Little Help on a Fur Trade Item

[Lithophylic]

I received this item about a year ago from a collector in SC who traded it to me as a "stone pendant". My initial review of the photos he sent indicated to me that it was not stone as there was a cast line inside of the piece; however, I could not tell with the material. When I received it, I could understand his confusion as it did have a surface texture similar to other piedmont metamorphic rocks, but when I tested it with my metal detector, it rang like a chime. I have found other items in AL made of the same material, but am not sure what the material is. I assumed it was pewter; however, as any of you southern hunters know, the soil and climate can really damage metal down here. The piece is about 2 3/4 inches in length and was apparently worn as a pendant. I have included photos and would like some input on the following:

1. Has anyone found anything similar to this. I have not been able to find an item like this in anything published and only assume it is a fur trade item as it was found in a former indiant town site. Do you have any recommendations for references for indian trade items? I am interested in the age range, distribution, etc of such a piece.

2. Can anyone confirm the material. It has a grayish luster and under hand lense exhibits inclusions of white powder which I assume is from the oxidation of the lead.
3. Most importantly, you can see from the photos that the piece is exfoliating due to the weathering of the piece. I know how to preserve iron, but am not sure how to deal with this piece. I would like to think there is some chemical bath I can put it in to stabilize the oxidation.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Michaelangelo]

Looks like a nose/snout and ears on it (or am I just imagining that?).

 

[GopherDaGold]

Looks very much like a mouse or an opossum. I'll be watching this one.

 

[kuger]

Could be a Fox?Looks like a war club.Neat piece!!!!

 

[Lithophylic]

Based on the curve of the item and the rounded rear, I believe it to be a bear effigy.

 

[Bramblefind]

That is very cool! The Native Americans in New York and New England did their own casting of pewter and lead.

These are different from your's but wanted to pass them along - from

"Before Albany" (Bradley 2007)

 

[kuger]

The last animal in the book....says maybe a deer?!!!Never have seen a deer with a tail like that!!I would say Mtn. Lion.Also as you said yours could be a bear?

 

[lostcauses]

napkin ring. These were used to hold the napkin on fancy table settings, for meetings and other formal diners.

Do a photo search for napkin ring pig, or boar.

 

[mick56]

I agree with napkin ring.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...fe85b27&itemid=260294319764&ff4=263602_263622

 

[Lithophylic]

You know, that makes sense as far as the item goes, but can anyone refer me to a reference that may have some as an example to validate it and to establish an age. My guess is that this is at least pre 1850 just by the degree of weathering although sometimes it is hard to tell in the south due to the extreme weathering conditions. Secondly, I feel sure it was found in an indian town site. Maybe it was manufactured as a napkin holder and used for personal decoration. Hard to say. But I would appreciate any references you guys my have that could help with this piece. My googling only showed silver "ring" type napkin holders. Thanks for the input. Tim

 

[Lithophylic]

You know the hunt doesn't stop when you get it out of the ground. That is what I love about this stuff...the investigation afterwards...sure beats golf

 

[Lithophylic]

Mr. E. A. Lane, Keeper of the Department of Ceramics, Victoria and Albert Museum, writes: "The earliest reference to napkin-rings given in the New English Dictionary is 1839, and our Metalwork Department say that they can find no record of metal rings having been made before that date. It seems likely therefore that napkin rings were introduced in this country [England] in about the 1830s."

The DuPont Winterthur Museum mentions: "A glance at the Oxford English Dictionary reveals no reference to rings before 1839, and no reference to materials other than ivory (1860)." This museum also states: "The Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy (New York, 1845) which lists `the usual articles in silver required to furnish the table' . . . does not mention napkin rings. No mention of them is made in the listing of duties of various members of the household staff." Mrs. Kathryn Buhler, Boston Museum of Fine Arts, finds that in colonial times in New England: "In the inventory of Thomas Thacher (Suffolk Probate Court, Boston) in 1678, his plate included `& a napkin hooke.' In no other inventories have I chanced upon a similar silver piece."

Mrs. Duncan of Colonial Williamsburg Museum states: "The Williamsburg collection does not have a napkin ring in its collection. As far as I know there is no reference to them in our inventories nor are they advertised for sale in the 18th century Virginia Gazette published in Williamsburg."

One is inclined to believe that the napkin ring in the United States was employed during the latter part of the 19th century, possibly an influence of the Victorian age. Gibb, in his Harvard study, The White-Smiths of Taunton: A History of Reed and Barton, 1824-1943, reproduces the "Prices of Ware: Earliest Known Company Price List, 1837," reporting prices on over 20 items; no mention is made of napkin rings. Moreover, his table of "Sales by Product, September 1-October 20, 1857 for Plated Wares and Unplated Wares," mentions over 30 products; again no mention of napkin rings.

However, from the company's "Order Book, 1865-66," he shows that: "In 1865 Rogers and Brothers was one of the largest company customers, ordering 416 baskets, 32 pitchers, 37 fruit baskets, 25 vases, 38 syrups, 184 caster frames, 103 butter dishes, 28 urns, 307 goblets, 24 card stands, 131 napkin rings, 104 cups, 70 tea sets, and a large number of other items."

Thus, for the first time, napkin rings are mentioned.

Freeman and Beaumont, in Early American Plated Silver, claim: "The first patent for napkin rings was granted in 1869, and many subsequent design patents were registered until the early 1900s. Then the celluloid ring came into favor, all but eclipsing the silver type."

The Historical Research Library, The International Silver Company, a merger of early silversmiths in that area, reports: "We have looked back to our earliest catalogs dated 1853 and 1855 and there were no napkin rings listed at that time. Our next catalog is dated 1860 and there are three styles listed but not illustrated. These three were Oval, Concave, and Octagon, and they could be purchased plain or engraved. In 1871, the rings were still just plain bands, but by 1879 the era of very fancy napkin rings had set in and this period lasted until the 1890s. There were not only individual napkin rings but the rings were made in combination with other pieces such as a vase, butter dishes, or salts and peppers. Birds, animals and children were all very fashionable and the rings of this period were all very elaborate; many people have a hobby of collecting them."

Dauterman of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, a leading authority on antiques, writes in his Answer Box in the April 11, 1958 issue of the New York World-Telegram and Sun: "The history of napkin rings is one of the neglected areas of research among things collectible. Most napkin rings we have seen derive from the late years of the 19th century, when the designers of silver plate were having a spree."

As for cut glass napkin rings, it would seem they appeared late in the 19th century when cut glass was much in vogue. On the other hand, Daniel's excellent book, Cut and Engraved Glass, shows a photo of a cut glass napkin ring "probably made from Robinson glass by Eichbaum," who was a famous early Pittsburgh cutter around 1810.

The use of napkin rings was revived by some persons in the White House during the Eisenhower Administration as revealed by the Washington (D.C.) Sunday Star in its February 22, 1959 issue: "Although the Navy 'mess' at the White House was long for `men only,' it is now open to three women staff members. . . . Regulars at the `mess' have their own napkin rings, too, with their name in gold letters."

The convenience of paper napkins may be cited as the chief reason for the decline of napkin rings in private homes and boarding schools.

While it is beyond the scope of this study to trace the origin and development of table napkins, it may, be of some historical interest to record the brief statement of Good Housekeeping in their issue of December 1956: "The first table napkin made its appearance in Reims, France, in the court of Charles VII. From the beginning of the fifteenth century, napkins were a luxury, lace-trimmed and elaborately embroidered. They were used exclusively in the palaces of kings and princes. Later, in the seventeenth century, they began to play an important decorative part in table setting-folded and pleated to represent birds, flowers, and the like.

 

[Lucas]

"I have not been able to find an item like this in anything published and only assume it is a fur trade item as it was found in a former indiant town site. Do you have any recommendations for references for indian trade items? "

Not a fur trade item as far as I know.

Native castings are usually done in open molds, so not a Native casting as far as I know.

References for Indian trade items? The popular collector guide is not a good one. It is full of misidentified and irrelevant items. Archeological reports are the best but don't cover a wide range of goods. Lyle Stone's book on Michilimackinac is probably the best, because of the number of artifacts and the time range.

Try paste floor wax or neutral shoe polish for pewter.

 

[La Beep]

Broke axe head.

 

[Lucas]

Your axe head does not appear to be broken, or broke. Also not a fur trade item.

Back to the pewter pig napkin ring...

 

[La Beep]

Your axe head does not appear to be broken, or broke.

Nope the one shown is Whole. They were made in different metals also.

Also not a fur trade item.

Actually it is... Given to the Indians or carried by Mountian Men. Plenty of research material available supporting. Look it up.

 

[Lucas]

Not all that glistens is gold.

http://tatcalite.tripod.com/index.htm