Featured Did they really?

Not necessarily pepperettes - Terry didn't say if they all have the same size holes. Have a weakness for tiny shakers, also have them in china, sterling-topped glass and china, some celluloid Viking horns. a set of fairly recent Gorham pewter, and a dozen little early 20th century aluminum pedestal style. The little boxed sets of individual sterling salt and peppers were popular for decades, Mom always used them at her table and can remember seeing them in department stores into at least the '70s...

The best I've had were probably the Norwegian-made Modernist enamel fish like those on the link below - mine were orange & green, sold very well, seem to recall later seeing a pair with David-Andersen marks.

https://www.etsy.com/listing/193660116/sterling-silver-enamel-novelty-fish-salt?ref=tre-2723881273-2

~Cheryl

 

Oops, see Terry posted while I was typing (and good to know that they do say '85', though my eyesight is getting pretty bad).

So apparently, there was a decision made to make absolutely sure that the tops and bottoms fit together perfectly, and then stayed together...

~Cheryl

 

Thanks for the needed correction. Guess my age is showing. Again.
"Terry has 12 Wallace #85 sterling silver...."

The caps have same numbers as the bottoms? WOW! You certainly have something

· extraordinary · singular · unique · unusual . Scarce?

(Careful not to use the other word. Never know who might be listening.)

Pepperette is a new word for me. Here's one I don't think I would want on my table. Seems a bit awkward and might end up "peppering" more than intended.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/superb-Japa...hoten-Tokyo-/321851528883?hash=item4aefd896b3

If I had some really neat old salt and peppers, other than my conscience, what would stop me from offering half the set as a pepperette?

Keep us posted when and if you offer them for sale. I'd really like to watch that one.

 

Looking more closely, six have slightly larger holes. Still seem too small for salt to come out reliably.

 

Seems very, VERY unusual at that time period Wallace - or anyone else - would take the time to punch in numbers simply for inventory purposes. Or matching tops and bottoms.
Westmoreland was one well known for using "inventory" numbers on tops and bottoms. But that was to match the bottoms to three or more different tops. "This is a #2 base and will accommodate tops 3, 5 and 6."
Why would Wallace "count" each piece as it progressed through the factory? Beyond me.
Cheryl's thought was maybe right????

 

The ones in the fifth picture down that you say you see at every antique show - they were selling those for $2.99 a set at Christmas Tree Shop about twenty years ago.

 

I would like to point out that the #85 is uniform on the shakers so was part of the original stamp.
The sequenced numbers appear to be hand stamped.

Someone stamped them later.

 

I would like to point out that if one were to re-inspect the 85 they'd notice that it moves around in proximity to the stamped siggy,and the two numbers never separate.

While the siggy may have been machine stamped ....(the G in sterling is compromised & identical in every stamp), the 85 was hand stamped separately as a single punch, whereas the other numbers were stamped one at a time.

 

Not sure I understand any significance in the differing stamps, have little doubt that all were done at the factory, and the numerals appear to be in the same type-face (note the chubby little '5'). The Wallace trademark and the 'sterling' mark were clearly on the same stub, in addition to the identical spacing of the two, one shaker also shows those marks with slight chattering, indicating they were struck at the same time - may have been stamped with a fly-press, but more likely done by hand. The alpha-numeric punches used for production codes could be stamped individually or clamped in a holder to keep them in line, doubtful that a special '85' stub would have been cut - and wouldn't have been at all efficient to take the time to place the series of numbers in a holder when they were only going to be struck once on each part, easier to just tap each numeral as needed...

Bev - interesting that the Christmas Tree shop was selling the little cone-top sterling shakers so recently - my first set of those shakers was purchased at a flea market about 40 years ago (still have them), and the ad below is from 1941.

~Cheryl

 

doubtful that a special '85' stub would have been cut -

I disagree....the 8+5 , some lighter , some heavier, never never move in relation to one another.....while the other numbers are stamped hither and yon.

 

My complete statement: The alpha-numeric punches used for production codes could be stamped individually or clamped in a holder to keep them in line, doubtful that a special '85' stub would have been cut - and wouldn't have been at all efficient to take the time to place the series of numbers in a holder when they were only going to be struck once on each part, easier to just tap each numeral as needed...

Strikes me as unlikely that they would have gone to the expense of having a dedicated '85' punch cut when the individual numbers could be placed in a readily available holder. The clip below, showing a hand-stamp with interchangeable type, is from a 1920 article on making stamps and dies, and the link shows better pics of a similar holder:


http://www.infinitystamps.com/oscommerce/product_info.php?products_id=147

~Cheryl

 

it could have been done that way...

 

& just for the hell of it !!!!