Hi there everyone. I’m in possession of an old fork which I’ve been eating with for years, but I’m having a bit of a de-clutter and don’t know whether it’s worth selling or not. I think it’s only silverplate, but it looks like it has some age to it and I can’t find any similar marks on any of the various directories I’ve looked at online.
Any assistance anyone could provide would be much appreciated!
And here’s a close up of the R, if that helps.
This came from one of my grandparents, but I forget which. On my mother’s side they were of Irish and Scottish ancestry, and my father’s mother was English but married a Dutchman.
Of course it may just be something that was churned out by the thousands in Sheffield and worth nothing, which is also fine, but I’m quite interested in finding out the age of it if possible.
I think I can make out a crown in the shield, so probably is Sheffield. I’m thinking it’s possibly Thomas Bradbury, but there’s usually an ‘&s’ or somesuch with that maker, and the Maltese cross mark seems to be unusual. I also can’t tell if the diamond contains an ‘I’ or a ‘1’… if it’s an I and it is by Thomas Bradbury that would make it 1858.
I realise I’m basically talking to myself here, but that’s where I’m at with my research, and I’m not certain about any of it, so any outside conjecture would be appreciated.
I think your surmises are probably correct. Since there is no true hallmark, this isn’t sterling, and the marks were, therefore, virtually uncontrolled at the time.
The presence of a crown at least establishes that it’s earlier than 1896. After that, it became illegal to use a crown mark on anything that wasn’t sterling assayed in Sheffield.
Thomas Bradbury seems like the likely culprit. He used all manner of TB and TB&S marks on his silverplate pieces. And the “I” in a lozenge is, indeed, probably his own date letter for 1858.
The Maltese cross? Who knows?! Maybe Bradbury took a fancy to it, and used it for a year or two. We may never know.
ETA: Bradbury reportedly started producing electroplated items in 1853, so it seems likely that this falls into that category, rather than “old Sheffield plate,” in which a layer of silver was applied by heat and pressure to an item made of some other metal, usually copper. Electroplating needed much less silver, and produced a more durable finish, so it pretty much wiped out the earlier plating method.
Thanks Jeff - much appreciated. It would seem that identifying marks on silver plate is a rather sketchy endeavour, but it’s interesting to know a little about the history. No monetary value of course, but no bother. Thanks for the response!
It’s often a matter of little more than inspired guesswork. The marking of silverplate has always been largely unregulated, and almost always unrecorded, so it ended up being a bit of a free-for-all.
The endeavor isn’t helped by the fact that silverplate makers were usually motivated by an intent to deceive the buyers into thinking they were getting something more special than they were. So, you end up seeing a plethora of fancy-looking “hallmarks” that aren’t really hallmarks, and often mean nothing at all. And don’t even get me started on all the pseudonyms for things that aren’t actually silver, like "nickel silver, “Argentine silver,” “Nevada silver,” “Silverite,” and so on. Apparently, these all refer to the color, not the metal. 
Jeff, just wondering why the electroplate is more durable than the Old Sheffield plate. I would have guessed the opposite, as the Old Sheffield was thicker. Was the electroplate just stuck on better?
Electroplating forms a very strong bond between the plating and the underlying metal. With earlier plating methods, overly-enthusiastic polishing often removed parts of the plate, revealing some copper “shine through.” With well-done electroplate, you can get away with a lot more rough treatment. It’s not indestructible, but it’s surprisingly tough.
Good to know, thank you.
