Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Jeff Drum, post: 1415575, member: 6444"]Sorry, yeah, I have to admit I still get that wrong, and always have to do the translation in my head. Why can't 18th century be 1800's, and 19th century be 1900's, etc - always seemed to me that would make it so much easier? OK, I know it's because year starts zero not 100, but I just can't get that fixed in my brain (duh). As for your various monarchs, victorian is the only one of those I know for sure, the rest send me to google. Anyway, you knew what I meant since I said 200 years old. I spent a bit of time looking at museum collections to see whether I should change my mind. Based on that I still believe this to be late 1800's/early 1900's and not late 1700's/early 1800's. Its not that I'm dissing the OP's; I actually have a marked Skultuna #4 one just like it which is why I recognized the style; so I would be happy to claim mine as an earlier mortar than I believe it to be. OP's is simply too close to the Skultuna for me to place it any earlier than Bukowski's did. Final thoughts: undecorated brass work is always hard to date. Decoration is exceedingly useful in dating any antique but especially in brass which doesn't age anywhere as noticeably as wood does. As The Brass Book by Schiffer states: "because the forms continued so long, dating mortars and pestles is very difficult. The early bronze ones with decoration are far easier".[/QUOTE]