(click on photos to enlarge image)
AN INTRIGUING ENGLISH SPOON
Towards the end of the 17th century when the English habit
of tea drinking moved from the commercial background of the
Coffee House to the social background of the home, several items
of what is now known as tea equipage were introduced into the
silversmiths’ repertoire. Largeworkers produced the tea kettle
with its stand and spirit burner for producing hot water at the
table and Smallworkers began producing teaspoons, tea tongs (sugar
tongs) and mysterious little spoons described in The London
Gazette of 1697 as "long or strainer tea-spoons with narrow
pointed handles"
These strainer spoons are almost exclusively English, they are
not common in Scotland, Ireland or on the continent of Europe,
although a few were made in America. Their production in England
was almost entirely confined to London workshops and this
production continued until about the seventeen seventies. They
were referred to as tea strainers in the Plate Offences Act of
1738 and in other documentary references throughout the 18th
century but how exactly they were used has remained a mystery.
In the 19th century they were renamed ‘mote spoons’ or ‘mote
skimmers’ and this name has stuck. It was believed then that
they were used to skim off the tea leaf debris which inevitably
floats to the top of the tea when it has been poured into the
cup or tea bowl but experiment has shown that this is unlikely.
Bearing in mind that the dictionary definition of the word
‘mote’ is ‘small speck’ it must be noted that the perforations
in these spoons are sufficiently large that all but fairly large
floating debris passes through them.
There is a school of thought that these spoons were early caddy
spoons and this idea is based on the fact that the caddy spoon
came into use at almost exactly the time when the mote spoon
ceased to be produced.
However there is no similarity whatsoever between the two spoons
so that it is difficult to see how, suddenly, the one could have
metamorphosed into the other. Furthermore the strainer spoon
appears to pre-date the tea caddy which anyway, in its original
form, had a narrow neck that would not allow the entry of a
spoon and was itself equipped with a pull off cap which,
pictorial representations of the time show, was used to measure
out the tea into the pot. It must be added here that the
original name of the spoon implies straining not sifting as
would be the case if the spoon were used in connection with a
dry commodity.
There is usually only one of these spoons in any set of tea
equipage and this suggests that it was for the use of the
hostess and not for her guests. It is known that the tea
‘ceremony’ was a protracted affair (Samuel Johnson is reputed to
have drunk twenty five cups at a sitting) and this would have
necessitated the making of more than one brew. Hence the tea
kettle and spirit burner. This in turn would have necessitated
some sort of strainer to remove the spent tealeaves from the pot
after the first brew and the ideal tool for this purpose would
be the strainer teaspoon with its long handle the spike at the
end of which would have been used to remove clogged tealeaves
from the base of the teapot spout.
Of all the suggestions so far put forward for the use of this
mysterious little spoon this appears to be the most plausible
but the debate is by no means at an end.
However what of the spoon itself?
The earliest known examples are made in two parts and are
somewhat prosaic in concept leading to the suggestion that they
were probably experimental when first produced. The bowl is of
roughly teaspoon size and has simple holes drilled through it.
The handle is formed from a length of silver wire extruded at
one end to form a rat tail which is soldered onto the back of
the bowl (Fig I). These early examples are not hallmarked and
are usually struck only with the maker’s mark on the back of the
bowl. Some also have armorials and these too are engraved on the
back of the bowl. They have been dated to circa 1690 but only
because those made after 1697, some of which can be found struck
with the lion’s head erased, are much more imaginative in
design.
|
Fig I: Early tea
strainer spoon by Abraham Harache c1690
|
By the time Queen Anne came to the throne in 1702 these
spoons had become much more decorative and, like other spoons,
were being made in one piece. There was considerable confusion
at this time over whether or not small spoons had to be
hallmarked and this matter was not clarified until The Plate
Offences Act 1738 (12 Geo II c.26) came into force on
14th June 1739. The result is that strainer spoons of the early
part of the 18th century can be found with either the maker’s
mark alone or with a maker’s mark and an assay mark. The
earliest still only have the maker’s mark and this is struck on
the back of the bowl. Spoons which are also struck with the
lion’s head erased or the lion passant guardant are marked on
the stem and as there is so little space in which to accommodate
these marks they are often very difficult to read. Some are not
marked at all!
Although some makers continued to do their own piercing it seems
that specialist piercers were beginning to ply their trade at
about this time so that strainer spoons can be found made by
different makers but with identical piercing. Figs II and III.
|
Fig II strainer
spoon by William Lutwick struck with his mark and
the lion’s head erased
|
|
Fig III Strainer
spoon of circa 1715 by Ambrose Stevenson (possibly)
|
Because of the confusion over the need for these spoons to
be assayed and the resultant absence of hallmarks on many of
them it is difficult to date them with any degree of certainty.
However as it is generally accepted that the rat tail had
disappeared by about 1730 any spoon with a rat tail and the same
sort of piercing as can be seen during the period of the
Britannia standard but stamped with the sterling lion on its
stem can fairly reasonably be dated to the period 1720 to 1730 (Fig
IV) whereas a spoon with this sort of piercing but without the
rat tail must be dated to the early 1730s.The shell heel
decoration had also been introduced by about this date (Fig V).
|
Fig IV strainer
spoon of about 1720/30
|
|
Fig V unmarked
strainer spoon of the early 1730s
|
Since crosslets, which became the fairly standard form of
piercing for the rest of the life of this spoon, had been
introduced by about 1735 this can be a useful guide to date when
taken together with a maker’s mark (Fig VI).
|
Fig VI tea strainer
spoon struck with the mark of Francis Harache, which
he entered in 1738,
and the sterling lion in a rectangular outline.
(i.e. the outline used before July 1739)
|
Following the introduction of the Plate Offences Act 1738
these spoons were much more routinely hallmarked, with the lion
passant guardant only, and between July 1739 and May 1755 the
outline to this mark is so distinctive (indented) that an
approximate date can easily be given.
Whereas the outline to the sterling lion before July 1739 had
been roughly rectangular its outline after 1755 was rectangular
with an ogee base so that even allowing for the congested area
in which it is struck on the stem of a strainer spoon it should
be possible to determine which side of that period a particular
mark comes.
The first date on which a date letter was used on small spoons
was 1st November 1781 when the new experimental double mark
punch was first tried. This consisted of the date letter in a
heater shield with curved base and canted top corners followed
by the sterling lion in an oval cartouche. To the best of this
author’s knowledge there are no mote spoons marked in this way
so that it is fairly safe to say that this delicate little spoon
went out of fashion sometime during the 1770s.
Identifying the maker of a mote spoon is much more problematic
especially with the early ones on which the maker’s mark, if
there is one at all, is often reduced to nothing more than a
slit. However from the foregoing it will be seen that, even
though the marking of what we now call mote spoons throughout
most of their lifespan was somewhat unsatisfactory, it is
possible to arrive fairly reasonably at approximate dates for
them and in many cases they can be attributed to a maker. As to
their use it is possible that we will never know for sure what
this was.
David McKinley
David McKinley devotes much of his time to researching the history of silversmithing in England with particular reference to hallmarking at the London office.He writes for The Silver Spoon Club of Great Britain, The Silver Society and ASCAS website. David McKinley is the author of the book THE FIRST HUGUENOT SILVERSMITHS OF LONDON.
|
www.silvercollection.it |
This is a page of A Small Collection of
Antique Silver and Objects of vertu, a 1500 pages richly illustrated website offering all you need to know about
antique silver, sterling silver, silverplate, Sheffield plate, electroplate silver,
silverware, flatware, tea services and tea complements, marks and hallmarks, articles,
books, auction catalogs, famous silversmiths (Tiffany, Gorham, Jensen, Elkington),
history, oddities ...
HOME - SITE MAP - SILVER DICTIONARY - COOKIES CONSENT AND PRIVACY
OTHER ARTICLES ABOUT: ANTIQUE SILVER
SILVER PLATE
ENGLISH SILVER
FRENCH SILVER
|
|