Silver Napkin Rings

Just some more stuff I polished up, but these rings are sterling, not plate. Nothing particularly special, but a nice little "family" collection. There are 3 Birks sterling rings, all of the same pattern on the edge, 2 the same size, one narrower. The one engraved "Barney" belonged to my FIL who was born in 1925. The one engraved "Wendy" is, of course, mine and dates from 1956. The narrow one I don't know which family it came from -- mine or my husband's. But I'm glad that there is this little silver connection between me and my husband's family.

The one with the "B" also was Barney's and it has a Birmingham (the anchor?) mark, I think.

The one engraved "CK" belonged to DH's great or great-great-grandfather -- I believe that's a Gorham mark. Dating it would tell which grandfather it was. His first name (or second, depending on date) was Charles.

The unengraved one came from DH's family and is marked STERLING with an "L" in a diamond. Dunno who that maker is/was.

Marks will be in reply.

 

What a lovely collection to have!

 

Yes! Very nice, Wendy.

The anchor IS Birmingham and the Lion anchor G IS Gorham.

Looked for the L in diamond in Rainwater and didn't see it. Perhaps Canadian?

 

No idea, but could be Canadian -- if so, likely a Toronto maker. Can't quite get the year right for the English one -- 1848? But no monarch's head mark -- just the anchor and lion.

Yeah, I think this stuff is small enough to keep and pass on. Thanks!

 

Nice collection - Keeping them would be best, due to the family connection. Thanks for sharing these!

 

The Birmingham mark is post-1890. 1899-1900 marking year I believe with that Z. I need to do a bit more checking.

 

Yup, that's the year.

And the maker is J W Tiptaft and Son Ltd. Scroll down to the end of this page.

http://www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk/Makers/Birmingham-JT-JZ.html#JW

 

The Gorham piece is date-coded for 1877.

~Cheryl

 

Nothing from the Norwegians, Wendy? Thought you might like to see this early Hroar Prydz engraved Dragestil napkin ring from my Mom's collection, picked it out for her years ago, but really wanted it for myself...

~Cheryl

 

LOL, nope, no napkin rings from the Norwegian side, Cheryl! (I often bought stuff for my Mom that I liked, too, LOL!) The engraving on the Hroar Prydz is fabulous! Thanks for the date on the Gorham ring -- I think that makes it DH's great-grandfather's.

And thanks to Bakers for correcting my dating on the Birmingham one and IDing the maker. I might have to re-think who the "B" might be on that one, unless it was an old one engraved for my FIL when he was born in '25.

 

Hm. Let me ask a question that might help. Does the punch around the Z have a pointy dip in the middle of its bottom edge? Like the one on the anchor punch?

My earlier look at the picture gave me the impression that the bottom edge was straight.

 

Good question, Bake. My 1st impression was a straight bottom edge also; however, with the "pointy dip" on the anchor I would think the letter code would have a pointy dip also. Believe most of the charts I've seen have the same shape punches for all the stamps - city, purity and date code stamps.

Note the 1924 stamps on the following charts - the city anchor, purity and Z date code letter all have that "pointy dip" on the bottom edge:
http://www.theassayoffice.co.uk/date_letters.html
http://www.silvercollection.it/englishsilverhallmarksBIR.html
1899-1900 - Z
http://freespace.virgin.net/a.data/dateletters/bham/bham1.htm
1924 - Z
http://freespace.virgin.net/a.data/dateletters/bham/bham2.htm

Also if it was the date code mark for 1899-1900 wouldn't it have Queen Vic head?

--- Susan

 

The Royal head duty mark was dropped in the 1880s. It reappeared on a couple of occasions with two heads as a Jubilee mark.

 

I see that AF has kindly answered the Vickie head question. That's what I was implying when I said "post-1890" above.

And the 1924 Z is the one I was wondering about, but I wanted to wait for Wendy's in-hand inspection and answer before bringing it up.

Hopefully she'll be back and we will have killed several birds in one stroke.

 

No dip or or point like the anchor punch -- looks most like the 1848 or 1899 letter Z in a square with corners cut off. No monarch's head though, so 1899 as Bakers first said?

 

The 1920s were the most prolific period for napkin rings, they are one of those table gadgets that came and went with fashions in eating styles. The Georgians wiped their hands on the servants, and the moderns wipe their hands on the paper napkins that came with the pizza; formality reached a peak with the late 19th C, and went away after WWII.

Many antiques can be dated by the social mores and passing fashions of the societies that used them, or notable changes in style of the items themselves.

 

Small point - but napkin rings were (and should not be) not part of a formal setting - they were intended to preserve a napkin for each user (thus the simple monogram) for the duration of the period between weekly wash days, thus implying that (upper) middle class households could not afford to have that stack of single use serviettes on laundry day. They only became acceptable to true upper classes during WWI when even the Palace agreed to cut the laundry load by issuing each royal a single napkin for each day. But you would NEVER put a used napkin on a formal table........and there is no reason to preserve that napkin for a second use as most people at a formal dinner are guests - single users only as it were...............

 

Ah, thanks for the history lesson Mansons and Af! So, by the time I was born, napkin rings were pretty much useless! But I'll keep 'em anyway.

 

I use them all the time - and since I do not now and have never used paper napkins, I use a cloth napkin a day - put back in the ring after each use. Did it at Pa's house for decades.

And no, I am not snooty enough to use linen napkins all the time - my daily ones are actually colourful terry cloth "face cloths" from the cheap shop....................no pressing ya see...................