01-14-2014 11:53 AM
I have this 4 pc Service. I believe it to be Silverplate. It has at least 7 hallmarks on bottom of each piece. All pieces are in very good condition, except for cleaning & polishing. I don't know the Pattern, each pc.is numbered 6032.
Coffee Pot - 11 1/2" tall - Tea Pot - 9" tall - Sugar Bowl (no cover) 5 1/2" tall - Creamer 6 1/2" tall
I am also sending pictures.
Would like to know more infomation about set.
Date of Manufacture?
What is Pattern?
Should I clean it or leave it as is?
What is it worth and what is a good starting price for Auction?
Thank you for any help you can give me.
01-14-2014 12:08 PM
Can't see a thing in that picture. Terrible lack of focus. Got anything better?
Are you going to attach pictures of the pieces too? Can't really comment with some.
01-14-2014 12:12 PM
Although Martin Hall & Co. did work with sterling, yours are silverplate marks, as fuzzy as they are.
Martin Hall marks...
You should be able to date yours by the info in the link.
01-14-2014 01:26 PM
Thank you Sue for the link, I have been working on this all day and couldn't find anything.
I am almost sure it is from 1854.
Thank you again.
P.S. I don't know how to put up more than one picture at a time, can you help?
01-14-2014 02:46 PM
01-14-2014 07:24 PM - edited 01-14-2014 07:25 PM
FWIW, I agree with Sue on it being one of Martin Hall's silverplate marks. I can make out the MH & Co. in the shield mark. Your marks look very similar to some of his silverplate marks on that page she had linked.
>I am almost sure it is from 1854.<
Hmmmm, as far as I know one can't tell a date from his silverplate marks or most silverplate markings. The British sterling hallmarks have a date code letter, but not the silverplate marks. Possibly the letter markings in the shield might give a clue to a date, but seeing the item in its entirety is a very good way to judge timeframe.
>I don't know how to put up more than one picture at a time, can you help?<
Take Mikey's advise on using the green tree icon on the reply toolbar. It is the 2nd icon to the right of the smiley face. You really should crop and resize your pictures ***before** uploading/inserting/attaching to a message. They should not be over 250KB in weight and no wider than 600px. Many people will not bother to wait for such huge pictures to load resulting in the lost of advice/info. Yours are:
Weight-wise: 1.13 MB = 1,165.63 KB = 1,193,601 bytes
Dimension-wise: 1,591px wide × 2,114px high (scaled to 812px wide × 1,079px high)
Hi, to Baker, Sue and Mikey!!!
01-14-2014 07:41 PM
>as far as I know one can't tell a date from his silverplate marks or most silverplate markings.<
I apologize. I now see where you are getting the 1854 date, from that "Chronology: listing of the company name. I see it has Martin Hall & Co. (1854). As it has "Martin Hall & Co Ltd (1866-1936)" following, the "Martin Hall & Co" name was from 1854-1866. Now there is always a good possibility the MH & Co. stamp was used after 1866, and we are not sure just when or if they had a shield punch made with the addition of "Ltd." That page doesn't have an example of a shield punch with "Ltd." It does show a 4 lobe punch with Ltd. as part of a sterling mark. Your best bet would be to give a time date of 1854 - c1870s. Again want to stress do show us the item.
Hi, to Brad! Missed you in my previous reply.
01-16-2014 01:45 PM
I am surprised you have not had any response to this as of yet. I am no expert on this kind of thing but will give it a stab. I don't see your mark information as being conclusive but this does look like it could be from the mid 19th century or just abit later based on style. I have been trying to pin down the style without much luck. I kind of get a Spanish vibe from this..... the best I can do.
Some of the Victorian silverplate services do pretty well on ebay. Others sell for less than $100.00. Older and ornate seems to be better than later and simple. The best comparable I could come up with in sold listings is this set.......
Other than the pot on stand, I like your set better. I also think this looks over-polished to my eye. There is a nice larger old ornate set in current listings that someone is asking over 5K on (300934000146). It may be more comparabe in style to your set. I see no evidence that it is sterling so I don't know where they are getting their asking price from. I am sure there are other sets you could do some comparisons to with a little more digging.
01-16-2014 02:53 PM
Based on several design elements without seeing another exact set, my best guess is right around 1860.
That guess is based on looking at all the examples of sets shown in Rainwater's American Silverplate book. There is a Meriden Britannia Co. teapot on pg.105 with several similar design elements and dates to 1861.
I have little experience dated by style on my own. All I can do is rely on given examples and marks that are datable. I have made many bad guesses in the past, so take it with a grain of salt.
This being British and not American, would the style predate like American pieces?
01-16-2014 02:58 PM
Thank you for the information. I looked at both sets, the one that is still up says Silver, but there are no hallmarks, is there something I'm missing. I am new at this, so I like to gather all the info I can get. I am not in a hurry to get rid of it. I'm watching it.
Thanks again for answering so quickly.
01-16-2014 03:26 PM
I don't think you are missing anything. I think they are deluded that this is sterling despite contrary information. The asking price is beyond wishful thinking and I probably would not have posted it except it seems to be of similar age to yours and of an equally ornate pattern.
01-16-2014 03:33 PM
When doing comparisons, you need to get as close to apples to apples as you can. I think you need to compare to early Victorian ornate silverplate sets. Certain styles are more in demand right now such as the Aesthetic period, Art Nouveau, and Art Deco. Do not compare to these sets. Also do not compare to sought after brands and patterns by certain makers. For example there are several Christofle sets that did well. This is a sought after maker so not a good comparison. I am also seeing several Reed and Barton sets with known patterns doing well. I would think this has more to do with wanting the particular pattern rather than any intrinsic value to Reed and Barton silverplate or general desireability.
01-16-2014 03:41 PM
>...similar design elements and dates to 1861...<
I also think around that time, Sue. I didn't realize there were still serious questions on the age of this set because of my reply (message #4) to the OP's suggestion of 1854 (message #6). The vicinity of the mid 1850s to the 1860s would certainly fit in with the company's chronological name changes that were listed on that link Sue supplied on Martin, Hall and Co. (message #3). The list on that webpage says that the company name was changed to "Martin Hall & Co (1854)" in 1854. I went on to say in my reply that the name was used from 1854 to 1866 when the name was changed again. The 1861 date on the design elements fits into that time slot. I would think a timeframe of 1854 to the 1860s would be apropriate.
>the one that is still up says Silver, but there are no hallmarks, is there something I'm missing.<
Silverplated or sterling can both be still called silver, but there needs to be a following discrimination between them with plated or sterling. British hallmarks are used on their silver that is **not** silverplated. Their hallmarks are used on their solid silver - like their .925 silver purity that is equal to our sterling. The US doesn't use hallmarks. Hallmarks are used by many countries around the world. The silver service that Brad linked to is by Reed and Barton, an American company, meaning if it was sterling (which it is not) it would have no hallmarks because the US doesn't use them. The seller jazzed up the description with the words "...heavy .925 silver over." .925 is sterling silver but only a layer of it was used on top of another metal = silverplate. Silverplate consists of a layering of sterling silver on top of another metal.