Help with Tiffany pattern and spoon marks

Good evening everyone,

I'm hoping to get some assistance figuring out a tiffany & co. pattern (assuming these are plated?) and some marks on spoons. I had a good pick of a group of flatware so I threw these in to the purchase. Here's the tiffany forks (oyster forks?), I'm hoping someone can assist with the pattern name:



I also got these spoons. I really wasn't certain of the marks, I was hopeful that I got lucky and the C might stand for coin. I also liked the way the bowl was joined to the handle on the back, but figured they might be plated. Here's some photos:



And finally, the goodies. These all had obvious marks on them:

 

Don't know the TIFFANY patten but I see a Gorham Chantilly serving and sugar spoon. (But most popular sterling flatware patten ever produced. No kudos due.)

Debora

 

The C absolutely does not stand for coin. That's British electroplate. May be James Dixon and Sons.

 

It's hard to judge the scale/size of the pieces in the last photo, but the Gorham Chantilly spoon is a serving spoon. It's a nice 64 grams and covers the price I paid for everything else in the photos.

 

Cocktail/seafood forks according to Replacements.

Debora

 

Two Chantilly spoons. Yes, one serving and one sugar.

Debora

 

That looks right to me, thank you bakersgma

 

Have not been able to find a name for the design of the Tiffany forks. They have a limited number of plated patterns, but this is not among them in either of my hardcopy references. Replacements doesn't have an entry for it either.

 

The forks might have only been retailed by Tiffany & Co.

 

Nothing definitive yet in my continued search. But Laura your idea might be adding up. It appears that Rogers & Bro made the pattern Delmonico. So is it possible this pattern was retailed by Tiffany but actually originally designed by Rogers?


Source: https://queenofsienna.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/aw-shucks-its-an-oyster-obsession/

 

Definitely possible! I just knew I had seen that design somewhere before!

 

The all 4 patterns shown there are listed in Davis and Deibel as having been "offered" circa 1892 with the 1847 Rogers Brothers mark.

 

Regarding the British silverplate spoons (James Dixon & Sons, as Bakersgma suggested), the bowls were not joined to the handle, they were factory die-struck in a single piece, but even if hand-wrought silver, the 'drop' on the back of the bowl does not indicate two-part construction, a fairly common misconception. For a bit of clarity, here is page showing the progression of a copper spoon made with rudimentary tools: https://www.925-1000.com/spoon.html It was produced because of an old, somewhat lengthy, silver-geeky two-page thread on drops: https://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=6532

~Cheryl

 

Thanks for the background, it's pretty fascinating to me. Am I right to assume the following:

1. The joint of a coin silver spoon is essentially an imperfection...If possible, the maker would like a completely smooth back of the bowl, but this would either be time intensive or doing so would weaken the structure of the spoon handle...

2. Manufacturer's of plated items "re-create" the look of the coin silver spoon back so it looks authentic...So they are essentially recreating an imperfection of design so it looks aesthetically pleasing to people used to the defect?

 

Sorry Nate, not really following your thinking here - assuming you're referring to the 'joint' as where the stem joins the bowl with the accompanying drop, but why would it be an imperfection? A rat tail or drop served to strengthen the spoon, protect the heel, and was attractive as well - other than for some specialized pieces like large ladles, etc., or something like pieces with cast handles or of a different material, one-piece construction was typical by fairly early in the 18th century, if not earlier (not that there aren't anomalous two-part construction spoons, from various periods and origins).

A good number of American coin spoons have no drop (and some have drops basically consisting of incised lines), drops started falling out of favor around the early 19th century, and would think it less time intensive to produce a spoon with a plain heel, the silver could be hammered to the thickness desired, but in quite a bit of coin, it's very thin, resulting in the common tears and breaks in the bowl (and quite a few later coin spoons were not hand-wrought).

Your Dixon spoons are classic 'Old English', the pattern dating back in England to around the 1760s, suspect it's still in production by some manufacturers - again, the drop is not a defect, and to my eye, as well as many others, it is aesthetically pleasing...

~Cheryl