| ||||
 |  | |||
 |  | |||
| ||||
| | |||
 | ||||
| | |||
| ||||
| ||||
| | |||
|
The following few notes are offered primarily as a quick guide for re-enactors, wishing to select suitable pewter replicas for use when re-creating a 17th century environment. These notes are all extracts from my more thorough publication on the subject; "Domestic pewter of 17th century England - A Historical Re-enactors guide to the Industry and it’s products" (ISBN 1 85804 199 6 ..... Published;Stuart Press) Obviously for those particularly interested in pewter this is a subject which can be explored in great depth. However, the average re-enactor rarely wishes to explore the subject in any detail, merely being aware that pewter was common in this period they are often keen to make sure that they are seen to be using one or two pieces of pewter of the correct style. Consequently it is not the intention to explore in depth here the background to the industry or go into great detail about the working of pewter as a craft, or discuss my studies and experimental work into legislation governing the metalographic composition of early alloys. Those interested in this are referred to the above publication. I do, however, wish to quickly address some common misconceptions perpetuated by several re-enactors. The first of these is that period pewter was poisonous due to a high lead content. This is not true! Period ‘fine’ pewter for the manufacture of domestic goods, if manufactured to the specifications laid down by the Worshipful Company of Pewterers at this time was both lead free and antimony free. In this respect it was considerably safer than modern pewter, which although called ‘lead free’ is legally permitted to contain a small percentage of lead and is hardened with considerable quantities of antimony. The only concession I would acknowledge towards period eating and drinking vessels having a high lead content is the great financial incentives for pewterers in this period to de-base their alloys with cheaper lead. Although the production of this illegal pewter was kept to a minimum through regular inspection and serious fines or imprisonment of serious offenders. Leaded pewter was used in this period but was strictly restricted to items such as candlesticks, chamber pots and other items which would not come into contact with foodstuffs. A last point I would make regarding the composition of the alloy used is one of colour. Pewter blended to period compositions tends to wear, scratch and tarnish quickly to a mellow soft grey colour, whereas modern pewters are blended specifically to resist this and tend to stay a much harsher shiny silver white colour. Although such wear and tear would no doubt have been of concern to the original owners of these pewter goods, with items in daily use lasting little more than five or six years. We, as re-enactors, are unlikely to wear out our reproductions through occasional wekend use. As such my preference as a re-enactor would always be for items cast from period blends of pewter which are both safer and will soon take on this attractive mellow grey appearance.
So what type of bowls, plates and porringers should we be looking to use? The rarity of original items from this period, means the prices restrict these items to serious collectors, consequently we tend to be looking for reproductions. The first point I would make about choosing reproductions is to state that in this period the Worshipful Company of Pewterers had petitioned hard to ban the import of foreign pewter goods. However, it is the fancy more elaborate continental goods that many manufactures chose to reproduce, a fact which can further increases the difficulty of finding suitable reproductions.
In general English pewter of the period was noted for it’s clean lines, simple form and lack of surface decoration, although, as is always the case exceptions can be found with elaborate decoration, both cast and engraved; These becoming more common towards the end of the century after the restoration of the monarchy, and particularly with the ‘William and Mary’ pieces from the very end of the century being characterised by extensive wriggle work engraving.. The only marks routinely applied to pewter would be a makers touchmark stamped into the reverse, in the manner of hallmarks as used on silver and gold. Occasionally the initials of the owner would be stamped into the front of a piece.
This is only a brief summary of what is in effect a large, complex and interesting topic. I could easily write much more on this topic, and for those interested in finding out more I would direct you towards my book, mentioned at the beginning of these notes. (Currently available directly from the publishers) Stuart Press. |
 |
|||
|
|
|
||
|
||||
The other misconception I would seek to address is the use of pewter tankards for drinking from. It seems to be the case that because they can easily be found at flea-markets and car boot sales many re-enactors of this period use pewter tankards. This is despite the fact that such vessels were certainly uncommon, if not rare before the eighteenth century. Furthermore the tankards used by these re-enactors are almost always Georgian or later in style. Although pewter was exceedingly common during the seventeenth century, particularly the later part of this century which was often referred to as the ‘Golden age of English Pewter’, it was plates, bowls and porringers, along with smaller items like spoons that made it common, with typical inventories of the period listing dozens of pieces of flatware, with little reference to drinking vessels. Even the Pewterers Guild in London is shown not to have used pewter tankards at it’s guild feasts during this period, giving some indication of the importance of this market to them at this time. The term tankard comes from the French ‘tanquard’ meaning wooden drinking vessel, and wood was certainly the most common material for making drinking vessels in this period, along with pitched leather and horn examples.
The second point to make governs the method of manufacture, all period pewter would have been cast in moulds, and then turned true in a lathe to remove castings imperfections and polish the surface, whereas many modern pewter items are spun or pressed from thin sheet pewter. The consequence of this is that many reproductions can be underweight and overly thin when compared to the cast originals. Amusingly, having discussed this point in some detail in my book on this subject, it has become noticeable in the short period since it was published that many of the traders appearing at re-enactors markets (at least those I have been attending) are now keen to stress that they are selling cast pewter and make great play of the vast weight of these items. Although in part this could be argued to be an improvement, many of these castings are so thick and crude it is questionable as to whether they are a better representation than spun examples. The reason for this though is that these castings are to all intent and purpose raw castings being sold cheaply, and do not appear to have been finished properly on a lathe. Period cast pewter was always very well made and finished, often belying the fact that it would have originated as a crude casting.
Spoons were perhaps the most common pewter items of the seventeenth century, used by almost everybody. Indeed the spoonmaker was by far the most common type of pewterer during this period, with most village markets having a chapman, hawker or tinker who would visit regularly, to buy in worn pewter to re-cast and sell. Spoons were cheaply available, both in period and also today with reproductions being readily available from many sources. Shapes common through out the centuries leading up to and including the seventeenth century had round or hexagonal rod shaped handles, many with a simply shaped knop at the end and bowls which tapered gently into this handle. The more fashionable spoons of the period were more similar to modern spoons with a rounder bowl and flatter handle, often with some form of decoration at the end.
Bowls and porringers were a universal type of vessel which were very common since they could be used for all manner of tasks from drinking beer to eating soups and other food stuffs. Porringers of the period evolved from shallow rounded examples at the beginning of the century through flat based examples, to deep steep sided examples towards the end of the period, ultimately looking more like cups than bowls. With a single mould often being used for preparing parts which could be used in several different items. Many bowls and porringers would differ only in the addition of a handle, which early in the period may have been a simple geometric shape, evolving over the course of the century to more elaborate fretted scrolling shapes.
Saucers, plates and chargers were available in a huge variety of diameters, but those described as dishes seem most commonplace, ranging from about 12-18inch in diameter. Early in the period these would have had a broad plain rim, with the booge (the curve linking the centre depression to the rim) having a large radius, giving the plate a rounded base. Such plates were often referred to as ‘cardinal’s hat plates’ for obvious reasons. Towards the end of the century the design had evolved to have a narrower rim which may have had the edge strengthened with corrugated ridges or reeding, and a much tighter radius to the booge giving a much flatter bottom to the plate.
Since many people wish to use pewter drinking vessels the following notes are given as advice on the styles to be looked for. I will, however remind you of that which I said earlier, they weren’t that common, with wood, leather and horn all being more common. In general many of the vessels thought of as tankards are more likely to be measures or flagons used for serving from, not drinking from, with pewter mugs being more common than tankards in this period. Styles of measure varied somewhat with geographical location but the baluster shape enjoyed widespread popularity and would have been in use throughout the seventeenth century. 
Surviving mugs from the early part of this century are rare, but are of very simple form with flat near vertical sides, sometimes showing banding reproducing the banding which would have been present on the wooden equivalents they are based upon. Without enough examples to make generalisations it is difficult to give a reliable description of a typical tankard of this period, but again I would recommend looking for tankards with flat near vertical sides. Sides which have a pronounced inwards taper, or are curved in the shape of a tulip head are characteristically Georgian. Lids on tankards tended to be flat with small decorative thumbpieces. Those on the earlier ceremonial flagons tended to have more domed lids with knoped handles in the middle of the lid. The one feature which does seem quite characteristic of the period is the attachment of the base. Unlike modern pieces which have a separate foot attached to the base, on period pewter the foot was normally moulded integral with the sides, the base would be a flat disc of metal soldered flush with the bottom of the foot. As such the foot would add to the liquid holding capacity of the vessel.