SALE PRICES

SALE PRICESPrices are always problematical. Specimens vary according to state, and other factors determining the price per ounce at which they are sold. Some of the following prices obtained at auction may be of interest to readers:—STANDING CUPS.These are among the most sumptuous pieces of English silver. Prices always range high.£Tudor cup,6 oz. 15 dwt. (1525)880”on foot, 14 oz. 3 dwts. (1521)4,130”and cover (James I) (1640), 66 oz.4,000Standing cup,Charles I, 470s. per oz.82”Charles II, 1 oz. 13 dwts., 520s. per oz.42Loving-cup,Charles II (1678), 170s. per oz.69”William and Mary (1688), 165s. per oz.88”Queen Anne (1703), 120s. per oz.140TANKARDS.£James I tankard (1504)1,720Elizabethan tankard and cover (1599), 21 oz. 15 dwt. (a record price)2,300Elizabethan (Huth sale) (1573)1,700Charles I plain tankard (1629), 750s. per oz.667Plain tankard; York; maker, Marmaduke Best (1671), 195s. per oz.234Commonwealth (1649), maker AF., 290s. per oz.413The range of prices is: Commonwealth, about £20 per oz.; Charles II, £8 to £10 per oz.; William and Mary, £4 per oz.; Anne, £2 per oz.; George I, 20s. per oz.BEAKERS.£Henry VII, silver-gilt (1496), 6 oz. 16 dwt. sold in 19021,270Elizabethan (1599), 490s. per oz.197Charles I (1635), 315s. per oz.73Charles II (1662), 290s. per oz.46William III (1699), 170s. per oz.66WINE CUPS.£Elizabethan goblet, 7 oz., 530s. per oz.188Charles I, wine cup (1638), 3 oz. 14 dwts.88Commonwealth Goblet (1650); maker, HS., 800s. per oz.118PUNCH-BOWLS.£William III “Monteith” (1701), 100s. per oz.398Queen Anne “Monteith” (1705), 70s. per oz.267Punch-bowl (1750), 23s. per oz.15IVTHESALT CELLAR

Prices are always problematical. Specimens vary according to state, and other factors determining the price per ounce at which they are sold. Some of the following prices obtained at auction may be of interest to readers:—

STANDING CUPS.

These are among the most sumptuous pieces of English silver. Prices always range high.

£Tudor cup,6 oz. 15 dwt. (1525)880”on foot, 14 oz. 3 dwts. (1521)4,130”and cover (James I) (1640), 66 oz.4,000Standing cup,Charles I, 470s. per oz.82”Charles II, 1 oz. 13 dwts., 520s. per oz.42Loving-cup,Charles II (1678), 170s. per oz.69”William and Mary (1688), 165s. per oz.88”Queen Anne (1703), 120s. per oz.140

TANKARDS.

£James I tankard (1504)1,720Elizabethan tankard and cover (1599), 21 oz. 15 dwt. (a record price)2,300Elizabethan (Huth sale) (1573)1,700Charles I plain tankard (1629), 750s. per oz.667Plain tankard; York; maker, Marmaduke Best (1671), 195s. per oz.234Commonwealth (1649), maker AF., 290s. per oz.413

The range of prices is: Commonwealth, about £20 per oz.; Charles II, £8 to £10 per oz.; William and Mary, £4 per oz.; Anne, £2 per oz.; George I, 20s. per oz.

BEAKERS.

£Henry VII, silver-gilt (1496), 6 oz. 16 dwt. sold in 19021,270Elizabethan (1599), 490s. per oz.197Charles I (1635), 315s. per oz.73Charles II (1662), 290s. per oz.46William III (1699), 170s. per oz.66

WINE CUPS.

£Elizabethan goblet, 7 oz., 530s. per oz.188Charles I, wine cup (1638), 3 oz. 14 dwts.88Commonwealth Goblet (1650); maker, HS., 800s. per oz.118

PUNCH-BOWLS.

£William III “Monteith” (1701), 100s. per oz.398Queen Anne “Monteith” (1705), 70s. per oz.267Punch-bowl (1750), 23s. per oz.15

THESALT CELLAR

CHAPTER IVTHE SALT CELLAREarly salt cellars—The standing salt—The hour-glass form—The bell-shaped salt—The seventeenth century—octagonal and circular types—The eighteenth century—trencher salts—Tripod salts—The openwork style with glass liner—The evolution of form in the salt cellar of the later periods.Inthe old days when costume determined the gentle from the simple, when demarcations of rank were definitely pronounced, when men wore feathers in their hats and swords at their sides, when retainers and menials sat at the same board with their lord and lady, the customs of the table were not our customs. It was only in Elizabeth’s day, when dinner was served at a long table, that the oaken floor replaced rushes. The diners threw bones to the dogs, and although sweet sounds came from the musician’s gallery, the scene one may recall is one rather of barbaric splendour than of luxurious refinement. To him who loves to quicken the dry bones of collecting into something pulsating with life, the salt cellar provides a delight which is not easily equalled. It was an honoured guest at every feast. It was the social thermometer which marked theexact degree of rank of the sitters. Persons of distinction sat above the salt, and between it and the head of the table. Those who sat below the salt were dependents and inferior guests.If only these salt cellars reproduced as illustrations could give tongue to the secrets they caught in whisper from the upper end of the table before the withdrawing chamber, prototype of our modern drawing-room, became a necessity! If walls had ears, and if the salt cellars of Tudor England or of the stormy days of the Stuarts could have been fitted with American gramophone wax cylinders, the by-ways of secret history would be less tangled to the historian.Had this been the case, modern millionaires would have been in competition with one another to secure precious records, as it is only a rich man who can afford to gather together a representative collection of old salt cellars. But for all that, the collector with small means, who is less ambitious, may obtain specimens that are of exceptional interest, and in his quest he may, even in these days when collectors scour Europe, come across an example which may be antique.As may be imagined, these “salts” are very varied in character. They may be of silver, of earthenware, or of ivory. They may be of simple form with little to distinguish them artistically, or, on the other hand, of such intricate design and rare workmanship as to make them superb examples of the art of the jeweller or silversmith.STANDING SALT CELLAR. GOTHIC PERIOD.c.1500.Hour-glass form. Height 9¹/₄ in. From a drawing by De la Motte.(At Christ’s College, Cambridge.)Take, for instance, the salt cellar sold at Christie’s in 1902 for £3,000. It was only 7⁵/₈ inches in height. It is silver-gilt, bearing the London hall-mark for 1577, and the maker’s mark, a hooded falcon, probably the work of Thomas Bampton, of the “Falcon.” The receptacle for the salt is of rock crystal, and the base stands upon claw feet, which are of crystal. The cover is square, having a circular dome top, above which stands a delicately modelled figure of a cherub as an apex.A standing salt of the time of James I, with the London hall-mark for 1613, was sold at Christie’s in 1903 for £1,150. The height of this is 11³/₈ inches, and beyond its special value on account of its age and rarity, its form is not possessed of greater elegance than many a lowly pepper caster whose presence it would scorn on the same board.From the rare Henri II majolica of the sixteenth century to the humble trencher salt, the range of salt cellars is a comprehensive one. The most sumptuous examples, set in a magnificence of chased design exhibiting the finest craftsmanship of the goldsmith and silversmith, command high prices on account of their rarity, and old salts of exceptional character place their collecting in the hands of the elect whose cabinets are known all over the world. But there are many lesser examples of the silversmith’s work, and it is not yet too late to acquire pieces suggestive of days when at the table “the jest was crowned at the upper end and the lower half made echo.”The City Companies possess many fine examples, and among the college plate at Oxford and Cambridge there are many unequalled specimens of thehigh-standing old salts. There is the silver-gilt plain salt presented by Roger Dunster to the Clothworkers’ Company in 1641, and another a drum-shaped salt, silver-gilt, the “Guift of Daniel Waldo, Clothworker, Esquire, ano1660.” Then there is the circular salt and cover, 22 inches high, of the Goldsmiths’ Company, with the date letter of the year 1601, which was “the guift of Richard Rogers, Comptroller of His MajtiesMynt” ... “desiring the same may bee used at their solemne meetings and to bee remembered as a good benefactor, anno dni1632.” This salt has a body of glass, round which are two silver-gilt collars in chased and repoussé work. The Goldsmiths’ Company have other salts, notably one the “Gift of Thomas Seymour” in 1693. The Haberdashers’ Company have a circular salt the gift of Sir Hugh Hammersley in 1636. The Innholders’ Company have two circular salts the gift of John Wetterworth in 1626, and a circular salt, silver-gilt, 16 inches high, with a dome raised on four scrolls, terminated by an obelisk, the gift of Anne, widow of John Sweete, 1635. The Ironmongers’ Company have two fine silver salts, parcel gilt, shaped like hour-glasses, having six-foiled sides, in three of which is foliage engraved. The date of one is 1518 and of the other 1522. The Skinners’ Company have a silver-gilt octagonal salt 9 inches high, the gift of Ben Albin, a member, in 1676. The Mercers’ Company salts we are enabled to illustrate by courteous permission. The Vintners’ Company have a fine silver-gilt salt, the gift of John Powel, Master of the Company, in 1702. It is like a square casket in form, withpanels richly decorated in bold relief with figures, and the cover surmounted by an urn upon which stands a female figure.ELIZABETHAN BELL-SHAPED SALT CELLAR.Having compartments for salt and spices. On three ball feet. London 1601. Decorated with designs of roses in flat chasing in upright panels.(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)Some rare examples are in the possession of corporate bodies. There is the silver-gilt salt and cover, 15¹/₄ inches high, belonging to the Corporation of Norwich. This is, as the inscription indicates, “The Gyfte of Petar Reade Esqviar.” The plate marks are a roman capital letter D, the arms of Norwich, and a cross mound within a lozenge. It was made at Norwich, and its date is not later than 1568, for Peter Reade died in that year.Then there is the wonderful Ashburnham salt cellar and cover of the time of Henry VII, the earliest standing salt, 12¹/₂ inches high, bearing the London hall-mark of the year 1508, and the maker’s mark, a rising sun. This was bought by Messrs. Crichton Brothers for £5,600.Later salt cellars, while still being collectors’ pieces, depart from the older form when “below the salt” had no meaning. The old silver salt cellars of Queen Anne and Georgian days are another story. The elegance of form and the quaint reticence of design make them desirable acquisitions for any modern dining-table.During the past twenty years, when the furniture of Chippendale and of Sheraton has been collected with such avidity to refurnish old homes and to give age to modern mansions, the demand for old silver accessories of the table has been equally great. In consequence, spurious silver of later date, with the old hall-marks cunningly inserted, has appeared in greatquantities. As a warning to the collector of “old salts,” it cannot too strongly be urged that in his earliest flights he should consult a friend who has passed through the same stages before him. The same advice is, unfortunately, necessary in connection with collecting old china and old furniture. The literature of these two subjects is more ready to hand, and there are many popular handbooks designed to set the feet of the novice in collecting on the right path. In silver collecting there is always a sure road. In furniture or in china there is no puissant company of furniture experts or china moralists. The buyer may be advised to use his common sense and demand that the dealer put on the invoice the exact description of the goods he is selling. If after expert advice the purchaser finds he has been deceived, he has his remedy in a court of law. But with silver, there are the hall-marks determined by law for the protection of the public. The Goldsmiths’ Company exist to safeguard the public against fraud, and their honourable traditions extend, as we have seen, over four hundred years. If any buyer has any doubt as to the London marks or the provincial marks on a piece of silver he has purchased, it is easy to establish their authenticity. If, for instance, the mark is a London one, the Goldsmiths’ Company would obviously be pleased to discover the identity of any one counterfeiting their ancient marks. They have statutory powers to inflict fines on persons convicted of such malpractices, and in the public interest they would naturally prosecute inquiries as to how false marks came to beplaced on silver purporting to be assayed by an old and honourable company.CIRCULAR SALT CELLAR.Silver-gilt. Dated 1638, and having London hall-mark of that date.Greatest height 6³/₁₆ in.Engraved with the arms of the Mercers’ Company and the arms of John Dethick, the donor.(See marks illustratedp. 365.)(By courtesy of the Mercers’ Company.)You may search the chronological tables of the statutes through and through, and you will find nothing relative to punishments specially laid down to meet the case of fabricators of old furniture or old china, but in regard to forging old silver marks there are a multitude of protective measures. There is reform needed in the laws relating to silver, and urgently needed. We offer this suggestion to some Member of Parliament bursting to distinguish himself. It was urgently recommended by the Committee of 1856, and a Bill was prepared by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in 1857, but nothing came of it. The Select Committee of the House of Commons, again, in 1879 made further recommendations, but no restrictive measure has ever been laid before Parliament. “There is much to say for the old demand of the Goldsmiths’ Company for further powers of enforcing the law than the mere right to sue for penalties. Sales by auction now take place with practical impunity, no matter how spurious and debased the goods may be, and there is evidence and to spare to show that the general sense of the trade and the public is in favour of the preservations of the old guarantee.”The study of salt cellars suggests a flying word on the salt spoon. To quote from an essay by Addison, dated 1711, theSpectatorsays, in an account he gives of dining with a fine lady: “In the midst of these my Musings she desires me to reach her a little Salt upon the point of my Knife, which I did in suchTrepidation and hurry of Obedience, that I let it drop by the way, at which she immediately startled and said it fell towards her. Upon this I looked very blank; and, observing the Concern of the whole Table, began to consider myself with some confusion, as a person that had brought some Disaster upon the Family.” This is a pretty picture of eighteenth century “high life.” The superstition concerning the spilling of salt is still with us, but helping salt with a knife is no longer in fashion in “polite society.”In general salt cellars may be classified as follows, commencing with the Standing Salt, with its determination of rank as to those who sat above the salt and those who sat below it:—Standing Salts.—The earliest are shaped like hour-glasses. These belong to the fifteenth and first half of sixteenth century.Cylindrical and casket forms, with rich ornamentation in repoussé work, with chased figures and surmounted by cover with standing figure, are found in the sixteenth century.E.g.the Standing Salt, part of the Stoke Prior treasure, dated 1563 (at the Victoria and Albert Museum).The Bell-shaped Salt is of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, and the tall Steeple Salt belongs to the same period. The above types often had compartments in tiers reserved for spices.The circular and octagonal forms of lesser height, with three and sometimes four guards with scroll ends, belong to the seventeenth century.OCTAGONAL SALT CELLAR.With four guards. London, 1679.Having the arms of the company and inscribed “Ex dono Henrici Sumner. Mr.” This is known as the Sumner Salt, the gift of the Master of that date.Greatest height 8³/₈ in.(For marks seep. 357.)(By courtesy of the Mercers’ Company.)Trencher Salts.—These were in use contemporaneously with the tall standing salts, either on less formal occasions or at the lower end of the table belowthesalt.Early forms in the first half of the seventeenth century are circular (1603) or triangular (1630). These were diminutive, measuring only some 3 inches across, and being sometimes only 1 inch high.Eighteenth-century Salts.—A great variety of form is apparent, and many styles succeeded each other, disappearing only to be revived a quarter of a century later. Circular (1698-1710), oval, octagonal (1715-40), tripod (1750). Circular with three feet; oblong and octagonal, slightly taller (1775), with pierced work on four feet, and with glass liner. Oblong, plain, with four feet. Tureen-shaped or boat-shaped, plain, with swelling foot, sometimes with rings as handles, or with two handles (1780). Shell-shaped salts in vogue 1788; circular, vase-shaped, with lions’ heads and tripod feet (1798).Early Nineteenth-century Salts.—George IV and William IV styles, a reversion to some of the older types. The tureen and the circular-shaped salt, with four or threefeet (1820-1830). Circular bowls on stands, with tripod and elaborate feet, the fashion (1810-1830). Many pieces betray classical influence.The illustrations of the various types of salt cellars should be sufficient to indicate to the reader the great field which is open to him. The examples range from the rarer earlier periods to the beginning of the nineteenth century. The descriptions given of the successive stages in fashion and in design should stimulate the interest of the student in regard to the undercurrents of evolution progressive, and often retrogressive, through three centuries of the silversmith’s art.The standing salt, in hour-glass form, of the Gothic period at Christ’s College, Cambridge, illustrated (page 143), is in date about 1500. Its height is 9¹/₄ inches. It belongs to that great period of Henry VII. It is contemporary with the magnificent chapel in Westminster Abbey. It has survived the spoliation of the days of Henry VIII. Its perfect symmetry, its delicate ornament, its exquisite grace delight the eye. There is nothing redundant, nothing that calls for amendment. It stands as a perfect creation of the English silversmith. The unwritten, and never to be written, history of such a piece is not the least which appeals to us nowadays. We may revere the exquisite craft of the designer. But there is a tribute we owe to the sagacious custodians who, possibly in fear of death, preserved this for posterity. Its hiding-places, itsnarrow escapes, its glorious emerging into the light of day, to occupy a niche, almost sacred, in modern regard, these are happenings that cannot be chronicled. As an historic relic, a page remaining from the old history of these realms, such an example claims adoration.A fine bell salt is illustrated (page 147). It is on three ball feet. It has the London mark, the letter D in Lombardic capitals, for 1601. It is decorated in upright panels, with flat chasing with floral design of roses. It is constructed in compartments for salt and spices and pepper. These bell salts belong to the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century; they are mostly on three feet. At the Dunn-Gardner sale, in 1902, £600 was paid for a specimen. They stand, in point of time, between the hour-glass form and the steeple salts. Few appear to have been made, or, at any rate, few are now in existence, and in consequence they bring great prices on account of their rarity.The ring at the top is noticeable, mainly as the prototype of the ring-handle of cruets, with the same contents now in use three hundred years afterwards. And the ball foot, peculiar to the silversmith as something especially applicable to his technique is still retained in silver cruets of to-day.The circular Stuart salt cellar comes straight from the days of Charles I. It has the date letter for 1638. See Marks illustratedpage 365. This salt stood on the Mercers’ Company table in 1642—eventful year, when Charles was misguided enoughto go in person to the House of Commons with his guards to arrest the five members. This was the signal for the Civil War. The salt cellar we now see was hurriedly put in the vaults of the Mercers’ Company. The trained-bands of London were up. The city declared for the Parliament, and Charles raised his standard at Nottingham. John Dethick, the donor, may have fought in the civic cause. Here is the salt he gave to his Company in those stirring days, an illustration of which we are enabled to produce by the courtesy of the Mercers’ Company. It has three handles with scroll ends. It is an important piece. It is silver-gilt, and engraved with the arms of the Mercers’ Company and the arms and crest of John Dethick.The octagonal salt illustrated (p. 155) shows the style of Charles II. It has four handles with scroll ends. These handles were for supporting a napkin which was placed around the salt. It is of the year 1679, and the marks are illustrated onpage 357. It is inscribed, “Ex dono henrici Sumner Mr.” This is known as the Sumner Salt, and Henry Sumner, the donor, was Master of the Mercers’ Company at that date. Its diameter is 9¹/₂ inches and its greatest height is 8³/₈ inches. This is the year of theHabeas Corpus Act. This Act defines the liberties of the subject. All prisoners except those charged with felony or treason can demand that they be brought before a judge to test the validity of their detention. All persons charged with felony or treason must be tried at the next sessions or else admitted to bail, or, failing this, be discharged. No person couldbe recommitted for the same offence and no person imprisoned beyond the sea. Heavy penalties were imposed on those who violated this Act.SPECIMENS OF EARTHENWARE SALT CELLARS.LAMBETH DELFT SALT CELLAR.Late seventeenth century. Height 4¹/₂ in.ROUEN FAIENCE SALT CELLAR.Early eighteenth century. Height 3 in.(In collection of author.)Contemporary with the silversmith’s work it is interesting to notice in passing what the potter was doing. We illustrate (p. 161) a Lambeth delft salt cellar of the late seventeenth century. Its height is only 4¹/₂ inches. It simulates the silver style. The guards or handles are more shell-like in form than those of the silversmith. The technique of the potter with his twisting of the plastic clay is responsible of this. But the furniture maker of the period has something to add, too, in regard to this form of ornament. In his technique it is termed the “Spanish foot.” It appears in feet and in the scrolls of handles for chairs.A salt cellar of Rouen faience is illustrated (p. 161) of the early eighteenth century. In height this is 3 inches. It shows the square form, with slight depressed surface at apex for the salt, as though the salt were a rare commodity. It is interesting, and should help the student to cast his eyes farther afield in attempting to arrive at conclusions in regard to definite styles.Of Trencher salts there is much to say. All that is not poetry is prose, as Monsieur Jourdain found out. A salt may be Standing—that is, it may be a ceremonial piece demanding the ritual of its order—or it may be a mere trencher salt; the name indicates its usage. Instead of being among the great folk, it was among the dependents at the lower stratum of the table. Trencher salts were once menial in theearlier periods, but as time went on the great standing salt disappeared and trencher salts became general for gentle and simple.Throughout the eighteenth century, from Queen Anne to George IV (1820), and in succeeding years the salts were all trencher salts—because there were none other.In the early days trencher salts were associated with servility or with dependence, but later the salt at the elbow of the master of the feast carried with it nothing derogatory.From Queen Anne, 1702, to the end of the reign of George I, 1727, little difference is noticeable and the lowly trencher salt changes very slightly. It is oblong or it becomes octagonal. But in practical form it is substantially the same. Two specimens exhibiting this are given (p. 165).The circular salts, with three feet, belong to the early George III period. The feet in these are in hoof form with cone-shaped terminals (see illustration,p. 165).The early George III period exhibits other varieties of the salt cellar. There was the wire-work cellar with cast additions, and the pierced and cut sheet silver. Most of these types are oblong in shape and were designed to receive a glass liner. These specimens are usually with four feet. The example dated 1769 is of wire work. The other example adjacent with floral wreath, dated 1785, is in the French style, which became prevalent at the last quarter of the eighteenth century. The feet of these examples are usually claw-and-ball or lion’s paw feet. It may be interesting to note the contemporary styles of the chair maker. The same influences were at work governing the worker in wood and the craftsman in metal.TRENCHER SALTS.QUEEN ANNE. 1712.GEORGE II. 1730.CIRCULAR SALT WITH THREE FEET.EARLY GEORGE III. 1768.GEORGE III. 1785.Feet with hoof-shaped and cone-shaped terminals.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)SALTS WITH GLASS LINER AND FOUR FEET.EARLY GEORGE III. 1769.GEORGE III. 1785.Wire work with cast additions and pierced and cut sheet silver. Floral wreaths and chain period in French style. Claw and ball feet and lion’s paw feet.CIRCULAR SALT WITH THREE FEET.GEORGE III. 1786.Cloven hoof feet.OBLONG SALT WITH FOUR FEET.GEORGE III. 1789.Feet with club terminal.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)The cloven-hoof foot or the club terminal are found in the round shaped salt cellar in the same period or slightly later. Usually this type is found with three feet. This plain form dispenses with the glass liner.Towards the close of the eighteenth century the styles become varied. There is the tureen form, from which type many variations are based. Similarly the boat-shaped salt is typical of many similar plain designs of this nature—some with two handles.The examples illustrated (p. 171), in vogue from 1781 to 1797, show the generic type from which similar forms deviate.As in the above types the swelling foot is a feature, so with other examples, from 1789 to 1803, the foot disappears. The piece in date 1789, illustrated (p. 171), may be compared with similar circular forms made by the Staffordshire potters in lustreware for cottage use.The washing-tub shaped salt cellar, in date 1803, indicates the decadence of design. The opening years of the nineteenth century show these poor forms in replacement of the early designs.Specimens of the days of George IV and William IV (one in date 1820 and the other 1832) are illustrated (p. 173). Here is a reversion to older forms, the tureen shape with gadrooned edge and with four legs, and the circular form with three legs.Of the circular form the classic rotund urn or vase shape seized the fancy of the silversmith at variousperiods. As early as 1771 we find the form in the perforated work, with swags and classic ornamentation, rather suggestive of French fashions, and obviously intended for use with a glass liner. This is illustrated (p. 173), and adjacent is a piece dated 1810, made by Messrs. Rundell, Bridge, and Rundell, of the late George III period. It is important, as it is silver-gilt. It stands as typical of the attempt to popularize the Pompeiian forms. The winged figure, found on tables of the period, the tripod feet of club or goat-like form, the base with key-pattern ornament, stamp it as of the First Empire. George III was not yet dead, he was only insane, and Bonaparte had not been banished to St. Helena. In fact, Wellington was fighting in Spain, and Waterloo had yet to be fought in 1815. But here is a piece with the same artistic impulses as the chairs and tables at Fontainebleau.The story of the salt cellar comes to an end. Its customs and its dignities are lost except to those who love the delving into the record of the manners of past days, “now here, at upper end o’ the table, now i’ the middle.” The salt cellar has a complete history for three hundred years, and with its evolutionpari passuis the march of social custom.SALE PRICESSTANDING SALTS.£Elizabethan(1573), 10 oz.245”(1577), 13 oz. 18 dwts.720James I(bell-shaped)(1608)336””(1613)1,150GEORGE III SALTS WITH SWELLING FOOT.1781-1790.The tureen-form salt, from which type many variations are based.1791-1797.The boat shaped salt, typical of many similar plain designs, some with handles.THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE FOOT.GEORGE III. 1789.The circular salt. Simultaneously with this the Staffordshire potters made similar forms in lustre ware for cottage use.GEORGE III. 1803.The washing-tub salt. The decadence of design is shown in the opening years of nineteenth century, when poor forms replaced the early styles.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)REVERSION TO OLDER FORMS.GEORGE IV. 1820.WILLIAM IV. 1832.Three feet and four feet both employed.CIRCULAR SALT CELLARS IN VOGUE.GEORGE III. 1771.Perforated work with classic ornament.LATE GEORGE III. 1810.Made by Rundell, Bridge & Rundell.Attempt to adopt new forms, Pompeian and others; tripod feet very small.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)TRENCHER SALTS.£William and Mary, 235s. per oz.20William III (3) (1698), 132s. per oz.60Queen Anne(2), oval (1708), 165s. per oz.40”(2), circular (1713), 195s. per oz.28George I bring from 60s. to 80s. per oz.George II bring about 30s. to 40s. per oz. Sets of four and six bring higher prices per oz. After this date prices drop considerably.

THE SALT CELLAR

Early salt cellars—The standing salt—The hour-glass form—The bell-shaped salt—The seventeenth century—octagonal and circular types—The eighteenth century—trencher salts—Tripod salts—The openwork style with glass liner—The evolution of form in the salt cellar of the later periods.

Inthe old days when costume determined the gentle from the simple, when demarcations of rank were definitely pronounced, when men wore feathers in their hats and swords at their sides, when retainers and menials sat at the same board with their lord and lady, the customs of the table were not our customs. It was only in Elizabeth’s day, when dinner was served at a long table, that the oaken floor replaced rushes. The diners threw bones to the dogs, and although sweet sounds came from the musician’s gallery, the scene one may recall is one rather of barbaric splendour than of luxurious refinement. To him who loves to quicken the dry bones of collecting into something pulsating with life, the salt cellar provides a delight which is not easily equalled. It was an honoured guest at every feast. It was the social thermometer which marked theexact degree of rank of the sitters. Persons of distinction sat above the salt, and between it and the head of the table. Those who sat below the salt were dependents and inferior guests.

If only these salt cellars reproduced as illustrations could give tongue to the secrets they caught in whisper from the upper end of the table before the withdrawing chamber, prototype of our modern drawing-room, became a necessity! If walls had ears, and if the salt cellars of Tudor England or of the stormy days of the Stuarts could have been fitted with American gramophone wax cylinders, the by-ways of secret history would be less tangled to the historian.

Had this been the case, modern millionaires would have been in competition with one another to secure precious records, as it is only a rich man who can afford to gather together a representative collection of old salt cellars. But for all that, the collector with small means, who is less ambitious, may obtain specimens that are of exceptional interest, and in his quest he may, even in these days when collectors scour Europe, come across an example which may be antique.

As may be imagined, these “salts” are very varied in character. They may be of silver, of earthenware, or of ivory. They may be of simple form with little to distinguish them artistically, or, on the other hand, of such intricate design and rare workmanship as to make them superb examples of the art of the jeweller or silversmith.

STANDING SALT CELLAR. GOTHIC PERIOD.c.1500.Hour-glass form. Height 9¹/₄ in. From a drawing by De la Motte.(At Christ’s College, Cambridge.)

STANDING SALT CELLAR. GOTHIC PERIOD.c.1500.

Hour-glass form. Height 9¹/₄ in. From a drawing by De la Motte.

(At Christ’s College, Cambridge.)

Take, for instance, the salt cellar sold at Christie’s in 1902 for £3,000. It was only 7⁵/₈ inches in height. It is silver-gilt, bearing the London hall-mark for 1577, and the maker’s mark, a hooded falcon, probably the work of Thomas Bampton, of the “Falcon.” The receptacle for the salt is of rock crystal, and the base stands upon claw feet, which are of crystal. The cover is square, having a circular dome top, above which stands a delicately modelled figure of a cherub as an apex.

A standing salt of the time of James I, with the London hall-mark for 1613, was sold at Christie’s in 1903 for £1,150. The height of this is 11³/₈ inches, and beyond its special value on account of its age and rarity, its form is not possessed of greater elegance than many a lowly pepper caster whose presence it would scorn on the same board.

From the rare Henri II majolica of the sixteenth century to the humble trencher salt, the range of salt cellars is a comprehensive one. The most sumptuous examples, set in a magnificence of chased design exhibiting the finest craftsmanship of the goldsmith and silversmith, command high prices on account of their rarity, and old salts of exceptional character place their collecting in the hands of the elect whose cabinets are known all over the world. But there are many lesser examples of the silversmith’s work, and it is not yet too late to acquire pieces suggestive of days when at the table “the jest was crowned at the upper end and the lower half made echo.”

The City Companies possess many fine examples, and among the college plate at Oxford and Cambridge there are many unequalled specimens of thehigh-standing old salts. There is the silver-gilt plain salt presented by Roger Dunster to the Clothworkers’ Company in 1641, and another a drum-shaped salt, silver-gilt, the “Guift of Daniel Waldo, Clothworker, Esquire, ano1660.” Then there is the circular salt and cover, 22 inches high, of the Goldsmiths’ Company, with the date letter of the year 1601, which was “the guift of Richard Rogers, Comptroller of His MajtiesMynt” ... “desiring the same may bee used at their solemne meetings and to bee remembered as a good benefactor, anno dni1632.” This salt has a body of glass, round which are two silver-gilt collars in chased and repoussé work. The Goldsmiths’ Company have other salts, notably one the “Gift of Thomas Seymour” in 1693. The Haberdashers’ Company have a circular salt the gift of Sir Hugh Hammersley in 1636. The Innholders’ Company have two circular salts the gift of John Wetterworth in 1626, and a circular salt, silver-gilt, 16 inches high, with a dome raised on four scrolls, terminated by an obelisk, the gift of Anne, widow of John Sweete, 1635. The Ironmongers’ Company have two fine silver salts, parcel gilt, shaped like hour-glasses, having six-foiled sides, in three of which is foliage engraved. The date of one is 1518 and of the other 1522. The Skinners’ Company have a silver-gilt octagonal salt 9 inches high, the gift of Ben Albin, a member, in 1676. The Mercers’ Company salts we are enabled to illustrate by courteous permission. The Vintners’ Company have a fine silver-gilt salt, the gift of John Powel, Master of the Company, in 1702. It is like a square casket in form, withpanels richly decorated in bold relief with figures, and the cover surmounted by an urn upon which stands a female figure.

ELIZABETHAN BELL-SHAPED SALT CELLAR.Having compartments for salt and spices. On three ball feet. London 1601. Decorated with designs of roses in flat chasing in upright panels.(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

ELIZABETHAN BELL-SHAPED SALT CELLAR.

Having compartments for salt and spices. On three ball feet. London 1601. Decorated with designs of roses in flat chasing in upright panels.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

Some rare examples are in the possession of corporate bodies. There is the silver-gilt salt and cover, 15¹/₄ inches high, belonging to the Corporation of Norwich. This is, as the inscription indicates, “The Gyfte of Petar Reade Esqviar.” The plate marks are a roman capital letter D, the arms of Norwich, and a cross mound within a lozenge. It was made at Norwich, and its date is not later than 1568, for Peter Reade died in that year.

Then there is the wonderful Ashburnham salt cellar and cover of the time of Henry VII, the earliest standing salt, 12¹/₂ inches high, bearing the London hall-mark of the year 1508, and the maker’s mark, a rising sun. This was bought by Messrs. Crichton Brothers for £5,600.

Later salt cellars, while still being collectors’ pieces, depart from the older form when “below the salt” had no meaning. The old silver salt cellars of Queen Anne and Georgian days are another story. The elegance of form and the quaint reticence of design make them desirable acquisitions for any modern dining-table.

During the past twenty years, when the furniture of Chippendale and of Sheraton has been collected with such avidity to refurnish old homes and to give age to modern mansions, the demand for old silver accessories of the table has been equally great. In consequence, spurious silver of later date, with the old hall-marks cunningly inserted, has appeared in greatquantities. As a warning to the collector of “old salts,” it cannot too strongly be urged that in his earliest flights he should consult a friend who has passed through the same stages before him. The same advice is, unfortunately, necessary in connection with collecting old china and old furniture. The literature of these two subjects is more ready to hand, and there are many popular handbooks designed to set the feet of the novice in collecting on the right path. In silver collecting there is always a sure road. In furniture or in china there is no puissant company of furniture experts or china moralists. The buyer may be advised to use his common sense and demand that the dealer put on the invoice the exact description of the goods he is selling. If after expert advice the purchaser finds he has been deceived, he has his remedy in a court of law. But with silver, there are the hall-marks determined by law for the protection of the public. The Goldsmiths’ Company exist to safeguard the public against fraud, and their honourable traditions extend, as we have seen, over four hundred years. If any buyer has any doubt as to the London marks or the provincial marks on a piece of silver he has purchased, it is easy to establish their authenticity. If, for instance, the mark is a London one, the Goldsmiths’ Company would obviously be pleased to discover the identity of any one counterfeiting their ancient marks. They have statutory powers to inflict fines on persons convicted of such malpractices, and in the public interest they would naturally prosecute inquiries as to how false marks came to beplaced on silver purporting to be assayed by an old and honourable company.

CIRCULAR SALT CELLAR.Silver-gilt. Dated 1638, and having London hall-mark of that date.Greatest height 6³/₁₆ in.Engraved with the arms of the Mercers’ Company and the arms of John Dethick, the donor.(See marks illustratedp. 365.)(By courtesy of the Mercers’ Company.)

CIRCULAR SALT CELLAR.

Silver-gilt. Dated 1638, and having London hall-mark of that date.

Greatest height 6³/₁₆ in.

Engraved with the arms of the Mercers’ Company and the arms of John Dethick, the donor.

(See marks illustratedp. 365.)

(By courtesy of the Mercers’ Company.)

You may search the chronological tables of the statutes through and through, and you will find nothing relative to punishments specially laid down to meet the case of fabricators of old furniture or old china, but in regard to forging old silver marks there are a multitude of protective measures. There is reform needed in the laws relating to silver, and urgently needed. We offer this suggestion to some Member of Parliament bursting to distinguish himself. It was urgently recommended by the Committee of 1856, and a Bill was prepared by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in 1857, but nothing came of it. The Select Committee of the House of Commons, again, in 1879 made further recommendations, but no restrictive measure has ever been laid before Parliament. “There is much to say for the old demand of the Goldsmiths’ Company for further powers of enforcing the law than the mere right to sue for penalties. Sales by auction now take place with practical impunity, no matter how spurious and debased the goods may be, and there is evidence and to spare to show that the general sense of the trade and the public is in favour of the preservations of the old guarantee.”

The study of salt cellars suggests a flying word on the salt spoon. To quote from an essay by Addison, dated 1711, theSpectatorsays, in an account he gives of dining with a fine lady: “In the midst of these my Musings she desires me to reach her a little Salt upon the point of my Knife, which I did in suchTrepidation and hurry of Obedience, that I let it drop by the way, at which she immediately startled and said it fell towards her. Upon this I looked very blank; and, observing the Concern of the whole Table, began to consider myself with some confusion, as a person that had brought some Disaster upon the Family.” This is a pretty picture of eighteenth century “high life.” The superstition concerning the spilling of salt is still with us, but helping salt with a knife is no longer in fashion in “polite society.”

In general salt cellars may be classified as follows, commencing with the Standing Salt, with its determination of rank as to those who sat above the salt and those who sat below it:—

Standing Salts.—The earliest are shaped like hour-glasses. These belong to the fifteenth and first half of sixteenth century.Cylindrical and casket forms, with rich ornamentation in repoussé work, with chased figures and surmounted by cover with standing figure, are found in the sixteenth century.E.g.the Standing Salt, part of the Stoke Prior treasure, dated 1563 (at the Victoria and Albert Museum).The Bell-shaped Salt is of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, and the tall Steeple Salt belongs to the same period. The above types often had compartments in tiers reserved for spices.The circular and octagonal forms of lesser height, with three and sometimes four guards with scroll ends, belong to the seventeenth century.

Standing Salts.—The earliest are shaped like hour-glasses. These belong to the fifteenth and first half of sixteenth century.

Cylindrical and casket forms, with rich ornamentation in repoussé work, with chased figures and surmounted by cover with standing figure, are found in the sixteenth century.E.g.the Standing Salt, part of the Stoke Prior treasure, dated 1563 (at the Victoria and Albert Museum).

The Bell-shaped Salt is of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, and the tall Steeple Salt belongs to the same period. The above types often had compartments in tiers reserved for spices.

The circular and octagonal forms of lesser height, with three and sometimes four guards with scroll ends, belong to the seventeenth century.

OCTAGONAL SALT CELLAR.With four guards. London, 1679.Having the arms of the company and inscribed “Ex dono Henrici Sumner. Mr.” This is known as the Sumner Salt, the gift of the Master of that date.Greatest height 8³/₈ in.(For marks seep. 357.)(By courtesy of the Mercers’ Company.)

OCTAGONAL SALT CELLAR.

With four guards. London, 1679.

Having the arms of the company and inscribed “Ex dono Henrici Sumner. Mr.” This is known as the Sumner Salt, the gift of the Master of that date.

Greatest height 8³/₈ in.

(For marks seep. 357.)

(By courtesy of the Mercers’ Company.)

Trencher Salts.—These were in use contemporaneously with the tall standing salts, either on less formal occasions or at the lower end of the table belowthesalt.Early forms in the first half of the seventeenth century are circular (1603) or triangular (1630). These were diminutive, measuring only some 3 inches across, and being sometimes only 1 inch high.Eighteenth-century Salts.—A great variety of form is apparent, and many styles succeeded each other, disappearing only to be revived a quarter of a century later. Circular (1698-1710), oval, octagonal (1715-40), tripod (1750). Circular with three feet; oblong and octagonal, slightly taller (1775), with pierced work on four feet, and with glass liner. Oblong, plain, with four feet. Tureen-shaped or boat-shaped, plain, with swelling foot, sometimes with rings as handles, or with two handles (1780). Shell-shaped salts in vogue 1788; circular, vase-shaped, with lions’ heads and tripod feet (1798).Early Nineteenth-century Salts.—George IV and William IV styles, a reversion to some of the older types. The tureen and the circular-shaped salt, with four or threefeet (1820-1830). Circular bowls on stands, with tripod and elaborate feet, the fashion (1810-1830). Many pieces betray classical influence.

Trencher Salts.—These were in use contemporaneously with the tall standing salts, either on less formal occasions or at the lower end of the table belowthesalt.

Early forms in the first half of the seventeenth century are circular (1603) or triangular (1630). These were diminutive, measuring only some 3 inches across, and being sometimes only 1 inch high.

Eighteenth-century Salts.—A great variety of form is apparent, and many styles succeeded each other, disappearing only to be revived a quarter of a century later. Circular (1698-1710), oval, octagonal (1715-40), tripod (1750). Circular with three feet; oblong and octagonal, slightly taller (1775), with pierced work on four feet, and with glass liner. Oblong, plain, with four feet. Tureen-shaped or boat-shaped, plain, with swelling foot, sometimes with rings as handles, or with two handles (1780). Shell-shaped salts in vogue 1788; circular, vase-shaped, with lions’ heads and tripod feet (1798).

Early Nineteenth-century Salts.—George IV and William IV styles, a reversion to some of the older types. The tureen and the circular-shaped salt, with four or threefeet (1820-1830). Circular bowls on stands, with tripod and elaborate feet, the fashion (1810-1830). Many pieces betray classical influence.

The illustrations of the various types of salt cellars should be sufficient to indicate to the reader the great field which is open to him. The examples range from the rarer earlier periods to the beginning of the nineteenth century. The descriptions given of the successive stages in fashion and in design should stimulate the interest of the student in regard to the undercurrents of evolution progressive, and often retrogressive, through three centuries of the silversmith’s art.

The standing salt, in hour-glass form, of the Gothic period at Christ’s College, Cambridge, illustrated (page 143), is in date about 1500. Its height is 9¹/₄ inches. It belongs to that great period of Henry VII. It is contemporary with the magnificent chapel in Westminster Abbey. It has survived the spoliation of the days of Henry VIII. Its perfect symmetry, its delicate ornament, its exquisite grace delight the eye. There is nothing redundant, nothing that calls for amendment. It stands as a perfect creation of the English silversmith. The unwritten, and never to be written, history of such a piece is not the least which appeals to us nowadays. We may revere the exquisite craft of the designer. But there is a tribute we owe to the sagacious custodians who, possibly in fear of death, preserved this for posterity. Its hiding-places, itsnarrow escapes, its glorious emerging into the light of day, to occupy a niche, almost sacred, in modern regard, these are happenings that cannot be chronicled. As an historic relic, a page remaining from the old history of these realms, such an example claims adoration.

A fine bell salt is illustrated (page 147). It is on three ball feet. It has the London mark, the letter D in Lombardic capitals, for 1601. It is decorated in upright panels, with flat chasing with floral design of roses. It is constructed in compartments for salt and spices and pepper. These bell salts belong to the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century; they are mostly on three feet. At the Dunn-Gardner sale, in 1902, £600 was paid for a specimen. They stand, in point of time, between the hour-glass form and the steeple salts. Few appear to have been made, or, at any rate, few are now in existence, and in consequence they bring great prices on account of their rarity.

The ring at the top is noticeable, mainly as the prototype of the ring-handle of cruets, with the same contents now in use three hundred years afterwards. And the ball foot, peculiar to the silversmith as something especially applicable to his technique is still retained in silver cruets of to-day.

The circular Stuart salt cellar comes straight from the days of Charles I. It has the date letter for 1638. See Marks illustratedpage 365. This salt stood on the Mercers’ Company table in 1642—eventful year, when Charles was misguided enoughto go in person to the House of Commons with his guards to arrest the five members. This was the signal for the Civil War. The salt cellar we now see was hurriedly put in the vaults of the Mercers’ Company. The trained-bands of London were up. The city declared for the Parliament, and Charles raised his standard at Nottingham. John Dethick, the donor, may have fought in the civic cause. Here is the salt he gave to his Company in those stirring days, an illustration of which we are enabled to produce by the courtesy of the Mercers’ Company. It has three handles with scroll ends. It is an important piece. It is silver-gilt, and engraved with the arms of the Mercers’ Company and the arms and crest of John Dethick.

The octagonal salt illustrated (p. 155) shows the style of Charles II. It has four handles with scroll ends. These handles were for supporting a napkin which was placed around the salt. It is of the year 1679, and the marks are illustrated onpage 357. It is inscribed, “Ex dono henrici Sumner Mr.” This is known as the Sumner Salt, and Henry Sumner, the donor, was Master of the Mercers’ Company at that date. Its diameter is 9¹/₂ inches and its greatest height is 8³/₈ inches. This is the year of theHabeas Corpus Act. This Act defines the liberties of the subject. All prisoners except those charged with felony or treason can demand that they be brought before a judge to test the validity of their detention. All persons charged with felony or treason must be tried at the next sessions or else admitted to bail, or, failing this, be discharged. No person couldbe recommitted for the same offence and no person imprisoned beyond the sea. Heavy penalties were imposed on those who violated this Act.

SPECIMENS OF EARTHENWARE SALT CELLARS.LAMBETH DELFT SALT CELLAR.Late seventeenth century. Height 4¹/₂ in.ROUEN FAIENCE SALT CELLAR.Early eighteenth century. Height 3 in.(In collection of author.)

SPECIMENS OF EARTHENWARE SALT CELLARS.

LAMBETH DELFT SALT CELLAR.Late seventeenth century. Height 4¹/₂ in.

LAMBETH DELFT SALT CELLAR.

Late seventeenth century. Height 4¹/₂ in.

ROUEN FAIENCE SALT CELLAR.Early eighteenth century. Height 3 in.(In collection of author.)

ROUEN FAIENCE SALT CELLAR.

Early eighteenth century. Height 3 in.

(In collection of author.)

Contemporary with the silversmith’s work it is interesting to notice in passing what the potter was doing. We illustrate (p. 161) a Lambeth delft salt cellar of the late seventeenth century. Its height is only 4¹/₂ inches. It simulates the silver style. The guards or handles are more shell-like in form than those of the silversmith. The technique of the potter with his twisting of the plastic clay is responsible of this. But the furniture maker of the period has something to add, too, in regard to this form of ornament. In his technique it is termed the “Spanish foot.” It appears in feet and in the scrolls of handles for chairs.

A salt cellar of Rouen faience is illustrated (p. 161) of the early eighteenth century. In height this is 3 inches. It shows the square form, with slight depressed surface at apex for the salt, as though the salt were a rare commodity. It is interesting, and should help the student to cast his eyes farther afield in attempting to arrive at conclusions in regard to definite styles.

Of Trencher salts there is much to say. All that is not poetry is prose, as Monsieur Jourdain found out. A salt may be Standing—that is, it may be a ceremonial piece demanding the ritual of its order—or it may be a mere trencher salt; the name indicates its usage. Instead of being among the great folk, it was among the dependents at the lower stratum of the table. Trencher salts were once menial in theearlier periods, but as time went on the great standing salt disappeared and trencher salts became general for gentle and simple.

Throughout the eighteenth century, from Queen Anne to George IV (1820), and in succeeding years the salts were all trencher salts—because there were none other.

In the early days trencher salts were associated with servility or with dependence, but later the salt at the elbow of the master of the feast carried with it nothing derogatory.

From Queen Anne, 1702, to the end of the reign of George I, 1727, little difference is noticeable and the lowly trencher salt changes very slightly. It is oblong or it becomes octagonal. But in practical form it is substantially the same. Two specimens exhibiting this are given (p. 165).

The circular salts, with three feet, belong to the early George III period. The feet in these are in hoof form with cone-shaped terminals (see illustration,p. 165).

The early George III period exhibits other varieties of the salt cellar. There was the wire-work cellar with cast additions, and the pierced and cut sheet silver. Most of these types are oblong in shape and were designed to receive a glass liner. These specimens are usually with four feet. The example dated 1769 is of wire work. The other example adjacent with floral wreath, dated 1785, is in the French style, which became prevalent at the last quarter of the eighteenth century. The feet of these examples are usually claw-and-ball or lion’s paw feet. It may be interesting to note the contemporary styles of the chair maker. The same influences were at work governing the worker in wood and the craftsman in metal.

TRENCHER SALTS.QUEEN ANNE. 1712.GEORGE II. 1730.

TRENCHER SALTS.

QUEEN ANNE. 1712.

GEORGE II. 1730.

CIRCULAR SALT WITH THREE FEET.EARLY GEORGE III. 1768.GEORGE III. 1785.Feet with hoof-shaped and cone-shaped terminals.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

CIRCULAR SALT WITH THREE FEET.

EARLY GEORGE III. 1768.

GEORGE III. 1785.

Feet with hoof-shaped and cone-shaped terminals.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

SALTS WITH GLASS LINER AND FOUR FEET.EARLY GEORGE III. 1769.GEORGE III. 1785.Wire work with cast additions and pierced and cut sheet silver. Floral wreaths and chain period in French style. Claw and ball feet and lion’s paw feet.

SALTS WITH GLASS LINER AND FOUR FEET.

EARLY GEORGE III. 1769.

GEORGE III. 1785.

Wire work with cast additions and pierced and cut sheet silver. Floral wreaths and chain period in French style. Claw and ball feet and lion’s paw feet.

CIRCULAR SALT WITH THREE FEET.GEORGE III. 1786.Cloven hoof feet.OBLONG SALT WITH FOUR FEET.GEORGE III. 1789.Feet with club terminal.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

CIRCULAR SALT WITH THREE FEET.GEORGE III. 1786.Cloven hoof feet.

CIRCULAR SALT WITH THREE FEET.

GEORGE III. 1786.

Cloven hoof feet.

OBLONG SALT WITH FOUR FEET.GEORGE III. 1789.Feet with club terminal.

OBLONG SALT WITH FOUR FEET.

GEORGE III. 1789.

Feet with club terminal.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

The cloven-hoof foot or the club terminal are found in the round shaped salt cellar in the same period or slightly later. Usually this type is found with three feet. This plain form dispenses with the glass liner.

Towards the close of the eighteenth century the styles become varied. There is the tureen form, from which type many variations are based. Similarly the boat-shaped salt is typical of many similar plain designs of this nature—some with two handles.

The examples illustrated (p. 171), in vogue from 1781 to 1797, show the generic type from which similar forms deviate.

As in the above types the swelling foot is a feature, so with other examples, from 1789 to 1803, the foot disappears. The piece in date 1789, illustrated (p. 171), may be compared with similar circular forms made by the Staffordshire potters in lustreware for cottage use.

The washing-tub shaped salt cellar, in date 1803, indicates the decadence of design. The opening years of the nineteenth century show these poor forms in replacement of the early designs.

Specimens of the days of George IV and William IV (one in date 1820 and the other 1832) are illustrated (p. 173). Here is a reversion to older forms, the tureen shape with gadrooned edge and with four legs, and the circular form with three legs.

Of the circular form the classic rotund urn or vase shape seized the fancy of the silversmith at variousperiods. As early as 1771 we find the form in the perforated work, with swags and classic ornamentation, rather suggestive of French fashions, and obviously intended for use with a glass liner. This is illustrated (p. 173), and adjacent is a piece dated 1810, made by Messrs. Rundell, Bridge, and Rundell, of the late George III period. It is important, as it is silver-gilt. It stands as typical of the attempt to popularize the Pompeiian forms. The winged figure, found on tables of the period, the tripod feet of club or goat-like form, the base with key-pattern ornament, stamp it as of the First Empire. George III was not yet dead, he was only insane, and Bonaparte had not been banished to St. Helena. In fact, Wellington was fighting in Spain, and Waterloo had yet to be fought in 1815. But here is a piece with the same artistic impulses as the chairs and tables at Fontainebleau.

The story of the salt cellar comes to an end. Its customs and its dignities are lost except to those who love the delving into the record of the manners of past days, “now here, at upper end o’ the table, now i’ the middle.” The salt cellar has a complete history for three hundred years, and with its evolutionpari passuis the march of social custom.

STANDING SALTS.

£Elizabethan(1573), 10 oz.245”(1577), 13 oz. 18 dwts.720James I(bell-shaped)(1608)336””(1613)1,150

GEORGE III SALTS WITH SWELLING FOOT.1781-1790.The tureen-form salt, from which type many variations are based.1791-1797.The boat shaped salt, typical of many similar plain designs, some with handles.

GEORGE III SALTS WITH SWELLING FOOT.

1781-1790.The tureen-form salt, from which type many variations are based.

1781-1790.

The tureen-form salt, from which type many variations are based.

1791-1797.The boat shaped salt, typical of many similar plain designs, some with handles.

1791-1797.

The boat shaped salt, typical of many similar plain designs, some with handles.

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE FOOT.GEORGE III. 1789.The circular salt. Simultaneously with this the Staffordshire potters made similar forms in lustre ware for cottage use.GEORGE III. 1803.The washing-tub salt. The decadence of design is shown in the opening years of nineteenth century, when poor forms replaced the early styles.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE FOOT.

GEORGE III. 1789.The circular salt. Simultaneously with this the Staffordshire potters made similar forms in lustre ware for cottage use.

GEORGE III. 1789.

The circular salt. Simultaneously with this the Staffordshire potters made similar forms in lustre ware for cottage use.

GEORGE III. 1803.The washing-tub salt. The decadence of design is shown in the opening years of nineteenth century, when poor forms replaced the early styles.

GEORGE III. 1803.

The washing-tub salt. The decadence of design is shown in the opening years of nineteenth century, when poor forms replaced the early styles.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

REVERSION TO OLDER FORMS.GEORGE IV. 1820.WILLIAM IV. 1832.Three feet and four feet both employed.

REVERSION TO OLDER FORMS.

GEORGE IV. 1820.

WILLIAM IV. 1832.

Three feet and four feet both employed.

CIRCULAR SALT CELLARS IN VOGUE.GEORGE III. 1771.Perforated work with classic ornament.LATE GEORGE III. 1810.Made by Rundell, Bridge & Rundell.Attempt to adopt new forms, Pompeian and others; tripod feet very small.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

CIRCULAR SALT CELLARS IN VOGUE.

GEORGE III. 1771.Perforated work with classic ornament.

GEORGE III. 1771.

Perforated work with classic ornament.

LATE GEORGE III. 1810.Made by Rundell, Bridge & Rundell.

LATE GEORGE III. 1810.

Made by Rundell, Bridge & Rundell.

Attempt to adopt new forms, Pompeian and others; tripod feet very small.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

TRENCHER SALTS.

£William and Mary, 235s. per oz.20William III (3) (1698), 132s. per oz.60Queen Anne(2), oval (1708), 165s. per oz.40”(2), circular (1713), 195s. per oz.28George I bring from 60s. to 80s. per oz.George II bring about 30s. to 40s. per oz. Sets of four and six bring higher prices per oz. After this date prices drop considerably.

VTHE SPOONCHAPTER VTHE SPOONEarly spoons and their rarity—The Apostle spoon—The seal-top spoon—The slipped-stalk spoon—The Puritan spoon—The Trifid spoon—The lobed-end spoon.FromElizabeth to the late Georges the range of spoons is a long one, and comprehends, in the early days, classes that are prohibitive in price for the pocket of the average collector. There are spoons and spoons. From the early elaborations in Apostle, or Maidenhead, orlion-sejantforms to the later styles of rat-tail teaspoon or the fanciful caddy-spoon there is choice enough to suit the idiosyncrasies of most collectors. Indeed, it may be said that the collecting of spoons is a thing apart. Silversmiths themselves became specialists when they made spoons; the craftsmen were on a plane by themselves, and so it comes to pass that the collector, following in their wake a couple of centuries afterwards or more, has to give special study to this branch of silver plate.It is not necessary, to trace the antiquity of the spoon, to revert to Roman days, to enumerate what has been found in Saxon graves, or to wanderthrough the mediæval period to show the use and development of the spoon. It is sufficient, in the present volume, to take spoons as found in the realm of collecting.Practically this may be said to begin at the reign of Elizabeth, though in 1903 a set of thirteen apostle spoons was sold at Christie’s, of the reign of Henry VIII and having the London hall-mark for 1536, for £4,900. But this is sensational.There is no doubt that the most popular spoon of the Tudor period, that is including the reigns of Henry VII (1485-1509), Henry VIII (1509-47), Edward VI (1547-53), Mary (1553-58), and Elizabeth (1558-1603), was the well-known apostle spoon. It is rare to find any examples before 1500. The oldest known is dated 1493. They were called apostle spoons because each spoon was surmounted with a figure of one of the apostles with his customary emblems, such as St. Peter with the key, St. John with the cup of sorrow, etc. They were thirteen in number to make a complete set—that is, the twelve apostles and the Master spoon, bearing an image of Jesus Christ, although the thirteenth in some cases was St. Paul. The study of apostle spoons does not begin or end with English silver. They originated on the Continent, and the goldsmiths of Nuremburg and of Paris, of Milan and of Madrid, fashioned them in like form, each according to the traditions and technique of his school.SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY SPOONS.SLIPPED IN THE STALK.1651.PURITAN.c.1660 (Norwich).CHARLES II FLAT STEM.1665.Showing changing form of bowl and handle.(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)It was apparently the custom in Tudor days to offer a set of these spoons, or, if the donor were less rich, a fewer number, as a christening gift.Sometimes only four were given, representing the four evangelists. In modern days the gift of a christening spoon still continues, though the spoon is shorn of its former apostle head. There are many passages in the old English authors referring to this custom, and numerous references in old wills bequeathing sets of these apostle spoons as heirlooms. In Shakespeare’sHenry VIII, v. 2, Cranmer, who declares his unworthiness to act as sponsor—is met with the rebuke from the King: “Come, come, my lord, you’d spare your spoons.”It is interesting to note the emblems usually found associated with the different apostles. The following list will enable the collector to identify the one from the other:—St. Peter—with a key or a fish.St. Thomas—a carpenter’s square or a spear.St. Andrew—a transverse or saltire cross, on which he suffered martyrdom.St. John—a cup with a winged serpent.St. Philip—a cross of varying form, usually on a long staff.St. Bartholomew—a large knife, because he was flayed in his martyrdom.St. Matthew—a wallet or purse, or sometimes a spear or an axe.St. Jude—a lance or a saw; sometimes a club.St. James the Great—a pilgrim’s staff, as pioneer missionary.St. Matthias—a halbert or an axe.St. James the Less—a fuller’s pole, because he was killed by a blow on the head dealt him by Simeon the fuller.St. Simon Zelotes—a saw, in allusion to his martyrdom.The thirteenth is either St. Paul with a sword, or the Master spoon, with orb and cross and hand raised in blessing. Sometimes Judas Iscariot takes his place in lieu of one of the others, usually of St. Matthew with the purse; and St. Mark, in some sets, replaces St. Simon; and St. Luke occurs in lieu of St. Matthias in others.There is no doubt that apostle spoons have been largely sought after by collectors as something desirable and antique. They have accordingly been manufactured by the thousand to meet such a demand, and young collectors cannot be too careful in accepting authenticity by word of mouth from any seller. There are always the museum examples for ready reference. They are in glass cases easy of access, and a close inspection can be made at the Victoria and Albert Museum, which is little short of actually handling the specimens. This remark applies equally to seal-top and other older forms of spoons not frequently handled by the beginner.SEVENTEENTH AND EARLY EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY SPOONS.APOSTLE SPOON.St. Andrew. 1648.SEAL-TOP SPOON.1652.TREFOIL-SHAPED TOP.1703. Newcastle. Marked with Britannia and lion’s head erased.TREFOIL-SHAPED TOP.1703. London.The later spoons show the commencement of form of modern bowls.(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)Sets of thirteen apostle spoons are very rare. There is Archbishop Parker’s set at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and including the rare Master spoon and also St. Paul with a sword, which spoon bears the date mark for 1515, while the others are hall-marked 1566. There is the Swettenham set,which belonged to the Cheshire family of that name, hall-marked 1617. The Goldsmiths’ Company have a set with the hall-mark 1626, which was presented to them some years ago by Mr. George Lambert.We illustrate two examples of apostle spoons, one made at Exeter in 1674, representing St. Simon Zelotes (p. 189), and the other made in London in 1648, with the figure of St. Andrew with the saltire cross (p. 185).Single specimens can be obtained, though prices range high; what could be procured for £5 ten years ago now fetches £30. Whether the war will bring prices down remains to be seen. Sixteenth-century apostle spoons realize from £30 to £90 under the hammer, according to style, age, condition, and other determining factors. Earlier spoons than the sixteenth century bring higher prices, anything from £50 to £100.The Seal-top SpoonContemporary with the apostle spoons were other types. The terms now applied to them are purely collectors’ names. There was the acorn terminal, the seated lion with a shield (lion sejant), the seated owl, the pineapple, the mitre, and the head of the Virgin, which continued for a long period and is now known as the Maidenhead variety. But the most common was the seal-top with baluster ornament, which form lasted well into the seventeenth century. We illustrate an example with the London hall-mark for 1652. It will be noticed that the hall-mark appears in the bowl of the spoon. This is the leopard’s head,and may be observed in all early spoons of the apostle and kindred classes.The Slipped-stalk SpoonDuring the reign of Charles I (1625-49) the bowl of the spoon began to take different proportions, and to depart from the pear-like form. It became more oval and narrower at the base and wider near the stem. But in regard to evolution of form, the modern spoon, as is readily seen, is an inversion of the bowl. It is egg-shaped, but the narrowest part is now away from the handle, whereas formerly the narrowest part was joined to the handle. All the sixteenth and seventeenth century spoons show the old form and the later spoons show the opposite. The innovation is shown in the illustration, given onpage 185, of early eighteenth-century examples.The slipped-stalk spoon was simply a radical departure from excessive ornament. It may have been on account of religious motives, it may have been by reason of economy. Obviously such a spoon cost less to produce without its terminal figure. Hence we have the slipped-in-the-stalk variety which was cut off transversely as shown in the illustration (p. 181) of an example dated 1651, during the Civil War, which form readily developed into the so-called Puritan spoon with plain, flat handle, which shortly exhibited wider ends. Of this style two examples are illustrated (p. 181).SEVENTEENTH AND EARLY EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY SPOONS.APOSTLE SPOON.St. Simon Zelotes. Exeter hall-mark. Date pricked on back, 1674.FLAT-STEM SPOON.Trefoil top. Rat’s-tail back. Maker, probably Thomas Simpson. Exeter hall-mark 1712.(In possession of Messrs. J. Ellett Lake & Son, Exeter.)LOBED-END SPOON.Showing both sides. 1679.(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)The Trifid SpoonThis style was a passing fashion. It is obvious that such a shape with split ends was not for posterity.The design was not pleasing nor was the form utilitarian. The example illustrated (p. 185) was made at Newcastle in 1703, and is marked with the figure of Britannia and the lion’s head erased. The adjacent illustration with the London hall-mark of the same date shows the form which was calculated to last for a longer period. The beginning of the eighteenth century shows the attempt of the spoon-maker to invent new forms. The Exeter example of trifid form with the hall-mark for 1712 exhibits the rat’s-tail back, merely a device in technique to strengthen the bowl, although this is found as early as 1670. In 1750 this rat-tail at the back became shorter and was known as a “crop.” Its purpose was the same, to strengthen the handle in its juncture with the bowl.Various varieties claimed recognition for the moment. They were ornamental and essayed to fix new styles, but their day was short. They stand now as collectors’ examples. The lobed end specimen illustrated (p. 189) shows this type with ornament on the back of the bowl, which still retains its rat-tail form in subjection. It is now merely an ornament or a relic of a former style, as the handle ends abruptly and somewhat clumsily before the rat-tail commences as an adjunct or ornament. Such a fashion was not destined to live long. This has the London hall-mark for the year 1679.The modern spoon comes in process of evolution from these earlier forms. The straight stem of apostle or seal-top days was still retained in theflat Puritan form. We have seen that the bowl underwent a change in form, but the stem or handle similarly was the subject of inventive caprice. It became “wavy” in form in the time of William III. The Queen Anne type, apart from its pronounced rat-tail back, became developed in the reign of George I into a type which may be termed the Hanoverian spoon. The outline of the end is continued in a curve without a break. This is the new form which has continued to the present day. Whatever ornament was introduced, whether as additional to the bowl or to the handle, the form became established.Simultaneously with this form, simple and utilitarian, was what is termed the “old English,” which is found in the middle of the eighteenth century. The handle was bent back and the rat-tail became a crop.The fiddle pattern in common use to-day was a late eighteenth-century innovation. There is nothing beautiful in the ears of the fiddle pattern, which might well be lopped off.It will be seen that the history of spoons is a long one and complicated by fashions. Nor is the study lightened by the various usages to which spoons may be put. It may readily be imagined that the use of coffee and tea brought the small spoon into commoner use. To-day the dainty spoon at five o’clock tea is a modern usage. But there is some suggestion that in eighteenth-century days the spoon of fashion was trivial in character in comparison with the larger spoons in use.Pope, the man of the town and depicter of thebeau monde, has the lines:Or o’er cold coffee trifle with the spoon,Count the slow clock and dine exact at noon,suggesting the dilettante late at breakfast. Evidently the spoons were at that date made for toying and corresponded with our modern tea and coffee spoons.Something should be said of the manner of marking spoons. The positions of the hall-marks are worthy of the collector’s notice. Before the Restoration, and for some time afterwards, the leopard’s head was placed inside the bowl, as is shown in the illustrations we give of various examples. During the reign of Charles II the style of marking may be said to be transitional. In the early years some examples have all the marks on the handle. Even towards the last years of the reign other examples have the leopard’s head in the bowl and the rest of the marks on the handle. After this the marks appear on the handle, and about 1781 they were placed at the end of the handle instead of close to the bowl, as was the former practice.SALE PRICESAPOSTLE SPOONS.It is impossible to fix prices. In July 1903 a set of thirteen with hall-mark for 1536 realized £4,900.Single specimens may roughly be valued as follows: Fifteenth century, anything from £50 to £300; sixteenth century, from £30 to £100; seventeenth century, £3 to £40. Six spoons (1631) brought £280 and a pair (1622) only £7. “Fakes” are abundant in this class.SEAL-TOP SPOONS.Prices range from £8 to £25 apiece.CADDY-SPOONS.These from middle of eighteenth century are a large class, which should appeal to the collector of limited means. But even in this modest field the faker has been busy.

THE SPOON

Early spoons and their rarity—The Apostle spoon—The seal-top spoon—The slipped-stalk spoon—The Puritan spoon—The Trifid spoon—The lobed-end spoon.

FromElizabeth to the late Georges the range of spoons is a long one, and comprehends, in the early days, classes that are prohibitive in price for the pocket of the average collector. There are spoons and spoons. From the early elaborations in Apostle, or Maidenhead, orlion-sejantforms to the later styles of rat-tail teaspoon or the fanciful caddy-spoon there is choice enough to suit the idiosyncrasies of most collectors. Indeed, it may be said that the collecting of spoons is a thing apart. Silversmiths themselves became specialists when they made spoons; the craftsmen were on a plane by themselves, and so it comes to pass that the collector, following in their wake a couple of centuries afterwards or more, has to give special study to this branch of silver plate.

It is not necessary, to trace the antiquity of the spoon, to revert to Roman days, to enumerate what has been found in Saxon graves, or to wanderthrough the mediæval period to show the use and development of the spoon. It is sufficient, in the present volume, to take spoons as found in the realm of collecting.

Practically this may be said to begin at the reign of Elizabeth, though in 1903 a set of thirteen apostle spoons was sold at Christie’s, of the reign of Henry VIII and having the London hall-mark for 1536, for £4,900. But this is sensational.

There is no doubt that the most popular spoon of the Tudor period, that is including the reigns of Henry VII (1485-1509), Henry VIII (1509-47), Edward VI (1547-53), Mary (1553-58), and Elizabeth (1558-1603), was the well-known apostle spoon. It is rare to find any examples before 1500. The oldest known is dated 1493. They were called apostle spoons because each spoon was surmounted with a figure of one of the apostles with his customary emblems, such as St. Peter with the key, St. John with the cup of sorrow, etc. They were thirteen in number to make a complete set—that is, the twelve apostles and the Master spoon, bearing an image of Jesus Christ, although the thirteenth in some cases was St. Paul. The study of apostle spoons does not begin or end with English silver. They originated on the Continent, and the goldsmiths of Nuremburg and of Paris, of Milan and of Madrid, fashioned them in like form, each according to the traditions and technique of his school.

SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY SPOONS.SLIPPED IN THE STALK.1651.PURITAN.c.1660 (Norwich).CHARLES II FLAT STEM.1665.Showing changing form of bowl and handle.(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY SPOONS.

SLIPPED IN THE STALK.1651.

SLIPPED IN THE STALK.

1651.

PURITAN.c.1660 (Norwich).

PURITAN.

c.1660 (Norwich).

CHARLES II FLAT STEM.1665.

CHARLES II FLAT STEM.

1665.

Showing changing form of bowl and handle.

(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

It was apparently the custom in Tudor days to offer a set of these spoons, or, if the donor were less rich, a fewer number, as a christening gift.Sometimes only four were given, representing the four evangelists. In modern days the gift of a christening spoon still continues, though the spoon is shorn of its former apostle head. There are many passages in the old English authors referring to this custom, and numerous references in old wills bequeathing sets of these apostle spoons as heirlooms. In Shakespeare’sHenry VIII, v. 2, Cranmer, who declares his unworthiness to act as sponsor—is met with the rebuke from the King: “Come, come, my lord, you’d spare your spoons.”

It is interesting to note the emblems usually found associated with the different apostles. The following list will enable the collector to identify the one from the other:—

The thirteenth is either St. Paul with a sword, or the Master spoon, with orb and cross and hand raised in blessing. Sometimes Judas Iscariot takes his place in lieu of one of the others, usually of St. Matthew with the purse; and St. Mark, in some sets, replaces St. Simon; and St. Luke occurs in lieu of St. Matthias in others.

There is no doubt that apostle spoons have been largely sought after by collectors as something desirable and antique. They have accordingly been manufactured by the thousand to meet such a demand, and young collectors cannot be too careful in accepting authenticity by word of mouth from any seller. There are always the museum examples for ready reference. They are in glass cases easy of access, and a close inspection can be made at the Victoria and Albert Museum, which is little short of actually handling the specimens. This remark applies equally to seal-top and other older forms of spoons not frequently handled by the beginner.

SEVENTEENTH AND EARLY EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY SPOONS.APOSTLE SPOON.St. Andrew. 1648.SEAL-TOP SPOON.1652.TREFOIL-SHAPED TOP.1703. Newcastle. Marked with Britannia and lion’s head erased.TREFOIL-SHAPED TOP.1703. London.The later spoons show the commencement of form of modern bowls.(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

SEVENTEENTH AND EARLY EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY SPOONS.

APOSTLE SPOON.St. Andrew. 1648.

APOSTLE SPOON.

St. Andrew. 1648.

SEAL-TOP SPOON.1652.

SEAL-TOP SPOON.

1652.

TREFOIL-SHAPED TOP.1703. Newcastle. Marked with Britannia and lion’s head erased.

TREFOIL-SHAPED TOP.

1703. Newcastle. Marked with Britannia and lion’s head erased.

TREFOIL-SHAPED TOP.1703. London.

TREFOIL-SHAPED TOP.

1703. London.

The later spoons show the commencement of form of modern bowls.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

Sets of thirteen apostle spoons are very rare. There is Archbishop Parker’s set at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and including the rare Master spoon and also St. Paul with a sword, which spoon bears the date mark for 1515, while the others are hall-marked 1566. There is the Swettenham set,which belonged to the Cheshire family of that name, hall-marked 1617. The Goldsmiths’ Company have a set with the hall-mark 1626, which was presented to them some years ago by Mr. George Lambert.

We illustrate two examples of apostle spoons, one made at Exeter in 1674, representing St. Simon Zelotes (p. 189), and the other made in London in 1648, with the figure of St. Andrew with the saltire cross (p. 185).

Single specimens can be obtained, though prices range high; what could be procured for £5 ten years ago now fetches £30. Whether the war will bring prices down remains to be seen. Sixteenth-century apostle spoons realize from £30 to £90 under the hammer, according to style, age, condition, and other determining factors. Earlier spoons than the sixteenth century bring higher prices, anything from £50 to £100.

The Seal-top Spoon

Contemporary with the apostle spoons were other types. The terms now applied to them are purely collectors’ names. There was the acorn terminal, the seated lion with a shield (lion sejant), the seated owl, the pineapple, the mitre, and the head of the Virgin, which continued for a long period and is now known as the Maidenhead variety. But the most common was the seal-top with baluster ornament, which form lasted well into the seventeenth century. We illustrate an example with the London hall-mark for 1652. It will be noticed that the hall-mark appears in the bowl of the spoon. This is the leopard’s head,and may be observed in all early spoons of the apostle and kindred classes.

The Slipped-stalk Spoon

During the reign of Charles I (1625-49) the bowl of the spoon began to take different proportions, and to depart from the pear-like form. It became more oval and narrower at the base and wider near the stem. But in regard to evolution of form, the modern spoon, as is readily seen, is an inversion of the bowl. It is egg-shaped, but the narrowest part is now away from the handle, whereas formerly the narrowest part was joined to the handle. All the sixteenth and seventeenth century spoons show the old form and the later spoons show the opposite. The innovation is shown in the illustration, given onpage 185, of early eighteenth-century examples.

The slipped-stalk spoon was simply a radical departure from excessive ornament. It may have been on account of religious motives, it may have been by reason of economy. Obviously such a spoon cost less to produce without its terminal figure. Hence we have the slipped-in-the-stalk variety which was cut off transversely as shown in the illustration (p. 181) of an example dated 1651, during the Civil War, which form readily developed into the so-called Puritan spoon with plain, flat handle, which shortly exhibited wider ends. Of this style two examples are illustrated (p. 181).

SEVENTEENTH AND EARLY EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY SPOONS.APOSTLE SPOON.St. Simon Zelotes. Exeter hall-mark. Date pricked on back, 1674.FLAT-STEM SPOON.Trefoil top. Rat’s-tail back. Maker, probably Thomas Simpson. Exeter hall-mark 1712.(In possession of Messrs. J. Ellett Lake & Son, Exeter.)LOBED-END SPOON.Showing both sides. 1679.(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

SEVENTEENTH AND EARLY EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY SPOONS.

APOSTLE SPOON.St. Simon Zelotes. Exeter hall-mark. Date pricked on back, 1674.FLAT-STEM SPOON.Trefoil top. Rat’s-tail back. Maker, probably Thomas Simpson. Exeter hall-mark 1712.(In possession of Messrs. J. Ellett Lake & Son, Exeter.)

APOSTLE SPOON.St. Simon Zelotes. Exeter hall-mark. Date pricked on back, 1674.

APOSTLE SPOON.

St. Simon Zelotes. Exeter hall-mark. Date pricked on back, 1674.

FLAT-STEM SPOON.Trefoil top. Rat’s-tail back. Maker, probably Thomas Simpson. Exeter hall-mark 1712.

FLAT-STEM SPOON.

Trefoil top. Rat’s-tail back. Maker, probably Thomas Simpson. Exeter hall-mark 1712.

(In possession of Messrs. J. Ellett Lake & Son, Exeter.)

LOBED-END SPOON.Showing both sides. 1679.(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

LOBED-END SPOON.

Showing both sides. 1679.

(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

The Trifid Spoon

This style was a passing fashion. It is obvious that such a shape with split ends was not for posterity.The design was not pleasing nor was the form utilitarian. The example illustrated (p. 185) was made at Newcastle in 1703, and is marked with the figure of Britannia and the lion’s head erased. The adjacent illustration with the London hall-mark of the same date shows the form which was calculated to last for a longer period. The beginning of the eighteenth century shows the attempt of the spoon-maker to invent new forms. The Exeter example of trifid form with the hall-mark for 1712 exhibits the rat’s-tail back, merely a device in technique to strengthen the bowl, although this is found as early as 1670. In 1750 this rat-tail at the back became shorter and was known as a “crop.” Its purpose was the same, to strengthen the handle in its juncture with the bowl.

Various varieties claimed recognition for the moment. They were ornamental and essayed to fix new styles, but their day was short. They stand now as collectors’ examples. The lobed end specimen illustrated (p. 189) shows this type with ornament on the back of the bowl, which still retains its rat-tail form in subjection. It is now merely an ornament or a relic of a former style, as the handle ends abruptly and somewhat clumsily before the rat-tail commences as an adjunct or ornament. Such a fashion was not destined to live long. This has the London hall-mark for the year 1679.

The modern spoon comes in process of evolution from these earlier forms. The straight stem of apostle or seal-top days was still retained in theflat Puritan form. We have seen that the bowl underwent a change in form, but the stem or handle similarly was the subject of inventive caprice. It became “wavy” in form in the time of William III. The Queen Anne type, apart from its pronounced rat-tail back, became developed in the reign of George I into a type which may be termed the Hanoverian spoon. The outline of the end is continued in a curve without a break. This is the new form which has continued to the present day. Whatever ornament was introduced, whether as additional to the bowl or to the handle, the form became established.

Simultaneously with this form, simple and utilitarian, was what is termed the “old English,” which is found in the middle of the eighteenth century. The handle was bent back and the rat-tail became a crop.

The fiddle pattern in common use to-day was a late eighteenth-century innovation. There is nothing beautiful in the ears of the fiddle pattern, which might well be lopped off.

It will be seen that the history of spoons is a long one and complicated by fashions. Nor is the study lightened by the various usages to which spoons may be put. It may readily be imagined that the use of coffee and tea brought the small spoon into commoner use. To-day the dainty spoon at five o’clock tea is a modern usage. But there is some suggestion that in eighteenth-century days the spoon of fashion was trivial in character in comparison with the larger spoons in use.

Pope, the man of the town and depicter of thebeau monde, has the lines:

Or o’er cold coffee trifle with the spoon,Count the slow clock and dine exact at noon,

Or o’er cold coffee trifle with the spoon,

Count the slow clock and dine exact at noon,

suggesting the dilettante late at breakfast. Evidently the spoons were at that date made for toying and corresponded with our modern tea and coffee spoons.

Something should be said of the manner of marking spoons. The positions of the hall-marks are worthy of the collector’s notice. Before the Restoration, and for some time afterwards, the leopard’s head was placed inside the bowl, as is shown in the illustrations we give of various examples. During the reign of Charles II the style of marking may be said to be transitional. In the early years some examples have all the marks on the handle. Even towards the last years of the reign other examples have the leopard’s head in the bowl and the rest of the marks on the handle. After this the marks appear on the handle, and about 1781 they were placed at the end of the handle instead of close to the bowl, as was the former practice.

APOSTLE SPOONS.

It is impossible to fix prices. In July 1903 a set of thirteen with hall-mark for 1536 realized £4,900.Single specimens may roughly be valued as follows: Fifteenth century, anything from £50 to £300; sixteenth century, from £30 to £100; seventeenth century, £3 to £40. Six spoons (1631) brought £280 and a pair (1622) only £7. “Fakes” are abundant in this class.

It is impossible to fix prices. In July 1903 a set of thirteen with hall-mark for 1536 realized £4,900.

Single specimens may roughly be valued as follows: Fifteenth century, anything from £50 to £300; sixteenth century, from £30 to £100; seventeenth century, £3 to £40. Six spoons (1631) brought £280 and a pair (1622) only £7. “Fakes” are abundant in this class.

SEAL-TOP SPOONS.

Prices range from £8 to £25 apiece.

CADDY-SPOONS.

These from middle of eighteenth century are a large class, which should appeal to the collector of limited means. But even in this modest field the faker has been busy.

Back to Index Next