Vintage Sheffield folder's (pic heavy !)

[grace horne]

I've not posted over here for a while, but the acquisition of a new fork made me dig out the others. This is how they all look together...


The middle one is double duty stamped. But the bottom one is my favourite and deserves a picture all of it's own. As you can see, it has no liners and so the handle is translucent enough to see the outlines. I have the box for it as well.

[wellington03]

^^^^ Hi Grace, that is a simply wonderful collection of Georgian folding fruit forks !.

Could I just ask ?

Have the two early ones with the gadrooned bolsters got a matching pattern on the silver spines ?.

Which fork would you reckon to be the later made ?.

Agree the small liner less fork is a beauty, have you ever seen another made with a similar construction ?.

Thanks

Mick

[grace horne]

They're in the same order as above...

most of them have decorated insides as well...(5th and 7th down are plain inside)


The 6th one down came with its knife and they have a different internal pattern. I think that they are latest.

[Smiling-Knife]

Very nice Grace. Thanks for sharing them with us.

[mito0]

beautiful, grace!
thanks for sharing.

[yaro5]

Update on Maurice Rogers fruit knife.
Upon researching the Rogers name instead of Rodgers, I came up with this entry from the 1841 Sheffield Census Index.

There were 7 matches

name age address piece_no ED folio reg_dist
Benjamin MARPLES 13 Steel Bank 1334/2 2 39b Nether Hallam
George MORROS 10 Steel Bank 1334/2 2 39b Nether Hallam
George ROGERS 13 Steel Bank 1334/2 2 39b Nether Hallam
Maurice ROGERS 13 Steel Bank 1334/2 2 39b Nether Hallam
Joseph ROGERS 12 Steel Bank 1334/2 2 39b Nether Hallam
George ROBINSON 13 Steel Bank 1334/2 2 39b Nether Hallam
Edward ROBINSON 12 Steel Bank 1334/2 2 39b Nether Hallam

Note the ages of the three Rogers boys and how they match up with the ages of the Rodgers boys in the family tree. In the census there was only one entry for the name Maurice Rodgers and he was five. That does not fit the family tree.
I think this could be pretty compelling evidence that the family could have been using the name Rogers at that time. Again if anyone thinks I'm stretching the facts, please comment.

Joe

[grace horne]

I also realised that I have never been satisfied with the reading of the date stamp for the bottom-most fork. It is partially hidden by the handle and this is the clearest picture I could take.



Does anyone have an idea of a date for me?

[OWDTOM]

To me it's a toss-up between 1788 1789 and 1791 Grace.

My reasoning:-

1. The crown situated atop the letter was changed to crown alongside the letter in 1829: this was used until 1853 then discontinued. On your fork the crown sits above the letter.

2. Gothic lettering was used for the year mark from 1773 when the Assay Office started, but the duty mark of the Monarch's head facing right was not struck until thirteen years later in 1786 - so your fork post-dates 1786.

3. When being struck, the bottom third of the oval shield has missed the edge of the tang and the part of the letter that remains - after I've enlarged the image to the maximum - is similar to the top of the letter 'P' for 1791. I've allowed here for the possibility of the outline having become spread/distorted through use.

4. The 'angle' of the Monarch's head shows variations throughout the varied alphabetical sequence, but for 1789 looks to be the same as that on your fork; of the two I would go for 1791. Quite often, whilst the crown/date letter punch had to be changed annually, the Monarch's head punch wasn't necessarily replaced.

One thing is for sure; if the lettering isn't Gothic after all, but a distorted outline of later-used block capitals, it still can't date any later than 1828 when the crown alongside mark came in.

Tom.

[wellington03]

Thanks Grace for adding the extra pics and details, really enjoyed seeing all.

Your reasoning and dating looks spot on Tom, that partial letter does look very like a Gothic 'P' 1791 , thanks.

Mick

[grace horne]

Thanks guys...it's great to have it narrowed down that much.

[dkonopinski]

Grace that collection is exquisite.

As for the dating.......Heheheh. Elementary my dear Tom. Excellent reasoning and deduction.

Seriously, this thread is like going to Cutlery College. It's just amazing how much knowledge is not just available but more importantly, is so freely shared.

8.00pm. Nuffin' on telly? Never mind, eh. I'll just pick a page of the VSF thread and dive in. Be in bed by 1.00am ish.

Thanks one & all.

David

[RodgersLad]

Update on Maurice Rogers fruit knife.
Upon researching the Rogers name instead of Rodgers, I came up with this entry from the 1841 Sheffield Census Index.

There were 7 matches

name age address piece_no ED folio reg_dist
Benjamin MARPLES 13 Steel Bank 1334/2 2 39b Nether Hallam
George MORROS 10 Steel Bank 1334/2 2 39b Nether Hallam
George ROGERS 13 Steel Bank 1334/2 2 39b Nether Hallam
Maurice ROGERS 13 Steel Bank 1334/2 2 39b Nether Hallam
Joseph ROGERS 12 Steel Bank 1334/2 2 39b Nether Hallam
George ROBINSON 13 Steel Bank 1334/2 2 39b Nether Hallam
Edward ROBINSON 12 Steel Bank 1334/2 2 39b Nether Hallam

Note the ages of the three Rogers boys and how they match up with the ages of the Rodgers boys in the family tree. In the census there was only one entry for the name Maurice Rodgers and he was five. That does not fit the family tree.
I think this could be pretty compelling evidence that the family could have been using the name Rogers at that time. Again if anyone thinks I'm stretching the facts, please comment.

Joe

Very interesting stuff there Joe. Looks very right to me. I think in the early days, the family was called Rogers with the d being added later. I forget why they used to add the letters.

Thanks for finding that info and posting it on here, i know it can be time consuming and costly to find that kind of info out.

Andy

[RodgersLad]

For those who like serpentine Wharncliffe knives here are a couple I bought earlier this year down at Bath and West Antiques Fair, for a friend who collects nothing but Wharncliffes.

Both are in ivory - the top one is marked Wheat sheath Knife on the blade flat and Wheatley Brothers, Sheffield on the tangs. The bottom one, which is equally early is marked D. Mather & Son - nothing else, but odds on to have been Sheffield made.



Tom.

Two lovely knives there Tom. They look very old. Particularly like the wharecliffe blade on the top knife and the carving of the handle on the bottom knife. Good finds!

Andy

[yaro5]

Very interesting stuff there Joe. Looks very right to me. I think in the early days, the family was called Rogers with the d being added later. I forget why they used to add the letters.

Andy

Thanks for the comments Andy. It's interesting that you already had this information, I wonder if you read it somewhere. Maybe you read it in the book "Under Five Sovereigns" both names are mentioned on page 13, but not specifically to the family. One other piece of information, the name Rogers matched the family members in the 1841 census, but in the 1861 census the name Rogers disappears and the family is found under the name Rodgers. As Jim noted the name Rodgers does not appear in the Sheffield Assay Office Register until 1858. At no time have I found that the names clash. Again compelling clues but not definitive.

Joe

[OWDTOM]

Thanks for the comments Andy. It's interesting that you already had this information, I wonder if you read it somewhere. Maybe you read it in the book "Under Five Sovereigns" both names are mentioned on page 13, but not specifically to the family. One other piece of information, the name Rogers matched the family members in the 1841 census, but in the 1861 census the name Rogers disappears and the family is found under the name Rodgers. As Jim noted the name Rodgers does not appear in the Sheffield Assay Office Register until 1858. At no time have I found that the names clash. Again compelling clues but not definitive.

Joe

There is sufficient evidence on hand to show that in years gone by scribes of various persuasions were wont to mis-spell names from time to time, and Census records were no exception.

In this instance the question has to be - does it really matter?


The fruit knife with its M.R. mark is, as far as we know, unattributable to any sponsor other than Maurice Rodgers, irrespective of how the surname might be spelt in other records and at other times.

I have in front of me - too faint in places to produce a useful scan I'm afraid - a copy of the Indenture dated 29th October, 1740, binding the young apprentice Joseph Rodgers of Brightside Byerley, to his master Thomas Beely, Cutler, Sheffield.

The thing to note about this is that the hand-written names of both Joseph junior and Joseph senior who is also included in the document, are referred to as Joseph RODGER.... no letter 'S'.

This is a copy of the original once held in the Comany Offices in Sheffield and is historically interesting because it was endorsed fifty two years after the formation of the Comany = "Cutlers since the reign of Charles II.



Tom.