Old Sheffield or later electroplate? Suite of 4 Rococo candlesticks with copper core

[SharDonA]

I got this beautiful set of 4 Rococo 14" candlesticks with no mark other than under the bobeche, it has a chevron mark and 924. I can’t find any other mark. Each one weighs just under 4lbs, felt bottoms on 3, stunning copper/gold bleed through on high points. I have many hours trying to research and it just leaves me more conflicted. Are they fused silver over copper pre 1840 Sheffield? Later 1800s to early 1900s electroplate? Maker? Is there a way to tell of their fused or electroplated? Sorry for all the questions, but im just stumped and want to describe them correctly.

[Nadine]

What you look for to ID Old Sheffield Plate is seams – seams that are not filled in by the electroplating process, seams running vertically on the stick, or along the edges of applied decoration, which your sticks seem to have. If the seams have been filled in, it’s electroplate. If they remain visible it’s OSP.

You get some mixed techniques around 1840-1850. Is there any visible copper on the applied scrolled decoration? I can’t tell from the photo. If not, the silversmith may have applied sterling decoration onto an electroplated stick. I’ve seen that done. It preserves the detail of hand-chasing, which blurs when electroplated. After 1850, they just raised the whole item in copper, then electroplated it.

[Guildhall]

Seams, colour of silver and bloom patterns and the complete absence of markings all indicate Sheffield not electroplate plate.

Here’s a prevous discussion in this forum on the same subject you raise:

Is this genuine c1810 Old Sheffield Plate?

[1000017243] Hello… I’m new to this interesting forum! I also just purchased this old coffee pot and was told it is c1810 Sheffield Silver Plate on copper. Unfortunately there are no markings at all to help identify it, except ‘038349’ scratched on the underside. It does appear genuinely old and copper is showing where the plating has worn away. Does anybody know who the maker was… could it really be c1810… and what is the value of this classic coffee pot??

Much Old Sheffield plate made between 1743 and the 1840s is, like yours, completely unmarked. Early makers were not allowed to use official hallmarks, which were restricted to solid sterling, and often omitted signatures.

Look at high-wear edges, rims, or raised details where the thin outer silver layer has worn away to reveal a warm, glowing “ghost” of copper underneath. If its patchy with spots of silver showing on the bleed it’s probably electroplated. If its a clean separation as discussed by Phil above and shown here it’s probably Sheffield.

Now look the raw or cut edges. Fused Sheffield plate reveals a visible seam or a sandwiched line where a thin layer of silver wraps around the copper corners. as your earlier commentator points out. This is less clear in these photos but discernible on the bobeche.

Then there is style. Electroplate had trampled all over the fused plate business by 1845. So if the style is pre 1845 it’s possibly plate. The style of these fine sticks is consistent with both before and after so doesn’t eliminate Sheffield plate.

And colour. Difficult to tell from pictures but if its blueish silver it’s a sterling sheet on copper and if its brilliant white silver its electroplate. Yours looks bluish but camera’s can deceive.

And then there’s the mark we can see inside the bobeche. Looks like “924”. A pattern mark. Who?

Are there any other marks adjacent to the 924? Well, there’s something that looks like a Chevron but it might just to scraping and there are other marks which I cannot make out and again might just be manufacturing process marks. I don’t see a maker who used a Chevron in this fairly complete list of makers of fusion plate:

Old Sheffield plate: marks and hallmarks of Old Sheffield makers- A-C

“924”, if that’s what it is,( or is it it 92 and cross or sword?) is a pattern or inventory number so the correct upright gets put in the similarly identified footing and the right decoration and top hold is applied. All that indicates a fairly well-organized larger firm but I really can only tell from this list who it probably isn’t by the marks which some used like Boulton’s twin suns or Cresswick’s portcullis.

Final answer: Fusion or Sheffield plate, about 1810 to 1840, unidentified maker. But the style is something I’ve seen from Roberts, Smith and Sissons of Sheffield.

CRWW

[SharDonA]

@Guildhall

So much information and im very grateful…I spent a couple hours with my phone camera on macro and found some interesting and added some more photos. First, all 4 sticks have a seam, 3 candlesticks have the definite chevron mark above the 924, but 1 has the initials TG above the 924. Second, color. It is bluish but under the bobeche is a bright white, so that’s a little confusing. Lots of copper showing on the tips of the flowers but seems to be concentrated only on the flowers on the base, not so much on the upper. I added some more photos, closeups of a tiny separation on the underside about 1/2 way up the stick and another of a small nick. Others photos of the seam? and the TG 924.

[SharDonA]

Thank you Nadine, Im soaking in all this knowledge…Grateful for all the help.

[Guildhall]

Thank you for the additional information all of which tends to support our earlier conclusion this is Sheffield Plate.

The “TG” might refer to Thomas Goode, silversmiths and platers in London but I am far from convinced it does.

It might also be JG but again the firms that that applies to are not a neat fit.

So once again you have a fine set of Sheffield or fusion plate 'sticks which like so many are unmarked for identity.

Electroplaters coming a little later almost always marked their goods for purposes of trade mark or design patent protection.

So the failure to mark is a good indicator of it being the real McCoy!

Who ever he was.

CRWW