Hunting for the first Hunter

1

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/157616106322

I don’t own this item listed on ebay.

The sellers list this snuffer tray as London 1732 by William Hunter I.

A quick look on www.silvermakersmarks.co.uk indicates the tentatively attributed by Arthur Grimwade Hunter mark is a plain WH not the “double V” W shown here.

So that means unless the seller has updated information on Hunter I marks, this may not be by him. In fact it probably isn’t.


Assay Office: London
Dates seen: 1743
Notes: Possibly William Hunter I but described as “of doubtful ascription” by Grimwade

So what about the remaining hallmarks? The crowned leopard, the lion passant and the date letter are they bona fide marks?

I put that question to the seller who, while declining to discuss the variation in the WH marks, was prepared to “guarantee” the tray was made in London and assayed in 1732.

1 Like
2

Here’s a Thomas Mason small beer mug offered for sale by the same seller which is dated 1732.

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/157804669877?itmmeta=01KV38MQPKPM1C88VQCNTZMCAZ&hash=item24bde42bb5:g:yeoAAeSwLydpzq2D

I would be much more confident in these marks where the punch for the date letter R makes a clear triangle at the bottom of the letter punch and the crowned mask is sitting properly.

Jacksons doesn’t show either the double V or the plain Roman capitals for Hunter. In this example cited by Phil and attributed in Grimwade there appears to be a heart-shaped insignia above the initials. In the ebay listing the “heart” has become rounded. This may be wear.

Jacksons shows a plain WH in a rectangle in the middle of p 191 and suggests that may be William Hopkins but earlier about 1723.

Then there is the tray itself. Victorians and later Georgians produced these trays for wick trimmers rather than snuffers. The seller, asked if this might be a Hanau inspired production urged the tray design, while popular in Victoria and Regency times, was of universal use much earlier.

Wick trimmers with steel blades for cutting away excess wick were popular in the latter part of the 18th century through to 1825 when they were superceeded by another invention:

While snuffers, caps to extinguish flame had early 18th century trays specific for purpose I cannot find one in this style reminiscent of Chippendale.

https://lapada.org/art-and-antiques/george-i-antique-silver-snuffer-tray-london-1718/

CRWW

1 Like
3

I’m too thin in the ears to help you and probably the last person you would count on for help. But I take up the challenge.

s-l1600
s-l1600803×356 63.9 KB

wd
wd974×455 86.8 KB

2 Likes
4

I feel like a snuffer tray should be footed. This reminds me of one of those bread trays from the old Imperial Room at the Royal York hotel. Pretty cheap though.

2 Likes
5

It’s a buyer’s market these days. US sterling is often selling for melt value, or even less (and I mean the melt value before accounting for the scrap metal dealer’s margin). Early Georgian silver rarely commands more than double the melt, unless it’s by someone like Paul de Lamerie!

In this case, if you want to purchase one of this seller’s eBay offerings, you might do better going directly to his site (same name, with co and uk). He can avoid eBay fees, and you, depending upon where you live, can avoid local sales taxes. That provides more negotiating room for both of you.

1 Like
6

The second Darker mark is very similar, but surely a different shaped punch? Rectangles get worn but I don’t think they can wear into a sort of cushion shape?

But having said all that, you’re more likely the first not the last person I would. look to for mark similarity assistance, other than Phil himself. You have a terrier like ability.

The Darker mark also solves the “heartless blob” problem the Ebay lister cannot.

But, and this is me, I think the Darker mark candidate simply reinforces my notion this entire tray is made much later than 1732 and the marks are copies.

Thank you, Bart.

CRWW

2 Likes
7

Excellent points Thank you, Jeff.

CRWW

8

Exactly. Here’s a 1735 trimmer/snuffer tray by Gould.

Thomas Chippendale designs may be inspirational but this is supposedly date-stamped to when he would have been 14 years old.

CRWW

9

As always I am a lot wiser – or at least better informed – after reading comments on this forum.

While nobody was quite prepared to say definitively this was not William Hunter I, or that the guild assay marks were likely bogus, nobody was prepared to stake their reputation on my being wrong and the listing Ebayer correct, in the assertion these are bona fide marks on a bona fide early 18th century snuffer tray.

Now the listing Ebayer does leave open the possibility this isn’t a tray to store a wick trimmer or flame snuffer but some sort of generic tray for something else. What he doesn’t say. Pens would a likely nester.

But a look at pen trays and they almost always came with sander sprinklers and ink wells.

And this seems the wrong shape. Something much more rectangular would have worked better.

I took the liberty of drawing this item to the panel’s attention not for affirmation my spidey sense the item was bogus, although I am extremely grateful for it, but because some of those who sell silver today, and I have both amateur and professional auctioneers in mind, do so with a nonchalant even wilful disregard of actual provenance.

The nature of the trade is there are no realistic penalties other than diminution in reputational reliability for misleading.This was exactly what killed the antique furniture business. We can buy early Georgian furniture today for 10% of what we would have paid for the same item 25 years ago.

On the other hand where there is irrefutable provenance – especially American provenance – the price is astronomical regardless of workmanship. Jeff’s comments about this being a buyers market for silver may be the harbinger of a similar fate for silver, something every single collector would guard against if he could.

It make the work done here all the more vital and the dedicated team which scrutinizes submissions and educates the general public rather important in that fight.

Thank you

CRWW

1 Like
10

In the seller’s defense, he does say, “snuffer tray or dish.” So, it’s just a dish. For something.

The collapse in the market for Georgian furniture, I suspect, has more to do with changing tastes and lifestyles rather than with sellers being careless in their descriptions. I’ve witnessed it firsthand. My father ran the Manhattan showroom for Kittinger Furniture (of Buffalo, NY). Excellent quality pieces like the Colonial Williamsburg™ and Historic Newport™ reproductions. But by the early 1980’s no one wanted it. These days, you almost can’t give it away. That had nothing to do with any misrepresentation by anyone - no one ever tried to pass these off as genuine antiques. This kind of furniture, reproduction or genuine antique, simply no longer fit in with younger people’s lives.

The decline has been jaw-dropping. I recently saw an item being auctioned. It was a CW-1 desk, the very first of the authorized Williamsburg reproductions. And the metal tag showed that it was serial number 1. Ho-lee cow! It went for a few hundred bucks. The last price list I’ve got, from 1983, tells me that the retail price was then over $7000.

dcs_cw1_320
dcs_cw1_320250×320 36 KB

I grew up in a house full of the stuff, and I had a lot of it myself. Today, I don’t have a single remaining piece. Out of fashion, and too difficult to live with, to boot.

And reproduction or “the real deal,” I suspect it would make little difference. I knew an antique dealer in Philadelphia who told me that his problem was that his buyers were dying off, and not being replaced. He managed to hang on until he could retire.

And of course, the melt value of mahogany doesn’t bear thinking about. biggrin

2 Likes
11

Well, it’s not being sold as “just a dish”. It’s being sold as a 1732 snuffer tray or dish by a specific George II maker William Hunter I.

When you are that specific your defence is limited to “You are right”. Which I don’t think you are saying.

CRWW

2 Likes
12

I think it’s being sold as a 1732 dish, and I don’t see any cause to doubt that. I suppose it depends upon how you parse the phrase. To me, “a snuffer tray or dish” means that it’s either “a snuffer tray” or it’s “a dish.” And frankly, I fail to see what difference that makes.

The attribution to a specific maker seems to be off the mark. Pun intended. And I’m not sure what difference that makes, either. If the seller were claiming that it was from Hester Bateman, I’d be concerned, but otherwise, I shrug.

One of the silver appraisers on the Antiques Roadshow once commented that, in his experience, faked UK sterling hallmarks were exceedingly rare. If you were going to take the risk of counterfeiting hallmarks, would you waste your time with a little dish? It would be like counterfeiting one-dollar bills - more trouble than it was worth.

2 Likes
13

Thank You, Christopher.
George II Sterling Silver Tray or Dish Antique 1732 London William Hun – Bullionaire Jewellery

s-l160dfgg0
s-l160dfgg0352×344 20.4 KB

WP or VVP.

1 Like
14

Given how confident you are the hallmarks and the item they are imposed upon are genuine and given the very reasonable asking price, would you consider buying it and resubmitting it to the Guild for assay and possible re-stamping?

I would love for you to be right and this to be a genuine George II snuffer dish or tray showing pre-Chippendale styling influence with a previously undiscovered mark of a silversmith whose actual marks neither Grimwade or Jackson has ever seen and remained until this very moment recorded very tentatively,

For my part I have set out the points that make me sceptical and, while I admire your forensic attempt to reduce these genuine concerns to mere grammar or “parsing” as you put it, it is not the grammar but the physicality that worries me.

I can get my head around one anomaly, maybe a couple, but when the seller will not tell me how he comes by the new Hunter I mark or provide any provenance for it, and the other marks show variations on the catalogued and recorded marks and the item’s style is inconsistent with other contemporary dishes/trays, your choice of verbiage, I do start to get a little sceptical.

You have invited me and your other loyal readers to engage with you in a game of “probs and stats” based on the debatable assumption of logic being the primary motivation of the reproducer. Logic would say many Hanau repros of UK silver would never be made. But they are. Logic would say other faux items this forum has catalogued would have been scrapped and discarded but they weren’t. Logic would say the southern Chinese town where fake antiques, including silver are reproduced, would not exist but it does and the rather skilled artisans there are very busy. They made me a fine duplicate late Georgian teapot and stand in four days from scratch last time I was there a few years back now.

No, as soon as something is demonstrated as less certain than represented by a seller, the buyer is entitled to presume there are no limits on guile. I have been dealing with Ebay sellers for 26 years, and during that time have come across 116 provable listing errors on items I was interesting in, five of which were attributed to altered or faux marks two of which I shared with Phil. None of which I bought. I shall continue to regard the chances of seller error where the sellers are other than established silver dealers as a reasonable possibility.

www.liveauctioneers.com, where the prices are cheaper, the stats are even more depressing. Auctioneers’ reliance upon the reps of the assignor remain the norm for minor houses. Oddly only very rarely is the error in the buyers’ favour from which I draw certain assumptions about the auctioneers, a subject I have never been restrained about in these august cols.

The bottom line is the onus is on the seller to demonstrate bona fides not, as you are urging, for the buyer to be subject to pure caveat emptor economics and to “shrug” if he gets it wrong.

All the consumer protection rules in the world won’t cure the lack of trust created by rogue sellers and for some reason the world wide web seems to be their natural hunting ground.

A traditional function of this forum is to assist buyers make sensible choices and for sellers uncertain as to what they have to ask you or your colleagues for clarity.

Urging sellers gulled by buyers to shrug and carry on may fit better south of the Canadian border in a land where your president collect $48 million in deposits on gold Trump cell phones he cannot and never intended to deliver, but the rest of the world hopes for better and trust remains the root of all successful mercantile systems.

CRWW