18th century french pewter porringer

I asked about this on a dedicated pewter forum and was told it was a well made reproduction because it appears to lack signs of wear but i'm not entirely convinced, is hard to prove either way...

 

An ecuelle.

 

Just so I understand... You were told this was a reproduction of a piece from the 1700s?

Debora

 

heres another, im not sure the seller knows much about it either

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/29341120...2z43JL1fvzGubXHxl-iFIZKwKiWcc5W8aAjxwEALw_wcB

 

Hello All
It is almost impossible for a 200- 300 year old piece of pewter to not to show ware. I see no ware at all on the top little or no ware on the bottom though I would like to see pics of the foot rim and complete bottom. For now Repro!
Thank You
Kevin

 

Marks on eBay seller's piece a bit more convincing.

Debora

 

Hi yes that's what I was told on pewterforum

 

Im not so sure, mine does have some "wear" maybe to the details which maybe are not as sharp as when it was made, also the hallmarks are more worn out and the angle hallmark has worn away completely, different design on the ears aswell

 

From the photo all I see is what looks like partial double struck crowned rose. Do you know anything about it or did the pewter forum give you info on the mark?

 

No noone knew actually knew what/where the mark was from specifically, the other one on ebay has the same mark in full plus another

 

its the same mark a crown on a rose maybe?

 

Hello All
The item on ebay looks legit. Notice the ware on both top and bottom as should be. Also the presents of a foot rim on the item in question concerns me though it could be a legit repair? Notice the ebay item does have a foot rim, as should be. As previously stated in this post the mark on the piece in question is the rose and crown standard mark which was an attempt to standardize pewter marks in the 17c. It met with little success though you will find this mark on English, continental and early american pewter. It is of little significants. Any evidence of an other mark is long worn off though I see little signed of ware. The ebay item angel mark has enough info to warrant some research but be careful researching pewter marks can make you go blind, Really! See pewtersociety.com for more detailed info. With all this said I can not be sure without better pics. Hope this helps.
Thank You
Kevin

 

F&C perhaps you can provide a photo of the entire base.

I hate to weigh in as I have a rather small collection of old pewter but I do have a number of books. I asked about the mark hoping that someone from a site specific to pewter might have given you guidance.

As mentioned above the crown rose was used many places. Pewter is also known to be mismarked in an effort to deceive. Some of the "deception" pieces have some age as well.

Anyway, I did look through the twelves pages of French pewter marks with a crown rose in the book Poincoins d'Etain by Tardy without seeing any that I could say look like what I can see of yours. Usually there is something more such as initials. Here are a few pages to see what I mean.

 

thanks all, here is the foot rim, wondering why they would have made it like this if its not original and would have been an extra effort. the rim does have a bit of wear and would have protected the rest of the base obviously, and im thinking people probably wouldn't use something like this in modern time this could have sat in a loft for the last 150 years

Maybe the two stamps were struck from worn dies? they look like well made designs and maybe that's why its been stamped twice. Also sorry i gave false information it was actually the pewtersociety.com not pewterforum that i got the info from originally

I'd say the ebay one has the first "chaumette" mark from the book but not conclusively, maybe it is a rare one, thanks

 

Hi, @ktesart -- I know nothing about the item, but was reading this post and got confused. Maybe I'm just not seeing it. Are you saying that the presence (not presents) of a foot rim on the item in question concerns you? You follow that by saying the eBay item does have a foot rim, as should be. But I don't see a foot rim on that one. Maybe I just am not seeing something that is there. (That wouldn't be the first time that happened to me! )

 

Here is a link to discussion of the Chaumette mark and date on a tray. As I mentioned, I didn't see your mark with two diamonds above the band.

https://community.ebay.com/t5/Archi...is-dragon-and-crown-pewter-tray/td-p/21479996

 

interesting thank you

 

Hello All
OOPS, My apologies. Please bare with me. I am new to this forum thing and I will work on my grammar ha ha. Thank you for pointing this out and please do so in the future. I meant the ebay item does not have a foot rim as should be. To say_it_slowly posts, spot on! Old pewter books can be better than the internet. I generally don't pay much attention to pewter marks until I figure out the piece as I did in this case. So with new info. Take a look at the last pic to the right and around the edge you will see the base is damaged yet there is no evidence of damage or repair to the interior bowl? Also you can see the tool marks made when they pushed the bottom under the foot rim lip This would mean the item has a false bottom. I doubt 19c/20c repro were made like this, though I can find no example of a repro to verify. You could peel back the bottom and see what you find. So with that said. IMO 19c/20c repro, made with the original molds but with a false bottom. Probably a fake! Sorry. Now is the time to research the marks, if you feel inclined. Fakers generally used famous marks. Regardless the piece is beautiful enjoy it. Hope this helps.
Thank You
Kevin

 

Thank you for the clarification!