Tiffany Silver Ewer #524 | ||
| Tiffany Silver34 of 48 |  |  |
DrFluffy loves this.
kerry10456 loves this.
vetraio50 loves this.
blunderbuss2 loves this.
SEAN68 loves this.
aghcollect loves this.
freiheit loves this.Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate
Posted 12 years ago
hottttdog
(1 item)
I am searching for information about this Tiffany Silver Ewer #524, Height 9" and Width 4". Ivory spacers on the handle. Similar to the one given to Abraham Lincoln at his inauguration, but smaller. Excellent condition. A family piece I was given 50 years ago.
Help us close this case. Add your knowledge below.
Create an account or login in order to post a comment.
very beautiful!!!
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/22003-my-tiffany-chrysanthemum-coffee-pot
Kevin would help you !!!
stunning!!!
I just discovered online that this makers mark was only used in 1853, the year the company moved to NYC and they first used "Tiffand & Co" as a registry mark. In 1854 they switched to another makers mark. [ http://www.925-1000.com/Tiffany_Date_Code.html ] Also, from the initials JC Moore was the maker.
Sorry, "Tiffany & Co"
Tiffany&co was in London at the early stages of the business as well , so this could be from the London store.
Wouldn't it have the British Registry Hallmarks if it had been made in London? I agree probably NY. RER(BOB)
Tiffany's was an emporium for military supplies during the Civil War, producing swords and importing rifles and ammunition. During the Gilded Age that followed, its main problem was not selling jewelry but finding enough to satisfy the demand. By then it also had established dominance over the American silverware market. In 1868 a London branch store was added and Tiffany & Co. was incorporated, with its proprietor as president and treasurer. Also in that year, Moore's workshop became part of the firm. The store, which had been inching uptown with the city itself, moved into a newly constructed, company-owned building adjoining Union Square in 1870.
Bob Please read!!
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/tiffany-co-history/
Hi from Sydney, Australia. I have a copy of the book on Tiffany silver by the Carpenters, Charles and Mary Grace. On page 245 they have a photo of a piece with the Gothic M mark in an oval with the number 545 above. It reads:
"AS we jhave noted earlier in the book, in the period 1851 to 1869, Tiffany had much of their hollow ware made by the Moore Company. John Chandler Moore is listed in the New York City Directory in 1832-3. At that time his mark was star - M - anchor. In the 1835-6 Directory he is listed with Garrett Eoff as Eoff & Moore; from 1836 to 1851 he is listed alone. At various times during the period Moore worked with M.B. Dixon (Moore & Dixon) and Henry Hebberd (Hebberd & Moore). During the 1840's Moore's mark was JCM or an English M in an oval: (photo).
It is probable that Moore's silver with these marks was sold at Tiffany's during the 1848 - 1851 period. The Moore old English M was incorporated into Tiffany marks after 1851.
This gives a date then of 1848 - 1851.
The Moore Company was bought out by Tiffany in 1868.
Your EWER is GLORIOUS!
so was I off then ?
Hello Kevin so was this sold at the London store?
Thanks for the comments! Here is the link to the Abraham Lincoln ewer
http://www.antiquetrader.com/antiques/antiques-americana/auctions/abraham_lincoln_tiffany_ewer_at_cowan_auction
If no one is able to identify this for me by the item number (#524) and maker's mark, I'll try and contact Tiffany NYC tomorrow. I'm sure they have the records (but I don't know if they will share them with me). I was hoping their records might already be online, but I haven't been able to find them.
The Ewer that you mention presented to Abraham Lincoln is on page 141 of the Tiffany Silver book. It is of similar form but with some differences. It is plate 199 Classical pitcher with hinged lid presented to Abraham Linoln on the time of his first inaugural. Made by Moore for Tiffany, ca. 1861. Height 13.5 ". Mark No 10 (809-2/5790) The Smithsonian Institution.
The mark they refer to is mark 10.
A later mark than the one which you have on your pitcher/ewer.
The Lincoln Inauguration Presentation Ewer did not have the ivory inserted bands. The handle design is slightly different. The finial on the lid is different as well. A classical helmet while yours has a cherub.
The Caprpenters write on pp 141-142: "The silver gilt ewer or pitcher with hinged lid (Fig. 199) which wa given to Abraham Lincoln in honour of his inauguration in 1861 is, stylistically, a transition piece. The angular handle with cast head and the Greek key borders with beading show remnants of Greek revivalism, but the flat stylised, neo-grec engraved surfaces are characteristic of the middle and late 1860's. Note also the contrast between the martial helmet on the lid and the sweet classical face on the handle. .... Both the Lincoln Ewer and the Durea pitcher in Figgure 198 have obvious deficiencies as works of art, but both are well made from a silversmithing point of view and both are important historically. They are characteristic and poignant mementoes of their times."
Their comments are also of their time, IMHO.
As to London, Sean, I do not believe so. The mark suggest well before the opening of the London store in 1868. This could be almost twenty years earlier.
Tiffany & Co will be able to give you details I am sure.
I believe there is a research fee.
Thankyou Kevin for solving!!! :)
The research is free , I have had them research for me before and I have to tell you if you live by a Tiffany & co , I would take it in and have them look at it personally !! you will get a better responds from them in person!!
Welcome to cw and thankyou for sharing your stunning piece!!
CW is a great resource! Thanks! I look forward to any other comments.
So I did contact Tiffany about researching their archives for my ewer, and they replied that it would cost me $500 for them to look up the records and, if they did actually find anything, it would cost me another $500 to get to see what they found. Such a deal! I think I'll pass on that one. Obviously, Tiffany is not interested in helping collectors to research the history of their company. So much for public relations!
Hello: It has been 12 years, but I'm finally getting back to this. Does anyone have any information about this Tiffany ewer? I still have not been able to determine the background of this 1853 Tiffany ewer numbered 524. It closely resembles the ewer presented to President Abraham Lincoln for his first inauguration, with some design differences and smaller size. Notably, this is the only Tiffany ewer I've found that has the two "bone" spacers on the handle. Any information will be appreciated!
Thermal spacers?
Hey, hottttdog:
"Thermal spacers?"
It appears so (yeah, this is a kind of weird link):
https://guitarpartsandmore.com/productCategory.php?Teapot-Insulators-Ebony-and-Ivorylike-trade-20
This may seem too obvious to mention; however, I'll go ahead and play Captain Obvious and point out that silversmith John Chandler Moore was the father of silversmith Edward C. Moore.
However, apparently Edward's middle name was not Chandler, but Charles:
https://www.smpub.com/ubb/Forum19/HTML/000600.html
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/270990067/john-chandler-moore
(Notice that the findagrave entry for the son calls him "Edward Chandler Moore;" however the gravestone itself is engraved with "Edward C. Moore"):
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/206700614/edward_chandler-moore
Anyway, I can't help but think that among Edward C. Moore's many stylistic influences was probably his father, so the Lincoln ewer may have reflected that.
Apparently, the Lincoln ewer never sold at the 2009 auction, possibly because there were no records for it. That is, there is no record of the presentation, and no record at Tiffany:
https://www.smpub.com/ubb/Forum19/HTML/001114.html
Apparently, nobody even knows who these "Washington Friends" were:
https://abrahamlincolnblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/lincoln-presentation-pitcher-to-be.html
Anyway, that's about all I got.
Thanks Keramikos! When I tried Tiffany's many years ago they wanted $1,000 to provide me with any information from their archives about the history of my ewer. In response to SEAN68's suggestion, I'm now going to take the ewer to my local Tiffany's and see if their policy has changed, and may now be able to get some free information from them. It is possible that over the last 12 years their records have now been digitized (and they may be available for company personnel online)? I'll post anything I find out about ewer #524. I have made some purchases at my local Tiffany's, and I hope that may help with my request. PS: Does the presence of the two thermal spacers on my ewer's handle suggest this might have been for hot chocolate? Apparently very few of these ewers were made by E.C. Moore for Tiffany's during the 1850's, and while each is unique, they do share a number of similar design details. However, mine has some unique design elements (e.g., size, hinged top, design engravings, etc.) I have not seen on any of the other known examples. I assume mine (all of them? may have been special orders. Consequently, I find it surprising that Tiffany's would claim they have no records for such important and limited editions (e.g., the "Lincoln" 1861 Inauguration ewer).
Yeah, that service fee from Tiffany's was faintly horrifying.
Let's hope they've dragged themselves into the third millennium by digitizing their records. Let's also hope they're reconsidered on that exorbitant fee.
A hot chocolate pot, huh? It's possible. Here are some vintage ones:
https://thecozydrawingroom.com/2018/03/05/drinking-hot-chocolate-from-a-chocolate-pot-18th-century-style/
Here's a recipe from the 1870s:
https://the1800shousewife.com/hot-chocolate-1877/
Another possibility is mulled wine, or some other alcoholic beverage that would be heated.
After stumbling around a bit on my own, I decided to put Google Lens to work, and what it came back with was some similar ewers described as "claret jug."
It even found one quite similar by Edward C. Moore (the text sez "Edward Chandler Moore," but hey), and it even has ivory insulators:
https://emuseum.mfah.org/objects/67005/claret-jug
Of course, room temperature claret wouldn't require ivory insulators, so that brings me back to mulled wine.
Expansion of the section on "Inscriptions, Signatures and Marks" provided this:
"Stamped underside: "Tiffany & Co. / 524 / M / English Sterling / M / 925-1000 / 7381 / 550 Broadway"
So, "524."
You might want to tickle them about it:
https://www.mfah.org/contact
I even downloaded and flipped one of their pictures horizontally so that I could make a better side-by-side comparison, and it's looking pretty twin-ish. The bend at the top of the handle is a little different, but that might be a consequence of handwork.
The MFAH ewer isn't currently on public display, and they didn't provide a picture of the hallmarks, so you'll need to reach out to them.
These were all handmade! It would be surprising if they were truly identical! Even if they share the same "524" product number. I've looked into the Abraham Lincoln 1861 "Perported" gilded presentation version, but I can't find any contemporary news reports. (BTW: March 4, 1861 makes perfect sense since that was the actual date he was sworn in. Inauguration Day was delayed due to security demands at the start of the Civil War.) Hard to believe Tiffany's doesn't have something in the their archives about my 524 ewer. But for some reason they didn't want to provide me access to their records when I first tried. Still, I hope this time they will give me some information about mine. I'll let you know. PS: The surface of the MFAH example looks "off", but it may only be their photo.
hottttdog:
"PS: The surface of the MFAH example looks "off", but it may only be their photo."
Yeah, the surface of the MFAH ewer does look less shiny than yours, but it's over a hundred years old, and it seems quite possible that it has received less than gentle treatment at some point, specifically with regard to cleaning.
It still would be interesting to get a look at the hallmarks, considering that this one is described as having been made by Edward Moore, rather than John Moore.
John C. (Chandler) Moore (c. 1803–1874) used the initials, "J.C.M." as his makers' mark. Beginning in 1851 John Moore worked exclusively for Tiffany's, still using his "J.C.M." maker's mark . However, in 1854, he was joined in business by his son Edward Charles Moore ["E.C.M.: (1827–1891)], they formed the new company "John C. Moore & Son", and they began using as their makers' mark a raised "M" initial in a stamped oval field. According to Tiffany's pattern production numbers, pattern "524" was introduced between 1856 and 1860, Notably, E.C.M. took complete control of "J.C. Moore & Son" by 1860, and there is no evidence of a "J.C.M." maker's mark on any examples of the Tiffany "524" pattern. While the MFAH website does not provide a photo of the makers' mark, the legend states: "Inscriptions, Signatures and Marks Stamped underside: Tiffany & Co. / 524 / M / English Sterling / M / 925-1000 / 7381 / 550 Broadway". This is interesting because it indicates the MFAH "524" example has two separate "M" marks in ovals on the bottom, which is consistent the two "M" makers' marks found on the bottom of the 1861 Lincoln inauguration ewer (Tiffany pattern "809"). However, my Tiffany "524" example has only one "M" makers' mark. I'm going to contact MFAH and request a photo of the makers' marks on the bottom of their Tiffany's "524" example, and I'll report the results. My working hypothesis is that in 1854 J.C.M. became inactive in the business, and "E.C. Moore & Son" changed their makers' mark to (one or two) "M" initials in stamped ovals to acknowledge E.C.M.'s design credit for Tiffany's "524" and later silver patterns .
hottttdog, Whew, been busy with real life.
"According to Tiffany's pattern production numbers, pattern "524" was introduced between 1856 and 1860."
Is that based on the information at this site?:
https://www.ascasonline.org/articolotiffany.html
I notice that the lowest pattern number for which they had an sample is "922," and the hallmarks on that one include the silver quality (.925-1000), and the order number. A lot changed in a few years, huh?
Good catch on this:
"Inscriptions, Signatures and Marks Stamped underside: Tiffany & Co. / 524 / M / English Sterling / M / 925-1000 / 7381 / 550 Broadway."
This is interesting because it indicates the MFAH "524" example has two separate "M" marks in ovals on the bottom, which is consistent the two "M" makers' marks found on the bottom of the 1861 Lincoln inauguration ewer (Tiffany pattern "809").
However, sometimes a picture is indeed worth a thousand words, so it's good that you're going ahead to MFAH with a request for one.
As to this:
"My working hypothesis is that in 1854 J.C.M. became inactive in the business, and "E.C. Moore & Son" changed their makers' mark to (one or two) "M" initials in stamped ovals to acknowledge E.C.M.'s design credit for Tiffany's "524" and later silver patterns."
I think you might have intended to write "J.C. Moore & Son."
Yes, I meant to say "J.C. Moore & Son." After the father and son merged, apparently they used the "M" initial in an oval stamp as their makers' mark. But their pattern designs after 1854 (e.g., "524" dates circa 1856), have generally been credited in the literature solely to E.C.M., with the exception of MFAH's ewer). I'll post whatever information I get back from MFAH and Tiffany's. Thanks for your comments! PS: I wonder if any of the people who commented on my original posting 12 years ago are still active in this forum? PPS: FYI- I am not prepared to make a decision of replacing the ivory thermal spacers at this time. I'd certainly hate to do it, but apparently any antiques containing ivory (e.g., teapots) can not legally be sold. The only option left is donation to museums? I contacted one silver expert and he responded he would not replace the handle's ivory spacers for me, even though references online said he has done this same kind of work in the past. I do support controlling the modern ivory trade, but I'm not sure what people who sell antiques with ivory are doing now. Despite the ban on ivory, I've noticed antique teapots with thermal spacers are still being advertised on EBAY (e.g., EBay item number:175821378611). Replacement of ivory (with synthetic substitutes for tiny thermal spacers) does seem to be one option (even though as a purist who loves antiques I'd hate to see it done.) There must be exceptions for some antiques (e.g., musical instruments)? I need to become better informed.
"I'll post whatever information I get back from MFAH and Tiffany's."
Thanks. I feel somewhat invested in this topic now. };-)
"Thanks for your comments!"
You're quite welcome.
"PS: I wonder if any of the people who commented on my original posting 12 years ago are still active in this forum?"
SEAN68 and vetraio50 are very much active. LOUMANAL doesn't seem to have been active for about the last two years. :-(
If SEAN68 and vetraio50 haven't chimed in on this post again, it might be either because they haven't noticed it's become active again, or because they've already said all they care to say.
They could also be watching in bemusement, thinking to themselves, "There goes that fool keramikos, diving down rabbit holes again."
"PPS: FYI- I am not prepared to make a decision of replacing the ivory thermal spacers at this time. I'd certainly hate to do it, but apparently any antiques containing ivory (e.g., teapots) can not legally be sold. The only option left is donation to museums? I contacted one silver expert and he responded he would not replace the handle's ivory spacers for me, even though references online said he has done this same kind of work in the past. I do support controlling the modern ivory trade, but I'm not sure what people who sell antiques with ivory are doing now. Despite the ban on ivory, I've noticed antique teapots with thermal spacers are still being advertised on EBAY (e.g., EBay item number:175821378611). Replacement of ivory (with synthetic substitutes for tiny thermal spacers) does seem to be one option (even though as a purist who loves antiques I'd hate to see it done.) There must be exceptions for some antiques (e.g., musical instruments)? I need to become better informed."
Yup, definitely become better informed, because you don't want to run afoul of the laws on ivory.
I did some noodling around, and found this:
https://www.fws.gov/frequently-asked-questions-about-elephant-ivory
Incidentally, the 200 gram (a skosh over 7 ounces) rule was based on the weight of the ivory on piano keys:
"Goldberg made the point that the USFW based the 200-gram figure on the approximate weight of a set of piano keytops. Throughout the ruling, the USFW goes to great lengths to point out that they don’t believe musical instruments are contributing to the poaching of elephants or the ivory trade."
https://www.ptg.org/ptgmain/technicians/resources/regulatory-issues/ivory-ban/ivory-ban-resolution
More information:
https://www.akti.org/education/the-ivory-ban/
it sounds like if you decide to sell the ewer, you'd need to provide all the documentation to the buyer. You might want to print excerpts from various online sources (plus links), but it might not be a bad idea to provide print-to-PDF copies, JGPs, etc. Of course, actual hard copies might weigh a lot, so you might want to provide a thumb drive with soft copies.
'Obviously,' the gold standard -- er -- the sterling standard would be an assessment from Tiffany's. They might want an arm and leg for that, but you won't know if you don't ask.
A side subject: you might want to consider contributing a good picture of the hallmarks on your ewer to one of the various online hallmark repositories, because I haven't seen one exactly like yours yet. It would be a kind of pay back/pay forward thing.
D'oh!
This:
"it sounds like if you decide to sell the ewer, you'd need to provide all the documentation to the buyer. You might want to print excerpts from various online sources (plus links), but it might not be a bad idea to provide print-to-PDF copies, JGPs, etc."
Should be this:
It sounds like if you decide to sell the ewer, you'd need to provide all the documentation to the buyer. You might want to print excerpts from various online sources (plus links), but it might not be a bad idea to provide print-to-PDF copies of whole articles, JPGs, etc.
I appreciate your comments. "'Obviously,' the gold standard -- er -- the sterling standard would be an assessment from Tiffany's. They might want an arm and leg for that, but you won't know if you don't ask." Right on! I've too been busy and I haven't had the time yet to take it to my local Tiffany's. Depending on how that visit goes, if necessary as an alternative I have a trip planned to go to NYC this summer and I could take it with me then to the Tiffany' s"Mothership". This is all a learning experience for me, and I'm really enjoying it! PS: I just added another photo (above) of the maker's marks on the bottom. Sorry the photo quality isn't great, but I'm arranging to get better pictures taken for MFAH.
Another try for a photo of the maker's mark, but it is very shiny and I'll have to arrange to get a better one. Until then, I added the latest photo at the top of this discussion. Stamps: Tiffany & Co, #524, single "M" in oval field.
hottttdog, Actually, that fourth picture of the hallmark is pretty good.
Trying to photograph something with a reflective surface is notoriously difficult.
I ran across a reddit thread about it that has some good ideas, including using three-ring binders as backdrops:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Etsy/comments/9l1whf/tips_for_photographing_highly_reflective_items/
As to getting some kind of assessment from Tiffany's, everything I see online is pretty discouraging, including this from the horse's mouth:
https://www.tiffany.com/faq/shopping-faq/does-tiffany-authenticate-merchandise/
You might want to save yourself some aggravation by contacting them first via chat, telephone, virtual appointment, email, or whatsapp:
https://www.tiffany.com/contact-us.html