Tiffany or reproduction?

Hello, I'm new to silver flatware collecting and have found several nice items in the last two months on eBay. I'm a semi-retired silversmith and started buying items as scrap for making my jewelry; however, I haven't had the heart to alter many of the nice pieces purchased and now will restore them.
This large serving piece has me puzzled....the auction price was very low for what I suspected was a very high end Tiffany, the photos were few and very poor quality, there was a very grainy sterling mark but no makers mark, and the sterling stamp was reversed when compared to other Tiffany servers I researched.
Some of the clues I see now that I've examined the piece are these: No signs of any stamps being removed, rough casting remnants on some of the teeth and one edge of the bowl/blade? The berries on the handle don't seem to be as well defined as other servers in relationship to the overall wear on this piece. I've only found the strawberry pattern inside the bowl on two other pieces listed on eBay and both of those also have the hallmark discrepancy.
I have tested the item with nitric and it is sterling, so it seems I'm at a standstill and hoping you folks can teach me a thing or two. I will admit tho, this collecting is the most fun I've had in a very long time! Well, thank you in advance for any help you might offer, I'll try to upload a few photos to show my observations.

 

Since it is not stamped Tiffany, it might have been something that was made by another company and retailed by Tiffany.

The design is nice, but the quality of the silver doesn't seem to be quite right.

Someone sure scratched the heck out of it.

Many of the silver peeps show up in the morning.
Welcome to the board.

 

Thank you, it's nice to meet nice people like you who appreciate our artistic ancestors. I know Tiffany contracted their silver work to others in the early days, hopefully this is an example. Perhaps an early reject? Yes, it probably has been thrown around in a junk drawer for many decades; these are the damaged old pieces I'm having fun restoring.

 

Always remember......EBAY.....not ever the final word on accurate descriptions !

 

Yes, a lot of disinformation can be found there.

 

Well, I can see why you thought Tiffany, for sure, given that the handle design appears to match their Strawberry Pierced pattern, issued in 1875.

Replacements has one of this shape in that pattern, identified as a "Solid Pastry Server."

http://www.replacements.com/webquote/tisstr.htm

But it doesn't have the engraving on the blade. I wonder whether this might be one of those "handcrafted" pieces, where a legitimate handle is cobbled with a madeup business end? Of course the other issue is that, if this were Tiffany, it should have their name on it somewhere.

Very odd.

 

I started seeing recast pieces like this at flea markets in the '70s, and they're still being done - this one is sort of middle ground quality-wise, and at least they didn't leave the Tiffany mark (good news is, haven't found one yet that wasn't actually sterling). Have seen variations in that blade, like piercing and engraving - even on my phone I can see that the 'engraving' was also cast, so it was most likely on the original piece...

~Cheryl

 

Just out of curiosity, does the size and weight match a Tiffany I wonder?

 

Thanks everyone, I'm a little surprised the knockoffs started that long ago, I guess the price the originals are bringing would justify the labor and apparently that was the case 40 years ago. Do you remember what the going price was back then, Cheryl? $800 to almost $2000 is what I'm seeing the authentic servers listed at on eBay.
This piece is 11.25" and weighs 130 grams, the other replicas Ive found range from 127 g to 149 g, the only authentic piece with a weight listed comes in at 155 grams. All show lengths of 11.25" to 11.5".

 

They weren't very pricey back then, but most silver flatware was fairly inexpensive at flea markets in the '70s - and while they are forgeries, don't believe most thought of them that way, the marks or slight remnants of them sometimes appeared in the molds, but these were sold with simple 'STERLING' or '925' stamps (some were and are intended to deceive, and even bear forged marks). Most of the recasts are of high end patterns, or sometimes just fancy or unusual, some are really poorly done, and there are even some with the handle from one piece and the working end of another, sort of hideous Frankenstein items.

Tiffany and Gorham are probably the most commonly copied, with Gorham's Narragansett or Narragansett-style often done in recent years, a very desirable pattern which was originally cast or had cast elements - your pattern and really, pretty much all American pattern flatware was die-struck, not cast.

Salt spoons of all types are often recast, can remember ads in antiques trade journals from the '70s-'80s and later for dozens of different designs, and they are still readily available, now including new designs often sold as antique - one dealer here in Orlando used to sell recast salt spoons done by her dental lab owner son, clearly tagged as such, but of course they'd likely be resold at some point...

Below is a piece like yours, described properly as a recast, that sold for $143.98 a couple of years ago - honesty, quality of pictures, and the buyers' savvy would certainly affect any selling price...

Say_it_slowly - the recasts will be just a tiny bit smaller than the original piece the mold was created from.

~Cheryl

 

Thank you very much Cheryl, your expertise is very much appreciated. I did see that stamp discrepancy on another listed piece; it had very faint traces of the original Tiffany mark in the proper spot and a reverse sterling stamp identical to mine, 1/2 inch away. I do remember reading several historical accounts of companies changing ownership and what became of the pattern dies; I'm embarrassed to admit that I failed to realize this cast piece could not be anything but a replica. I will remember what you taught me and will keep this piece as a reminder to shy away from poor quality photos and vague descriptions in all future purchases. The good news is, I paid just about double scrap price for the piece so it wasn't too rough of a hit.

 

an easy lesson learned......

 

Absolutely no reason for embarrassment, suspect we've all been fooled by bad pics and descriptions, on receipt, your gut told you something was off. Sometimes it pays off, I once took a chance on an inexpensive spoon with fuzzy pics and only a description of the marks, thought it might be an early 1890s Gorham cast souvenir spoon - it was, and a rare piece (not a term I use loosely) to boot.

I should have qualified that the very three-dimensional designs often did have cast handles, and were even fully cast on some intricate items like fancy bon-bon spoons - these pieces were very well finished though, much nicer than even the best of the recasts. Will use exhaustion as an excuse, but on reflection, I'm not sure if the Strawberry/Blackberry/Cherry line handles were die-struck or cast - most of my books are packed away at the moment, but believe I know where to dig for Dr. Hood's book on Tiffany flatware, feel sure those pieces are mentioned and will check when I'm back over at my house...

~Cheryl

 

Welcome, Irw -- and thanks for starting this discussion thread. I like the informative discussions. I've learned so much!