepava Drive Saratoga, Cal. 95070 Mr. R. G. Wolford 35 Pinney St. Ms. Charlotte P. Mortimer Hempstead, N.Y. 11550 P.O. Box 4136 Woodside, Cal. 94062

George T. Schmitt of Fairhaven R.R. #2 Deceased Camden, Ohio 45311 September 1, 1978 Mr. Robert E. Smith to March 1, 1979 637 Pleasant Ave. Glen Ellyn, Ill. 60137 Mrs. Wilton F. May Mrs. Malcolm Spann 85 Grove St. 1869 Van Buren Circle Wellesley Green 303 Mountain View, Cal. 94040 Wellesley Hills, Mass. 02181

Thomas C. and Florence Winn Mrs. John P. Remensnyder Indian Ladder Farms Box 329 Altamont, N. Y. 12009 Saugerties, N. Y. 12477

Vol. 7, 3179, p. 347 Change of Address Mr. Jimmie C. Smith Jr. c/o Phillips Petroleum Co. September 1, 1978 Box 2048 MCC Makati Metro, to March 1, 1979 Manilla, Philippine Islands New Address Correspondence Returned Mrs. Peter Alderwick as Undeliverable P.O. Box 127 Wakefield, R.I. 02880 September 1, 1978 Mr. Thomas C. Campbell to March 1, 1979 22 Whisconnier Rd. Brookfield Center, Conn. 06805 Mr. & Mrs. Harold Appleyard 1444 Shore Rd. Mr. Samuel L. Clark III Linwood, N.J. 08221 2647 Buchanan, San Francisco, Cal. 94115 Mr. Lee E. Fitzgerald 988 17th St. N. W. Suite 502 Dr. Paul Hartman Washington, D.C. 20006 209 Pine Bluff Rd. Stevens Pt. Wis. 54481 Ms. Maryann Ondovisck 47 W. 8th St. Mr. Norman C. Heyse New York, N. Y. 10011 11531 West 157th St. Orland Park, Ill. 60462 Mr. & Mrs. Clifford H. Paul P.O. Box 392 Mrs. Sandra Kuusela Cranbury, N.J. 08512 2902F St. Marks Rd. Winston-Salem, N.C. 27103

Mr. David Lewis 95 Mary St. Arlington, Mass. 02174 Regional Group News Mrs. Max G. Marple 16 Rams Head Rd. Scraggy Neck, Cataumet, Mass. 02534 New England (Fall) Mr. & Mrs. Frederick R. Martin Box 575 The fall meeting of the New England Re­ Eastville, Va. 23347 gional Group was held on November 11, 1978 and was divided into two sessions. Mrs. Lisa Millard In the morning, fifty-eight people traveled to Old Hickory Rd. #1013 the home of Oliver and Marion Deming to again Lancaster, Pa. 17601 enjoy their fine pewter collection and to savor their nicely displayed, extensive collection of Mr. & Mrs. David G. Miller kitchen equipment and wrought iron early tools. 2140 Landis Valley Rd. In the afternoon, after a nice lunch at the Lancaster, Pa. 17601 Willow Glen Restaurant, the fall meeting was called to order by President, George Heussner. Mr. 'Robert J. Morrison At this meeting, Treasurer, John Gotjen said we 1900 Rittenhouse Sq. were still solvent. There was no new or old Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 business. Program Chairman, Paul Glazier took a poll Ms. Mary L. Naparstek on the memberships' wishes for next fall's 1260 N. Prospect meeting and it was felt that the Lyman-Allen Milwaukee, Wis. 53202 Museum in New London would be a good place. And, it was also felt, that a good location Mr. Michael B. Redmond for the Spring 1979 meeting would be the Cur­ R.D. #5 Box 307 rier Gallery of Arts in Manchester, N. H. This Lewistbwn, Pa. 17044 spring the Gallery is preparing an exhibit enti-

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 348 tled, "New England Meeting House & Church Percy Raymond. We were further entertained 1630-1850' '. This exhibit will include all types and enlightened by Wendall Hilt's description of artifacts that were used within New England of the 19th Century manufacturing process of meeting houses. spoons. Ron Chambers briefly discussed exam­ Finally, the New England Group will ples from his extensive collection of spoon probably be the hosts for the Fall 1980 National molds. Meeting. Old Sturbridge Village is being The meeting was adjourned at 4: 15 P.M. and looked into as a place for this. a worthwhile day seemed to have been enjoyed At the end of the business meeting, we were by all. given a treat by hearing Reg French talk about Respectfully submitted, early spoons and his association with Professor Michael H. Ellsworth

Professor Reginald French leading a discussion about Wendell Hilt explaining the early spoonmaking proc­ early spoons. Photo by Paul M. Young. ess. Photo by Paul M. Young.

Spoon molds at the New England Fall Meeting. Photo by Paul M. Young.

Vol. 7, 3179, p. 349 Some spoons and ladles exhibited at the New England Fall Meeting. Photo by Paul M. Young.

Pennsylvania (Fall) produced coherent results and in other instances wide disparities appeared between opinions, The Peter Wentz Farmstead was the location reminding all who listened of the need for an for the autumn meeting of the Pennsylvania Re­ open mind and continual inquiry and study. gional Group of the Pewter Collectors Club of Late in the afternoon, the members adjourned to America. Located in rural Montgomery the Peter Wentz Farmstead about three miles County, not far from historic Valley Forge, the distance from the restaurant. The Farmstead, a Farmstead proved to be a splendid setting for a very interesting example of a mid-eighteenth memorable meeting on October 21. century Pennsylvania rural complex, has been The meeting began over a convivial late restored by Montgomery County under the lunch at Pheiffers Cedar Tavern Restaurant on careful direction of Albert T. Gamon, its direc- . Route 3 after which the business meeting was tor. Club members were treated to a late after­ conducted by John Barr, group president. Fol­ noon and early evening candlelight tour of the lowing the business meeting an illustrated lec­ Farmhouse which was built by Peter Wentz, ture was presented. It was entitled "A gentleman farmer. Displayed in the whimsical Curatorial-Scientific Appraisal of Selected and attractive architectural setting was an in­ Pewter Objects" and involved the examination teresting display of a number of pewter objects of about ten objects by both a curator through from local collections. The evening was capped visual and tactile analysis and a scientist using with a wonderful array of homemade desserts empirical equipment. The resulting opinions and coffee, kindly provided by the docents for were then compared. The objects sometimes club members. Donald L. Fennimore

Fieldstone house, center of the farming complex owned by Peter Wentz during the mid-eighteenth century, now restored and operated by Montgomery County.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 350 New York (Fall) "Mini-Papers' ,

The Fall 1978 meeting of the New York Re­ Presented at the National Fall Meeting gional Group of the Pewter Collectors Club of at Cincinnati America was held on Saturday, October 7, 1978. The members and their guests met at the Boscobel Restoration in Garrison, New York and were taken on a conducted tour of the man­ sion and viewed the many fine pieces of Adams style furniture and furnishings. 1 . The Second Oldest Luncheon at the Plum Bush Inn in Garrison, Profession New York was followed by the meeting being called to order by President Burt Zempsky who (or The Gentle Art warmly welcomed all of the members and guests. of Fakery) The reading of the minutes of the previous meeting was waived. Bernie Hillman's report as In recent years there has been an ever in­ Treasurer was read and accepted and was or­ creasing concern over the authenticity or dered annexed to the minutes. genuineness of various items in the antique Webster Goodwin invited the members to world. Perhaps one of the more oustanding submit articles for the next issue of the Bulletin. examples in this area is the famous - or maybe The meeting was then turned over to the Pro­ infamous - chair at the Ford Museum in Dear­ gram Chairman, Dr. Ralph Schauer, who an­ born, and those present who have not seen this nounced that the National Meeting will be held chair should try to do so if you are in the in Cincinnati on October 27-28 and that the vicinity of Detroit. Spring 1979 New York Regional Group meet­ When the late Ledlie Laughlin published his ing will be held at the Zempsky's home in books on "Pewter in America", Volumes I and Woodbridge, Connecticut on May 19, 1979 (the II, he touched on our subject matter in the same date as the Woodbridge Antique Fair). Dr. Chapter entitled "Fakes". If I may quote his Schauer also reported that the 1979 Spring Na­ beginning paragraph, written in 1940: tional Meeting will be held at the Winterthur ''It is not my intention to place any em­ Museum in Winterthur, Delaware on June 8-9. phasis on the "faking" of pewter; for The balance of the meeting was devoted to a the pewter collector, to a far greater discussion of lighting devices. Paul Young gave extent than his fellow collector of an illuminating (pun intentional) talk about silver, glass, or furniture, has thus far early devices using as illustrations the many been spared the pitfalls laid by un­ pieces brought by the members. scrupulous individuals who make a The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m. living by the sale of modern antiques. " As one would say "Those were the good old Robert Horan, Secretary days. " It is unfortunate that we are finding in the pewter market more and more examples of dubious origin. The title of my talk is "The Second Oldest Profession, (or The Gentle Art of Fakery)". The sub-title could be "Every Per­ sons Non-Technical Detective Guide to Recog­ nize Fake Pewter". First of all we should know those makers (and in this area we mention only American makers) whose mark(s) have been reproduced. Not necessarily in the order of importance or frequency - and surely not a complete list - we have THOMAS BADGER, BLAKESLEE BARNES, FREDERICK BASSETT, PARKS BOYD, A. PORTER, THOMAS DANFORTH III, THOMAS DANFORTH AND SHERMAN BOARDMAN, JOSIAH DANFORTH, PUT­ NAM' SMITH & CO., I. TRASK, ROSWELL GLEASON, R. DUNHAM AND WILLIAM WILL. And unfortunately the list seems to be growing. Also we have a substantial number of English makers whose marks have been repro­ duced, but that subject shall be held for another time. What we want to emphasize is that now Some of the lighting devices displayed at the New on your antiquing trips you should keep in mind York Fall Meeting. Photo by Paul M. Young. the makers mentioned and use your good

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 351 judgement. When we finally get all the incor­ times these can be quite difficult to detect, so rect marks - along with the right ones, hope­ outside of an OBVIOUS marriage, such as a fully, we can publish through the Bulletin, or by good DUNHAM mark on the base of a Beverly some other means, side by side the good and the lighthouse pot, you will have to be the judge. bad, with respective dimensions and dif­ Since some makers had as many as 24 pot ferences. styles, one wonders, are we looking at the 25th? The next problem is the form of the item. A As we previously mentioned this talk was good example in this area is what appears to be hopefully of a non-technical nature. The entire a genuine mark on a form which obviously was area of authenticity has increased in my opin­ made either earlier or later than the working ion, to such a degree that caution should be span of the pewterer. Unfortunately our travel­ exercised by all of us. Years ago there was no ing schedule and space did not permit us to particular reason to be looking for a fake mark bring such an example - which happens to be a on a beaker - or a lamp - or really any other very nice coffee or tea pot probably made item. I wish that were the case today, but we do around 1900 with a Putnam mark on the inside have unscrupulous individuals (more than one) bottom. Another example of the Putnam mark is who are making a living doing this sort of thing. on a lamp - the lamp being period - and the On the other hand, using good judgement and mark a baddie. Fortunately in the case of the caution you can avoid the pitfall of acquiring a lamp, it has a cast Roman numeral III on the dubious item. We can offer you no ironclad bottom, indicating some maker's style number, rules. so it is obvious that we have a fake Putnam To conclude we list some generalities in the mark. As far as we know Putnam did not use proper position of markings: cast Roman numerals. 1) Beakers made in the 18th Century should Another form to be on the watch for is por­ be marked on the inside bottom and the ringers. Many porringers were manufactured 19th Century on the outside bottom. Some 75-100 years ago and some of these have re­ transitional makers could be either way. cently been struck with a reproduced die. 2) Mugs on the inside bottom if 18th Century Looking closely you can see that the handle was and outside bottom or side if 19th Cen­ soldered to the bowl. There is no such thing as tury. an early porringer with the handle originally 3) Pots, marked inside if 18th Century and soldered to the bowl. outside if 19th Century. Some exceptions, We could continue on at length about various notably Ashbil Griswold, D. Curtiss (rib­ forms - period and not period - that are on bon mark) and Hiram Yale. the market being offered as authentic antiques. 4) Basins of 18th Century on outside bottom Again, when we have acquired enough in­ and 19th Century in the well. Exception formation, we hope to issue a check list of the are the Lovebird makers who marked both forms involved, with pictured examples, and ways. with references to specific spurious marks. 5) Tankards should be marked inside bottom One of the most interesting things that we since almost all are invariably 18th Cen­ find occasionally is a "make-do". Some would tury. classify such a piece as a new unrecorded form. 6) Porringers, 18th Century marked on the The best example that I personally have seen back and 19th Century marked on the recently - and was offered at a horrendous front. There are exceptions! price was a Danforth inkwell - signed and all ! Of course these are general rules, and of course Actually, this piece was a 5" tall beaker, cut to all rules there are exceptions. down, and turned to make a special inkwell. It has been a great pleasure to talk to you The dealer who offered it to me was convinced today and I thank you very much for your kind it was for real. But it had started out in life as a attention. beaker. Who knows what happened? Maybe the rim became damaged years ago and rather than discard the piece, the owner converted it to 2. The Toxicity of another use. There is an old New England say­ ing, "Use it up, wear it out, make it over; but Lead in Pewter NEVER THROW IT AWAY!" Making-do was not an uncommon practice 150-200 years ago, by Ellen 1. 0' Flaherty but not too many examples have survived. These are not fakes in the real sense of the Widespread public awareness of the toxicity word, but on the other hand not an unrecorded of lead has resulted in current heavy advertising form. They are fun to have if they can be pur­ emphasis on the fact that contemporary pewter chased at a realistic price. is "lead-free," or free of added lead. Nonethe­ Last but not least some mention should be less, until very recently most pewter did contain made about "marriages". Herein we have all lead, and sometimes more than a little. Histori­ kinds of conditions. Perhaps the most frequent cally, to what extent is it likely that pewter has one seen is the bottom of a pot which did not been a health hazard because of its lead content? start out life with the balance of the pot. Some- Lead poisoning can result from either acute

Vol. 7,3/79, p. 352 or chronic exposure to lead. The two different warnings is illustrated by a medicinal prepara­ forms of exposure are associated wi th two en­ tion advocated by Galen, the earliest medical tirely different disease entities. Acute lead writer to condemn the use of lead-piped water poisoning, with which we are here not particu­ for drinking purposes. Writing in the second larly concerned, was historically the earlier to century AD, Galen recommended a concoction be described. The Greek physician Nicander of poppy heads which, although not to be made described its symptoms and correctly attributed with water drawn from lead pipes, was never­ them to lead poisoning in the second century theless flavored with sapa. B.C., a period when poisoning was a recog­ This confusion continued into and throughout nized political and personal tool. There is, how­ the Middle Ages. In 1616, nearly 1000 years ever, no evidence that lead salts were ever actu­ after Paul of Aegina, Citois described an out­ ally used for homicidal purposes. break of colic with paralysis at Poitiers. Citois' Curiously, although lead was so widely used celebrated publication became the best known in antiquity that there can be little doubt that of a number of descriptions of epidemic colic - chronic lead poisoning occurred, it was not de­ paralysis which had appeared during the 14th- scribed until nine hundred years later, by 16th centuries. The source of the disease re­ another Greek physician, Paul of Aegina. Paul, mained obscure. It frequently appeared in however, did not know the cause of the syn­ monasteries, and at least some of the descrip­ drome which he described. Chronic lead tions associated it with wine-drinking, although poisoning is characterized by a severe colic not with lead. which progresses to anemia, paralysis of the The Renaissance brought with it greater hands and feet, and in especially severe cases to sophistication in the uses of lead. Lead com­ convulsions which may be fatal. pounds now were used directly to terminate During the Greco-Roman period lead or lead fermentation and to sweeten wines; but since alloys found such diverse applications as pipes many other adulterants were also used to for the transport of water; tableware; storage sweeten and preserve wine any association of vessels; writing tablets; hoops for wooden wine lead with colic-paralysis was obscured. Harm­ casks or for the repair of wine amphorae; and ful adulteration of wines was denounced, and cosmetics. Pewter was not the only alloy in local laws were passed in many areas to prohibit common use containing lead. Lead was also it; however, it is doubtful whether lead was rec­ added to bronze to soften it, or was used alone. ognized as a harmful adulterant in most cases. The acids in foods, drinks and even in acid At the same time the alchemists were de­ waters are capable of dissolving many metals. veloping their theories of the transmutations of Acetic acid, the acid of acid wines and ciders, metals. Basic to these theories was the belief forms with dissolved lead the salt lead acetate, that the nature of metals was not fixed. When known in antiquity as Saccharum Saturni, or their properties were altered by physical or sugar of lead, because of its sweet taste. One of chemical treatment, their very nature was the more important uses of metal cooking ves­ changed also. Although lead was still recog­ sels was in the preparation of a thick, sweet nized to be a poison, the doctrine gradually de­ reduction of wine called sapa. This was pre­ veloped that certain of its salts, if applied cor­ pared by boiling down new wine with honey rectly and at the right time, were both safe and and spices and was used routinely as a beneficial. Lead acetate was sweet and sweetener and preservative and occasionally as pleasant-tasting; how could it be poisonous? an adulterant of inferior or sour wines. In ves­ During the 17th and 18th centuries lead com­ sels used for the preparation of sapa lead alloys pounds were used internally to treat an as­ were preferred to copper alloys because disso­ tonishing variety of complaints. The German lution of copper produced an unpleasant green physician Ettmiiller recommended sugar of lead discoloration and off-flavor while dissolution of for "the French Pox, Worms in the Guts and lead did not alter the color but contributed to the Suffocations of the Matrix ... [and] the Bili­ sweetness of sapa. For this reason copper or ous Colic ... " No doubt lead was effective bronze cooking vessels were lined with lead or against worms in the gut, and perhaps partially with tin containing lead. Sapa contained more so against syphilis, the French Disease. What it or less lead depending on the nature of the did for a suffocating matrix I could not presume cooking vessel and the acidity or sourness of the to speCUlate. But imagine its effect on the pa­ wine used. tient whose bilious colic-paralysis was caused Medicinally lead was used during antiquity by lead in the first place! primarily externally, in ointments and poul­ Confusion over the cause of colic-paralysis tices. However, preparations to be used inter­ persisted. In 1697 in Germany and Switzerland nally might have been ground in leaden mortars and again in 1767 in England, papers appeared and pestles or stored in lead-lined jars. which demonstrated clearly and with experi­ Throughout this period sporadic reference mental support that lead was responsible for the was made to the potential for chronic lead seasonal endemics of colic-paralysis in regions poisoning, especially occupationally or from where wines, beers or ciders were produced and water contaminated by lead from lead pipes or drunk locally. Iii England the primary soUrce of cisterns. The lack of any real imp-acl of these the lead was the leaden or pewter linings and

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 353 pipes and the leaded joints of the cider presses 1885 recovered 390 mg of lead from one flask in certain counties. In the Colonies and in the and 582 mg of lead from the other! Even with­ Bahamas it was the pewter stills through which out the slow boiling process acid drinks are ca­ rum was distilled. Although in the Massachu­ pable of dissolving large quantities of lead. In setts Bay Colony in 1723 a law was enacted 1767 Baker reported that he had recovered prohibiting the distillation of rum through pew­ about 65 mg of lead from 3 gallons of contami­ ter stills, nonetheless at the same time many nated cider and, in another experiment, nearly writers were still purporting to have identified 300 mg from 41/2 gallons of another contami­ other causes of colic-paralysis, or the dry colic nated batch. Since we are told that the devout or dry gripes as it was called in Colonial times. Englishman often drank gallons of cider daily Lead was still believed to be only one of many during the harvest season in order to demon­ possible causes. This issue was not finally re­ strate his gratitude for the blessings of God, it is solved until the nineteenth century. not surprising that he suffered from the dry The seventeenth century to the nineteenth gripes. Hardly a just reward for his piety. century was the era of table pewter. Charles In summary, until comparatively recent times Montgomery, in his book, "A History of exposure to lead from sources other than pewter American Pewter," tabulated the Winterthur tableware was so various and so massive that it data which show that while some American is highly unlikely that pewter tableware con­ domestic pewter contained no lead, some con­ tributed more than an insignificant fraction of tained as much as 25-30 percent lead. The pro­ total lead exposure. However, lead exposure portion of lead tended to increase after the Rev­ from storage vessels or processing equipment olutionary War but fell again in the nineteenth lined or made with tin-lead alloys falling under century as Britannia metal came into vogue and the heading of pewter was considerable, and the percent of antimony in pewter increased. was undoubtedly a primary factor in endemic While the English guilds had attempted to chronic lead poisoning. During the nineteenth regulate the percent of lead in pewter, in general and twentieth centuries, lead contamination of the primary intent of these regulations was to fermented and distilled drinks declined and be­ maintain quality in pewter production. With re­ came unimportant except in isolated instances gard to the health of the public, it was generally usually involving lead, not pewter. Since this believed that pewter containing less than 10 was the Britannia era, pewter tableware is un­ percent lead was harmless. That this is not true likely to have been a significant source of lead is illustrated by the observation that an during this period except perhaps in England, eighteenth century English pewter plate con­ where tavern ware was still made with relatively taining only three percent lead gave off about high proportions of lead. 300 ug of lead per 6/1 diameter area, about the In conclusion, the amounts of lead contained area presumed to be covered by food, when it in some of the pewter tableware from the col­ was treated with acetic acid. Estimated total av­ lectible period are sufficient to caus'e chronic erage daily dietary intake in the United States lead poisoning if these dishes, mugs and beak­ today is about 300 ug, and about three times this ers were to be used exclusively. However, in amount is considered to be the safe upper limit view of the general level of lead exposure at the of dietary intake. To be sure, even acid foods time such tableware was used exclusively, it is such as apples or tomatoes are not as strongly probable that pewter tableware contributed rel­ acid as acetic acid; but the amount of lead ab­ atively little to total lead exposure. sorbed from the surface of one plate must be In closing, I might point out that Garland multiplied by the number of times during the Pass, in PCCA Bulletin Vol. 7, has outlined a day such a plate was used and added to the simple procedure for obtaining a rough estimate amounts absorbed from drinking vessels and of the percent of lead in a piece of pewter. As leaded pewter lined cooking vessels. And, of Mr. Pass indicates, the method is a crude one course, much pewter contained more than three since it is based on the assumption that pewter is percent lead. It is apparent that the intake of an alloy of tin and lead only. However, its lead from pewter tableware could have posed a speed, simplicity and the fact that it does not significant health hazard even into compara­ damage the pewter item recommend it for use; tively recent times. and it is certainly capable of distinguishing be­ At the same time it is instructive to compare tween pewter with a high and pewter with a low this figure of 300 ug with the amount of lead lead content. which may have been available from sources other than pewter tableware. Apart from medi­ S.G. tin = 7.28. cations the principal source would have been S.G. copper = 8.92. fermented drinks, to which, as we have seen. S.G. antimony = 6.68. lead was added both intentionally and uninten­ tionally. Perhaps the most extreme uninten­ S. C. Gilfillan: Lead poisoning and the fall of tional exposure occurred with sopo which was Rome. 1. Occup. Med. 7, 53-60 (1965). used to sweeten not only wines but foods as C. P. McCord: Lead and lead poisoning in early well. Boiling down two flasks of (different) America. 1. Induster. Med. Surg. 22, 573-577 wine exactly as the ancients did, Hofmann in (1953 ).

Vol. 7,3/79, p. 354 P. Grandjean: Lead in Danes: Historical and could be trusted as a friend. It was this latter use toxicological studies. Lead, ed. T. B. Griffin which undoubtedly gave rise to communion to­ and J.H. Knelson; Environmental Quality and kens, a large portion of· which were made of Safety Suppl. II, ed. F. Coulston and F. Korte, pewter. Thieme, Stuttgart, 1975. The first recorded use of communion tokens R. H. Major: Classic Descriptions of Disease, in England occurred in 1559, a year after 2nd ed., C.C. Thomas, Springfield, Ill., 1939, Elizabeth I took the throne. Elizabeth was a pp. 335-352. Protestant but her predecessor, Mary I, had been a devout Catholic. During Mary's reign, L. G. Stevenson: A History of Lead Poisoning. the Protestant Church was banned and those Ph.D. Dissertation: John Hopkins University, who failed to accept Catholicism were perse­ 1949. cuted or killed. G. Baker: An essay, Concerning the Cause of Elizabeth restored the Protestant Church in the Endemial Colic of Devonshire, reprinted by England but in Scotland Elizabeth's cousin, the Delta Omega Society, 1958. Also see: Med. Mary, Queen of Scots, was in control and she Trans. Roy. Call. Phys. I, 175-256 (1972) and was an ardent Catholic. Mary's support in 2,431 et seq. (1937-38). Scotland came from Catholic France and, later, Lead: Airborne Lead in Perspective. Committee from Phillip II of Spain, who was also a on biologic effects of atmospheric pollutants, crusader for Catholicism. After Mary married National Research Council, National Academy Francis in 1558, the son of the French king and of Sciences, Washington, D. C., 1972. See Fig. also a Catholic, a group· of Scottish Protestant 3-3 for relation between blood lead and daily nobles formed the Lords of the Congregation intake, and for 10% dietary Pb absorption fig­ and vowed to free Scotland from the Catholic ure. Church. This was a bold, courageous move in this period in history. At about that time John Knox, a formidable orator and a staunch Pro­ testant, aroused a growing number of the Scot­ tish people. Many of whom joined the mobs 3. Communion Tokens which destroyed the Catholic monasteries in Perth in May 1559. Dreadful, intense fighting by Thomas H. 0' Flaherty ensued which spread throughout all of Scotland, Protestant against Catholic. In 1560, however, Throughout history, many small items have peace was restored after the Protestants pre­ been made of pewter, including coins, buttons vailed in the fighting. After that time, Scotland and tokens. was never again Catholic but it was years before Pewter was readily available in England in the Scottish Protestant Church was secure. the 17th and 18th centuries. It was also rela­ Mary, Queen of Scots, was imprisoned by tively inexpensive, particularly when used in Elizabeth I after an abortive Catholic uprising small quantities; therefore, it was ideal for use 1567, It was 20 years later, however, before in manufacturing such small objects. Mary was put to death. At about that time, some coins, such as silver Mary's son, James (unlike his mother) was a pennies, were so small that they were difficult Protestant. After he took the throne of Scotland to handle and were readily lost. Thus, before at the age of eighteen as James VI of Scotland the reign of Charles II (1660-1685) and at least (which coincided roughly with Mary's death in through the time of William and Mary (1688- 1587) there continued to be regular religious 1694) there were pewter farthings. Because it conflicts in Scotland. It was not until was made of pewter, the pewter farthing was Elizabeth's death in 1603 when James Stuart substantially larger than its silver counterpart who was James VI of Scotland became James I and, therefore, less likely to be lost. At about of England that Scotland and England were that same period of time, the Irish used pewter united. Under James I, the Protestant Church in their halfpennies. became the official church of both England and The need for small change in the 17th century Scotland. Thereafter, the religious differences also gave rise to trade tokens which were also in Scotland were no longer between Catholic made of pewter. These trade tokens could be and Protestant but, rather, between members of exchanged for future goods but were almost the different Protestant sects. The primary issue certainly used for other purposes. Many of them then was whether the individual churches would were valued at a halfpenny and could be used to be independent, free churches or whether they make change. Cotterell includes illustrations of would remain under royal control and be oper­ 40 such tokens used by pewterers - or likely ated through a heirarchy of Bishops. used by pewterers - on pages 64-67. At the It is no wonder that all of this insecurity gave end of the 17th century, these trade tokens were rise, at least in the beginning, to a need for a largely replaced by paper trade cards. form of identification to properly qualified in­ The Greeks and the Romans used tokens for dividuals. It was extremely dangerous for a trading purposes and for purposes of identifica­ congregation to be infiltrated by spies. Also at tion - a person with a particular type of token that time in history, a person's religion was a

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 355 very important part of his life, a life which was Presbyterians to America. (Mary E. Norton, otherwise very harsh. Communion was the most Winterthur Museum collection.) Lest you think important religious celebration. It was given such tokens are terribly rare, Montgomery re­ infrequently, in some places twice a year but in ports in his "A History of American Pewter", others only after a lapse of years. In those inter­ pages 87-88, that the Presbyterian Historical vals between communion, church officials Society in Philadelphia has between 3,000 and co~ examine parishioners. Those who passed 4,000 tokens in its collection. examination were givt(n a token which they Communion tokens are relatively inexpen­ saved and turned in at the next communion. It sive. In Peter Hornsby's recent Robin Bellamy signified that they were both worthy and also catalogue there are a variety of tokens listed for trustworthy. between $5 and $10 apiece. Therefore, for a There were many more years of religious modest sum, one can purchase a small collec­ conflict before the church and state were for­ tion of history. mally separated by an act of Parliament in 1874. During that interval, nearly all the Scottish Protestant Churches and the Episcopal Church (which was the successor of the 17th century Bishop's Church) regularly issued communion 4. Lighting Devices tokens to their faithful. by Mr. & Mrs. Robert Viewegh The first 17th century tokens were fairly crude. They were made of lead or pewter. John We were asked to give you mini-information Carter in his article in the Bulletin (volume 6, on the development of the pewter whale oil page 252) suggests that many of these tokens lamp. To do this it is almost essential for you to may have been made from old pewter plates. As understand a little of the development of the use time went on, tokens became more elaborate of artifical light, for man has tried to lengthen and the identification of the particular church the daylight hours from the beginning of time, issuing the token~ became more complete. As and it has only been in relatively recent years more information was added to the token, the that we have acquired the electric light switch. original small square shape gave way to an oval Prehistoric man is supposed to have relied first or circle which could accommodate the in­ upon a flaming branch from his campfire for a creased information required to distinguish portable light, and perhaps the first "oil" lamp between churches. Dates began to appear on was a depression in a stone into which grease communion tokens in the middle of the 17th from his cooking of meat had settled and into century. Most of these dates correspond roughly which a sprig of moss had fallen, caught on fire to the issue of the token, although many of them and had continued to burn after the campfire were associated with ministers' initials and in­ had gone out. From then on, man searched for dicated the beginning of the minister's service. containers which would hold burning oil, ·and The complexity and amount of information even crudely carved them from stone or bone or contained on the tokens increased further in the shell. 18th century. Tokens cast in the 19th century Since our time is limited, and since we are were frequently very elaborate; they bore a sure that you want to hear about pewter lamps, biblical reference or verse, contained an illus­ we are going to generalize some of the de­ tration, frequently of the church, some con­ velopments that were made as the centuries - tained the full name of the church, the minis­ yes, centuries - passed, for remember that ter's initials and a communion table number. It there was no large improvement in extending is reported in Collector's Weekly, October 24, the daylight hours until our own Thomas A. 1970, page 13, that there were over 2,300 Edison controlled electricity. The crude con­ communicants at 29 individual tables at com­ tainers of rock, bone, etc. were developed into munion in Dull in Perth shire in 1791. Ordin­ designed open pan lamps, made from either iron arily, communion was less grand judging or tin. In this category you will find such terms from the table numbers on tokens now avail­ used as Betty lamps (taken from the German able. Seldom are numbers found greater than, word "besser" meaning "better" and naturally say, about 6. shortened to "betty"), cruisies, double pan By the middle of the 1800's, tokens had be­ cruisies, Phoebe lamps, etc. The burning wick come fairly stereotyped in both style and shape. lay in an open pan of grease or oil, whale or fish Many of those used in the early days of this oils usually being used. You can see why pew­ century were more like bus tokens - they could ter was not used for this type of lamp, since it be used at almost any appropriate church. Ulti­ would readily melt from the heat of the flame. mately, the practice of issuing and collecting Most people have the idea that the candle is communion tokens disappeared. In a few the oldest means of illumination - NOT SO! places, just as with pewter trade tokens, the Although candles have been made for centuries, communion tokens were replaced by paper it has always been difficult to acquire the mate­ ones. rials and also difficult to make the candles. The Scottish practice of issuing communion Therefore, candles have always been consid­ tokens was brought by the Scottish ered precious and used only "when the preacher

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 356 came" or on an occasion when elegance pre­ had tubes which accommodated a very wide vailed. Candle holders were made generally of wick and, as you can see, there was no method silver, brass, glass, pottery, or porcelain. It was of raising the wick as it burned. Therefore a tool not until after 1800 that our American pewterers was devised to take care of this. It was called a started making candlesticks, excluding the fa­ "pick-wick" and was carved from whale bone mous Heyne church candlesticks (circa 1756- or fine wood and was set beside the lamp or 1780). The design of the candle holder can sometimes attached to the lamp with a chain. fairly well date it. The drip pan in the earliest Other improvements in design were made: Baroque or Tudorperiod was at the base of the the bull's eye of glass magnified the light candle holder and through the years rose to the greatly and a taller stem threw a broader span of base of the candle, which was a more practical light, etc., but the main research by this time position. During the 17th and 18th centuries, was for a better burning oil. By 1850, experi­ the drip pan was placed about in the middle of ments were being made with all kinds of oils the stem. Later when it was raised to the base of and fluids and combinations of these. These the candle, it was known as the "bobeche". fluids usually contained alcohol or some other American pewter candlesticks can be dif­ volatile liquid that could evaporate into the ferentiated from English or European candle­ room and explode or cause a fire. So the wick sticks in that this "bobeche" is a separate tubes were designed with small caps, not to ex­ piece, whereas the foreign ones are formed as tinguish the flame, as is so often believed, but part of the stick. to cover the volatile fluid and prevent it from Candles being very precious, other methods evaporating. were found for making light. One of these was The United States Patent Office was estab­ the burning of rushes, most common in colonial lished in 1807 and during the thirty years that America. The pithy portion of a rush was followed, thirty four patents for lighting devices soaked in ordinary household grease and and burning fluids were issued. It is interesting burned. Thus, the rushlight holder was de­ to note that two patents for methods of produc­ veloped. Made usually of iron, it was nothing ing or burning a gas for illumination were is­ more than a tweezer like tool to hold the rush. sued to David Melville of Newport, Rhode Is­ Now we come to a big improvement in lamp land. However, we know of no lamps made by making which was initiated by John Miles, an Melville, signed or attributed. A few of these Englishman, in 1787, who invented and pat­ well known patented lamps were the Swope ented in England an enclosed, oil tight font with Lamp, Kinnear Lamp, Newell Lamp, etc" vertical wick tubes which could be carried, some of which are exhibited. knocked over, or agitated in any way without There is lots more to tell and lots more to spilling the oil. It took about 20 or 30 years for learn and it may all seem a little confusing. We this idea to reach America and from then on the hope so, so you will ask lots of questions or design of the lamp for the home was elaborated better yet, do a little studying on your own. on and improved. Lamps were made from tin, glass, brass and, of course, our PEWTER. Pewter whale oil lamps found today are nearly always American and come in various shaped fonts, sizes, heights and design of stem, most of 5. The Nicholas Dolbeare which are not signed by the maker - marked Dish ones are considered a real find. Many an un­ marked lamp can be attributed to a maker by a by Webster Goodwin very definite feature of its design, such as the Gleason "Bull's-eye" lamp, but the pewterers' This little presentation is as much a story of custom of exchanging parts and molds at the how one can "luck out" as it is of the acquisi­ time (circa 1820-1850), makes it very difficult tion of a nice piece of English Pewter. to definitely identify anyone pewterer's lamps. One Sunday afternoon last November after a Because of the low melting point of pewter hearty dinner and between the halves of a foot­ the wick tubes in these lamps were usually ball game on television, I picked up the Sunday made of brass or tin and carried well into the paper. In it was an ad for a small auction the font to carry the heat of the flame into the heavy next day in which was mentioned a "pewter oil, thinning it for better absorption into the charger". The viewing was that afternoon or wick. before the auction the next morning. I was not The first closed font lamps had only one tube about to interrupt the football game to chase for the wick but it was soon discovered that two what was undoubtedly a corroded and beat up wicks more than doubled the light, however, piece of Samuel Ellis or Townsend and Comp­ additional wicks did not improve the efficiency ton pewter 30 miles away at that point in my of the light. These now common known facts life, however as the evening came on I kept were not learned by computers or slide rules but wondering whether or not to go take a look. by trial and error over a period of years. It so happened that I had a date the next Some lamps used lard as a fuel, an econom­ morning with two friends and my bird dog to ical but unsatisfactory substance. These lamps inspect a few cornfields for pheasants, but that

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 357 "pewter charger" bothered me, so I picked up touchmark as those of Nicholas Dolbeare (c- the phone and told my friends to wait for me if I 1640), the uncle of our early American pew­ was not at home when they arrived, for I was terer, Edmund Dolbeare, who also worked in going to a preview of an auction and would be Ashburton before coming to America about back as soon as possible. 1670. Crazy or not, I arrived at the auction hall It is known that the Edgecumbe family promptly at 8 A.M. to find the one and only commissioned Nicholas Dolbeare to provide piece of pewter in the sale to be the "pewter pewter for their "Cotehele" estate near Mt. charger" (Fig. 1) - and what a beautiful big Edgecumbe and that Edmund Dolbeare likewise broadrim English piece it was, marked with a provided some shortly before his emigration to Coat of Arms - hallmarks and touchmark! America. Some of this pewter remained at Now what to do! My friends waiting, the auc­ Cotehele until 1956 when the late Ronald tion coming up, and I had to have this piece. Michaelis cataloged it and it was auctioned. Anyway, I took a chance and left a bid with the Several pieces of Mt. Edgecumbe pewter were auctioneer which I felt would buy it. in the Michaelis collection. So back to the friends and the bird dog. It was How this Nicholas Dolbeare dish reached a a nice hunt - we found our feathered friends small obscure auction near Providence, Rhode and collected two or three, but I was dying to Island is a mystery. I have been unable to de­ get home and go over to the auction hall. I termine it's provenance, but I know where it is finally made it about as the sale was concluding today! and over in the corner of the room was the I think that many of us in the PCCA tend to broadrim dish - mine I hoped. Sure enough, it neglect good English and Continental forms. I was mine at the bid which I had left (the auc­ admit that my collection consists mainly of tioneer didn't remember the name of the under­ American pewter, however, I do have a few bidder). choice English pieces - a beautiful broth bowl, Now, what did I have? The dish measured a superb sugar bowl by William Eddon, a few 19 *" in diameter with a central boss. The brim porringers along with other English dishes and 3 %" wide. The engraved coat of arms consisted platters. Certainly this fine broadrim which just of three boar's heads diagonally displayed on a says "PEWTER" to you when you look at it is shield surrounded by a wreath with a bow at the more than a welcome addition. It's massive bottom (Fig. 2). Two of the four hallmarks (Fig. beauty would lend character to any collection! 3) were indistinct but one was a pass ant lion and Finally, any story should have some kind of a the other plainly' 'ND" (Fig. 4). On the reverse message. Undoubtedly somewhere, some of the brim was the touchmark consisting of a place, there is another Nicholas Dolbeare dish beaded circle with the initials "ND" and waiting to be found. If not a Dolbeare piece standing bird with wings spread (Fig. 5). I am then how about Simon Edgell, John Baker, indebted to Harold and Joan King of Seattle, William Will, the Bassetts, or for that matter, Washington, who own a lOVs" broadrim plate you name him and surely there has to be that with these marks, for a better description - "A piece, but it can't be found watching television! beaded circle of 9h6" diameter with the initials ND and a pelican with wings spread balancing on a log. " I started searching Cotterell - nothing; Peal's "More Pewter Marks" finally showed the touchmark and hallmarks (5551a), but no identification of the maker, only the notation "on Mt. Edgecumbe plates and dishes, c 1665-1685". The Coat of Arms stuck in my mind - I had seen it somewhere, so I kept searching and, sure enough, in a little brochure sent to Pewter Club members by Robin Bellamy (peter and Jenifer Hornsby) of Witney, England in September 1977 there appeared an article en­ titled "A Link Between Devon and the U . S. A. " which tied one of America's earliest pewterers, Edmund Dolbeare, to Mount Edgecumbe pewter. On page 17 of this brochure were pictures of the same Coat of Arms and the ND hallmark as on my broadrim dish. The Coat of Arms was identified as that of the Edgecumbe family who lived in the 17th century at their estate "Cotehele" near Mt. Edgecumbe in Devon, England, which, I understand is about 30 miles from Ashburton. Fig. 1. Nicholas Dolbeare broadrim dish, 19 34" di­ Mr. Hornsby has identified the hallmarks and ameter. Brim 3 %" wide.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 358 Two Fake Rhode Island Marks by Webster Goodwin

A short time ago I received a call from a dealer who said that he had just purchased a small pewter collection which included two pieces of Rhode Island pewter - would I be interested? The answer was positive, of course, and the resulting pieces were a 12/1 range dish with a "Calder" eagle mark under "LON­ DON" and a Rose and Crown (Fig. 1) and a 6/1 American basin with a "Hamlin" eagle mark in the well (Fig. 3). The "Calder" piece was obviously not "right" but at first glance the "Hamlin" mark was not as questionable. I told the dealer that 1 Fig. 2. Edgecumbe family Coat of Arms from the front of the rim of the Nicholas Dolbeare broadrim was suspicious of these pieces and arranged to dish. borrow them to check them out, which I did with John Carl Thomas who promptly con­ firmed my judgment of the "Calder" dish and pronounced the "Hamlin" basin equally false with the remark "since when did Hamlin use

Fig. 3. Hallmarks on the front of the brim of the Nicholas Dolbeare broadrim dish.

Fig. 4. Enlargements of the initialed hallmark on the Nicholas Dolbeare broadrim dish.

Fig. 5. Touchmark on the reverse of the brim of the Fig. 1. Fake Calder eagle mark on reverse of a 12" Nicholas Dolbeare broadrim dish. range English dish.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 359 his eagle mark in the well of a basin - anyway and clumsy, the arrows and olive branch are the mark is a fake". crude, and the relation of the "R " in Calder to The enlarged photos of these fake marks be­ the wing joint is not correct. Furthermore the side the correct ones clearly show the dif­ letters in "PROVID" are not the same - the ferences: Figure 2 is an enlarged photo of Ham­ • '0 " is too small, the "V" is too large and the lin's eagle (1-162) taken from a porringer han­ rest of the letters are crudely cut. dle in the writer's collection. Figure 3 shows the It is obvious that these fake marks were not fake Hamlin mark in the well of the 6" basin recently struck. I was informed that the collec­ note the differences: the thickness of the eagle's tion from which these pieces came had been in neck, the clumsiness of the wing details, the existence for "many years" and certainly the feathers on the wing, the thickness of the leg, wear which the marks show would indicate that the shape of the olive branch in the claws and the pieces had been used for some time prior to the shape of the shield. Furthermore the slant being acquired by a collector. and sharpness of the letters in "Hamlin" are not Why someone would go to the trouble of cut­ the same regardless of wear and tear. ting dies faking these marks (which are not easy Figure 4 is an enlargement of Calder's eagle marks to fake) 50-75 or more years ago is a (1-67) from a porringer handle in the writer's mystery, for certainly the financial rewards collection. Figure 5 shows the fake "Calder" could not have been worth the effort. At any mark from the English dish. Aside from the fact rate the discovery of these pieces have placed that the fake Calder mark was struck on an the names of two more makers on the list of English dish with a Rose and Crown and a those whose marks have been faked. As Bill "LONDON" mark, the mark itself has striking Blaney says "Caveat Emptor". differences from the "right" one: there are no serrations in the circular outline of the mark, the ED. NOTE: Since writing the above, I have background of the mark is "pebbled" and seen the fake Hamlin eagle on an 8" range Eng­ rough and not smooth as in the correct mark, the lish plate at an antique show north of Boston. eagle's neck is too large, the wings are too large Webster Goodwin

Fig. 2. Correct Hamlin eagle mark (J-162) from a Fig. 3. Fake Hamlin eagle mark in well of a 6" porringer handle in the author's collection. American basin.

Fig. 4. Correct Calder eagle mark (J-67) from a por­ Fig. 5. Fake Calder eagle mark found in conjunction ringer handle in the author's collection. with "LONDON" and a rose and crown on the re­ verse of a 12" range English. dish (Fig. 1).

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 360 A John Skinner Footed Plate by William O. Blaney

Fig. 1. Smooth brim plate by John Skinner, Boston, w. 1760-1790. Note that plate bottom has been rounded out and three legs added. Plate diameter 93/16; depth (plate only) 1"; overall depth about 2 liz"; Courtesy of the Worcester Art Museum and the heirs of the lates Charles F. Hutchins.

The Worcester (Mass.) Art Museum has in its Other possibilities undoubtedly exist, but as we possession the smooth brim footed plate illus­ probably will never know the originally in­ trated in Figure 1 above. It is on long-term loan tended use, the choice will be left to each from the heirs of the late Charles F. Hutchins, a reader. former P.C.C.A. member. For whatever purpose the plate was designed, The plate has been known to the writer for it must have received much and hard usage, as some ten years or more, but due to a few com­ is evidenced by the upward bumps on its upper plications, knowledge of its existence has been surface (see Figure 3). It is regretable that this withheld from Bulletin readers. This most at­ surface has not been restored to its original 3 tractive plate has a diameter of about 9 /16 smoothness, as it would not be too difficult a inches and a height of some 21fz inches includ­ task. ing the feet. The normally flat bottom has been When first inspecting the plate, I came away rounded out into a bowl shape, and its brim has with the impression the only marks on it were been canted upwards from it original level. The Skinner's hall marks. A more recent examina­ three feet or legs have been soldered onto the tion (and under better light) revealed the faint rounded bottom and are of a form which might imprints of the lion-in-gateway touches. well have been used to stabilize the round bot­ Another unexpected disclosure was the lack of tom of a Queen Anne teapot or a small creamer hammer marks. No evidence could be found of (see Figure 2). Looked at head-on, each leg has hammering on any part of the plate. But a closer an inward, or concave, bend extending down to look showed that the plate had been subjected to a pad-like foot. Each is fastened to the plate by many cleanings - almost scourings. This, an attachment composed of one large and two perhaps, accounts for the faint touch marks and small two-stepped triangles. And if our printer the absence of any vestige of hammer marks. does a good job of reproducing the photograph, (Has anyone ever seen a Skinner plate without a you will be able to see the fine file-like lines on hammered booge?) And it might be added here the top of the lower step. that the legs seem to show less evidence of On the bottom of the plate are two very faint cleaning than the plate bottom. imprints of Skinner's lion-in-gateway touch, I have discovered that the legs have caused over a much clearer impression of his hall some concern among a few of those who have marks. Sandwiched in between are the owner's examined the plate in past years. And the ques­ initials "M.B." tion has been raised as to whether or not they It is interesting to speculate on what the plate were cast by, and applied to the plate by, John was used for after the bottom had been rounded Skinner. Opinions were asked of several au­ out and the legs added. Could it have been used thorities, the more pertinent responses being for a small christening bowl? Or a fruit dish for given below. the center of a table? Or as a sweetmeat plate? One of our more knowledgeable Club mem-

Vol. 7,3179, p. 361 bers, from whom I first learned of the plate's existence, and who will remain anonymous here, is of the opinion that the angular features of the legs tend towards the impression they postdate Skinner's working years, possibly by upwards to one hundred years. The late Ledlie I. Laughlin remembered see­ ing the plate some forty years prior to my broaching the subject to him, and recalled holding back from buying it for fear that the legs were an afterthought that might have been added at a later date by someone other than Skinner. But he admitted that when he in­ spected the plate he was a beginning collector, knew little about pewter, and was suspicious of every item at all different from the standard Fig. 2 Closeup of one of the legs on the John Skinner shapes. He later regretted his decision and plate shown in Fig. 1. wished he had tried to acquire it, even though the feet may not have been on it originally. Laughlin did mention the plate in Volume III of Pewter In America on page 42, but there he recorded it as a "tray" mounted on three "bent-knee" legs. Re-examination of Figure 2 will reveal that his memory of the legs may have been a bit hazy, as they surely do not look like any variety of a "bent-knee" style. The late Charles F. Montgomery was known to have assisted Mr. Hutchins in acquiring much of his pewter collection, so his opinion was requested. He knew the "Skinner dish­ on-feet" well, having seen it a number of times, but he added "While I have never examined it with a suspicious eye, I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the legs. " With the thought the legs were similar to those found on early teapots, he checked Skinner's advertisements in Dow's The Arts & Crafts in NeH: England, Fig. 3. Top view of the John Skinner plate showing 1704-1775, page 74, and while he did not find bumps near the edge of the booge caused by upward teapots specifically listed, he suggested the pos­ pressure from the legs below. sibility they might have been included in "all other sorts of Pewter Ware usually made in New Bngland. " So there we have varying and differing opin­ ions on the Skinner plate. It is quite possible H. N. Rust, that a final conclusion will not be reached until legs or feet of this style are found on some other Pewterer, Merchant, piece of pewter or silver which can be accu­ or Collector? rately dated before, within or after Skinner's working dates (c. 1760-1790). Until then, each by Webster Goodwin reader will have the privilege of forming his or her own opinion without further outside influ­ Jacobs in his "Guide to American Pewter" ence. It would be interesting to record the page 152 lists H. N. Rust as probably a New opinions of various readers, but that seems York maker working about 1840 and shows rather impractical. However, if anyone wants to only one piece, an 8" basin, as an example of send his or her opinion to me, I will be glad to Rust's work. Since the "Guide to American report back in the next Bulletin - provided Pewter" was published other pieces have turned enough opinions are received. up and we are indebted to our members Mrs. One more thought. I wonder how many col­ Melus Cushing and Mr. Robert Smoot for lectors would like to have this unusual and at­ further information regarding pewter bearing tractive piece in their collections. I know I the straight line mark "H. N. Rust". would. Mr. Smoot has in his collection a 3~" por­ And lastly, may I herewith extend my many ringer (Fig. 1) bearing the TD & SB mark of the thanks to the Worcester Art Museum and the Boardman brothers along with the incised mark heirs of Charles F. Hutchins for their kindness "H. N. Rust" (Fig. 2). in permitting me to photograph, for use with Mrs. Cushing has a 4%" porringer with the this article, "John Skinner's footed plate. " "H. N. Rust" mark struck three times on it -

Vol. 7,3/79, p. 362 once on the front to the handle, once on the thing more than a collector - a merchant back of the handle and again on the bottom of perhaps, living in New York in the 1840's or the bowl (Fig. 3). Mrs. Cushing has also seen thereabouts, who had a line die which he used two ENGLISH dishes marked with the H. N. on a few pieces of pewter, possibly among other Rust die. The following is a quotation from her metal items (the basin mentioned by Jacobs, the letter to me: "Unfortunately I have only one 2-3 TD&SB pieces, the English dishes dating to piece marked Rust - the lady sent two other the 1780's). My father had such a die for dishes, early English ones as I remember and marking his tools - it was commonplace. both marked "H. N. Rust", but as my interests I saw the English dishes (Ed note: mentioned have primarily been toward marked American in Mrs. Cushing's letter), well struck by a pieces I returned them to her. This transaction couple of makers, well used to judge by knife was made about 10 years ago with a Mrs. Ste­ marks etc. and I'm not about to be convinced vens who lived in Claremont, Cal. and probably that a New Yorker maker or merchant of the has passed on as she was elderly and not well at 1840 's was striking used English dishes of the that time. The only thing that I know about 1780 's for sale in his shop at a time when new these pieces is that she bought them from some plates and dishes could be had from the woman who was a relative of the Rust family. I Boardmans and others. " attempted to buy the two plates later but she was Mr. Smoot makes a good case for Rust as a not interested in selling them". collector, furthermore what sort of a maker or Now to quote from a letter received from Mr. merchant would strike a porringer three times Smoot on the subject: "On the face of existing with his die? evidence I'm not convinced that Rust was any- Any comments?

Fig. 1. 31,4" porringer with TD & SB and H. N. Rust marks.

Fig. 2. Closeup of marks on handle of porringer in Fig. 3. Front and back of O.E. handled 41,4" TD & Fig. l. SB porringer showing "H. N. Rust" marks on front of handle, back of handle and bottom of bowl.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 363 Boardman Measures Boardman strike appears on the bottom of the piece. by Melvyn D. Wolf, M.D. There have been many ideas espoused as to the origin of these letters and dates, such as Over the past few years, there has been an owner's initials, city, state or county excise increasing interest in American measures. As marks. This writer has examined personally or far as it is known at this point, it seems as through written communications with various though only Boardman-made measures are un­ owners 36 Boardman measures from the equivocally American in origin. Other makers quarter-pint, half-pint, pint, quart, half-gallon have been tentatively listed as having made to gallon size. It became apparent after the baluster-type measures, lidded and unlidded data-collecting that a certain consistent pattern varieties, however, the origin of these seem to developed. A series of initials could be found be of British manufacture. only in a specific time period. During that span, Since the Boardman Company copied the only these initials appeared, e.g. all measures 18th century unlidded baluster form commonly dated 1821 have only "I.P.S. " as initial marks. used in England, it is necessary to establish N ow it can be assumed that the initials that ac­ some criteria for the identification of these company a certain year are meaningful and pur­ measures when found unmarked. As well as can poseful. be determined by this writer, there are two Some initials cover more than one year's striking features that separate the English time. "J.D." appears in the years 1835, 1837, baluster from the American form. The applica­ and 1838. Since no examples with a "1836" tion of the handle was made by soldering on the have been reported, I would postulate that when Boardman examples, whereas most English it is found it would bear the "J.D. " initials. handles were "burnt" on. The second major The accompanying chart illustrates my find­ point is the presence of a small flange or lip at ings and suppositions. It begins with the year of the upper edge of the Boardman measures (Fig. the earliest example reported, 1813, and con­ 2) not noted on the English counterpart. Other cludes with the latest date recorded, 1873. The features such as the diamond-based handle sup­ underlined initials reflect actual measures re­ port are common to both British and American corded with dates and initials. Those initials measures. Figure 3 is a composite of the lower without underlining represent what I feel will be handle attachments of all six Boardman sizes the letters when examples are eventually found. (14 pint, lh pint, 1 pint, 1 quart, 1f2 gallon and This assumption is based on the fact that gallon.) The incised rings around the belly of marked measures have been found with the the measure are present in both and not signifi­ same initials and dated prior to and just after cant in determining origin. those identified. A blank space after a year indi­ With this background material established, I cates there is no known example reported to have set about to determine what can be noted date. Because of the consistant relationship from the dates and letters that appear on the between year and initials and sequence of time, rims adjacent to the handle juncture. To the left it now seems improbable that these are owner's of the handle juncture are usually two or three initials, city, county or state marks. Logic initials and to the right a date such as 1825. would lead us to believe these dates and initials (Fig. 4) I have seen few measures that do not were applied at the time of manufacture to pos­ have these secondary marks about the rim. I feel sibly reflect verification of capacity. If addi­ that a measure can be identified as made by tional information could be obtained from the Boardman based on the presence of these date Boardman records or other sources, it might be and initial marks and noted physical charac­ possible to identify the owner of these initials. teristics, irrespective of whether an actual The importance of this investigation is that

Fig. 1. Boardman measure from inside. Note ab­ Fig. 2. Lip of Boardman measure showing flange. sence of the Tinkers dam.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 364 Fig. 3. Handle junction with the bodies of Boardman measures, 14 pint to I gallon, left to right, top to bottom. there is a constant factor between the year and Boardman Measures initials marked on Boardman measures. This 1813 O.A.B. 1833 A.B. 1853 chart will serve as a preliminary study. If any of 1814 1834 A.B. 1854 you have a Boardman measure that is unre­ 1815 1835 J.D. 1855 corded, I would appreciate hearing from you. If 1816 1836 J.D. 1856 someone does any further research, a report in 1817 W.W. 1837 J.D. 1857 J.H.E. the Bulletin would be appreciated. 1818 -- 1838 J.D. 1858 J.H.E. Melvyn D. Wolf, M.D. 1819 LP.S. 1839- 1859 J.H.E. 1820 LP.S. 1840 1860-- 1821 LP.S. 1841 1861 1822 LP.S. 1842 1862 1823 LP.S. 1843 A.D.F. 1863 1824 LP.S. 1844 E.B.O. 1864 1825 LP.S. 1845 E.B.O. 1865 1826 LP.S. 1846 E.B.O. 1866 1827 LP.S. 1847 E.B.O. 1867 1828 LP.S. 1848 E.B.O. 1868 Fig. 4. Initials and date on Boardman measure. 1829 A.L. 1849~ 1869 Underlined initials for actual examples re­ 1830 A.B. 1850 P.L. 1870 corded. Initials not underlined are based on only 1831 A.B. 1851 P.L. 1871 supposition. Blank space after a year - unable 1832 A.B. 1852 D.W.C. 1872 to anticipate the initials. 1873 W.H.T.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 365 knowledge that pewterers of this period (1820- Boston Pewter Canns 1850) often exchanged parts or whole items and sold them under their mark. Aimlessly checking by Richard L. Bowen, Jr. the mark on the bottom, as we all frequently do when we look at pewter, I was amazed to see In a recent article on "The Pewter Cann in the Otis Williams mark! (Laughlin Vol. I, plate America" I presented evidence to show that a LVIII-451) (Fig. 2). pewter vessel identical to the tulip-shaped silver Pewter by Otis Williams, although he is a cann was very popular in Boston in the mid­ confirmed pewterer, is very scarce according to eighteenth century and was also known as a all of the references on American pewterers. , 'cann ' , . 1 The main evidence was the fact that According to Jacobs and Laughlin, only 2 plates the words "pot' , (or "mug") and "cann" oc­ and 1 basin have been found with this maker's curred in the same texts, clearly indicating that mark and as far as I know, this teapot is the only a cann differed from a mug. Strangely, I missed piece of hollow ware to have his name. two references, both of which were in the Otis Williams was born in Rocky Hill, Con­ sources I quoted. necticut on March 13, 1799, the only son of We have a broadside of 1748 by the mer­ Richard and Hannah Danforth Williams. Han­ chants Joseph and Daniel Waldo, at the Sign of nah was the daughter of Thomas Danforth III. the Elephant near the Town House in Boston, 2 His father was a Connecticut brazier and possi­ advertising imported wares from London. bly a partner of Thomas Danforth III. Accord­ Among the dozens of items listed we find ing to the "Buffalo Emporium" Otis started "Pewter ... Quart & Pint Pots, Kanns, and manufacturing pewter items in Buffalo, New Tankards" (with cann spelled in the German York in 1827 when he was 28 years old. How­ manner). ever, after only four years of productivity, he The second notice was from an advertisement died in May 1831, following a long illness. Al­ by David Cutler (working from 1730-1765) at though Otis Williams would not be considered the Sign of the Great Dish (with his name on an important pewterer of his period, this teapot said Dish) published in the Boston Gazette of 3 with his Buffalo eagle mark more firmly estab­ March 14, 1757. He advertised "Pewter . . . lishes him as a New York maker. Quart Pots, Pint Pots, Cans, and Tankards". John Skinner had later advertised in 1763 that he offered "very neat Canns and Quart and Pint Pots". The evidence mounts. Cutler and Skinner ad­ vertised pewter canns, and we have an example of a pint cann by Robert Bonynge dated .1747. The tulip-shaped pewter cann was ObVIOusly very popular in Boston about 1750 or shortly thereafter.

REFERENCES 1. R. L. Bowen, PCCA Bulletin, vol. 7 (April 1977), pp. 174-177. 2. C. F. Montgomery, A History of American Pewter (New York, 1973), p. 23. 3. L. L Laughlin, Pewter in America (Barre Publishers, 1969), vol. I, p. 66. Fig. 1. Otis Williams - Boardman form.

An OTIS WILLIAMS Teapot by Mr. & Mrs. Rober Viewegh

Sitting on a shelf with other various pieces of pewter, this teapot appeared quite ordin~y, possibly a Boardman - nice, but not partICU­ larly unusual (Fig. 1). This Boardman form had been used by several craftsmen, as it is common Fig. 2. Mark on bottom of Otis Williams teapot.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 366 Some Calder Teapots Hamlin circular eagle marks (Fig. 1). This is logical, since it was customary for an apprentice and Coffee Pots to use a touch similar to his master's. Calder's second touch was a straight-line mark of CAL­ by Richard L. Bowen, Jr. DER in relief in a serrated rectangle (Fig. 2). This is a really microscopic mark (only 11/32" It has been estimated that during the years long), and we must presume that Calder was from 1826 to 1838 teapots constituted over half influenced by some contemporary mark. The of William Calder's production and that Calder first mark to come to mind is that of Israel Trask apparently made thirteen different kinds of with his small I . TRASK in relief in a rectangle. teapots. 1 Since a number of different styles of However, the letters in Calder's mark are actu­ Calder teapots have survived, it was decided all y 17 % smaller than Trask's. to make a study of these, arranging them Another diminutive straight-line mark in re­ chronologically and dating the types as closely lief is the BABBITT CROSSMAN & CO. mark as possible. in a rectangle used by this Taunton, Massachu­ William Calder is a particularly good subject setts, company from 1827 to 1829. An almost for such a study for a number of reasons. In the identical mark was the BABBITT & first place, he was very sedentary. He started in CROSSMAN mark used from 1823 to 1827. business before 1817 in Providence, Rhode Is­ The letters in both of these marks are about the land, and somewhat later had a shop and home same size as those in Trask's mark, so they are on North Main in Providence which he oc­ both some 20% larger than Calder's. The suc­ cupied until his death in 1856. Therefore, we do cessor company to Babbitt, Crossman & Co. not have to worry about changes in design be­ was Crossman, West & Leonard (1829-1830) cause of moves to different towns and the ac­ and they used a much larger intaglio mark of quisition of new moulds, or because of partner­ incised letters. Taunton was only a little more ships, since Calder was unencumbered by, than fifteen miles from Providence, so Calder partners. was undoubtedly familiar with the wares from Secondly, Calder used three touches or dies Taunton and their touch marks. For example, in which can be easily arranged chronologically: 1830 two companies, one from New York, and his eagle, his straight-line CALDER mark, and Fuller & Norton of Providence received 96% of the word PROVIDENCE (used in conjunction the total shipments from Crossman, West, & with the last). The occurrence of these marks on Leonard.4 wares gives us a relative indication of their Calder probably based his mark on that of chronology and their age. And finally, we know Babbitt, Crossman & Co. and had it cut prior to from Calder's Daybook and Ledger that in the 1829. After that date he would probably have year 1826 he commenced to number new teapot copied the much larger intaglio mark of designs starting with No.1 and continued over Crossman, West & Leonard. The small CAL­ the years to progressively higher numbers. Cal­ DER straight-line mark is found by itself on No. der was methodical and conventional and, as 2 teapots which were first introduced in the very such, predictable, so that we are able to fill last part of 1826, so we would guess that Calder some gaps which occur with reasonable cer­ may have had the mark cut in 1827 or 1828. tainty. Laughlin suggested that Calder's straight-line William(3) Calder was the seventh child of touch probably replaced his eagle touch some­ James(2) and Agnes Calder and grandson of time about 1825 or soon after.s What he based William(1) Calder, who was born in 1690 in this estimate on is not apparent but his date Scotland and settled in Boston sometime before coincides almost exactly with what we have de­ 1732.2 James, who was born in 1755, moved to duced here. Providence in 1780 with wife Agnes and two small girls to superintend a paper mill. William(3) Calder was born on July 18, 1792, and according to family tradition was appren­ ticed to Samuel E. Hamlin of Providence.3 His apprenticeship probably began in 1806 and would have been ended about 1813. Calder may have worked for Hamlin for a little while before going out on his own, since Hamlin advertised in the November 25, 1815 Providence Patroit & Columbian for "an apprentice about 14 years old •" possibly indicating that his last one had just left. Calder supposedly spent some time working in Philadelphia before returning to Providence to set up his own shop. Calder's first touch showed an eagle in a Fig. 1. William Calder's eagle touch mark. The circular enclosure with CALDER above and mark is about 11/16" in diameter. The illustration is PROVID below, very similar to one of the three enlarged 2 X.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 367 The third mark Calder used was a straight­ accounts were posted on the right hand page line intaglio mark of PROVIDENCE in incised under "Contra". The accounts carried to the letters (Fig. 2). The letters of the PROVI­ Ledger may have been peddlers or out of town DENCE mark are actually about 25% larger accounts, or possibly just those who did not pay than the letters in the CALDER straight-line their bills too promptly. mark. Laughlin said that this diminutive mark is It is evident from examining the Daybook found only on "very late forms". 6 We can ac­ that virtually all of the customers were peddlers, tually date the introduction of the PROVI­ merchants or distributors of some kind, since DENCE mark fairly accurately. We shall see they purchased almost every item in quantity on that Calder's No.6 Teapot was introduced in a continuing basis. The average quantity of an 1838. I have seen examples of this pot marked item sold was about half a dozen. Only occas­ CALDERl6 and CALDER/6/PROVIDENCE, sionally was a single item sold to the man off so the PROVIDENCE mark was first used the street. In fact, we would have to assume that sometime after 1838, say about 1840, which Calder must have discouraged consumer sales certainly would put it in the "very late" period to protect the local merchants who were dis­ relative to Calder's working period. tributing his wares. Since the prices of teapots The location of touch marks is significant in and many other products were based on dozen determining their age. In the earliest times quantities, in some instances three or four in­ marks were placed on the inside bottoms of dividual items came out to a half or a third of a teapots and mugs. Montgomery suggested that cent. If we needed any additional evidence, this the practice of marking mugs on the inside bot­ is further proof that Calder's business was on a tom ceased about 1810 and that they were wholesale basis. thereafter marked on the outside. 7 However, in A summary was made of the products sold in Calder's case this date is too early, since he the years 1823 to 1825 from the Ledger and for marked his earliest mugs, teapots and coffee 1826 from the Daybook. It must be remembered pots on the inside with his eagle touch. that for the years 1823 to 1825 the Ledger At some later time he marked his teapots on showed only a portion of the total sales. In his the outside bottom with the eagle, and finally he analysis of Calder's Daybook, Raymond totaled replaced the eagle with the CALDER straight­ the numper of items sold during the year and line mark. However, he may have continued to expressed the percentage of production of vari­ mark mugs on the inside, since a late half-pint ous items on this basis. A summary of the items mug has the straight-line CALDER on the in­ sold for the years 1823 to 1826 is shown in side bottom. 8 On the other hand, Calder made Table I. porringers until at least 1842 and all of the por­ ringers which have survived are marked with his eagle touch. Calder simply continued TABLE I marking porringers, which never changed in de­ sign, as he always had, possibly because Ham­ 1823 1824 1825 1826 lin was still marking his with an eagle too dur­ ing this time. Teapots 720 778 1002 1221 Percy E. Raymond analyzed William Cal­ Coffee pots 15 88 24 der's Daybook which covered the period from Porringers 102 210 269 January 1, 1826 to November 15, 1838. 9 In this Ladles 27 30 44 book transactions are listed on a daily basis: Lamps 68 30 7 itemized and priced shipments, purchases, and Tumblers 6 12 114 some payments to employees. A Ledger of Mugs 4 4 William Calder covering the period from 1823 Flatware 12 48 56 179 through 1849, which Raymond did not see, is Mi scellaneous 4 also preserved. lo I examined the two carefully 732 1044 1432 1866 for the year 1826 to see how the Ledger differed from the Daybook. As one leafs through the Teapots 98.4% 74.5% 70.0% 65.4% pages of the Daybook it can be seen that on each page' 'Paid' , is written in the left margin next to some accounts (in later years an "X" replaced , 'Paid' '). Those accounts not marked "Paid" In the last three years teapots ranged from 65 were carried to the Ledger which thus became to 75%. But this gives a distorted picture of an accounts receivable ledger for certain ac­ Calder's production, since teapots were worth counts. Of the total sales of $1,212.04 for 1826 around $1.00 each, while porringers ranged shown in the Daybook, $919.16 (or 76%) was from 10¢ to 25¢, plates from 12¢ to 25¢ and carried to the Ledger. mugs from 35¢ to 60¢. On the other hand, cof­ Entries from the Daybook were posted fee pots at $2.00 each carried much more chronologically in the Ledger under the various weight than their numbers indicate. The dollar customers. The first 25 pages of the Ledger value gives a much more accurate indication of have "1823" heading the top of the left hand Calder's production. Table II shows the value of page for 12 customers. Credits to the various the products sold.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 368 TABLE II

1823 1824 1825 1826 Teapots $532.23 $607.83 $920.83 $1049.96 Coffee pots 30.00 138.55 42.00 Porringers 16.37 36.41 45.32 Ladles 6.75 7.25 10.38 Lamps 44.84 20.00 4.67 Tumblers 1.00 2.12 21.21 Mugs 1.90 2.21 Flatware 2.75 8.65 10.70 34.07 Miscellaneous 2.22 $534.98 $715.44 $1137.76 $1212.04

Teapots 99.5% 85.0% 80.9% 86.6% Coffee pots ...1:.L tbL 2.:.L 99.5% 89.2% 93.1% 90.1%

We see that from 1824 to 1826 teapots were The prices per dozen of these early teapots as running 80 to 85% of the total. When we add shown in Table IV are of interest. We note an coffee pots, the two amounted to about 90% of erosion in prices which may possibly have been Calder's production. Calder was obviously due to competition. geared to the "Teapot Era" and his production was being sold to distributors. The items he sold TABLE IV other than teapots and coffee pots were almost insignificant. Tearots 1823 1824 1825 1826 In addition to teapots, the Ledger shows only six basins and six plates sold for 1823. The Quart $8.50 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 Ledger was started in 1823 and we must assume & & & & that somehow the majority of the customers $7.75 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 shown there were initially only buying teapots. Large 0 P $10.00 $9.50 $9.50 $9.50 Other items were certainly being sold and were Three Pint $13.50 $13.00 $12.50 $12.50 undoubtedly entered in an earlier Daybook. We & & know that Calder purchased moulds for three $13.00 $12.50 porringers, three sizes of plates, and a quart mug in 1817. Two Quart $14.50 $14.50 When the curtain rises on William Calder's No. 1 $14.50 operation as shown in his Ledger in 1823, we No.2 $12.50 find that he was making three styles of teapots: a quart, a "large old fashioned", and a three pint. The terminology relating to the second Coffee pots first appear in the 1824 sales, 15 style is interesting. In 1823 it is "Large Old being sold to three customers at $24 a dozen. In fash'd"; in 1824 it is also occasionally just 1825 $24 a dozen coffee pots are again found "Large", or "Large 0 P". In 1825 it becomes but we find added "Small" coffee pots at $21 a "Large Old pattern" , or "Large Old patt", and dozen. In one instance in 1825 the $24 pots are in 1826 it becomes consistently "Large Old called "Large". In 1826 they are all priced at $21 a dozen and simply called "Coffee pots"., patt". In 1825 a new style was added, the The quantities involved are summarized in "Two Quart Teapot" first sold in October, and Table V. in 1826 we find "No. 1 Teapots" and "No.2 Teapots' , both first sold in August in half dozen TABLE V lots. The quantities of these teapots may be seen in Table III. Coffee Pots 1824 1825 1826 TABLE III Large @ $24/doz 15 29 o Small @ 211doz Teapots 1823 1824 1825 1826 ~ 22- .M.. Total 15 88 24 Quart 469 431 575 507 Large 0 P 110 132 139 209 The terminology of the items from the Day­ Three Pint 141 215 252 364 book which were carried over to the Ledger al­ Two Quart 36 123 most invariably remained the same although No.1 (2 qt.) 6 many were consolidated and abbreviated in the No.2 (3 pt.) 12 Ledger. A notable exception occurred in August Total 720 778 1002 1221 1826 when the Daybook listed the sale of six

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 369 "two quart" teapots and twelve "three pint" As new styles were added some customers teapots to two customers. These were entered in continued to buy all of the earlier items. This is the Ledger as six "No. 1 Teapots" and twelve excellently shown by an 1841 entry in the "No.2 Teapots" at the same prices as in the Ledger where a customer bought a half dozen Daybook. This indicates that the new two quart each of No.1, No.2, No.3, No.4, No.5, No. size teapot introduced in 1825 was not given a 6 and No.7 teapots. Around 1843 some of the style or "pattern" number until the last part of entries in the Ledger lose all detail. One 1845 1826. customer's account shows thirteen sales of On the other hand, it also indicates that a new "Teapots" during the year for a. total of style three pint teapot was introduced in 1826 $125.35; neither the quantity nor the style of the and designated "No.2". The books clearly teapots is indicated. A summary of the teapot show that the original three pint teapot had not styles and their dates of introduction is shown in simply been designated style "No.2". If it Table VI. The Table provides us with a rather were not for these two cross-references we rigid chronological framework for considering would not know that No.1 and No.2 teapots the teapots made by William Calder. Since we were considered two quart and three pint lose detail after 1843, the dates that the various teapots. It is noteworthy that surviving exam­ styles were last sold in Table VI are not precise. ples of Calder teapots marked with a numeral "2" hold three pints and two ounces to the TABLE VI brim. A few years after 1826 both the quart and the old three pint were considered "old Year Year fashioned". In 1829 one customer was sold No. Style Number First Sold Last Sold 1, No.2, No.3 and No.4 teapots as well as Quart 1823* 1838 several "quart old pattern" and "three pt old Large 0 P 1823* 1839 pattern" teapots. Three Pint 1823* 1838 In later pages of the Daybook and the Ledger Two Quart 1825 1842 we find new additions of teapot styles. Some of No.1 (2 qt.) 1826 1842 the new sty Ie numbers appear in the Daybook No.2 (3 pt.) 1826 1846 rather gradually, but others enter the scene with No.3 (2 qt.) 1827 1841 gusto. The latter is the case with pattern Nos. 6 No.4 1828 1841 and 7. On May 29, 30, and June 2, 1838 six No.5 (3 pt.) 1833 1842 each of No.6 and No.7 teapots were sold to No.6 1838 1842 four customers. It is evident that these custom­ No.7 1838 1842 ers had been advised that two new designs of No.8 1842* 1850 teapots were being brought out and that they No.9 1842* 1843 had tendered orders for a half dozen each. No. 10 1841 1843 Twenty-four of the first batch made were No. 12 1842 1847 shipped to them when completed. No. 13 1844 1849 No. 16 1849 1849 *The records do not start until 1823. *Probably sold first in 1841 or earlier if we had the Daybook for this period.

When we examine Calder's production for 1824 we see that the most expensive item man­ ufactured was a coffee pot selling at $24 per dozen. This was almost twice the price of the most expensive teapot, the three pint, which was selling from $12.50 to $13.00 a dozen. In 1825 the $21 a dozen "small coffee pot" was added to the line, and in the next year the "large" coffee pot was dropped. But the small coffee pots were selling for $1.75 each, still two times the average price of a teapot. By 1832 the price of the small coffee pot was down to $18 a dozen, or $1.50 each. The Daybook indicates that the lighthouse coffee pot may have been made of pewter in the 1830 's for in February 1834 we find listed one Fig. 2. William Calder's later straight-line touch , 'Britta coffee pot" at $1 .75, 25 ¢ more than the mark CALDER. Below is seen Calder's intaglio usual price. In 1847 we find "No. 1 Coffee PROVIDENCE mark. The CALDER mark is micro­ pots" listed in the Ledger, and in 1848 we find scopic, being only 11132" long, while the PROVI­ "No. 2 Coffee pots". There is only a single DENCE mark is 9/16" long. The illustration is en­ reference to each, and they were both $16.50 a larged about 4 X. dozen. The "gal coffee pot" listed by Calder in

Vol. 7, 3179, p. 370 the Daybook in July 1836 probably referred to a one meaning of "percolate" as "to cause hot repair or "mending" (which Calder did a lot of) water to filter through coffee to extract its es­ since the charge is only 40¢. It may well have sence" which is what Calder's percolator did. been of material other than pewter or britannia. Modem percolators operate by having boiling In 1830 a real extravaganza was introduced: water forced upward to continually percolate the flagon at $3.00 apiece. This was basically a over the coffee. Calder's did not do this. The lighthouse coffee pot and it is difficult to see high cost of Calder's percolators covered the how it could have cost very much more to make various parts: the bottom receiving part (a short than the coffee pot ofthe same size. There must lighthouse), the vertical top part to hold the cof­ have been plenty of profit in this item. fee, and the assorted internal parts for distribut­ In a May 1834 entry in the Daybook we see ing the water. an even more expensive item introduced: the Several examples of Calder's percolators "coffee percolator" at $39 a dozen, or $3.25 have survived. One is only 9V!." high overall. 12 each. The first sale of these was for a dozen. In The bottom part is a short mug-like section with two instances in 1834 single coffee percolators a bottom diameter of only 4%", which is only were sold at $3.00 each, and on September 27, slightly larger than that of the average pint mug. 1834 we find in the Daybook one "Small Cof­ This is very probably the body of Calder's pint fee Percolator" sold to Joseph Moran at $2.50. mug. This percolator would only make a little Apparently three sizes of coffee percolators more than a half pint (a cup) at a time and is were made in the first year they were sold. In undoubtedly one of the "small" percolators 1835 two dozen were sold at $3.25 and one at Calder made. $3.00. In 1836 the first mention of such a vessel The other surviving example is much larger, in the Daybook is for one "biggin" at $3.25. It being 12" high, with a bottom diameter esti­ is interesting to note that this was sold to John mated at about 6".13 The bottom section appears H. Palethorp, whom we recognize as the to have been made from the lower body of a Philadelphia britannia manufacturer. After 1836 lighthouse coffee pot and would hold somewhat there is no mention of "percolator"; only "big­ more than three pints. This is undoubtedly one gins" are listed. of the larger percolators, the $3.00 or $3.25 The fact that both coffee "percolators" and size. The cover, finial, and spout were all used , 'biggins" appeared in Calder's Day book led to on No. 13 teapot first sold in 1844; the cover the assumption that there were two different and finial had been previously used on No.8 kinds of vessels. However, the Daybook would teapot brought out in 1842. Therefore, this per­ indicate that possibly the two were the same, colator was probably made in the late 1840's. since chronologically "biggin" replaces "per­ colator". This is indeed substantiated by an * * * * * * entry in the Ledger. The September 27, 1834 Daybook sale of one "Small Coffee Per­ We are now in a position to analyze the sur­ colator" at $2.50 was entered in the Ledger viving examples of Calder's teapots within the under Moran's account as one "Coffee biggin " context of the information provided in his re­ at $2.50. Joseph Moran was also charged in cords. There are at least four forms of teapots successive entries in the Ledger for "2 Coffee stamped with Calder's eagle. We can assume biggins" at $6.00 and for "Enlarging Coffee with confidence that these represent Calder's biggin" at 75¢. This might indicate that some earliest teapot production. In addition to the entries were not made in the Ledger until early eagle touch they all have the beehive finial perhaps a matter of a year or so later. In 1847 which is found on the early teapots of other we find coffee biggins listed in the Ledger at workers of the first quarter of the nineteenth $2.00 and $3.00 each. century. Raymond decided that the references to The smallest one is a pear-shaped pot 7%" "percolator" and "biggin" in Calder's Day­ high of the typical Queen Anne style with a book referred to completely different types of beaded edge around the rim of the lid (Fig. 3). It vessels. He suggested that Calder'S coffee holds a few ounces over a quart and there can be "biggin" was nothing more than a regular cof­ little question that this is the "quart teapot", fee pot with a ledge at the top for a bag which which was Calder's most popular teapot in the held the ground coffee. ll If this were the case mid 1820's when Calder was selling about 500 then Calder's "biggins" should not have been a year. The quart teapot was sold as late as 1838 much more expensive than a coffee pot. How­ when it is referred to as a "quart old pattern" in ever, the large ones were two times the cost of a the Daybook. We may assume that in 1838 it no coffee pot at the time. There now seems to be longer had beading on the rim, that the beehive little question that the two terms referred to the finial had been replaced by a button, and that same type of vessel. the straight-line CALDER touch was being An 1813 American dictionary defines "per­ stamped on the bottom. colation" as "The act of straining, purification The next teapot to consider is a 713/16" high or separation by straining", and "to percolate" globular design holding five ounces over three as "To strain through". This is really a defini­ pints to the brim (Fig. 4). This is undoubtedly tion of "filtering". A modem dictionary gives the "three pint teapot" of which Calder sold a

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 371 couple of hundred a year during the 1820's. quart was $7.50 to $8.00 a dozen, the large old This teapot was also sold as late as 1838 when it pattern was $9.50, and the three pint was was referred to as the "three pint old pattern" $12.50. Prices were based roughly on the teapot. Again we may assume that the beehive weight of britannia in the vessel. The large old finial was replaced by a button in later times and pattern is 24% cheaper than the three pint, and the straight-line CALDER touch was used to the two and a half pint teapot in Fig. 5 is 14% mark it. Our next teapot is very similar to the lighter than that of the three pint one in Fig. 4. last one except that the body is slightly smaller Presumably the "large" is in comparison to the all around, the spout is smaller, and the handle quart teapot; its capacity is halfway between is a four part angular one instead of a C (Fig. 5). the quart and the three pint. And the "old pat­ The pot is 79/16" high and holds four ounces tern" must mean that it was an old design rather over 2% pints to the brim. This must be the than being' 'old fashioned", although the latter "large old pattern" teapot. term is applied to it in 1823 and 1824. Possibly one could object to this identifica­ We now come to the piece de resistance: pos­ tion by comparing it with the last one: it is not sibly the earliest example of a Calder teapot larger and is similar in style, so how could it be (Fig. 6). The pot is 7Y2" high and holds two an "old pattern"? First consider the prices of ounces over three pints to the brim, so it is the three popular teapots in 1825 and 1826. The another three pint teapot similar in capacity to that of Fig. 4. Many features of this pot are archaic. It has an eagle mark on the inside bot-

Fig. 3. William Calder's Queen Anne pear-shaped teapot. It is marked on the outside bottom with his eagle touch mark. It is 73fs" high and holds a few Fig. 4. Globular teapot by William Calder marked on ounces over a quart. It is undoubtedly Calder's the outside bottom with his eagle touch. It is 7 13/lf;" "quart teapot". The lid has a beaded rim and an early high and holds five ounces over three pints. This is beehive finial. Collection Rhode Island Historical undoubtedly Calder's "three pint teapot" which was Society, 1929.1.47. introduced before 1823.

Fig. 5. Globular teapot by William Calder marked Fig. 6. Globular teapot by William Calder marked on the outside bottom with his eagle touch. It is 79/ u;" on the inside bottom with his eagle touch. It is 7Yz" high and holds four ounces over 21/2 pints. This is high and holds two ounces more than three pints. It probably Calder's "old pattern teapot" which was has many archaic features and was apparently discon­ introduced before 1823. Collection (~f Webster tinued before Calder's records start in 1823. Collec­ Goodwin. tion of Webster Goodwin.

Vol. 7,3/79, p. 372 tom. The spout is more curved and lacks the such as 1800, 1900, 2000, and 2500. 15 How­ grace of that of Fig. 4. The C handle of Fig. 6 ever, none was ever stamped with a 'style must be taken as an earlier form of the C handle number; they were only stamped "5", "6", of Fig. 4 with its carefully molded section. The and "10" for the capacities in half-pints. 16 It lid is different from that of Fig. 4 and was not until the formation of Leonard, Reed & presumably earlier. Finally, the pot body itself Barton in 1837 that style numbers were first is simpler in design than that of Fig. 4, having a stamped on Taunton wares. single curve from the top of the central portion The predecessor to James Dixon and Sons of to the brim, whereas the pot in Fig. 4 has a Sheffield, England, was James Dixon & Son, two-tiered curve between the center section and working from 1825 to 1830. The early Dixon & the brim. A very similar teapot is known by Son tea wares do not have style numbers Ashbil Griswold (I 807 -1830) and must repre­ stamped on them either but later ones do. There sent one of Griswold's early potS.14 This globu­ is a possibility that Calder copied Dixon in first lar teapot of Calder's is the direct ancestor of stamping style numbers on his teapots in the late the three pint shown in Fig. 4 and was appar­ 1820's. On the other hand, it may be more ently already discontinued by 1823, so it was reasonable to suppose that Calder copied probably made between 1817 and 1823. Leonard, Reed & Barton after 1837, since they We now come to the numbered teapots. The were mainly responsible for funneling English first of the numbered pots found is the No.2 designs into America. This would mean that which was introduced in 1826 (Fig. 7); it is teapots Nos. 1 through 5 which were made marked CALDERl2. Calder's records indicate before 1837 were not stamped with a style that it was a three pint pot and indeed it holds number. I have not seen any teapots marked just two ounces more than three pints when with Nos. 3 to 5; but I also have not seen any filled to the brim. This is possibly a modernized unnumbered teapots which might represent version of the teapot shown in Fig. 4. The cen­ some of these pattern numbers. tral globular body has been flattened, two short The next numbered teapot we have an exam­ tiers have been added at the top of the globular ple of is No. 6 introduced in 1838 (Fig. 8). body, and the four-part angular handle has been Examples exist marked both CALDERl6 and curved and flaired to an extent not followed by CALDERl6/PROVIDENCE. This pot has the any other worker. On the other hand, the spout same handle and spout as No. 2 and appears to and the lid are from the same moulds as Fig. 4. I be an elongated version of No.2. It has a two­ have an example of this pot with a wooden fin­ tier dome-shaped lid with button finial. It is 8" ial which is marked on the bottom simply high and holds two ounces less than two quarts CALDER without the "2". This pot must have to the brim so it is another two quart pot. I have been made before Calder started to stamp the not found No.7 but No.8 teapot, introduced in style numbers on the bottoms of teapots. This 1842, survived (Fig. 9). It is 7314" high and teapot remained very popular and was sold as holds a half ounce more than three pints to the late as 1846. brim. It has a spout of No.2 and tall necked-in Generally speaking sty Ie numbers were not sections at top and bottom. It has a new lid stamped on American tea wares in the 1820's. surmounted by an eight-petaled mushroom­ An entry from an 1831 sales ledger for the shaped finial so characteristic of some of Cal­ Taunton Britannia Manufacturing Co. shows der's late teapots. that their tea wares had four-digit style numbers The bottom of this pot is worth examining

Fig. 7. Globular No.2 teapot by William Calder, Fig. 8. Globular No. 6 teapot by William Calder marked with the straight-line CALDER and' '2" un­ marked CALDER!6. Others are marked CALDER! derneath. It is 71/16" high and holds two ounces more 6/PROVIDENCE. It is 8" high and holds two ounces than three pints. It was introduced in 1826 and was less than two quarts. Collection of Webster Goodwin. sold as late as 1846.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 373 since it differs from' all others we have consid­ gonal top. The later Leonard, Reed & Barton ered. The normal teapot bottom has a rim of No. 3400 was very similar to No. 2900 but had material about 1/ 16" wide extending down about a round base and top. Thus Calder's No. 12 is 1/16" at the very outside, as is well illustrated by basically Leonard, Reed & Barton No. 2900 but the bottom of No. 13 (Fig. 14), The bottom of has features of Nos. 2700/3000 and 3400. No. 8 has a 3/g " wide flat area at the outside Leonard, Reed & Barton first introduced pattern about 1/ 16" below the central portion (Fig. 10). Nos. 2700 and 2900 in 1838,19 and Nos. 3000 This possibly allowed the teapot to be placed on and 3400 were marketed a year or so later. a hot stove top without melting the bottom, if it Leonard, Reed & Barton pattern Nos. 2700, had water or tea in it, since the fluid was touch­ 2900, 3000, and 3400 all had identically shaped ing the other side of the %" rim and kept the wooden handles as shown in Fig. 12. Calder temperature below the melting point. The nar­ copied this shape faithfully in metal for the han­ row 1/16" rim which projected down on the nor­ dle of No. 12. We also see in these Leonard, mal pot did not get sufficient cooling to prevent Reed & Barton teapots the origin of Calder's it from melting on a hot stove top. mushroom-shaped finial. It was a copy of the I have not seen examples of No.9 or No. 10 wooden finials of their teapots. Calder left off teapots and apparently there was no No. 11. Our next teapot, No. 12, might be called Cal­ der's entry to the pigeon-breasted beauty con­ test (Fig. 11). Kerfoot invented the term "pigeon-breasted" when he referred to "the high-shouldered, or pigeon-breasted, teapot" of Israel Trask, which he suggested was Trask's own design.17 Everyone has recognized this form but no one has appreciated the origins of the design. Calder's No. 12 teapot is basically a copy of Leonard, Reed & Barton's No. 2900 in five half-pint capacity (Fig. 12). No. 12 is 914" high and holds three ounces more than three pints to the brim. No. 2900/5 cannot be filled to the brim since the top opening of the spout is below the brim. It is 9~" high and holds two ounces less than three pints to the top of the spout. Calder added a moulding just above the center which seems to improve the design immensely. An identically placed moulding is present on Leonard, Reed & Barton octagonal pattern Nos. 2700 and 3000,18 so undoubtedly Calder de­ Fig. 10. Bottom of No.8 teapot shown in Fig. 9. It rived this detail from these. has a Ys" wide flat rim around the outside, raised up Calder also replaced the octagonal base of from the central portion. No. 2900 with a round base which really made a more logical design but he retained the octa-

Fig. II. Pigeon-breasted No. 12 teapot by William Fig. 9. No. 8 teapot by William Calder marked Calder marked CALDERl12/PROVIDENCE. It is CALDERl8/PROVIDENCE. It is 73/4" high and holds 91;4" high and holds three ounces more than three a half ounce more than three pints. It was introduced pints. It was copied from similar teapots made by in 1842 and has Calder's late mushroom finial. Leonard, Reed & Barton of Taunton, Massachusetts.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 374 Fig. 12. Pigeon-breasted teapots. Right, William Calder's No. 12. Center, Leonard, Reed & Barton No. 2900/5. Left, teapot by Roswell Gleason. the projecting end of the metal pin which fas­ tened the wooden finials to the lids (Figs. 9, 11 & 13). Calder brought out his No. 12 teapot in 1842 as a conglomeration of several Leonard, Reed & Barton designs. Roswell Gleason brought out a similar teapot design, but he copied Leonard, Reed & Barton No. 3400 almost exactly (Fig. 12). In addition to the round base and top of No. 3400, Gleason's design also has its plain non-faceted spout. Gleason's pot is 9%" high and holds three pints and four ounces to the brim. How­ ever, Gleason's brim is lower than that of No. 3400 since he included the top section of No. 3400 in his lid. Gleason's teapot has a round wooden finial instead of the eight-petaled one of No. 3400, and its handle is made of metal in­ stead of wood. Leonard, Reed & Barton, on the other hand, Fig. 13. No. 13 teapot by William Calder marked copied the designs of their Nos. 2700, 2800, CALDERl13/PROVIDENCE. It is 83fs" high and 2900 and 3000, as well as their later additions, holds one ounce less than three pints. Collection from the wares of James Dixon & Sons of Shef­ Rhode Island Historical Society, 1929.1.45. field, England. Where Calder's copy of

Fig. 14. Bottom of a No. 13 teapot made in the old Fig. 15. Bottom of No. 13 teapot shown in Fig. 13. manner with a narrow rim projecting at the outside It has a Y8" wide flat rim around the outside similar to edge. that of No. 8 teapot.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 375 Leonard, Reed & Barton was close, Leonard, dered on. The true bottom of the pot in so far as Reed & Barton copied Dixon's designs so the liquid is concerned is at the smallest diame­ exactly that examples of these two concerns ter of the necked-in area of the pedestal. In turn­ cannot be told apart without looking at the ing the pot upside down the base is hollow a mark. They were blatant about the matter. In little ways up. Gleason also has a seam at the 1839 they wrote dealers in various parts of the largest diameter but his liquid bottom is at the country that they were "getting up Dixon's very base like Fig. 14. latest pattern for the fall trade", and that regard­ The last of Calder's numbered teapots found ing the new imported ware: "We have them all is No. 13 which was introduced in 1844 (Fig. at our mill and shall make the best of them". 20 13). This pot is 8Ys" high and holds one ounce All of the new designs Leonard, Reed & Bar­ less than three pints to the brim. This teapot was ton brought out from 1838 to the early 1840's possibly copied from similar designs used by were of the pigeon-breasted pattern which had George Richardson about this time. The bot­ been copied from Dixon & Sons. Other Ameri­ toms are more often seen in the older fashion can britannia workers copied the cylindrical de­ with a narrow projecting rim (Fig. 14) although signs of Leonard, Reed & Barton in the 1840's. occasionally one sees a modified bottom (Fig. It is evident that Trask did not originate this 15). The spout is of the non-faceted design seen design as Kerfoot originally suggested. Only on Leonard, Reed & Barton's No. 3400. Gleason appears to have copied some of the Some of Calder's lighthouse coffee pots are octagonal designs. The pigeon-breasted design marked on the inside bottom with his eagle is thus of English origin and was first manufac­ touch which makes them his earliest coffee tured in America by Leonard, Reed & Barton in pots. Two coffee pots with the eagle mark on the late 1830's. the inside are shown in Fig. 16. The one on the Leonard, Reed & Barton had a patent for left is slightly larger than the one on the right spinning the bodies of teapots in one piece and we may assume that it is an example of thereby eliminating the seam where the two Calder's "large" coffee pot while the one on halves were joined at the largest diameter of the the right represents his' 'small" coffee pot. The body. The No. 2900 teapot shown in Fig. 12 "large" coffee pot of Fig. 16 holds 2 V2 quarts has the body above the pedestal made of one to the brim while the "small" one holds 211a spun sheet so the inside bottom is just over the quarts. The pot on the left is 11 9/ Ht high with a pedestal. When Calder copied the design he bottom diameter of 614" while the right one is made moulds for two parts of the body so there 1114" high with a bottom diameter of 6". The is a seam at the largest diameter. Further, the bottom of the larger pot is formed by a full 6" lower part of Calder's bottom section is open plate set up into the body and soldered (Fig. and leads down into the pedestal which is sol- 17). The bottom of the smaller one is also made

Fig. 16. Lighthouse coffee pots by William Calder. Both are marked on the inside bottom with Calder's eagle touch. The pot on the left is 11 9/1f;" high with a bottom diameter of 61,4" and holds five pints. It is probably Calder's' 'large" coffee pot. The pot on the right is 11 \4" high with a bottom diameter of 6" and holds 4211 pints. It is probably Calder'S "small" coffee pot. Collection Rhode Island Historical Society, 1929.1.46 & 1968.20.25.

Vol. 7, 3179, p. 376 of a 6/1 plate but it has been cut down to about the smaller pot could have been made by cutting 53,4/1. These 6" plates, incidentally, are undoubt­ 5/16" off a casting of the larger pot body. edly the ones found in Calder's records as Presumably when the large coffee pot was dis­ "small plates" or "butter plates" since both continued, the body mould was shortened to were the same price, $1.50 per dozen (1826). make the small coffee pot. The small pot was This answers Myers' question: "Were the but­ sold for a long period of time in essentially the ter plates the six-inch size that are now so same form as shown in Fig. 16 except that the scarce? ' '21 beehive finial was replaced by a button (Fig. The graceful three-tier lids terminating in 18). The coffee pot on the left of Fig. 18 is by beehive finials are identical on both pots. The far the commonest type of Calder lighthouse pot three-part angular handle of the larger pot is found. I have seen these marked with the unique and is not found on any Calder teapots. straight-line CALDER and with CALDER! Measurements seem to indicate that the body of PROVIDENCE. Since we have estimated that the PROVIDENCE mark was introduced about 1840, this means that the lid with button finial shown in the left of Fig. 18 was made from about 1830 to the early forties. In the later for­ ties the three-tier lid was replaced by a two-tier dome-shaped lid (Fig. 18, right). As observed by Raymond, Calder sold his first flagon in 1830 for $3.00. Calder's flagon had the lighthouse coffee pot body and lid but a different handle, spout and finial. Calder's fla­ gon is certainly one of the handsomest ones of the period with its graceful broken scroll or double C handle and three-tier lid with a classi­ cal urn finial (Fig. 19). He apparently sold it widely. The Daybook indicates that in October 1836 he sold six to John H. Palethorp and a dozen to "Mr. Curtiz (of Albany)". This was Daniel Curtiss, the britannia manufacturer. In the 1840's Calder's flagon was given the dome-shaped lid of the contemporary coffee pot and was topped by the flattened ball so com­ mon on the late flagons of Israel and Oliver Fig. 17. Bottom of the "large" coffee pot in Fig. 16 Trask of Beverly (Fig. 20). The example shown showing the 6" plate soldered in as the bottom. This is probably one of the plates listed in Calder's records in Fig. 20 is engraved "Smith's Hill Baptist as a "small" plate or "butter" plate. Church, Constituted May 20, 1847", which we

Fig. 18. Lighthouse coffee pots by William Calder. The pot at the left with the button finial was made from about 1830 to the early forties. The pot at the right was made in the later 1840's.

Vol. 7, 3179, p. 377 have to assume was the approximate date this fee pot generally resembling some of the many flagon was made. made by Leonard, Reed & Barton during the It is to Calder's credit that in the late 1840's period from 1837 to 1847 (Fig. 22). Specifi­ Reed & Barton, successors to Leonard, Reed & cally the pot resembles Leonard, Reed & Bar­ Barton, copied his flagon down to almost the ton's Nos. 2900 and 3400. The spout has the last detail (Fig. 19, left). At first glance the faceted base and the' 'eye" at the top. The han­ handle of the Reed & Barton flagon appears to dle, however, is a later form found on style be identical to Calder's, raising the possibility Nos. 3200, 3500 and 3550. Gibb says that No. that Reed & Barton may have purchased han­ 3550 was not made until 184424 and probably dles from Calder. However, careful comparison the other two styles were made somewhat be­ of the two handles shows that the Reed & Bar­ fore. Calder's handle is made of metal where all ton handle is narrower in some places and wider of the Leonard, Reed & Barton tea and coffee in others with larger attachment pads and a half pot handles were made of wood. This coffee pot hinge soldered on. Calder's half hinge is cast could have been copied by Calder about 1845 or into the handle. So Reed & Barton probably possibly later. The Ledger shows No.1 and No. made a mould from an actual Calder handle. 2 Coffee pots at $16.50 per dozen in 1847 and The body of the Reed & Barton flagon is made 1848. This could be one of these. Apparently of rolled sheet metal with a seam under the han­ style numbers were never stamped on Calder's dle, the lid is stamped from a sheet, and the coffee pots. This coffee pot is 10%/1 high and spout is stamped from two pieces. The corre­ holds two ounces more than five pints to the sponding parts of Calder's flagon were all cast. brim so it is a "standard" coffee pot size of ten The remarkable similarity of the Reed & Barton half-pints (cups). This coffee pot has the same handle to Calder's has led some to attribute un­ general shape as Calder's No. 12 teapot and marked examples of the Reed & Barton flagon could have been made as a companion to it. Its to Calder. 22 construction is the same and it has the same While Calder's lighthouse coffee pots are hollow bottom with the liquid being in the mid­ found in fairly large numbers, a few other types dle of the necked-in pedestal (Fig. 23). of Calder coffee pots have survived. One is a short lighthouse form 814" high and holding 5 * * * * * pints to the brim (Fig. 21). This is the same shape as the one pint percolator bottom shown We are now in a position to consider Percy E. by Laughlin but holds five times more. 23 The 2 Raymond's assertion that neither Calder nor any quart mug made for John Calder's shop in 1835 other britannia manufacturer ever made any cof­ may have been from the mould for this pot. fee pots per se, and that any mention of "coffee Calder also made a late pigeon-breasted cof- pots" in Calder's records must have referred to

Fig. 19. Communion flagons. At the right is one of William Calder's early flagons with an early lid and urn finial. It is 1 Pill;" high and is marked CALDER/PROVIDENCE. At the left is a flagon by Reed & Barton 1()3/J(;" high to the top of the dome. Reed & Barton undoubtedly copied Calder's flagon.

Vol. 7, 3179, p. 378 "percolators" or "biggins". 25 In an article them was the title of the article: "Coffee Pot? written specifically on coffee pots some nine - Teapot!" years later Raymond attempted to completely He opened the matter in the first article by eliminate the lighthouse coffee pot from the referring to Louis G. Myers' query as to American vernacular, in case anyone had whether the vessels which Kerfoot had called missed the point in his earlier article on Cal­ coffee pots were not simply tall teapots. Myers der.26 This article had illustrations of three had said that "Coffee had to be boiled; pewter graceful lighthouse pots on the first page. Over melts if placed on a hot stove; ergo, no pewter coffee pots were made. "27 Raymond made much of this point: since coffee could not be made (boiled) in pewter or britannia vessels, no

Fig. 20. Flagon by William Calder marked CAL­ DER. It is engraved "Smith's Hill Baptist Church, Fig. 21. Short lighthouse coffee pot by William Cal­ Constituted May 20, 1847". Collection Rhode Island der. It is 8 1;4" high and holds five pints. It is marked Historical Society. 1929.1.51. CALDER. Collection Wehster Goodwin.

Fig. 22. Pigeon-breasted coffee pot by William Cal­ Fig. 23. Bottom of coffee pot shown in Fig. 22 der. It is 10%/1 high and holds two ounces over five showing the hollow pedestal. The liquid bottom with pints. It was copied from Leonard, Reed & Barton CALDER stamped on it 1V2/1 up from the rim of the designs about 1845. It is marked CALDER. Collec­ base. tion 1. K. Ott.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 379 britannia coffee pots were made. In his second We have examples of pots made by Babbitt, article he agreed that coffee could be made in an Crossman & Co. with a "10" stamped on the iron or copper pot and poured into a more ele­ base. There is little question that this is a coffee gant pot for serving. But he dismissed this pos­ pot, so it is evident that britannia coffee pots sibility for britannia vessels by saying that holding five pints were being made in Taunton ". . . pewter coffee pots were not for the tables from 1827 to 1837 and later. This controverts of the rich and showy. Pewter was for the com­ Raymond's most important point. Vessels mon people who boiled the liquor on the called "coffee pots" were made in britannia stove. " He implied here that while pewter was during this period. Almost all of these pots have the poor man's silver for some reason it would a hollow base on which the main body rests. not be used for serving. Since the inside bottom of the pot was around In his second article Raymond gave two easy two inches above the very base of the pot, it tests to distinguish teapots from coffee pots. is abundantly clear that coffee could not have First he said that "In ninety-nine cases out of been boiled in such a vessel since the base was one hundred, if it's britannia, it's a teapot; I hollow. Therefore, coffee was made in an­ have never seen a coffee pot in pewter. " This is other vessel and only served in the britannia illogical; he used his own biased conclusion to coffee pot. establish a fact. The second test was to look Calder's small lighthouse pot held 9 1/3 half­ inside. If there was a strainer with holes at the pints and his large one held ten half-pints, entrance ofthe spout then it's a teapot, since the exactly on the "standard" capacity for a coffee holes are so large that they would not impede pot by the Taunton manufacturers. Actually the exit of coffee grounds. He should not have some of the wares made in Taunton hold even considered this point since he had pre­ slightly more or less than the indicated capacity. viously concluded that coffee could never be A Leonard, Reed & Barton No. 2800-10 coffee made in a britannia vessel. Raymond destroys pot I measured held 9V2 half-pints to the brim. this argument himself by showing an illustration We have catalog evidence from another time of a Roswell Gleason britannia coffee pot, and place to prove that britannia coffee pots which he calls a biggin, with a strainer with were made in a variety of forms. The first illus­ holes over the spout entrance. trated catalog of the Meriden Britannia Com­ Raymond pointed out that since Calder only pany of Connecticut was issued in 1855 and made a few coffee pots, these must be repre­ shows examples of "Common Britannia Ware" sented by the surviving biggins. He then stated coffee pots and teapots. Two of the coffee pots that Calder's lighthouse form of vessel holds are in lighthouse form, No. 114 holding 6 pints from four to eight ounces over two quarts so it at $16.50 per dozen and No. 112 holding 5 pints must have been Calder's" two quart teapot". at $15.50 per dozen. A one pint lighthouse cof­ He said that Calder's teapots are "all of less fee pot is also shown. These coffee pots were capacity". Several of Calder's "small" light­ cast. Under "Rolled Metal Coffee Pots" two house pots I have measured hold eleven ounces more lighthouse pots are shown: Nos. 1110 and over two quarts, or 4% pints. On the other 1115 holding 8 and 10 pints respectively. Also hand, the large lighthouse pots hold just about included in the catalog were some fancy tea sets five pints, a full 16 ounces over two quarts, in sizes similar to those made in Taunton: 10 which seems to be too much leeway over two half-pint coffee pots and 6 and 5 half-pint tea quarts. Further, there do exist two quart Calder pots. The cast teapots shown hold from two to teapots. four pints. The lighthouse No. 112 is in the Many of Raymond's arguments may be re­ 1867 Meriden Britannia Company catalog along futed by considering the tea wares made by the with a lot of new lighthouse designs. succession of manufacturers in Taunton, Mas­ The wares made by the Taunton manufactur­ sachusetts, starting with Babbitt & Crossman. ers also refute Raymond's statement that if the We have considered some of these points al­ vessel has a strainer it is a teapot. All of the ready but we will summarize the matter. The coffee pots and teapots made by Babbitt, first price list of Leonard, Reed & Barton pub­ Crossman & Co. from 1827 on have similar lished in 1837 shows teapots with a capacity of strainers over the spout entrance with similar five and six half-pints (cups) and coffee pots of sized holes. The holes which form the ten-half pint capacity. All surviving Leonard, , 'strainer" at the entrance to the spout had an Reed & Barton britannia tea and coffee pots obvious origin. They were originally drilled in have "5", "6", or "10" stamped on them in the pot body to provide a passage for the fluid addition to the style number and the maker's from the body to the spout. It was much easier name. The predecessor companies to Leonard, to drill a number of holes than to attempt to cut Reed & Barton were Taunton Britannia Man­ a large oval hole in the pot body. And of course ufacturing Co. (1830-1836), Crossman, West & in teapots the holes did serve as a strainer. Leonard (1829-1830), and Babbitt, Crossman Raymond argued since Calder actually made & Co. (1827-1829). None of these companies very few "coffee pots" as shown in his Day­ stamped the style numbers on their britannia tea book, these must be represented by the surviv­ or coffee pots, but they all stamped the capacity ing biggins. He said that the terms "percolator" of the vessels, as "5", "6", or "10". and' 'biggin " simply ".afford the details regard-

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 380 ing Calder's coffee pots", implying that the period hardly any have survived. They probably terms "coffee pot", "coffee percolator" and went back into the melting pot. "coffee biggin" were synonyms. Raymond Throughout Calder's records we see credits pointed out that coffee biggins were priced at given for "old pewter". This was an eighteenth $3.25 and $3.00 each, but he did not tell us that century practice which continued into the Calder's Daybook showed that the common nineteenth century. Probably the merchant or "coffee pot" at this time was priced at $1.50 or peddler helped the process along by telling the that a "small percolator" was priced at $2.50. customer that a new style of teapot had come We have seen that the bottom section of one out and that their old teapot, such as a quart of Calder's surviving biggins held only a pint, pear-shaped, was simply "old hat". He sold the while the larger surviving one probably held customer a new pot and took the old one for three pints. Calder's three pint teapot sold for scrap value. As styles changed during the about $1.00. The price of a large big gin at britannia period older forms went back into the $3.25 or $3.00 with a three pint base, a cylin­ melting pot and only the newest ones or popular drical top section, a cover, and two internal designs survived. On the other hand, the light­ screens is in line with the cost of a three pint house coffee pot retained its popularity over a teapot. A question Raymond did not bother to very long period of time. consider: if all coffee pots were biggins or per­ We can now restore the britannia coffee pot, colators at $3.25, $3.00, or $2.50, what were and specifically the lighthouse coffee pot, to its the "coffee pots" priced at $1.50? They were proper place of. respect. In his second article the common lighthouse coffee pots. Raymond started by saying that John Barrett This brings us back to one of Raymond's ob­ Kerfoot had made an error which has been per­ servations: Calder's records show that he made petuated by his followers and bids fair to cause few "coffee pots" (including "coffee per­ endless misunderstandings. He said that "Ker­ colators" and "coffee biggins") in comparison foot's great misnomer was . . . spectacular, for to the number of teapots. This is indeed a fact. he called the last phase of the making of pewter In 1825 Calder sold about 1000 teapots but only (Britannia) in America the 'coffee pot era' ". 88 coffee pots, and in 1826 he sold over 1200 An examination of Kerfoot's illustrations in teapots but only 24 coffee pots. American Pewter shows that many of the tall In view of the relatively small number of cof­ vessels he called coffee pots are indeed tall fee pots Calder made it is remarkable that so teapots. He would have called Calder's No. 13 many have survived. This has also happened (Fig. 13) a coffee pot, as he would have the with several other early britannia makers. We pigeon-breasted teapots by Gleason, Calder, have a number of lighthouse coffee pots marked and Leonard, Reed & Barton (Fig. 12). These with G. RICHARDSON/BOSTON and with H. all hold about three pints. On the other hand, Yale's eagle, and we have quite a few examples the many "elongated pear-shaped" pots he of early lighthouse coffee pots by Israel Trask shows hold about five pints, so these probably with wooden handles. are coffee pots. And all of the lighthouse pots The answer to this almost miraculous sur­ he shows are undoubtedly coffee pots. vival lies in the fact that the lighthouse coffee Kerfoot's error was thus typifying the period pot did not go out of style. It remained one of as the "coffee pot era" because he thought that the popular coffee pot forms right through the many of the teapots were coffee pots. But Ker­ Civil War into the Victorian period. It was made foot did not deny the existence of teapots. by the Meriden Britannia Company in britannia Raymond's error is certainly far more "spec­ until 1872. Later it was made in enameled iron tacular" than Kerfoot's. He denied the very for a back of the stove coffee pot. Many of the existence of pewter or britannia coffee pots. His lighthouse coffee pots made by Trask, views have been accepted by experts in the Richardson, Yale, Calder, and others probably field: Laughlin acknowledged Raymond's con­ saw long service and loving care. Many britan­ clusions and agreed that Calder's lighthouse nia pots survived to the Victorian era and then pots were simply two quart teapots. 28 To per­ found their way to someone's attic. petuate this unfortunate error, Raymond's arti­ The sty Ie of teapots, on the other hand, ap­ cle "Coffee Pot? - Teapot! " has r~cently been parently was in a continual state of change. republished in a collection of supposedly au­ When we first see Calder's product line in 1823 thoritative articles on pewter from the magazine his third best seller is the "Large Old ANTIQUES.29 SO Raymond's error will persist Fashioned" teapot, implying an old design. His and some people probably will never believe best seller from 1823 to 1826 was the quart that any britannia coffee pots were made. teapot which has survived as the Queen Anne pear-shaped teapot. He was selling 500 of these a year during this period. Then by 1838 the quart is referred to as the "quart old pattern REFERENCES teapot". Probably ten times more Calder pear­ shaped teapots were made than lighthouse cof­ 1. P.E. Raymond, "William Calder, a Tran­ fee pots. But because the pear-shaped teapot sitional Pewterer", ANTIQUES, November went out of style well within the britannia 1936, pp. 209-211.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 381 2. Representative Men & Old Families of Rhode Island, vol. II, pp. 142-3. Smith & Co. 3. L. I. Laughlin, Pe~1!ter in America (Barre Revisited and Revised , Publishers, 1969), vol. I, p. 100. 4. G. S. Gibb, The Whitesmiths of Tauntoll by William O. Blaney (New York, 1969), p. 61. 5. Laughlin, op. cit., p. 102. The Boston firm of Smith & Co. has received 6. Ibid. relatively little attention from pewter collectors, 7. C. ,F. Montgomery, A History of American although from the writer's experience its prod­ Pewter (New York, 1973), p. 110. , ucts have for the most part been found to be of 8. R. L. Bowen, PCCA Bul., Sept. 1978, vol. excellent metal, carefully made, and of good 7, p. 336. design. Perhaps this seeming oversight has been 9. P.E. Raymond, op. cit. The original Day­ due to the short working period assigned to it book is in the possession of the Winterthur (1847-1848) and the fact its operations took Museum. place in the britannia period. 10. Calder's Ledger is in the possession of the In past Bulletins, attempts have been made Winterthur Museum, DDMC. (with little success) to have Club members pro­ 11. P.E. Raymond, op. cit.; P. E. Raymond, vide photographs of the various forms of pewter "Coffee pot? Teapot!", ANTIQUES, June made by Smith & Co. This started in Bulletin 73 1945, pp. 326-7. (page 123) with the illustration of a pint beaker. 12. L. I. Laughlin, Pewter in America (Barre and continued in Bulletin 74 (page 165) with Publishers, 1971), vol. III, #916, 917. illustrations of a half pint beaker, a teapot, and 13. Raymond, op. cit., 1936 an inverted cone-shaped, saucer-based lamp. In 14. G. Hood, American Pewter . .. at Yale spite of requests in both articles, no pictures of (New Haven, 1965), No. 84. additional forms have been received during the 15. G. S. Gibb, op. cit., p. 37 almost two years that have since elapsed. 16. Examples of these pots have to be filled to In a continuing effort to focus more attention the brim to attain the indicated capacity. on the products of Smith & Co., a most attrac­ 17. J. B. Kerfoot, American Pewter (New tive whale oil lamp and candlestick are herewith York, 1924), pp. 149, 150. submitted for your consideration in Figure 1 18. G. S; Gibb, op. cit., pp. 112, 116. below. 19. Ibid., p. 114. 20. Ibid., p. 116. 21. L. G. Myers, Some Notes on American Pewterers (Garden City, 1926), p. 90. 22. Currier Gallery of Art, Pewter in America (Manchester, 1968), p. 19; K. Ebert, Col­ lecting American Pewter (New York, 1973), p. 85. 23. L. l. Laughlin, op. cit., vol. III, #916, 917. 24. G. S. Gibb, op. cit., p. 119. 25. P. E. Raymond, op. cit., 1936. 26. Ibid., 1945. 27. L. G. Myers, op. cit., p. 91. 28. L. I. Laughlin, op. cit., vol. II, p. 93. 29. J. C. Thomas, American & British Pewter (New York, 1976), pp. 128-9.

Fig. 1. Attractive whale oil lamp and candlestick by Smith & Co., Boston, w. 1842-48. Height of lamp minus burner 715/16". Height of candlestick 6W'. Base diameter of each 3%". Author's collection.

ED NOTE: Of the 16 examples of teapots listed As can be seen, Smith & Co. provided both in Calder's records, only eight of these have pieces with the same baluster-like stem and the been identified in the above article. If any same base, the only differences being the parts reader has knowledge of any of the missing on top of the stems - a cylindrical oil font on numbered teapots, or of other teapot or coffee the lamp and a round candle socket with drip pot forms not covered in the article, the Editor flange on the candlestick. would appreciate seeing photographs of these In an article entitled "J. W. Cahill & Co." in or receiving information concerning them. Bulletin 77, pages 290-292, it was mentioned Webster Goodwin that parts from the same moulds have been

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 382 found on products of both James H. Putnam and Smith, Ober & Co. 1849-1851 Smith & Co., indicating that the moulds may Morey & Ober 1852-1854 have been loaned by one maker to another, or Morey, Ober & Co. 1855-1856 that one of them may have sold ready-made Morey & Smith 1857-1864 parts to the other. Evidence of this can be seen in Figure 2 illustrating a whale oil lamp bearing Ledlie I. Laughlin, in Volume III of Pewter Putnam's touch. In America, included all of these firms and working dates in his checklist of American makers, and, to indicate those which have left examples of their work, he placed a star against all but Thomas Smith & Co. It seems strange that examples of the latter firm's work have not survived, as it was recorded as being in business longer than any other of the partnerships, save that of Morey & Smith. Mr. Woodside appar­ ently obtained his information from various Boston city directories and assigned the firm name of "Thomas Smith & Co." based on listings in the directories for the years 1842 through 1846, which were: "Smith Thomas & Co. (D. B. Morev and H. White), blocktin workers" - A more thorough search through these direc­ tories has divulged information which leads me to believe that the firm never operated under the name of Thomas Smith & Co. Evidence that the firm was operating under the name of Smith & Co. can be found in these same directories under the sepa~ate listings for David B. Morey and Henry WhIte. In the 1842 and 1843 direc­ tories, they appear as follows: "Morey David B. (Smith & Co.), h. 1 Fig. 2. Whale oil lamp by James H. Putnam, Mal­ Charlestown' , den, w. 1835-55. Height and base diameter of lamp "White Henry (Smith & Co.), h. 20 unknown, but assumed to be about the same as Smith Friend" & Co. lamp in Fig. 1. From May 1926 issue of AN­ TIQUES. In the 1844, 1845 and 1846 directories they are listed as follows: T~e o~ly differences between this lamp and "Morey David B., See Smith & Co. " that In FIgure 1 are (a) the fonts, which seem to "White Henry See Smith & Co. " have been put together and finished differently, and (b) the stems, with that on the Putnam lamp If the name of the firm actually had been turned upside down in relation to the one on the "Thomas Smith & Co. " the listings for Morey Smith & Co. lamp (or vice versa). This latter and White undoubtedly would (or should) have variation may be due to different whims of the :eferred to the company's full name, and not makers when soldering the several parts to­ Just to "Smith & Co. " gether, or an attempt to distinguish between The directories during the 1842 to 1846 years similar products of the two makers. Whatever were entitled "Stimpson's Boston Directory" the reason, if there ever was a reason, it cannot and were published by Charles Stimpson. In be denied that there seems to have been some 1846, the Boston directories were changed from sort of a business relationship between the two. a calendar year basis to a July-to-July basis and (It is well known that Thomas Smith and David were issued under the title of "Adam's New B. Morey, partners of Smith & Co., were close Directory of the City of Boston" and from then neighbors of James H. Putnam in Malden, Mas­ on were published by George Adams. The first sachusetts. ) Adams directory for 1846-1847 did not include When Charles L. Woodside wrote his article listings for Thomas Smith, David B. Morey, .' 'Marked American Pewter" for the May 1926 Henry White or their partnership, but in the Issue of the Magazine ANTIQUES * , he listed following 1848-1849 directory the listings were: the names and working dates of the seven dif­ "Morey D. B. (Smith & Co.), house at ferent partnerships of which Smith and Morey Malden" were principal owners. They were: "Smith & Co. (Thomas Smith, H. Smith & Morey 1841-1842 White, D.B. Morey), glass and Thomas Smith & Co. 1842-1846 Britannia ware, 3 Haverhill, house at Smith & Co. 1847-1848 Malden"

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 383 "White Henry (Smith & Co.), h. at E. Cambridge' , William Willett Also, this was the first issue that included the The information contained below was firm's advertisement, as illustrated in the brought to my attention by Barbara Shellen­ Woodside article. berger who deserves the credit for discovering it It is apparent Mr. Woodside was misled by in the January 8, 1756, and subsequent issues of ambiguous listings in Stimpson's directories, the Maryland Gazette: and it is now safe to conclude the partnership conducted its business under the name of Smith "WILLIAM WILLETT, Pewterer & Co. in 1842 through 1846, as well as in 1847 Living about two miles from Upper­ and 1848. Further evidence, if such is needed, Marlboro, on Bladensburg Road, New can be found in the fairly large number of sur­ moulds old Pewter at 9d. per Pound, or viving pieces bearing the Smith & Co. touch will return one half good new Pewter (certainly more than might be expected of a firm for any Quantity of old, and to be cast in business for no more than the two years indi­ in whatever form the Employer pleases, cated by Mr. Woodside), and the fact no other flat or Soup Dishes or flat or Soup marked pieces by "Thomas Smith & Co." have Plates. (to my knowledge) ever come to light. Consid­ N.B. He will wait on any employer ering the above conclusions, and with the within 20 or 30 miles to receive their knowledge that the Smith & Co. 's extended old, or return their new Pewter. And working years occurred prior to the beginning they may depend on being faithfully of the Victorian influence towards overdecora­ and honestly dealt by, by tion and consequent degeneration in design, Their humble servant, pewter collectors should now be prepared to pay more attention to the firm's products. Will members please come forward with WILLIAM WILLETT" photographs of Smith & Co. pewter differing in form from those already printed in the Bulletin. have not done my research to determine *A reprint of this article can be found in American how this man is related to the enigmatic "E W and British Pewter, edited by John Carl Thomas, on VIRGINIA" plates but seeing this published page 123. may provoke someone in the club to pursue the matter. The Danforth Properties Donald L. Fennimore, Associate Curator Many CHS members may not know that the Winterthur Museum 1759 shop of the pewterer, Thomas Danforth, and the 1787 dwelling of his son, Joseph, are still standing in Middletown. However, their The Sellews future is uncertain. A bank has acquired these properties for expansion of its facilities but has of Cincinnati delayed demolition to give The Greater Middletown Preservation Trust time to find by John F. Brown another site. The bank also has offered to defray some of the cost of moving these structures. This article is intended to provide the record As in most projects of this sort, there are with the latest available knowledge regarding problems; but we certainly wish GMPT all suc­ the brothers William, Osmon and Enos Sellew cess in resolving them. For whoever desires who founded Sellew & Company of Cincinnati, more information, or whoever would care to Pewter and Britannia Manufacturers. The assist with the contribution, the address and sources that have been used are newspapers and phone number of the Trust are: City Directories, obituaries, original documents The Greater Middletown Preservation Trust, found in the Connecticut State Library, the DeKoven House, 27 Washington St., Connecticut Historical Society, the Town of Middletown, CT 06457; (203) 346-1646. Glastonbury, Connecticut, as well as Cincinnati Historical Society and the County Court House ED NOTE: The foregoing information ap­ of Hamilton County, Ohio. In addition, a biog­ peared in "NOTES AND NEWS" from the raphy of William Sellew written by M. Joblin Connecticut Historical Society - Vol. 4, No.2 and Company in 1872 provides certain addi­ for November 1978 and we are indebted to Bill tional data. Of particular significance has been Kayhoe and Stevie Young for their sharp eyes an excellent genealogical study by Clinton W. and thoughtfulness in sending it to us. Investi­ Sellew of Providence, R.I., a distant cousin of gation is under way and contact made by the brothers William, Osmon and Enos. P.C.C.A. The subject will be discussed at the From Clinton W. Sellew's study we learn of National Meeting at Winterthur. the origin of the Sellew family in America. Webster Goodwin Phillip Sellew was born in France in 1688 and

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 384 came to America by the way of Boston some time prior to 1713. Originally, he lived on Martha's Vineyard with most of his life having been spent as a schoolmaster at Harwich, Mas­ sachusetts. He was noted for teaching as­ tronomy and mathematics. The specific lineage of ancestors of the Sellew brothers contained John Lelland Sellew (1717-1745), the son of Phillip Sellew. John Lelland Sellew's second son was named Phillip (1743-1828). Phillip Sellew, after his father's death, was raised by his grandfather, Phillip Sellew, in Harwich, Massachusetts. In 1767 Phillip, the son of John Lelland, moved to Glastonbury, Connecticut. Among his sons was Samuel Sellew (1773- 1828), the father of William, Osmon and Enos, each of whom was born in Glastonbury, Con­ necticut. William Sellew, shown in Figure 1, was the eldest of the brothers comprising the firm. He was born in 1806.

Fig. 2. Enos Sellew. Courtesy of the Henry Ford Museum, Dearborn, Michigan. The youngest of the brothers, but not the last of the sons of Samuel Sellew, was Osmon and he was born in Glastonbury, Connecticut in 1810. An early picture of Osmon Sellew is shown in Figure 3.

Fig. 1. William Sellew. Courtesy of the Henry Ford Museum, Dearborn, Michigan.

Enos Sellew was born in 1808 also in Glas­ tonbury, Connecticut. A picture of Enos as a Fig. 3. Osmon Sellew. Courtesy of the Henry Ford young man is shown in Figure 2. Museum, Dearborn, Michigan.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 385 John Brown speaking on the Sellews at Cincinnati.

To date the only information of significance significance is a half page ad in the Cincinnati regarding activities of these brothers relates to Directory of 1834. It is possible that the firm William Sellew. His biographer, M. Joblin & was established in 1832 but did not actually get Company, tells us that he left home to live with into production until 1833. a maternal uncle from the time he was ten (10) Enos joined the firm in 1835, a point fairly until he was seventeen (17). Who this maternal well agreed to by most writers on the Sellews. uncle is is not known for sure. However, However, the most positive identification of William's paternal Aunt Hannah married this association comes from a lease on file in the Joseph Kilbourne who, in turn, was the father Hamilton County Court House which indicates of Ogden Kilbourne of Hartford. Ogden Kil­ that William, Osmon and Enos signed the lease bourne is also a distant cousin of the pewterer, of land for Sellew & Company in October of Samuel Kilbourne of Rocky Hill, Connecticut 1835. who apprenticed under Edward Danforth. It is Our next concrete reference to the brothers believed that Joseph Kilbourne is the maternal comes in 1837 when William et al. sold 40 uncle with whom William Sellew lived from his acres of land in Glastonbury to Timothy, our tenth to his seventeenth year. last contact of any of the Sellew brothers in His biographer also tells us that William ap­ Glastonbury, Connecticut. prenticed for one year to learn the cabinetmak­ It has been asked whether or not the Sellews ing business but left it with the mutual consent manufactured pewter and britannia or merely of the cabinetmaker. were wholesale distributors for eastern firms. It Ogden Kilbourne had a successful hardware is believed from the research done to date that it and general merchandise store in Hartford, can be stated unequivocally that the firm did Connecticut. William worked for Ogden Kil­ manufacture pewter and britannia wares. bourne as a clerk. Copies of Ogden's daybook, Among the various facts which support this is which presently is in the Connecticut Historical the statement of the biographer which sets forth Society, indicate William's accounts and refer­ "Renting a small house on the north side of ences to William's transactions in the store for Fifth Street near Walnut, they fitted up a sales the period 1825 through 1829. room in front and a shop in the rear. " The ear­ From 1829 to 1832 there is a blank in the liest Directory ad identifies Sellew & Company records regarding William Sellew. We don't as pewter and britannia manufacturers indicat­ find reference again until William and Osmon ing that they held themselves out to the local in May of 1832 sell one hundred acres of land in public as manufacturers. Finally, the Ohio Glastonbury to their older brother Timothy. Mechanics Institute held a fair each year begin­ His biographer, as well as the obituary for ning in 1838 for local manufactured products in William, says that he and Osmon came from an effort to encourage quality production of Glastonbury and started their pewter and britan­ manufactured goods in the Cincinnati area. In nia firm in Cincinnati in 1832. Subsequent ads 1839 Sellew & Company's britannia won rec­ by the firm say that it was founded in 1832. ognition at the Ohio Mechanics Institute fair. In Howevcr, the first newspaper ad (and a small 1841 the judges, which included E. Kinsey, a "one-liner" at that) is dated November, 1833 in local silversmith of substantial reputation, and the Cincinnati Daily Gazette. The first ad of real R. C. Phillips said: "We the undersigned

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 386 judges of britannia ware would respectfully dental finishing difference but was the result of beg leave to report that the specimens exhib­ the bottom part of the cylindrical body of the ited by Messrs. Sellew & Company are of shorter mug having been cut off prior to sol­ a superior quality and highly creditable to the dering on the bottom. manufacturers. ' , I measured the capacities of both of these gill To close, it should be noted that the brothers mugs by weighing the mug, filling with water to died in Cincinnati, are buried in Spring Grove the brim (under a straightedge), weighing the Cemetery; Enos in 1876, William in 1877 and water added, and converting the weight of water Osmon in 1886. They were men of rank and to U.S. fluid ounces. This method gives ex­ accomplishment, not only in business but in treme accuracy and shows an error on repeating civic and religious activities in the City of the measurement of less than one percent. The Cincinnati. Weare still at a loss as to their smaller mug contained 4.17 ounces while the background and origins in pewter and britannia larger one held 4.66 ounces. Therefore, the making. smaller mug is a wine gill (4 per cent over the standard 4.0 ounces) and the other is a beer gill ( 1 per cent under the Ale standard of 4.71 ounces). If the published heights of the Boardman half-gill mugs found in the Brooklyn Miniature Mugs Museum (2" high) and the Winterthur Museum by Richard L. Bowen, Jr. (21,4" high) are correct, then these truly minia­ ture mugs are also represented in wine and beer The usual sizes of mugs (or pots) advertised capacities. by early pewterers and listed in their inventories One occasionally finds small unmarked on death were quarts and pints. Sometimes we pewter mugs in the gill size, measuring from find mugs which are smaller than pint listed in 21h" to 2~1/ high; two of these are shown in Fig. the inventories, and occasionally we even find 3. Both are made in the old eighteenth century them larger than quart. Both extremes are well manner with cast tapered bodies soldered to cast illustrated by Jonathan Jackson's inventory bases with solid handles cast onto the bodies taken in Boston in 1736 where three-pint, quart, and showing linen marks on the inside. Such pint, half-pint, and half-gill "potts" were mugs are often dismissed by many as simply listed,l and by Simon Edgell's inventory taken "English" and certainly some are. However, in 1742 in Philadelphia where we find half­ there is a possibility that some may also be gallon, quart, pint and half-gill "potts".2 That American. A careful examination of these two at least some of the smaller mugs were meas­ mugs will be useful. The capacity of the mug on ures is indicated quite clearly by John Skinner's the left is 3.96 ounces while that of the right one 1763 advertisement where he listed "Rum is 3.51 ounces. They are thus both wine gills, Measures, from Quart to Jill Pots". 3 In this the first being only one per cent short of 4.0 same advertisement Skinner listed quart and ounces while the second is very light, being pint pots which one may assume were the nor­ twelve per cent short. mal vessels for drinking ale or beer. We have other evidence of small mugs in examples of marked American pewter. Both Samuel Danforth (Hartford) and Thomas Dan­ forth Boardman are known to have made mugs in quart, pint, half-pint and half-gill capacities.4 Examples of half-gill mugs by Boardman are found in the Brooklyn Museum and the Win­ terthur Museum (Fig. 1);5 they are only 2" and 214" high. A few examples exist of unmarked gill mugs with double C handles which can be attributed with confidence to Samuel Hamlin of Provi­ dence (or Hartford) on two accounts. First, Carl Jacobs listed under Hamlin a 14 pint mug with double C handle marked with the S H rose touch.6 Secondly, the double C handle on these small mugs is identical in shape to that found on all Hamlin pint mugs and quite unlike any other American handle.7 Two of these unmarked gill mugs are shown in Fig. 2. In examining the illustration one is struck by the fact that the two mugs are not the same size: one is 2%" high while the other is only 27/16" high, a difference Fig. 1. A half-gill mug made by Thomas Danforth of a full 3/16". The difference is so great rela­ Boardman. The overall height is 214". (Courtesy, The tively that it could not have occurred as an acci- Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum)

Vol. 7, 3179, p. 387 Both mugs are devoid of filets which would I have only seen a similar base treatment once not be significant if there were no other decora­ before and it was on a pair of tankards formerly tion on the body. However, the mug on the right in the collection of Ian Robinson. They were has three bands of engraving somewhat similar marked Townsend and Compton so they could to the engraved bands found on early Trask date from 1780 to 1800. The bases were deco­ (Beverly) teapots and on certain late eighteenth rated with a series of grooves. Such a decora­ or early nineteenth century English wares. tion is also seen on a gallon English flagon These were possibly applied by a circular die dated 1819.8 The banding is only on the top half when the body was still in the lathe. The de­ of a fairly deep base. Ian Robinson has told me signs are more elaborate and less deeply en­ that all of the mugs made by John Carruthers graved than the Trask designs. The base of this Crane of Bewdley, working from 1800 to 1838, mug has an unusual finish. Instead of the usual show these wide grooves. In England this mode angular mOUldings, eight relatively wide of decoration is known to some as a "fussy grooves have been cut fairly deeply into the filet". In view of the groove-decorated base and bottom. the engraved bands, it would seem that the right

Fig. 2. Unmarked gill mugs by Samuel Hamlin. Both have a TD of 2Vs /l and a BD of 2%", while the body height of the left one is 2%" and that of the right one 27/1ft. The right mug holds 4.17 ounces, so it is a wine gill, while the left one holds 4.66 ounces and is a beer gill.

Fig. 3. Two unmarked wine gill mugs. The left one is decorated with two bands of closely spaced incised lines: Body H 2*//; TD 2"; BD 27/16//. The right one has three bands of engraving and a series of wide grooves cut into the base: H 2%//; TD 1%//; BD 25/16//.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 388 hand mug in Fig. 3 is late eighteenth or early of the eighteenth century the mug (or pot) was nineteenth century English. serving the dual purpose of a drinking vessel The mug on the left in Fig. 3 has two bands and a measure. ll The two Hamlin gill mugs of incised lines, five at the top and six at the indeed seem to indicate that many of the smaller bottom. Bands of incised lines were a popular mugs were actually intended as measures. mode of decoration of both mugs and beakers in Otherwise, why the beer gill and wine gill sizes the first part of the nineteenth century in Eng­ differing by less than % of an ounce? If they land as well as in America. A pint mug by were just small drinking vessels, it is difficult to Josiah Danforth (1821-1843) illustrates this see why such precision was necessary. For the nicely with three lines at the top and four at the same reason they were probably not toys, nor bottom (Fig. 4). A half-pint mug by Boardman were they intended as children's mugs. The two and Hart has only two widely spaced incised unmarked English mugs in Fig. 3 are very deli­ lines in the center (Fig. 5). In England there cate; they could easily be crushed between one's appear to be more lines in the bands and they fingers. They are much lighter than the Hamlin are more closely spaced than in America. This mugs in Fig. 2. They weigh only 3.11 and 2.57 is shown by a late tulip-shaped English quart ounces so the lighter one is only about half the mug with double C handle. 9 It has two bands of weight of the heavier Hamlin gill. These Eng­ seven lines each. It is also seen on two English lish gills would not last a day with a child. On beakers from the second quarter of the the other hand, the ruggedness of the Hamlin nineteenth century. 10 One has two bands of gills perhaps explains why a few have survived. eight lines each while the other has two bands of Small American mugs are indeed scarce. The five lines each, both closely spaced. On the smallest, which are truly "miniature", are the other hand, the lines did become more widely half-gill size by Samuel Danforth and spaced in England in much later ware. I saw a Boardman. In the gill size we have only Samuel late James Dixon & Sons half-pint mug without Hamlin's examples which remarkably exist in any base with two bands of five lines each both beer and wine capacities. Even half-pints spread over 7/32". are rare. The scarcity of all these small sizes Because of the closely spaced incised lines on perhaps results because they were primarily used the mug on the left of Fig. 3, it seems that it is for measures rather than for drinking and thus probably early nineteenth century English too. were made in small quantities. Also, they are The double C handle of this mug was also very more fragile. The quart and the pint were the popular in England in the first half of the common drinking sizes and these have survived nineteenth century. If both mugs in Fig. 3 are in numbers. Many more quart mugs than pints actually English, they probably date from be­ have survived, possibly because more were fore 1824 when the Old English Wine Standard made, but also because the quart is inherently (OEWS) was replaced by the British Imperial more substantial than the pint. Pint mugs also Standard. After 1824 the English gill contained apparently exist in wine and beer sizes. This is 4.80 U.S. fluid ounces, fairly close to the old shown by two Boardman and Hart pint mugs, Ale standard. one being 41h/l high while the other is only 4/1 Laughlin once suggested that before the end high. 12 The discovery of mugs in wine sizes

Fig. 4. Pint mug by Josiah Danforth. There are two Fig. 5. Half-pint mug made by Boardman and Hart. bands of spaced incised lines decorating the sides, The overall height is 33/16". (Courtesy, The Henry Overall height, 4%", (Courtesy, The Henry Francis Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum) du Pont Winterthur Museum)

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 389 substantiates the suggestion above that some of unquestionably copied from the silver forms, so the early "wine measures" were probably in thence to the monographs on American, English mug form. and Continental silver. My search was finally rewarded when I found REFERENCES on the last page of the catalog of Early Ameri­ 1. L. I. Laughlin, Pewter in America (Barre can Silver, The Mabel Brady Garvan Collection Publishers, 1969), vol. I, p. 58. at the Yale University Art Gallery an illustration 2. Ibid., vol. II, p. 155. of a ''Tea Set, Philadelphia Pennsylvania, 3. Ibid., vol. I, p. 74 Maker Abraham Dubois , (active 1777-1807)." 4. C. Jacobs, Guide to American Pewter The tea set consists of three pieces, tea pot, (New York, 1957), pp. 40, 72. creamer and sugar bowl. The tea pot which is 5. K. Ebert, Collecting American Pewter shown here in figure #2 by the kind permission (New York, 1973), p. 89; C. F. Mont­ of the Yale University Art Gallery, who gra­ gomery, A History of American Pewter ciously furnished me with the photograph, is, (New York, 1973), p. 108. with the exception of the curved part above the 6. C. Jacobs, op. cit. shoulder which is shorter, practically identical 7. R. L. Bowen,PCCA Bui., Sept. 1978, vol. to the pewter coffee pot. The lid and finial are in 7, p. 334. the same style, the beading is identically 8. C. A. Peal, British Pewter & Britannia placed, and the plinth and the circular bottom of Metal (London, 1971), p. 127. the stem supporting the body are in the same 9. Ibid., p. 132. relationship as those on the pewter coffee pot. 10. Ibid., p. 142. Another silver coffee pot which I am unable 11. L. I. Laughlin, op. cit., vol. I, p. 32. to show here, of the same basic urn shape with the same distinctive lid as those shown in fig­ ures #1 and #2, made by Abraham Carlisle, C 1790 also of Philadelphia, is pictured in Early Pennsylvania Arts and Crafts by John Joseph The Cause of Stoudt, A. S. Barnes and Company, Inc., pub­ lishers. This coffee pot although more elegant a Skipped Heartbeat in style compares very favorably with the pre­ viously mentioned two. (Almost)! In the magazine Antiques for January 1954, by Bernard Esner page 51, there is an illustration of a silver coffee pot which bears a striking resemblance to the That is what happened when I saw from pewter coffee pot (figure 1) with its distinctive across a room of considerable size at an antique type lid and a nearly identical handle, also by a show last fall, the coffee pot here illustrated in Philadelphia silversmith, Robert Swan who figure #1. worked 1799 to 1831. Note the raised striated Crossing the room as quickly as I dared lest I portion at the top end of the spout which is a knocked people out of my path, I asked the dealer in whose booth the pot was if I could examine it, which I did with trembling hands, but a close scrutiny failed to reveal any marks. Alas, although the basic form is the same as those by William Will, (two of which are illus­ trated in A History of American Pewter pages 180 and 181 by Charles F. Montgomery, also one in Pewter In America, Its Makers and their Marks by Ledlie I. Laughlin, plate XXVII) there are marked differences. It will be noted that the lid, spout and handle are of a different design, and the last mentioned two are placed at a different location on the body. The plinth is a larger size than the diam­ eter of the base of the stem supporting the body, whereas Will's are the same. However, the beading, except for the double row at the shoul­ der, is almost identically placed as that on the Will pot. Naturally a find such as this would prompt research, so accordingly I hunted through sev­ eral books and catalogs on American, English and Continental pewter but aside from the cof­ fee pots of Will's, I could find no others of this Fig. 1. The cause of a skipped heartbeat! Photo by type. It then occurred to me that the style was Marjorie Chaffee.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 390 feature of the Will pot, and is also on the pewter chased for a small amount; a good library may coffee pot (figure 1) but without the striations. have the others or could get them through The author of the Antiques article, Gregor Nor­ inter-library loan. The best source for fake man Wilcox points out that the square foot and Continental ~arks is Philippe Boucaud's 250 finely beaded edges are typical of Philadelphia Poim:;ons d' Etains: Faux, Copies, Imitations, taste of about 1800. Truquages. The book is well illustrated with I suppose wishful thinking could cause one to many photographs of fake pieces and marks. believe that the coffee pot which is the subject There is also an excellent introductory chapter of this article was made by an American pew­ on faked styles which are frequently encoun­ terer working in the Philadelphia area. Com­ tered and the techniques used in faking. Two ments would be appreciated. other books have fine chapters on techniques: The coffee pot is 15 inches high overall, the Ludwig Mory's Schones Zinn and Hans Ulrich extreme width from tip of spout to the outer­ Haedeke's Zinno Books with brief, but impor­ most part of the handle is 12 ~ inches, the tant references to faking and reproduction are: greatest diameter of the body is 6 inches, and it A.J.G. Verster's Old European Pewter, rests on a square plinth 414 inches on a side. H.J.L.J. Masse's Chats on Old Pewter and The Pewter Collector, and Cotterell, Riff and Vet­ ter's National Types of Old Pewter. 2 The piece illustrated in figure 1 is an example of a classic Continental fake; the manufacture, style, decoration, and marks are all of question­ able value. The plate is owned by the Museum of Fine Arts (Boston) and has been considered a legitimate eighteenth century piece. Most probably, the plate was made by Arthur Chaumette, a contemporary Parisian pewtering firm which seems to have made countless fakes. The technique used to produce this plate is both well known and simple to do. As can be seen in figure 1 and in the detail on the back of the rim in figure 2, a crude sand or plaster mold was probably used to cast the plate. The mold has left many smoothed out depressions on the back of the plate, and there is a coarseness to the edges and detailing on the front. A fine brass mold, such as used to create an original piece, would not impart such regular pockmarks or overall graininess. Decorative details would also be sharper and finer. On a legitimate plate, the principal decoration of the bowl would be Fig. 2. Abraham Dubois teapot. 11 %" h., 3%" d. true repousse work, rather than cast. Curiously base. Yale University Art Gallery. The Mabel Brady enough, one of the most frequently used tricks, Garvan Collection, gift of Frances P. Garvan, BA that of creating a false patina, was not employed 1897. on this plate. Despite the mold marks, it looks brand new - hardly bearing the age and wear A Classic Continental Fake by Elizabeth M. Ely

As more and more fake American forms are reported, collectors of American pewter are be­ coming increasingly cautious and knowledge­ able in their buying. However, for those wish­ ing to purchase Continental pewter, information about fake pieces is scanty and not readily available, and often unreadable when available. And unfortunately, there seem to be many fakes and reproductions on the market. 1 Several texts in English, German, and French that can be obtained rather easily may be of help to those interested in identifying fake Conti­ Fig. 1. 9%" wavy lobed plate owned by the Museum nental pewter. Some of these books can be pur- of Fine Arts (Boston).

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 391 we would expect on true eighteenth century appeared on these plates. Quite often he found flatware. that the heraldic device was anachronistic to the In style, the plate is an exuberant rococo style of the piece, such as an eighteenth century piece. The lobes along the rim terminate in platter decorated with the arms of Francois I elaborate leafy tips, and the cast decoration in (who died in 1547).4 In 1925 Howard Cotterell the bowl is quite fanciful: two dolphins riding reiterated this warning in his National Types of upon the sea support a crown beneath which is Old Pewter. He stated that this type of decora­ an enchained and engraved crest. tive rococo plate "has been freely faked to trap Copied from contemporary silver examples, the uninitiated who somehow seem to be ir­ wavy lobed pewter plates first seem to have resistably attracted by the French royal appeared in France around 1730. They are now badge. ' '5 Contemporary scholars such as usually referred to as rococo or Louis XV style Philippe Boucaud have continued to echo these plates, named after the reigning monarch of the thoughts. 6 time. Although rococo plates remained fashion­ The plate we have been examining bears the able in France for only a short time, they were first of the heraldic schemes Masse cites. It al­ popular outside France in England, Germany, most seems to be overloaded with symbolic de­ and Scandinavia and were made throughout the signs. The dolphin was frequently used by the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. 3 dauphins, and often appears in French heraldry. It is thought that wavy lobed plates have been Filagree work and a cross indicate that the reproduced and faked for quite some time. Be­ crown which is supported by the two dolphins is cause outlying areas continued to manufacture that of a king. The crest below is circumscribed rococo plates during the nineteenth century and by the chain and cross of the Ordre du St. Es­ because makers often neglected to mark their prit. This crest deserves our special attention. pieces, identification can be difficult. First Not only is the engraving exceptionally crude, writing in 1911, H.J.L.J. Masse warned against but also inaccurate. The fleur de lis and dolphin rococo plates, particularly those bearing heral­ design appears to have been traditionally used dic designs of the French Royal family. He by various French dauphins from Charles VI listed five decorative schemes that commonly (1380-1422) on. Figure 3 illustrates the correct representation of this coat of arms. Traditional depictions always show two fleur de lis mounted above a single fleur de lis, and the dolphins curled to the left. The crest design of the plate, however, is reversed! See figure 4. A single fleur de lis is mounted above two fleur de lis, and the dolphins are curled to the right. Whether the dolphins are actually inverted or not is not clear, as they are so crudely and superficially engraved it is impossible to distin­ guish their heads from their tails! In addition to its manufacture and design, the four marks on this plate are very suspicious. They are so poorly stamped and difficult to read, it is probable that they too were cast. Fig-

Ecartele : de France & de Dauphine.

Fig. 2. Detail of the back of the plate. The "lost Fig. 3. Correct depiction of the coat of arms as it wax" process may have been used to create the mold often appears in French heraldry. When fleur de lis from an original piece; the impression may have been are used in a heraldic pattern, usually two plants are taken only from the front of that piece. Note the placed above a single plant as seen here. The dol .. pockmarks and fissures which result from a crude phins curl to the left as if jumping out of the water. mold. Also note that there has been no attempt to Illustration from Histoire Genealogique et finish the back of this plate and to correct the uneve­ ChronoLogique de La Maison de France, 1881, Tome ness. IX, 2 partie, p. 1.

Vol. 7, 3179, p. 392 ure 5 shows one of the marks in question. It is thought to be a spurious Belgian mark. Both Masse and Boucaud feel that this is a particu­ larly dangerous mark. 7 It has a beaded circle enclosing the initials "AIC" and the figures of St. Michael and the dragon, a symbol fre­ quently used by Belgian pewterers. The Pari­ sian firm of Arthur Chaumette, in business since 1887, appears to have stamped this mark indiscriminantly on reproduction flatware, mugs. and flagons.s From Boucaud's remarks,

Fig. 4. The coat of arms is inverted in the engraving on the plate. The dolphins curl to the right and may be upside down ie. diving back into the water" as their tails can be interpreted as being above their Fig. 5. Mark of Arthur Chaumette. St. Michael and heads. The fleur de lis pattern is also incorrect. the dragon and the initials • 'AIC".

Fig. 6. "ND" mark used by Chaumette and other Fig. 7. Strasbourg coat of arms as used in the control firms. Nicholas Descamp's touchmark, on which this mark for the lowest (third) grade of pewter, on left. fake mark is based, has incuse initials and crown On the right a Strasbourg gauging mark. (,,-ather than relief) and the rose is formed of rayed or striated petals.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 393 it would seem that this frrm has been the source which contains photos of many marked of much fake pewter on the market. pieces. For Continental examples see Mory Often found in conjunction with the "AIC" ob.cit., plates 201, 202, 204. For English mark and also used by the same pewtering firm, examples, see the trade cards of John Alder­ is an equally suspicious Belgian mark - a son and John Kendrick. crowned rose with the initials "NO." Figure 6 4 Masse, Chats on Old Pewter, pp. 41-42. shows this mark. It is a copy of the touchmark of an eighteenth century pewterer from Liege, s Cotterell, op. cit., p. 27. Nicholas Descamp. In reproduction, it seems to 6 Boucaud,op. cit., pp. 14, 16. have been frequently used in the late nineteenth 7 Masse, Chats on Old Pewter, p. 41., and twentieth century, not only by Chaumette Boucaud, op. cit., p. 89. but also by the Kneppert brothers (1898) and ,8 T~dy, op. cit., pp. 90-91; Tardy, Poinc;,ons their successor, Laveur (1909-56).9 Boucaud d' Etain, Paris, 1968, p. 35. classifies this particular mark as one of the most dangerous and includes photographs in his book 9 Tardy, Les Etains, p. 96. of both the false and the true marks. to 10 Boucaud, op. cit., pp. 82,89. Figure 7 shows the two other likely fake 11 Boucaud, op. cit., p. 80. marks on the plate. For comparison a copy of the legitimate marks on which these were based is shown in figure 8. Note how poorly im­ pressed on the plate the marks are; it is almost impossible to read them. Boucaud reports that they are highly suspicious marks. 11 The small chevron with the arms of Strasbourg (on the left) is a copy of the city control mark. The circular mark with the initials "KZ" and the arms of Strasbourg is a copy of a standard mark of measurement. It is not clear why this meas­ urement mark should be stamped on a piece of flatware in the first place. A gauging mark was often stamped on hollow ware to certify legiti­ mate capacity; flatware has never, to my knowledge, been regulated. Nor is it clear why a plate that already has Belgian marks should be Fig. 8. Copy of the true Strasbourg marks. Tardy, stamped again with Strasbourg marks. Les Etains Franc;,ais, p. 650.

Perhaps an extremely knowledgeable forger can explain all of this.

Footnotes t For the purposes of this paper, the terms , 'fake" and "reproduction" are used inter­ changeably. 2 Phillippe Boucaud, 250 Poim;ons d' Etain: Faux, Copies, Imitations, Truquages, 42 Rue de l'Universite, Paris, 1970; Ludwig Mory, Schones Zinn, Verlag F. Bruckmann KG, Munich, 1971; Hans Ulrich Haedeke, Zinn: Ein Handbuch fur Sammler und Liebhaber; Klinkardt Biermann, Braunschweig, 1963. A.J.G. Verster, Old European Pewter, Thames and Hudson, London, 1958; H.J.L.J. Masse, Chats on Old Pewter, Dover Publica­ tions, Inc., New York, 1971; Masse, The Pewter Collector, Barrie and Jenkins, 1921 (rev. 1971); Howard Cotterell, Adolphe Riff, and Robert Vetter, National Types of Old Pewter, Weathervane Books, New York, 1972. 3 For examples of early mark~d French rococo plates, see B.A. Douroff, Etains Franc;,ais: Des XVII et XVIII Siecles, Editions Charles Massin, Paris" 1959 plates 24,25,26 and also Tardy, Les Etains Francais, Paris, 1959 Fig. 9. The back of the plate.

Vol. 7,3/79, p. 394 'These articles originally appeared in the monthly magazine of The Antique Collectors' Club of Great Britain, Woodbridge, Suffolk, England, who publish an extensive range of books on antiques.'

English Pewter Pots on the body, then unframed, and finally under the base. part 1 As well as the wandering pot, we have men­ by Christopher A. Peal tioned the "inn pot", to pun its use. By using the inn- or pub-keeper's name and address one can sometimes trace the span over which he was Pots - it is surprising that although they are presiding, and a maker's mark, if his terminal the most popular item in pewter for display and date is known, might show a partially overlap­ collecting, they have had little attention on their ping span, the overlap giving perhaps a very own. It should be fun to deal with the whole narrow period which could spotlight the date. range, which we must confine to English. Not But beware of being too dogmatic, for the pot only are they decorative and homely, but you, may have been in use before tht1 engraving was like I do, can use them for their intended pur­ done; and sometimes - surprisingly often - pose. dates applied were retrospective and/or com­ Perhaps we can define a pot as a vessel de­ memorative. The other two uses need no elab­ signed to be drunk from, lidless and with han­ oration; ownership, possibly by initial dle; and when the body is raised away from the monogram, of a pub user; and home use. base it is connected by a wide neck. Of course, Makers' marks must be left to reading many a verified pot has been used as a measure elsewhere, and this too, must apply to verifica­ - verification marks do not imply use as a tion marks, with only a passing note. Fre­ measure, but merely that you could be satisfied quently pots of pre-Imperial date bear "W R" that you were getting full measure. under a crown. This denotes conforming with One assumes that the contents were of the the William III standard, and can be taken only beer family, and the great majority of English as being pre-Imperial as the latest date. Most pots conform to William III's (and Anne's) Ale certainly it does not mean being of William Ill's measure, and later, to Imperial measure (1826). period. But a pot bearing "AR", "GIV", or But there are a few, very few, which conform to "WIV" does mean that it is datable from that the Old English Wine Standard, which at 16¥3 reign. Note also that the "VR" and district fl. oz. is still the American measure. Imperial is number, and the dates, e.g. "96", "03", 20 fl. oz., and William III (of 1688) is only 3% might have been applied to an older pot which smaller, and this was acceptable to the au­ conforms. thorities for continued use after 1826. Re­ On degrees of rarity - it is safe to generalise member, we are not including Scottish pots. that the earlier the scarcer (mostly due to natural Occasionally one comes across odd-measure wastage, and also to greater beer drinking in the pots. Some, English made, and from nowhere early 19th century). From c. 1740-c .181 0 dating near Scotland, are of 15 fl. oz. which fits the is very indeterminate, with considerable exper­ Scottish standard. "Bar Maid" half pints may imenting of styles latterly. By c.1815 styles ap­ be found with the base plate set very high, al­ pear to have settled recognisably. Close obser­ lowing much less than apparent contents. She vation of handles and their detail is of great takes the full money - and she avoids getting importance as to dating and provenance, and too chatted up. much further and concentrated work needs to be In setting the early scene, consider four done. Further reading, attention to illustrations, slightly different usages. Most of the early pots and handling pieces are rewarding - essential. - the "tavern pots" - c.1680 bear clear en­ Nowadays even after 1826 pots are becoming graved inn ownership with address. Probably much scarcer in the market, such is the recent they were used inside the inn, but certainly beer attraction of pewter to possessors and collec­ was taken out in them by servants, to be col­ tors; and the styles become much more clear cut lected next morning. One surviving example down to some seven styles in the 19th century. warns succinctly "If sold, stole" (which would Figure 1. TWO BROAD BAND. A well­ have delighted Winston Churchill with its force known, dramatic style, and very scarce. Invar­ and economy of words). Perhaps many were not iably they bear their inn ownership engraved on "sold' " but just disappeared, for the ensuing the drum, and very often the same initials ap­ type survivors bear the legend less usually, and pear on the handle, as the husband and wife so probably the service of distribution faded, triad. It is interesting that there are NO exam­ and they were only used under the inn roof. As ples of any previous type. In fact, I doubt if late as the end of the 18th century pots were still there was a previous lidless type, because all being taken out by servants again, to be recov­ surviving tankards, flagons and measures, and ered later. In the latter 18th century and up to the few illustrations prior to their date of very approximately 1840 the engraving of the (;.1680, all bear lids. It seems that design had landlord and pub had returned, first in a frame kept the amount of work up, for knock-about

Vol. 7, 3179, p. 395 pots clattering home next morning strung on a later this feature appears to be North or long loop through the handles would have been North-West country. I know of only one other certain death to lids and thumbpieces. Always, I example of this type. Possibly c.1695±5. Sig­ think, these pots are in quart size. nificantly they are quarts. Shall we call it the Figure 2. Perhaps the next in sequence is of EARLY HIGH BAND? a similar basic design and construction, tall and Figure 3. GADROONED pots were made in tapering, with solid handle and a "heel" termi­ two styles; one in the soon to be familiar "trun­ nal. And importantly, the base is flush with the cated cone" (tapering straight sides), the other table. Note also in the illustration the extreme in a "neolithic beaker" shape with handle. simplicity of the base - an early feature. There These can stake a claim to be one of the most is only one band, narrower than in the first type, and this is set very high on the drum. A little

Figure 2. Exceedingly rare, and possibly North Country. Quart. No maker's mark. Probably c. 1700.

Figure 1. Two Broad Band. Delightful, distin­ guished and rare. Engraved "Jno French att ye Rose & Crown, Greek Streete Sohofields". By James Donne, who struck his mark in 1685.

Figure 3. Gadrooned pot. This shows the "neolithic Figure 4. Two Narrow Fillet. A superb example, beaker" type. These must have been very popular for showing fillets and handle details, and the badly a short time, by few makers. Very costly moulds. struck verification. 81/2 ins'. high.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 396 attractive, and most rare styles in pewter. Pos­ will now tum to very long runs of few styles, in sibly to some eyes they have gone too far away which details are paramount to dating. from the simple charms of English pewter - its Figure 6. From about 1730 or even earlier delicate design. These pots seem to be almost a some styles ran through almost unchanged to speciality of one maker only - William Hux, the late Victorian period. The TULIP is the although at least one example bears a different longest, and is very distinctive, although its dat­ maker's mark. This would date them as ing through its run is less easy. For those people c. 1702-c .1714, and most likely 1702-1704. A with a practical tum of mind, take care if using glory to behold. one, for the bulk in its belly is easily disgorged Figure 4. So to the very attracti ve TWO past the sides of the mouth! At first there was a NARROW FILLET type, which would seem fillet which was gradually discarded, finally to be c. 1700-c.1735. At first it appears with a c.1825, while plain examples appear from, very solid handle; at the other end, at least one has loosely, about 1760. Curiously, at about this been found with a double (or "broken") han­ time the fillet was adopted into some other dle. (I have not inspected the latter - it is pos­ styles, one of which is the TRUNCATED sible that it is a replacement.) These are seldom CONE (figure 7), which was taken direct from marked - but a maker's mark rarely gives a the dome-lidded tankards: but while the latter narrow dating, since either the maker had a long bore a fillet, it was not until the second half of working span, or his work-terminal date is not the century that it was taken in for use on pots. known. In the illustration the verification is It may have gleaned a little from the Narrow badly struck, and the "W" or "A" of "WR" Two Fillet, but almost all the earlier examples or "AR" is not visible. The earlier bases are are squat rather than tall. This style, with flush with the table, and later they are raised modifications, was probably the most popular above the table level. These are usually of pint 19th century type, and it had had a very good size. innings in the last quarter of the 18th century. Figure 5. The last of these easily recognised early types is the ONE BROAD HIGH BAND. All examples in my experience indicate a prov­ enance sweep from Lancashire to Newcastle, English Pewter Pots with the emphasis on the North. Most, I think, part 2 conform to Scottish measure, which I have a strong suspicion was used in the Cumberland by Christopher A. Peal area, if not also in Northumberland. This still has to be explained. (The same applies to lidded As mentioned in the previous part, study of baluster measures from this area c.1715- pot handles and their details is of great impor­ c.1740.) The bases are wide, and examples are tance to all but the dilettante. The handle is usually marked inside by unidentified makers. made up basically of four details. The handle Probably c.1700-1725. itself; the thumbrest; detail behind the thumb­ All the foregoing are now very rare on the rest; and the terminal and the sweep bearing it. market they are cherished in collections. We The solid strap handle (' 'solid' , it does not look;

Figure 5. One Broad High Band. See the sensible Figure 6. An early Tulip, pint size. Unfortunately broad raised base and handle detail. Pint. The ribs the maker's mark is corroded. c.1750. under the thumb are usually dated as c .1690-1700.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 397 English Pewter Pot Handle Types and Detail Chart. Approximate Span

_I Figure 1: Solid Strap. Figure 8a outside I left and right: - f- _s:na:d~ t -- 1".: Figures 2 and 4: Figure 8a inside left, ·'. ;", . I Solid Strap. 8b outside left, f I 9 ~e~ B~Ok~. ~ ~or- Figure 9 right: Broken. I Figure 8b inside left: Standard. Figure j!? :: ., (Appears on some flat lids and early dome lids). I I Figure 11: I Standard I' " "! I I (Liverpool). Figure 6: ...... (Usual 18th century handle), ~ - I ~ Figure 10: I 'l ( Yorkshire). J

I Figure 3: I All remainder, I Hollow, Figure 12: I Standard (Bristol.~~~iY and Bewdley).

Figure 13: Standard (General). \; , 1

: I PW I

Figures 15 and 19: I Broken. I

Handle types and their detail Date spans should be regarded as very approxi­ mate, and the chart gives no indication of rarity, I either in general or in any period. (Figures 8 to Figures 16 and 18: I Broken. 20 will be included in the second part of this article.) Figure 20: On Concave pots.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p, 398 the hollow ones look much stronger, but are Further, the actual attachment to the body is often dented in) gave way to hollow heavy­ important, too. The broken handle is always looking German-Georgian style with the com­ attached to two ovals. Other types are flush at ing of the Hanovers. The latter sounded a rather the lower end. Earlier, the upper attachment solemn era in style when economy of overheads may be to an oval or a shield-shaped piece of appeared to be paramount, and styies were kept reinforcement, say 1790+. If a flush handle has in being for a very long time, so minimising the torn away, this may have been earlier still, and necessity of buying expensive new moulds. So, was the reason for the succeeding strengthening while many styles were perpetuated, bodies and of the attachment. Soon some grades of pot handles often deviated slightly so slightly were made of better alloy, by using antimony that it was achieved by trimming after moulding and copper instead of the soft lead as the alloy­ (e.g. losing the fillet), or by a very small-part ing agent. These had the strength to stand up to mould or even perhaps by a few hammer hard wear. Just prior to this - or perhaps just blows. This might have been the origin of the later (research which you may be able to insignificant-looking (but very significant in undertake), extra-heavy lips provided the fact) "attention" terminal, which may have greater strength. Yes - have a good look at the been the result of some enterprising innovator's illustrations, and try to spot the details before ill-temper on a bad casting of a ball terminal. you read the captions. Dating has been deduced "Attention" I have dubbed the almost nonde­ from general experience, datable makers, pub script flat end to the handles of c.1815-c.1840, inscriptions, fitting into sequences, however likening it to a soldier's hand at attention, hand loosely - and keep the mind open to re­ pressed flat to the leg. shuffling! In this connection I would now like to For a long time the first thumbrest ended in a be able to red ate some of the captions in my tongue pointing laxly and flat to the hand. To­ British Pewter & Britannia Metal slightly, and I wards the end of the 18th century, maybe am sure that my late friend R. F. Michaelis c. 1760, this started to give way to a "crank" (a would like to have been able to do so in his handle with a high point at the thumb bend), British Pewter, which is unfortunately out of with three ridges the palm side of this high print. This is a very well illustrated little book, point. Later still a pellet was added below a largely of close-ups. rather dreary, oozing tongue. Let the illus­ Figures Sa and Sb. I had broken off in order trations give you your impressions, not mine. to put emphasis on detail, because after c.1750 Before this the rather over-ornate "double" or we enter a sort of latter-day Dark Ages in pots. "broken" handle came in possibly c.1770 or There was considerable casting around in the even earlier, to start a long and favoured career. detail of several styles, and these are grouped Analysis of the shape will indicate that at least it together under the general heading of "Pre­ started by the use of a size smaller mould for the Imperial Pots". (Imperial Measure was brought upper curve, joined to a small-mould semi­ into force in 1826.) Dating 'is loose, since so circular part with a well-shaped split end. Note seldom is the maker (if so marked) of short the different thumbgrips on examples on span, or indeed, of known terminal date. Fur­ one, a frisky little horn; on another you recog­ thermore, you cannot always rely on the date of nise the three ridges; and other varied thumb­ inscriptions, because these are often retrospec­ rests. Such small details are fascinating, and tive anything from one to 200 years, in my will prove to be valuable to research. certain experience! While the great majority of

Figure 7. Earlier half pint Truncated Cones. See the ball tenninaJ, and the general simplicity. Also a very rare type with base flush with the table. Note the sweep of the handle. Half pints. c.I770.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 399 PJ.P's appear to be c.1815-1825, many must out of the ordinary it may be Scottish - or a date from much earlier. I think a vast number of P. I. P. They are more scarce in the half pint the earlier ones must have gone into "liquida­ size. tion" for the desperately needed scrap metal in Figure 9. The BARREL describes itself, and the Napoleonic War period. And the surge of shows a touch of sales promotion by point-of­ c.1815 + pots is answered by the opening of sale inference. These date from possibly as many pubs, and by the increased popularity of early as 1780. A pair I know bear the date 1753, beer. They are very varied, with Bristol makers but this, as is often the case, may have been among the leaders, and are too many to enum­ engraved retrospectively. Certainly the major­ erate. Suffice to say that if you see a pot a little ity, very largely pints, are c.1815-1825 full

Figure 8a and figure 8b. Some P.LP.s. Compare with both earlier and later examples. Pre-1825.

Figure 9. Barrel. Compare the varied encircling hoops. c.1780-1820.

Vol. 7, 3179, p. 400 stop! The handles almost always are "broken"; the base. They certainly look earlier than their the bands are sometimes raised as hoops, some­ more likely date of c.1800, conservatively times incised. speaking. Figu.re 10. There is a rare regional type of Figu.re 11. Another charming type is the truncated cone, the YORKSHIRE, and very LIVERPOOL. By complete contrast with the attractive are these pots. The quart and pint Yorkshire, these are distinguished by many wear a broad cummerbund, while the only (two) bands round the base, alternately convex and half pints I have seen are plain. Very distinctive concave; and the almost cylindrical body. The points are the delicate fully curved handle with crank handle has the attention lower attach­ long trailer, and the few simple mouldings of ment, diamond-shaped. The lip sometimes

Figure 10. Yorkshire. Note the strong family features, and the differences. Probably c.1800 although the pint (right), particularly, looks much earlier.

Figure 11. Liverpool. Charming little half pint. Figure 12. Bristol and Bewdley. One fairly prolific Other examples vary a little, but are easily recog­ Bewdley maker threw in his lot with Britol fashion. nised c .1820-25. Very sensible base for stability. c .1830+ .

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 401 flares out slightly. Probably c.1800-1820. tails will tell you most - apart from makers' Figure 12. Yet another regional type flares marks and various verifications, for which we out at the base of truncated cones a little later. have no space here. (British Pewter & Britannia These are from BRISTOL (and Bewdley) and Metal carries a verification district/number table are not scarce. (Bristol makers were enterpris­ - see brief references at end.) They run from ing and occasionally you may corne across in­ quart to half pint, with rare gills. teresting varieties.) Figure 14. Obviously a sub-style but more Figure 13. The TRUNCATED CONE had a truly measures - but as I use one habitually for very long run. We have mentioned it a couple of horne-brew thev are included - are the times, with no fillet, which it probably adopted HEAVY.RIMMED pots, first c.1830 with about 1815. Then it ran almost unchanged for pewter rims, latterly with brass rims, c.1860+. about fifty years. The metal and the handle de- It is curious that the latter bear the much earlier

Figure 13. Truncated Cone. Cumbersome title, but Figure 14. Heavy rimmed measure. Although rein­ descriptive visually. Probably the most common forced for use as a measure they are pleasant drinking type, but there are many variations of detail to be pots, c.1830. At about 1860 the heavy pewter lip was seen. See how many subsequent types were made replaced by a lighter but stronger brass lip. These late from the moulds inverted. examples carry the otherwise earlier ball terminal.

Figure 15. "U" and Fillet. Very dignified, and are Figure 16. Two Band. The incised bands supplanted of the earlier years of the 19th century perhaps the fillet shown in figure 15 and, while the same some earlier. moulds were used, the types look quite different, and I think usage only, not manufacture, overlapped.

Vol. 7, 3179, p. 402 ball terminal to the handle - alone. Quart to some of these are pre-Imperial, some just after. half pint. In fact, in silver they date from c.1770. Beau­ Figure 15. "U" & FILLET is very dig­ tifully made, of superb alloy, they only disap­ nified, always with the broken handle, and may point in the weak appearance of the top, where have run from c. 1790-c. 1830. The earlier ap­ there is no lip, or bead; and this is accentuated pear to be a shade more squat. The same body, by the surfeit of narrow mOUldings round the but looking completely different, is the TWO base. I have several with markings indicating BAND (figure 16). The illustrations clearly manufacture from c.1800-1826. They reappear show the distinctiveness. Both run from quart to c.1850 as trophies for rowing, shooting and gill. The gill size in all types is sometimes en­ athletics. graved as a birth or Christening gift. Figure 18. I think that the most attractive Figure 17. Perhaps it may be a surprise to 19th century pot is the BUCKET AND RIDGE bring in GLASS BOTTOM pots here, but - a little more ornate than other styles, but to me it typifies the better Victorian design. They appear with fillet in pint and half pint, seldom in the quart until they appear later without fillet but with rectangular handle which, although looking late, was in evidence from about 1835 at the latest, probably earlier. I also have a gill without fillet, but these are rare. Figure 19. The TULIP reappears. Rather stark. It has run from early 18th century (but do not claim this without good evidence). This runs from quart to, 'occasionally, the gill. Figure 20. The CONCAVE, so beloved by film and TV producers for Saxon to Victorian settings, is the most easily spotted of all the 19th century types, and has an almost unique handle which seldom appears elsewhere. This is the only style on which the pouring spout is practically never found. There are some re­ gional variations, for instance in Scotland the concave curve is broken by a convex hump round the base. I have never seen a gill, but the "barmaid's pot is not desperately uncommon. Figure 17. Glass Bottom. Always of superb metal. Finally, ending on a note of miserable dete­ But why, oh why, no lip? They look unfinished, and rioration - and not illustrated - is the are not pleasing to the mouth. The fussy plurality of base rings accentuates the bareness. But some are proved to be pre-1826.

Figure 18. Bucket and Ridge. How else to describe Figure 19. Tulip. A poor but accepted description. it? The earlier, c.1830+, carry the fillet, sometimes The bare body of the example, despite the gentle incised bands. Later, c.1860, and less pleasing aes­ shape, looks unfinished, perhaps because the later thetically, the fillet was omitted. ones were of harder metal, and are usually not de­ nted. These ran on into the 20th century.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 403 "square" handled truncated cone, without 4. Quart flat top Tankard by William Kirby,· bead, and its twin misery, the inverted truncated New York C. 1760-1793. Mark Laughlin cone with loop handle. These are c.1890+. plate #502. References: 6. 16" Dish by Francis Bassett 1 or 11, New British Pewter, R. F. Michaelis (Ward Lock, York. Marks illustrated Laughlin plate # 's out of print). 459, 460 which are from the same dish. British Pewter & Britannia Metal, Christopher Plate #459 is only recorded example of this A. Peal (Gifford, £2.50). mark. Let's Collect Pewter, Christopher A. Peal (Jar­ 7. I1lh" Basin by Thomas S. Derby, rolds, 50p - this is confined to 19th century). Middletown, Conn. C. 1816-1820 described Laughlin pages 135, 136. Marks illustrated Laughlin plate #441 from the same basin. Should any member have any knowledge of, or be offered any of these important pieces, please contact Mr. James Laughlin C!t the above address or notify your editor.

Webster Goodwin

Manning, Bowman and Company by William O. Blaney

Have you ever bought a piece of pewter on the spur of the moment, and on bringing it home have your spouse say "What in the world did you buy that for?" Well I have (did) and it started me wondering if I still had all my mar­ bles. That, in this instance, is the britannia pint Figure 20. Concave. The concavity varies, and mug with glass bottom pictured in Figure 1 be­ probably the squarer examples are the earlier. Note low. particularly the handle and thumbrest. c.1850+.

Stolen!!! We have been informed that the following pieces of pewter from the Ledlie I. Laughlin Collection have been stolen from Mr. James Laughlin, Drakes Corner Road, Princeton, N.J.: 1. Coffee Pot: Height overall 15%", top diam­ eter 4%" bottom diameter 4lh/l, greatest width of bowl 6/1. Colonel William Will, Philadelphia, C. 1764-1798, mark plate #541. Splendid tall coffee pot, the only form of American coffee pot of the 18th century that is known to have survived. This is so described and illustrated plate #187. 2. Trifoot pear shape Creamer; Height overall 4 'VB" by Peter Young, New York and Albany. Mark L. #524. Same piece illustrated . Laughlin plate #202. C. 1775-1795. Fig. 1. Britannia pint mug with glass bottom made by Manning, Bowman & Co., Middletown, Conn., 15 3. Pair of Chalices by Timothy Brigden, Al­ w.c.1850 - c.1875. Height 4%"; Top diameter; 3 / bany, New York. Mark illustrated Laughlin 16"; Bottom diameter: 4lh"; Capacity to brim: a plate #519. Circa 1816-1819. generous 18 U.S. Fluid ounces. Author's collection.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 404 On reconsidering the entire matter, it seemed those of better design. And they undoubtedly to me that the mug did have a few assets, al­ will receive greater attention as the years roll by though it certainly cannot be compared with the and Victorian styles again become more popu­ straight-sided mugs of the 18th and early 19th lar. centuries so greatly coveted by American col­ The Manning, Bowman & Co. firm is men­ lectors. First, it bears the mark of an American tioned but briefly in both Laughlin's Pewter In maker - Manning, Bowman & Co. of America and Jacobs' Guide To American Pe~t'­ Middletown, Connecticut - stamped incuse on fer, along with E. B. Manning and Thaddeus the lower of the two basal rims which support Manning, but in neither instance is it divulged and hold the glass bottom. The lettering, how­ whether the Manning in Manning, Bowman & ever, is so lightly struck and small it cannot be Co. was E. B. or Thaddeus (or both), nor is Mr. seen unless placed under the most favorable Bowman identified. Both sources show little en­ lighting conditions, as will be evident in Figure thusiasm for any of their products. Personally, I 2 (provided our printer reproduces the photo­ have seen and recorded a number of teapots by graph properly). this group and can only report their designs should have been left in the melting pot. I remove from this characterization, how­ ever, the britannia pint mug with glass bottom discussed above. It is well made and of good metal, as are its English cousins. It qualifies as an "antique" per Uncle Sam's current defini­ tion. And the chances of its value increasing in future years seem fairly good. But for the time being, at least, this spur-of-the-moment pur­ chase probably should remain in the "non­ collectable" category, with its present status being classed as a "conversation piece. " Yet I still feel it is worth the fifteen bucks I paid for it.

Fig. 2. Incuse touch of Manning, Bowman & Co. on bottom of pint mug shown in Figure 1.

Also, the mug is free of the atrocious Victorian decorations so prevalent on most products manufactured during the years 1850- 1875 when the firm of Manning, Bowman & Co. was working. And its simple scrolled hol­ low handle with flat tongued thumbrest, remi­ niscent of earlier designs, gives it a bit more "class" than otherwise might be expected. Glass bottoms, of course, have been sneezed at by many a collector, past and present, being thought of as a late 19th and early 20th century feature. So it may come as a surprise to many to know glass bottoms originated much earlier. Our honorary member, Christopher A. Peal, wrote an article on "English Pewter Pots" which appeared in a recent issue of ANTIQUE FINDER (a British publication) in which he stated that glass-bottomed pots in silver are known from c. 1770, that he owns a number of similar examples in pewter bearing marks which indicate manufacture from c. 1800-1826, and that these "reappeared c. 1850 as trophies for rowing, shooting and athletics. " This latter classification (numerous engraved examples of which may be found in flea markets, garage sales, etc.) probably is the reason why they have been "outlawed" by pewter collectors. But if we exclude the engraved trophy-type of mugs, the plain unmarked ones undoubtedly should be given more consideration, especially.

Vol. 7, 3/79, p. 405